Programme D’Appui Au Development

De la Securite Alimentaire (PADSA)

Banteay Meanchey Province

Mid-term Evaluation

July 28, 2004 (Evaluation conducted June 22-July 13, 2004) Evaluator:

Contents

1. Summary ...... 3 2. Methodology...... 4 3. Target Area...... 6 4. Objectives and Strategy ...... 8 5. Stakeholder Analysis ...... 9 6. Participant Selection and Training ...... 13 7. Income Generation ...... 16 8. Agricultural Practices...... 19 9. Market Analysis ...... 24 10. Mushroom Cultivation ...... 26 11. Farmer Associations and Stores...... 29 12. Program Organization and Management ...... 31 13. Conclusion ...... 33 14. Recommendations ...... 35

Annexes Annex 1: Organizations Consulted Annex 2: Persons Interviews Annex 3: Evaluation Schedule Annex 4: Interview Questionnaire

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 2 -

1. Summary

AGRISUD International has implemented a food security project in the Northwestern Cambodian province of Banteay Meanchey. This project aims to improve the food security and income generation of 455 households in 25 targeted villages in three adjacent districts surrounding the provincial capital of Serei Sophorn. This project aims to accomplish this through three axes of intervention: farm intensification, crop diversification, and market access. This report is a mid-term evaluation conducted by local firm CamEd over June 22 – July 13, 2004.

The project has been very successful with most beneficiaries reporting an increase in their income and food security. The success has been brought about by AGRISUD’s well designed program with effective selection, training, and implementation. The activities are effective not only because they are based on sound technical assistance, but also because they are based on the needs of a pre-existing market. Moreover, AGRISUD has made sure to select beneficiaries with the appropriate willingness and resources to carry out the project. Beneficiary training is hands on and practical. The training occurs at the village level and, with the master farmer’s experience to demonstrate to beneficiaries, it is perceived to be something that leads to tangible benefits.

The project has been popular with target villages, partly because AGRISUD ensured the success of the first cycle of planting within the program. For the first cycle, each beneficiary were able to substantially increase his/her income through the fruits of his/her labor. With this experience, the beneficiary is highly motivated to continue with the activity. And, as this evaluation has found, nearly all of the beneficiaries have chosen to continue the activities, often increasing the scope of the activity.

Going into the final phase of this project, AGRISUD should increase the beneficiaries’ autonomy in conducting the activities; for example, decreasing the role of AGRISUD in procuring seeds and other inputs. Then, AGRISUD will be better able to observe and control for the effects of complete autonomy before the project ends. Also, AGRISUD should increase the degree to which it shares information with other organizations, possibly allowing other organizations to learn and build from AGRISUD’s success.

In addition, AGRISUD should continue with its efforts to localize organization activities. Already, the director Jean Paul Romano has initiated efforts to establish a local organization with local management. These efforts should continue. AGRISUD should work more closely with the provincial department of agriculture and provincial development committee to identify specific target areas. This will assist AGRISUD in developing a more coherent long term vision for sustained area development.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 3 -

2. Methodology This mid-term evaluation was conducted by local firm CamEd. The evaluation was conducted over a three week period based in Banteay Meanchey for the period June 21 – July 12. The team consisted of a single field researcher, consultant Casey Barnett who was based in the field for the duration of the evaluation. Four research assistants, Puth Khan, Yeay Ousos, Borin, and Kheam, provided field support for a period of four days from July 10 – July 13. The evaluation approach included four areas of analysis: context, production, sales, and program. The sample of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries was based on proportional representation, meaning that villages with more beneficiaries had a larger sample and villages with less beneficiaries had a smaller sample. In all, the sample included 10 first generation beneficiaries, 20 2nd generation beneficiaries, and 40 non-beneficiaries as a control group.

1.) Stakeholder Analysis: First, this evaluation wanted to know what different groups (ministries, VDCs, NGOs, farmer associations) were in the area and how/if they interacted. Also, this evaluation wanted to know what types of constraints people faced. This evaluation learned this using the following tools: Venn Diagram and Problem Analysis (with village chiefs and village committee members). Originally, the research design indicated that such analysis would occur on the level of the village development committee, but those development committees were found to be inactive.

2.) Area Income Generation Analysis: Second, this evaluation wanted to know how the local people earned money. In particular, this evaluation wanted to know what options people had to earn money, and what relative margin of income increase was achieved by the introduction of new activities. This was learned through: Household/Farmer Interview (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries).

3.) Overview of Area Agricultural Activities: Third, this evaluation wanted to know what agricultural products are traditionally grown in the area and how / when they are produced. This evaluation also wanted to know what variety of products have been locally tested and what the different experiences local farmers have had. This evaluation learned this through: Household/Farmer Interview (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) and Seasonal Calendar (beneficiary and non-beneficiary discussion).

4.) Productivity and Supply Chain: Fourth, this evaluation wanted to know the success and efficiency of the agricultural activity. This evaluation wanted to know what the yield was, especially in comparison to other activities/products, how success varied from beneficiary to beneficiary, and how the beneficiary perceived the activity. For this, this evaluation employed: Household/Farmer Interview (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) and Farm Inspection.

5.) Beneficiary Selection: Fifth, this evaluation wanted to know how the beneficiaries were selected and if the selection strategy is effective in furthering the goals of the project. This was learned through: Household/Farmer Interviews (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) and AGRISUD Employee Interviews.

6.) AGRISUD Human Resource Efficiency: Sixth, this evaluation wanted to know how efficiently the AGRISUD employees conducted their activities, what their strengths were

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 4 - and what challenges they encountered. This evaluation wanted to know their experience, learning, and background. This was learned by AGRISUD Employee Interviews.

7.) Monitoring & Evaluation: Finally, it was important to know the project activities are being monitored and reported. Also, this evaluation wanted to know if the lines of communication were being used efficiently. This was found by: AGRISUD Employee Interviews, Stakeholder Interviews, and Household/Farmer Interviews (beneficiary and non-beneficiary).

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 5 -

3. Target Area

The target area for the project consists of 25 villages in three districts in Banteay Meanchey. The three districts are Ochrour, Serei Sophorn, and Mongkol Borei, all of which are adjacent and surround the provincial capital of Serei Sophorn (see map at annex 1).

The departments of rural development and agriculture participated in the targeting. Together with AGRISUD, they selected the districts based on need and proximity to the market of Serei Sophorn which would be able to serve as a market for the increased agricultural output.

Serei Sophorn District Serei Sophorn District surrounds the provincial capital of Serei Sophorn. The targeted villages in this district are accessed via national road 56, extending Northward from the provincial capital. There are three (5) villages targeted in this district: Sophi II, Pongro, Preah Punleah, Koh Pring and Kantout.

Each village is distinct in terms of agricultural practices and geographic location. Pongro village practices large scale vegetable farming, mainly corn. It sells its produce in its own internal market and in the Serei Sophorn market. Sophi II practices only small scale home gardening as Sophi II is adjacent to the provincial capital and there are no large land areas available for cultivation. Their produce is sold in the provincial capital. Kantout village practices mainly rice farming and has land that is regularly inundated. They sell their produce in the Serei Sophorn market.

Mongol Borei District Monkol Borei District is located to the South of Serei Sophorn. The targeted villaged villages in this district are accessed via provincial road 189 to the West of national road 5. There are five (12) villages targeted in this district: Koh Ponle, Bung Trah, Phnom Brassal, Bow Tunlop, Jet, O’Chup, Koh Svay, Thnal Bat, Phum Vat Thmei, Phnom Touch, Monorom and Srey Prei.

The villages in this district are more homogenous than those in Serei Sophorn. Vegetable farming is more of a tradition in this area. There are a number of natural ponds, streams, and canals that allow for better access to water sources. However, the large amount of overgrowth and absence of broad plains decreases the focus on rice cultivation. The villages in this district are prohibitively distant from the Serei Sophorn districts and sell more often in district markets or through traders than direct sales to Serei Sophorn wholesalers/retailers.

Ochrour District Ochrour District is located to the Northeast of Serei Sophorn. The villages in this district are accessed via provincial roads North of national road 6 halfway between Serei Sophorn and . There are five (7) target villages in this district: Koh Prek, Sophi, Powyvat, Chrey, Chouk, Samrong, and Reap.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 6 -

The targeted villages in O’Chrov District are relatively homogenous. They are located in a large plain that is flooded in the wet season. During the wet season, medium to large scale vegetable growing is impractical; only rice production is active. Vegetable growing focuses on the dry season only, and, due to the lack of water sources, has depended on the AGRISUD support for digging water sources. Agricultural products are mainly sold in the commune capital Sophi, and through middlemen. The markets of Serei Sophorn are not close enough to allow for practical direct sales to Serei Sophorn wholesalers/retailers.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 7 -

4. Objectives & Strategy

The AGRISUD objective is to contribute to a sustainable increase in income and food security for beneficiaries, with the project acting as a pilot phase for a model that can be applied in the future (see table 4.1). The means of achieving this are through diversification and intensification of agricultural production, mushroom production, and livestock raising. The main strategic approach is transfer of technical knowledge.

Table 4.1: AGRISUD Logical Framework Objectives and Indicators Intervention Logic Objective Indicators

1. Contribute to the social and economic 1. Social stability in the project target s

e rehabilitation of beneficiaries in a pilot areas v i t phase c e

j 2. Propose a technical economic model 2. Increase in the trade of agricultural

b for Banteay Meanchey products in Serei Sophorn markets O

l 3. Increase the food consumption of a

b beneficiaries o l 4. Create added value for the different G activities supported by the program 1. Contribute to the economic self 1. Commercial Gardening: Produce

sufficiency of beneficiaries 262 tons of vegetables in 2.5 years s

e 2. Contribute to the significant 2. Livestock: Production of 68 tons of v i

t improvement of beneficiary revenue pig and chicken meat c and food security e j

b 3. Contribute to the intensification of 3. Mushroom: Production of 32 tons in O

agricultural production and livestock 2.5 years c i

f raising and reduction of Thai imports i

c 4. Number of producers supported by e

p the program and new activities S introduced per family

The main strategic approach for this project if to increase the technical skills of the farmers which has three main effects. First, the farmer is able to employ techniques that reduce losses and increase output of crops (e.g. sowing beds and raised planting rows). Second, the farmer is able to achieve integration of his/her different activities, leading to more efficiency and better output (e.g. solid and liquid compost). Third, the farmer is able to make more informed choices when selecting crops and seed varieties (e.g. selecting more resistant varieties).

So that this knowledge is manifested into real farming, AGRISUD provides an initial budget for select inputs (e.g. seeds and fertilizer). AGRISUD also ensures that there is a reliable water source (e.g. water pump groups, digging of new ponds and wells).

This main approach is designed such that beneficiaries propagate the technical know- how independent of AGRISUD staff. This is achieved by first training master farmers in each of the target villages. These master farmers receive training and conduct a cycle of planting using the new techniques. Then, with practical experience and tangible results, they are organized to provide training to the subsequent generations of beneficiaries.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 8 -

5. Stakeholder Analysis

Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD) In a one hour interview with Mr. Ith Loeur, the Director of the Provincial Department of Rural Development, Mr. Loeur expressed a comprehensive understanding of the AGRISUD project, that cooperation and communication with AGRISUD was regular and positive, and that he wished to see a continuation of the AGRISUD project in other areas in the province.

Mr. Loeur said that the AGRISUD selection of target villages was done in close cooperation with his department. He said selection criteria was for villages that had experience with vegetable growing (some of which had experience with UNDP and CARERE programs in the 1990s), were poor or comprised of war returnees, had village chiefs that were committed to such an intervention, and, based on a technical review from AGRISUD, had suitable land and labor resources to implement the project.

According to Mr. Loeur, the selection criteria ruled out high forest lands where the profitability of harvesting forest products and the distance from markets would prevent the villages from committing to the cultivation of vegetables. Also, he said this ruled out districts in the flood plain of the Tonle Sap where floods would diminish the possibility of success.

Mr. Ith Loeur was pleased with the output of the project and suggested that the project expand/continue to other areas, particularly the , Sampou Lun, Phnom Proek, and Kariang districts which would have access to the Poipet market. He said additional intervention in these districts is necessary because these provinces are populated by ex- Khmer Rouge and, being poor, are in need of development assistance.

Table 5.1 Possible Future Areas of Intervention Area Intervention Logic , Banteay Meanchey Access to Poipet Market, ex- Khmer Rouge, Poor Thma Pouk District, Banteay Meanchey Ex-Khmer Rouge, Suitable land, Poor

Sampou Lun, Access to Poipet Market/Battambang Markets, ex-Khmer Rouge, Poor Phnom Proek, Battambang Access to Markets, ex-Khmer Rouge, Poor Kariang District, Battambang Access to Markets, ex-Khmer Rouge, Poor

He said that AGRISUD intervention would not be appropriate in areas where there were large irrigation systems were established or being established as those areas would be focusing on rice production (e.g., District with a Japanese funded reservoir and San District with a planned ADB irrigation system). However, he did indicate a possibility of introducing the AGRISUD project to some villages near a World Bank

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 9 - funded irrigation system in Thma Pouk District, especially villages in that area that were comprised of ex-Khmer Rouge.

Overall, the identification of future areas for AGRISUD intervention show that the PDRD sees the project as effective and desires that it continue to other vulnerable areas that require development. However, this data was collected over the course of an interview and should not be construed as the result of comprehensive analysis on the part of the PDRD. Further analysis on the part of the PDRD may result in significant changes.

Village Chiefs Discussions with village chiefs and attendant village committee members has shown unanimous approval of the AGRISUD program. Discussions at the village level focused on village chiefs as village development committees were inactive, except for certain road projects. All of the villages indicated that AGRISUD was the most beneficial development intervention that they had ever experienced (villages had received various forms of support from 3-8 different organizations).

They said that this success was based on the “depth” of the intervention, that beneficiaries had received significant training and technical follow up that insured the success of the intervention. A typical response was that of Sath Path, the Pongro Village Chief, “The AGRISUD program is 100% effective. The participants have learned and there are real results.”

Problem ranking with the village chiefs resulted in the following common problems among the target area village chiefs that were interviewed:

Main Village Fields 1. Illness 2. Lack of Work 3. Lack of Water 4. Poverty 5. Roads to Fields

While the village chiefs have clearly said that the AGRISUD intervention is very effective, it is interesting to note that the main problems affecting the village remain those same problems that the AGRISUD program aims to address. Still, this does not mean that the project is not effective. It is unreasonable to expect that the project would alleviate village wide poverty in one year. If anything, it is an indicator that the villages have been properly selected for this intervention.

The village chiefs also confirmed the selection process for beneficiaries. Village Chiefs unanimously said that beneficiaries were selected based on ability, access to land for planting, labor, and an interest to join. Village Chiefs said that the main criteria for the initial selection was willingness to join.

When asked why their village was selected by the government and AGRISUD for intervention, three village chiefs said it was because their village was poor, and two village chiefs said it was because their village had experience farming.

When asked if the villages would be able to implement the AGRISUD components without further assistance, most expressed confidence, but it would depend on households’ having a reliable source of water, something that they said was lacking in

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 10 - general. When asked how the villages could improve food security, the most common response was to increase water sources for farming/gardening.

NGOs Village Chiefs in the target area described a number of NGOs and governmental organization that were active in their villages:

Table 5.2: Organizations Active in Target Villages* No. Organization Activity 1. IPM 2003 Integrated Pest Management Training Sessions Only 2. SIDO Credit 3. ACLEDA Credit 4. Ango-Micro Credit Herenvatho 5. Seila Nithit Credit (has largely withdrawn) 6. Mettha Poom Credit 7. ADESS Credit 8. PAT Distribution of Rice, Funds for Food 9. Care HIV/AIDS Education, Mother/Child Health 10. Cambodian Red Cross Road Rehabilitation 11. Seila (MRD) Road Rehabilitation, Digging Resevoir 12. AGRISUD Vegetable Growing, Livestock Raising 13. Concern Water & Sanitation, Credit *Names and activities are listed as described by village chiefs

Beyond the AGRISUD target villages, there are 26 NGOs listed in Poipet (see annex 5). Of these 26 NGOs, approximately half of them have a presence in Serei Sophorn. However, none of them are conducting overlapping interventions in any of the villages where AGRISUD is active. Three organizations that had agriculturally based intervention were interviewed for this evaluation: ZOA, CARE and OCKENDEN.

The organizations reported regular communication with AGRISUD and that they are regularly invited by AGRISUD to attend workshops and seminars hosted by AGRISUD. However, they said that they were not always available to attend those seminars. They had a general understanding of the AGRISUD approach, but did not know specifics.

The activities of ZOA were most similar to those of AGRISUD. ZOA promoted vegetable gardening and pig raising for 720 families. The beneficiares were in O’Chrov district and had access to the Poipet market. As reported by a ZOA external evaluation, the vegetable gardening project was a success.

However, ZOA management described a few challenges. First, ZOA indicated that their number of beneficiaries, 720, was too large a group and was somewhat unmanageable; they expressed approval of the AGRISUD selection of 540 beneficiaries over the course of the project. Second, ZOA supported pig raising proved to be unprofitable due to the cost of pig feed combined with the reluctance of beneficiaries to purchase any type of feed. They have since introduced a goat raising program with some success. Third, group ownership of two-wheel tractors was unwieldy with members reluctant to contribute to repair costs; ZOA has since privatized the tractors. AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 11 -

The activities of CARE focused on HIV/AIDS education and mother/child health care. However, CARE indicated that it was introducing small scale home gardening and had planned to cooperate with ZOA to conduct training for their beneficiaries.

The activities of Ockenden included some agricultural activities. Ockenden was not implementing the projects itself, but was providing assistance to seven local NGOs, four of which had agriculturally related activities. The activities supported by Ockenden were identical for each NGO: rice bank, veterinarian training, and cow bank. Each activity was managed at the village level through the village development committee with the aim to strengthen local governance and village development management.

There were varying degrees of success for each activity. Ockenden indicated that the rice bank was culturally unsustainable and that it was difficult to control the type of seeds used to pay back the rice loan. The veterinarian training, which was largely supported by another donor, was reported to be satisfactory with one veterinarian trained for each target village. The cow bank was also reported to be satisfactory. It was managed through each village development committee largely as a loan; the VDC gave a group of borrowers funds to purchase a cow and the group was responsible for purchasing a cow and repaying the loan.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 12 -

6. Participant Selection & Training

Selection After the selection of the specific villages together with the provincial authorities, AGRISUD then cooperated with village authorities to further select each household that would participate in the program. The selection was conducted in a fair way with AGRISUD playing the lead role in ensuring that the selection criteria was followed. The selection criteria as stated in a Khmer language description from AGRISUD are as described below in table 9.1.

Table 9.1: Beneficiary Selection Criteria 1. Farmer 2. Age 18-55 3. Have land for production with water source 4. Have clear address and home 5. Have at least 2 people in the family to contribute labor 6. Willingness to join 7. Industrious and hard working 8. Honest and confident character 9. Responsible for the family and responsible for the agreement to become a producer 10. As a priority, select widows and poor people with good character 11. Sincere willingness to share knowledge with others 12. The family does not have an agreement with another organization to receive similar assistance

The process of selection as described by the village chiefs was that families were told of the project and those families that were interested were asked to join a meeting at which more specifics would be presented. Both AGRISUD and the village chiefs indicated that initial interest was somewhat mild; this could be because the project had emphasized self-help and down played material inputs. After identifying interested participants, AGRISUD technicians made a visit to each potential participant’s house, interviewing the family and inspecting the land to be cultivated within the program. Beneficiaries confirmed the selection process, but emphasized that willingness to join was the main criteria.

Once it was determined that there were sufficient land, labor and water resources, the beneficiaries was officially selected and signed a contract with AGRISUD agreeing to participate in specific agricultural activities. The contract also specified that the beneficiary agreed to provide technical assistance to other farmers free of charge. This contract was signed by the village development committee chief or the village chief.

This evaluation has determined that the selection process was a fair and accurate one. No anomalies were found and no discrepancies or injustices were reported by either beneficiaries or non-beneficiaries. The evaluators did note that the first generation of beneficiaries were not as poor as the subsequent generations. However, this was

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 13 - because poverty was less important for the first generation than farming experience, labor and land. For AGRISUD, it was necessary that the first generation of 50 beneficiaries would be able to stand as examples and leaders for the subsequent generations. The evaluator finds this to be a prudent and strategic decision.

The beneficiaries are all poor and the project is accurately targeting poor families that meet the criteria. However, it is worth noting that these are not the poorest of the poor. The poorest families still remain marginalized because they have no land or experience. Also, they sometimes lack labor. Prioritizing widows, but requiring two people within the family that can contribute labor is somewhat contradictory.

Training After selection, beneficiaries are trained for a period of one month. For the first group of beneficiaries selected by AGRISUD, the training was conducted by AGRISUD technicians. However, for each of the subsequent generations of beneficiaries, the training is done by certain outstanding beneficiaries that are tapped to become master farmers. These master farmers then participate in additional training of trainers to enable them to become trainers.

After the training of trainers, the master farmers begin training the subsequent generation of beneficiaries. The training modules for students of the master farmers are as follows:

Table 9.2: Training Topics for Students of Master Trainers

1. Dry compost 2. Hands on learning of dry compost 3. Liquid compost 4. Hands on learning liquid compost 5. Making a seeding bed 6. Hands on making of a seeding bed 7. Planting in a seeding bed 8. Preparing seedlings that can be transplanted 9. Transplanting and planting 10. Fertilization for planting 11. Fertilization for growth and care 12. Building a pig pen 13. Hands on making of a pig pen 14. Making pig feed

Each of these training modules is simple and straight forward, emphasizing hands on learning. Each of these modules has the duration of one day. Each training modules is well designed in terms of lessons and is accompanied with paper handouts with photographs, drawings and simple explanations.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 14 -

All of the beneficiaries were found to have implemented the topics studied in training. Moreover, all of the beneficiaries reported that the training was useful and easy to understand.

Compost cribs, seeding beds, and pig pens were found at nearly all beneficiaries’ homes. All beneficiaries had a compost crib or the remnants of one (the cribs were dismantled once the compost was ready). A full 95% of the beneficiaries were found to have constructed a seeding bed. Another 98% were found to have constructed a pig pen. A beneficiary explains the use of his seeding bed.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 15 -

7. Income Generation

Area income generation is based on agriculture and livestock. During the evaluation, a number of non-farm activities were noted, but not in large enough numbers to draw reliable statistics. Those non-farm jobs included: selling traditional medicine, making baskets, working as a local laborer, working as a laborer in Thailand, selling fried food (e.g., bananas, waffles), selling various goods from the house or a household shop, selling flowers, fishing, and foraging for crabs and snails.

The beneficiaries in the program are representative of the households in the community. In table 7.1 below, we can see that the proportion of home roofing materials is somewhat similar, with the control group having a greater percentage of leaf/grass homes. The beneficiary sample includes 1st generation beneficiaries who are generally better off than subsequent generations.

Table 7.1 Target Household Roofing Material

Roofing Material for Beneficiary Sample Roofing Material for Control Sample

Tin Tin Leaf/Grass Leaf/Grass Tile Tile

Likewise, using the number of columns supporting homes as shown in table 7.2 below, the beneficiary sample is similar to the control sample. This wealth indicator suggests that the beneficiaries in the AGRISUD program are largely representative of the community households.

Table 7.2 Columns Supporting Houses

Number of Columns Supporting Beneficiary Number of Columns Supporting Control Sample Households Group Households

0-6 Columns 0-6 Columns 7-9 Columns 7-9 Columns 10-12 Columns 10-12 Columns 13+ Columns 13+ Columns

Beneficiaries have reported much more improvement in their household income and food security than non-beneficiaries (see chart below). 67% of beneficiaries reported improvement while only 25% of non-beneficiaries reported improvement. For non- beneficiaries, the common response was that their food security and income remained

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 16 - unchanged. Also, among non-beneficiaries, more households reported worse food security than reported better food security.

Change in Household Food Security and Income Over the Past Two Years

70 60 50 40 Percent 30 Control Group 20 Beneficiaries 10 0 Better The Same Worse Change

In addition, significantly more non-beneficiaries reported borrowing rice over the last twelve months; 33% of non-beneficiaries reported borrowing rice while only 19% of beneficiaries reported borrowing rice.

Percentage of Households Borrowing Rice

100

80

60 Percent Control Group 40 Beneficiaries 20

0 Borrowed Rice Did Not Borrow Rice

An underlying key to the AGRISUD strategy is an emphasis on market trends. AGRISUD actively monitors market trends in prices and informs the farmers which products have higher or lower prices in what seasons. This is intended to encourage farmers to make more strategic decisions based on market trends and to avoid market saturation, making increased agricultural output more sustainable.

Another underlying key to the AGRISUD strategy is testing of various types of seeds, passively encouraging the use of more productive and resistant species of seed. The introduction of these new varieties is passive, with beneficiaries given the choice of using any seed, but more informed about the performance aspects of different seeds.

This evaluation cross checked income and production data collected by AGRISUD. The data was found to be accurate, often more accurate than the beneficiaries’ responses (in instances of large differences, evaluators returned to beneficiaries to conduct physical measurements to find that the AGRISUD data had been correct).

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 17 -

In its 2004 annual report, AGRISUD has reported the following results to date:

Project Achievements Number Produced of Financial quantity beneficiary value ($) (kg) producers Vegetables 246 161 29.66 Pigs livestock 114 10.44 9.3 Mushroom "pleurote" 19 6.606 13.3 Straw mushrooms 32 726 kg 767 $ 128 piglets Piglets production 15 4.045 $ 19 sows Poultry production 45 564 poultries 964 $ Fruit tree production 44 On going -

Increase of family income

Objective Result Estimation of After 1 year After 2 years Basic needs After 1.5 years basic needs 240-300 $ +120-300 $ + 350-500 $ 359 $ + 490 $

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 18 -

8. Agricultural Practices

Beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries that engaged in agricultural plant a similar number and type of crops. However, beneficiaries have reported greater productivity and quality of crop.

The AGRISUD project aimed to develop agricultural diversification, local supply of agricultural market demand, the number of crops cycles, the intensification of agricultural practices, farm management, the permanent continuity of crop production in space and time, through the staggement of the sowing date, and the abandonment of the practices of one-day-sowing-per- cycle (Permaculture). This evaluation has found that AGRISUD has successfully helped beneficiaries in making significant Bunching onion has proved highly profitable for beneficiaries like Ms. An of Sophi II village. progress to each of the objectives.

For this evaluation, the control group of target area farmers were compared with the second generation of beneficiaries in the AGRISUD program for whom material assistance had been discontinued. The control group reported growing a wide variety of vegetables. Table 8.1: Crops Planted April 16-July 13 2004 (early wet season) Crop Bean Bitter Melon Cabbage Chili Coriander Corn Cucumber Eggplant Flowers Fruit trees Garlic Headed Cabbage Lemon grass Potato Pumpkin Red Corn Sesame Mushrooms Sponge gourd Tomato Water convolvulus Wax gourd White Corn Yam Bean

This range among local practice is not expanded by the AGRISUD project, nor is there a among AGRISUD beneficiaries who plant a greater number of crops within this range. AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 19 -

However, discussions with beneficiaries clearly indicate that though vegetables grown were often the same as traditionally grown, the varieties provided through the AGRISUD program were often varieties previously unknown to them.

Quantitative (see table below) and qualitative data clearly indicate that beneficiaries regard their yields to be significantly improved upon their traditional planting. Also, seed variety among AGRISUD beneficiaries is enhanced, with beneficiaries using new varieties of seeds that are more resistant to disease and climate damage.

Table 8.2 Beneficiary Productivity Sample Average Average Vegetable Variety Size Profit / m² Profit /m²/ms 7 Ciboule Battambang 23.3 12.4 Phnom 5 Ciboule Thom 20.1 8.8 Moutarde de 5 chine Thai 10.7 7.1 2 Haricot baguette Khbal Koh 19.7 7 7 Liseron d'eau Local 9.9 6.8 Moutarde 5 indienne Local 7.9 5.1 2 Oignon Local 15 4.7 5 Chou frisé Thai 7.9 4.7 22 Tomate Mongal 15.2 4.3 2 Chou pommé KKC 10.5 4.3 2 Margose Thai 9.7 3.8 4 Chou fleur Hoggar 7.6 3.8 Yellow 3 Oignon granex 15.2 3.4 9 Petsaï Local 3.7 3 4 Haricot baguette Local 6.2 2.7 5 Concombre Mummy 4.4 2.3 4 Chinese kale Local 4.5 2.2 Moutarde de 9 chine Local 3.8 1.8 8 Concombre Local 3 1.7 4 Concombre L 04 2.5 1.4 8 Maïs blanc Viet Nam 2.1 0.9

This data was collected from first and second generation beneficiaries and only calculates profit and varitproductity for crops grown planted without the financial assistance of AGRISUD.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 20 -

Overall, the households in the target area depend on rain as their source of water (see chart below). Clearly, this inhibits production activities. Farmers have less control over quality and overall degree of production.

Agricultural Water Sources

60 50 40 Percent 30 20 Percent of Households 10 0 Rain Pond Canal Well Creek Water Source Type

However, the rain method cultivation was principally for rice production. When looking at farming non-rice products (chamkar), the number of farmers depending on rain decreases dramatically (see chart below).

Water Sources for Chamkar Cultivation

30 25 20 Percent 15 10 Percent of Households 5 0 Rain Pond Canal Well Creek Water Source

For the non-rain sources of water, 32% of those sources are private sources, completely owned or controlled by the household. However, most of the water sources, 68%, are sources shared by the larger community, especially neighbors with adjacent land. A majority of those water sources are adjacent to the area cultivated (see chart below).

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 21 -

Water Source Distance from Crops

50

40

30 Percent 20 Percentage of Households 10

0 0-10 m 11-20 m 21-40 m 41+ m Distance in Meters

The maximum distance was 150 meters (one person), and the next greatest distance was 100 m (one person); these distances used machine pumping only. This is important as streams and ponds within a 100-200 m radius from the area under cultivation are not viewed by households as a possible source of water. The method of delivery to the field was primarily by hand (bucket) (52%), followed by machine pump (41%), and both hand- bucket/pump (7%).

A number of beneficiaries, especially poorer beneficiaries, did not have appropriate sources of water that would enable reliable cultivation and participation the project. To remedy this, the original plan of AGRISUD included provisions for digging water sources. AGRISUD prepared fish ponds for beneficiaries with sufficient land and prepared earth wall wells for beneficiaries with smaller residential plots. The project logical framework specifies 225 ponds to be provided.

In 2003, 33 beneficiaries were provided with water sources and in 2004, 41 beneficiaries were provided with water sources. According to analysis of AGRISUD records, in 2003, the ponds were provided for an average of $81 with an average volume of 146 cubic meters. The average beneficiary contribution was $28. In 2004, the ponds were provided for an average of $115 with an average volume of 167 cubic meters. The average beneficiary contribution was $72.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 22 -

AGRISUD has supported beneficiaries in piglet breeding, pig raising, and chicken raising. However, the support of chicken raising involved few households and has not been vigorously promoted by AGRISUD.

The main activity in livestock raising is pig raising and breeding. AGRISUD supports this activity by providing matching piglets when purchased by farmers. Additional support comes through training and technical advice (especially regarding use of feed), vaccination, and ongoing development of village veterinarians.

Quantitative data collected by AGRISUD A typical beneficiary pig pen as seen in indicate that piglet raising is profitable only Sophi II. To the right of this photo, a when a milled blends of high protein grains pipe leads pig manure and urine into a and nutrients is provided. However, the sub-soil water jar for compost. piglets also form an important role in producing compost and acting as a form of savings.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 23 -

9. Market Analysis

For market analysis, the evaluation analyzed existing AGRISUD data after confirming reliability through market visits and interviews. From this analysis, it is seen that, even at the beginning of the project, most produce for the Serei Sophorn markets originated within Banteay Meanchey. However, external produce is significant.

A majority of external produce comes from other domestic sources, with 10-25% of external produce coming from outside of . Supply of local produce has increased dramatically, probably a result of province-wide increase in agricultural productivity to which AGRISUD has made a significant contribution.

Serei Sophorn Market Produce: Market Share According to Origin ) t

n 100 e c r 80 e p ( 60 Banteay Meanchey e r a 40 External Sources h S

t 20 e k r

a 0

M Feb. Feb. Mar. Mar. Apr. Apr. 2003 2004 2003 2004 21000033 2004 Month and Year

Seasonal variation is due to the difficulty of growing produce during the wet season, with increased vegetable production during the early dry season months. Rainfall damages crops and drowns roots, making cultivation during the wet season doubly difficult. Thus, the local market share for vegetables decreases during this season.

Market Share for Serei Sophorn Produce - Change in Origin ) t 100 n e c

r 80 e p ( 60 Banteay Meanchey e r

a External Sources

h 40 S

t

e 20 k r

a 0 A F J M O D S N A J J M M a u u e p e e o u c a a n l n b r c p v g t r y t Month

As rice cultivation increases dramatically in June with the commencement of the rainy season, there is a noticeable decline in the market share of local produce. This stabilizes AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 24 - somewhat after rice planting has ceased and vegetable harvest commences in July and August. After this, during the harvest season in November and December, the local producers are busy again cutting and processing rice. Then, once this process has finished, vegetable planting resumes in December, with produce available again in the market beginning in January.

This evaluation also looked at the market effects of two products specifically targeted by the AGRISUD project, tomato and swatow mustard.

Tomato Origin: Market Share at Serei Sophorn Markets ) t

n 120 e c

r 100 e p

( 80 Banteay Meanchey e

r 60 a External Sources h 40 S

t

e 20 k r

a 0

M Feb. Feb. Mar. Mar. Apr. Apr. 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 Month and Year

Moderate gains in tomato production were experienced in March (see chart above). However, there was a drop in April. The dramatic change for the month of February should be qualified with the fact that market research in Banteay Meanchey markets had just begun and the number of venders interviewed was lower than for subsequent months; thus, the dramatic change is possibly partly due to poor data collection.

Swatow Mustard Origin: Market Share at Serei Sophorn Markets ) t

n 120 e c

r 100 e p

( 80 Banteay Meanchey e

r 60 a External Sources h 40 S

t

e 20 k r

a 0

M Feb. Feb. Mar. Mar. Apr. Apr. 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 Month and Year

Across the year, local swatow mustard producers have increased their market share. However, the market share has fluctuated rapidly, with a decline in February, but market domination in April. AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 25 -

10. Mushroom Cultivation

Thus far, AGRISUD has introduced mushroom cultivation to a group of 27 households, and have introduced mycelium production (mushroom spores) to one household. The evaluator met with 7 mushroom producers from a representative sample of villages. All of those mushroom growers have continued their production without the financial assistance of AGRISUD. All of those producers indicate that mushroom cultivation has dramatically increased their household income.

Because of the profitability, most of the mushroom producers have increased the scope of their cultivation in terms of money, time, and other resources. Three non-beneficiary households in Kantuout have begun cultivating mushrooms on their own after seeing the positive results of their neighbors.

Mushroom cultivation was selected by AGRISUD as AGRISUD had had positive experience with mushroom cultivation in previous projects. According to AGRISUD observations, mushroom cultivation developed in previous projects in Kandal and has been sustained for a period of several years after the project has ceased technical and financial support. ZOA, based in Poipet, has also introduced mushroom cultivation to beneficiaries in O’Chrov district and has A woman in Pongro village is able to reported satisfactory results. continue mushroom production in the absence of her partner who received the training.

The mushroom of choice for the growers in the PADSA is pleurote. Pleurote is the easiest for the growers to develop in large quantities and can be cultivated year-round. The project has also experimented with straw mushrooms (volvaire), but by the time of the evaluation, the growers had temporarily discontinued cultivating the straw mushrooms as they unanimously reported that the straw mushrooms required heat and was sensitive to cool weather and rains. They have reported that it is appropriate to cultivate straw mushrooms when the dry warm season begins again in December. The mycelium producer stated that he would be producing mycelium for straw mushroom in December. It is expected that the mushroom producers will recommence production of volvaire in December as there is an attractive market price, more than twice the rate for pleurote.

Supply Chain AGRISUD has now set in place a partially independent supply chain. Now mushroom cultivators purchase some of their inputs from local sources, but that some of their inputs are purchased or received directly from an AGRISUD technician. The next step is for AGRISUD to allow the supply chain to function independently and to act as an observer and not an intermediary. AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 26 -

Besides the construction of a simple glass/leaf walled shed to house the mushroom production, the inputs for mushroom production are mycelium, substrate (saw dust from rubber trees), white lime, urea, magnesium, calcium sulfate, rice bran, and plastic bags.

The mycelium is purchased directly from the mycelium producer, however, the AGRISUD mushroom technician regularly supplies the mycelium directly to the producers, especially those producers in O’Chrov and Mongkol Borei districts. Likewise, the technician regularly delivers magnesium and calcium phosphate from the border markets directly to the mushroom producers. It would be The mycelium producer using a pressure interesting to observe the effects when he cooker for accurate control and ceases his intervention. sanitization.

Similary, the rubber saw dust (ach rona), a key ingredient, is procured from , where there are a number of rubber plantations. AGRISUD has developed a reliable link, using a private transporter that regularly carries people and products between Kampong Cham and Banteay Meanchey. However, the last stage of the chain is again completed by the AGRISUD mushroom technician.

The other inputs, such as urea, white lime, and rice bran are easily purchased in the local markets and the producers report that they independently purchase all of these inputs. The plastic bags in which the substrate is placed is a special variety designed spefically for cultivating mushrooms (temperature resistant, greater thickness, proper size) which are produced in Vietnam and Thailand. AGRISUD beneficiaries can purchase these in the AGRISUD markets in both Kok and Pongro.

Besides the one time input of a presser cooker and a small science hood, the mycelium producer has additional inputs such as potatoes, glucose sugar, algae (these three ingredients create DPA), cooked whole rice with bran, charcoal, and bottles (purchased by recyclers). All of these products are locally available. However, for volvaire mushrooms, there is an additional ingredient, the skin of lotus fruit, which is used in producing spores. This is not available in Banteay Meanchey and must be sourced in .

Sales Mushroom cultivators in Serei Sophorn district sell their mushrooms directly to the markets in the provincial capital. Motorcycle transportation to those markets is increasingly expensive with the rise of gas prices. However, the provincial capital is within a 10-30 minute bicycle ride and some cultivators have opted to bicycle. Mushroom cultivators in Mongkol Borei and O’Chrov districts do not have practical access to provincial capital markets and sell through traders and in their local district markets.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 27 -

Serei Sophorn market mushroom prices at the start of the project were 33 baht/kg. and, with the increased local production, have decreased to 27 bt/kg at the time of this evaluation. However, mushroom prices in the outer district markets, such as Chumown, have remained slightly higher and were 33 bt/kg. at the time of this evaluation. However, local producers selling in Chumown said that they were purposefully producing low quantities in order to sustain the higher market price.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 28 -

11. Farmer Associations and Stores

A number of beneficiaries, especially poorer beneficiaries, did not have appropriate sources of inputs. The AGRISUD project set up farmer groups for water pump irrigation and two wheel tractors.

Two feed supply store were established. This evaluation met with both, but held substantial discussions with only one, Mr. Saing Va of Pongro. Mr. Saing Va made the investment of a mill on his own. Initially he was assisted by AGRISUD in procuring the ingredient of the pig feed (milled soy bean, corn, shell). However, by the time of this evaluation, Mr. Saing Va was purchasing all of the inputs on his own.

Mr. Saing Va had established reliabled sources for all of the inputs and even made improvements on the projects sources; for example, the project sourced shell from Phnom Penh, whereas Mr. Saing Va sourced shell from local snail sellers. Even relatively distant compenents of the supply chain seem secure. Saing Va finds that making trips to Battambang to purchase milled soy bean are well worth the expense. Mr. Saing Va is broadening his customer base as well; currently about 50% of his customers are from outside of the AGRISUD program. Saing Va is not only the shop owner, he is also a client and has developed the most extensive pig Saing Va’s daughter poses with the raising facilities seen among the program milling machine used to produce pig beneficiaries. feed.

Both farmer group leaders and participants reported positive experiences with the activity. The pumps and the tractors were being efficiently used by the group members. Group members said that the group size was appropriate and did not suggest any changes. Costs were respected among the groups and the machines were repaired using funds collected by members. Only one member was found by the evaluators to have quit the group; he asked to leave from his tractor group because he did not know how to operate the equipment. Not regarding this one example, the tractor group was working well. The evaluator also found that beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries often described tractor plowing of fields to be less expensive than using cows/buffalos. Overall, the evaluator found the water pump and tractor groups to be working very well.

The AGRISUD project also set up five stores: two seed and fertilizer stores, two pig feed store, and one mycelium producer (as described above in the mushroom section). One seed and fertilizer store is located in Koh Ponle village, set up by beneficiary Meas Sophal. The other seed and fertilizer store is located in Pongro village. The shops are an excellent means of distributing inputs.

The stores serve as an outlet for the items for distribution from AGRISUD, such as seeds and fertilizer. The stores also hold other items such as pesticide. These stores initially

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 29 - received all input from AGRISUD. However, by the time of this evaluation, many of the inputs (e.g., fertilizer) were purchased by the store owners themselves for sale.

The two stores have a number of key similarities. They have been set up at the residence of the beneficiary located in a central part of their respective villages. Both stores are partially self-sufficient and successful, with non-beneficiaries accounting for 20-50% of sales, depending on the product. The products are largely seeds and fertilizers. Neither of the shops have tried to diversify their products or expand their product line to any great extent. Both shops are mainly operated by the spouses of the male household head who participated in the training. This is because the male household head spends his time in the field while the female household head is based near the home. Therefore, the seller is the wife. In general, the evaluator found the wives to be competent regarding the use and knowledge of the different products available.

The two stores are also different in key respects. The store in Koh Ponle is situated on a main road which is used by all of the villagers in Koh Ponle. This gives the store good placement and easy access and visibility with customers. In contrast, the store in Pongro is in the interior of the village in a very hard to find location, with no visibility. Also, the store in Koh Ponle has made a sign on the road indicating the shop; the goods in the shop are arranged somewhat like a shop. However, the Pongro shop has no resemblance of a shop at all. In term of sustainability, the shop in Koh Ponle is expected to do better since it is adhering to traditional principles of marketing.

In the next phase of the AGRISUD project, it will be seen whether these shops can continue to act as a reliable supplier of agricultural inputs without the assistance of AGRISUD.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 30 -

12. Program Organization and Management

Human Resources AGRISUD owes much of its success to the competence and diligence of its staff. The evaluator had the opportunity to interview each of the AGRISUD employees with the exception of three administrative employees. Also, the evaluator interviewed beneficiaries regarding the performance of AGRISUD employees.

Each of the employees exhibited a high degree of knowledge and experience regarding their positions. Indeed, these employees all have experience working with AGRISUD during projects in other provinces. As a result, there experience and ability to competently assist local farmers is quite deep.

The beneficiaries have also unanimously expressed approval of the technical staff of AGRISUD, saying that their visits were helpful and purposeful. Moreover, the technical staff have exhibited a great degree of diligence. While they have been scheduled to meet with beneficiaries once a week, they have made an effort to meet with beneficiaries 2-5 times per week. Not a single beneficiary reported receiving a home visit from AGRISUD technical staff less than once per week. While this is a mark of inefficiency, it also reveals the degree to which the technical staff carry out their work.

Also, the evaluator has determined that the data collected by AGRISUD is accurate. AGRISUD information regarding crop types, yields, areas of cultivation is often more accurate than the data provided by the farmers themselves. Technical staff have gone to great lengths to physically measure with measuring tapes the precise surface area being planted with various crops.

Besides the technical competency and discipline among the AGRISUD team, there is also a sincere desire to secure the success of each beneficiary’s agricultural activity.

In all of this, Mr. Jean-Paul Romano should be commended. It is certainly his experience as a farmer in Cambodia and his indefatigable effort to educate and supervise the teams that has provided the environment of diligence and competency.

Evaluation and Monitoring AGRISUD has a very comprehensive system for monitoring project implementation. Every beneficiary in the program has a detailed file charting his/her agricultural and income generation activities from the beginning of the project. These files are updating for each beneficiary at least once a week, following visits from technical staff.

In this way, AGRISUD is able to constantly monitor the implementation of activities. Problems or inefficiencies that arise are immediately recognized and resolved.

AGRISUD management, mainly Mr. Kit Ban, the technical team leader, spends most of his time in the field, even on unpaid weekends, rigorously following up the performance of beneficiaries, insuring that the data and reports provided by the technical staff are accurate. Mr. Kit Ban meets beneficiaries at their homes and receives direct feedback as well as performing an onsite inspection of the activities.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 31 -

Each team within AGRISUD holds daily meetings during which they submit their respective reports. During these meetings, they share experiences and exchange suggestions. Mr. Ros Limhy and Mr. Jean-Paul Romano regularly attend these meetings listening to feedback, posing questions about recent findings, and presenting new technical and non-technical information.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 32 -

13. Conclusion

Relevance The activities under the AGRISUD project are very relevant and, in fact, AGRISUD has gone through efforts to insure that the output of the activities are meeting market demand.

With the exception of mushroom raising, which has since become the most lucrative of activities, all of the activities are traditional activities for which beneficiaries already have a degree of experience.

The technical improvements for agricultural activities are all very relevant and easy to implement locally. Materials, craftsmanship, and labor are all readily available at low cost in the village. Certain seed varieties and mushroom cultivation materials are not locally available, but AGRISUD has been able to establish a reliable supply chain.

Beneficiary selection was also very relevant. The villages in the target area are all quite poor relative to other villages in the area. Also, the villages all have considerable agricultural experience and available land.

The selection of individual beneficiary households was conducted quite fairly and was done in such a way as to accurately select households that had the best chance to insure that the activity would be sustained by the household after the end of the project.

Efficiency Project inputs are used efficiently and well exploited. There is no idleness among any of the AGRISUD employees and all of the activities are very purposeful, aiming to ensure the sustained improvement of food security and income generation among the beneficiaries. Efficiency is ensured through rigorous monitoring and evaluation of the project activities which means that obstacles and inefficiencies are quickly dealt with.

It may be possible for the technical staff to increase the number of beneficiaries they monitor. However, because the project aims to ensure that the initial beneficiaries are successful so that they can become a part of the program propogation, having a lower number of beneficiaries during the first year of the project is justified.

Effectiveness This project is highly effective. The project is effective through selection of an appropriate activity, through selection of appropriate beneficiaries, through appropriate training, and through appropriate market based activities. The activities are effective because they are based on the needs of a pre-existing market. Any activity aiming to improve income or food security needs to closely consider market needs to become effective. The activities are effective in regards to selection because AGRISUD has made sure to select beneficiaries with the appropriate willingness and resources to carry out the project. The training is effective because it is real. The training is hands on and practical. The training occurs at the village level and, with the master farmer’s experience to demonstrate to beneficiaries, is something that leads to tangible benefits.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 33 -

Impact The AGRISUD program has had great impact. Nearly all of the beneficiaries have been able to successful implement the technical improvements to their farming activities. The beneficiaries have been able to create household income generation strategies by considering market demand when they are selecting crops to plant. And, importantly, income and food security has improved for approximately 63% of beneficiaries compared to approximately 23% of the control group. This is a dramatic improvement for the first year of a project.

Sustainability The activities in this program are sustainable. The key reason they are sustainable is that AGRISUD ensured the success of the first cycle of planting. This means that the beneficiary was able to substantially increase his/her income through the fruits of his/her labor. With this experience, the beneficiary is highly motivated to continue with the activity. And, as this evaluation has found, nearly all of the beneficiaries have chosen to continue the activities, often increasing the scope of the activity.

The sustainability is also due to the link to market needs. AGRISUD has endeavored to intensify agricultural output with existing resources to provide products with the highest return on investment (e.g., tomatoes and bunching onions). This profitability is a great motivator. In fact, many villagers out of the project have expressed an interest in the activities, sometimes carrying the activity out on their own.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 34 -

14. Recommendations

It must be emphasized that AGRISUD is doing an excellent job at implementing the project and achieving its objectives. The following six recommendation aim to facilitate this:

1. Share: Promote strategy and experience among other NGOs or technical departments. Other NGOs in the area are involved in promoting agricultural activities, though not necessarily directly. These NGOs can greatly benefit from the experience of AGRISUD. Also, the innovations AGRISUD has made in terms of program design would be helpful, especially to help other NGOs phase out the distribute seeds-train for two days model.

2. Increase credit: Give local micro-credit marketers access to farmer data, production and income; since the activities are profitable, provision of small loans may be appealing; AGRISUD may want to perform a small trial using their existing strategy, but replacing material inputs with credit-bought inputs. AGRISUD could trial credit based purchases to replace subsidized water pump/two wheel tractors purchases, perhaps with AGRISUD as guarantor.

3. Strengthen supply chain: Phase out logistical and financial support completely – some technical officers are still delivering inputs directly to beneficiaries. Allow greater price flexibility for products (e.g. mycelium) and services (e.g. veterinarian); setting prices is not sustainable. If free pricing is allowed, AGRISUD will be able to observe and control for the effects of their inevitable departure.

4. Eye profits: Use a more traditional business model for the shops; increase outlets for seeds and other inputs. Currently, the shops are not following the normal tenants of marketing and placement of shop. It would be more sustainable if the shops were to secure key retail positions within the village. Also, shops should expand their products beyond the existing ones in order to satisfy the needs of customers (e.g., selling hoes, netting, planting bags).

5. Instruct: Share specific data regarding profitability with farmers (e.g., low profit from cucumbers). Though AGRISUD already conveys prices and profitability through reports and posters, an increase in explanation from technical officers would be helpful.

6. Reach out: Collect basic data on households interested in implementing farming techniques but lacking in resources. There are a number of vulnerable families in the target villages that are unable to participate in this program because they lack certain resources such as appropriate land or sufficient labor. AGRISUD can maintain basic data on these families. This data can be passed on to the government or other NGOs for possible intervention.

7. Prepare: Work more closely with the provincial development committee and provincial department of rural development to identify specific areas for a future program led by a local organization that AGRISUD intends to put in place.

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 35 -

Annex 1

Organizations Consulted

No. Organization 1 ZOA 2 Ockenden 3 PDAFF 4 NPA 5 PDRD 6 Provincial Deputy Governor 7 ADA 8 CHO 9 KSEDO 10 Krousar Tmey 11 Seli Ennathien 12 ACLEDA 13 CRS

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 36 -

Annex 2

Persons Interviewed

Position/Role

AGRISUD Director AGRISUD Deputy Director AGRISUD Technician Team Leader AGRISUD Technician AGRISUD Economic/Market Analyst AGRISUD Veterinarians AGRISUD Mushroom Technician AGRISUD Administration AGRISUD Trainer AGRISUD Database Officer Wholesale Vegetable Seller (2) Retail Vegetable Seller (2) Fertilizer & Agro. Supply Sellers (2) Public Seed Sellers (2) Supply Shop Keeper (2) Mycelium Producer (1) Livestock Feed Producer (2) 1st Generation Farmers (10) 2nd Generation Farmers (20) Control Farmers (40) Village Chief (7) Mushroom Producers (10) Pig Breeders/Raisers (10) Pump Association Chiefs (4) Pump Association Members (15) Mechanized Plow Group Chiefs (2) Mechanized Plow Group Member (10) Farmers Exiting the Program (6)

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 37 -

Annex 3

Schedule

Month June July Day 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-13 Review of Documentation Staff Interviews Beneficiary Interviews Non-Beneficiary Interviews VDC Discussion Village Chief Interview Institutional / Organizational Interviews Market Visit Seller / Trader Interviews Discussion with Project Manager Report Writing Follow up data collection Presentation of Report Preparation of Workshop Delivery of Workshop

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 38 -

AGRISUD Mid-Term Evaluation Interview Questionnaire

I- Household

1. District:…………………… Commune:…………………… Village:…………………… Female Household Head:……………………… Male Household Head: ……………………… Number of Household Members: … Adults over 60: Males 15-59: Children 5-15: Children under 3: Females 15-59: Disabled: …

2. House

Floors Roof Column Roofing Walling Flooring Date of Eaves Type & No. Material Construct. 1. 2. 3.

Comment:

3. Land a. Rice fields:……………….. distance from house:………… b. Farmland:………………… distance from house:………… c. Residential land:…………

4. Do you have rice now? Will you have rice every month this year? If not, for how many months? Will you borrow rice? From whom? Has this changed from 2 years ago?

5. Family Assets

Type No. Purchase Cost Date Last Purchased 1. TV 2. Karaoke 3. Radio 4. Bicycle 5. Motorcycle 6. Other: 7. 8. 9. 10.

6. Sources of income during harvest of early dry season 2003 vegetables (not including harvest).

Source Person/S/Age Duration Location Investment Sale/Gross Income 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 39 -

7. Serious Illness(es) during the early dry season 2003:

Person/S/Age Illness Duration Treatment Place of Cost Treatment 1. 2. 3.

8. Any large expenses during the early dry season 2003:

9. Compare your food security and income of the last early dry season 2003 with that of 2002.

10. What difficulties do people in this village face? Why?

11. How could you/other people in this village improve their living conditions?

II Irrigation

Water Source Private or Availability Distance from Method of Communal (Months) Crops Delivery to Crops

Comments:

III AGRISUD

11. How were beneficiaries selected for the AGRISUD program?

12. How was the AGRISUD training? Have you been able to implement the techniques they have recommended to you?

13. How often do AGRISUD technicians come and meet you? What information do they collect? Are they helpful?

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 40 -

Early dry season 2003 Planting (November – February) Material Inputs for Cultivated Area Material Input Brand/Type Source Budget First Second Third Fourth Area of Comment/Result (Self or Application Application Application Application Application AGRIS (Amt/Cost/ (Amt/Cost/ (Amt/Cost/ (Amt/Cost/ UD) Date) Date) Date) Date) Plowing

Pesticide 1:

Pesticide 2:

Fertilizer 1:

Fertilizer 2:

Fertilizer 3:

Water:

Seed 1:

Seed 2:

Seed 3:

Seed 4:

Other:

Other:

Other:

Other:

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 41 -

Early dry season 2003 and post Khmer New Year 2004 Planting Crop Area Area Date Date Yield Amount Amount Amount Sold Comment/Result Planted Harveste Planted Harvested Consumed Sold 1 2 d (Amount/Pr (Amount/Pric ice/Buyer) e/Buyer) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Harvest

Dry Compost (yes, no, duration, layering, watering):

Liquid Compost (yes, no, duration, storage):

Raised Planting Bed (yes, no):

Application of Fertilizer (when, watering, amount per 100 m2):

Comments:

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 42 -

Early dry season 2003 Planting (November – February) Labor Activity Labor Number of Duration/timing Cost Comment/Result Source People (internal/ external) 1. Plowing

2. Seed Bed

3. Preparation of Rows

4. Watering

5. Weeding

6. Fertilizing

7. Harvesting

8.

9.

10.

Comments:

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 43 -

Animals Animal/Breed No. Vaccines Budget Purchase Weeks Age Cost Source Feed Sale Age at Price Cons- /Cost (self/AGRI Date at Sale umptio SUD) Purchase n

28. Did you prepare a pig pen? Please describe.

29. Is there a village veterinarian? Have you ever used his/her/their services, at what cost? Please describe.

Comments

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 44 -

AGRISUD Banteay Meanchey July 2004 Mid-Term Evaluation - 45 -