Summarizes (unattached) final evaluation of a project to help small-scale Swazi farmers in selected areas produce and market irrigated vegetable crops (CAPM project). The project was implemented by Chemonics International. The evaluation covered the period 1989-2/96 against a PACD of 5/96. The project laid the base needed for small farmers to develop market strategies for horticulture — a profitable business for smallholders in Swaziland. It also created an awareness and understanding of the potential for agriculture technology in Swaziland, and helped small farmers to learn new practices and increase farm income. However, in the final phase, 2 years were not enough to complete cooperative development work; while most of the quantitative targets will be met, the farmer-owned cooperative businesses may not yet be viable. In addition, despite professed support by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC), field extension assistance to CAPM has been weak, limiting the potential for sustainability based on post-project MOAC support. While the use of farmer organizations as marketing agents in Phase III was reasonable given past project experiences, a different model might have had a better chance of success. Support for the Agro-industrial Advisor position at Swazi Business Growth Trust”s loan program was successful and cost-effective, demonstrating how expert business advice and credit can stimulate the sub-sector. The University of Swaziland/Ohio State University”s Student Attachment Program (placement of student interns) has also been a solid success. The program is providing student career opportunities and useful linkages with business. The following are lessons learned. (1) Cooperative development is a long-term process that requires education, not merely training. In 2 years it is not possible to develop viable farmer-owned business organizations from groups generally composed of poor, semi-literate, subsistence farmers. (2) CAPM farmers, after being shown the advantages and disadvantages of various options, chose to organize as farmer co-ops. While it is good for beneficiaries to participate in project strategy, cooperative development under CAPM has had many problems and it might have been better if expert personnel had taken a stronger role in guiding farmers to other options. (Author abstract, modified)
