(GCSP/BGD/033/JPN)
SPECIAL PROGRAMME FOR FOOD SECURITY
BANGLADESH
Report of Joint Final Evaluation
M. Kato (FAO, Team Leader
K. Yamada (Japan)
G. Shafiuddin (Bangladesh)
A.T.M. Zial Hoque (Bangladesh)
Z.U.M. Ahmed (Bangladesh)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Rome, October 2007
Table of Contents
Pages
Executive Summary
A. Main Findings
B. Recommendations
I. Introduction and Background
A. Introduction
B. Background
II. Project Approach and Design
A. Project Objectives
B. Project Approach and Design
III. Assessment of Project Implementation, Efficient and Management
A. Overall Status
B. Main Activities Implemented
C. Adequacy of Project Management
D. Support Given by Three Parties
IV. Assessment of Emerging Results
A. Development of Self-Reliant VBOs
B. Capacity Building for FGDP and RFS
C. Use of RFS
D. Strengthening of Local Support Capacity
E. Food and Agricultural Production
F. Income Generation
G. Progress in Enhancing Food Security and Reducing Poverty
V. Conclusions and Recommendations
A. Conclusions
B. Main Recommendations
1–5
1–4
4–5
6–7
6
6–7
7–8
7–8
8
8 – 13
8–9
9 – 12
12
12 – 13
13 – 17
13
13 – 14
14
15
15 – 16
16 – 17
17
17 – 21
17 – 20
20 - 21
Annex I.
Annex II.
Annex III.
Annex IV.
21 – 26
27
28
29
Terms of Reference
Mission Itinerary and Persons Met
Project Budget Status
List of Village-Based Organizations
SPFS Project Bangladesh (GCSP/BGD/033/JPN) - Final Evaluation Report
Executive Summary
As the terminal date (31 August 2007) of this project approached, the final
evaluation mission visited Bangladesh between 18-26 July 2007. The mission comprised
Masa Kato (FAO), Kouji Yamada (Donor) and Golam Shafiuddin, Zial Hoque and
Zahed-Ul-Murshid Ahmed (Government, Bangladesh). This summarizes the main
findings and recommendations of the final evaluation report.
A. Main Findings
Relevance and adequacy of the project approach/design
i.
The project’s objectives and design are coherent, and relevant to the felt needs of
the target groups (marginal/small farmers and landless villagers) as well as to the priority
policies of the government in addressing the MDG1 (poverty reduction and improving
food security), and especially strategies/programmes targeted at the very poor rural
communities.
ii. Similarly, the project approach is very appropriate with a strategy of empowering
the poor for self-reliant development through their formation of Village Based
Organizations (VBOs), their capacity development in planning and implementing smallscale actions through Farmer Group Development Plans (FGDPs) and Revolving Fund
(RF). While the design is operationally coherent with logical links between the planned
outcomes, outputs, activities and resources, it could have been clearer about being a pilot
project.
Main Results
iii. Project implementation has been generally satisfactory since late in 2004, but was
slow and unsatisfactory during first years (2002-04) when it followed conventional form
of top-down like extension approach centred on field demonstrations. It is noteworthy
that the three parties (the Government, donor and FAO) succeeded in re-orienting the
project implementation approach early in 2004 so as to follow the operational approach
outlined by the Regional SPFS Coordinator (RSC).
iv. Development of self-reliant VBOs of poor farmers – generally good progress has
been made in developing the 21 VBOs, marked by strong sense of ownership and
empowerment among the members, institutional evolution with their own rules, legal
status and elected executive committee. Many VBOs have also made good progress in
capacity for managing FGDP and RFS with technical support from the Upazilla technical
support teams, marked by high repayment rates for RFS (reportedly above 90%).
Nevertheless, many VBOs have not had long enough period of development into solid
bodies, including leadership and self-management capacity.
v. Strengthened local support capacity – the staff at Upazilla level under coordination
of UAECC are evolving into good technical teams to support VBOs, providing
appropriate technical advice and facilitating access to inputs and market. However,
further strengthening of their capacity would be desirable in some skills, especially those
for participatory community development, income generation activities and marketing.
vi. Expanded production capacity (soil/water management, agriculture, livestock, agroforestry, fisheries, post-harvest processing) – a good effort has been made to adapt the
project activities to the needs and potentials of the VBOs’ members, with activities
selected by appropriate criteria, such as (i) using simple and practical solutions, (ii) those
activities requiring only limited or no access to land, and (iii) providing steady and quick
returns. While systematic data on production aspects are not available on these aspects in
a comprehensive way, evidence suggests that new or improved production technologies
have been adopted by the target groups, generally with satisfactory results in improving
productivity and incomes (especially vegetables, livestock and aquaculture).
vii. Improved income generation (on- and off-farm) – this is a priority concern for the
target groups (the majority of members own very limited or no agricultural land), and
considerable achievements have been made by various groups in VBOs. Examples
include (i) for on-farm activities, fruits and vegetable nurseries, power tiller service; and
(ii) for off-farm activities, parboil rice processing, puff rice making, chutney making,
tailoring, rickshaw pulling.
viii. Progress in enhancing food security and reducing poverty – the surveys conducted
by the PMU (between 2002 and 2006) indicate: (i) for food security, considerable
improvements have been made in terms of total amount of food intake (15%) and in
calorie (14%), with larger increments among the poorest groups; and (ii) for poverty
reduction, a good majority of VBO members has experienced significant increases in
their incomes (average of 35% from TK 54,400 to TK 73,500), allowing improvements in
their livelihoods.
Conclusions
ix. Sustainability of the results achieved to date – this is still uncertain in view of (i) the
relatively short period of implementation in line with the project approach (some three
years) with gaps/uneven progress in capacity of the VBOs, (ii) early stage of production
experience, (iii) uneven strength of the Upazilla technical support teams as well as the
PMU. However, as demonstrated by the strong sense of empowerment of the VBOs and
by their success in adopting the production improvement activities, the project approach
shows very promising signs of serving as an effective model for participatory rural
development and food security.
x. Critical factors affecting the project relevance and effectiveness – among the
positive factors are: coherent and relevant project approach, good reception by the target
groups, good collaboration between the VBOs, Upazilla technical support teams and
2
NGO partners, hardworking PMU guided by the RSC, good support by the DAE, FAO
and donor. Main negative factors include the initial approach used in implementation
during the first years and some weaknesses in the Upazilla technical support teams.
Similarly, considering the pilot nature of project, there should have been (i) a planned,
built-in period of hand –over of project execution responsibility to the Ministry (perhaps
during the last year), and (ii) more systematic efforts made in monitoring the project
results during the implementation.
xi. Some emerging issues – these include: (i) how to ensure sustainability of the results
achieved, especially the VBOs. They will require further support for consolidation of
their institutional and management strength. Similar issues arise with respect to the need
to strengthen the Upazila technical support teams; (ii) the need to maintain, consolidate
and develop further the strength of the PMU, including urgent appointment of the team
leader, after the project’s termination in order to support any future replication or
expansion of the project approach; and (iii) given the Ministry’s strong interest in
expanding/replicating the project approach, what should be the nature and scope of a
follow-up programme (e.g. national wide or more limited geographical area?) and how to
ensure funding for the follow-up programme, including the external donor support?
B.
Recommendations
xii. Recommendations for the Government:
a) The capacity of the VBOs and the Upazila technical support teams should be
further consolidated to ensure their viability and sustainability (through the
continuation of monitoring support by the PMU, including some training);
b) Measures should be taken to maintain and strengthen the PMU, including the
engagement of its team leader, so that it could (i) continue with the monitoring
assistance, (ii) assist in the preparation of any follow-up programme/project
and (iii) undertaken a systematic assessment of the project results and the
project’s contribution to improving food security and livelihoods of the target
groups;
c) The Ministry should examine the project results to decide whether and how to
adopt the project approach, or any of its part, for mainstreaming in rural
development strategies/programmes. This includes the possibility of upscaling the approach into national or more limited scale;
d) To facilitate the above recommendations, the Government should secure
agreement of the donor to extending the project NTE by several months (to a
period up to six months) without additional donor contribution;
e)
For future expanded use of the approach, priority should be to cover these
poorest areas with “Monga” problems in northern parts of the country, while
minimizing duplications with other programmes/projects in the same area;
f)
For further expansion of the approach, attention should be given to upgrading
the Upazilla agricultural officers’ capacity for support services.
3
xiii. Recommendations for FAO:
a) FAO should assist the Government in securing agreement of the donor to
extending the project NTE as recommended above to facilitate consolidation
of the VBOs for better prospect of sustainability. This should also involve
systematic assessment of the project results so as to demonstrate that the
project approach is viable and effective;
b) Possible assistance should be considered to help the Government in
formulating/designing programmmes/projects for expanded use of the
approach, including the possible need to refine or adapt the approach further
to meet the national needs and in securing donor support for the necessary
resources.
xiv. Recommendations for the Donor:
a) The donor should consider favourably the Government’s request for extending
the project’s NTE by some months by using the balance of the project budget
in order to (i) consolidate the project’s results through further monitoring
support by the PMU to the VBOs and the local support teams (including some
training), facilitate the PMU assist in the preparation of a follow-up
programme/project, and (iii) undertake a systematic assessment of the
project’s results as suggested above;
b) It should also consider (i) additional funding of a programme/project using the
approach through FAO and/or (ii) adopting the project approach in its bilateral
aid programmes/projects.
4
I.
A.
Introduction and Background
Introduction
1. The SPFS project in Bangladesh is part of a suite of four country projects funded by
Japan (also two regional projects), all in support of implementing pilot projects in the
four Asian countries during 2001 and 2007. This project, with donor funding of
US$ 3,296,075 (the largest of the four in terms of donor budget), began implementation
in July 2002 for five years with the terminal date of June 2007, which has been extended
to August 2007 to accommodate the final evaluation. In accordance with the FAO
procedures, the three parties (Government of Bangladesh, the donor and FAO) agreed to
field an independent final evaluation mission during July and August covering all the
four countries: the evaluation mission visited Bangladesh during 18 – 26 July 2007. The
mission comprised Messrs. Masa Kato (team leader, FAO designated) and Kouji Yamada
(agricultural development specialist, donor designate) – the mission also included during
its work in the country Messrs. Golam Shafiuddin (Planning Commission, Bangladesh),
A.T.M. Zial Hoque (Ministry of Agriculture) and Zahed-Ul-Murshid Ahmed (Ministry of
Finance). The mission’s Terms of Reference and itinerary are given in Annexes I and II,
respectively.
B.
Background
2. Bangladesh is a food deficit and low income country, characterized by a large
population of 135 million with one of the highest densities in the world. While the
country has made impressive progress in food and agricultural production in the recent
past, poverty and food insecurity continue to afflict a significant portion of people – some
50% of the population is estimated as food insecure and similar percentage of population
under poverty line (some 25% in extreme poor). The twin problem of poverty and food
insecurity is particularly acute among the rural poor, especially the landless and marginal
and small farmers (with land holding of 1.0 ha or less).
3. The present project follows three small scale projects (two of them funded by
FAO/TCP) 1 and implemented under the umbrella of the DFID/World Bank supported
Agricultural Services Innovation and Reform Project. While these preceding projects
focused on on-farm water management, soil testing and fertilizer management, and crop
yield forecasting and agrometeorology, the SPFS project is intended to serve as a pilot
project for developing a model approach to address priority needs of the rural poor for
food security and poverty reduction by strengthening their self-reliance and improving
their livelihood. In particular, it is targeted at poorer sections of poor rural communities
in 21 selected villages in 21 Upazilas (sub-districts) – the target groups comprise a total
of 4,412 households, covering landless (59% of the total), marginal farmers (19.2%, with
less than 0.6 ha of land), small farmers (12.4%, up to 1.0 ha of land) and others (9.4%,
medium and larger farmers).
1
These were TCP/BGD/8929, TCP/BGD/0167, and a UTF project with resources from the World Bank
credit.
5
4. The project implementation agency is the Department of Agricultural Extension
(DAE) within the Ministry of Agriculture: it is directed by the National Project Director,
supported by the Project Management Unit (PMU, funded by the project budget, and
comprising at the time of the final evaluation, a team of five national specialists covering
agronomy, irrigation, livestock, agro-processing, and agro-forestry, and supported by a
Japanese officer – agricultural economist). At the national level, the Project Steering
Committee provides coordination at the policy level, and at the local level the
implementation support is coordinated by the Upazila Agricultural Officer through the
Upazila Agriculture Extension Coordination Committees. Technically the project has
been backstopped by the Regional SPFS Coordinator located in Jakarta, and funded also
by Japan (GCSP/RAS/180/JPN).
II.
A.
Project Approach and Design
Project Objectives
5. Overall Objectives. The overall development objective of the project is to assist the
country in improving national, household and intra-household food security on an
economically and environmentally sustainable basis by rapidly increasing food
production and productivity, reducing year to year variation of production and improve
access to food as a contribution to equity and poverty alleviation.
6.
Immediate Objectives. The particular objectives of this project in Bangladesh are:
a) to develop self-reliance in rural communities, including poor, women and
disadvantaged groups, in diagnosing opportunities and constraints, and testing
and implementing practical solutions to achieve sustainable food security;
b) to strengthen institutional capacity at community, local and national levels;
c) to increase the production and productivity of rice, wheat, pulses, oilseeds,
vegetables and other commodities of resource-poor farmers through improved
water control and integrated nutrient management;
d) to promote farming system diversification, nutrition and energy conservation
awareness, and develop location specific integrated farming systems to enhance
production, income generation and availability of nutritious food and to improve
nutritional status of rural households especially the women and vulnerable
groups; and
e) to promote small-scale agro-processing, post-harvest handling technology, and
on- and off-farm income generating activities through community based product
handling methods supported by marketing, credit and other agricultural support
services and identification of constraints.
7. These objectives are broadly relevant to the government policy priorities addressing
the MDG1 (poverty reduction and improved food security) targeted at very poor rural
communities. They are also very relevant to the pressing needs of the target groups
comprising marginal/small-scale farmers as well as women and landless villagers. In the
6
Bangladesh context, the targeting focus on these most vulnerable groups is particularly
relevant and valid as these groups form the core of the rural poor. However, given that
the majority of the target households have no or very limited access to agricultural lands,
there could have been a greater emphasis on income generation and livelihood than on
agricultural production aspects.
B.
Project Approach and Design
8. Similarly, the project approach is very appropriate with a strategy comprising three
key elements. The first is the empowering the poor target groups for self-reliant
development through their formation of Village Based Organizations (VBOs) 2 ,
particularly with capacity development of the target groups in planning and implementing
small-scale actions through Farmer Group Development Plans (FGDPs) and Revolving
Fund (RF). The empowering of VBOs has been coupled by two additional elements: (a)
livelihood development capacity through a wide range of agricultural and nonagricultural activities with stress in income generation; and (b) the strengthening of
institutional capacity of agricultural extension services to support the VBOs by forming
local technical support teams at upazilla (sub-district) level. The approach has a particular
merit of flexibly adapting the production and livelihood interventions according to the
priority needs and feasibilities of VBOs. Thus, it provides coherent and flexible
implementation methods for achieving the project objectives in a practical manner.
9. While the design is operationally coherent with logical links between the objectives
(planned outcomes), outputs, and activities, this approach was not systematically
followed during the first two years when the emphasis was mostly on the agricultural
production aspects with much less attention to the VBOs empowerment and formation of
institutional arrangement for supporting VBOs. One weakness in the project design has
been that it has not explicitly clearer about being a pilot project with the aim of verifying
the project approach for replication and/or up-scaling.
III. Assessment of Project Implementation, Efficiency and Management
A.
Overall Status
10. At the time of the final evaluation mission visit, the project had been under
implementation for full five years. However, the actual period during which the project
has been operated in line with the approach, is much shorter. The first year was needed
for various preparatory activities, including the organization for implementation,
selection of target villages, and training of the DAE local implementation staff. Thus,
theoretically, the project has had a chance to work with the 21 VBOs for some four years,
but because the emphasis was on field demonstrations of production packages in the
initial year, the period for actually implementing the VBO focused approach has been
shorter. In fact, the shift to the current implementation approach began during 2004,
following the recommendation of the tripartite Consultative Review Mission in October
2
VBOs in Bangladesh are equivalent to Farmer Organizations used in other countries
7
2003 (which was jointly organized by the three parties with members at high level in
order to address the concerns of the donor and FAO regarding the direction and pace of
project implementation). With the scheduled closure of 31 August (in one month), the
project team’s attention was on completing the project activities, including the
preparation of assessment of project’s impact through the Vectorial Project Analysis.
11. Broadly, the main activities have been implemented largely in line with the plans,
including in-service training of DAE staff (total of 2,520 persons), training of farmers
(total of 35,500, including double couting) and field demonstrations and support to FGDP
implementation (total of 5,800 cases). In terms of main types of activities in support of
the VBOs, the bulk of the funds has been for the implementation of activities through
FGDP (64% of Taka 25,638 million, or US$ 0.37 million, estimated to have been directly
channeled to the field), training of farmers and DAE staff (19%) and field demonstrations
by the Upazila support teams (17%, this used to be major activity during 2002-03). As of
31 August 2007, the implementation expenditures amounted to US$ 3,104, 849,
accounting for 94% of the project budget (see Annex III).
B.
Main Activities Implemented
12. Since 2004, the project has been implemented essentially as an integrated rural
development approach to benefit the target groups with following main components:
a) formation and development of self-managed 21 VBOs;
b) capacity development of VBO members in planning of activities (Farmer Group
Development Plans) and use of the Revolving Fund System (RFS, microfinance and savings);
c) gender mainstreaming and nutrition;
d) intensification/diversification of food and agricultural production (including
crops, livestock, fisheries, agro-forestry);
e) promoting income generation through on-and off-farm activities (including
marketing of produce, agro-processing, etc);
f) minor rural infrastructure (including irrigation and water management);
g) South-South Cooperation with Chinese experts.
13. Formation and Development of VBOs. The 21 VBO villages and Upazilas were
selected to represent the main agro-ecological and socio-economic situations appropriate
for replication, including such factors as prevalence of food insecurity, existence of the
main categories of farmers and landless, existence of irrigated and non-irrigated areas and
scope for implementing most of the components. Much of the work for formation and
capacity building of VBOs has been performed by 20 local NGOs (roughly one for each
VBO) since 2003. This support has covered (i) formation of VBO together with its
executive committee and sub-groups (normally comprising women group, groups based
on land holding categories as well as those based on activities), (ii) assistance in setting
up financial procedures and training in handling micro-credits (including administration
of micro-credit operations in the first year), (iii) capacity building in VBO management
(for the executive committee and village activists), and (iv) assistance in implementation
of FGDP. Since 2004, the emphasis of NGO input has been on institutional capacity
8
building, including the systematic application of FGDP and RFS, and VBOs and Upazila
support teams have taken over the administration of micro-credit and capital funds. The
NGOs also monitor and report periodically the working of VBOs.
14. Upazila Support Teams. In parallel to each VBO, DAE has established a Upazila
support mechanism, called Upazila Agricultural Extension Coordinating Committee
(UAECC), headed by the Upazila Agricultural Officer. The Upazila teams provide VBOs
with, apart from demonstrations of technical packages, technical advice and support in
selection and implementation of production and/or income generation activities, selection
of suitable inputs under the RFS, marketing activities, and coordination with local
authorities in support of VBOs. The Upazila teams have also been trained by the project
in technical subjects covering all the components.
15. Production and Income Generation Support Activities. A total of 655 FGDP have
been implemented, as shown below.
SPFS Bangladesh Project: FGDP Activities Implemented – by Components
Component
No. FGDP
FGDP
Revolving No. of beneficiaries
Fund dsibursed (Tk)
Agro-forestry
94
2, 209,164
561
Agro-machinery
25
1,250,000
113
Agro-processing
37
1,280,000
320
and Post harvest
machinery
Crop
241
6,047,872
2,895
Fisheries
and 33
1,531,615
252
Aquaculture
Income generating 51
1,505,050
280
activities (non –
agricultural)
Livestock
157
5,646,205
944
Irrigation and Water 17
566,900
103
management
Total
655
20,240,806
5,468
16. Production Support Improvement. This has focused on sustainable development of
cropping patterns and production systems adapted to particular project sites, including
water management. Specific activities have included the following:
a) Irrigation and on-farm water management – low-cost minor irrigation facilities,
such as 37 shallow tube well, 15 low lift pumps and micro-irrigation
technologies (pressure and deep-set treadle pumps, and drip irrigation) were
provided, combined with use of supplemental irrigation technologies, such as
hose-pipes and boarder strip management techniques. These facility
improvements were accompanied by training of farmers in water management
and formation of water user groups for operation and maintenance;
9
b) Field crop intensification and diversification – the intensification has focused on
improving the productivity of farmers’ traditional key food crops, such as rice,
wheat, maize, pulses, oilseeds and vegetables, through adoption of improved
technological packages. The technical stress has been on the use of modern
varieties, timely establishment of crop, pre-sowing irrigation, balanced
fertilization and use of composts, and supplemental irrigation (under 241
FGDPs);
c) Farming system diversification (livestock, aquaculture and agro-forestry) – in
livestock, production support has been given to farmers’ activities for milking
cows, goat, sheep, pig, duck, geese, beef cattle, broiler chicken and chicken egg
production. Support emphasized selection of healthy and productive breeds,
proper nutrition and husbandry and veterinary care, including vaccination
campaigns against infectious diseases and formation of veterinary assistants at
villages. Aquaculture has been promoted in 21villages with suitable water
bodies with assistance focused on supply of fingerings, management aspects and
marketing. As for agro-forestry, efforts have been on introducing and/or
upgrading the fruits and horticultural practices with improved varieties and
cultivation practices, including establishment of nurseries, orchards and
intercropping of such horticultural crops as mango, litchi, guava, turmeric,
ginger and elephant foot.
17. Income Generating Activities. A total of 51 FGDPs have been implemented under
this component. Given that the majority of VBO members (78 %) is either landless or
marginal farmers, income generation is a particularly important concern to be addressed
by the project. In the field of post-harvest and agro-processing, small-scale agroprocessing units, such as for production of pickles, chutneys, puffed rice and parboiled
rice, have been promoted especially for women groups. Another group of activities
included provision of specialized agricultural services, such as land preparation with hand
tractors, paddy-wheat power thresher cum mobile rice mills. For the landless and very
poor farmers, including beggars, non-farm activities have also been supported, such as
rickshaw pulling, van pulling, and sewing machine operation for clothing.
18. Gender Mainstreaming and Community Nutrition. Empowerment of women has
been a priority concern, and about half of the VBO membership is women, including
women headed households, and every VBO contains women groups. Members of
executive committees have included women members, and nine women also participated
in study tours within the country and abroad. In addition to development of skills for
income earning or production purposes, special training programmes on gender issues
were designed and conducted, such as “gender - need assessment and programme
implementation” and “ women in development in SPFS and other related issues”.
Regarding nutrition, campaigns were periodically organized to create nutrition awareness
among the VBO members, especially on the importance of balanced diets, including
demonstration of improved dishes and promotion of vegetable/fruit gardens.
10
19. Training. Training has been a priority attention across the project, with considerable
proportion of project budget used for this purpose (11% of the operating budget 3). A total
of 35,500 farmers (each likely with several attendance)have received training through
VBO capacity building and FGDP implementation and demonstrations. In particular, the
NGO partners training efforts focused on VBO capacity development, covering a total of
over 22,500 farmers, including over 7,400 VBO leaders and various group leaders.
Training for the Upazila support teams and other DAE staff, provided by PMU staff
and/or specialist institutions, covered a total of 2,520 persons through training of trainer
courses, technical staff training and UAECC members training. In addition, overseas
study tours were undertaken for 8 government officials as well as for over 30 VBO
members and Upazila support team members.
20. South-South Cooperation. Under a tripartite agreement between Bangladesh, China
and FAO, a total of 21 Chinese experts and technicians (504 person/months) served under
the project, covering the VBO sites in the five zones, at a cost of US$ 400,000 (14% of
the operating budget). The Chinese team included a team leader, 15 technicians and 5
interpreters, but while they provided useful technical services, their performance was
often hampered with the need to work through the interpreters.
C.
Adequacy of Project Management
21. The project management has had a mixed record, with slow progress and use of
conventional technical demonstration approach in the first two years or so. However,
since mid-2004, the performance improved markedly with competent leadership and hard
work of PMU staff. Despite the vacancy of the team leader post for good part of last two
years, the situation was compensated by the able deputy team leader and subsequent to
his departure, by the presence of a Japanese economist providing the technical lead and
coordination role. With the scheduled project closure at the end of August 2007, the
dissolution of the PMU poses a serious issue to ensuring continued effective functioning
of technical leadership for sustaining the project’s results. While the Ministry of
Agriculture intends to continue the project implementation on its own resources till 30
June 2008, it would be imperative to have an experienced technical base like the PMU,
including immediate recruitment of the team leader.
D.
Support Given by Three Parties
22. On the whole, the project received positive support from the three parties. The most
critical evidence of this was the conducting of the tripartite Consultative Review at high
level in October 2003 with a view to ensuring sound project implementation,
subsequently leading to the shifting of focus on the empowerment of VBOs, especially by
using the participatory approaches for planning and funding activities through FGDP and
RFS. Similarly, the Ministry of Agriculture has supported the project by ensuring
effective technical support capacity at Upazila level as well as at policy level – various
senior officials, including the Minister, Secretary, Directors-General of DAE, have not
3
According to the budget revision C, training absorbed some US$ 314,000 out of US$ 2,917,000 (budget
minus the FAO support cost).
11
only expressed strong support to the project but also have personally visited the project
sites. On the donor side, its representatives actively participated in the Consultative
Review as well as other consultation fora, and locally two Ambassadors have visited
several project sites, expressing support for the project. FAO has provided technical and
monitoring support covering several technical areas (e.g. food security, irrigation, gender,
credit and finance, post-harvest processing and nutrition) which has been well
appreciated by the Ministry and the project staff.
IV.
A.
Assessment of Emerging Results
Development of Self-Reliant VBOs
23. Generally, good progress has been made in developing the 21 VBOs towards selfreliant organizations of poor farmers and villagers. They have developed, or are on the
way to developing, strong sense of ownership and empowerment among the members,
accompanied by institutional growth with their own rules and arrangements for selfmanagement through elected executive committee: more recently, they have been all
registered under the Ministry of Social Welfare with a legal status for handling financial
matters. Many VBOs have also made good progress in capacity for using FGDP and RFS,
supported by the NGO partner and Upazila support teams, developing better capacity for
implementing their production and income generating bodies. Furthermore, there have
been instances of VBOs becoming active civic entities: in some VBOs, members have
been organizing voluntarily cooperative actions among themselves, such as constructing
village marketing facility, while some VBOs have been able to influence their local
governments into providing improved services, like construction/improvement of access
roads to the village or connection to the power supply lines. Nevertheless, it is also clear
that many VBOs have not had a long enough period to develop into solid bodies with
experienced leadership and self-management capacity. In particular, VBOs generally
continue to rely on the NGOs and Upazila support teams, especially for financial
recording and monitoring of RFS operations.
B.
Capacity building for FGDP and RFS
24. Since their introduction in 2004, VBOs received considerable training and hand-on
support in applying the FGDP and RFS for planning and implementing activities and for
managing their assets collectively. Basically, these two tools are complementary, FGDP
focusing on the substance of proposed activity, their design, technical and financial
feasibility, and implementation process, including the input contribution from the project,
normally provided in kinds, which provided the basis for resources for RFS,
supplemented by the repayments/savings from the beneficiaries. FGDP in particular has
been used as the central tool for planning and designing development activities among
the VBO groups and a vehicle for building RFS. This has contributed not only to better
analyzed and transparent activity designs, including financial aspects (costs, time, and
flow of returns) but also participatory communication between the VBO members on one
hand and between members and the Upazila support team on the other.
12
25. VBOs’ progress in developing management capacity for RFS has been slower than
that for FGDP, with considerable dependence on the Upazila support teams on actual
financial operations (VBOs’ main role in the RFS process has been to control the
procurement of various inputs and the beneficiaries of RFS). Nevertheless, they have
been able to achieve reasonable levels of repayment and savings in operating their RFSs
(see below). While this represents largely a satisfactory progress, it would be desirable
for VBOs to enhance their capacity for greater self-management of RFS operations. This
is particularly so because most of their activities have been of relatively simple activities
with modest financial amounts so far: as VBOs undertake increasingly larger and/or more
complex development activities, they are likely to face greater challenges in using RFS as
well as FGDP. Challenges in improving their capacity for managing RFSI would be
particularly complex as it involves not only the understanding and knowledge on the
subject but also building confidence and trust among the members.
C.
Use of RFS
26. VBOs have been learning to build up resources in their RFS through (i) repayment
by the members of the project’s inputs they have received in support of implementing
FGDP activities, (ii) members “savings” (portion of profits from the activities), and (iii)
other forms of payments/contributions (such as compulsory periodic savings by the group
members and depreciation fees on more durable investment goods, like hand tractors).
Between 2004 and July 2007, an estimated total of Taka 17.1 million has been provided
to 21 VBOs for the implementation of their FGDP activities. The amount of such inputs
was fairly even among the 21 VBOs, but there was a clear trend of concentration in terms
of subsector components, with some 70% for three subsectors; livestock and poultry
(32%), crops (23%) and agro-forestry (14%). Savings arising from members’ incomes
(normally 10%) have amounted to Taka 0.3 million.
27. Repayment and Savings achieved by the VBOs. The total amount that has been
revolved through the RFS is estimated at Taka 20.2 million, comprising (i) Taka 17.0
million from the original FGDP inputs, and (ii) Taka 3.2 million from VBOs’ own
sources (amount repaid against the original FGDP inputs and revolved further, plus the
savings). The total number of beneficiaries of RFS is some 5,470 members (some 60% of
the target to date). In particular, the overall repayment rate has been high at 75% (of the
target) for the 21 VBOs, with a range of 56% and 95% among VBOs (majority of VBOs
had recovery rates between 70-80%). Total savings by VBO members have been
increasing from some Taka 52,000 in 2003 to Taka 1.3 million in 2006 (during the first
half of 2007, the figure reached Taka 0.78 million): the increase was most dramatic in
2004 when FGDP was introduced and when savings increased more than tenfold. Such
rates of recovery and savings are satisfctory and indicate not only the high degree of
commitment the members have towards RFS but also generally successful results of
FGDP activities with good cash flows.
13
D.
Strengthening of Local Support Capacity
28. The DAE officers working as Upazila support teams are evolving generally into
competent and effective technical teams, providing the VBOs with appropriate technical
advice and facilitating their access to quality inputs and reliable markets. This is a result
of substantial training and awareness efforts as well as the DAE’s policy level support for
strengthening its extension approach under the title of “demand-led extension”. However,
there are still some gaps in their effectiveness as well as in their competence profiles.
Thus, further strengthening of their capacity would be desirable in some skills, especially
those for participatory community development, financial management, income
generation activities and marketing.
E.
Food and Agricultural Production
29. Production intensification (soil/water management and manly field crops, including
oilseeds and vegetables). Generally, a good effort has been made to adapt the technical
approaches to the needs and potentials of the VBOs’ members, with activities selected by
appropriate criteria, such as (i) using simple and practical solutions, (ii) those activities
requiring only limited or no access to land, and (iii) providing steady and quick returns.
Evidence during the field visits indicated considerable success in successful adoption of
new or improved production technologies by the VBO villagers (especially combination
of paddy, maize, wheat, oilseeds, and vegetables).
30. Key results include:
a) Improved land utilization through water management and agronomic practices –
the total cropped area increased 78 ha (4%) between 2002 and 2005 and area
with triple cropping increased by 159 ha (33%).At the same time cropping
intensity increased from 203 to 219 ha during the same period;
b) Productivity (yield) improvements in key food crops between 2002 and 05 – (i)
boro paddy (HYV) from 4.12 to 5.95 t/ha, (ii) t.aman paddy (HYV) from 3.09 to
4.20 t/ha, (iii) for wheat from 2.34 to 2.88t/ha, (iv) maize (winter) from 5.44 to
7.41t/ha, and (v) for potato from 6.85 to 14.76t/ha. It is noteworthy that in 2002
the yield levels for these crops in the VBO areas were lower than the national
averages, while in 2005, the VBO areas had higher yields than national averages;
c) Significant increase in other crop production – field crops such as mustard,
sesame, lentil, and onion, increased by 20-30%. At the same time, vegetables
production increased by 200-300%. The areas increased in many villages for
oilseeds (especially sesame and mustard) and vegetables (e.g. beans, cucumber,
brinjal, gourds, ladies fingers), accompanied by yield increases as well.
31. Diversification of Production Systems. Results in diversification have involved
mainly expansion and/or introduction of livestock, agro-forestry, and aquaculture
production activities, and it is noteworthy that many of these activities have been carried
out for income by the landless or marginal farmers. Key results include:
14
a) Livestock – various types of activities were implemented by farmer groups,
including in terms of number of households involved, goat reading (257
households with 514 goats), beef cattle (198 hhs with 198 cattle), milking cows
(172 hhs with 172 cows), laying chickens (166hhs with 3,325 chickens), and
broiler chickens (90hhs with 9000 chickens). In particular, the number of goats
has increased over 10% with average income increasing by 68%, while both
milking cows and beef cattle have been providing high incomes, growth is more
moderate than for smaller animals. Similarly, the number of broiler and laying
chickens has grown by 6% and 5% respectively, and income by 86% and 45%,
respectively. Many of these activities have been undertaken by women;
b) Agro-forestry – many of these activities have been conducted in homestead
gardens, and some of the popular ones include small-scale tree nurseries of
landless women (85 hhs), multi-strata cropping under trees (cultivation of spices,
ginger, turmeric (208 hhs), fruit trees in homestead (310 hhs) and high density
mango orchard (101 hhs). Theses have provided steady flow of income for the
landless and marginal hhs in particular;
c) Aquaculture – fish culture in pond is the major activity spread out throughout
the project villages (256 hhs and 238 ponds covering 24 ha water area). On the
other hand, capture fisheries (24 hhs) and fish processing (10 hhs) have been
limited to a few villages depending on the local resources availability. These
activities, especially pond fish culture, have become a significant and regular
source of income, providing also employment opportunities. It is estimated that
fish production and income from these activities have doubled with the adoption
of FGDP approach.
F.
Income Generation
32. While increasing income has been a general objective across the different groups of
beneficiaries, some have been specifically for landless or marginal farmers. Main results
include:
a) Post-harvest activities – many paddy farmer groups have adopted improved
methods of marketing by storing surplus for sale during off production seasons,
contributing to the 48% increase in their income. Some groups have also been
involved in rile milling of their production as well as providing milling service
for other farmers. A total of 37 hhs hare involved in these interventions,
increasing their income by 57%;
b) Other on-farm activities - new nurseries for fruits and vegetable have been
initiated, mostly by marginal farmers or the landless, and there supply seedlings
to the village markets or selling to other farmers in the same village. Some
groups have began new business in power tiller service for income earning.
Though these activities family income has increased by Taka 5,000-Taka 7,000
per household per year. A total of 105 hhs have begun new business in power
tiller service in 21 villages for income earning, and they are earning additional
net income of Taka 2,800 per household;
15
c) Non-or off- farm activities – most of these have been undertaken by the landless,
marginal farmers or women groups, mainly for such activities like parboil rice
processing, puff rice making, chutney making, tailoring, rickshaw pulling.
Under these interventions, poor women from 238 households became employed,
earning Taka 1,775 per month, per member.
G.
Progress in Enhancing Food Security and Reducing Poverty
33. Household food security. Surveys conducted by the PMU on the monthly household
food consumption before (2202) and after (2006) show a considerable increase in the
total amount, from 123.7 kg to 142.4 kg (average 15%) in selected food items 4. In terms
of calorie intake, the increase was from 1946 to 2210 (by 14%). Larger increases were
notable for sugar (44%), edible oil (36%), vegetable (41%) and fruit (33%), with smaller
increases for animal proteins (meat 31%, milk 25%, and egg 22%). In particular,
increased consumption of rice and vegetable was highest among the landless and
marginal farmers than other categories of members, and the marginal farmers recorded
highest increase in the consumption of meat and edible oil. This result supports what the
villagers reported to the mission, i.e. significant improvement (more, diversified,
hygienic) in food intake and sharp reduction in the number of families not having
adequate access to food.
34. Reducing poverty. Similar surveys conducted by the PMU show significant increase
in monthly household income between 2002 and 2006. For the SPFS households as a
whole, the average increase was 35% (from Taka 54,400 to Taka 73,521). The increase
was greater for off-farm income (54%) than on-farm (35%), although the income level (in
2006) was much higher for on-farm income (Taka 56,366) than off-farm income (Taka
2,635). From the perspective of poverty reduction, it is particularly note worthy that
proportion of increases was higher for the more vulnerable; 60% for the landless, 43% for
the marginal farmers, 37% for small farmers and 21% for medium farmers. These income
increases were also reflected in the household expenditure patterns towards greater
improved livelihood, with largest increases for transport/communication (42%),
education (38%) and food (37%): above all, savings grew by 52%.
V.
A.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
35. Relevance of the Project Objectives and Design. Its objectives, both overall
development and specific objectives are very relevant to the priority policy objective for
sustained poverty reduction and growth as well as to the needs and aspirations of its
target groups, i.e. the poorer sections of the rural poor. In particular, its approach is very
appropriate to promoting and strengthening the capacity of the rural poor for self-reliance
and development through group empowerment and learning to apply and use new/better
technologies in their development activities. However, in retrospect, the project design
4
These include rice, wheat, tuber, pulse, vegetable, fruit, fish, egg, meat, milk, sugar, edible oil, others.
16
could have stressed more clearly the central importance of capacity building of VBOs
and improving target groups’ livelihood.
.
36. Implementation Efficiency and Effectiveness in Achieving the Results. Despite the
slow implementation during the first two years, improvements were made in the later
years, especially in the implementation mode, so that its overall efficiency is judged
satisfactory. The project has also made good progress towards achieving its major
planned outcomes, especially in improving livelihoods of the VBO members through
adoption of new or improved technologies for, and diversification in, agricultural
production and/or income earning. However, progress in capacity building of VBOs has
been less than what would be necessary to achieve solid empowerment of the target
groups. This is not too surprising given that the project has been addressing this objective
only for the last three years or so and that capacity building of these entities is rendered
complex by the socio-economic weaknesses of their members. A similar conclusion can
be drawn regarding the capacity building of the DAE staff – while their technical support
capacity at the project Upaliza level has been considerably improved, their capacity in the
area of participatory community development or marketing has been more limited.
37. Sustainability of the Results Achieved to Date. This is still uncertain in view of (i)
the relatively short period of implementing the participatory community development
(some three years) with gaps and uneven progress in the capacity of the VBOs, (ii)
generally early stages of production and income-earning experience, (iii) the uneven
strength of the Upazila technical support teams, and (iv) some limitations of PMU,
including the need to engage the team leader. Sustaining the project results would require
additional measures to reinforce and strengthen these aspects. However, as demonstrated
by the strong sense of empowerment of the VBOs and by their success in adopting the
production improvement and income-earning activities, the project approach shows very
promising signs of serving as an effective model for participatory rural development and
food security.
38. Gender and Women. These aspects have been well addressed by the project.
Women account for about half of the VBO members, many playing active role not only
through women groups but also generally in VBOs (e.g. serving on the executive
committees). The project has in particular provided specially designed activities suited
for women both in agricultural activities (e.g. group rearing of chicken), post-harvest
measures (e.g. par-boiling of rice) and non-agricultural income-earning (e.g. clothing and
handicraft).
39. Project’s Cost-Effectiveness. This is a complex issue, and it is difficult to make any
systematic assessment in the conventional financial and economic sense of cost/benefit
analysis. Among other considerations, we do not have any systematic flows of costs and
benefits. However, the project can be considered broadly “cost-effective” for several
reasons. Firstly, the project has made satisfactory progress towards achieving all the main
outcome – clearly some of them have not been achieved as intended but neither has the
budget been exhausted. A second consideration relates to the fact that the implementation
process stressed the importance of simple, low-cost technical solutions that is feasible,
17
and sustained, with the existing local capacity. Thirdly, the cost per project beneficiary
household, estimated roughly at some US$ 661 (the donor project budget minus the
service cost, divided by the number of beneficiary households) can be considered
reasonable. Moreover, this figure includes costs of many elements that may be questioned
in terms of direct cost to the core project activities, such as training of those DAE staff
that are not directly involved in the support services at Upazilla level and FAO technical
services.
40. Critical Factors Affecting the Project Performance. Positive factors contributing to
its relevance and effectiveness include: (i) coherent and relevant project approach, (ii)
good reception and commitment by the target groups to the project, (iii) good
collaboration between the VBOs, the DAE staff and agricultural officers and NGO
partners at the field level, (iv) hardworking PMU staff supported by the Regional SPFS
Coordinator, and (v) good support by the DAE, FAO and the donor. Main negative
factors include (i) the initial approach used in implementation and slow pace during the
first two years and (ii) some weaknesses in the Upazila support teams’ capacity. Similarly,
considering the pilot nature of project, there should have been (i) a planned and built-in
period of hand –over of project execution responsibility to the Ministry (perhaps during
the last year), and (ii) more systematic efforts for monitoring and analysis of the project
results throughout the implementation period.
41. Some Emerging Issues. These include:
a) how to ensure sustainability of the results achieved, especially the VBOs. They
will require further support for consolidating their institutional and management
strength, partly to make up for the lost time during the first years of
implementation – similar consideration apply to their productive capacity as
only 60% of the targeted FGDP activities have been covered with RFS and
because many of new production and income generation activities need morning.
Similar issues arise also with respect to the need to strengthen the capacity of
the Upazila support teams;
b) sustainability question points to a general need for the SPFS project results to be
consolidated and mainstreamed into the government programme. Furthermore,
sustainability implies also that these farmers and villagers would need to
develop capacity for development over and beyond the subsistence level
existence, requiring ability for larger-scale development. This must be
addressed in future follow-up measures aimed at these groups;
c) the need to maintain, consolidate and develop further the strength of the PMU
after the project’s termination so that its expertise and experience may be
applied in any future replication or expansion of the project approach. In this
context, it would be essential to ensure an effective leadership within the PMU;
and
d) the Ministry and DAE leadership expresses strong interest in expanding and
replicating the project approach, but it is not clear as to what concrete measures
are to be implemented, including what should be the nature and scope of a
follow-up programme (e.g. national wide or more limited geographical area?).
This would also raise an issue of how to fund such a programme/project, and if
18
it is necessary to ensure external donor support for the follow-up? Similarly,
there is a need to consider how best to apply the experience and lessons of the
project to such future project?
B.
Main Recommendations5
42. Recommendations for follow-up by the Government:
a) The capacity of the VBOs and the Upazila support teams should be further
consolidated to ensure their viability and sustainability, and this could be
undertaken in the first instance through the continuation of the monitoring
support by the PMU, including implementation of those training activities
planned but not yet carried out;
b) Measures should be urgently taken to maintain and strengthen the PMU,
including the engagement of the team leader, in order (i) to provide the
monitoring support as noted above and (ii) to use it as a technical base for
planning and implementation of any follow-up programme/project;
c) The Ministry should assess the project results to decide whether and how to
adopt the project approach, or any of its part, for mainstreaming in rural
development strategies/programmes. This includes the possibility of up-scaling
the approach into national or more limited scale;
d) To contribute to the above ends, the Ministry should request the donor and FAO
to extended the terminal date of the project by several months without
additional donor financial contribution – it is estimated that there is an
uncommitted balance of US$150-200,000 available. During the extension
period, the PMU should (i) continue to provide the necessary support to the
VBOs and the Upazila support teams through monitoring support, (ii) support
the planning for follow-up measures to this project, and (iii) undertake a
systematic assessment of project’s results and impact, using the wealth of data it
has accumulated. The latter should be designed so as to provide analytical
evidence regarding the effectiveness and relevance of the project approach in
improving the productivity and livelihoods of the target groups as well as
insight into how the project interventions contributed to the improvements
observed and into systematic considerations on its cost-effectiveness;
e) For future expanded use of the approach, priority should be to cover these
poorest areas with “Monga” problems in northern parts of the country, while
minimizing duplications with other programmes/projects in the same area; and
f) For further expansion of the approach, attention should be given to upgrading
systematically the Upazila agricultural officers’ capacity for support services as
well as overall approach of the DAE approaches for providing such support
effectively.
5
A the request of the Ministry, the recommendations are targeted to the three parties separately whenever
applicable.
19
43. Recommendations for FAO action:
a) It should assist the Government in securing agreement of the donor to extending
the project NTE to a period up to six months to facilitate consolidation of the
VBOs for better prospect of sustainability, as recommended above. This should
also involve systematic assessment of the project results and impact so that the
assessment would serve to demonstrate the effectiveness and relevance of the
project approach;
b) Possible assistance should be considered to help the Government in
formulating/designing programmme/project for expanded use of the approach,
including the possible need to refine or adapt the approach further to meet the
national needs and in securing donor support for the necessary resources.
44. Recommendations for the Donor action:
a) It should consider favourably the Government’s request for extending the
project’s NTE by a period up to six months by using the balance of the project
budget in order (i) to consolidate the project’s results through further monitoring
support by the PMU to the VBOs and the local support teams (including some
training), (ii) to assist in planning and implementation of follow-up measures,
and (iii) to undertake a systematic assessment of the project’s impact;
b) It should also consider (i) additional funding of a programme/project using the
approach through FAO and/or (ii) adopting the project approach in its bilateral
aid programmes/projects.
20
Annex I. Terms of Reference (Final )
Joint Final Evaluation Mission
by
Government of Japan, FAO, Government of Lao PDR, Indonesia,
Sri Lanka and Bangladesh
GCSP/LAO/011/JPN, GCSP/INS/073/JPN, GCSP/SRL/ 049/JPN and GCSP/BGD/033/JPN
1.
Background
The projects addresses the problems of food security and malnutrition of rural and
peri-urban communities of different Agro Ecological Zones (AEZ), and increased
involvement of target beneficiaries at all levels of decision-making. The projects are
intended to demonstrate effective local and improved technology for water control,
intensification of cultivation and diversification of farming systems and carry out capacity
building for the planning, implementation and monitoring of interventions, all of which is
aimed at achieving self reliance for sustainable development.
The development objective of the SPFS projects is to assist in improving national,
household/individual food security on an economically and environmentally sustainable
basis by rapidly increasing food production and productivity, reducing year to year variation
of production and improve access to food as a contribution to equity and poverty alleviation.
SPFS projects funded by the Government of Japan namely Lao PDR
(GCSP/LAO/011/JPN), Indonesia (GCSP/INS/073/JPN), Sri Lanka (GCSP/SRL/049/JPN)
and Bangladesh (GCSP/BGD/033/JPN) have been implemented consecutively since 2001.
The allocated total budget, the EOD and the NTE of each project are determined as below:
Table 1. Project budget, EOD and NTE
Project symbol
Lao PDR
Indonesia
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
GSCP/LAO/011/JPN
GCSP/INS/073/JPN
GCSP/SRL/049/JPN
GCSP/BGD/033/JPN
Total budget
(US$)
2,900,279
3,099,637
1,812,518
3,296,075
EOD
23/05/01
17/09/01
01/03/02
01/07/02
NTE
22/05/07 (31/08/07)6
16/09/07
30/06/07 (31/07/07)
30/06/07 (31/08/07)
The target beneficiaries of the project are primarily the poorest of the poor and the
most disadvantaged segments of the population in the selected project villages. They belong
to the landless, marginal, small and medium categories with particular emphasis on woman
and other disadvantaged groups.
6
NTE of Lao, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka will officially be extended after approval by the donor. All the budget
revision will be treated by budget neutral extension.
21
Table 2. Beneficial HH and FG
Beneficial HH
Province
District
Village
11
20 (25)7
17 (49)8
21
Farmers
group
8
36
17
21
Number of
FGDP
265
150
250
600
Lao PDR
Indonesia
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
1,283
1,759
5,234
4,600
8
5
17
16
Total
12,876
5
5
6
6
Administrative
Divisions
22
46
69
82
1,265
The SPFS Projects are directed by Steering Committees in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and
Bangladesh, and a Task Force in Lao PDR.
The project review mechanisms undertaken thus far include: one Consultative
Review Mission in Bangladesh and Midterm Evaluations in each of the four countries, as
per the schedule below:
Table 3. Project Evaluation Histry
MTE/CRM
Time
Lao PDR
MTE
Feb 2004
Indonesia
MTE
Oct 2003
Sri Lanka
MTE
Oct 2004
Bangladesh
CRM
Oct 2003
MTE
May 2005
Mission member
Bernd Bultemeier (PBEE): Mission leader
Toshimitsu Nakaya (Japan)
Bounkouang Souvannaphanh (Lao)
Masa Kato (PBEE): Mission leader
Takahito Misaki (Japan)
Arif Hariyana (Indonesia)
Robert Moore (PBEE): Mission leader
Hiroshi Suzuki (Japan)
D.G. Samarasinghe (Sri Lanka)
R.B. Singh (FAO): Mission leader
Minoru Nakano (Japan)
Shin Imai (FAO)
Daniel Shallon (PBEE): Mission leader
Hiroshi Okudaira (Japan)
Mohd. Sher Ali (BGD)
Nasrin Naher (BGD)
Shohelur Rahman Khan (BGD)
Mohd. Mizanul Haq (BGD)
MTE : Mid-term evaluation
CRM : Consultative review mission
Each of the SPFS programmes has adopted the Farmers Group Development Plan
(FGDP) and Revolving Fund System (RFS) as a major function. The FGDP is a method to
analyze whether proposed interventions are technically feasible, economically viable and
environmentally acceptable. RFS is another tool for assessing household level project
sustainability.
7
8
Total beneficial village in Indonesia is increased up to 25 villages.
Total beneficial village in Sri Lanka is increased up to 49 villages.
22
Project impact assessments have been conducted in each country. The results of
these impact studies will serve as an important input to the final evaluation and will be made
available to the team before the start of the evaluation.
2.
Purpose of the Evaluation
The SPFS programme is believed to have generated interest in each of the
participating countries and there are indications that there is a desire in each country to
institutionalize and internalize the SPFS concepts into government systems linking them
with National Programmes for Food Security (NPFS). The present evaluation, scheduled as
all of the projects come to a close, is intended to make an in-depth assessment of the
progress made propose recommendations for further development of the SPFS programme
to each government involved, as well as to FAO and the donor as necessary.
3.
Scope of the Evaluation
The joint tripartite evaluation mission (hereinafter refer to as “the mission”) will for
each project assess the:
a) Relevance of the project to development priorities and needs of the country.
b) Clarity and realism of the project's development and immediate objectives, including
specification of targets and identification of beneficiaries and prospects for sustainability.
c) Quality, clarity and adequacy of project design including:
 clarity and logical consistency between, inputs, activities, outputs and progress
towards achievement of objectives (quality, quantity and time-frame);
 realism and clarity in the specification of prior obligations and prerequisites
(assumptions and risks);
 realism and clarity of external institutional relationships, and in the managerial
and institutional framework for implementation and the work plan;
 cost-effectiveness of the project
d) Efficiency and adequacy of project implementation including: availability of funds as
compared with budget for both the donor and national component; the quality and
timeliness of input delivery by both FAO and the Government; timeliness and quality of
activities; managerial efficiency in dealing with implementation difficulties; adequacy of
monitoring and reporting; the extent of national support and commitment; and the quality
and quantity of administrative and technical support by FAO from Headquarters, the
Regional Office and from coordination projects (GCP/RAS/JPN/180 and
GCP/RAS/JPN/182).
23
e) Actual and potential project results, including a full and systematic assessment of outputs
produced to date and progress made towards achieving the immediate objectives:
 The communities develop self-reliance in diagnosing opportunities and
constraints, and testing and implementing practical solutions to achieve
sustainable food security.
 Strengthening institutional capacity all levels.
 The production and productivity of rice and other crops of resource poor farmers
increased crop intensification through improved water control and integrated
nutrient management.
 Promote farming system diversification and nutrition and energy conservation
awareness and develop location specific integrated farming system of rural house
hold especially women and vulnerable groups to enhance production, income
generation and availability of nutritional food and to improve nutritional status of
the people.
 Promote small scale agro-processing, post harvest handling technology and onfarm and off-farm income generating activities through promotion of community
based produce handling methods, supported by marketing, credit and other
agriculture support services and identification of constrain.
f) The prospects for sustaining the project's results by the beneficiaries and the host
institutions after the termination of the project, particularly regarding:




intensive livestock and fisheries production system;
marketability of agricultural products;
strengthened Government extension, communication and training services;
organization and management of farmers groups, including management of
village revolving fund;
 general socio-economic improvements (in particular for groups, women and
disadvantaged people);
 capacity of Government to sustain the project initiatives (central, provincial and
district Government) and;
 replicability of the project results by the respective government.
g) The overall cost-effectiveness of the project, especially in terms of serving as piloting
various development activities, including the identification of appropriate approaches and
lessons/issues for future.
In conducting the evaluation, the mission will pay particular attention to the
following issues: project ownership, partnerships among stakeholders, utility of analytical
concepts introduced through the projects (i.e. FGDP and RFS), quality of the impact
studies carried out, effectiveness of South-South cooperation, gender awareness,
appropriateness of site selection, relevance of planning and training approaches, and
viability of the micro credit and revolving fund systems.
24
Based on the above analysis the mission will draw specific conclusions and make
proposals for any necessary further action by Government and/or FAO/donor to ensure
sustainable development, including any need for additional assistance and activities of the
project prior to its completion. The mission will draw attention to lessons of general interest
derived from the projects as a whole.
4.
Composition of the Mission
The mission will comprise:



A Team leader (Evaluation Specialist), appointed by FAO;
Specialist in “Rural Development” appointed by the donor (Japan)9;
Specialist in “food security” in each participating country.
In each country, the mission should be briefed and debriefed by the FAO
Representative. The mission will debrief RAP, PBEE and TCOS on the mission’s findings
and recommendations. Mission members should be independent and thus have no previous
direct involvement with the formulation, implementation or backstopping of the projects.
5.
Timetable and Itinerary of the Mission
The timetable and Itinerary is shown as follows. This trust funded programme is
supported by the Government of Japan therefore the courtesy call to Embassy of Japan and
discussion is planed. (Annex-I)
6.
Consultations
The mission will maintain close liaison with the representatives of the donor and
FAO and the concerned national agencies, as well as with national and international project
staff. Although the mission should feel free to discuss with the authorities concerned
anything relevant to its assignment, it is not authorized to make any commitments on behalf
of the Government, the donor, or FAO.
7.
Reporting
The mission is fully responsible for its independent report which may not necessarily
reflect the views of the Government, the donor or FAO. The mission will prepare a general
report, based on a comparative examination of each of the projects under review, to draw
lessons for the future. The general report will also specifically assess the quality and
quantity of technical support given to the projects by all sources within FAO. The Mission
9
Perhaps two individuals covering different countries
25
Leader will decide on an appropriate format for the general report. The individual country
reports will be written in conformity with the headings as given in the Annex-II.
The country reports will be completed, to the extent possible, in the country and the
findings and recommendations fully discussed with all concerned parties and wherever
possible consensus achieved.
The mission will also complete the FAO Project Evaluation Questionnaire.
The mission leader bears responsibility for finalization of the report, which will be
submitted to FAO within two weeks of mission completion. FAO will submit the report to
Government(s) and donor together with its comments.
Annex II.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I. Introduction and Background
A. Introduction
B. Background
II. Project Approach and Design
III. Assessment of Project Implementation, Efficiency and Management
A. Overall Status
B. Main Activities Implemented
C. Adequacy of Project Management
D. Support Given by the Three Parties
IV. Assessment of Emerging Results
V. Main Conclusions, Issues and Recommendations
A. Main Conclusions (including identification of constraints and issues)
B. Main Recommendations
Annex-I: Terms of Reference for the Final Evaluation
Annex-II: Mission Itinerary and Persons Met
26
Annex II
Mission Itinerary and List of Persons met in Bangladesh (July 2007)
Mission Itinerary (18 -26 July 2007)
18 July Wednesday Arrival Dhaka (12:00)
Meeting with the National Project Director
Briefing with PMU
19 July Thursday
Visit (by car) to Haluaghat Upazilla, Mymensign
20 July Friday
21 July Saturday
Dhaka – report writing
Dhaka – report writing
22 July Sunday
Visit (by air and car) to Monirampur Upazilla, Jessore
23 July Monday
Visit (by car) to Lakhai Upazilla, Habiganj
24 July Tuesday
Meeting with Japanese Ambassador
Meeting with PMU
25 July Wednesday Debriefing with the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture
Meeting with JICA and JBIC
26 July Thursday
Debriefing with FAOR
Depart Dhaka (13:15)
List of Persons Met
Mr. Md. Abdul Aziz, Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)
Mr. Fakrul Ahsan,
Joint Chief, Planning Wing, MoA
Mr. A.K. Rashid Uddin Ahmed, National Project Director (NPD), SPFS project
Mr. Mohammed Mahashin, Deputy NPD, SPFS project
Mr. Masayuki Inoue, Ambassador of Japan to Bangladesh
Mr. Yonezo Fukuda, Counsellor - Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Japan
Mr. Masami Tamura, Counsellor for Development Cooperation and Economic Affairs
Mr. Shinya Tsuruda, Second Secretary, Economic and Development Cooperation
Ms. Nobuko Kayashima, Resident Representative, JICA
Mr. Eichiro Cho,
Additional Resident Representative, JICA
Mr. Mitsuaki Suzuki, Deputy Resident Representative, JICA
Mr. Yasuo Fujita,
Chief Representative, JBIC
Mr. Kunio Noda,
Representative, JBIC
Mr. Ad Spijkers,
FAO Representative
Mr. Takeshi Ueda,
Project Expert, SPFS project
Mr. MD. Nurul Alam, Zonal Coordinator/Agronomy Specialist
Mr. Syed Alef Hossain, Zonal Coordinator/Livestock and Poultry Specialist
Mr. MD. Shahjahan, Zonal Coordinator/Agro-forestry Specialist
Mr. Sreekanta Sheel, Zonal Coordinator/Agro-processing Specialist
Mr. Shiekh Mohammad Motalib, Executive Director, Organization for Social and
Economic Development Utilizing the Community Resources (OSEC)
27
Annex III: Project Budget Status
28
Annex IV: List of Village-Based Organizations (VBOs)
29