February 2014 
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared independently by Mendez, England & Associates. 
MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
OF THE NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
AGRICULTURE (NOA) PROJECT IN KOSOVO
MID TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
AGRICULTURE PROJECT 
Final Report 
Prepared under Task Order No: SOL-167-14-000001 
Submitted to: 
USAID/Kosovo Country Office 
Submitted by: 
Dr. Conrad Fritsch (Team Leader) 
Anthony Ortiz (Agriculture and Agribusiness Specialist) 
Lumta Dida (Agricultural Specialist) 
Contractor: 
Mendez England & Associates 
4300 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 103 
Bethesda, MD 20814 
Tel: 301- 652 -4334 
www.mendezengland.com 
DISCLAIMER 
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government 
CONTENTS 
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................. 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... i
EVALUATION PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... i 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................. i 
PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... i 
EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................... i 
KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................ ii 
KEY CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ v 
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... vii 
1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS .............................. 10
1.1 Evaluation Purpose .................................................................................................................... 10 
1.2 Evaluation Guiding Questions ................................................................................................. 10 
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 11
3.0 EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS .............................. 12
4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 13
4.1 Section I: Summary of Project Activities and Results to Date ........................................ 13 
4.1.1 Findings 13 
4.1.2 Conclusions 21 
4.2 Section II: NOA’s Current Effectiveness ............................................................................ 22 
4.2.1 Findings 22 
4.2.1.1 Project effectiveness on strengthening agriculture support institutions 22 
4.2.2 Conclusions 25 
4.2.3 Recommendations 26 
4.3. Section III: NOA’s Potential for Achieving Project Objectives, post NOA 
Sustainability, and PMP Modification ..................................................................................... 26 
4.3.1 Findings 26 
4.3.2 Conclusions 29 
4.3.3 Recommendations 30 
4.4 Section IV: Post-NOA Project Opportunities in the Agriculture Sector ..................... 30 
4.4.1 Findings 30 
4.4.1.1 Commodity value chain activities to promote food sustainability and 
export development 34 
4.4.2 Conclusions 36 
4.4.3 Recommendations 37 
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: Evaluation Statement of Work 
ANNEX 2: Evaluation Design and Methods 
ANNEX 3: Data Collection Instruments 
ANNEX 4: Individuals Contacted 
ANNEX 5 Field Interview Sites Visited 
ANNEX 6: Documents Reviewed 
ANNEX 7: Field Survey Results 
FIGURES 
FIGURE 1: Domestic Sales Generated by NOA Value Chains 
FIGURE 2: Export Value of Selected NOA Supported Products 
FIGURE 3: NOA Employment Generation 
FIGURE 4: Impact of NOA Policy Support Initiatives 
FIGURE 5: Per Hectare Margin Calculations for NOA Value Chain Production Enterprises 
FIGURE 6: Top 5 Constraints that Prevent Private Farmers From Increasing Profits 
FIGURE 7: Type of Training and Other Support Received From NOA 
FIGURE 8: Private Farmer Average Ranking of Most Important Future Support Needed from NOA 
FIGURE 9: Private Farmer Response Intensity of Most Important Future Support Needed from 
NOA 
FIGURE 10: Value Chain Driver Average Ranking of Most Important Future Support from NOA 
FIGURE 11: Value Chain Driver Intensity of Most Important Future Support from NOA 
FIGURE 12: Value Chain Commodity Production Characteristics
ACRONYMS 
ADA Austrian Development Aid
AES Agricultural Extension Service
COP Chief of Party 
B2B Business to Business
DCA Development Credit Authority
EAU Economic Analysis Unit
EU European Union 
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FtF Farmer to Farmer
FVD Food and Veterinary Department
FY Fiscal Year 
GEM Gender Empowerment Matrix
GlobalGAP Global Good Agricultural Practice 
GoK Government of Kosovo
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 
IMF International Monetary Fund
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISO International Standards Organization
KAMP Kosovo Association of Milk Processors
KDPA Kosovo Dairy Producers Association
KPEP Kosovo Private Enterprise Program
MAFRD Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development
MAP Medicinal and Aromatic Plants
ME&A Mendez England & Associates
MoF Ministry of Finance
MoT Ministry of Trade
Mt Metric Ton 
NOA New Opportunities for Agriculture Project
PePeKo Association of Kosovo Food Processors
PMP Performance Management Plan
RFTOP Request for Task Order Proposal
SOW Scope of Work 
TRMS Transparent Raw Milk Sampling Program
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government
VAT Value Added Tax
i 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
EVALUATION PURPOSE 
This is a report on the Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the New Opportunities for Agriculture 
(NOA) project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission 
in Kosovo. The project is being implemented by Tetra Tech ARD (Tetra Tech) between January 
2011 and February 2015. The total value of the project is $15,899,714. 
The purpose of the evaluation was to conduct an objective external assessment of the management 
and performance of NOA’s activities from January 2011 to present in order to provide USAID with: 
a) an assessment of NOA’s impact to date in relation to the project purpose and expected results; 
b) recommendations for possible ways, if any, in which the project might increase the impact and 
performance of its services; and c) lessons learned that can be used to guide future programming in 
the agriculture sector. 
The evaluation was conducted during the period January - February 2014 by a team assembled by 
Mendez England & Associates (ME&A). 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The evaluation was guided by specific questions contained in the Scope of Work (SOW), found in 
Annex 1 of this report. The questions were re-organized into four sections by the Evaluation Team 
in order to make a better distinction among NOA’s impact, effectiveness, and sustainability, as well 
as opportunities in the agriculture sector in Kosovo after NOA is completed. The sections include: 
Section I: Summary of Project Results to Date 
Section II: NOA’s Current Effectiveness and Future Opportunities 
Section III: NOA’s Potential for Achieving Objectives and Suggested Modifications; Project 
Sustainability; Improvement of Performance Management Plan (PMP) 
Section IV: Post NOA Project Opportunities in the Agriculture Sector 
PROJECT BACKGROUND 
The agriculture sector is an important pillar of Kosovo's economy and is a major contributor to 
employment. Accordingly, policies and initiatives to develop the agriculture sector and increase its 
competitiveness are a priority for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development 
(MAFRD) and other economic policy makers in Kosovo. 
NOA is a four-year project whose overarching goal is to increase agricultural output, exports and 
rural incomes in Kosovo. This goal supports USAID/Kosovo’s Economic Growth Strategy of 
promoting growth, creating jobs and generating exports in the country. NOA has five components 
(objectives), which include: 1) Products and farmers linked to markets; 2) Agricultural products 
diversified and increased; 3) Food quality and safety improved; 4) Increased affordable and accessible 
credit; and 5) Strengthened sector coordination and leadership by the MAFRD. 
EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
The methodology for NOA’s evaluation was carefully designed to respond to the evaluation 
questions posed in the SOW and to determine whether NOA has made progress towards its initial 
objectives. The Evaluation Team collected quantitative and qualitative data from a broad range of 
stakeholders and beneficiaries to ensure objectivity, as well as accuracy and completeness of the 
findings, conclusions and recommendations. Data was collected using the following main methods 
and sources: 
• Critical desktop review of materials related to NOA, such as project quarterly and monthly 
reports, annual work plans, PMPs, project design documents, and communication among 
partners. The Evaluation Team also reviewed project-related documents found on the web, 
news articles for background information, and more. 
• In-depth interviews with USAID and NOA staff. 
ii 
• Fifty semi-structured interviews with partners, NGOs, women’s associations, project 
beneficiaries, and NOA’s value chain actors. 
• Field visits to municipalities of Vushtrri, Suhareke, Shtime, Shterpce, Rahovec, Prizren, Pristina, 
Peja, Mitrovice, Mamushe, Lipjan, Kline, Istog, Gjokove, Gjilan, Fushe Kosove, Ferizaj, and Decan. 
• Four focus group discussions (FGDs) with women’s associations to gain a direct understanding 
of the activities, value chain linkages, and long-run financial viability of the organizations. 
• A mini-survey with private farmer groups and value chain drivers to gauge perceptions of project 
results among 69 stakeholders. 
• Direct observations to cross-check information (e.g. comparing statements to observed 
practice) and identification of factors not previously recognized. 
Limitations to the evaluation include the following: 
1. Recall bias. As NOA activities were launched in 2011, some respondents found it difficult to 
accurately compare organizational arrangements/access to services provided prior to project 
startup or specific information regarding crop yields. To mitigate this limitation, the Evaluation 
Team conducted interviews with various groups of stakeholders in different locations. 
 2. Halo bias. There is a known tendency among respondents to under-report socially undesirable 
answers. In addition, some respondents may not be prepared to reveal their true opinions for 
questions that ask them to assess the performance of their colleagues or people on whom they 
depend for the provision of services. To mitigate this limitation, the Evaluation Team provided 
respondents with confidentiality and anonymity guarantees, and conducted interviews in settings 
that made respondents feel comfortable. 
3. Sample size. Small sample size of individual value chain respondent groups, due to the 
evaluation’s time and financial constraints, did not support formal statistical representation of 
survey responses to the total population. To mitigate this limitation, the Evaluation Team used 
triangulation and, whenever possible, linked quantitative with qualitative techniques. 
KEY FINDINGS 
Section 1: Summary of Project Results to Date 
1. For Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13), PMP data indicate that NOA exceeded domestic sales for active 
value chains by $33.9 million (M). 
2. NOA reduced imports by $5.4M but this did not meet the target of $7M for FY13. 
3. PMP data indicate that NOA generated a total of $10.3M in export sales. Excluding the three 
new value chains transferred from the Kosovo Private Enterprise Program (KPEP) in 2012, the 
total drops to $5.2M, which is still well above the $2M target. 
4. According to NOA’s PMP, the project created 1,984 new full time jobs, exceeding its FY13 
target of 1,500. The top job creating value chains in FY13 were dairy, table grape and raspberry, 
with gherkins, apple, lettuce, saffron, and asparagus also experiencing growth. Strawberry and 
blueberry value chains experienced a decrease in employment, while medicinal and aromatic 
plants (MAP), field vegetables and blackberry value chains did not record job creation or loss. 
5. Beneficiaries interviewed by the Evaluation Team stated that their annual yield increased 
between 5% and 20% as a result of NOA’s assistance with new crop varieties, fertilizers, and 
new production techniques. In addition, NOA introduced improved production technologies 
for all 10 original value chain crops that could positively impact beneficiaries’ yields for these 
value chains. 
6. There is an output shortfall among local producers for dedicated table grape varieties and apples. 
Since production for these crops does not meet actual consumer consumption levels, these two 
value chains are targeted for import substitution. 
7. The central aspect of NOA’s value chain driver support is the emphasis placed on establishment 
and operation of physical crop collection centers through identification of value chain drivers, 
some of which are processors or direct exporters. NOA’s staff provides important initial 
linkage coordination between farmers and collection centers and between collection centers and 
other buyers further up the value chain. 
8. NOA issued 126 grants through January 2014 across all value chains, mostly for production 
projects designed to introduce new crop varieties and technologies. Through FY13, NOA 
worked with 13 enterprises toward Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) food 
iii 
safety and quality control certification with three attaining certification. NOA also assisted six 
producers to receive the Global Good Agricultural Practice (GlobalGAP) certification, which is a 
difficult but essential certification process for growers who export fresh fruits and vegetables to 
major European Union (EU) markets. 
9. NOA provided initial financial and technical support to facilitate the formation of the Economic 
Analysis Unit (EAU) within MAFRD, and provided technical support and advice in setting up a 
national Agricultural Extension Service (AES) based on utilizing current municipal agricultural 
extension workers. 
10. NOA’s staff successfully facilitated the Government of Kosovo (GoK) Development Credit 
Authority (DCA), a United States Government (USG) loan guarantee program designed to 
facilitate bank lending to private sector enterprises in developing economies. 
11. The NOA proactive gender empowerment focus provided grants and training to three women’s 
groups and individuals representing more than 80 people. In addition, NOA provided 7 grants 
or subcontracts to women operating as lead farmers in the production of crops, including 
gherkin, field berry, asparagus, strawberry, and pepper. Survey data indicates moderate to high 
levels of women decision-making in crop production activities including choice of crop, planting 
area, new technology adoption, and marketing options. The FY13 Gender Empowerment Matrix 
(GEM) score program that NOA initiated in 2012 greatly exceeds the PMP target value. 
12. NOA supports a successful “Women Farmer of the Year” award program in conjunction with 
MAFRD and other donors – notably UNDP. 
Section II: NOA’s Current Effectiveness and Future Opportunities 
1. NOA supports directly the Rahovec Agricultural Institute and indirectly the Peja Agricultural 
Institute. These public sector institutes conduct crop variety field trials and various laboratory 
tests. However, they are poorly funded and lack modern facilities and trained staff. 
2. NOA provides organizational and technical support services to industry associations such as 
Kosovo Dairy Producers Association (KDPA) and Kosovo Association of Milk Processors 
(KAMP). NOA also established two other associations, Association of Kosovo Food Processors 
(PePeKo), an association of food processors, and “Plant Kosova,” an association of nursery 
industry managers. They all provide valuable institutional services, including training and 
upgrading member skills, developing legal and regulatory reform positions, and lobbying 
initiatives to bring about industry level reforms. 
3. EAU, established by NOA, is effectively providing MAFRD with analytical reports, such as the 
“Green Report” which addresses Kosovo’s food import substitution. 
4. NOA supported four major and successful policy initiatives: 1) value added tax (VAT) reform, 
which creates a major incentive for small-scale producers to form legal commercial enterprises; 
2) Transparent Raw Milk Sampling (TRMS) Program, which encourages farmers to register 
legally; 3) the MAFRD large-scale collection center facility construction program, which supports 
the private sector to upgrade the quality of domestic food supplies to meet international 
standards; and 4) the formation of a new national AES, which utilizes municipal agricultural 
extension workers to provide technology transfer training to local farmers. 
5. Construction of collection centers that link growers with processors and exporters provide 
clear evidence that NOA’s market linkage activities, combined with technology transfer 
activities, are very effective in providing the basis for increasing the incomes of rural farm 
families. 
6. MAP products are suitable for families with a limited capital base (i.e. families run by single and 
widowed women) and underemployed labor resources. 
7. Interviews with MAP processors and exporters indicated that there is a strong desire among 
small-scale growers to expand MAP domestic production. Currently, 95% of MAP products is 
exported. 
8. To date, NOA has utilized 13 farmer to farmer (FtF) volunteers, many of whom are retired 
technical specialists that provide specialized technology transfer support in the areas of cheese 
making, lettuce and gherkin production, and asparagus cultivation. The program is an excellent 
example of NOA’s coordination with implementing parties. 
Section III: NOA’s Potential for Achieving Objectives and Suggested Modifications; 
Project Sustainability; Improvement of Project PMP 
iv 
1. Based on the Evaluation Team’s review of NOA’s PMP, field observations, and interviews with 
NOA’s staff and beneficiaries, NOA will meet all its targets by the end of the project. 
2. NOA is well-managed, with a well-trained and motivated technical and administrative staff 
committed to supporting the project beneficiaries, and strengthening the processing and 
marketing enterprises as well as private sector production companies with which it works. 
Grants are overall well-targeted and well managed. 
3. Gross margin analysis indicates that all NOA value chains are financially viable under existing 
input costs and output prices using the planting materials, production technologies, and market 
linkages introduced by NOA. Interviews with value chain drivers indicated that they have a good 
business vision and are ready to continue operations after the phase-out of NOA’s technical 
support. 
4. All NOA supported value chains, with the exception of cabbage, are financially sustainable with 
interest rates of 10% or lower, assuming that farmers face credit repayment costs on a loan 
value of €20,000. Although NOA does not work with field grain crops, the interest rate 
weighted gross margin calculations demonstrate that these crops are significantly less profitable 
than the more labor-intensive high value crops promoted through the NOA Project. 
5. There is concern by MAFRD that without the commodity policy support provided by NOA, the 
current policy momentum supporting the market linkage and technology transfer development 
activities cannot continue. At this time, the new EAU does not have the capacity to expand its 
expertise in this area. 
6. NOA’s current published indicators on sales and full time equivalent (FTEs) jobs do not 
disaggregate sales and worker data by value chain and do not take into account annual changes in 
number of farms, yields or area planted. 
7. Current sales and FTE job indicators apply a multiplier function to each value chain’s direct sales 
and FTE figures to measure the imputed indirect and induced impact of the project’s direct 
impact. This distorts the direct impact of NOA’s activities because it introduces a non-justifiable 
indirect and induced impact from other value chain participants outside the NOA project 
environment. 
Section IV: Post NOA Project Opportunities in the Agriculture Sector 
1. The survey conducted by the Evaluation Team with private farmer groups and value chain 
drivers indicated that 80% of them use savings or profits as a source of funding to meet 
production and investment expenditure, 40% borrow from family members, and more than 50% 
receive in-kind funding from donor projects through matching grant programs. 
2. Currently, NOA provides training and other support in: 1) improving product quality; 2) 
improving farm production skills; 3) access to grants; and 4) technical support from foreign 
specialists. 97% of respondents that completed the Evaluation Team’s survey stated that the 
training and NOA’s support has been very useful. However, they identified a number of areas 
where more training and support is needed, including: technical knowledge of farm production 
processes; continued access to NOA grants; study tours to foreign countries; technical support 
to improve product packaging; and direct linkage to new markets. 
3. When asked to identify new government policies that would most benefit their future business 
prospects, the most frequent responses from surveyed stakeholders included: 1) improve import 
quality standards to reduce the import of low quality seeds, planting materials and fertilizers; 2) 
eliminate dumping of foreign food imports at prices below production costs; and 3) reduce farm 
level fuel prices by waiving a portion of the import excise tax. 
4. According to the Evaluation Team’s survey of private farmers, 80% of respondents identified high 
interest rates for buying production inputs as one of the five major constraints preventing them 
from increasing their business profits; 60% selected lack of proper packaging materials; and 50% 
chose tough competition from neighboring countries. In the same survey conducted with value 
chain drivers, respondents chose lack of credit (interest rate too high) to buy production inputs 
and tough competition from neighboring countries as the two major constraints keeping them 
from increasing business profits. 
5. In the survey conducted by the Evaluation Team, private farmer groups ranked technical 
knowledge for farm production processes as the most important factor to improving their 
future business profitability. Access to NOA’s grants, technical knowledge to improve product 
packaging, labeling and branding, and technical knowledge for product market development 
v 
processes also ranked high. Unlike the private farmer group, value chain drivers ranked project 
facilitation to formal credit sources as the number 1 factor. Field trips to other places in 
Kosovo, technical advice to install cold storages, access to NOA’s grants, and technical advice 
for improving product quality were the other factors mentioned. 
6. In an interview with the Evaluation Team, the Advisor to the Minister of MAFRD indicated that 
future donor assistance will be needed in order for the MAFRD and EAU to continue to 
conduct the in-depth analyses required to conduct value chain market linkages and policy 
advocacy after NOA’s completion. 
7. Commodities such as MAP, raspberry, blueberry, blackberry, strawberry, gherkin, and pepper, 
that require intensive labor but moderate capital and simple to moderate technology have the 
most potential for expansion. 
8. The Korenica Women’s Association, which manages its own milk collection station and is 
planning to process cheese for commercial sale, is a very successful model. However, while 
there is a great interest by women to process local fruits and vegetables into traditional 
products such as ajvar, tursai, and rechel, the Evaluation Team was unable to find an organization 
that has a proven record of post-donor financial feasibility.
9. MAFRD considers agriculture to be a “strategic priority” and is embarking on a Seven-Year 
Strategic Development Plan to expand inter alia the small-scale commercial agricultural 
production sector. 
KEY CONCLUSIONS 
Section I: Summary of Project Results to Date 
1. NOA had a significant impact in the increase of domestic sales of supported crops. The project 
exceeded the target of $8M by $33.9M. 
2. NOA had a positive impact in reducing imports but fell short of meeting its target for FY13 by 
$1.6M. 
3. NOA exceeded its target in generating export sales by $3.2M. 
4. NOA’s interventions resulted in 1,984 total new jobs, exceeding target values, especially in the 
table grape, dairy, and raspberry value chains. 
5. Field interviews with NOA’s grant participants provide strong evidence that the impact on crop 
yields is very high from the introduction of NOA’s imported new crop varieties, proper 
fertilizers, and production techniques such as trellises for gherkins, pome fruits and table grape. 
6. Expansion of apple and table grape domestic production is required to reduce the current high 
level of imports. Both require several years after planting to attain full yield potential. 
Therefore, the import substitution impact on current production levels understates the full 
import substitution potential from current NOA activities. 
7. NOA was instrumental in the establishment of crop collection centers. Introduction of formal 
contracts between growers and value chain drivers (collection centers, processors, exporters 
and retailers) provide commercial transparency between buyers and sellers and promote grower 
entry into the formal market network. 
8. NOA’s grant activity provides important financial and technology transfer support to facilitate 
grower and collection center adherence to and certification by internationally recognized food 
safety and quality standards, including GlobalGAP and HACCP, which are requisite for 
penetrating export markers and high-end domestic supermarkets and restaurant outlets. 
9. NOA provides targeted commodity policy analysis and support to MAFRD that facilitates sector 
reform legislation, regulations and interpretations designed to further leverage its technical 
assistance and market linkage activities. 
10. The GoK-financed DCA facilitated by NOA is offering to farmers loans that, on average, have 
lower interest rates than those offered by non-DCA sources. 
11/12. The NOA Women Empowerment Program is successfully promoting women as lead farm 
producers and using development grants to provide initial startup capital. A “Woman Farmer of 
the Year” award program, implemented in conjunction with MAFRD and other donors – notably 
UNDP – recognizes outstanding women farm business leaders. 
Section II: NOA’s Current Effectiveness and Future Opportunities 
vi 
1. NOA supports a number of publicly financed institutes that serve an important scientific role by 
providing quality control testing and administrative import quality control functions; however, 
they are in need of funds and cannot adequately provide their intended services without 
additional trained staff and upgraded facilities. 
2. NOA’s efforts to strengthen industry associations, including KDPA, KAMP, Plant Kosovo and 
PePeKo, to develop industry policy and legislative recommendations have been very effective and 
are playing a role in strengthening democratic policymaking that can have a positive impact on 
increasing sector incomes, expanding exports, reducing dependence on foreign imports, as well 
as increasing laws and regulations and improving membership knowledgebase. 
3. NOA’s policy development support to MAFRD leadership has had a major positive impact on 
formation of a legal, regulatory policy and strategy reform environment that facilitates NOA’s 
project technology transfer and market linkage component results, and supports private sector 
commercial development. 
4. The MAFRD’ EAU, established by NOA, has had some initial successes in preparing policy￾related economic analysis reports. 
5. Direct linkage to collection centers, using formal contracting procedures, reduces a major small 
grower market risk factor and improves the long-run financial viability of the small-scale family 
business. 
6. The MAP sector has the potential for quickly increasing the number of women beneficiaries and 
strengthening the project focus on reducing rural unemployment and poverty. 
7. There is potential and desire to increase the domestic production of MAP, most of which is 
currently exported. 
8. The FtF program is well integrated into NOA and the 13 volunteers have, to date, provided very 
effective and valuable grower training and support. 
Section III: NOA’s Potential for Achieving Objectives and Suggested Modifications; 
Project Sustainability; Improvement of Project PMP 
1. Barring unforeseen obstacles, all major NOA objectives and targets will be met by the project 
close-out date of February 2015. 
2. NOA is a successful project, with a dedicated and capable management and staff. The project is 
on the right track to achieve its goal and the Evaluation Team does not have suggestions for 
modifications to work that is now underway. 
3. Gross margin analysis and interviews with value chain drivers during the course of the evaluation 
indicated that, barring currently unforeseen political or economic conditions, the vast majority of 
firms, including women farm leaders, will remain viable after the phase-out of NOA’s technical 
support. 
4. Gross margin calculations show that field grain crops are significantly less profitable than the 
more labor-intensive high value crops that NOA promotes, and indicates that they demonstrate 
questionable sustainability when compared with the value chains targeted by NOA. 
5. The current level of dynamic policy reform supporting the continuing development of the 
agricultural and agribusiness sector is likely to decline when NOA ends in February 2015. 
6. NOA’s published indicators for total, domestic, and export sales and for FTE jobs tend to 
overstate the causal impact from NOA’s development activities and do not provide information 
disaggregated by value chain. 
7. Current sales and FTE job indicator presentations misrepresent NOA’s actual impact by 
including a multiplier derived using questionable analysis that purports to measure the impact of 
indirect activities and induced impact of activities that are outside the project implementation 
environment, thus distorting the indicator measurement of direct project impact. 
Section IV: Post-NOA Project Opportunities in the Agriculture Sector 
1. Many farmers continue to fund their business operations through savings or profits, borrowing 
from friends or family members, or receiving in-kind funding from donor projects. This result is 
consistent with the responses indicating that lack of credit (high interest rates) is one of the 
main constraints to increasing business profits. 
2. Field survey responses indicated that private farmers are very satisfied with the training and 
support provided by NOA. The major future training needs identified by them included: 1) 
technical knowledge of farm production processes; 2) continued access to NOA grants; 3) 
vii 
study tours to foreign countries; 4) technical support to improve product packaging; and 5) 
direct linkage to new markets. 
3. Major agricultural policy modifications suggested by field survey respondents included: 1) 
improve import quality standards to reduce the import of low quality seeds, planting materials 
and fertilizers; 2) eliminate dumping of foreign food imports at prices that are below production 
costs; and 3) reduce farm level fuel prices by waiving a portion of the import excise tax. 
4. The field survey with private farmers indicated that high interest rates, lack of proper packaging 
materials, and tough completion from neighboring countries were the major constraints to 
expanding business profits. Value chain driver (collection centers, processors, exporters) field 
survey responses indicated that high interest rates for working capital loans, tough competition 
from neighboring countries, and high interest rates for capital investment loans, were major 
constraints to expanding their business profits. While NOA does not formally engage in credit 
facilitation, the response rate suggests that the value chain drivers may be priority candidates 
for participation in the DCA credit guarantee program. 
5. The most important future technical support needs for farmers included improved knowledge 
of technical production processes, access to donor grants to reduce high costs of borrowed 
capital, and technical knowledge to improve product labeling and branding, while value chain 
drivers’ most important future technical support needs included donor facilitation to formal 
credit sources, access to donor grants to reduce the high cost of borrowing, technical advice 
for installing cold storages and improvement of product quality. 
6. MAFRD views NOA as very successful, and would support a similar value chain type project 
initiated after the completion of NOA in February 2015 that is targeted on individuals and 
enterprises that were not part of the original NOA set of beneficiaries. 
7. Commodity value chains characterized by high labor intensity, low capital requirements, simple 
to moderate production technology and immediate return on investment are the most 
appropriate commodities for future expansion by small-scale growers. Commodities with high 
capital intensity, complex technologies and longer-term return on investment are better suited 
for growers with ready markets that can provide collection center crop aggregation support for 
the smaller-scale growers. Apple and related pome fruit expansion should take place within the 
project import substitution objective. With the new NOA introduced table grapes varieties 
now coming into production, continued technical guidance will be required prior to developing 
a small-scale grower strategy for this value chain sector. 
8. NOA’s women’s empowerment approach characterized by promoting women as lead farmers 
has been very successful and female-based group food processing activities have been 
successfully undertaken when directly supported by donor technical and financial support; 
however, post-donor sustainability of food processing activities has not yet been proven and 
requires further observation. 
9. The greatest return to future USAID donor expenditure will be in value chains containing 
strong collection centers that are linked to large numbers of small-scale farmers whose income 
can increase dramatically by access to a steady domestic or export market. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Section II: NOA’s Current Effectiveness and Future Opportunities 
• Current technical support provided by NOA to the various publicly supported research 
institutes is very appropriate but any requests by these institutes for additional financial support 
to augment staff or physical infrastructure should be directed to EU donors as future 
development of these institutes will take place under the evolving EU legal and institutional 
environment. 
• NOA’s approach to strengthening private sector industry associations is on target and should 
continue. 
• NOA’s current project activities in the MAP sector should be quickly expanded to increase their 
impact on women and farm families with limited access to capital and sufficient labor surplus by 
holding grant competitions to support the purchase of small-scale, collection center level drying 
equipment and expand production of specialized medicinal and aromatic crops, including black 
marshmallow and chamomile. 
• NOA’s FtF program model should be used by USAID in designing future FtF programs. 
viii 
Section III: NOA’s Potential for Achieving Objectives and Suggested Modifications; 
Project Sustainability; Improvement of Project PMP 
• Discussions should be undertaken between MAFRD, USAID and NOA to develop modalities for 
institutionalizing within the EAU the current policy development support now informally carried 
out by the NOA project. 
• Modify the current NOA PMP indicator presentation of total sales, domestic sales and export 
sales by calculating annual figures that take into account changes in the number of beneficiaries, 
yield and area planted in order to more accurately measure the causal impact of NOA’s 
interventions on these indicators. 
• PMP indicators for each value chain should be reported in NOA’s annual reports to provide 
readers with an understanding of the impacts from each value chain. 
• Introduce into the NOA Monitoring Information System an additional internal reporting table to 
provide commodity-by-commodity indicators that include the sales and FTE impact on farm level 
growers, the sales value added from linkage to value chain drivers (collection stations, 
processors, exporters, retailers) and the total direct impact from NOA’s activities. 
• Discontinue use of the multiplier coefficients now added to PMP sales and FTE published 
information as they distort the actual project impact. 
Section IV: Post-NOA Project Opportunities in the Agriculture Sector 
Post-NOA project support should: 
• Continue DCA credit facilitation support, since lack of credit is the main constraint, and include 
grant funds to support initial farm production and value chain driver investment to offset 
prevailing high interest rates. 
• Focus future training and support on technology transfer, and domestic and export market 
linkage activities that improve production and market efficiencies and effectiveness through 
improved quality control, packaging and product labeling.
• Target dedicated institutional strengthening support to the EAU so that it becomes proficient in 
agricultural sector policy analysis, formulation, and coordination. Future policies in which EAU 
needs to focus include: 1) improving import quality standards to reduce the import of low 
quality seeds, planting materials and fertilizers; 2) eliminating dumping of foreign food imports at 
prices that are below production costs; and 3) reducing farm level fuel prices by waiving a 
portion of the import excise tax. 
• Target chain project support, structured within the context of the GoK’s Seven-Year Strategic 
Development Plan, to individuals and enterprises not reached by the current NOA project and 
have as the primary objective the ability to expand small-scale farmer access to domestic and 
export markets as it is the most effective means of accomplishing the USAID /Kosovo Economic 
Growth Strategy of creating jobs in the rural sector thus directly alleviating the causes of existing 
rural poverty. Secondary objectives should include import substitution and strengthening of 
industry. Within this context: 
- Place priority emphasis on MAP, strawberry, other berry, greenhouse, and open field 
gherkin, pepper, and related high value field crop value chains to gain the greatest impact on 
reducing rural poverty and unemployment, future agriculture. These beneficiaries need to 
be linked to strong value chain drivers, which may require priority orientation on matching 
grant funds to equip an expanding need for collection centers as new project roll out 
proceeds. 
- Retain lettuce, table grape, apple, and other pome fruit value chains as part of future USAID 
post-NOA project activities, as they represent Kosovo’s major produce import deficit crops; 
retain asparagus as value chain candidates as they provide the potential for increasing 
Kosovo’s export earnings. 
- Target dairy sector activities on institutional strengthening of KDPA and KAMP to facilitate 
subsector policy development and strengthen their capacity to provide technical production 
and processing support through the associations to their respective membership. The sector 
requires further expansion to attain milk and milk product self-sufficiency, and can 
contribute to increasing export earnings. 
ix 
• Include group based women’s food processing activities based on an assessment of their positive 
post-donor project sustainability. Such an assessment should be undertaken by NOA prior to 
its closeout date. 
10 
 
1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE &
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE 
This is a report on the Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the New Opportunities for Agriculture 
(NOA) project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission in 
Kosovo. The project is being implemented by Tetra Tech ARD (Tetra Tech) between January 2011 and 
February 2015. The total value of the project is $15,899,714. 
The purpose of the evaluation was to conduct an objective external assessment of the management and 
performance of NOA’s activities from January 2011 to present, and document NOA’s results to provide 
USAID with: a) an assessment of NOA’s impact to date in relation to the project purpose and expected 
results; b) recommendations for any possible ways, if any, in which the project might increase the impact 
and performance of its services in the next two years; and c) lessons learned that can be used to guide 
future programming in the agriculture sector. 
The evaluation was conducted during the period January- February 2014 by a team assembled by 
Mendez England & Associates (ME&A). The team consisted of three specialists with extensive 
experience in the agriculture sector: Dr. Conrad Fritsch, Team Leader; Mr. Anthony Ortiz, Agriculture 
Specialist; and Ms. Lumta Dida, a local Agriculture Specialist. 
1.2 EVALUATION GUIDING QUESTIONS 
The evaluation was guided by specific questions contained in the Scope of Work (SOW), found in 
Annex 1 of this report. These questions include: 
Section I: Summary of Project Results to Date 
- Project impact on domestic sales growth, import substitution, exports, and employment 
- Identification of the most important project provided services 
- Impact of counterpart grants and institutional collaboration (with government, non-government 
business network partners), on development of agriculture enterprises 
- Project influence on Government of Kosovo (GoK) programs and private sector partners 
(including the financial sector institutions) 
- Project impact on facilitating credit to farmers 
- Project impact on facilitating involvement of women in the Kosovo’s agricultural sector 
Section II: NOA’s Current Effectiveness and Future Opportunities 
- Project effectiveness on strengthening agriculture support institutions 
- Project effectiveness in identifying policy constraints, initiating policy reforms, and impact of 
policy decisions on private agribusiness 
- Impact of project's implementation approach and strategies on development of agriculture 
enterprises, including small-scale family farming enterprises 
- Effectiveness of FtF activities on supporting project objectives 
Section III: NOA’s Potential for Achieving Current Objectives; NOA’s Sustainability; 
Improvement of Performance Management Plan 
- NOA’s potential for achieving current project objectives and major factors influencing the 
effectiveness and achievement or non-achievement of the objectives 
- Modifications or changes needed to improve effectiveness and achievement of current project 
objectives 
11 
 
- Sustainability of current project activities and actions needed to improve project activity 
sustainability 
- Improving project Performance Management Plan (PMP) to provide better data and information 
for management decision making 
Section IV: Post NOA Project Opportunities in the Agriculture Sector 
- Commodity value chain activities to promote food sustainability and export development 
- USAID/Kosovo actions to achieve greater participation of women in future agricultural program 
design 
- Institutional strengthening activities to improve family income and food security of small-scale 
family farmers 
The final report of the evaluation was developed by reworking the original request for task order 
proposal (RFTOP), Section C. 8 questions into objective statements, and reordering them into common 
categories to represent: 1) Summary of project activities and results to date; 2) NOA’s current 
effectiveness; 3) NOA’s potential for achieving project objectives, including relationship of activities and 
results to stated project objectives; NOA’s sustainability; and PMP project targets as well as implications 
for achieving these targets; and 4) Future project opportunities and project suggestions to effectively 
build on NOA’s achievements. As required in the Section C.12 of the RFTOP, all evaluation questions 
were considered in developing this report outline and were addressed in the course of the evaluation. 
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 
The agriculture sector is an important pillar of Kosovo's economy and is a major contributor to 
employment. However, in the absence of a developed, commercialized agricultural sector, Kosovo is 
not self-sufficient in food production and relies heavily on imports. The country requires a more 
specialized and modernized agricultural sector that is more productive and has a greater capacity to 
respond to market demands. Consequently, policies and initiatives to develop agriculture and increase 
its competitiveness are a priority for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development 
(MAFRD) and other economic policy makers in Kosovo. Kosovo's optimal climate conditions for 
production of labor intensive, high-value crops, and the availability of fertile land can result in 
comparative advantages when linked to secure domestic and export markets. 
Given the above, the overarching goal of the four-year NOA project is to increase Kosovo’s agricultural 
output, exports and rural incomes. This goal supports USAID/Kosovo’s Economic Growth Strategy of 
promoting growth, creating jobs and generating exports. Implementation of NOA began on January 28, 
2011 and will end on February 27, 2015. When designed, NOA’s main focus was export development. 
However, recognizing existing opportunities to expand sales and incomes through import substitution, 
NOA was amended in October 2012 to add import substitution development to its scope. In addition, 
in September 2012, when the Kosovo Private Enterprise Program (KPEP) ended, NOA picked up 
ongoing activities from KPEP’s supporting value chain production and domestic and export market 
linkage development of field and greenhouse products, medicinal and aromatic plants (MAP), and dairy. 
NOA's specific components (objectives) include: 1) Linking products and farmers to markets; 2) 
Facilitating in diversifying and increasing the types and amounts of agricultural products produced in 
Kosovo; 3) Improving food quality and safety; 4) Increasing access to affordable credit; and 5) Improving 
the overall coordination of donor projects within the agricultural sector in Kosovo. 
12 
 
3.0 EVALUATION DESIGN,
METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
The methodology for NOA’s evaluation was carefully designed to respond to the evaluation questions 
posed in the SOW and to determine whether NOA has made progress towards its initial objectives. 
The Evaluation Team collected quantitative and qualitative data from a broad range of stakeholders and 
beneficiaries to ensure objectivity, as well as accuracy and completeness of the findings, conclusions and 
recommendations. Data was collected by using techniques that balance each-other: quantitative vs. 
qualitative data; individual vs. group responses; and semi-structured interviews vs. analysis of mini￾surveys. 
The following main methods and sources were used: 
• Critical desktop review of materials related to NOA, such as project quarterly and monthly reports, 
annual work plans, PMPs, project design documents, and communication among partners. The 
Evaluation Team also reviewed a wide range of project-related documents found on the web, news 
articles for background information, and more. The documents reviewed are provided in Annex 7. 
They captured background information on the project, including its goals, stakeholders, inputs, 
outputs, and outcomes. They were also used to assess value chain financial viability, labor, and 
capital intensity, and production technology characteristics associated with each of the commodity 
value chains being addressed by NOA. Review of the PMP provided a further basis for determining 
whether the project activities were implemented as planned and identifying any challenges or 
problems that delayed or altered their implementation. 
• In-depth interviews with USAID and NOA staff. 
• Fifty semi-structured interviews, with partners, private farmers, food processors, import-export 
businesses, women’s associations, industry associations such as Kosovo Dairy Processors, donors 
including the Austrian Development Agency (ADA), NGOs including Action for Revitalization and 
Initiative for Agricultural Development, and more. 
• Field visits to municipalities of Vushtrri, Suhareke, Shtime, Shterpce, Rahovec, Prizren, Pristina, Peja, 
Mitrovice, Mamushe, Lipjan, Kline, Istog, Gjokove, Gjilan, Fushe Kosove, Ferizaj, and Decan. 
• Four focus group discussions (FGDs) with women’s associations, including Flori and Korenica, to 
gain a direct understanding of the activities, value chain linkages, and long-run financial viability of the 
organizations. 
• A mini-survey to gauge perceptions of project results among 69 stakeholders. 
• Direct observations to cross-check information (e.g. comparing statements to observed practice) 
and identification of factors not previously recognized. 
In total, the Evaluation Team collected information from 139 individuals. Interviews with MAFRD, NOA 
and USAID staff used open-ended questions designed to address the relevant SOW questions. They 
were supplemented by formal survey instruments with NOA direct and indirect beneficiaries, which 
used a standard set of close-ended questions that also provided respondents with the opportunity to 
expand on their responses. FGDs were used to interact with 4 women’s associations. 
Site visits were determined in consultation with USAID and NOA’s staff, with the final decision based 
on schedule, budget, logistics, and concentration of activities of interest. The goal was to meet 
stakeholders who are involved at different levels in all NOA value chains. For the purpose of this 
evaluation, a stakeholder is defined as a person with an interest or concern in NOA practices. 
Stakeholders included USAID, NOA project staff, and NOA value chains actors. 
Triangulation was used to assess the same question from more than one perspective, by using more 
than one of the above tools to compare and contrast their results. When findings from different tools 
13 
 
varied significantly, results were carefully considered to determine the causal effects of these divergent 
findings. 
Limitations to the evaluation included: 
1. Recall bias. As NOA activities were launched in 2011, some respondents found it difficult to 
accurately compare organizational arrangements/access to services provided prior to project startup 
or specific information regarding crop yields. To mitigate this limitation, the Evaluation Team 
conducted interviews with various groups of stakeholders in different locations. 
 2. Halo bias. There is a known tendency among respondents to under-report socially undesirable 
answers. In addition, some respondents may not be prepared to reveal their true opinions for 
questions that ask them to assess the performance of their colleagues or people on whom they 
depend for the provision of services. To mitigate this limitation, the Evaluation Team provided 
respondents with confidentiality and anonymity guarantees, and conducted interviews in settings that 
made respondents feel comfortable. 
3. Sample size. Small sample size of individual value chain respondent groups, due to the evaluation’s 
time and financial constraints, did not support formal statistical representation of survey responses 
to the total population. To mitigate this limitation, the Evaluation Team used triangulation and, 
whenever possible, linked quantitative with qualitative techniques. 
4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS 
4.1 SECTION I: SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS TO 
DATE 
This section addresses NOA‘s activities and results through the end of Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) and 
includes SOW’s evaluation questions relating to results to date. Findings and conclusions discussed in 
this section relate to NOA’s achievements in Component 1- Farmers and products linked to markets; 
Component 2 - Agricultural products diversified and increased; the Supporting Components - Improved 
food quality and safety (Component 3), and Increased affordable and accessible credit (Component 4); 
and the Overarching Component 5 - Strengthened sector coordination and leadership by MAFRD. 
4.1.1 Findings 
4.1.1.1 Project impact on domestic sales growth, import substitution, exports, and 
employment 
Growth of Domestic Sales: NOA’s PMP indicators record 11 value chains with domestic sales. Domestic 
sales were not recorded for asparagus and MAPs because initial asparagus plantings were completed in 
2011 and initial yields will be recorded only in 2014, and MAPs sales were to export markets. Figure 1 
summarizes NOA’s reported indicators on the Growth of Domestic Sales value chain. 
Figure 1: Domestic Sales Generated by NOA Value Chains 
Value Chain Years
2011 2012 2013 
Table Grape $0 $276,870.00 $698,876.00 
Apple $0 $16,340.00 $319,546.00 
Raspberry $0 $0 $176,000.00 
Strawberry $0 $68,000.00 $942,327.00 
Blueberry $0 $0 $12,915.00 
14 
 
Overall, total FY13 recorded sales for active NOA value chains were $41.9M, which exceeded the 
target of $8M by $33.9M. Large domestic sales occurred in dairy, lettuce, gherkins, and field vegetables 
sectors with each generating more than $1M. Lettuce was the FY13 sales leader with more than $2.5M 
in sales. Berry, collectively, generated $1.2M in domestic sales, largely because of strong strawberry 
sales. All value chains except for field vegetables, MAP and dairy were included in the NOA project 
from the start. Field vegetables, MAP and dairy were transferred to NOA at the end of the KPEP 
project in September 2012. Hence, it is too early to attribute any direct domestic and export sales 
impact from NOA to these three value chains. 
Interviews with NOA’s staff in the field, as well as a review of NOA’s grant distribution records indicate 
that NOA provided improved imported planting materials and introduced improved production 
technologies for all 10 original value chain crops that could positively impact yields. 
In interview with the Evaluation Team, NOA’s beneficiaries reported annual yield increases ranging from 
5% to over 20%, as a result of NOA’s assistance in lettuce, greenhouse gherkin, berry, table grape, pear, 
and apple varieties. A grower in the Lipjan area using NOA imported apple varieties from Italy, 
reported yield increases 2-3 times higher than those obtained by using Serbian-based rootstock . Similar 
yield increases for the Italian rootstock were also reported by apple growers in the Peja and Istog 
regions. 
Import Substitution: NOA’s monitoring data indicate that the project has had a positive impact on 
reducing imports but did not meet the FY13 target reduction of $7M, with the actual reduction being at 
$5,4M. Several large-scale vegetable processors indicated that as a direct result of NOA’s linkage 
activities they have significantly reduced dependence on foreign imports of gherkins, cabbage, tomatoes, 
and peppers. One major processor enthusiastically stated that in the three years that he has worked 
with NOA, his operations have gone from 100% dependence on imported fresh products to 100% 
dependence on domestic production obtained from three collection station linkages developed by 
NOA’s staff. 
The Evaluation Team’s discussions with grape sector specialists in the Rahovec area suggested that 
annual imports of table grapes have declined from 2,300 mt in 2010 to 1,900 mt in 2013, in part due to 
NOA’s activities. However, the actual area currently planted for table grapes (~720 hectares) is 
significantly less than during the late Former Yugoslav Republic period when some 2,500 hectares were 
planted. A key issue is that in the past wine grape varieties were also consumed in fresh form; however, 
currently, consumers prefer dedicated table grape varieties for which there is a significant shortfall 
among local producers. NOA’s objective is to increase yields from a current average of 8 mt/ha up to 
16 - 20 mt/ha as the major strategy to reduce the current import dependence. 
A recent MAFRD study by the Economic Analysis Unit (EAU) also concludes that Kosovo grows just 
over half the annual apple consumption while producing about 85% of the annual table grape 
consumption. Since both crops have consumption and production rates of less than 100%, these two 
value chains are targeted for import substitution production to make up the difference.1
 
1 Government of Kosovo Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development. (2013). Green Report Kosovo 2013
Blackberry $0 $18,577.00 $29,603.00 
Saffron $0 $0 $12,825.45 
Asparagus $0 $0 $0 
Gherkins $69,870.00 $936,900.00 $1,295,000.00 
Lettuce $0 $243,000.00 $2,500,000.00 
Field Vegetables $0 $0 $1,271,319.00 
MAP $0 $0 $0 
Dairy $0 $0 $25,000,000.00 
Source: NOA Project Monitoring Information System
15 
 
Export Expansion: As shown in Figure 2, NOA’s monitoring data indicate that, of the original NOA value 
chain crops, table grape, raspberry, blueberry, saffron, gherkins were exported in 2013. 
Figure 2: Export Value of Selected NOA Supported Products 
Total value of exports
Value Chain 
Years
2011 2012 2013 
Table Grape $0 $26,730.00 $37,260.00 
Apple $0 $0 $0 
Raspberry $0 $59,464.00 $924,000.00 
Strawberry $0 $0 $0 
Blueberry $0 $592,500.00 $0 
Blackberry $0 $289,408.00 $0 
Saffron $0 $0 $15,675.55 
Asparagus $0 $0 $0 
Gherkins $0 $0 $105,000.00 
Lettuce $0 $0 $0 
Field Vegetables $0 $0 $1,115,000.00 
MAP $0 $0 $2,500,000.00 
Dairy $0 $0 $1,000,000.00 
Source: NOA Project Monitoring Information System
NOA’s Annual Report for FY13 indicates that the project generated a total of $10.3M in export sales 
against a target of $2M. Excluding the three new value chains transferred from KPEP in 2012, the total 
drops to $5.2M, which is still well above the target. These figures include sales of exported peppers to 
Sweden, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland by Kelmendi GMBH. Fresh fruit exports accounted for 
$1M, including: raspberries sold to Serbia and Italy by a NOA-supported raspberry association and other 
producers; and table grapes, which accounted for $50,000 in export to Germany. In addition, NOA’s 
processing client, Eurofruti, exported over $3M in frozen fruits, consisting mainly of berries. 
Furthermore, processed vegetables generated by exporting Ajvar amounted to $1.1M, and crushed 
dried peppers and pickled gherkins together generated $11.5K. The MAP value chain also performed 
well, generating exports of $2.5M through the sale of products including chamomile, black marshmallow, 
peppermint, common mallow, and lemon balm. Finally, the dairy sector’s exports totaled $1M. 
Saffron and asparagus are new NOA-supported export value chain crops expected for spring 2014. 
Both are planned for sale through a Kosovo-linked importing company located in the Netherlands. 
Saffron and asparagus produced in Kosovo are of reportedly high quality. 
Employment Growth: According to NOA’s monitoring system, eight value chains experienced job growth, 
two value chains experienced a decrease in employment, and three value chains had no recorded job 
creation or loss (see Figure 3). 
16 
 
Figure 3: NOA Employment Generation
The FY13 Annual Report indicates that calculation of 
full time equivalent (FTE) job generation remains the 
single most challenging target for the project. In part, 
this is because as firms grow, they aim to increase 
efficiencies, which tend to drive down labor 
requirements per unit of sale rather than increase 
them. However, as the sectors expand, there are 
more value added activities, and as new growers are 
added to the value chain collections centers, job 
creation will increase. Moreover, the FTE concept 
requires determination of the number of days that 
correspond to a full time worker designation. For 
project purposes this figure is set at 225 days. Thus, 
the FTE calculation requires determination of the 
number of days worked by each relevant worker with 
the resulting person day total divided by 225 to obtain 
the FTE estimate. 
The target for FY13 was 1,500 FTE jobs with PMP 
records indicating that 1,984 were created. Table 
grape, raspberry, apple, and gherkin sectors were 
major contributors to job growth. The dairy sector 
was the largest contributor; however, since it was 
recently added as a monitoring indicator, the 
contribution cannot be directly allocated to NOA’s 
activities. 
As with the sales data, the lack of detail describing the change in the number of beneficiaries, the change 
in yield, and the change in area planted did not allow the Evaluation Team to identify specific NOA 
interventions that contributed to the number of FTE jobs created. 
4.1.1.2 Major project provided services
NOA operates across all value chain sectors – from production to final product marketing – either as 
export or domestic retail sales. NOA’s staff provides technology transfer assistance at each level, as 
well as market linkage information and facilitation support between the production function and the 
value chain driver function (collection, processing and export/retail sales). NOA’s Chief of Party (COP) 
interacts at the policy level to address short- and long-run issues, including credit accessibility, donor 
coordination, import and export customs regulations, and product price considerations. The “field to 
fork” nature of the technical and facilitation support provided by the project enables project staff to 
acquire an understanding of technical production and market facilitation issues within the context of 
their relevance to policy initiatives. 
Production Technology Transfer Advice and Support: At the production level, NOA introduces growers to 
crop varieties and production technologies that have proven successful in other countries with similar 
climatic conditions. The new planting material is made available to selected demonstration growers who 
introduce the variety and technology into different regions around the country. Soil tests are required 
for all grantees receiving new varieties using the newly upgraded facilities at the Peja Agricultural 
Institute. NOA then schedules farmer field days to explain and demonstrate the results. 
More than 50 new varieties of lettuce have been introduced in several regions through existing lettuce 
growers. New varieties of strawberry, blueberry, and blackberry rootstock, and table grape have been 
provided to carefully selected growers. New gherkin varieties were introduced to farmers through 
collection centers. 
Number of Full Time Equivalent Jobs
Created * 
Value Chain Years 
2011 2012 2013
Table Grape 0 257 486
Apple 0 110 153
Raspberry 0 82 220
Strawberry 0 127 71
Blueberry 0 5 4
Blackberry 0 0 0
Saffron 12 0 16
Asparagus 4 7 21
Gherkins 39 13 174
Lettuce 35 19 80
Field 
Vegetables 
0 0 0
MAP 0 0 0
Dairy 0 0 676
Source: NOA Project Monitoring Information 
System 
*FTE is calculated at 225 days per year 
17 
 
More than five new disease- free apple varieties, requiring innovative but proven technologies (Italian), 
were introduced through four nursery operations around the country by providing grafted planting 
material free of charge. Nursery managers maintain the material for a year and then sell them to local 
farmers charging only their own management cost. A key element is that the nurseries provide full 
technical support to farmers buying the materials. 
NOA also introduced new table grape varieties, both seeded and seedless, with the aim of increasing 
yields from a current average of 8 mt per hectare to 16 - 20 mt per hectare. To develop a supportive 
enabling environment, the project supports formation of business development service providers to 
spray vineyards against diseases and is training growers in canopy management, trellising, and cluster 
thinning. 
Value Chain Driver Technology Transfer Support: The central aspect of NOA’s value chain driver support is 
the emphasis placed on establishment and operation of physical crop collection centers through 
identification of value chain drivers; some of them are processors, or direct exporters. The most 
common form of collection center operates only as a first level farm product buyer that grades and 
aggregates raw product for resale to processors, exporters and domestic retail markets 
NOA’s staff provides important initial linkage coordination between farmers and collection centers and 
between collection centers and other buyers further up the value chain. NOA requires first level 
collection centers, as a condition of receiving a development grant, to enter into seasonal contracts with 
growers. Only a few collection centers provide trade credits under these contracts to support out￾grower purchase of fertilizers and other inputs, but almost always provide technical support and planting 
materials to their out-growers. NOA provides initial technology transfer training to collection center 
staff and has introduced an innovative human resource grant that provides up to 75% cost support 
payment for one year, for a technology transfer intern to work directly with out-growers. Most 
collection center managers continued employment of this specialist after grant expiration. 
To strengthen local partnerships, NOA grants require collection stations to enter into formal contracts 
with out-growers and to provide payment under the contracted terms. This encourages commercial 
transparency by both the product seller and the buyer. In the past, most sales were conducted 
informally and were largely non-transparent. 
Improved Food Quality and Safety: NOA’s staff also works directly with large-scale fruit and vegetable 
processors and exporters linking them back to collection stations and forward to retail or export 
buyers. Technology transfer support is provided by introducing new fruit and vegetable processing 
equipment compatible with prevailing food safety health and quality control, and by supporting activities 
requisite to gaining Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)2 quality and safety 
certification. Gaining HACCP certification is a lengthy process and requires implementers to put up 
significant capital to modify infrastructure in accordance with HACCP principles. Through FY13, NOA 
worked with 13 enterprises toward HACCP certification with three attaining certification. 
The Global Good Agricultural Practice (GlobalGAP)3 is also a difficult certification process, but one that 
is more essential for growers who export fresh fruits and vegetable to major European Union (EU) 
markets. Six producers received GlobalGAP certification in FY13 with 7 more working toward 
certification. 
4.1.1.3 Impact of counterpart grants and institutional collaboration (with government, 
non-government business network partners) on development of agriculture enterprises 
Counterpart grants and institutional collaboration with government and non-government business 
network partners is an important implementation vehicle to facilitate the technology transfer and 
market linkage aspects of NOA, and to support development of collection center, processor, and 
 
2 HACCP is a private sector voluntary processing level food safety certification program 3 GlobalGAP is a private sector voluntary production level food safety certification program 
18 
 
exporter value chain driver agribusiness support enterprises. This is a cross-cutting activity that 
facilitates work conducted under all NOA components. 
NOA issued 126 grants through January 2014 across all value chains. Production related activities 
accounted for 70%, with the bulk of the remainder allocated for post-harvest handling activities, 
including cold storage development for collection centers, and human resource development training for 
food processors and exporters. Nearly all grants issued during the first two years were oriented to 
production projects designed to introduce new crop varieties and technologies. During 2013, most 
grants provided support for post-harvest handling procedures, including grading and sizing machines and 
small-scale storage, or receiving and grading facilities for collection centers. 
Grants for demonstration projects to introduce new varieties are generally fully funded by NOA and 
provide seed or other planting material, as well as special technology such as drip irrigation or trellising 
for grapes and gherkins. In other cases, where larger trial processes are introduced - construction of 
collection center storage and handling space, anti-hail covers, and orchard planting materials and trellises 
- NOA provides up to 75% of the total cost but average support usually does not exceed 60% of costs. 
An innovative approach involves the provision of services of trained interns to provide out-grower 
agronomic support for a 6-month period, with NOA covering up to 75% of the cost. In several cases, 
the beneficiary continued employing the intern and paying the complete salary, creating a new position 
with the firm as well as employment for a recent graduate. 
NOA provided initial financial and technical support to facilitate the formation of an EAU within 
MAFRD, and provided technical support and advice in setting up a national Agricultural Extension 
Service (AES) based on utilizing current municipal agricultural extension workers. MAFRD intends to 
assimilate these into a unified national program but fiscal issues remain. An internet connectivity 
program designed and implemented by a private sector portal went online the last week of January 
2014, providing information flows between specialists, farmers and extension workers. With NOA’s 
facilitation during the Transparent Raw Milk Sampling (TRMS) Program development phase, the Kosovo 
Association of Milk Processors (KAMP) and Kosovo Dairy Producers Association (KDPA) have taken on 
responsibility for collecting monthly milk samples from dairy producers. Samples are sent for analysis to 
the staff of the MAFRD Food and Veterinary Department (FVD) laboratory. NOA provided a training 
grant to the quality control division of a Pristina pharmaceutical company to train FVD staff in equipment 
calibration and milk sample processing. 
NOA works closely with the ADA program that has provided many small-scale growers with plastic 
greenhouses, as well as technical training in the use of greenhouse facilities to cultivate improved gherkin 
and other labor-intensive crops. In one case, NOA provided a matching grant to enable a village level 
collection center to construct a physical collection and grading facility that complements a cold storage 
facility provided by a matching grant from the ADA. 
NOA works closely with major food processors and exporters, providing cost sharing grants to install 
specialized food processing and quality control equipment on a cost sharing grant basis. In this way, the 
project has effectively demonstrated efficiencies associated with commercial food processing and 
improved quality control in the processing and packaging of fresh lettuce destined for several major 
supermarket chains in Kosovo. 
Facilitating the MAFRD’s matching grant program has further led to the construction of three new large￾scale collection centers, including cold storage and packing centers with capacities of between 2,000 to 
6,000 mt. Several large scale MAP dryers were supported to expanded MAP collection and processing 
for the export market. 
Given the high prevailing interest rates, NOA’s matching grant program can be viewed as a surrogate 
credit program as beneficiaries are carefully selected using a competitive bidding process that is generally 
more rigorous than a bank risk analysis procedure. The program also enables winners to substantially 
reduce the size of loan required to purchase the grant provided investment. 
19 
 
4.1.1.4 Project influence on GoK programs and private sector partners (including the 
financial sector institutions) 
Increased affordable and accessible credit: Working on the supporting component to develop affordable 
and accessible credit, NOA’s staff successfully facilitated the GoK Development Credit Authority 
(DCA), a US Government loan guarantee program designed to facilitate bank lending to private sector 
enterprises in developing economies. Kosovo is unique among countries using the DCA facility because 
the GoK covers the full premium cost. 
A recent assessment of the program reveals that in the period September 26, 2012 to September 30 
2013, 376 agricultural loans worth $6,596,238 were issued (out of $9M dedicated to the Kosovo 
agriculture and agribusiness community) – with 88% for longer term investment and the remaining 12% 
for working capital. Average loan size was $17,543, with loans ranging from $5,000 to $156,000. The 
average term of 39 months further implies that most loans are investment type and suggests borrowers 
are expanding their physical plant size or purchasing capital equipment. 
While actual rates interest ranged from 9% to 23%, the average rate of 13.9% remains higher than rates 
found in developed economies. Higher rates are associated with smaller- and shorter-term loans. In 
addition to actual interest rates, banks often charge up to a 2% service fee, thus raising the actual 
borrowing rate above the stated interest rate. 
Loans of less than $10,000 comprised 22% of all loans, and loans greater than $50,000 comprised 36% of 
all loans. Bank interest lending rates range from 10% to 18% for mid- to long-term loans. Field surveys 
revealed that larger scale, better capitalized growers and processors were able to get mid-term loans at 
interest rates of 10% to 13%, while smaller firms were charged rates up to 18%. The data indicate that 
banks lowered interest rates for customers with successful repayment histories. 
Policy Support: NOA’s COP provides targeted policy guidance to MAFRD, and works with the Ministry of 
Trade (MoT), Ministry of Finance (MoF), as well as the banking sector and other Ministries to address 
credit, and value chain linkage issues. Some activities are related to long-term issues while others are 
related to addressing high profile short-term issues. 
An example of the former is the recently approved TRMS dairy price incentive program that provides 
up to a 6 Euro cent per kg premium for high quality milk. An example of the latter addresses illegal 
import pricing of processed poultry coming from a neighboring country that heavily and illegally 
subsidized its export poultry industry. An important value chain policy activity involved development of 
a competitive bidding process for use by MAFRD for evaluating proposals submitted by processors and 
exporters to receive financial support from GoK for construction of large scale collection centers, 
including significant cold storage and fresh produce grading, packaging and quality certification 
technology. NOA’s leadership recently facilitated a MAFRD grant to the Korenica Women’s 
Association for purchase of a second hand milk storage cooling unit. 
In addition, NOA’s staff facilitated passage of legislation reducing value added tax (VAT) to zero for 
small farmers including milk producers. This has the effect of encouraging farmers to become legally 
registered and gain the ability to reclaim VAT paid on purchased inputs. It also facilitates accounting 
practices for milk processors who did not have to pay VAT on imported milk but must pay the tax 
when buying domestically produced milk. 
As mentioned in Section 4.1.1.3, NOA provided assistance with the establishment of EAU within 
MAFRD. The EAU was formed to provide MAFRD with an internal economic analysis unit able to 
support development of analysis to facilitate policy development and implementation in the MAFRD. 
EAU type units at the ministerial level are often required to assess and vet policy options for use by 
senior policy officials in assessing the merits of alternative long-term policy options and to address 
recurring short-term policy implementation issues. The EAU is not yet working to its full potential in 
this capacity as government funds to hire the highly qualified technical staff needed to staff such a full 
unit are lacking. Consequently, NOA’s staff continues to provide value chain and technology transfer 
expert input and analysis to support the MAFRD policy-making functions. 
20 
 
NOA also initially provided a full time policy advisor to the Minister to support the development of 
policy initiatives and provide expertise needed to develop an agricultural policy reform dialogue. The 
position was phased out in July 2012. 
4.1.1.5 Project impact on facilitating credit to farmers 
Apart from facilitating and supporting development of the DCA’s lending facility, NOA facilitates 
communication between beneficiaries and formal credit institutions. NOA’s staff provided such 
facilitation support to 142 beneficiaries in FY13, against a target of 240. NOA’s staff also developed a 
set of gross margin calculations for each value chain with which they work, and have used this 
information in training courses for bank lending officers. Through this mechanism, NOA is encouraging 
banks to adopt objective risk analysis procedures into their agricultural lending portfolio. 
4.1.1.6 Project impact on facilitating involvement of women in the Kosovo’s agricultural 
sector 
Women make essential contributions to the Kosovo agricultural and rural economies. Their roles vary 
considerably between and within regions and are changing rapidly in many parts of Kosovo, where 
economic and social organizations are transforming the agricultural sector. Rural women often manage 
complex household tasks and pursue multiple livelihood strategies. Their activities typically include 
producing agricultural crops, tending animals, processing and preparing food, working for wages in 
agricultural or other rural enterprises, engaging in trade and marketing, caring for family members and 
maintaining their homes. Many of these activities are not defined as “economically active employment” 
in national accounts but they are essential to the well-being of rural households and, in many cases, have 
a direct impact on raising farm family income. In the rural agricultural context, female leadership roles 
take on three forms: 1) wives working in partnership with husbands in the farm business; 2) women 
taking a lead role in business management; and 3) women, in the absence of husbands, taking the lead 
role as business entrepreneurs. 
NOA has integrated these three female leadership roles throughout its activities. During the field 
interviews, the Evaluation Team observed several husband/wife business teams. One case was a lettuce 
growing and processing operation in which the husband managed the growing and harvesting side of the 
enterprise while the wife handled the processing and packing side of the operation. In the second case, 
the husband managed the crop production activities and the wife operated an independent business 
enterprise consisting of processing fruits into marmalades and jams. In the third case, a group of more 
than 50 women who lost husbands during the recent war formed an association though which they 
collect milk for sale to a local milk processing plant, and, with NOA’s support, are initiating a 
commercial cheese processing operation. Among the 50 women, each member received one cow 
through the International Heifer Project. They also received an initial milk storage tank through a KPEP 
grant, and NOA facilitated the acquisition of a second milk tank through a MAFRD grant. This is a 
thriving group that has future plans to begin processing cheese and highlights NOA’s approach to 
empowering women since it raises the profile of the producers to commercial farmers. 
In FY13, NOA initiated the Gender Empowerment Matrix (GEM) program. Measurements are made 
across five domains of empowerment, based on a biannual survey of farming families involved with 
NOA’s value chain. With a FY13 GEM4 target score of 10, NOA’s female project participants recorded 
a score of 35, a significant increase over the target value. NOA also supports a “Woman Farmer of the 
Year” award program in conjunction with MAFRD and other donors - notably UNDP. 
NOA’s PMP indicates that the technical knowledge of female farmers has increased as a result of field 
and classroom-based crop productivity trainings addressing drip irrigation, fertigation (applying fertilizer 
through drip irrigation technology), Integrated Pest Management (IPM), open field and greenhouse crop 
production, micro spraying, trellising, plastic mulch, pruning and harvesting. Survey data indicates 
 
4
 GEM cores are the sum of weighted individual scores for the five domains of empowerment: Production, 
Resources, Income, Leadership, and Time. 
21 
 
moderate to high levels of women decision making in crop production activities including choice of crop, 
planting area, new technology adoption, marketing options, and contracting. 
NOA has made at least seven grants or subcontracts to women operating as lead farmers in the 
production of crops, including gherkin, field berry, asparagus, strawberry and pepper. NOA also 
provided financial and technical support to 3 associations of women, one group of 11women that is 
developing a food processing enterprise, a second group of 50 women that manage a milk collection 
center for the association members, and another group of 17 women that jointly grow fefferoni (chili) 
peppers. 
These examples of direct participation of women as entrepreneurial business leaders illustrate that many 
women, when provided with the opportunity, demonstrate capacity to successfully initiate and manage 
business enterprises. However, in many cases, to become successful entrepreneurs, they must 
overcome cultural barriers that in the past have constrained most women to secondary roles, limiting 
their exposure to influences outside the immediate family and keeping them within the traditional 
gender role of maintaining the household and raising children. 
The fact that NOA has been able to identify several husband/wife business partnership teams, and 
several other women who are enterprise leaders and managers in their own right, speaks well of the 
openness of the Kosovar rural culture to break with past traditions. With NOA’s support, banks 
operating within the DCA program are increasingly accepting joint signatures of husbands and wives on 
their loans. This additional leverage can provide an incentive to further expand the lead role of women 
in the NOA project. 
4.1.2 Conclusions 
• NOA had a significant impact in the increase of domestic sales of supported crops. The project 
exceeded the target of $8M by $33.9M. 
• NOA reduced imports but fell short of meeting its target by $1.6M. 
• NOA exceeded its target in generating export sales by $3.2M. 
• NOA’s interventions resulted in 1,984 total new jobs, exceeding target values, especially in the table 
grape, dairy and raspberry value chains. 
• Field interviews with NOA’s grant participants provide strong evidence that the impact on crop 
yields is very high from the introduction of NOA’s imported new crop varieties, proper fertilizers, 
and production techniques such as trellises for gherkins, pome fruits and table grape, and thus on 
total output. 
• Expansion of apple and table grape domestic production is required to reduce the current high level 
of imports but both require several years after planting to attain full yield potential. Therefore, the 
import substitution impact on current production levels understates the full import substitution 
potential from current NOA activities. 
• NOA was instrumental in the establishment of crop collection centers. Introduction of formal 
contracts between growers and value chain drivers (collection centers, processors, exporters and 
retailers) provide commercial transparency between buyers and sellers and promote grower entry 
into the formal market network. 
• NOA’s grant activity provides important financial and technology transfer support to facilitate 
grower and collection center adherence to and certification by internationally recognized food 
safety and quality standards, including GlobalGAP and HACCP, which are requisite for penetrating 
export markers and high-end domestic supermarkets and restaurant outlets. 
• NOA provides targeted commodity policy analysis and support to MAFRD that facilitates sector 
reform legislation, regulations and interpretations designed to further leverage its technical 
assistance and market linkage activities. 
• Interest rates to farmers using the NOA-facilitated and GoK-financed DCA are, on average, lower 
than those paid by growers and value chain drivers taking loans from non-DCA sources. 
• The NOA Women Empowerment Program is successfully promoting women as lead farm 
producers and using development grants to provide initial startup capital. The “Woman Farmer of 
22 
 
the Year” award program is implemented in conjunction with MAFRD and other donors – notably 
UNDP – and recognizes outstanding women farm business leaders. 
4.2 SECTION II: NOA’S CURRENT EFFECTIVENESS 
4.2.1 Findings 
4.2.1.1 Project effectiveness on strengthening agriculture support institutions 
Agricultural support institutions are public and private sector service organizations and institutions that 
carry out technical and policy support activities that include: 1) public sector seed and planting material 
quality control laboratories; 2) industry associations that lobby for legislation and support member 
interests; and 3) ministerial level policy research and analysis units such as the EAU initiated with NOA’s 
support. 
Public sector seed and planting material quality control laboratories: NOA provides direct support to the 
Rahovec Agricultural Institute (RAI) and indirect support to the Peja Agricultural Institute (PAI). RAI 
has received new imported grape varieties for testing and further propagation as nursery stock for sake 
to farmers. NOA uses services of PAI for conducting soil sample analysis for beneficiaries to ensure 
proper application of fertilizers and other soil nutrients. 
Both RAI and PAI serve an important scientific role by providing quality control testing and 
administrative import quality control functions, but are poorly funded and cannot adequately provide 
their intended services without additional trained staff and upgraded facilities. However, since Kosovo is 
now on track for EU accession, facility and staff upgrades are best provided within the EU development 
support structure, rather than within the USAID development structure. 
Industry associations that lobby for legislation and support member interests: NOA provides valuable 
organizational and technical support services to industry associations and works with them to present 
positions to government leaders. Among these industry associations are the KDPA and KAMP, that 
respectively support dairy producers and processors that were organized by NOA predecessor projects 
but now receive strong support from NOA. 
PePeKo, an association of food processors that regularly reviews industry issues and develops 
educations programs for members, as well as Plant Kosova, an association of nursery industry managers 
that provides valuable institutional services, including training and upgrading member skills, developing 
legal and regulatory reform positions, and lobbying initiatives to bring about industry level reforms, were 
both organized by NOA. 
In the past year KDPA and KAMP contributed to industry product quality improvement, including: 1) 
development of the TRMS milk quality program; and 2) development of planting material import control 
regulations to prevent importation of disease free new seeds. PePeKo recently completed a business to 
business (B2B) consultancy to Macedonia to promote cooperation with counterparts in bordering 
countries and has developed a two year work plan. 
Ministerial level policy research and analysis units such as the EAU: The EAU provides MAFRD with the 
analytical capacity to conduct independent long-term and short-term research into pressing policy 
issues. Work in organizing and supporting this unit falls under NOA’s overarching component of 
“strengthening sector coordination and leadership within MAFRD.” The recently completed Green 
Report that addresses Kosovo’s food import substitution is an example of the type of analysis that can be 
undertaken by this unit. The EAU has the potential to become the MAFRD’s premier policy, strategy, 
and program formulation center, with ability to develop and discuss alternative sector policies and 
strategies and serve as a coordination center for bringing together university and donor representatives 
that develop mutually reinforcing programs. Currently, NOA has largely and successfully carried out 
this role with significant results as developed in Section 4.1.1.5. In FY13, NOA has coordinated or been 
a part of 18 donor roundtable or workshop events against a target of 12. 
23 
 
Other institution building support: NOA provided a training grant to the quality control division of an 
international pharmaceutical company to conduct training to the MAFRD FVD on calibration and use of 
laboratory equipment needed to conduct the milk quality tests associated with the recently enacted 
TRMS program. Training was also provided to KAMP and KDPA staff members who take the producer 
samples for this program. 
4.2.1.2 Project effectiveness in identifying policy constraints, initiating policy reforms, 
and impact of policy decisions on private agribusiness 
NOA’s SOW states that: 
“The most serious constraints facing Kosovo’s agricultural sector and, hence, the success of this 
activity, are weaknesses in government policies and practices, financial systems that do not service 
the agricultural sector very well, infrastructure inadequacies, a lack of the needed organizational 
structures to reach small farmers, and continuing export market access issues and shortages of 
human resources with necessary skills.” 
NOA implemented a number of interventions on identifying policy constraints and initiating policy 
reforms. These interventions are summarized in Figure 4. 
Figure 4: Impact of NOA Policy Support Initiatives 
Policy 
Issue/Action 
Description Impact 
VAT Reform Reduce VAT for farm 
level milk sales to 0. 
Increase farm level income and encourage farmers to 
form a legal commercial enterprise and reclaim VAT paid 
on purchased inputs. This also reduces milk price paid by 
processors to producers 
TRMS Provides up to 6 euro 
cents price premium 
for high quality milk 
Sets up an interagency coordination mechanism that 
enables KDPA and KAMP to take farm level milk samples 
for testing by the FVD quality control laboratory. The 
MAFRD will transfer an estimated 1.5M euros annually to 
farmers producing high quality milk. This also encourages 
farmers to register as commercial legal entities. 
MAFRD Grant 
Activities 
Facilitate MAFRD to 
provide grant support 
to expand collection 
centers 
NOA has worked closely with MAFRD in implementing a 
major grant program to support construction of three 
major fresh produce collection centers meeting 
international quality control standards. These centers 
will serve to further increase farm and value chain driver 
income. 
National 
Agricultural 
Extension 
Service 
Facilitate formation of a 
national AES currently 
funded by Municipalities 
with modest support 
from the World Bank. 
Creates the potential for a national Extension Service 
with a single unified management and training structure, 
pending resolution of the fiscal and human resource 
policy constraints currently imposed by IMF on GoK size 
and cost 
EAU Conduct economic 
analysis 
Conducts policy and related analysis reporting directly to 
the MAFRD Deputy Minister to support rational policy 
decision making and improved policy implementation. 
NOA Staff 
Analysis 
Support 
Conduct economic and 
technical policy analysis 
Provides technical and policy analysis and facilitation to 
the MAFRD Deputy Minister pending full development of 
the EAU 
NOA supported four major and successful policy initiatives: 1) VAT reform; 2) TRMS milk sampling 
quality improvement program; 3) the MAFRD large-scale collection center facility construction program; 
24 
 
and 4) formation of a new national Agricultural Extension Service (AES) to be financially supported by 
the World Bank. 
VAT reform that set VAT rates at 0% for dairy producers, creates a major incentive for small-scale dairy 
producers to register as legal entities, and reduces raw milk costs to processors. VAT is currently set 
at 20% for most products, which means that dairy processors are required to add 20% onto the price 
paid to producers. This in turn can raise the cost of domestically produced milk above that for 
imported milk on which no VAT is collected and can provide an incentive for dairy processors to pay 
producers in cash and operate in the non-transparent grey market. Within this context, many dairy 
producers are not registered as legal entities. They view this as an advantage as they prefer to receive 
income in cash thus avoiding payment of income or profit taxes. However, under the VAT tax reform 
that incorporates a 0% VAT on raw milk sales, dairy processors are not required to add VAT onto 
domestic program and dairy producers, by registering as legal entities, can recover the VAT tax levied 
on the cost of purchased, thus providing incentive for both parties to trade within the price transparent 
formal sector. 
The TRMS milk quality program creates further incentives for farmers to register as legal entities and 
encourages the adoption of hygienic and farm level milk handling processes to increase farm income and 
improve milk quality and safety. The Transparent Raw Milk Sampling (TRMS) system delivers data by 
SMS to dairy producers, which enables dairy farmers and dairy plants to act faster in addressing any 
problems with raw milk quality. Within 24 hours of supplying raw milk samples for testing to the KFVA 
(Kosovo Food and Veterinary Agency), farmers receive results and they can then undertake immediate 
interventions to improve the health of their dairy herd, modify the hygienic conditions of their dairy 
barns and facilities, and adjust feeding levels as needed. 
The MAFRD support to private sector program recognizes and provides financial support for fresh 
produce collection, handling, packaging, and labelling capacity to upgrade the quality of domestic food 
supplies and to meet international food safety standards. All municipalities have technical extension 
agents to provide technology transfer training to local farmers. Without a central management and 
training structure there is no common program implementation or training approach. NOA began 
providing support to restructure the Agriculture Extension Services (AES) department of the MAFRD 
through intensive technical trainings to municipal extension agents in the winter of 2013. Through these 
measures, NOA has supported AES in the development of a methodology for extension agents to reach 
farmers through the election of lead farmers in all municipalities. NOA includes these municipal 
extension agents in their training programs and now provides facilitation support to MAFRD for the 
purpose of ultimately forming a unified national AES, which will be initially funded by the World Bank. 
EAU activities were discussed in Section 4.1.1.5, but the current lack of capacity in this unit has required 
the NOA staff, primarily the COP, to coordinate and facilitate analysis and formulation of policy options. 
The unit is not yet working to its full potential as government funds to hire the highly qualified technical 
personnel needed to staff such a full unit are lacking. As a result, NOA’s staff provides value chain and 
technology transfer expert input and analysis to support the policy making functions of the unit. Within 
this context, as shown by the results generated in Figure 4, NOA’s support has been effective. 
4.2.1.3 Impact of project implementation approach and strategies on development of 
agriculture enterprises, including small-scale family farming enterprises 
Kosovo has a fertile agricultural landscape, but the mountainous and hilly terrain has left many rural 
residents with only small plots of land from which to earn a living. Thus, NOA, with its emphasis on 
labor-intensive high-value crops can be very effective in increasing rural employment and reducing rural 
poverty. 
Direct linkage to collection centers, using formal contracting procedures introduced by NOA, reduces a 
major small grower market risk factor. This process improves the long-term financial viability of the 
small-scale family business and the adopted technology transfer approach encourages collection centers 
and lead farmers to systematically train and support small-scale farmers in acquiring improved planting 
25 
 
materials and apply appropriate fertilizers and disease control technologies that result in increased per 
unit crop yields. 
The project does not publish information that identifies the impact on small-scale farm families, but the 
Evaluation Team’s discussion with NOA’s staff, value chain drivers, and farm level beneficiaries, indicated 
that a majority of direct and indirect beneficiaries farm less than three hectares of land and, in many 
cases, produce commercial products on unheated greenhouses of 500 m2 or less. Value chain 
commodities most often grown by small-scale farmers include gherkins, peppers, cabbage, strawberry, 
blackberry, blueberry, and table grapes. MAP products are also very suitable for families with a limited 
capital base and underemployed labor resources. Construction of collection centers that are able to 
link these growers with processors and exporters provide clear evidence that NOA’s market linkage 
activities, combined with technology transfer activities, provide the basis for increasing incomes of rural 
farm families. 
During interviews with stakeholders, the Evaluation Team identified MAP as a valuable export 
commodity. The MAP lead processor and exporter, who received major capital investment support, 
stated that there is a strong desire among small-scale growers to expand domestic production. He also 
commented that 95% of his MAP products are exported. The 5% that remain in Kosovo is oregano 
used for local tea products. 
This theme was repeated to the Evaluation Team while in western Kosovo. In this area, a fresh produce 
export company with a direct ownership link to a Kosovo diaspora-owned importing company in 
Germany provides a market to growers of traditional pepper (sumborka), gherkin, cabbage, and table 
grape. NOA is facilitating this effort by supporting the development of demonstration plots to 
introduce new crop varieties and growing technologies. New trellis technologies are being introduced 
for table grapes and for gherkins. 
4.2.1.4 Effectiveness of Farmer to Farmer activities on supporting project objectives 
The project has effectively utilized 13 farmer to farmer (FtF) volunteers to date. FtF volunteers, most of 
whom are retired technical specialists, provided specialized technology transfer support in the areas of 
cheese making, lettuce and gherkin production, and asparagus cultivation. One volunteer produced an 
initial table grape evaluation study that identified the recommended varieties to import and the 
production technology training support required to increase yields. The close integration of the FtF 
volunteer program, which is administered by a subcontractor within NOA’s implementation framework, 
provides an example of excellent coordination on the part of both implementing parties who are not 
always present. 
4.2.2 Conclusions 
• NOA has been effective in supporting public sector agriculture institutions. The institutes that NOA 
supports serve an important scientific role by providing quality control testing and administrative 
import quality control functions; however, they are in need of funds and cannot adequately provide 
their intended services without additional trained staff and upgraded facilities. 
• NOA’s efforts to strengthen industry associations, including KDPA, KAMP, Plant Kosovo and 
PePeKo, to develop industry policy and legislative recommendations is playing a role in 
strengthening democratic policymaking that can have a positive impact on increasing sector incomes, 
expanding exports, reducing dependence on foreign imports, as well as increasing laws and 
regulations and improving membership knowledgebase. 
• NOA’s policy development support to MAFRD’s leadership has had a major positive impact on 
formation of a legal, regulatory policy and strategy reform environment that facilitates NOA’s 
project technology transfer and market linkage component results and supports private sector 
commercial development. 
• The MAFRD EAU that NOA has established has had some initial successes in preparing policy￾related economic analysis reports. 
26 
 
• Direct linkage to collection centers that NOA established, using formal contracting procedures, 
helps reduce a major small grower market risk factor and improves the long-run financial viability of 
the small-scale family business. 
• The MAP sector has the potential for quickly increasing the number of women beneficiaries and 
strengthening the project focus on reducing rural unemployment and poverty. 
• The FtF program is well integrated into NOA and the 13 volunteers have, to date, provided very 
effective and valuable grower training and support. 
4.2.3 Recommendations 
• Current technical support provided by NOA to the various publicly supported research institutes is 
very appropriate but any requests by these institutes for additional financial support to augment staff 
or physical infrastructure should be directed to EU donors as future development of these institutes 
will take place under the evolving EU legal and institutional environment. 
• NOA’s approach to strengthening private sector industry associations is on target and should 
continue. 
• NOA’s current project activities in the MAP sector should be quickly expanded to increase their 
impact on women and farm families with limited access to capital and sufficient labor surplus by 
holding grant competitions to support the purchase of small-scale, collection center level drying 
equipment and expand production of specialized medicinal and aromatic crops, including black 
marshmallow and chamomile. 
• NOA’s FtF program model should be used by USAID in designing future FtF programs. 
4.3. SECTION III: NOA’S POTENTIAL FOR ACHIEVING PROJECT OBJECTIVES, 
POST NOA SUSTAINABILITY, AND PMP MODIFICATION 
4.3.1 Findings 
4.3.1.1 NOAs potential for achieving current project objectives. Modifications or 
changes needed to achievement of current project objectives 
NOA’s potential for achieving its current objectives. Based on discussions with NOA project staff, with 
NOA project beneficiaries and with MAFRD officials, as well as barring unforeseen obstacles, all major 
NOA objectives and targets will be met by the project closeout date of February 2015. 
NOA is well-managed, with a well-trained and motivated technical and administrative staff that is 
committed to supporting the project beneficiaries and strengthening the processing and marketing 
enterprises and private sector production with which it works. Grants, requiring matching beneficiary 
cost support are overall well-targeted and well managed. Farm level demonstration grants, including 
higher yielding seeds and planting material, accompanied by improved technology such as drip irrigation, 
trellising for grapes, gherkins, apples and pears, are well-targeted among identified community farm 
leaders and value chain drivers. 
The Evaluation Team noted in several cases that this technology transfer support was provided to highly 
capitalized crop farming operations that were either buying from neighboring small-farmer growers or 
intending to buy from them. This enabled participants to perform the very important collection center 
function that is an absolute requirement for drawing the small-scale family farmer into the commercial 
value chain linkage community. These larger farmers also served as the focus of several NOA sponsored 
field days with farmers attending from all over Kosovo. 
4.3.1.3 Sustainability of current project activities and actions needed to improve 
sustainability 
Value Chain Sustainability: Long-run sustainability of project activities relates directly to the ability of 
current NOA direct and indirect beneficiaries to maintain farm business profitability. The strategic 
strength of NOA is its focus on creating collection centers with the technical capability and the financial 
27 
 
capacity to collect raw product, meet quality standards, provide initial postharvest processing and 
grading functions, and move it upward in the value chain for further processing or sale to available 
domestic or export markets. 
Within this context, the main factor for the success of the NOA project value chain is the ability of 
value chain participants to financially support their individual business operations. The primary driver 
measuring value chain financial outcomes is gross margin, which is defined as the difference between 
total income derived from an enterprise and the variable costs incurred. Variable costs include input 
costs and annual capital expenditure. 
Table 5 below was developed by NOA and used the following equation to calculate gross margin shown 
in the first column of the figure below: 
Gross margin = Revenue – (Input costs) – (Capital expenditures + depreciation)
To incorporate the cost of capital into the gross margin analysis the Evaluation Team added interest 
costs associated with a €20,000 loan over a one-year period and then recalculated the change to gross 
margins at various interest rate levels.5
All NOA supported value chains, with the exception of cabbage, are financially sustainable with interest 
rates of 10% or lower, assuming that farmers face credit repayment costs on a loan value of €20,000. 
However, only strawberries, lettuce, table grapes and raspberries have positive cash flows with interest 
rates at 30%. Saffron, asparagus, and apples become unprofitable at 25% interest rates; chamomile, 
gherkins, and peppers become unprofitable at 20% interest rates; and cabbage becomes unprofitable at 
10% interest rates. Although NOA does not work with field grain crops, the interest rate weighted 
gross margin calculations demonstrate that these crops are significantly less profitable than the more 
labor-intensive high value crops promoted through the NOA Project. 
Figure 5: Per Hectare Gross Margin* Calculations for NOA Value Chain Production 
Enterprises 
Field Crop 
Gross 
Margin 
with no 
loan 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
5% 
interest 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
10% 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
15% 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
20% 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
25% 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
30% 
Strawberry 12,969 11,969 10,969 9,969 8,969 7,969 6,969
Lettuce 11,693 10,693 9,693 8,693 7,693 6,693 5,693
Table grapes 7,604 6,604 5,604 4,604 3,604 2,604 1,604
Raspberries 6,086 5,086 4,086 3,086 2,086 1,086 86
Saffron 5,035 4,035 3,035 2,035 1,035 35 (965)
Asparagus 4,921 3,921 2,921 1,921 921 (79) (1,079)
Apples 4,789 3,789 2,789 1,789 789 (211) (1,211)
Chamomile 3,530 2,530 1,530 530 (470) (1,470) (2,470)
Peppers 3,514 2,514 1,514 514 (486) (1,486) (2,486)
Gherkins 3,218 2,218 1,218 218 (782) (1,782) (2,782)
Cabbage 1,464 464 (536) (1,536) (2,536) (3,536) (4,536)
Maize grain 592 (408) (1,408) (2,408) (3,408) (4,408) (5,408)
 
5 A €20,000 loan was selected as the basis for calculating the impact of interest rates on value chain profitability as it represents 
an average investment cost for constructing a 1,000 m2 plastic greenhouse with irrigation. This is a typical size for small￾grower. Some investment costs may be higher, for example, modern apple orchard costs may be as high as €35,000, while 
other start-up investment costs may be lower. 
28 
 
Field Crop 
Gross 
Margin 
with no 
loan 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
5% 
interest 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
10% 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
15% 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
20% 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
25% 
Gross 
Margin 
minus 
30% 
Wheat dry 341 (659) (1,659) (2.659) (3,659) (4,659) (5,659)
*Gross margin per hectare for selected field crops grown in Kosovo, assuming production at 
modest levels of management and including the cost of depreciated capital over a reasonable life of 
the investment ranked by annual margin in Euros. 
Sustainability of value chain drivers is dependent on the ability to compete on price and quality with 
similar or identical imported products. This, in part, depends on favorable macro-economic conditions 
affecting fixed and variable costs of the individual enterprises. It is also dependent on retaining and even 
expanding retail and export markets. The Evaluation Team obtained a very positive image of the value 
chain drivers interviewed in the course of the evaluation. Most had good business vision and thus, 
barring currently unforeseen political or economic conditions, the vast majority of the firms will remain 
viable after the phase out of NOA’s technical support. 
The above positive discussion of value chain sustainability relates only to the current set of NOA’s 
beneficiaries. Given the underlying assumptions, the Evaluation Team is of the opinion that the majority 
of the current beneficiaries will continue to evolve positively after withdrawal of NOA’s technical 
support. However, the positive impact that NOA has had on reducing rural poverty and unemployment 
from expanding access of capital poor small-scale farmers to new planting materials, modern production 
technologies, and linkage to expanding domestic and export markets will not continue after NOA’s 
completion date. 
MAFRD Policy Analysis and Coordination Capacity: The Evaluation Team is positive about the forward￾looking vision of the current MAFRD leadership. However, concern was expressed by the Advisor to 
the MAFRD Minister that without continued NOA commodity policy support, the current momentum 
that is supportive of the market linkage and technology transfer development activities cannot continue. 
He indicated that long run sustainability is dependent on the ability of the new EAU to sufficiently 
expand its staff and policy analysis expertise base. While enjoying some initial success, for example the 
recent publishing of the Green Report, based on the discussion with the Ministerial Advisor, EAU will not 
be financially or technically self-sustaining by NOA’s completion date. 
4.3.1.4 Improving project Performance Management Plan to provide better data and 
information for management decision making 
The causal relationship between NOA’s activities and the PMP domestic and export sales and the FTE 
indicators is not identified, and the contribution of the specific value chain level (grower, collection 
station, processor and exporter) to the total cannot be determined from the published reports. 
Explanation of NOA’s causal impact is dependent on: 1) number of beneficiaries; 2) yield per hectare; 
and 3) total hectares. This information is not currently contained in the published reports, but some of 
the data to determine the causal relationships are now collected by NOA Monitoring Information 
System. 
Currently, published indicators of sales and FTEs contained in indicators AO2.1, AO2.2, AO2.3 and 
AO2.4 do not disaggregate sales and worker data by value chain. PMP indicators capture data from all 
activity levels and then aggregate the data into the PMP’s established indicator table. As a result it is not 
clear from the published information if the value represents sales or FTE data at the production level or 
at the various value added levels (collection station, retail sales etc.) 
The current sales and FTE indicators apply a multiplier function to each of the value chain direct sales 
and FTE figures (1.84 for sales and 1.96 for FTE) to measure the imputed indirect and induced impact of 
29 
 
the direct project impact6. This creates further imprecision and distorts the objective of measuring the 
direct impact of NOA activities by providing a non-justifiable estimate of indirect and induced impact 
from other value chain participants outside the NOA project environment. 
Another PMP limitation relates to the PMP definition of three IR indicators: 
IR1.1-Number of delivery contracts issued for targeted crops. 
IR2.1-Number of new markets entered for target value chain products. 
R1.3-Number of participants in study tours, B2B, market investigation and trade shows. 
For each indicator, the baseline is 0, suggesting that their progress is measured as a result of program 
interventions. However, the indicator descriptions do not include the standard phrase “as a result of 
United States Government (USG) assistance,” suggesting that they are independent of planned project 
interventions. If this is the case, the baseline needs to be updated to more accurately reflect their 
program starting point. Alternatively, if these indicators are measuring project impact, the indicator 
descriptions needs to state that they are results of USG assistance or program interventions. 
4.3.2 Conclusions 
• Barring unforeseen obstacles, all major NOA objectives and targets will be met by the project close￾out date of February 2015. 
• Based on NOA’s achievements to date, no modifications are needed for activities that are now 
underway. 
• Gross margin analysis and interviews with value chain drivers during the course of the evaluation 
indicated that, barring currently unforeseen political or economic conditions, the vast majority of 
firms, including women farm leaders, will remain viable after the phase-out of NOA’s technical 
support. 
• Gross margin calculations show that field grain crops are significantly less profitable than the more 
labor-intensive high value crops that NOA promotes and indicates that they demonstrate 
questionable sustainability when compared with the value chains targeted by NOA. 
• The current dynamic level of policy reform supporting the continuing development of the 
agricultural and agribusiness sector is likely to decline when NOA ends in February 2015. 
• NOA’s published indicators for total, domestic, and export sales and for FTE workers tend to 
overstate the causal impact from NOA’s development activities and do not provide information 
disaggregated by value chain. 
• Current sales and FTE indicator presentations misrepresent NOA’s actual impact by including a 
multiplier derived using questionable analysis that purports to measure the impact of indirect and 
induced impact that are outside the project implementation environment, thus distorting the 
indicator measurement of direct project impact. 
 
6
 The multiplier, which was calculated and used by the predecessor KPEP project, measures the additional income and jobs 
created as the product moves upward in the value chain. In the case of production agriculture it also includes income and jobs
gained by suppliers of inputs such as fertilizers, seeds and fuel. These impacts are referred to as indirect effects. In addition, the 
new workers in these upstream and downstream sub sectors spend a portion of their income locally to meet household needs, 
and this spending creates new jobs and income. The jobs and spending created as a result of these activities are called the 
induced effect. The sum of the direct (calculated by the NOA PMP), indirect, and induced effects is the total effect and the 
process of job creation and income generation continues so long as some portion of spending remains local. Thus, the 
multiplier is an estimate of the additional economic activity resulting from the new investment in the originating subsector, in 
this case the agricultural production sector and is added to the direct effect. The Evaluation Team reviewed the analysis 
completed by the previous project and found that the methodology used does not adequately address the differing value chain 
value added technologies associated with the 13 value chains included in the NOA Project. 
30 
 
4.3.3 Recommendations 
• Discussions should be undertaken between MAFRD, USAID and NOA to develop modalities for 
institutionalizing within the EAU the current policy development support now informally carried out 
by the NOA project. 
• Modify the current NOA PMP indicator presentation of total sales, domestic sales and export sales 
by calculating annual figures that take into account changes in the number of beneficiaries, yield and 
area planted in order to more accurately measure the causal impact of NOA’s interventions on 
these indicators. 
• PMP indicators for each value chain should be reported in NOA Annual Reports to provide readers 
with an understanding of the impacts from each value chain. 
• Introduce into the NOA Monitoring Information System an additional internal reporting table to 
provide commodity-by-commodity indicators that include the sales and FTE impact on farm level 
growers, the sales value-added from linkage to value chain drivers (collection stations, processors, 
exporters, retailers) and the total direct impact from NOA’s activities. 
• Discontinue use of the multiplier coefficients now added to PMP sales and FTF published 
information as they distort the direct project impact. 
4.4 SECTION IV: POST-NOA PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 
AGRICULTURE SECTOR 
4.4.1 Findings 
4.1.1.2 Results of the mini-survey conducted with private farmers and value chain 
drivers 
To gauge perceptions of private farmers and value chain drivers about major constraints that need to be 
addressed, future training needs, and policies that need to be in place in order for them to expand their 
business and increase their profits, the Evaluation Team conducted a mini-survey with 69 stakeholders. 
In this mini-survey, the Evaluation Team asked private farmers and value chain drivers to list their top 
five constraints to their business operations expansion, using a common set of questionnaire constraint 
options as shown in Annex 4, NOA Evaluation Individual Interview. The complete constraint analysis is 
presented in Annex 8 and results are summarized in this section. 
Private Farmer Constraint Analysis: Private farmers were asked the question: What are the five major 
constraints that keep you from increasing your business profits? The severity of constraints was rated from 1 
to 5, with 1 being the minimum and 5 the maximum. The top 5 constraints listed are presented in 
Figure 6, below. 
Figure 6: Top 5 Constraints that Prevent Private Farmers From Increasing Profits 
Two other constraints, lack of appropriate fertilizers on local markets, and unattractive product prices, ranked 
near 3. Private farmers did not view poor quality of available labor or lack of proper packaging material as 
major constraints. 
Average rankings convey a sense of importance of each constraint to the individual respondents, but 
rankings alone do not indicate the number of respondents who discussed each constraint. For this 
Constraint Ranking 
Poor product quality that doesn’t meet market standards 3.67 
Lack of credit (interest rate too high) to buy production inputs and 
buy equipment/machinery 
3.54 
Lack of quality seeds and planting materials on local markets 3.42 
Lack of technical knowledge needed to become more efficient 3.27 
Lack of storage facilities 3.21 
31 
 
purpose, calculating the percentage of all respondents that indicate their concern about each specific 
constraint provides an indication of the overall intensity of the constraint. 
The response intensity analysis shows that 80% of all respondents identified high interest rates for buying 
production inputs as one of their five major constraints. Almost 60% selected lack of proper packaging 
materials, while just over 50% indicated that tough competition from neighboring countries was one of their 
five major constraints. 
Value Chain Driver Constraint Analysis: Value chain driver (collection center, processor and exporter) 
responses to the same set of constraint questions resulted in a different set of responses than from 
private farmers. Lack of domestic product market access, lack of appropriate fertilizers on local markets, lack 
of appropriate technical knowledge needed to become more efficient, tough competition from neighboring 
countries, and lack of credit (interest rate too high) to buy production inputs, all ranked above 3.5 out of a 
maximum of 5 on the ranking scale. Not enough labor did not register as a constraint for the value chain 
driver group, but poor quality of labor registered at 2 out of a maximum of 5. Lack of quality seeds and 
planting materials on local markets was also an important constraint. 
As with private farmers, the value chain driver respondents had a high intensity score for lack of credit 
(interest rate too high) to buy production inputs, and tough competition from neighboring countries (71% and 
69% respectively). Lack of credit (interest rate too high) to buy equipment/machinery had an intensity score 
of 50%. 
Respondents were also asked to identify the funding sources used for covering production costs and 
equipment purchases. 80% indicated that use of savings or profits were a source of funds to meet 
production and investment expenditure with just under 40% indicating borrowing from family members 
or taking bank credit. More than 50% of all respondents indicated that they received in-kind funding 
from donor projects through matching grant programs supported by NOA as well as by other donors. 
This result is consistent with the constraint responses indicating that lack of credit (high interest rates) 
is one of the main constraints to increasing business profits. 
The field survey asked all respondents to identify new government policies that would most benefit their 
future business prospects. The most frequent responses included: 1) improve import quality standards 
to reduce the import of low quality seeds, planting materials and fertilizers; 2) eliminate dumping of 
foreign food imports at prices that are below production costs; and 3) reduce farm level fuel prices by 
waiving a portion of the import excise tax. 
Major project provided services 
Field Survey Results: From 2011- 2013, NOA trained and provided support to over 2,864 individuals in 
agriculture productivity. Field survey respondents were asked to list the “kind and type of training and 
other support received from the NOA project”. Figure 7 below indicates their responses. 
Figure 7: Type of Training and Other Support Received from NOA 
Survey respondents were asked to rank the usefulness of the training and advice received from NOA 
and from the grant program. With respect to the usefulness of the technical knowledge provided, 96% 
Type of Training Percentage
Technical advice and training for improving product quality 50% 
Technical advice and other support for farm production processes 45% 
Technical advice from a foreign specialist 42% 
Access to NOA grants 42% 
Postharvest training 40% 
Direct market linkage facilitation 30% 
Technical support to improve product packaging, labelling and branding 30% 
32 
 
indicated that the training was very useful, and 97% of the grant recipients indicated that the grant 
program results were very useful. 
Private Farmer Future Needs Analysis: Figures 8 and 9, below, summarize private farmer field survey 
responses to the question: “Thinking about the training, technical advice, and other support received from the 
NOA, what are the five most important factors to improving your future business profitability?” 
As Figure 8 indicates, technical knowledge for farm production processes was ranked the highest and 
received a rank of 4.2 on a scale of 5. Access to NOA grants, technical knowledge to improve product 
packaging, labeling and branding, and technical knowledge for product market development processes received 
scores of approximately 3.5. Trade fair participation ranked relatively low at just under 2. 
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 8: Private Farmer Average Ranking of Most Important Future Support Needed 
From NOA (n=46)
(5: maximum and 1: minimum)
1‐Technical support for farm production, 2‐Technical support for post‐harvest handling, 3‐Technical support for product
market development, 4‐Direct market linkage to new markets, 5‐Technical support for improving product quality, 6‐Technical
support to improve product packaging, 7‐Technical support to upgrade worker skills, 8‐Technical support from foreign
specialist, 9‐ Technical support for cold storage facilities, 10‐ Study tours to foreign countries, 11‐Field trips in Kosovo, 12‐
Trade fair participation, 13‐Access to NOA grants and subcontracts, 14‐Project facilitation to access formal credit sources, 15‐
Direct support to obtain GlobalGAP/HACCP certification .
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 9: Private Farmer Response Intensity of Most Important Future Support Needed 
from NOA (n=46)
1‐Technical support for farm production, 2‐Technical support for post‐harvest handling, 3‐Technical support for product
market development, 4‐Direct market linkage to new markets, 5‐Technical support for improving product quality, 6‐
Technical support to improve product packaging, 7‐Technical support to upgrade worker skills, 8‐Technical support from
foreign specialist, 9‐ Technical support for cold storage facilities, 10‐ Study tours to foreign countries, 11‐Field trips in
Kosovo, 12‐Trade fair participation, 13‐Access to NOA grants and subcontracts, 14‐Project facilitation to access formal credit
sources, 15‐Direct support to obtain GlobalGAP/HACCP certification .
33 
 
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 10: Value Chain Driver Average Ranking of Most Important Future Support from NOA (n=23)
(5: maximum and 1: minimum)
1‐Technical support for farm production, 2‐Technical support for post‐harvest handling, 3‐Technical support for product market
development, 4‐Direct market linkage to new markets, 5‐Technical support for improving product quality, 6‐Technical support to
improve product packaging, 7‐Technical support to upgrade worker skills, 8‐Technical support from foreign specialist, 9‐
Technical support for cold storage facilities, 10‐ Study tours to foreign countries, 11‐Field trips in Kosovo, 12‐Trade fair
participation, 13‐Access to NOA grants and subcontracts, 14‐Project facilitation to access formal credit sources, 15‐Direct support
to obtain GlobalGAP/HACCP certification .
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 11: Value Chain Driver Intensity of Most Important Future Support from NOA (n=23)
(as a percentage of total responses)
1‐Technical support for farm production, 2‐Technical support for post‐harvest handling, 3‐Technical support for product
market development, 4‐Direct market linkage to new markets, 5‐Technical support for improving product quality, 6‐Technical
support to improve product packaging, 7‐Technical support to upgrade worker skills, 8‐Technical support from foreign specialist,
9‐ Technical support for cold storage facilities, 10‐ Study tours to foreign countries, 11‐Field trips in Kosovo, 12‐Trade fair
participation, 13‐Access to NOA grants and subcontracts, 14‐Project facilitation to access formal credit sources, 15‐Direct support
Figure 9 provides the intensity scores for the private farmer group. It indicates a high intensity for 
access to NOA grants (61%) and study tours to foreign countries (49%). At 40% or just under 40% were 
direct market linkage facilitation to access new domestic/export markets, technical advice and other support for 
improving product quality, and technical advice to improve product packaging, labelling and branding. All other 
responses were at intensity levels of less than 20%. 
Value Chain Driver Future Needs Analysis: Figure 10 summarizes the value chain driver response to the 
future needs field survey question. Unlike the private farmer group, value chain drivers ranked project 
facilitation to formal credit sources at 4.4 out of 5. While NOA does not formally engage in credit 
facilitation, this response rate suggests that the value chain drivers may be priority candidates for 
participation in the credit guarantee program. 
Field trips to other places in Kosovo also ranked highly at 4, while technical advice to install cold storages, 
access to NOA grants, and technical advice for improving product quality all ranked between 3.4 and 3.5. 
Figure 11 measures the response intensity of the value chain drivers to the future needs field survey 
question. 
34 
 
The highest intensity score of 51% was recorded for access to NOA grants and for technical advice for 
improving product quality. Study tours to foreign countries scored at 46%. Both received importance 
rankings of about 3.5. While field trip to other places in Kosovo ranked high among the respondents listing 
this support component, the very low intensity score (5%) indicates that it is not important as an overall 
need. Similarly, technical advice to upgrade worker skills displays a rather low intensity score (12%) with a 
rather high importance ranking (3). Project facilitation to access formal credit received a very high 
importance ranking but the intensity score of 11% was quite low. 
4.4.1.1 Commodity value chain activities to promote food sustainability and export 
development 
As developed in Section 4.3, the large majority of current NOA beneficiaries will be able to sustain their 
current commercial activities, but in the absence of a project with agricultural development components 
similar to NOA’s, the positive poverty and unemployment alleviation dynamics that are now in progress 
will be lost. During the interview with the Evaluation Team, the Advisor to the MAFRD Minister stated 
that, in his opinion, the MAFRD and EAU will not yet have the technical capacity after NOA’s 
completion to conduct the in-depth analyses required to address value chain market linkage and market 
domestic and export development related policy research, as well as to continue the current level of 
policy advocacy now supported by NOA’s project staff. He indicated that he would support continued 
donor assistance in this area. 
Earlier in the report, it was shown that all current value chain commodities are financially viable. 
Therefore, when viewed on a gross margin only criteria, all current value chains are considered viable 
for current expansion. However, at the farm production level, some commodity value chains are more 
labor intensive than others, some require a higher investment per worker, some require more complex 
technologies, and others take longer time to yield a commercial return. Figure 12, developed from 
analysis used to design the original NOA project, summarizes labor, capital and production technology 
characteristics for NOA supported value chains and provides a decision-making hierarchy for matching 
growers with commodities to optimize overall project support activities: 
Figure 12: Value Chain Commodity Production Characteristics 
Value Chain Labor 
Intensity 
Capital 
Intensity 
Production 
Technology 
Years to First 
Return 
Gross 
Margin 
Return 
Table Grape* High High Moderate to Complex Three Very High
Apple Moderate High Complex Three High
Raspberry High Low Simple Two High
Strawberry High Moderate Moderate One Very High
Blueberry High Low Simple Three High
Blackberry High Low Simple Three High
Saffron High Moderate Complex Three High
Asparagus High Moderate Complex Three High
Gherkin High Moderate Simple Immediately High
Pepper High Moderate Simple Immediately High
Lettuce High Moderate Moderate One Very High
MAP** High Low to 
Moderate 
Simple to Moderate Immediately -2 High
Dairy Moderate High Moderate Immediately -3** Moderate
Source: Booz Allen Hamilton. (2010). Kosovo Agricultural Opportunities Strategy. Pristina, Kosovo: USAID.
*Moderate technology intensity for seeded grapes, high technology for seedless grapes 
**Low intensity for gathering wild plants; moderate intensity for domestic production 
***Assumes purchase of milking cows or raising calves to maturity 
35 
 
• Within the USAID small-scale family farm priority, the most likely expansion of commodities, 
assuming existence of a strong domestic or export markets, are those with high labor intensity, low 
to moderate capital intensity, simple to moderate production technology, quick income return to 
investment, and high gross margin return. Such commodities include MAP, raspberry, blueberry, 
blackberry, strawberry, gherkin, and pepper. 
• Commodities such as asparagus and saffron yield a longer-term income stream but require complex 
technology and several years of development before attaining full commercial yield capacity. As a 
result, the short-run impact on the target farm population will be limited, but future income growth 
is potentially large as export market linkages have been developed for their sale to buyers, for 
example in the Netherlands and Belgium. 
• Apple and related pome fruit expansion can help reduce imports. However, their expansion should 
be undertaken by producers with a sufficient capital and technology base to absorb the risks 
associated with these crops. Information obtained during the field interview phase suggests initial 
per hectare capital costs of $50,000, which includes imported rootstock, drip irrigation, trellis 
installation, and anti-hail protection systems. 
• Expansion of table grape poses a separate set of technology conditions. In the past, many farmers 
grew a seeded variety suitable for both wine and fresh consumption. Local demand for seeded 
grape most likely remains viable, but greater returns are available in premium domestic and export 
markets if quality control production and postharvest handling procedures are in place. Some 
seedless grape varieties require complex production technologies to attain maximum yield and it is 
not clear how many small-scale producers can master this technology. 
• The dairy sector also contains special technology considerations associated with improving milk 
quality and yield that can be addressed by a future project working through the respective producer 
and processor organizations. 
4.4.1.2 USAID/Kosovo actions to achieve greater participation of women in future 
agricultural program design 
The MAP value chain is a rapidly growing subsector, as there is a strong and growing export market for 
these specialty products, of which some are harvested in the wild with others cultivated and harvested 
domestically. NOA has provided matching grants to the major value chain exporter, but has not yet 
provided grants to support production of domestic MAP products including chamomile and black 
marshmallow. The desire among small-scale growers to expand domestic production was noted in 
discussions with the director of the MAP export enterprise and was confirmed by an interview that the 
Evaluation Team conducted with a woman in the Istog area, who initiated black marshmallow 
production in 2013 and wants to expand operations. 
Another action to achieve greater participation among women is to expand on the Korenica Women’s 
Association model. During our interview, the association leader commented that in her experience 
many Kosovo men now “readily accept the strong involvement or leadership of women in business 
matters.” This is significant since women farmers are often at a disadvantage when it comes to owning 
livestock, accessing financial services, and receiving targeted training and financial resources that will 
expand knowledge and confidence in becoming a lead farmer or other enterprise manager. Thus, 
Korenica Women’s Association presents a strong example for women’s participation in future USAID 
agriculture programs. 
While there is a great interest by women to process local fruits and vegetables into traditional products, 
such as ajvar, tursai, and rechel, the Evaluation Team was unable to find an organization that has a 
proven record of post-donor financial feasibility. A common pattern is the formation of an association 
in order to receive a donor grant and at the end of the project, the group disbands and the effort falls 
into disarray. In this context, the GoK’s effort to support development of small scale-farmers and 
commercial organizations implies that serious efforts by women or other individuals interested in 
forming commercially viable small-scale processing units should consider using a legal commercial 
business organizational form rather than an association legal organizational form. 
36 
 
4.4.1.3 Institutional strengthening activities to improve family income and food security 
of small-scale family farmers 
MAFRD considers agriculture to be a “strategic priority” and is embarking on a Seven-Year Strategic 
Development Plan to expand inter alia the small-scale commercial agricultural production sector. By 
linking post NOA USAID agricultural development projects with this MAFRD strategy, localized 
institutional strengthening activities will directly impact small-scale family farmers and could have a 
material impact on reducing rural poverty and rural unemployment. 
The MAFRD Seven Year Strategic Development Plan has been completed and donors will be requested 
to operate their programs within this framework. This program includes provisions to waive VAT tax 
on all small-scale growers - the current VAT exclusion affects only the dairy sector - as an inducement 
for them to become registered farmers and formally participate in the VAT program. By being 
registered within the VAT system, but being exempt from tax on their own production sales, they can 
still claim refunds on purchased inputs, thus adding an additional source of family income. 
4.4.2 Conclusions 
• Many farmers continue to fund their business operations through savings or profits, borrowing from 
friends or family members, or receiving in-kind funding from donor projects. This result is 
consistent with the responses indicating that lack of credit (high interest rates) is one of the main 
constraints to increasing business profits. 
• Field survey responses indicated that private farmers are very satisfied with the training and support 
provided by NOA. The major future training needs identified by them included: 1) technical 
knowledge of farm production processes; 2) continued access to NOA grants; 3) study tours to 
foreign countries; 4) technical support to improve product packaging; and 5) direct linkage to new 
markets. 
• Major agricultural policy modifications suggested by field survey respondents included: 1) improve 
import quality standards to reduce the import of low quality seeds, planting materials and fertilizers; 
2) eliminate dumping of foreign food imports at prices that are below production costs; and 3) 
reduce farm level fuel prices by waiving a portion of the import excise tax. 
• The field survey with private farmers indicated that high interest rates, lack of proper packaging 
materials, and tough completion from neighboring countries were the major constraints to 
expanding business profits. Value chain driver (collection centers, processors, exporters) field 
survey responses indicated that high interest rates for working capital loans, tough competition from 
neighboring countries, and high interest rates for capital investment loans, were major constraints to 
expanding their business profits. While NOA does not formally engage in credit facilitation, the 
response rate suggests that the value chain drivers may be priority candidates for participation in the 
DCA credit guarantee program. 
• The most important future technical support needs for farmers included improved knowledge of 
technical production processes, access to donor grants to reduce high costs of borrowed capital, 
and technical knowledge to improve product labeling and branding, while value chain drivers’ most 
important future technical support needs included donor facilitation to formal credit sources, access 
to donor grants to reduce the high cost of borrowing, technical advice for installing cold storages 
and improvement of product quality. 
• MAFRD views NOA as very successful, and would support a similar value chain type project 
initiated after the completion of NOA in February 2015 that is targeted on individuals and 
enterprises that were not part of the original NOA set of beneficiaries. 
• Linking post NOA USAID agricultural development projects with the 7-year Strategic Development 
Plan, will directly impact small-scale family farmers and could have a material impact on reducing 
rural poverty and rural unemployment. 
• Commodity value chains characterized by high labor intensity, low capital requirements, simple to 
moderate production technology and immediate return on investment are the most appropriate 
commodities for future expansion by small-scale growers. Commodities with high capital intensity, 
37 
 
complex technologies and longer-term return on investment are better suited for growers with 
ready markets that can provide collection center crop aggregation support for the smaller-scale 
growers. Apple and related pome fruit expansion should take place within the project import 
substitution objective. With the new NOA introduced table grapes varieties now coming into 
production, continued technical guidance will be required prior to developing a small-scale grower 
strategy for this value chain sector. 
• NOA’s women’s empowerment approach characterized by promoting women as lead farmers has 
been very successful and female-based group food processing activities have been successfully 
undertaken when directly supported by donor technical and financial support, but post-donor 
sustainability of food processing activities has not yet been proven and requires further observation. 
• The greatest return to future USAID donor expenditure will be in value chains containing strong 
collection centers that are linked to large numbers of small-scale farmers whose income can 
increase dramatically by access to a steady domestic or export market. 
4.4.3 Recommendations 
Post-NOA project support should: 
• Continue DCA credit facilitation support, since lack of credit is the main constraint, and include 
grant funds to support initial farm production and value chain driver investment to offset prevailing 
high interest rates. 
• Focus future training and support on technology transfer, and domestic and export market linkage 
activities that improve production and market efficiencies and effectiveness through improved 
quality control, packaging and product labeling.
• Target dedicated institutional strengthening support to the EAU so that it becomes proficient in 
agricultural sector policy analysis, formulation, and coordination. Future policies in which EAU 
needs to focus include: 1) improving import quality standards to reduce the import of low quality 
seeds, planting materials and fertilizers; 2) eliminating dumping of foreign food imports at prices that 
are below production costs; and 3) reducing farm level fuel prices by waiving a portion of the import 
excise tax. 
• Target chain project support, structured within the context of the GoK’s Seven-Year Strategic 
Development Plan, to individuals and enterprises not reached by the current NOA project and have 
as the primary objective the ability to expand small-scale farmer access to domestic and export 
markets as it is the most effective means of accomplishing the USAID /Kosovo Economic Growth 
Strategy of creating jobs in the rural sector thus directly alleviating the causes of existing rural 
poverty. Secondary objectives should include import substitution and strengthening of industry. 
Within this context: 
- Place priority emphasis on MAP, strawberry, other berry, greenhouse and open field gherkin, 
pepper, and related high value field crop value chains to gain the greatest impact on reducing 
rural poverty and unemployment, future agriculture. These beneficiaries need to be linked to 
strong value chain drivers, which may require priority orientation on matching grant funds to 
equip an expanding need for collection centers as new project roll out proceeds. 
- Retain lettuce, table grape, apple, and other pome fruit value chains as part of future USAID 
post-NOA project activities, as they represent Kosovo’s major produce import deficit crops; 
retain asparagus as value chain candidates as they provide the potential for increasing Kosovo’s 
export earnings. 
- Target dairy sector activities on institutional strengthening of the Kosovo Dairy Producers 
Association (KDPA) and the Kosovo Association of Milk Producers (KAMP) to facilitate 
subsector policy development and strengthen their capacity to provide technical production and 
processing support through the associations to their respective membership. The sector 
requires further expansion to attain milk and milk product self-sufficiency, and can contribute to 
increasing export earnings. 
38 
 
• Include group based women’s food processing activities based on an assessment of their positive 
post-donor project sustainability. Such an assessment should be undertaken by NOA prior to its 
closeout date. 
39 
 
ANNEXES
40 
 
ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
41 
 
SECTION C - DESCRIPTION / SPECIFICATIONS / STATEMENT OF WORK 
C. l INTRODUCTION 
Name of Activity to be Evaluated: New Opportunities for Agriculture (NOA) Project 
Implcmcnter: Tetra Tech ARD 
Award Number: AID-EDH-I-00-05-00006, TO No AID-167-TO-11-00001 
Contract Value: $ 15,899,714.00 
Life of Project: January 28,2011 - February 27, 2015 
Period to be Evaluated: January 28, 2011 – Present 
C. 2 BACKGROUND 
Agriculture is an important pillar of Kosovo's economy and is a major contributor to employment. 
However, in the absence of a developed, commercialized agricultural sector, Kosovo is not self-sufficient 
in food production and relies heavily on imports. The country requires a more specialized and 
modernized agricultural sector that is more productive and has a greater capacity to respond to market 
demands. Consequently, policies and initiatives to develop agriculture and increase its competitiveness 
are a priority for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development (MAFRD) and many 
economic policy makers in Kosovo. Kosovo's optimal climate conditions and the availability of fertile 
land could result in comparative advantages in agriculture development and a decreased reliance on 
agriculture imports. 
Despite the constraints, the agricultural sector has recently shown significant progress. From very low 
bases, exports of horticultural products grew nearly 260% from 2004 to 2008 while processed fruit and 
vegetable exports grew by over 700%. Export destinations also expanded dramatically although Albania 
and Macedonia still absorb about 50% of Kosovo's agricultural exports. 
Between November 2009 and April 2010, USAID/Kosovo funded a series of assessments of the 
agriculture sector aimed at identifying both constraints to, and new opportunities for, growth in 
agriculture and agribusiness. The resulting reports include: the Kosovo AgCLIR Diagnostic (December 
2009); Kosovo Agricultural Opportunities Strategy (February 2010); Kosovo AgStrat Animal Products 
Study (April 2010); Kosovo Go to Market Crop Studies; (April 2010); and Kosovo Donor Mapping 
Summary (April 2010). 
The AgCLIR Diagnostic identifies a range of issues confronting the start-up and operation of 
agribusinesses. The Kosovo Agricultural Opportunities Strategy (AgStrat) elaborates 21 initiatives in six 
theme areas to achieve growth in the sector, particularly agricultural exports, by diversifying Kosovo's 
crop mix and overcoming barriers to expansion. The AgStrat Animal Products Study adds animal 
products to the coverage of the larger AgStrat report, and the Go to Market Study provides follow-up 
analysis of selected products suggested for targeting under AgStrat. Donor activities and plans in the 
agricultural sector are detailed I the Donor Mapping Summary. All of these studies are available at 
www.usaid.gov/kosovo/eng. As a result of these thorough studies, and based on the recommendations 
of the Agriculture Strategy of 2013, USAID developed New Opportunities for Agriculture (NOA). 
C. 3 NOA PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 
42 
 
The New Opportunities for Agriculture project is a four-year activity that began implementation on 
January 28, 2011 and will end on February 27, 2015. The goal of NOA is to increase Kosovo's 
agriculture output, exports, and rural incomes in support of USAID/Kosovo's Economic Growth 
Strategy of promoting growth, creating jobs and generating exports. The project's specific objectives 
will link products and farmers to markets; assist in diversifying and increasing the types and amounts of 
agricultural products produced in Kosovo; improve food quality and safety; increase access to affordable 
credit; and improve the overall coordination of donor projects within the agricultural sector in Kosovo. 
 Market linkages that will connect farmers to identified markets for the targeted products via 
processors, traders, exporters or farmers' organizations in structures and ways that are 
appropriate, effective and sustainable and which provide opportunities to increase their sales 
and incomes. 
 Increased and Diversified Agricultural Products by increasing the volumes produced and per unit 
values of the targeted high-value crops, working with processors to identify and develop new 
products and locating new markets for all targeted crops and products. 
 Improved Food Quality and Safety in order to strengthen local organizations that will certify in 
international standards, support national informational campaigns and develop product testing 
capacity. 
 Increased Affordable and Accessible Credit by introduction of new products that will enable 
small farmers and borrowers across the sector to meet the requirements of lending institutions 
and thus increase their possibilities for loans. 
 Improved Coordination within the Agricultural Sector in order to provide strategic advice to 
the Minister and assist the Ministry in developing the strategy and systems they need to better 
man-age resources and discharge their leadership role. 
When NOA was designed its main focus was export development, but recognizing the existing 
opportunities to expand sales and incomes through import substitution, NOA was amended in October 
2012 to add import substitution development to its scope. Also, in September 2012 when the Kosovo 
Private Enterprise Program (KPEP) ended, and consistent with the current NOA Task Order, NOA 
picked up ongoing activities from KPEP supporting production and domestic and export market 
development of the following crops/value chains: Field and Greenhouse products, Medicinal and 
Aromatic Plants, and Dairy. 
C. 4 PURPOSE 
The purpose of this evaluation is to provide USAID/Kosovo with an objective external assessment of 
the management and performance of NOA's activities from January 2011 to the present. 
C. 5 OBJECTIVE 
This evaluation will document what has happened as a result of the NOA project (positive, negative, 
directly, indirectly, intended or unintended). The objectives of this evaluation are: (a) to provide an 
assessment of the impact of the NOA project to date in relation to the project purpose and expected 
results, (b) to recommend possible ways, if any, in which the project might increase the impact and 
performance of its services over its remaining life of the project, and (c) to provide USAID with lessons 
learned that can be used to guide future programming in the agriculture sector. 
C. 6 TARGETED STAKEHOLDERS 
43 
 
The primary target stakeholders for this assessment include USAID/Kosovo, especially the Director's 
Office, the Office of Economic Growth, and the Program Office. Stakeholders also include the Ministry 
of Agriculture and Forestry, other international donors, local agribusinesses and associations, and local 
farmer beneficiaries. 
C. 7 SCOPE OF WORK 
The Contractor will provide a three person team of experts to develop and implement an evaluation 
that elicits and analyzes information, and provides key findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 
The Contractor will design and execute the evaluation to generate detailed knowledge about the 
performance of the NOA project, to measure accountability, project outcomes and benefits, as well as 
planning for future activities. 
The Contractor will develop an evaluation plan, including a draft Work Plan, that is most appropriate 
and feasible to accomplish the objectives set forth. The Plan will include the description of methods and 
procedures that will be used in gathering and analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data. 
The Contractor will reach, and collect data and information from, the widest possible stakeholder 
group, including project participants, current employees, implementing partners, direct beneficiaries, and 
other donors. After contract award, at the request of the Contractor, USAID/Kosovo will provide an 
initial list of the stakeholders and their contact information. 
The Contractor will disaggregate collected data by sex to the greatest extent possible in order to 
ascertain how the project impacted men and women; how the activities affected the status and roles of 
women and men within the areas of intervention (for example roles in decision-making and different 
access to and control over resources and services); how results of the work affected men and women 
differently; and what specific benefits of the program can be uniquely and specifically attributed to 
targeting women. 
USAID/Kosovo will provide the Contractor with key documents and background material relevant to 
Kosovo's agricultural sector and the applicable USAID design and project documentation, as well as any 
available documents deemed necessary to the Contractor to be familiar with the NOA activities. 
Documents attached to this RFTOP include: 
A. NOA Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) of November 2012 
B. NOA Annual Report 2011 
C. NOA Annual Report 2012 
D. NOA 2013 Work Plan 
E. NOA 2013 Quarterly Reports 
C. 8 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The Contractor must address the following key questions and may include others as necessary to meet 
the objectives of this evaluation. In addressing all evaluation questions the Contractor will do so in a 
manner and order that it determines to be most effective, efficient, and encompassing of all relevant 
stakeholders. 
1. Results to Date: 
44 
 
- What has been the impact of the project in terms of growth of domestic sales, import 
substitution, export and employment? 
- What services have been most effective? 
- How effective and sustainable are the various activities? 
- How are the project's implementation approach and strategies helping development of the 
agriculture enterprises? 
- How is the use of grants to the counterparts, as well as institutional collaboration (with 
government, non-government business network partners), helping with the development of 
agriculture enterprises? 
- Is the project effective in identifying policy constraints, analyzing the impact of policy 
decisions on private agribusiness, and initiating policy reforms? 
- Are the project activities effective in terms of strengthening agriculture support institutions? 
- What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the 
objectives? 
- To what extent has the project influenced Government of Kosovo (GOK) programs and 
private sector partners (including the financial sector institutions)? Is the project on-track 
to achieve its objectives by the end of the project? 
- To what extent have the project interventions helped facilitate the involvement of women in 
the agriculture sector in Kosovo? 
2. Opportunities for NOA: 
- Examine scope of improvements in project activities and modes of operations for the rest of 
the project period based on the finding of the aforementioned tasks. 
- To what extent are the objectives of the program still valid? 
- How can NOA best ensure the long term sustainability of activities supported by the 
project? 
- How can USAID/Kosovo achieve greater participation of women in future agriculture 
program design? 
- How can the project's Performance Management Plan (PMP) be improved to provide better 
data and information to management decision making? 
3. Opportunities in Agriculture sector after NOA 
- Based on the principle findings of the evaluation, a review of other documents (including any 
recent assessments of USAID projects, or assessment of other donors), and discussions 
with key counterparts, what kinds of activities, within the field of agriculture and 
agribusiness, should USAID consider supporting after the completion of the NOA project? 
- What recommendations could be made about future programs in this sector? 
C. 9 METHODOLOGY 
 
This performance evaluation will rely on a mix of methods, including documentation review, small 
surveys, and in-person or telephone interviews with key informants in the U.S. and in person interviews 
in Kosovo. The Contractor will review all the available documents provided by USAID Kosovo in the 
U.S. prior to departure to Kosovo. Upon review of the documents, the Contractor must develop an 
evaluation plan that is most appropriate and financially feasible to accomplish the goals outlined in the 
SOW. In considering the evaluation design, the Contractor must strive to incorporate diverse 
information gathering approaches in order to reach the widest possible sample of the main target 
audiences. 
45 
 
In preparing a data-gathering approach, questions should be tailored to reflect, as appropriate, the 
specific roles of the stakeholders. The data analysis plan will include how direct interviews and/or focus 
group interviews will be transcribed and analyzed; what procedures will be used to analyze quantitative 
data from surveys and qualitative data from key informant and other stakeholder interviews; any 
methodological limitations; and how the evaluation will weigh and integrate qualitative data with any 
quantitative data. All data will be disaggregated by sex, as appropriate. 
C. 10 TIMELINE 
Due to the seasonal nature of the project, the target date for that start of the evaluation is January 
2014, with all work completed by the end of February 2014. USAID requests that a timeline for this 
work be presented. The timeline should include highlights of work such as dates for arrival in country, 
preliminary meetings, data collection/entry/analysis efforts, out briefings, and draft and final report 
submissions. This timeline will be made part of the award. 
C. 11 RELATIONSHIPS & RESPONSIBILITIES 
In accordance with USAID Evaluation Policy, this Task Order will be managed by the USAID/Kosovo 
Program Office. The Mission's Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Specialist, or his/her designee, will be 
the designated Task Order Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) for this award. Upon arrival 
in Kosovo, the Contractor shall meet with the M&E Specialist and representatives from the 
USAID/Kosovo Economic Growth Office prior to starting any work. 
All logistical and administrative support will be the responsibility of the contractor. The Contractor will 
be solely responsible for obtaining transport and translation services. 
C. 12 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 
An acceptable report will meet the following requirements as per USAID rules and 
procedures (please: http://transition.usaid.szov/evaluation/IIowtoNote￾PreparingEvaluationReports.pdf. The following considerations will also be included: 
• The evaluation report will represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well-organized effort to 
objectively evaluate what program activities were most successful in achieving the desired results, 
what did not work and why. 
• The evaluation report will address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work. 
• The evaluation report will include the scope of work as an Annex. All modifications to the scope 
of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, 
methodology or timeline shall be agreed upon in writing by the USAID/Kosovo M&E Specialist. 
• Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation 
such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex to the final 
report. 
• Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impacts using gender disaggregated data. 
• Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the 
limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable 
differences between comparative groups, etc.). 
• Evaluation findings will be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on 
anecdotes, hearsay, or the compilation of people's opinions. 
• Findings shall be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. 
46 
 
• Sources of information shall be properly identified and listed in an Annex, including a list of all 
individuals interviewed. 
• Recommendations shall be supported by a specific set of findings. 
• Recommendations shall be action-oriented, practical, and specific, with defined responsibilities for 
each action. 
All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must be provided to the TOCOR in an electronic 
file in an easily readable format agreed upon with the TOCOR. The data shall be organized and fully 
documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation. USAID/Kosovo will 
retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed. 
[END OF SECTION C] 
 
47 
 
ANNEX 2: EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS
48 
 
The methodology for NOA’s evaluation was carefully designed to respond to the evaluation questions 
posed in the SOW and to determine whether NOA has made progress towards its initial objectives. 
The Evaluation Team collected quantitative and qualitative data from a broad range of stakeholders and 
beneficiaries to ensure objectivity, as well as accuracy and completeness of the findings, conclusions and 
recommendations. Data was collected by using techniques that balance each-other: quantitative vs. 
qualitative data; individual vs. group responses; and semi-structured interviews vs. analysis of mini￾surveys. 
The following main methods and sources were used: 
• Critical desktop review of materials related to NOA, such as project quarterly and monthly reports, 
annual work plans, performance management plans (PMPs), project design documents, and 
communication among partners. The Evaluation Team also reviewed a wide range of project-related 
documents found on the web, news articles for background information, and more. The documents 
reviewed are provided in Annex C. The documents reviewed captured background information on 
the project: its goals, stakeholders, inputs, outputs, and outcomes. They were also used to assess 
value chain financial viability, labor, and capital intensity, and production technology characteristics 
associated with each of the commodity value chains being addressed by NOA. Review of the 
Performance Monitoring Plan provided a further basis for determining whether the project activities 
were implemented as planned and identifying any challenges or problems that delayed or altered 
their implementation. 
• In-depth interviews with USAID and NOA staff. 
• 50 semi-structured interviews, with partners, private farmers, food processors, impor-export 
businesses, women’s associations, industry associations such as Kosovo Dairy Processors, Austrian 
Development Agency, NGOs including Action for Revitalization, and Initiative for Agricultural 
Development and more. 
• Field visits to municipalities of Vushtri, Suhareke, Shtime, Shterpce, Rahovec, Prizren, Pristina, Peja, 
Mitrovice, Mamushe, Lipjan, Kline, Istog, Gjokove, Gjilan, Fushe Kosove, Ferizaj, and Decan. 
• Four FGDs with women’s associations, to gain a direct understanding of the activities, value chain 
linkages, and long-run financial viability of the organizations. 
• A mini-survey to gauge perceptions of project results among 69 stakeholders. 
• Direct observations to crosscheck information (e.g. comparing statements to observed practice) and 
identification of factors not previously recognized. 
In total, the Evaluation Team collected information from 139 individuals. Interviews with MAFRD, 
NOA, and USAID staff used open-ended questions designed to address the relevant SOW questions. 
They were supplemented by use of formal survey instruments with NOA direct and indirect 
beneficiaries using a standard set of close-ended questions that also provided respondents with the 
opportunity to expand on their responses. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were used to interact with 
four women’s associations. 
Site visits were determined in consultation with USAID and NOA staff with the final decision based on 
schedule, budget, logistics, and concentration of activities of interest. The goal was to meet 
stakeholders who are involved in all NOA value chains at different levels of involvement. For the 
purpose of this evaluation, a stakeholder is defined as a person with an interest or concern in NOA 
practices. Stakeholders included USAID, NOA project staff, and NOA value chains actors. 
49 
 
The team conducted 
four FGDs with 
women’s agriculture 
associations, which 
included 39 individuals. 
This interaction 
enabled the Evaluation 
team to gain insight 
into gender 
empowerment 
practices implemented 
through NOA and their 
constraints to achieving 
greater success along 
their respective value 
chains. 
Limitations to the evaluation included: 
1. A number of questions during the interviews dealt with issues that took place in the past, so recall 
bias is possible. As NOA activities were launched in 2011, some respondents found it difficult to 
accurately compare organizational arrangements/access to services provided prior to project startup 
or specific information regarding crop yields. 
 2. There is a known tendency among respondents to under-report socially undesirable answers and 
alter their responses to approximate what they perceive as the social norm (halo bias). The extent 
to which respondents are prepared to reveal their true opinions may also vary for some questions 
that call upon the respondents to assess the performance of their colleagues or people on whom 
they depend for the provision of services. To mitigate this limitation, the Evaluation Team provided 
respondents with confidentiality and anonymity guarantees, and conducted interviews in settings that 
made respondents feel comfortable. 
3. Small sample sizes of individual value chain respondent groups, given the evaluation time and financial 
constraints, do not support formal statistical representation of survey responses to the total 
population. 
The table below summarizes the method by which the Evaluation SOW questions were addressed in the 
report narrative. 
Focus Area
Section I: 
Results to 
Date 
- What has been the impact of the project in terms of growth of domestic sales, 
import substitution, export and employment? 
-What services have been most effective? 
- How is the use of grants to the counterparts, as well as institutional collaboration 
helping with the development of agriculture enterprises? 
.-To what extent has the project influenced Government of Kosovo (GOK) 
programs and private sector partners? 
-To what extent have the project interventions helped facilitate the involvement of 
women in the agriculture sector in Kosovo? 
Section II: 
Current 
Effectiveness 
-Are the project activities effective in terms of strengthening agriculture support 
institutions? 
-To what extent are the objectives of the program still valid? 
- Is the project effective in identifying policy constraints, analyzing the impact of 
Descriptions of Respondents 
Open-ended 
Interviews 
Surveys FGDs
Municipality Pristina Vushtri, Suhareke, 
Shtime, Shterpce, 
Prizren, Pristina, Peja, 
Mitrovice, Mamushe, 
Kline, Istog, Gjilan, 
Fushe Kosove, Ferizaj, 
and Decan 
Rahovec, 
Lipjan, Fushe 
Kosove, 
Gjokove 
Number of 
respondents 
and NOA 
roles 
31 USAID staff, 
NOA staff, and 
NOA value chain 
actors 
69 NOA value chain 
participants 
39 women’s 
association 
members 
50 
 
policy decisions on private agribusiness, and initiating policy reforms? 
-How are the project's implementation approach and strategies helping 
development of the agriculture enterprises? 
Section III: 
NOA 
Potential for 
Achieving 
Objectives 
-How can NOA best ensure the long-term sustainability of activities supported by 
the project? 
-Is the project on-track to achieve its objectives by the end of the project? 
What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the 
objectives? 
-How effective and sustainable are the various activities? 
-.Examine scope of improvements in project activities and modes of operations for 
the rest of the project period based on the finding of the aforementioned tasks. 
-.How can the project's Performance Management Plan (PMP) be improved to 
provide better data and information to management decision-making? 
Section IV: 
Opportunities 
in Agriculture 
Sector after 
NOA 
-Based on the principle findings of the evaluation, a review of other documents and 
discussions with key counterparts, what kinds of activities, within the field of 
agriculture and agribusiness, should USAID consider supporting after the 
completion of the NOA project? 
-What recommendations could be made about future programs in this sector? 
-How can USAID/Kosovo achieve greater participation of women in future 
agriculture program design? 
Evaluation Limitations 
Limitations to the evaluation include the following: 
1. A number of questions during the interviews dealt with issues that took place in the past, so recall 
bias is possible. As NOA activities were launched in 2011, some respondents found it difficult to 
accurately compare organizational arrangements/access to services provided prior to project startup 
or specific information regarding crop yields. 
 2. There is a known tendency among respondents to under-report socially undesirable answers and 
alter their responses to approximate what they perceive as the social norm (halo bias). The extent 
to which respondents are prepared to reveal their true opinions may also vary for some questions 
that call upon the respondents to assess the performance of their colleagues or people on whom 
they depend for the provision of services. To mitigate this limitation, the Evaluation Team provided 
respondents with confidentiality and anonymity guarantees, and conducted interviews in settings that 
made respondents feel comfortable. 
3. Small sample sizes of individual value chain respondent groups, given the evaluation time and financial 
constraints, do not support formal statistical representation of survey responses to the total 
population. 
51 
ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
52 
NOA Evaluation Individual Interview 
Survey Form Number ……… …………………………………………………………..... /________/ 
Interview Date (ddmm)……………… ………………………………………………… /________/ 
Respondent Name_____________________________________ 
Respondent Age ……………………………………………………………………………../________/ 
(<25=1) (26-45=2)(46-
60=3)(>61=4) 
Respondent Gender …………………………………………………………..…………M/F/________/ 
Ask only for Production VC respondents 
Are you considered a NOA Project Lead Farmer? ……………………………. Y/N /________/ 
Company Name ______________________________________________________________ 
Phone (for companies) _________________________________________________________ 
E-Mail (for companies __________________________________________________________ 
Municipal Location……………………………………………………….…………………/________/ 
01 Decan 05 Gjilan 09 Mamushe 13 Pristina 17 Shterpce
02 Drenas 06 Gjokove 10 Mitrovice 14 Prizren 18 Suhareke
03 Ferizaj 07 Kamenice 11 Peje 15 Rahovec 19 Other
04 Fushe Kosova 08 Kline 12 Podujeve 16 Shtime
Farm Products grown, processed or sold with NOA Project Support………………/________/ 
01 Apple 04 Blueberry 07 Grapes 10 Nursery 13 Saffron 
02 Asparagus 05 Dairy 08 Lettuce 11 Pepper 14 Strawberry
03 Blackberry 06 Gherkin 09 MAP 12 Raspberry 15 Other
Value Chain Participant Status………………………..……………………………………/________/
01 Producer 03 Collection 
Center 
05 Processor 07 Exporter 09 Nursery
02 
Producer/Collection 
Ctr 
04 
Producer/Processor
06 
Wholesaler/trader
08 
Retail/supermarket 
10 Other
Legal Organization Form………………………………...…………………………………../________/
01 Private Farmer 02 Private Trader 03 Limited 04 Joint Stock Co. 05 Association
53 
(NI) Company
06 Cooperative 
Survey Start Time ________________ 
1. Number of full time workers Hired (225 days or more, include family workers)………………
 Total /________/ Men /________/ Women /________/
2. Number of seasonal workers hired...................................... …………………………………………. 
 Total /_______/ Men /_______/ Women /_______/ 
3. Does your company have any special programs to promote hiring of women 
employees……………………………………………………………………………..Y/N /_______/ 
4. Does your company buy agricultural products from out-growers?....................Y/N/_______/
If yes ask Q 5 If no go to Q 7. 
5. Do you provide trade credits or other inputs (planting material, fertilizers, etc) to out￾growers?........................................................................................................................................... Y/N /_______/ 
6. Do you provide technical advice to growers from whom you buy 
products?.........................................................................................................................................Y/N /_______/ 
7. Do you enter into formal contracts with growers from whom you buy 
products?................................................................................................................................................./_______/ 
4 All the time 3 Most of the time 2 Less than half of the time 1 Never 
8. What are the five major constraints that keep you from increasing your business 
profits? (Provide list to respondent and ask them to identify the five that were the most 
important and rank from 1 to 5) 
1 Lack of technical knowledge needed to become more efficient 
2 Lack of credit(interest rate too high) to buy production inputs 
3 Lack of appropriate fertilizers (or other chemicals) on local 
markets 
4 Lack of quality seeds and planting materials on local markets 
5 Lack of credit (interest rate too high) to buy 
equipment/machinery 
6 Lack of appropriate machinery/equipment on local markets 
7 Lack of domestic product market access
8 Poor product quality that doesn’t meet market standards 
9 Lack of proper packaging materials
10 Tough competition from neighboring countries
11 Not enough available labor
12 Poor quality of available labor
54 
13 Unattractive product prices
14 Lack of storage facilities
15 Other (List) 
9. Where do you get funds to purchase inputs and working capital? (tick all that apply) 
1 Personal savings
2 Borrow from family members
3 Borrow from informal lenders
4 Bank 
5 Micro finance
6 Trade credits (from buyer of my products)
7 Grants from donor organizations
8 I can’t get credit
9 Other (List) 
If out-grower with no NOA participation go to Q17 
10. What year did you start working with the NOA 
Project………………………………………………………..………………………………/______/ 
11. How has your production turnover changed since that time? (Provide information only 
for products for which you are working with the NOA Project)
Characteristic 2011 2012 2013 
Tonnes 
Land area farmed (ha) 
 Note: 100 ari = 1 hectare 
12. How much of this change is due to NOA Project technical support?......................./_______/ 
4 All 3 Most 2 Less than half 1 none 
13. What kind of training or other support have you received from the NOA project? (Tick 
all that apply. Provide the list to the respondent and ask them to identify all that apply. 
1 Technical advice/knowledge & other support for farm production processes (drip 
irrigation, trellising, etc) 
2 Technical advice/knowledge and other support for farm postharvest handling processes 
3 Technical advice/knowledge and other support for product market development 
processes 
4 Direct market linkage facilitation to access new domestic /export markets
5 Technical advice /knowledge and other support for improving product quality
6 Technical advice/knowledge and other support to improve product packaging, labelling 
and branding 
7 Technical advice/knowledge and other support to upgrade worker(employee) skills 
8 Technical advice/knowledge and other support from foreign specialist
9 Technical advice/knowledge and other support to install cold storage facilities 
10 Study tours to foreign countries 
11 Field trips to other places in Kosovo
12 Trade fair participation 
13 Access to NOA grants and subcontracts
55 
14 Project facilitation to access formal credit sources (banks, other financial organization, 
trade credits 
15 Direct support to obtain GlobalGAP/HACCP certification
16 Other (List) 
14. Thinking about all of the assistance provided by the NOA project how would your rate 
its usefulness in improving your business profitability? (Tick one option 
only)…………………………………………………………………………..…………….../_______/ 
4 very important 3 somewhat important 2 not very important 1 no impact 
For respondents that are implementing (or have implemented a NOA Project grant or 
subcontract) ask the following question. 
15. How would you describe your experience with the grant/subcontract component of the 
NOA Project? (Tick one option 
only)…………………………………………………………………………………….…../_______/ 
4 very useful 3 somewhat useful 2 not very useful 1. needs 
improvement 
16. In your own words please describe further your experience with the NOA grant and 
subcontract program 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
17. Thinking about all technical training, advice and other support received from the NOA 
Project which ones do you think are the most important to improving your future 
business profitability? (Provide list to respondent and ask them to identify the five that 
were the most important and rank from 1 to 5) 
1 Technical advice/knowledge & other support for farm production processes (drip 
irrigation, trellising, etc.) 
2 Technical advice/knowledge and other support for farm postharvest handling processes 
3 Technical advice/knowledge and other support for product market development 
processes 
4 Direct market linkage facilitation to access new domestic /export markets 
5 Technical advice /knowledge and other support for improving product quality
6 Technical advice/knowledge and other support to improve product packaging, labelling 
and branding 
7 Technical advice/knowledge and other support to upgrade worker(employee) skills 
8 Technical advice/knowledge and other support from foreign specialist
9 Technical advice/knowledge and other support to install cold storage facilities 
10 Study tours to foreign countries 
11 Field trips to other places in Kosovo
12 Trade fair participation 
13 Access to NOA grants and subcontracts
14 Project facilitation to access formal credit sources (banks, other financial organization, 
trade credits 
15 Direct support to obtain GlobalGAP/HACCP certification
56 
16 Other
18. What will you do after the end of the NOA Project in order to continue to increase 
your business profitability? (Summarize the answer below) 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
19. What changes in government policies would help the most in supporting the future 
economic development of your business? (Summarize the response in the space 
provided below) 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
Survey end time_____________ 
 
57 
NOA Evaluation Women Focus Group Interview 
Survey Form Number ……………………………………………………………….……..../________/ 
Interview Date 
(ddmm)…………………………………………………………………………………………/ _______/ 
Respondent Names1. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
Municipal Location 
……………………………………………………….……………………..…………………/________/ 
01 Decan 05 Gjilan 09 Mamushe 13 Pristina 17 Shterpce
02 Drenas 06 Gjokove 10 Mitrovice 14 Prizren 18 Suhareke
03 Ferizaj 07 Kamenice 11 Peje 15 Rahovec 19 Other
04 Fushe Kosova 08 Kline 12 Podujeve 16 Shtime
Farm Products Grown, Processed or Sold with NOA Project 
Support……………………………………………………………………………………...…/________/ 
01 Apple 04 Blueberry 07 Grapes 10 Nursery 13 Saffron 
02 Asparagus 05 Dairy 08 Lettuce 11 Pepper 14 Strawberry
03 Blackberry 06 Gherkin 09 MAP 12 Raspberry 15 Other
Start Time__________ 
1. Are You 
………………………………………………………………………………………...…../_________/ 
01 Private Farmer 02- Member Farmer 03 Other
2. How did you learn about The NOA Project and its activities in your area? (select one 
only)……………………………………………………………………………………..../_________/
01 local processor 03 neighbors 05 other
02 collection station 04 NOA project staff 
58 
If other please explain: 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
3. What type of training or other support have you received from NOA or other donor 
projects? (Tick all that apply. Provide list to respondents and ask them to identify all 
that apply.) 
1 Technical training on home food processing 
2 Technical advice and other support on processed home food packaging and 
labelling to meet domestic food standards 
3 Technical advice and other support on crop production (drip irrigation, trellising 
etc.) 
4 Technical advice and other support on Postharvest handling 
5 Technical advice on market development processes 
6 Direct linkage facilitation to access new markets 
7 Technical advice and other support to improve product packaging, labelling and 
branding 
8 Study Tours to foreign countries 
9 Field trips to other places in Kosovo 
10 Trade fair participation 
11 Access to NOA grants or subcontracts 
12 Other 
4. In general how useful was the training and support that you received from the 
NOA/donor Projects? (Select one 
option)………………………………………………………………………………….….../_______/ 
4 Very useful 3 Useful 2 Somewhat useful 1 Needs improvement
5. What type of processed food do you produce? (Tick all that apply) 
1 Aivar 
2 Tursai 
3 Pickles 
4 Jam 
5 Marmalade 
6 Dried Fruit & vegetable 
59 
7 Rechel 
8 Other 
6. Do you sell any of the products that you produce?......................................................Y/N /_______/ 
If the answer to Q 6 is yes go to Q 9 If the answer is no go to Q 7: 
7. Why do you not sell the food products that you produce? ………………………/________/
01 never thought of 
it 
02 I don’t think there is a 
market 
03 my husband doesn’t 
approve 
04 other 
If other, please explain 
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Would you like to sell the processed food products that you produce?..........Y/N /_______/ 
If the answer to Q 8 is yes continue to Q 9. If the answer is no go to Q 11. 
9. How do you expect to get the raw fruits and vegetables for expanded processing? (Tick 
all that apply) 
1 Grow them myself 
2 Buy them from Others 
3 Grow them and buy them 
4 Other 
10. What sources of cash are available to you to expand your business? (tick all that apply) 
1 Personal savings
2 Borrow from family members
3 Borrow from informal lender
4 Bank
5 Micro finance
6 Trade credits (from buyer of my products) 
7 Grants from donor organizations 
8 I can’t get credit
9 Other
If other, please explain 
60 
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
11. What kind of additional training or other assistance can help you meet your goals? 
(Tick all that apply. Provide list to respondents and ask them to identify all that apply.) 
1 Technical advice/knowledge on home food processing 
2 Technical advice/knowledge and other support on processed home food packaging 
and labelling to meet domestic food standards 
3 Technical advice/knowledge and other support on crop production 
4 Technical advice/knowledge and other support on Postharvest handling 
5 Technical advice/knowledge on market development processes 
6 Direct linkage facilitation to access new markets 
7 Technical advice/knowledge and other support to improve product packaging, 
labelling and branding 
8 Study Tours to foreign countries 
9 Field trips to other places in Kosovo 
10 Trade fair participation 
11 Access to NOA grants or subcontracts 
12 Other (List) 
12. In your opinion, what are the five most important items for improving farmer 
productivity in your area? 
(Provide the list to the respondents and have them rank the top five listed actions from 
1 to 5) 
1 Better knowledge and access to production technologies 
2 Better knowledge and access to postharvest handling 
technologies 
3 Better access to market information 
4 Better facilitation to new market opportunities 
5 Better access to fertilizers 
6 Better access to drip irrigation 
7 Better access to improved seeds and planting materials for 
current varieties 
8 Better access to new varieties 
9 Lower interest rates on loans 
10 Better access to processors and collection stations 
11 Better access to export markets 
61 
12 Other 
13. What will you do after the end of the NOA Project in order to continue to increase 
your business profitability? (Summarize the answer below) 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
14. What changes in government policies would most help you to expand your business 
income? 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Survey End Time _________________ 
62 
ANNEX 4: INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
63 
Name Organization Location
13 January 2014 
1 Dardane Peja USAID Project Management Specialist Pristina
2 Melita Cacaj USAID Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist Pristina
3 Amy Southworth USAID Program Officer Pristina
4 Mark Wood NOA Project Chief of Party Pristina
5 Musli Berisha NOA Project Private Sector Linkage Specialist Pristina
14 January 2014
6 Fatmir Selimi NOA Project Dep Chief of Party Pristina
7 Artan Zhushi NOA Project Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist Pristina
8 Naim Krasniqi NOA Project Training Coordinator Pristina
9 Laura Krypa Gjakova NOA Project Environment Compliance Specialist Pristina 
10 Reshat Ajvazaj NOA Project Postharvest/Certification Specialist Pristina
11 Liza Marku NOA Project Sales & Marketing Specialist Pristina
12 Arben Musliu NOA Project Private Sector Linkage Specialist Pristina
13 Agron Selmani NOA Project Grants & Subcontracts Manager Pristina
15 January 2014
14 Halit Hoxhaj MAFRD Political Advisor Pristina
15 Arta Balaj MAFRD Advisor Pristina
16 Samir Riza NOA Project Private Sector Linkage Specialist Pristina
17 Ismet Babaj NOA Vegetable Production Specialist Pristina
16 January 2014
18 Maxhun Shehaj NOA Fruit Production Specialist Pristina
19 Zenel Bunjaku Executive Director, Initiative for Agricultural 
Development of Kosovo (IDAK) 
Mitrovice
20 Vedat Haradinaj Private Farmer/owner Fresh AgroFresh NI Mitrovice
21 Gani Hajzeri Private Farmer/Owner Agro Serra Mitrovice
January 17, 2014
22 Michael Kimes NOA Project Chief Technical Officer Pristina
23 Lumnije Bislimi Private Farmer Gjilan 
24 Agron Namoni ASK Foods, Ltd., joint owner Gjilan 
25 Nevruz Malazogu MOEA Ltd Manager Gjilan 
26 Alban Isufi Private Farmer Gjilan 
January 20, 2013
27 Sedat Mazrek Euro Tac Collection Center, Manager Mamushe
28 Tefik Taç Euro Tac, Collection Center, joint owner Mamushe
29 Nazim Taçi Private Farmer Mamushe
30 Murat Mazrek Private Farmer Mamushe
31 Nurie Gashi Fjolla Women’s Assn Leader Rahovec
32 Elvana Gashi Fjolla Women’s Assn Member Rahovec
33 Valbona Bytyqi Fjolla Women’s Assn Member Rahovec
34 Ajtene Berisha Fjolla Women’s Assn Member Rahovec
35 Lendita Mustafa Fjolla Women’s Assn Member Rahovec
36 Melihate Gashi Fjolla Women’s Assn Member Rahovec
37 Serbeze Zhuniqi Fjolla Women’s Assn Member Rahovec
 
64 
38 Ismet Taç Private Farmer Mamushe
39 Cemil Morina Private Farmer Mamushe
40 Qamil Shala Shala Produkt Collection Center, Owner Suhareke
41 Hysni Shala Private Farmer Suhareke
42 Elmaz Haxhija Private Farmer Suhareke
43 Gazmend Hoti Private Farmer Suhareke
44 Arsim Krasniqi Private Farmer Suhareke
45 Liman Hoti Private Farmer Suhareke
46 Ramadan Shala Private Farmer Suhareke
47 Rrahman Shala Private Farmer Suhareke
January 21, 2014
48 Labinot Spahiu Agrovisioni Ltd, Owner Lipjan 
49 Mehdi Bresilla Me Agro/Private Farmer Lipjan 
50 Gegë Zefi Bio Buzmi/Private Farmer Ferizaj 
51 Halim Baftiu Private Farmer Shtime
52 Skender Ramadani Private Farmer Shtime
53 Irfan Rafuna ABI Ltd. Food Processor, Manager Prizren
54 Mehmet Shala Euro Food, Manager Prizren
January 22, 2014 
55 Qamil Cena Private Farmer Rahovec
56 Selajdin Haxhimurati Private Farmer Rahovec
57 Ali Oruqi Action for Revitalization Assn. Leader Rahovec
58 Selajdin Hundozi Private Farmer Rahovec
59 Fatmir Haxhimustafa Private Farmer Rahovec
60 Bashkim Bytyqi Rizona Processing Company, Manager Rahovec
61 Artur Camaj Stone Castle Winery, Manager Rahovec
62 Habib Dina Zeri Bujkut Assn., President Rahovec
63 Sulejman Bala Rahovec Institute, Director Rahovec
January 23, 2014
64 Qemajl Vuqiterna Private Trader Pristina
65 Ramadan Memaj Kosovo Dairy Processor Assn. President Pristina
66 Dragoliub Dejanovič Private Farmer Shterpce
67 Ivan Vaksimovič Private Farmer Shterpce
68 Slaviša Jovanovič Private Farmer Shterpce
69 Nevena Milenkovič Private Farmer Shterpce
70 Sylfije Sahiti Parajsa Jone Women's Assn., Leader Lipjan 
71 Sabije Haliti Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
72 Shpresa Jashari Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
73 Merita Jashari Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
74 Myrvete Jashari Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
75 Minire Salihi Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
76 Fatime Selmani Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
77 Hajrije Salihi Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
78 Shkurte Mustafa Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
79 Kadire Mustafa Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
80 Shqipe Hyseni Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
81 Mexhide Dugolli Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
82 Lumnije Hyseni Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
65 
83 Izajere Azemi Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
84 Antigone Ymeri Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
85 Albulene Sahiti Parajsa Jone Womens’ Assn., Member Lipjan 
86 Arsim Aziri Austrian Development Agency, Program Officer Pristina
January 24, 2014
87 Milazim Berisha Kosovo Milk Producers’ Assn., President Pristina
88 Ardian Purrini Kosove Milk Producers’ Assn., Executive Director Pristina
89 Ahmet Hoxha TrePharm, Quality Control Manager Pristina
90 Merita Selimi Konvita Women’s Assn, Leader Vushtri
91 Valbona Ademi Private Farmer Fushe Kosove
92 Ymer Berisha Dairy Bylmeti, Manager Fushe Kosove
93 Edon Shkololli Elkos Group, Import Manager Pristina
94 Naim Aliqkaj Elkos Group, Export Manager Pristina
95 Kenneth Smarzik Tetra Tech, Agr and Economic Growth Manager Pristina
96 Hava Abdullahu “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Leader Fushe Kosove
97 Mihane Shala “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
98 Ziavere Shala “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
99 Valbone Sllamniku “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
100 Mevlude Shala “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
101 Fazile Sllamniku “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
102 Hata Sllamniku “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
103 Valbona Ademi “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
104 Andije Sllamniku “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
105 Rukije Sllamniku “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
106 Afrore Shala “Flori” Womens’ Assn., Member Fushe Kosove
January 25, 2014
107 Naser Rusinovci Sole Kosove Ltd, Director Fushe Kosove
January 27, 2014
108 Halit Avdijaj Agro Product Ltd Director Istog 
109 Faik Salihaj Private Farmer Istog 
110 Beqir Beqiraj Private Farmer Istog 
111 Bedri Kastrati Private Farmer Decan 
112 Naser Mamutaj Private Farmer Istog 
113 Florie Sutaj Private Farmer Istog 
114 Afrim Mehmetaj Private Farmer Istog 
115 Zymba Avdijaj Private farmer Istog 
116 Gani Avdijaj Private Farmer Istog 
January 28, 2014
117 Shefqet Kelmendi Kelmendi,Gmbh, Director Peja 
118 Arif Gashi Private Farmer Peja 
119 Selim Gashi Private Farmer Peja 
120 Adem Tafa Private Farmer Peja 
121 Istef Tafa Private Farmer Peja 
122 Bardh Begolli Peja Agricultural Institute, Head, Soil Analysis Lab Peja 
123 Fadil Shebeni Private Farmer Peja 
124 Nazmi Kelmendi Private Farmer Peja 
125 Haxhi Beka Private Farmer Peja 
66 
126 Ragip Tafshala Private Farmer Peja 
127 Hajdin Zymberi Private Farmer Peja 
128 Fozli Zymberi Private Farmer Peja 
January 29, 2014
129 Selman Shala Private Farmer Peja 
130 Hizija Medjunjanin Private Farmer Peja 
131 Izet Kastrati Private Farmer Peja 
132 Rexhep Soshi Fidanishte, Director Istog 
133 Shurta Halimi NTP Freskia Gjokove
134 Leke Duhani Duhani Nursery, Director Kline 
135 Hatixhie Binaku Korenica Women’s Milk Assn. Leader Gjokove
136 Shqipe Berisha Korenica Women’s Milk Assn, Member Gjokove
137 Ajmane Binaku Korenica Women’s Milk Assn, Member Gjokove
138 Artinh Binaku Korenica Women’s Milk Assn, Member Gjokove
139 Linda Binaku Korenica Women’s Milk Assn, Member Gjokove
 
67 
ANNEX 5: FIELD INTERVIEW SITES VISITED
68 
Date 2014 Survey Site Individual 
Interviews 
Focus Group 
Discussions 
16 Jan Mitrovice 3
17 Jan Giljan 4
20 Jan Suhareke 8
20 Jan Mamushe 6
20 Jan Rahovec 7 
21 Jan Ferizaj 1
21 Jan Lipjan 2
21 Jan Shtime 2
21 Jan Prizren 2
22 Jan Rahovec 8
23 Jan Pristina 3
23 Jan Shterpce 4
23 Jan Lipjan 16 
24 Jan Pristina 5
24 Jan Fushe Kosove 2 11 
24 Jan Vushtri 1
25 Jan Fushe Kosove 1
27 Jan Istog 8
27 Jan Decan 1
28 Jan Peja 12
29 Jan Peja 3
29 Jan Istog 1
29 Jan Gjokove 1
29 Jan Kline 1
29 Jan Gjokove 5 
Total 79 39 
69 
ANNEX 6: DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
70 
1. Booz Allen Hamilton. (2010). Kosovo Agricultural Opportunities Strategy. Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
2. Dimovski, L., Garvanlieva, V., Orozovic, S., Dimovska, P., Luma, M., Gojnovci, Z., Berisha, and D., 
Cikaqi, B. (2011). APPLE VALUE CHAIN PROFILE IN KOSOVO (Value Chain Assessment, NOA Kosovo).
Skopje, Republic of Macedonia: EPI Centar International. 
3. Dimovski, L., Garvanlieva, V., Orozovic, S., Dimovska, P., Luma, M., Gojnovci, Z., Berisha, and D., 
Cikaqi, B. (2011). BERRIES VALUE CHAIN PROFILE IN KOSOVO (Value Chain Assessment, NOA 
Kosovo). Skopje, Republic of Macedonia: EPI Centar International. 
4. Dimovski, L., Garvanlieva, V., Orozovic, S., Dimovska, P., Luma, M., Gojnovci, Z., Berisha, and D., 
Cikaqi, B. (2011). TABLE GRAPES VALUE CHAIN PROFILE IN KOSOVO (Value Chain Assessment, NOA 
Kosovo). Skopje, Republic of Macedonia: EPI Centar International. 
5. EPI Centar International. (n.d.) Asparagus Value Chain in Kosovo Short Profile (Value Chain Assessment, 
NOA Kosovo). Skopje, Republic of Macedonia: EPI Centar International. 
6. EPI Centar International. (n.d.) Kiwi Value Chain in Kosovo Profile (Value Chain Assessment, NOA 
Kosovo). Skopje, Republic of Macedonia: EPI Centar International. 
7. EPI Centar International. (n.d.) Lettuce Value Chain in Kosovo Profile (Value Chain Assessment, NOA 
Kosovo). Skopje, Republic of Macedonia: EPI Centar International. 
8. EPI Centar International. (n.d.) Saffron Value Chain in Kosovo Short Profile (Value Chain Assessment, 
NOA Kosovo). Skopje, Republic of Macedonia: EPI Centar International. 
9. EPI Centar International. (n.d.) Short Profile of Flower Bulb Value Chain in Kosovo (Value Chain 
Assessment, NOA Kosovo). Skopje, Republic of Macedonia: EPI Centar International. 
10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2001). Food Balance Sheets: A 
Handbook. Rome, Italy: FAO. 
11. Government of Kosovo Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development. (2013). Green 
Report Kosovo 2013. Pristina, Kosovo: MAFRD. 
12. Harmon, H., Spalevic, B., Pejovic, Z., and Vladislav, D. (n.d.). MARKETS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND 
AGRIBUSINESS PRODUCTS FROM MONTENEGRO IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA, KOSOVO, 
ALBANIA AND MACEDONIA. Skopje, Republic of Macedonia: USAID. 
13. Kotherja, E. (n.d.) KOSOVO HORTICULTURE TRADE BALANCE REPORT 2007-2010. Pristina, 
Kosovo: Swiss Cooperation Office Kosovo and Ministry or Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 
14. Kotherja, E. (n.d.) KOSOVO HORTICULTURE TRADE BALANCE REPORT 2007-2011. Pristina, 
Kosovo: Swiss Cooperation Office Kosovo and Ministry or Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 
15. Mellor, J. (2011) ACTION PLAN FOR A SIX PERCENT GROWTH RATE FOR AGRICULTURE: Why, 
What, When, Impact. Pristhina and Bransko, Kosovo: John Mellor Associates, Inc. 
16. Smith, G., (2013). NOA Mid-term Evaluation Expression of Interest. Washington, DC: USAID. 
17. Smith, G. (2013). Request for Task Order Proposal No. SOL-167-14-000001 for the USAID/Kosovo 
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the New Opportunities for Agriculture Project under the Policy, 
Planning, and Learning/Learning, Evaluation, and Research Indefinite Quantity Contract. Washington, 
DC: USAID. 
18. Tetra Tech ARD. (2011). KOSOVO NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE (NOA) PROGRAM 
FISCAL YEAR 2011 ANNUAL REPORT. Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
19. Tetra Tech ARD. (2012). ANNUAL INVESTITORS MEETING18 JULY - HOTEL EMERALD. Pristina, 
Kosovo: USAID. 
71 
20. Tetra Tech ARD. (2012). KOSOVO NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE (NOA) PROGRAM 
FISCAL YEAR 2012 ANNUAL REPORT. Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
21. Tetra Tech ARD. (2012). KOSOVO NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE (NOA) PROGRAM 
FISCAL YEAR 2013 WORK PLAN. Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
22. Tetra Tech ARD. (2012). KOSOVO NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE (NOA) PROGRAM 
PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN (PMP). Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
23. Tetra Tech ARD. (2012). KOSOVO NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE PROGRAM 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF PROFITABILITY OF SELECTED FARM ACTIVITIES 
FINAL REPORT: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ASSIGNMENT I. Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
24. Tetra Tech ARD. (2012). KOSOVO NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE PROGRAM 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF PROFITABILITY OF SELECTED FARM ACTIVITIES 
FINAL REPORT: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ASSIGNMENT II. Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
25. Tetra Tech ARD. (2013). KOSOVO Cost of Production. Pristina, Kosovo: Tetra Tech ARD. 
26. Tetra Tech ARD. (2013). KOSOVO NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE (NOA) PROGRAM 
FISCAL YEAR 2013 ANNUAL REPORT. Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
27. Tetra Tech ARD. (2013). KOSOVO NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE (NOA) PROGRAM 
FISCAL YEAR 2014 WORK PLAN. Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
28. Tetra Tech ARD. (2011). New Opportunities for Agriculture in Kosovo VALUE CHAINS ASSESSMENT. 
Pristina, Kosovo: USAID. 
29. Vass, J., Ortner, K., Molnar, A., Keszthelyi, T., Pesti, C., Lendler, G., Kiss, Z., Maacz, M., 
Georgieva, M. and Moser, R. (2010). Comprehensive Agricultural Sector Evaluation Report, Kosovo. 
Pristina, Kosovo: MAFRD. 
30. Vaut, G., Begovic, F. Dimovski, L., Dimitrijevic, B. Imami, D., Marko, L., Nagavci, F., Darev, E., 
Dolinshek, M. Mirecki, N., and Zdunic, S. (2011). KOSOVO NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
AGRICULTURE (NOA) PROGRAM: REGIONAL NEW MARKET OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENTS FOR 
APPLES, BERRIES, TABLE GRAPES, GHERKINS, AND LETTUCES IN ALBANIA, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, 
BULGARIA, CROATIA, MACEDONIA, MONTENEGRO, SERBIA AND SLOVENIA. Burlington, VT, USA: 
USAID.
31. Wood, M. (2013). Comparative gross margins for selected Kosovo Field Crops. Pristina, Kosovo: Tetra 
Tech ARD. 
32. USAID. (n.d.). KOSOVO: 2014-2018 COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION STRATEGY. 
Washington, DC: USAID. 
33. USAID. (2013). SECTION C - DESCRIPTION / SPECIFICATIONS / STATEMENT OF WORK. Pristina, 
Kosovo: USAID. 
 
72 
ANNEX 7: FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
73 
CONSTRAINTS TO VALUE CHAIN PARTICIPANT BUSINESS EXPANSION 
During the field survey, respondents were asked to identify major constraints to expanding their 
business operations. The complete analysis is presented in Annex 5.7 and are summarized in this 
section. 
Private Farmer Constraint Analysis: Chart 1 summarizes responses by private farmer respondents to 
the question “What are the five major constraints that keep you from increasing your business 
profits?” Seven constraints received an average rank above 3 out of a maximum of 5. They were, 
“poor product quality that doesn’t meet market standards”, “lack of credit (interest rate too high) 
to buy production 
inputs”, “lack of quality 
seeds and planting 
materials on local 
markets”, “lack of credit 
(interest rate too high) to 
buy equipment/ 
machinery”, “lack of 
technical knowledge 
needed to become more 
efficient”, “lack of 
appropriate machinery 
/equipment on local 
markets”, and “lack of 
storage facilities.” 
While several other 
constraints ranked near 3 
including “lack of 
appropriate fertilizers on 
local markets” and “unattractive product prices” private farmers did not view “poor quality of 
available labor” or “lack of proper packaging material” as major constraints. 
While the average rankings convey a sense of importance of each constraint to the individual 
respondents, rankings 
alone do not indicate the 
number of respondents 
who discussed each 
constraint. For this 
purpose, calculating the 
percentage of all 
respondents that indicate 
their concern about each 
specific constraint provides 
an indication of the overall 
importance of the 
constraint. 
Chart 2 provides the 
response intensity as 
measured by the 
proportion of all 
respondents that listed the 
constraint among the top 
five. It shows that 80% of 
all respondents identified high interest rates for buying production inputs as one of their five major 
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Chart 1 Private Farmer Average Ranking of Constraints to Increasing
Business Profits (n=46)
(5:	maximum	and	1:	minimum)
1‐Lack of technical knowledge need to become more efficient, 2‐Lack of credit to buy production inputs, 3‐Lack of
appropriate fertilizers on local markets, 4‐Lack of quality seeds and planting materials on local markets, 5‐Lack of
credit to buy equipment, 6‐Lack of appropriate machinery on local markets, 7‐Lack of domestic product market
access, 8‐Poor product quality that doesn’t meet market standards, 9‐lack of proper packaging materials, 10‐Tough
competition from neighboring countries , 11‐Not enough available labor, 12‐Poor quality available labor, 13‐
Unattactive product prices, 14‐Lack of storage facilities.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Chart 2 Private Farmer Constraint Response Intensity to Increasing
Business Profits Among (n=46)
(as	a	percentage	of	total	responses)
1‐Lack of technical knowledge need to become more efficient, 2‐Lack of credit to buy production inputs, 3‐Lack of
appropriate fertilizers on local markets, 4‐Lack of quality seeds and planting materials on local markets, 5‐Lack of
credit to buy equipment, 6‐Lack of appropriate machinery on local markets, 7‐Lack of domestic product market
access, 8‐Poor product quality that doesn’t meet market standards, 9‐lack of proper packaging materials, 10‐Tough
competition from neighboring countries , 11‐Not enough available labor, 12‐Poor quality available labor, 13‐
Unattactive product prices, 14‐Lack of storage facilities.
74 
constraints. Almost 60% indicate that lack of proper packaging materials was one of the five major 
constraints while just over 50% indicate that tough competition from neighboring countries was one 
of their five major constraints. 
The constraint ranking chart indicates that “poor product quality” was the most important 
constraint with respondents ranking it as one of their top five constraints. However, the intensity 
chart shows that “poor product quality” was selected by less than 10% of the respondents as one of 
their top five constraints. Hence, this is a very important constraint, but only for a small percentage 
of the total respondent population. Similarly, “lack of technical knowledge to become more 
efficient” was one of the highest ranking constraints, but the intensity rate was quite low at just over 
20% of respondents. “Lack of domestic product market access”, also ranked quite high among 
respondents, but was listed as a top five constraint by only 20% of the respondents. 
Value Chain Driver Constraint 
Analysis: Charts 3 and 4 provide 
value chain driver (collection 
center, processor, exporter) 
responses to the same set of 
constraint questions as were 
asked of the private farmer group. 
Constraint rankings of the value 
chain driver respondents are 
different than those of the private 
farmers. “Lack of credit (interest 
rate too high) to buy production 
inputs” ranks slightly higher than 
for private farmers. “Lack of 
domestic product market access” 
is the most important constraint 
with an average value of 4 out of a 
maximum of 5. “Lack of appropriate fertilizers on local markets”, “lack of appropriate technical 
knowledge need to become more efficient” and “tough competition from neighboring countries“ 
also rank close to 3.5 out of a maximum of 5 on the ranking scale. “Not enough labor” does not 
register as a constraint for the value chain driver group, but poor quality of labor registers at 2 out 
of a maximum of 5. “Lack of quality seeds and planting materials on local markets is also an 
important constraint. 
Chart 4 provides value chain driver intensity scores. As with private farmers the value chain driver 
respondents have a high intensity score for “lack of credit (interest rate too high) to buy production 
inputs” and also for “tough competition from neighboring countries”. “Lack of credit (interest rate 
too high) to buy equipment/ machinery has an intensity score of 50% with “lack of appropriate 
machinery /equipment receiving an intensity score of 40%. All other constraint score were below 
the 40% respondent score. However, nearly 40% of value chain drivers identified “lack of storage 
facilities as one of their top five constraints... 
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Chart 3		Value Chain Driver Average Ranking of Constraints to
Increasing Business Profits Among		(n=23)
1‐Lack of technical knowledge need to become more efficient, 2‐Lack of credit to buy production inputs,
3‐Lack of appropriate fertilizers on local markets, 4‐Lack of quality seeds and planting materials on local
markets, 5‐Lack of credit to buy equipment, 6‐Lack of appropriate machinery on local markets, 7‐Lack of
domestic product market access, 8‐Poor product quality that doesn’t meet market standards, 9‐lack of
proper packaging materials, 10‐Tough competition from neighboring countries , 11‐Not enough available
labor, 12‐Poor quality available labor, 13‐Unattactive product prices, 14‐Lack of storage facilities.
75 
Respondents were asked to 
identify the funding sources used 
for covering production costs and 
equipment purchases. Eighty 
percent indicate that use of 
savings or profits were a source of 
funds to meet production and 
investment expenditure with just 
fewer than 40% indicating 
“borrowing form family members” 
or “taking bank credit”. Just 
under 20% obtained credit for 
micro-finance lending agencies, 
and six percent received trade 
credits from product buyers. 
However, more than 50% of all 
respondents indicate that they 
received in-kind funding from 
donor projects through matching 
grant programs supported by 
NOA as well as by other donors. This result is consistent with the constraint responses indicating 
that credit is one of the main, if not the main constraint to increasing their business profit. In the 
absence of affordable credit, farmers and value chain drivers become more dependent on the donor 
community to cover partial costs of capital equipment in the presence of high cost of access credit 
markets. 
The field survey asked all respondents to identify new government policies that would most benefit 
their future business prospects. The most frequent responses included 1) “improve import quality 
standards to reduce the import of low quality seeds, planting materials and fertilizers”, 2) “eliminate 
dumping of foreign food imports at prices that are below production costs”, and 3) ”reduce farm 
level fuel prices by waiving a portion of the import excise tax”. 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Chart 4		Value Chain Driver Response Intensity of Constraints to
Increasing Business Profits		(n=23)
1‐Lack of technical knowledge need to become more efficient, 2‐Lack of credit to buy production inputs,
3‐Lack of appropriate fertilizers on local markets, 4‐Lack of quality seeds and planting materials on local
markets, 5‐Lack of credit to buy equipment, 6‐Lack of appropriate machinery on local markets, 7‐Lack of
domestic product market access, 8‐Poor product quality that doesn’t meet market standards, 9‐lack of
proper packaging materials, 10‐Tough competition from neighboring countries , 11‐Not enough available