Community Livestock Market Development (CLIMAD) project

External Final Evaluation

Evaluation team meeting LFN members in Phlov Veay village, Svay Chrum, Kompong Chhnang

Evaluation conducted by: Mrs. Bernie O’Neill, Team Leader Assisted by Mr. Long Vanda & Mr. Ven Sarith

July/August 2016

Table of Contents

Page

List of acronyms used 3

List of tables 4

Executive Summary 5

Main Report

I. Introduction and background 9

II. Objectives and methodology 10

III. Findings III.0 Overview of project activities 14 III.1 Livestock Farmer Networks (LFNs) 16 III.2 Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs) 19 III.3 Vets Associations (VAs) 21 III.4 Suppliers of vetinary products 23 III.5 Livestock Market Traders (LMTs) 24 III.6 Offices of Animal Health and Production (OAHPs) 25 III.7 Local NGO implementing partners 28

IV. Discussion in relation to TOR objectives IV.1 Relevance and quality of design 32 IV.2 Methodology of implementation 33 IV.3 Effectiveness 37 IV.4 Efficiency 50 IV.5 Impact 52 IV.6 Sustainability 54

V. Learnings, Recommendations & Conclusion 58

Annexes:

1. Terms of Reference 62 2. Guiding questions used for interviews 67 3. Evaluation field schedule 82 4. List of persons interviewed 83 5. Poverty rates for target communes 87

Page 2

List of acronyms used

AARR Alliance Action for Rural Restoration BCC Bio‐digester Construction Company BCS Business Competence Survey CC Commune Council CIP Commune Investment Plan CLIMAD Community Livestock Market Development project CSO Civil Society Organization DIW District Integration Workshop DLF District Livestock Forum D/OAHP Department/Office of Animal Health & Production EPDO Environmental Protection and Development Organization (local NGO partner) HH Household iDE International Development Enterprises IEC Information, Education & Communication (materials) LFF Livestock Farmer Forum LFN Livestock Farmers Network LMT Livestock Market Trader MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MODA Market Oriented Development Approach MOU Memorandum Of Understanding MTE Mid‐term Evaluation NBP National Bio‐digester Program NRM Natural Resource Management OAHP Office of Animal Health and Production PDA Provincial Department of Agriculture (Forestry & Fisheries) PIN People In Need (Czech NGO) PNKA Phnom Neang Kangrei Association (local NGO partner) ROM Results‐Orientated Monitoring SND Sub‐National Development SORF Support Organization for Rural Farmers (local NGO partner) SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats TDSP Teuk Dey Sovanphum (local NGO partner) UAI Usage, Attitude and Image VA Vets Association VAHW Village Animal Health Worker VCA Value Chain Analysis

Page 3

List of Tables

Page Table III.2.1 – Data from VAHW interviews 19 Table III.3.1 – Data on VA formation and membership 21 Table III.3.2 – Financial situation of VAs interviewed 21 Table III.4.1 – Profile of shops interviewed 23 Table IV.2.1 – Technical recommendations from MTE 35 Table IV.2.2 – ROM recommendations and comments 36 Table IV.3.1 – Joint animal husbandry activities of LFN members 38 Table IV.3.2 – % of LFN members who use VAHW at least once per year 38 Table IV.3.3 – % of LFN members who vaccinate their animals 39 Table IV.3.4 – Change in animal mortality (% of LFN members) 40 Table IV.3.5 – Marketing practices of LFN members 40 Table IV.3.6 – VAHW post-test training results 41 Table IV.3.7 – Assessment of VA performance 41 Table IV.3.8 – Cool chain shop facilities 42 Table IV.3.9 – Additional services provided by shops 42 Table IV.3.10 – CIP 2014 follow up (Kompong Chhnang) 43 Table IV.3.11 – CIP 2014 follow up (Pursat) 43 Table IV.3.12 – Follow up on issues from DLFs 44 Table IV.3.13 – Partner training courses post-test results 45 Table IV.3.14 – Changes in income from animal raising 46 Table IV.3.15 – % of LFN members who perceive themselves as better-off 47 Table IV.3.16 – % of HHs with enough food to eat 48 Table IV.3.17 – % of HHs who own certain asset types 48 Table IV.3.18 – Poverty rate changes in target communes 48 Table IV.3.19 – Extracts from Annex 5 (selected commune poverty rate data) 49 Table IV.3.20 – % of respondents who say youth are involved in livestock raising 49 Table IV.4.1 – Allocation of direct vs. indirect expenditure 51 Table IV.4.2 – Budget versus Actual expenditure 51 Table IV.4.3 – Cost per beneficiary 52 Table IV.6.1 – Sustainability of linkages 54

Page 4

Executive Summary

Introduction The Community Livestock Market Development (CLIMAD) was implemented by a Czech NGO, People in Need (PIN) with the financial support of the European Union and the Czech Development Agency. PIN partnered with and supported the capacities of five local NGO partners and actively cooperated with the Provincial Offices of Animal Health and Production and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (MAFF). The CLIMAD team worked to enable local veterinarians, veterinary companies and local shops to improve the quality, accessibility and demand for private, community-based veterinary and marketing services. The project’s Specific Objective was that “17,200 poor farmers (at least 12,900 women and youth) have sustainably improved their livelihoods while not undermining their natural environment due to enhanced demand for and supply of community-based veterinary, animal husbandry and marketing services”. The project was divided into two phases; the first running from the start of the project in March 2013 to the end of December 2014 and the second from December 2014 to the end of the project in July 2016. This final evaluation was commissioned by PIN to make an overall independent assessment of the project performance, paying particular attention to the impact of the project actions against its objectives. It was also intended to identify key lessons and to propose practical recommendations that will enable PIN, its partners and other stakeholders to enhance the impact of future, similarly-focused programs. The methodology included desk review of project documents, key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders, focus group discussions with a sample of project beneficiary groups, analysis of data including that collected by PIN and partners such as baseline surveys, monitoring data and endline surveys, and report preparation.

Findings Findings from discussions with project beneficiaries and other stakeholders ratified very closely the information provided to the consultants by PIN and partners. The consultants were impressed by the extensive number of activities that were implemented in a relatively short time and with the commitment and high level of participation of all project stakeholders. Relevance & project design Discussions with all stakeholders confirmed the relevance of the project. Livestock (especially chicken) raising is the second most important agriculture activity (after rice growing) in the target areas – and often the activity that contributes most household income for poorer families (who have only small rice plots). The project was well designed to ensure participation and linkages of all groups relevant to achieving the objective. The timing of activities took into consideration the agriculture calendar of farmers, reducing village level activities during their busy rice growing season in favor of more work with partners and the private sector. But the project could have benefited from targeting fewer farmers in the “learning” Phase 1 in order to add to the effectiveness of the Phase 2 work. Methodology Selection of beneficiaries followed a process that was generally self-selecting, within some pre-defined project criteria such as focusing on the poorest families and those with time and resources to take part in training and implementation. This resulted in beneficiaries who were committed to improving their livestock production. The consultants had no issues with the selection process. However, the number of target communes could have been reduced by including all villages in the selected communes instead of excluding some of them. This would have enhanced the possibility for future ownership of the project by government and local authorities as they can apply a standard approach. Page 5

The project was very participatory, with a high level of involvement from all stakeholders, starting from the design stage to the planning and implementation. PIN and partners were also very open to considering external perspectives such as those that resulted from the Mid- term Evaluation (MTE) and the EU-commissioned Results Orientated Monitoring (ROM) visit and appropriate action has been taken in respect of all relevant recommendations. The project has been gender sensitive, even undertaking a Gender Analysis study early in the project to better inform their understanding. The only aspect where the consultants felt that more focus on women may have improved the project is on chicken vaccinations. The consultants suggest that female “focal vaccinators” to promote chicken vaccination may have led to higher vaccination levels than farmers doing by themselves (or contacting the predominantly male VAHWs who are mostly busy with pigs or cattle). There has been excellent communication and visibility throughout the project.

Effectiveness The key measure of effectiveness of a project is the extent to which the objectives were achieved, in particular the specific objective. Three indicators were set by the project to measure this objective: increased household income from livestock raising, reduced animal mortality, and an increase in the percentage of households living in higher wealth categories. The measurement of these indicators showed increased income, especially from chicken raising (by almost 500% for Phase 2 farmers), reduced mortality of pigs (from 16% to only 4%) and hens/cocks (by 12%) and an increased perception of being better-off than before compared to other HHs – over 60% now feel they are better off than other households compared to less than 20% at the initial baseline. The only weak factor in the analysis of these indicators was the minimal change in mortality for young chicks; it remains at a high of over 50%. This is partly linked to low vaccination rates of chicks as well as abnormal climatic conditions. The issue of chicken vaccinations was explored by the project through the “Chicken Vaccination Barrier” study which found that a high percentage of respondents (even those who do vaccinate chickens) believe that their chickens can still get the diseases they are vaccinated against. As the study is only being finalized at the time of this evaluation, there has not yet been any dissemination or discussion about the impact of the findings.

Efficiency The project was highly cost-efficient, with more than 60% of costs spent directly on project activities and technical human resources. Utilization of funds very closely matched the budget estimates, which is an indication of good planning, with all main budget lines within about 10% of the initial estimates. The cost per beneficiary ratio was well within expected norms for such a project, with the direct cost per beneficiary at only EUR 17 and a total cost including staffing and support costs at EUR 62 which is lower than many other similar projects evaluated by the consultants over the last number of years.

Impact There have already been many impacts on the target groups. Livestock Farmer Network (LFN) members have increased incomes due to better flock management, increased knowledge of how to get the best market prices, and by having more chickens to sell as they can raise them to market weight faster than before. The additional income has helped them to buy sufficient food to eat, send their children to school, and improve their house conditions. The Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs) can gain increased income as their improved technical and business skills have increased the confidence of farmers in their services so they are used more.

Page 6

These positive impacts on LFNs and VAHWs have had a spill-over impact on shops selling vetinary products. Increase numbers of livestock producers (with larger flocks), creates a demand for animal feed, vaccines and medicines which increases the number of customers to the shops. Wider impacts of the project can be expected in the future if these target groups continue to practice the techniques introduced during the project. If chicken raising is seen as a viable business, generating good income, it can encourage more farmers to pursue it and even reduce migration rates. Reduced migration, especially of the youth, keeps communities vibrant and helps youth to avoid safety and social risks associated with migration.

Sustainability The strategies adopted by the project were designed to promote sustainability. Such strategies included minimal physical inputs in favor of developing increased capacity and linkages between all actors in the livestock value chain. These linkages are certain to continue as long as there is common interest. In line with the market-based approach, if one party provides goods or services that the other party requires, and the quality and price is acceptable to them, they will continue to do business. But while linkages between farmers and VAHWs are sure to continue, whether they will continue to pay for training (as per the user-pay system introduced by the project) is uncertain. The willingness among the farmers appears to be there but most stakeholders feel it will not happen without some external initiation. The most sustainable system would be if this initiative comes directly from the VAHWs themselves. But as not all VAHWs have equal capacity, creating a pool of trainers in each commune or district may be more sustainable.

Recommendations As the findings from this evaluation have generally been very positive and the project has achieved its objectives, there are not many recommendations. Those noted are intended to assist PIN and partners in their reflection on future project design. A brief summary is given below; for more details, refer to Section V.2 of the main report. 1. Duration of future projects should ensure that there is at least two years of follow up and support after training and other inputs have been provided 2. Targeting should ensure that all villages in selected communes are covered 3. Sub-contract implementation of the project to OAHP as the key implementing partner (in cooperation with local NGO partners) 4. Encourage LFNs to develop a savings component (e.g. like the Saving for Change projects of local partners) 5. Promote chicken vaccination campaigns at least every two months, using focal women vaccination promoters rather than busy VAHWs 6. Develop a pool of trainers per commune (or district) that can conduct quality training that farmers are willing to pay for 7. Further capacity building of VAs on record keeping and financial management (and simplify the recording system) 8. Expand VAs to all communes 9. Support OAHP and partners to form Farmers Cooperatives incorporating VAs and LFNs/other farmers 10. Future projects should include another linkage: financing institutions (e.g. MFIs) that can provide capital to shops and VAs/Cooperatives

Page 7

11. Support the establishment of chicken hatcheries in at least every 2-3 communes, preferably as an activity of the VAs 12. Promote the use of wire mesh for chicken coops instead of netting 13. Ensure farmers make a large protected area (with natural vegetation) to allow chickens to forage naturally 14. Promote use of good quality chicken vaccines through cost/benefit analysis with farmers 15. Put more focus on farmer monitoring to quickly extract sick chicks/chickens and isolate them 16. Advocate with MAFF for translations of instructions into Khmer language for all vetinary products sold in Cambodia

Conclusion The CLIMAD project concluded with a lot of success, reaching out to even more beneficiaries than intended. There are many farmers in the 155 villages targeted that are now better off than before, with more income to meet their needs. They are more secure and confident in the capacity of their VAHWs to provide the vetinary services they require and they have good knowledge of a number of market traders to ensure they get a fair price when they sell. The VAHWs can access all the supplies they require from well-managed shops and those shops have good contacts with companies who provide them with any advice they require. If all these stakeholders on the chicken value chain continue, and expand, their activities and services, they can look forward to an even more secure livelihood in the future. If PIN and partners can build on these successes, taking into consideration the recommendations above, the benefits can be extended to many other communities if donors are willing to support them. In conclusion, the consultants thank all those who gave up their valuable time to participate in this evaluation and wish all stakeholders success with their activities to support a vibrant, environmentally sensitive, livestock sector in Cambodia.

Page 8

I. Introduction and background

The Community Livestock Market Development (CLIMAD) was implemented by a Czech NGO, People in Need (PIN) with the financial support of the European Union and the Czech Development Agency. PIN partnered with and supported the capacities of its key national partners – AARR, EPDO, PNKA, SORF and TDSP – and actively cooperated with the Provincial Offices of Animal Health and Production and MAFF. With a duration of 3.5 years, total budget of 1.4 million USD and a team of 34 staff, CLIMAD belongs among the largest livestock market development projects in Cambodia. The CLIMAD project engaged the private sector, civil society organizations and relevant authorities in reducing the poverty of 30,000 livestock smallholders living in 205 villages of Pursat and Kampong Chhnang provinces. CLIMAD’s team worked to enable local veterinarians, veterinary companies and local shops to improve the quality, accessibility and demand for private, community-based veterinary and marketing services. As a result, farmers are able to boost their incomes from livestock production while service providers increase their profits, generating lasting win-win solutions for addressing livestock smallholders’ needs. At the same time, CLIMAD ensured that the promoted livestock raising practices are environmentally sensitive and benefit the key animal caretakers – women and youth. Close cooperation with the Commune Councils furthermore enabled farmers to advocate for the support they needed. The projects Overall Objective was: To contribute to reduction of poverty of vulnerable rural households by strengthening CSOs and private sector’s capacity to sustainably promote, facilitate and support women’s economic empowerment and inclusion in decision-making as well as engaging youth in rural economic opportunities. The projects Specific Objective was: By mid-2016, 17,200 poor farmers (at least 12,900 women and youth) have sustainably improved their livelihoods while not undermining their natural environment due to enhanced demand for and supply of community-based veterinary, animal husbandry and marketing services. The project targeted four key results to enable the achievement of the objectives: 1. 5,735 households' (at least 4,300 women and youth) cooperation enables them to access veterinary, animal husbandry and marketing services increasing the effectiveness and environmental sustainability of their production strategies. 2. At least 325 local suppliers of veterinary products and services from 7 target districts have sufficient capacity to respond to the needs of at least 17,200 poor farmers, especially women and youth farmers 3. At least 5,735 poor households represented by 620 grassroots groups have increased their engagement with local and provincial authorities and actively influenced decision making processes affecting their livelihoods. 4. Five province, district and/or commune-based CSOs have capacity to design, mobilize resources and implement natural resources management programs providing sustainable benefits to the most vulnerable populations in their area.

CLIMAD was implemented in two phases. The first phase commenced in March 2013 and went until the end of December 2015, targeting 88 villages in 4 districts: - Krakor and Bakan in Pursat - Boribor and Rolear Phear in Kampong Chhnang. Phase 2 started in December 2014 until July 2016 and was implemented in 6 districts, targeting 67 villages: - Kandieng, Krong Pursat and Krakor in Pursat - Boribor, Rolear Phear and Kampong Teuk Phos in Kampong Chhnang.

Page 9

II. Objectives and Methodology

II.1 Objective The overall objective of the final evaluation was to make an overall independent assessment of the project performance, paying particular attention to the impact of the project actions against its objectives. It was also intended to identify key lessons and to propose practical recommendations that will enable PIN, its partners and other stakeholders to enhance the impact of future, similarly-focused programs.

II.2 Scope As per the TOR (see Annex 1), the consultant was to analyze the CLIMAD project according to the following criteria: Relevance and quality of design - To what extent have the project objectives been in line with the problems, real needs and priorities of target groups / beneficiaries? - To what extent the project design/intervention logic has allowed the project to achieve its objectives? - The extent to which the nature of the problems originally identified (at project design stage) have changed during project implementation Effectiveness - To what extent have the expected results and objectives of the project been achieved - What were the major factors influencing the achievement and non-achievement of the objectives? - From an effectiveness perspective, which activities should be strengthened in future interventions / scale up, and which on the contrary limited Efficiency - To what extent was the project implementation cost-efficient? - From a cost-efficiency perspective, which activities and their components should be strengthened in future interventions / scale up, and which on the contrary limited Impact - What long-term changes positive or negative are likely to take place as a result of the project? What is the evidence? - What is the impact of the project on the different target groups, and how has the situation of these groups changed - Is there any evidence of innovative ideas, behavior or action amongst the target beneficiary group Sustainability - To what extent are the links initiated/strengthened by the project likely to be sustained after the project ends (links between farmers in their LFN groups, links between farmer groups and VAHWs, links between vet shops and companies and VAHWs, links between OAHP and VAHWs/shops) - What factors have influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project? - Have the projects necessary pre-conditions to sustainability been well considered and supported, and has the project supported a clear exit strategy Methodology of project implementation - Target group – To what extent have the beneficiaries been well identified? What selection criteria would be recommended for future interventions? - Participatory methodology – To what extent have all relevant stakeholders been involved in planning and implementation? - Assess the extent to which the project has been able to implement and act on the recommendations detailed in the external mid-term evaluation, and the Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) review. Page 10

- Gender – were gender aspects considered and sufficiently addressed during project implementation? - Visibility – Has the projects communication and visibility plan been well implemented Before finalizing the evaluation report, the consultant would facilitate a workshop to present the main conclusions of the evaluation to PIN, its partners and other key project stakeholders. The conclusions of the workshop would then be integrated into the final report.

II.3 Methodology applied The methodology applied to this evaluation is described under the following steps: - Desk Review - Sampling framework & tools development - Conducting the field work - Data analysis, presentation and reporting

Desk Review

In order to get an overview of the project, a desk review was undertaken to review all relevant project documents. These included:  Project proposal and budget  Progress reports to date (narrative and financial)  Baseline survey report (and raw data) – for LFN members, VAHWs, VAs and shops  External mid-term evaluation report  Endline survey report (and raw data) – for LFN members, VAHWs, VAs and shops  EU-ROM review findings  Usage, Attitude and Image (UAI) report  Business competence survey report  Multi-stakeholder survey reports  Smallholder Chicken Value Chain Analysis  Detailed data on project beneficiaries: - List of LFN groups by village, commune, district - List of supported VAHWs by village, commune, district - List of supported suppliers/vet shops by village, commune, district  IEC materials used for the following activities: - Environmentally-sensitive animal production practices - Training and coaching of shops and VAHWs - Capacity building of LFNs to engage with sub-national authorities - Result-oriented training and coaching of NGOs  MOUs with partners, D/OAHP and private companies  Reports on Livestock Farmer Forums conducted  Reports on Bi-annual exchange of CSOs, Government and private sector’s experience with pro-poor market development  District and Commune Forum reports  Field Research on Chicken Raising  Gender Analysis Report  Visibility and promotion materials produced by the project

Sampling framework & tool development

As is normal with the evaluation of such projects as this one which covers a large number of beneficiaries, the evaluation focused on a representative sample of beneficiaries and stakeholders. Focusing on a sample ensured that more time could be spent with a selection of beneficiaries to ensure quality information.

Page 11

The sample selection was done using Stratified Random Sampling (SRS). Stratification was necessary for the following reasons: - To ensure at least a geographical spread of selected communities - To recognize the duration of support to the various groups – i.e. the different phases of the program to date, and - To ensure areas selected in the sample cover the broadest range of project inputs

Information was collected from the following sources: 1. Key PIN management and project staff 2. Local NGO implementing partners 3. Provincial Departments of Agriculture (OAHP) 4. Commune Councils 5. Suppliers/retailers of vetinary products/services 6. Livestock Market Traders 7. Vet’s Associations 8. Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs) 9. Livestock Farmer Network (LFN) groups/members

For the first three categories (PIN, local partners and PDAs), all were included in the sample. For categories 4 to 8, representatives of these groups were interviewed in the same locations selected for the sample of LFNs/members (for efficient logistic purposes). Thus the key category to which the SRS was applied was the LFN members. In order to ensure that the information collected was representative of the entire target group, the sample included for interview should be statistically acceptable. Using a recognized formula for calculating a sample size with a 95% confidence level, at least 275 LFN members were required participate in the evaluation process (see box below).

2 2 2 2 n = [ (z * p * q ) + ME ] / [ ME + z * p * q / N ] Where: z = z=score for 95% confidence 1.96 p = derivative for margin of error 0.75 q =1‐ p0.25 ME = margin of error 5% N = Population size 5735 n = Sample required (result of above) 275

With an average of about 10 members per LFN, the evaluation needed to collect information from 28 groups to meet this sample requirement. As there are about 3 to 4 groups in each target village, this number of groups was covered by randomly selecting 8 villages. The application of stratification (SRS) mentioned above ensured that these villages were spread over the two target provinces as well as over the two project phases.

The result of the SRS directed the evaluation team to the following locations:

Provincial level District level Commune level Villages selected Pursat x 4 Krakor (Phase 1) x 2 villages Kbal Trach x 2 villages Kralanh villages Trapeang Rumdenh Kandieng (Phase 2) x 2 villages Srae Sdok x 2 villages Chamreh Veal K. Chhnang x 4 Boribo (Phase 1) x 2 villages Trapeang Chan x 2 villages Kandal villages Trapeang Chan Rolear Phear (Phase 2) x 2 villages Svay Chrum x 2 villages Krang Prasvay

Phlov Veay

2 provinces 4 districts 4 communes 8 villages

Page 12

The evaluation thus targeted the following coverage compared to the project statistics:

Stakeholders Project coverage Eval Sample Comments

Nr. %

PIN staff 2 provincial teams 2 100% Key project staff in each province

Local NGO partners 5 NGOs 5 100% All partners (even if their commune not selected)

PDA/OAHP 2 provinces 2 100% Include relevant district officials also LFNs 620 groups 28 5% As per sampling formula LFN members 5735 HHs 280 5% Average 10 members per group VAHWs 290 VAHWs 28 10% 6‐8 VAHWs attend meeting in sampled communes Vet Associations 18 associations 4 22% One per selected commune Suppliers/retailers 35 shops 8 23% Two per selected district (1 district/1 commune level) Local authorities 33 commune councils 4 12% CC in each sampled commune

Interviews with sources 1 to 7 above were done using Key Informant Interview (KII) tool. The interviews with VAHWs and LFNs used Focus Group Discussion (FGD) tool. The guiding questions for the KIIs and FGDs were developed after completion of the desk review of all relevant project documentation, ensuring that all relevant information to address the scope of the evaluation was collected and in particular that information collected could ensure verification of data and reports prepared by PIN and partners. This allowed the consultants to rely on such data and reports in assessing the project outcomes. The Guiding Questions for all tools are attached as Annex 2.

Conducting the field work

A team of three persons (Lead Consultant and two Assistant Consultants) conducted the work described above over a period of six days from 1s to the 6t August 2016. The field schedule is attached as Annex 3 and the list of persons interviewed is in Annex 4.

Data analysis and reporting

Information collected via KIIs and FGDs was codified according to the main issues arising and in particular, according to the key questions identified in the scope of work above which enabled conclusions to be drawn as to the extent of achievement of the project. Quantitative data analysis was conducted using the baseline and endline data collected by PIN for triangulation with the qualitative (and quantitative) information collected through the KIIs and FGDs. Financial data (budget and latest reports) were examined to contribute to the analysis of project efficiency. Following all data analysis, the draft report was prepared for presentation to stakeholders at a workshop organized by PIN. After acquiring feedback from this workshop, the report was finalized taking all comments into consideration.

II.4 Limitations As the timing of the evaluation coincided with the busy season for farmers (currently planting their rice), not all LFN members were able to attend the meetings. However, even though only about 50% of the expected number of LFN members attended the FGDs, they represented more LFNs than planned (in total 32 LFNs were represented whereas only 28 were planned). Due to this, the consultants are satisfied that the numbers of respondents were sufficient to give a representative opinion on the activities of the project – especially because those who attended covered a broad spectrum of the types of households supported by the project (many very small-scale chicken raisers and others with larger flocks). Those who attended were also knowledgeable about the activities of the other LFN members who could not attend the meetings.

Page 13

III. Findings

This section summarizes the key information received from respondents to the FGDs and KIIs, supplemented by the data from the documents studied. The section is merely descriptive – comment and analysis of the consultants on the issues raised will be presented in Section IV below. An important result of the evaluation is that the findings from discussions with project beneficiaries and other stakeholders ratified very closely the information provided to the consultants by PIN. Thus the discussion on findings in this chapter can confidently make use of the overall internal data of PIN in conjunction with the specific data collected from the sampled villages. This finding in relation to the accuracy of project reporting can also give confidence to donors and other stakeholders when relying on information presented to them by PIN management. The findings are presented in relation to the key project stakeholders, as follows: III.1 Livestock Farmer Networks (LFNs) III.2 Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs) III.3 Vets Associations (VAs) III.4 Suppliers of vetinary products III.5 Livestock Market Traders (LMTs) III.6 Offices of Animal Health and Production (OAHPs) III.7 Local NGO implementing partners

However, before presenting these findings, a brief synopsis of the key project activities is provided to “set the scene” as well as to aid readers who may not have access to all the project reports.

III.0 Overview of the project activities

Result 1: Cooperation of livestock farmers to enable them to access husbandry, vetinary and marketing services for sustainable livestock production Key activities: Studies to inform project actions 1.1 Conducted Usage, Attitude & Image (UAI) survey 1.2 Chicken Raising field research (comparing LFN techniques with non-LFNs) 1.3 Barrier analysis on chicken vaccinations Promotion of VAHWs as service providers 1.4 Promotion events on VAHW services in 155 target (and 46 non-target) villages 1.5 Enhancing visibility of VAHWs via signboards and village billboards 1.6 Support VAHWs to develop model farms as demonstrations of techniques for farmers 1.7 Supported 460 VAHWs to be trained on biogas promotion Organization, training and support to livestock farmers 1.8 Formation of 623 LFNs in 155 target villages with 6,937 members 1.9 Training of LFNs (technical animal raising and business skills) 1.10 Provision of small grants (partly in kind and partly in cash) to poorer HHs to apply new techniques (3,699 of the LFN members) Market linkages 1.11 Conducted Chicken Value Chain Analysis (VCA) and disseminated results among LFNs 1.12 Produced Chicken Broker Leaflets with contact details for farmers to compare prices before selling 1.13 Encouraged LFNs to coordinate collective sales of chickens 1.14 Installed signboards with names of chicken traders and provided scales to 44 villages Page 14

Result 2: Capacity of vetinary product suppliers to respond to needs of farmers Key activities: 2.1 Conduct Business Competence Survey (BCS) on services provided by VAHWs & shops selling veterinary products 2.2 Conduct assessment of existing Vets Associations (VAs) 2.3 Training of 17 selected VAs on saving group management and business skills 2.4 Support to OAHPs to provide refresher technical training to VAHWs 2.6 Provide technical materials to trained VAHWs (cold box, syringes, needles, a needle holder forceps, a needle box, a thermometer, and a bag) 2.5 Develop linkages/MOUs with CSOs and private sector to provide training to VAHWs on environmentally sensitive livestock production, presentation and communication skills, training of trainers and business skills 2.6 Support quarterly workshops between OAHP and VAHWs 2.7 Organize exchange visits for VAHWs to other provinces to broaden experience and learning 2.8 Subsidized sale of fridges to 8 small shops (shop pays 25% of the cost) 2.9 Conduct training for shops on product management and business skills (including advising them on making marketing materials such as name cards and signboards to advertize their services) 2.10 Develop MOU with vetinary companies (Medivet & BKP) to provide training to VAHWs and vetinary shops on customer service skills, product management, marketing skills and proper use of medical products sold 2.11 Conducted two Multi-Stakeholder Surveys (MSS), the first in early 2014 and the second in mid-2016. Contributors included farmers, VAHWs, shops and vetinary supply companies. Results were widely shared and discussed

Result 3: Increased engagement between livestock farmers and local authorities and participation in decision making processes Key activities: 3.1 Conducted training for partners on CIP process 3.2 Partners then trained LFN members on the CIP process as well as on advocacy and leadership 3.3 Organized 37 commune forums and 10 district livestock forums (approximately 60 participants per forum)

Result 4: Enhanced capacity of local NGO partners and Networking/Extension Key activities under Result 4 4.1 SWOT analysis with partners to develop organizational capacity building plans. 4.2 Training organized by PIN for partners in response to SWOT: Market oriented development approach (facilitated by CEDAC). Quickbook accounting package, Fundraising and proposal writing (by VBNK), Innovative Livestock Feeding Techniques, Disease Identification and Treatment, & Egg Hatching, (by CelAgrid) 4.3 Partners supplied with budget to implement other aspects of their CB plans (they used this for many different types of training – e.g. Strategic planning and development, Communication skills, Problem solving & decision-making, etc. 4.4 Supported provincial workshops to bring together LNGOs, INGOs and government – topics included discussion on the UAI and BSC reports 4.5 Supported OAHP to hold quarterly livestock meetings in each province (8-10 LNGOs/INGOs regularly attending to share experiences) 4.6 Held bi-annual workshops (5 workshops over the duration of the project) at provincial level to exchange experiences on livestock market development (participants included PIN, NGO partners, OAHPs, shops, companies, VAHWs and VAs) 4.7 One national level workshop was held towards the end of the project (in 2016)

Page 15

III.1 Livestock Farmer Networks (LFNs)

The most interesting finding from discussions with LFN members was the difference between those formed under Phase 1 of the project (from mid-2013 to end-2014) and those under Phase 2 (early 2015 onwards). LFNs under Phase 2 showed higher success rates in implementing the techniques introduced during training and thus comparatively better results, taking into consideration the shorter timeframe they have been involved with the project. Thus the findings are presented separately for both groups. III.1.1 LFNs Phase 1 General situation Most people in the villages are rice farmers but livestock is the second important income generation activity. Almost all farmers raise some chickens (even the poorest – because chicken raising needs less capital, chickens are easy to raise, and easy to sell). However, income from chicken raising is still low – as they do not yet raise many chickens. Men and women help each other with chicken raising, but most of the work is done by the women. Men are usually only involved when heavier tasks are required (such as making the chicken coop). Formation of the LFNs The process of formation started with dissemination meetings by local NGO partners in the target villages. After the partner staff explained about the project and the criteria for selection (preference for IDPoor HHs, committed to follow the techniques, have sufficient time to devote to raising the livestock – i.e. they don’t migrate for work), the participants in the meeting were invited to put their names forward for selection. The LFN is a loose network of farmers; they have nominal leaders (with only function to call members for meetings) but no formal structure or rules and regulations. Training and support provided The farmers say they attended many trainings organized by NGO partners and VAHWs but cannot remember how many times. But they remember the key content such as making coops to prevent chickens roaming free where they can catch disease or be in danger from predators, feeding them well (mixture of market feed and local ingredients such as rice bran mixed with chopped up vegetables and fish). Also they learnt about the main diseases they should vaccinate against like cholera, fowl pox and Newcastle disease. The training was normally conducted by their village VAHW with support from NGO partner staff. When asked about payment to the VAHW for the training, none of them had ever paid anything for such training. After training they got $45 to buy materials and additional chickens if needed (there was no requirement to repay this unless they did not implement chicken raising as agreed). Some farmers also went on exchange visits and were able to apply (as well as share with others) what they saw about chicken raising in other locations. Activities of the LFN after training As noted above, these LFN are a very loose network. There has been only very informal sharing of information and experiences between the members (and such sharing is not so different from how they share experiences with other friends and neighbors who are not LFN members). Each member acts independently in relating to VAHWs for services as well as selling chickens. The training has helped them to improve their chicken raising but they have not been able to do all the things they learned. In particular, they have found it most difficult to make the recommended food formulas – either they could not find the required ingredients or they could not afford to buy them. Also very few of the farmers reported using lime pits at the entrance to their chicken coops. Page 16

Although they did make coops and protect with netting, the type of netting they bought could not prevent dogs and other animals from tearing. Now, after two years, the netting is old and very torn so they have stopped using it. Some people bought new netting to repair torn parts but most say they did not. Some members still believe that raising chickens free range is better because buyers like it and chickens are healthier as they can find a greater variety of food when they roam (but they do cage chicks for short period after born before they let them roam). The main reason they sell individually is because they still raise relatively small numbers of chickens and each member needs to sell at different times. Also buyers come to the village frequently and are willing to buy a few chickens from each family; it is not necessary to have a lot in the same place. But even selling individually, most members reported that they have got good income from selling. Since they started with the LFN, the have each sold on average about 5 times, selling about 10-20 chickens each time. So over the last two years the average income per family has been between 400,000 to 1,000,000 Riels ($100-$250) per year. Vetinary and extension services All members make use of the VAHW; they don’t use any other vetinary service. Mostly they use the services of the VAHW for vaccinating and treating their pigs and cattle; only about 20-30% of respondents said they vaccinated chicken. But all members are very happy with the services of their VAHWs as they always come quickly when required, their costs are reasonable and their treatments (of pigs and cattle) have generally been effective. Change as a result of CLIMAD project Most of the members said that they have experienced reduction in disease due to their improved flock management. Because they keep in the coop, they lose fewer animals from people stealing or dogs killing (except those who tear through the netting). They now understand better about the market – that it is good to plan for sales in Jan/Feb when prices are highest – but they have not yet been able to meet this plan due to small flock numbers. Nevertheless, they all agreed that they have larger flocks since they became LFN members. They also note replication by other farmers of their techniques – these farmers ask LFN members about technical training received and then do by themselves. Suggestions/recommendations  Prefer if NGO gives in-kind kind, especially good breed of hens to raise  Need refresher training – and include new techniques (if available)  Need to train all farmers, not only LFN members  Extend project to include pig and cow technical training  Suggest to have artificial insemination service by VAHW

**************************************************

III.1.2 LFNs Phase 2 Formation of the LFNs The Phase 2 LFNs met during the evaluation were all formed in early 2015 but they only really started implementing activities (after many trainings) in July/August 2015 (just a year before this evaluation). The process of formation was similar to those under Phase 1 but after the dissemination meeting, there was more detailed follow up by partner staff. They visited all the farms of interested farmers to check if they really met the selection criteria. This detailed follow up helped to weed-out some HHs who were not committed enough or didn’t have sufficient labor or resources to implement the techniques (or were well off enough to do by themselves).

Page 17

Training & support received All members have attended many trainings organized by NGO partners and VAHWs. They felt the training was very good, using more practice than theory. Much of the practice took part on the farms of the VAHWs as they were already practicing good techniques which could be used for practical demonstrations. Only one village (Chamreh in Srae Sdok commune of Kandieng district) said they never paid the VAHW for training. All other Phase 2 villages have paid user-fees to VAHWs for training (ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 Riels per participant per training course1. They were very happy to pay that as they said it was a reasonable amount to contribute. They also felt that the VAHWs were more attentive to their needs because they paid money to attend the training. Members also commented that the VAHWs grew in confidence the more trainings they conducted; their facilitation skills improved a lot from course to course. After training they got netting for the coop (if they had already made the coop); water troughs, and $15 in cash to buy chickens or other items they needed for chicken raising. Similar to Phase 1, members have had problems with the quality of netting as rats and dogs eat through it to attach their chickens. LFN activities As with the LFN member interviewed in Phase 2 villages, members said that their network is very informal. There is no regular engagement between LFN members in these groups; they do not hold regular meetings but they exchange experiences in informal ways as they meet each other regularly (as the members of each LFN live close by each other). The training the received has helped them to improve their chicken raising a lot as they have been able to practice mostly all the techniques they were trained on. They all made chicken coops, made separate cages for small chicks (see picture inset – from Veal village, Srae Sdok, Kandieng), put netting around the outside area where chickens are allowed out to roam a bit and put lime pits at the entrance of the coops to avoid spreading of disease from people entering. The exceptions are that still not all members vaccinate their chickens and none of them has yet tried to cultivate worms or termites to add to the chicken feed (although they are convinced it would be very good, they think it is time consuming). They mostly sell individually because each member needs to sell at different times to meet their household needs. Collective sales were organized one or two times, but only when facilitated by NGO partners. But they are happy with the price they are getting for their chickens. They know better now about the needs of the middle men who come to buy (and even though they sell individually, they check with each other about latest prices and sometimes telephone to different middle men before selling). Even these groups are still new, the members reported good income to date – lowest (families with less chickens) got 400,000 Riels and highest over 2,000,000 Riels (average between 800,000 to 1,000,000 Riels). The only problem they faced with selling is when their chickens have less feathers; buyers offer lower prices because they say these chickens cause problems when put in the “de-feathering” machine ((flesh can be damaged). Vetinary and extension services They use only the VAHW (for all services); members are very happy with VAHWs service as they comes quickly when called and fees are reasonable price. VAHWs have given them

1 PIN comment: The project team has discussed with the farmer groups to ensure they agree that the poorest members of the groups are able to join the trainings for free, and the farmer group members have been in agreement with this condition, and have been sure to discuss and reach common agreement on these conditions before the user-pay trainings commence Page 18 additional advice (apart from during training) on chicken raising and many of the members paid the VAHW to vaccinate their chicken. Some members, especially men, bought medicine from a nearby shop to vaccinate or treat chickens by themselves. A number of members said they even though they vaccinated their chickens, still some died and they (or the VAHW) don’t know the cause. Changes as a result of CLIMAD project They noticed a big reduction in disease due to better flock management (keep in coop, have improved sanitation and feed regularly). The size of their flocks has also increased a lot and they can sell more often because the chickens are now big enough after 3-4 months; before it would take at least 6 months before they were big enough to sell. A very important change for them is that they know how to check prices with middle men before they sell so they are happy that they get a fair price. In reference to specific impact on women, members noted that improved living conditions through selling chickens have increased husbands’ respect for their work. Husbands now listen to their wives and incidences of family violence have decreased. Most women members interviewed say they make the decisions in their family; for example, buying or selling family assets. Suggestions/recommendations  Future projects should be longer duration – like now, still flocks are small and only practiced one or two collective sales to date  Should do on a bigger scale in future – for each family and for more families  Want to get technical training on pig raising  Need further refresher training on chicken raising – especially how to select correct breed that meets market demand  Training should be for all farmers – not only LFN members  Should be stronger netting (wire mesh) so that rats and dogs cannot tear through it  Suggest integrating chicken raising with technical skills on vegetable growing  Training on how to make mushroom spore (special request from Phlov Veay) – now they have to buy and the quality is not always good

**************************************************

III.2 Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs)

Vets in the communes, services and customers VAHWs were interviewed in four communes, one in each of the sampled districts. They gave the following data about VAHWs in their communes: Table III.2.1 – Data from VAHW interviews District Commune # vill # VAHWs Initially formed Support from Change in # User‐ Comments CLIMAD clients pay Kandieng Srae Sdok 17 17 OAHP‐2003 Phase 2Inc about 50% Yes Krakor Kbal Trach 11 9 OAHP‐2003 Phase 1Inc 50‐60% No Use to be 11 VAHWs but one died and one migrated Baribour Trapeang Chan 7 6 OAHP‐1993 Phase 1Inc 60‐0% No Rolea Phear Svay Chrum 21 21 OAHP‐1993/94 Phase 2Inc 20‐30% Yes CLIMAD supports on 14, including 5 newly selected to replace old or migrated ones Although two of the four communes shown in the table above have experience with the user- pay system for delivering trainings, they do not expect that farmers will continue to pay them for training unless there is facilitation from NGO partners. The number of clients served by each VAHW has increased over the duration of the project. Although it is difficult for them to Page 19 say exactly how many clients they have as it varies from month to month, the estimated increases reported were from 60% to 70%. Training and support from CLIMAD The VAHWs have received many trainings, maybe 15 to 20 times. Duration ranged from 1- day to 5-days. Trainings were delivered by the OAHP and also some by NGO partners as well as companies. After training they received vetinary supplies (ice box, bag, needles & syringes and thermometer). They were very happy with the quality of training they received. All the VAHWs have made a model chicken farm for use in demonstration of techniques to farmers during training. They also got good advice from the CLIMAD project about making signboards to advertise their services (see signboard in picture inset – Kho Saroun, Kanchor, Kandieng). They believe this has been an important contributing factor to the increase in the number of clients they serve. VAHWs views on LFNs All VAHWs were positive about the LFN formation; they say those most committed to chicken raising were selected and most of those who became members were poor families – they estimate that about 70% were poor and the others middle-income. From their observations, all LFN members have put some aspects of the training into practice but very few have managed to do everything that was taught to them. They said that everybody made the chicken coops, surrounded them with netting, put out feeding and watering troughs and fill and clean them regularly, clean the coops regularly and separate small chicks from big ones. Some members also make the lime pits but not all. The aspect of the training they have seen to be least practiced is feeding the chickens as per the suggested formulas given during the training. Only VAHWs supported by Phase 2 have seen any collective selling, and only a few times when supported by the NGO partners. Mostly all LFN members sell individually. But this is not a problem for them as there are many buyers and now the LFN members know the market prices better so they get a fair price according to the season. Acquiring vetinary supplies VAHWs normally buy their supplies from local market (provincial suppliers for large quantities, if only small things they buy from commune shops). They don’t buy collectively, each one buys what he/she needs separately. They all expressed satisfaction with the quality of all supplies and especially because shops give them advice on how to use the medicines and vaccines. Regarding storage, they have no problems with medicines but they only buy vaccines when needed (as if they store for a long time, they would have to spend a lot of money buying ice to keep them cold). Linkages and networking They all have good relations with the OAHPs; they work together on regular cattle vaccinations and also OAHP staff have provided technical training to them. But most of the VAHWs don’t have any direct link with their Commune Councils – only VAHWs who are leaders of Vets Associations or those who act as the commune vet meet with them every month. The VAHWs say they have very good relations with Vetinary Companies (in particular BKP and Medivet). They organized district workshops where they gave advice on use of their products; and if anything they are unsure about, they can telephone to the companies any time and they get a positive response. Evaluators meeting with VAHWs in Srae Sdok commune

Page 20

Changes as a result of CLIMAD project  Since they took part in the CLIMAD project, they now have improved capacity to deliver their services because of the training they received  They now have more customers – and customers have more confidence in their ability to treat animals; number of customers has increased about 60-70%  Income has also increased; can earn from 200,000 to 800,000 Riels per month (but it is not the same every month; depends on when animals need treatment)  Changes they observed among LFN farmers: use better techniques (feeding, drinking water containers, keep in coops), reduced diseases and increased incomes Suggestions, recommendations & final comments  If another similar project, suggest more training for VAHWs to further build their skills to provide good service to farmers  Request to the PDA to translate all instructions on medicine bottles into Khmer language to help them understand the contents and how they should be used  Expand more LFNs for chicken raising  Request establishment of chicken hatchery for each commune to raise additional income apart from treating animals ************************************************** III.3 Vets Associations (VAs)

Formation and membership VAs were interviewed in four communes, one in each of the sampled districts. They gave the following data about their formation and membership: Table III.3.1 – Data on VA formation and membership District Commune Initially formed Support from # members Comments CLIMAD (female) Kandieng Sya/Kanchor 3 years ago Since Aug 2014 16 (1) Krakor Kbal Trach Since 2001 Since Dec 2015 9 (0) Baribour Trapeang Chan Since 1993 Since May 2015 7 (0) Newly formed after Rolea Phear Svay Chrum N/A Since Dec 2014 6 (1) exchange visit to Pursat Support from CLIMAD/others NGO partners provided training to the VAs on the benefits of forming associations the benefits of savings, on leadership and on book-keeping (for VA records). They also received funds which were the repayments of grants from demonstration farms (these repayments were supposed to go to the NGO partners but they decided to deposit them with the VAs as a contribution to their savings funds). Apart from CLIMAD project, they have not received support from any other sources. VA financial situation The table below summarizes the financial data given by the VAs who were interviewed: Table III.3.2 – Financial situation of VAs interviewed District Commune Initial Minimum Total savings Current fund Comments deposit saving/month to date balance Kandieng Sya/Kanchor None 10,000 3,920,000 3,200 No expenses Krakor Kbal Trach None 5,000 2,590,000 210,000 35,000 for admin exp Baribour Trapeang Chan 50,000 30,000 4,718,500 438,500 No expenses Rolea Phear Svay Chrum 50,000 30,000 13,200,000 100,000 No expenses Challenges faced to date From a technical perspective, the challenges are faced by the individual VAHW members, not by the VA itself. These challenges are that they lack castration tools and they don’t have enough capital to stock supplies, so they have to spend time buying more regularly.

Page 21

From the perspective of the running of the VA, they face a number of challenges. They still lack skills to manage the association and facilitate meetings but the biggest challenge is with maintaining records – there are too many different kind of forms and so far they can only make reports with the assistance of the NGO partners. They also face some issues with slow repayment of loans from members and the total fund is still not enough to meet all member needs. For Svay Chrum in particular, slow repayment is a serious issue as one member owes 15 million Riels and has not attended meetings for over three months so they worry about his commitment to repay. Linkages and networking All four VAs have close relationships with OAHP as the district vets attend the VA monthly meetings to get updates on progress and give them advice. But relations with their commune councils (CC) varied. For two of the VAs (Sya/Kanchor and Kbal Trach), the VA leader attends a monthly meeting with the CC. But Trapeang Chan say that since the CC signed their by-laws, they have had no regular meetings. Svay Chrum say they have had no contact at all with their CC.

Changes/impact since working with CLIMAD  VA has funds (even if still insufficient) for members to borrow for their business  Exchange experiences via monthly meetings and by telephone  Understand about diseases and report outbreaks to district/provincial authorities on time  Now better services given – disseminate information regularly to LFNs and conduct technical training  Have better knowledge of cattle vaccinations (participate with district and provincial vets)

Suggestions/recommendations  If VA could establish chicken hatchery, it would help the VA to generate additional income as well as supply good breed of chicks to farmers  Need further training on leadership/management and on book-keeping (and if possible, introduce a more simple system that VA secretaries/treasurers can better understand and follow)  Encourage all commune councils to recognize and approve VA by-laws (and be pro- active in taking part in VA meetings – in advisory capacity)  NGO partners should extend training to other VAHWs that have not joined project  Partners should expand more LFNs  Provide additional capital to expand VA fund  Need further training on new techniques or about new diseases or new medicines available for treatment  Request to have exchange visits to other places where there are good functioning VAs in order to learn from their experiences  For Svay Chrum, want PNKA to help encourage members to respect the by-laws (e.g. big portion of fund in the hand of one borrower who has not yet repaid) Many of the above suggestions/recommendations are similar to those given during an internal assessment of VA capacity by PIN. In addition to the above, other suggestions (possibly from VAs outside the evaluation sample) included:  Provide by-law to group for registration and relation documents for VA saving group committee  Medivet's target shop should sell the product with the same price from each other’s  Suggest OAHP to coordinate district governor to agree and work with commune council to good and close cooperation for any campaign  Project should have longer time than this **************************************************

Page 22

III.4 Suppliers of vetinary products (shops)

Eight shops were interviewed during the evaluation. The table below gives a brief profile: Table III.4.1 – Profile of shops interviewed SN Name of shop Location Link with CLIMAD Owner Ave # customers Comments 1Vin Choam Sya Support‐ Phase 2 VAHW 150‐200 Has biogas installed 2Kho Saroun Kanchor Support‐ Phase 2VAHW 45Only opened 6 mths ago 3Sin Dara Beung Kantout Support‐ Phase 1 VAHW 150‐200 4Leng Sovannara O'Sandan Support‐ Phase 2VAHW 70‐90 5Lim Kealy Phsar No Support Businessman 300‐400 6Hum Bunthat Teuk Phos Support‐ Phase 2 VAHW 250‐350 7 Chhou Sokhim Svay Chrum No Support Commune Vet 250‐350 8Kong Kimsou Prey Khmer No Support Businessman 350‐450

Training and support from CLIMAD As shown in the table above, five of the eight shops interviewed have been supported by the CLIMAD project. They all received training on product management and business skills. In addition they receive advice on how to better market their shops – how to make signboards to display what they sell and business cards for customers so they can easy contact them or order supplies by phone. These five shops received a fridge from the CLIMAD project to store vaccines (they contributed 25% of the cost themselves - (see photo below). In addition, they attended workshops with companies (especially BKP and Medivet), NGO partners and VAHWs to discuss product supply issues. Especially they also got training on how to manage waste disposal of hazardous or expired items. All shops have a covered ring for temporary storage of the waste before burying or burning it (see photo below).

Fridge from CLIMAD & own medicine cabinet Covered ring for disposal of waste Sin Dara Shop, Beung Kantout, Krakor Kho Saroun shop, Kanchor, Kandieng Of the shops interviewed who have not received specific support, two of them said that they have been invited to meetings by NGO partners but they never had time to attend. But even they (and all other shops) have also benefited from increased contact with supply companies – they mentioned specifically BKP and Medivet who come regularly to advise them on products. Source of supplies The smaller shops (at commune level) buy all supplies from provincial shops who stock the full range of vetinary products (purchased direct from companies) – vaccines, medicines and feedstuffs. The bigger shops (generally those not supported directly by CLIMAD) buy direct from companies – BKP & Medivet for vaccines and medicines and Green Feed, CP & M- Feed for animal feedstuffs. But all shops stock vaccines and medicines from Vietnam as these are cheaper and many clients request them. Generally the shops don’t face any problems with purchasing from companies; they can order by telephone and companies will send by taxi or bus to their shops. Very occasionally items are out of stock but not for long. They also don’t report any problems with quality as they know how to check expiry dates. They also get good advice from companies about product use and also about new products Page 23 available. But the shops place less trust in the quality of products imported from Vietnam (or on the expiry dates reported on the packaging). Stock management Generally, all shops were well organized, with clear separation of different products. In particular, they separate medicines and vaccines from other items. All vaccines were stored in fridges (at the correct temperature) and separate from other items in the fridge. Most of the shops reported fast turnover of all items, mainly because they don’t keep large stocks due to lack of capital to invest in large quantities at a time. For most, the fastest moving items are feedstuffs (about equal for chickens and pigs). All shops had 24-hour electricity with rare blackouts. During any infrequent lack of electricity, they can still keep the temperature of the fridge within recommended temperature as they keep ice blocks in the fridge. They all had thermometers to check the temperature. Only one minor issue was noted – in the shop in Sya, the fridge had been perforated when removing excess ice so the gas escaped (only a few days before the evaluation team met him). Currently he does not stock any vaccines until the fridge is fixed – if clients need vaccines, he goes directly to the provincial town to purchase and uses immediately. Customers and services provided For all shops, the customers are a mixture of farmers and vets. The shops supported by the CLIMAD project all report an increase in the numbers of customers since the project started. They attribute this to a number of factors: better marketing through signboards; farmers raising animals with modern techniques so they require more external inputs; and more active promotion of vetinary products by companies and VAHWs. All shops say they provide advice to customers on the use of the products they sell. Most widely requested products are feedstuffs – mostly for pigs but more recently an increase in demand for chicken feed. Suggestions/recommendations  NGOs should expand more LFNs, helps their business by creating demand for products  Request more training on business skills  Request PDA to make companies translate instructions on all products into Khmer  Help shops to access extra capital to expand their stocks  Now many farmers know about good techniques of chicken raising – but NGOs should also focus on training farmers about pig raising Additional inputs from Companies in PNP (Medivet and BKP)  Suggest PIN to keep same strategy, it is effective but will take time to see results  PIN strategy of supporting small commune-level shop close to farmers is very good and they should expand support to more shops  PIN should focus stronger on building strong model farmers and have more regular follow up by staff  PIN should extend its work to other provinces (as well as refresher training to existing farmers)  Government should have stronger controls to prevent the import of low quality vaccines  Government needs to develop policies to keep market prices (for animal sales) stable in order to encourage producers (need to limit illegal cross-border live animal trade)

**************************************************

III.5 Livestock Market Traders (LMTs)

Introduction The traders in Pursat and Kompong Chhnang mostly trade in chickens but the Kompong Chhnang trader also occasionally trades in ducks and geese. They buy from a wide range of villages, communes and districts in their locations. The Pursat traders sell directly to Phnom Page 24

Penh but the Kompong Chhnang trader sells to Oudong district in Kompong Speu. They buy early morning and sell all the same day to their clients in Phnom Penh and Oudong; they never have any left over. Demand and supply The demand from their clients is similar; 250-300 chickens in normal months, and from 500- 700 during peak months (those months where there are major festivals in Cambodia). They don’t have any problems meeting these targets as they have a wide range of contacts with middle-men who buy directly from the farmers (but the Kompong Chhnang trader also buys directly from farmers as well as from the middle-men). There is even greater demand than what is required by their current clients but there are also many traders supplying the market. The only problems they face in their purchasing and selling is that sometimes chickens die during transportation (from overcrowding and from heat exhaustion). Pricing: The traders know the current market price (in Phnom Penh or Oudong) from their clients. Before they go to buy from the villages, they check the price with their clients. From the price they offer, they take about 500 Riels profit for themselves so they know what price they can offer to those selling to them (middle-men or farmers). Knowledge of CLIMAD They know from local NGO partners that the objective of the project is for farmers to get fair (or stable) prices for their chickens. Traders have attended meetings with partners to discuss markets (and requirements) for chickens. Traders do not participate in collective sales from farmers – these are done by the middle men – so they cannot comment on them.

Suggestions/recommendations  To have more quality local chickens, organizations need to support farmers to increase their production  OK to keep small chicks in cage for a while – but should be allowed to roam free for a while before selling (local, free-range taste; not like farm chicken)  When kept constantly in cage, they pluck each other’s feathers out – and this makes it difficult for de-feathering later with machine (flesh gets damaged)  Feeding is important – not to give only market food; chickens need to eat unhusked rice for best meat quality/taste (add some vegetables, including wild ones as well as vegetables grown by farmers, as well as market food)

**************************************************

III.6 Offices of Animal Health and Production (OAHPs)

The CLIMAD project The OAHPs know very well about CLIMAD and its objectives, target areas and partners. The main activities that OAHP has been involved with are:  Monthly meetings with local partners  Technical training of VAHWs  Participate (as guest) in distribution of project inputs  Attend district forums as technical speaker  Exchange ideas back and forth with project stakeholders to manage arising issues  Receive and review monthly reports from local partners They see the main strengths of the CLIMAD project as:  About 90% of selected farmers have improved their animal raising  Shops (especially VAHWs) are selling vetinary supplies (vaccines, medicines and feedstuffs) closer to the farmers which makes it easier for them to access Page 25

 Selected farmers help to disseminate techniques to non target farmers  Dissemination of market information to farmers has increased prices to farmers  The project has assisted OAHP in its mandate of strengthening VAHWs  Regular follow up by project staff has made previously inactive VAHWs become active again  VAs have some savings to expand their vetinary services Weaknesses or areas that could have been done better:  VAs are fledgling and not really associations; if they were they would have more formal structure and by-laws and be registered with the Ministry  Timeframe was short so should continue for some more time  Disease diagnosis is mostly done by guessing based on previous experience; this is not so accurate (should send blood to laboratory for testing) CLIMAD support to coordination among agencies supporting the livestock sector:  Regular meetings to exchange experiences and discuss activities  District Livestock Forums to allow farmers to raise issues for discussion (and solutions, if feasible) Ways in which CLIMAD project helped to strengthen the OAHP:  There has been no training for OAHP staff under CLIMAD  Only took part in meetings and workshops (including national workshop) and planning meetings with local partners (e.g. planned second phase)

Vetinary services in the target provinces Pursat has 12 vets at provincial level (1 female) and 12 at district level (1 female). Kompong Chhnang has 15 vets at provincial level (4 females) and 10 at district level (1 female). None of these received training from CLIMAD (only VAHWs). VAHWs: Over the 6 districts/towns, 49 communes/sangkats and 512 villages in Pursat, there are 508 commune vets (13 females). These 508 vets are sufficient to serve all farmers but problem is that some are inactive and need to be replaced and others need refresher training. Kompong Chhnang has 560 VAHWs (15 females) throughout the province but this number is not enough so they will select 13 more (sub-project from Ministry). From observation of the OAHPs about 70% of VAHWs who participated in CLIMAD project:  Are able to treat diseases effectively  Have the confidence of the farmers  Are strongly committed to providing their services to the farmers  Exchange experiences with each other more frequently  Provide services quickly/timely  Give services at reasonable prices that farmers can afford  Raise animals themselves as good demonstration to other farmers  Have good dissemination skills to provide technical training Main constraints faced by VAHWs:  VAHWs still have limited capacity  A few VAHWs still provide slow service (or are drunk when needed)  VAHWs don’t research about new techniques View of OAHPs on the user-pays training system: Farmers are able to pay between 1,000 to 1,500 Riels per training due to facilitation by project staff. But in the future OAHP does not think farmers will continue to pay (if there is no outside facilitation) as many still don’t understand the value of this system and also sometimes they don’t have any money

Page 26

Vet Associations (VAs) OAHPs have not formed any VAs, only have VAHWs. Pursat: The CLIMAD project organized 5 VAs, 4 in Kandieng and 1 in Krakor district. K. Chhnang: CLIMAD organized 3 VAs in 3 target districts.

Support provided by OAHP to VAs: Nothing specific by OAHP, only support local partner activities for training of VAs (and technical training of the VAHWs) Main activities carried out by these VAs:  Save money to create fund for supporting their vetinary business  Provide services to their members VAs reports to the OAHP: OAHP only gets reports from partners. For VAs, OAHP designates district vet to attend VA meetings and he reports back to OAHP on progress. Constraints VAs face (and how D/OAHP responds to these constraints):  VAs are still very new so are not experienced with leadership and management  They still financial management skills  Some members don’t save money regularly  Some VA leaders took the savings money to use for own purpose  There is some jealousy about loans (if some get more and others get less) [OAHP does not intervene about these problems – as the NGO partners are responsible for training and encouraging the VAs to respect their by-laws] OAHP views on LFNs (Livestock Farmer Networks) OAHPs do not know so much about LFNs. OAHP knows only from being invited to Forums with LFNs, organized by the NGO partners. But OAHP support to issues raised at District Livestock Forums. Issues raised included livestock diseases, market price fluctuations and climate change implications. OAHP gives technical advice at the DLFs – 2 forums in 2015. Benefit of having LFNs (as opposed to farmers working individually):  Increased voice due to more people involved  Can get increased income from collective selling  Easier for VAHW to call members to training  Easier to exchange experiences with each other  Can help each other (like making chicken coops) Private sector retailers/suppliers For farmers and vets, there are so many shops (at provincial, district, commune, and even village level). OAHP feels the quality of products is acceptable.

Suggestions/recommendations & final comments  The strong collaboration between project staff and other stakeholders can lead to sustainability of LFNs and VAs but not for another three or four years – because the project focused on the poorest and it takes time for them to build up their skills and resources.  In relation to the VAs, the project needs to support more because they are still very fragile and only focus on savings. They need to broaden their scope of activities as a group and aim for full registration as an association.  The user-pay system can lead to greater sustainability as it is a good inititative but it must not be forced upon farmers; they need to participate volunarily to make it sustainable  Many VAHWs still need more capacity building (especially on new diseases that they don’t know how to diagnose or treat) Page 27

 Future projects should aim for full coverage in order to aid OAHP to develop full linkages; if some villages are strengthened and others are not, it is difficult for OAHP to develop standard appoaches  NGO partners to continue and expand support to VAHWs and LFNs  Should include a component to send blood samples to PNP laboratories for disease diagnosis  Request advanced training by expert trainers for provincial and district vetinary staff (to build their skills to further develop capacity of VAHWs)  Provide materials and transport means for OAHW to continue monitoring and follow up on VAs and LFNs after the project finishes  Request exchange visits for OAHP staff to provinces or locations where activities are really good  All inputs provided by the project should be repayable (at least 50% of the cost) to allow use of these repayments to expand the activities to other families  Project should focus strongly on supporting demonstration farms that use full techniques in perfect way as an example to others.  Support VAHWs to develop chicken hatcheries to sell chickens to LFNs and other farmers in the area – this is a good income generation opportunity for vets (or VAs in addition to just savings)

**************************************************

III.7 Local NGO implementing partners

Working with PIN on CLIMAD Strong points: PIN has applied participative planning process where implanting partner is involved with, decision making, and training. PIN has incorporated findings and recommendation of external evaluation to implementing project activity. PIN has clear policy, targeting criteria, good collaboration with partners through monthly meeting with partner. Partner staff also has their weekly, monthly and quarterly meeting where each staff have learnt and shared and knew each other tasks well. Providing equipment input to community people is also a strong point working for the project. Through implement project activity, other NGOs came to visit so there were opportunities for cross-learning. Weak points: During the first year implementation of project 3 senior management staff in PIN and 3 project coordinators resigned from project implementation; and 1 project coordinator and 5 field officers on implementing partner also stopped working for the project. Project duration is short because in each phase was only about 17 -18 months. The project took a long time to complete recruitment leaving only about 4-5 months to actually implementing project activities during Phase 1. Phase 2 was more efficient but still a very short time to make significant impact. Project relevance Livestock raising is mostly the second priority (after rice growing) for target farmers. But for farmers with small land size, livestock raising is often the main source of income. Therefore this project was highly relevant to the target communities. Targeting In phase I: the selection criteria were: village has active VAHW, focus on ID poor I and II, families should have sufficient space to raise chickens and be willing to participate in project activities. For Phase 2 the same selection criteria as Phase I were applied but excluded HHs that grow rice in dry season and villages where flooding occurs. There was more detailed follow up on HHs for Phase 2 as they had more time; Phase 1 was a bit rushed. Both phases were very short – but it was good to divide as learning from Phase1 improved the quality of Phase 2 implementation. Page 28

Efficiency of implementation Once all staff had been selected (see above), the project ran efficiently. With the human resources available, partners were able to implement all activities. But a few more staff would have been useful as some staff were monitoring a lot of LFNs. There was a good monitoring system in place (mostly they managed data through soft copies which they could share with PIN regularly for feedback). PIN had good technical people and this helped the partner staff as some issues were new for them. But it would also have been better if the timeframe was longer; they would have been able to spend more time supporting and monitoring LFNs and VAs. From the financial perspective, everything went smoothly; there was transparency in the allocation of funds to the various partners and transfers were made to them on time. Because PIN finance staff gave partners good coaching on coding expenditure according to the relevant activities, they were able to easily keep track on their budget lines. Effectiveness Partners felt the project was effective in reaching its aims, although many achievements will take more time to see the full impact. Using practical, on-farm, training approaches with farmers as opposed to just classroom theory was one main strategy that enabled farmers to be able to implement what they were trained on. The development of model farms by VAHWs during Phase 1 provided good setting for such practical training of Phase 2 farmers. Another effective strategy was supporting LFN members to make business plans – this helped them to better understand what profit they were making from the changes they adapted. But for many farmers, especially those selected under Phase 2, their practice is still very new so it would be good to be able to monitor them for a few more years. Partners also feel the approach taken towards inputs during Phase 2 was more effective as they gave most of the inputs in-kind rather than cash. Regarding the user-pay strategy, partners felt it improved the effectiveness of the trainings as VAHWs were able to use the money to buy additional items for practical demonstrations. But they do not think it will automatically continue; there will need to be someone to take the initiative. This initiative should come from the VAHWs themselves but possibly only the very strongest would take the initiative to organize training and invite farmers (and only if they had something very new to share). Some aspects that were not so effective: They observe that the VAs still need a lot of support to function; they mostly only do savings, no other income generation activities. Collaboration with suppliers/retailers of vetinary products/services was sometimes difficult due to their limited time to participate with project activities (as they are busy selling). The final aspect that concerns partners is that some chicken traders (or middle-men) want to decrease the price for chickens kept in coops and fed market feed because they say these are “farm chickens”, not natural raising chickens. Impact achieved Some key impacts raised by partners were:  Observed improved living standard – improved housing and better food security  Reduced migration – many families now raise chickens at home instead of going away  More income allows families to buy school supplies for children (and to take part in weddings and other ceremonies)  Improved technical knowledge among farmers (chickens now raised in coops and separate chicks from the bigger chickens which ensures all the fowl can get sufficient feeding and reduces bullying)  Better feeding – using local resources mixed with market food  Improved vaccinations (but only for those with over 20 chickens; those with less than 20 chickens mostly do not vaccinate)  Collective sales makes it easier to sell and better price (prices now more stable – only some fluctuations for peak market times)  Distribution of leaflets with traders names and telephone numbers gives sellers choices

Page 29

Partners noted some key learning from implementing the project:  Partner staff and community people have improved knowledge on animal raising technique  Do not recruit busy VAHW to work for project as he or she does not have time to participate in project activity. And he or she is not keen to help with other community people apart from wanting to make more income for their own benefits.  Providing in-kind support is better than providing cash  It is possible to encourage people to pay VAHWs for training  There is good sharing of knowledge among community members  The well organized M&E system and clear policy made it easier to monitor the project  During forums organized under Phase 2, certificates of accomplishment were given to outstanding farmers and VAHWs – this is a very good way to encourage those who perform well Impact on organizational capacity: Partners now have improved technical knowledge on livestock management. They are also better able to write proposals and have improved financial management (through training received on Quickbook accounting package). Networking and adaptation There have been many opportunities for networking during the project. Forums have been organized at three levels: provincial, district and commune level. The forums were open to all people to raise problems with relevant authorities. LFNs were also encouraged to join in meetings to raise issues for inclusion in the CIPs. There have been regular meetings between partners, OAHPs and other NGOs who have livestock components to their projects. These have been good opportunities to exchange experiences. Partners have also attended regular NGO meetings at which they shared their experiences from the CLIMAD project and encouraged other NGOs to adapt similar strategies. So far, they see one NGO has adapted some of their suggestions (LWM ?? in Kompong Chhnang). Sustainability Many of the LFN members will continue raising chickens according to techniques shared by the CLIMAD project because they have received training on business in addition to other technical training, have clear business plan and thus understand clearly the financial benefits of raising chickens with good technique. VAHWs will continue to provide their services as they earn good income (increased now because CLIMAD project activities have increased their number of clients). The shops supported by CLIMAD are now better equipped to continue to supply the vetinary products required by vets and farmers and they will continue as it is a core income generation activity for them. But partners do not expect that further District (or commune) Livestock Forums will be organized unless OAHP has funding. They estimate that they spent about 3,000,000 Riels on each forum and it would be difficult for OAHP to pay this amount from their own budget. Most activities implemented by the project (even those noted as sustainable above) would benefit from further support due to the short timeframe under which the project was implemented, the partners are confident that such support will be provided because PIN has signed a contract with MAFF for a new 2-year project which will be implemented in the same provinces (plus expanding to new provinces). Suggestions/recommendations  Future projects of this nature should have at least 5 years duration, with all activities completed by year 4 to allow final year for follow up and monitoring  Commune Councils should continue to organize public forums for people to share their concerns and to incorporate them into the CIP

Page 30

 Should have chicken hatchery in each commune to supply chicks to LFN members and other farmers (after 21 days old which is after the danger period where there are most deaths)  Add Savings for Change (SfC) element to LFN groups  Need to have sufficient staff – this project sometimes one staff covering up to 6 villages (over 300 LFN members in some cases)  Stregthen the collective sales/purchase procedures  Organize more exchange visits as these are good way of seeing new things  Link home gardening with chicken raising  Form a Trainer Pool of most capable VAHWs (this might be best way to further expand the user-pay system)  Support OAHP to be responsible for regular meetings (with VAHWs, VAs, local authorities)  Should have specific MOU for OAHP to implement in some selected target area – can see how project can be without NGO support (specifically to include organizing LFFs)

**************************************************

Page 31

IV. Discussion in relation to TOR objectives

The key issues from the scope of study set out in the TOR are discussed in this section under the following sub-headings (note that the topic order is slightly re-arranged from that of the TOR for fluency of discussion): IV.1 Relevance and quality of design IV.2 Methodology of implementation IV.3 Effectiveness IV.4 Efficiency IV.5 Impact IV.6 Sustainability

IV.1 Relevance and quality of design

Key questions addressed under this section: - To what extent have the project objectives been in line with the problems, real needs and priorities of target groups / beneficiaries? - To what extent the project design/intervention logic has allowed the project to achieve its objectives? - The extent to which the nature of the problems originally identified (at project design stage) have changed during project implementation

IV.1.1 Extent to which objectives in line with needs of target groups

Interviews with all categories of respondents during the evaluation confirmed the importance of livestock raising to the target groups as it is the second most common agriculture activity after rice growing. Livestock raising, particularly chicken raising, was noted as being of particular significance to the poorer families in the villages for two main reasons. Firstly, farmers require relatively little capital to begin chicken raising; and chickens are easier to raise and sell than other types of livestock. Secondly, poorer farmers generally have very small plots of rice and their harvest is often only sufficient to feed the family; therefore it does not generate much income; sale of chickens make an important contribution to meeting other expenses of the families. This was also supported by the Chicken Value Chain Analysis conducted in 2014 which found that for smaller (generally poorer) chicken producers, livestock production constitutes on average 41% of total household income. In this context the objectives of the project to improve livestock raising (in particular chicken raising), and to focus on the poorest families, ensured that the project was highly relevant to the target groups. While the primary focus of the project was on the farmers raising livestock, this could only be sustainable achieved by focusing on other target groups with important roles in the production and sales cycle of livestock raising. These included Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs), shops supplying vetinary products, companies who produce (or import) these products, and livestock market traders who buy the animals. In order to understand the relationships between all these stakeholders and possible areas that could be strengthened, the project was pro-active in undertaking some key participatory studies. These included: - Usage, Attitude & Image (UAI) survey – of vetinary services and vaccinations - Business Competence Survey (BCS) – on weaknesses in the services provided by VAHWs & shops with veterinary products - Chicken Value Chain Analysis (VCA) – to better understand the market situation The results obtained from these studies helped to develop the project strategy to benefit all relevant stakeholders. From the active participation of these stakeholders in the project, it is Page 32 clear that the project objective of improved livelihoods “due to enhanced demand for and supply of community-based veterinary, animal husbandry and marketing services” has indeed been highly relevant to addressing their needs.

IV.1.2 Extent to which project design has enabled achievement of objectives To achieve the specific objective which aimed for sustainably improved livelihoods due to enhanced demand for and supply of community-based veterinary, animal husbandry and marketing services, the project design included a multi-faceted approach which is reflected in the expected results: Result 1: Focus on the farmer level – formation of Livestock Farmer Networks (LFN), promotion of village vets as service providers, training and support to poor farmers on livestock production, and promotion of improved market linkages (e.g. with livestock traders) Result 2: Improved supply of products and services – through improvement of vetinary services through Vets Associations (VAs), supporting the Offices of Animal Health and Production (OAHP) to provide technical & business training to Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs), and developing improved linkages between suppliers/companies Result 3: Linkages between farmers and local authorities – supporting commune and district Forums and participation of livestock networks in the process of developing the Commune Investment Plan (CIP) Result 4: Improved capacity of NGO partners and improved networking with other agencies who work in the livestock sector A quick glance at the stakeholder categories underlined in the summary of results shows that the project was well designed to ensure participation and linkages of all groups relevant to achieving the objective. The extent to which this design did indeed achieve the objective will be discussed in section IV.4 below. Another critical aspect of project design to meet objectives is timing. The project gave careful consideration to timing, reducing village level activities during the critical rice growing season and using this time instead for partner capacity building and working with the private sector (companies and shops). But on the overall duration, the design could have been a bit more practical. While 3.5 years is a reasonable timeframe for such a project, the division into two phases meant that each phase was only about 1.5 years. At the design phase it was intended to cover 50% of the target areas in Phase 1 and 50% in Phase 2 but in practice, more than 50% was covered by Phase 1. Considering the findings in the previous chapter that showed better results of LFNs under Phase 2 due to lessons learnt from Phase 1, it may have been better to have covered a smaller number under Phase 1. IV.1.3 Extent of change in the nature of problems since project design There were no significant changes in the nature of the problems to be addressed since the project design stage. The original analysis in the project proposal showed that PIN and partners had a very clear understanding of the issues they planned to address.

IV.2 Methodology of project implementation

Key questions addressed under this section: - Target group – To what extent have the beneficiaries been well identified? What selection criteria would be recommended for future interventions? - Participatory methodology – To what extent have all relevant stakeholders been involved in planning and implementation? - Assess the extent to which the project has been able to implement and act on the recommendations detailed in the external mid-term evaluation, and the Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) review. - Gender – were gender aspects considered and sufficiently addressed? - Visibility – Has the projects communication and visibility plan been well implemented Page 33

IV.2.1 Identification of beneficiaries Although the project has some pre-defined criteria such as focus on IDPoor families and those with sufficient time and resources to participate in trainings and implementation, the process was mostly “self-selection”. This was good because it meant that only farmers who were willing to participate put down their names for consideration. The result was a mixture of IDPoor households (over 70% according to the estimates given by interview respondents) and others slightly better-off. It should be noted that the IDPoor classification is not scientific and there are many households who are poor but do not have IDPoor status; on the other hand there are other households who are still designated as IDPoor but who have now improved their living standards. The IDPoor classification is only updated every 3-4 years but it is a good starting point for projects that wish to work with the poorest families. The consultants did not have any issues about beneficiary selection and thus the same process could be used for any future projects. However, in relation to selection of the target areas, the consultants feel that the project could have focus on fewer communes in order to cover all villages in the selected communes. Although the consultants understand that the project wished to exclude some villages where the VAHWs were less active or where they felt that the farmers had less time for livestock production (e.g. busy with year-round crop production where irrigation was available for dry season rice and/or other crops), discussions with local authorities and OAHPs suggest that there are many families in all villages who raise chickens. So it should have been possible to form at least one LFN in every village. This would have enhanced the possibility for replication by other farmers in those villages. The lack of capacity of the VAHW should have been seen as a challenge, not as a excluding factor, and improving capacity would have benefited all farmers in the village. Ensuring full coverage also enhances the possibility of commitment and ownership from government and local authorities to supporting the project – generally projects that only work in selected areas are deemed “NGO” projects.

IV.2.2 Stakeholder participation in planning and implementation There was already strong stakeholder participation during the project design stage. The project undertook detailed assessments with their NGO partners, who have had long experience in the target areas planned for the project, and with other relevant stakeholders such as local authorities, government officials and suppliers of vetinary services. Prior to implementation, consultation/familiarization workshops were conducted in both of the target provinces to present and discuss the project implementation process. These workshops enabled all relevant stakeholders to contribute their ideas and suggestions towards enhancing the planning process and to ensure clarity of the roles of each stakeholder in the proposed implementation. During implementation of the project, good participation was achieved through regular workshop and forums at many levels. Regular consultations took place between PIN and the local NGO partners (formal monthly meetings but also more frequent contact through monitoring visits). Quarterly meetings took place in each province between the OAHPs and the implementing partners. The OAHPs (through their district offices) held monthly meetings with Vets Associations. Commune Councils met with VAHWs on a monthly basis and also participated in commune forums. VAHWs actively participated in monitoring of, and data collection from, LFN members. District Livestock Forums (DLFs) were organized in all target districts bringing together livestock farmers, government officials, local authorities and NGO partners to discuss issues around livestock production and sales. Towards the end of the project, a national level forum was organized which allowed all stakeholders to give their views on what had worked well and what more was needed to further enhance achievements.

Page 34

IV.2.3 Follow up on Mid-term Evaluation (MTE) and ROM review

The Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) The MTE was conducted in mid-2014 while the partners were still implementing Phase 1 of the project. PIN and partners took the results of this evaluation very seriously and organized workshops with all stakeholders to discuss the recommendations. The recommendations included both management and technical related issues. From the management perspective, the evaluator proposed two issues that were agreed and adapted by PIN and partners: engaging VAHWs in data collection from LFN members; and continuing to monitor Phase 1 farmers during Phase 2. Another recommendation to provide more support to youth groups was accepted but there were not many youth interested in forming groups (although there are some youth members in many of the LFNs). A few other minor issues related to internal human resource management within partners and these had already been resolved. Regarding technical recommendations from the MTE, the table below summarizes the key points and how they were taken on board by PIN and partners: Table IV.2.1 – Technical recommendations from MTE SN Recommendation Adaption 1 Focus more on improved flock management of chickens (and less so on vaccination): more intensive training of VAHWs and farmers on flock management; exchange visits for practical learning; demonstration farms of VAHWs which can be used for training PIN/partners have implemented all these issues during Phase 2 2 Insufficient awareness and use of bio-security techniques: focus trainings on use of lime pits; promote spraying of TH4 disinfectant; support collective sale to reduce outside visitors to farms 3 Greater support for the use of improved local Added activities such as visual training feed sources for chicken raising tools which show the formulas and materials for feed mixing; exchange visits to see feed production in practice; recruited CelAgrid to give trainings on new feed techniques 4 Support research into low-cost labor saving Agriculture university students supported to devices for production for poultry feed conduct research and develop two prototypes 5 Establish a user pays system for VAHW Piloted in 52 villages with results indicating services: possibility for up-scaling 6 Vet Associations should be receiving more Low interest from VAHWs to pay for such training support from their commune and training as they don’t feel the district and district vets, to gain access to new skills and commune vets have sufficient capacity knowledge (and this should function on a user- pays basis)

Results Orientated Monitoring (ROM) The ROM was conducted very late in the project (in April of 2016) by an EU-employed consultant. PIN felt the process was very short and the consultant had little time to study the project in detail. Thus they had some issues with the recommendations given. The table below summarizes the key recommendations with PIN’s response (and the consultants’ comments) to these: Page 35

Table IV.2.2 – ROM recommendations and comments SN Recommendation PIN (and consultants) comments 1 Immediately undertake a Bio- PIN’s main contention with the ROM report on this issue safety Campaign was that the ROM consultant only discussed the issues with 2 VAHWs (and no farmers). Therefore his conclusion that there was “complete lack of bio-safety” was misinformed. The consultants agree that the project has made considerable efforts regarding bio-security but there is still slow adoption of certain techniques by farmers (such as the use of lime pits). The findings of this evaluation regarding waste disposal (by VAHWs and shops) showed good results with all those interviewed practicing safe disposal of hazardous equipment or expired medicines). 2 Further investigate animal PIN agreed that further investigation was necessary and mortality and take necessary was already in the process of undertaking Chicken Action corrective measures Research to understand more about chicken mortality. This was completed after the ROM and the results have been disseminated among relevant stakeholders as research findings that can help to inform future actions. 3 Consolidate the monitoring Data has been consolidated where relevant and drop- system and collect field data out/migration rates have been tracked. Gender- more frequently. Drop-out rates disaggregated data is now available where relevant for all should be tracked properly. The OVIs. data measuring the OVIs should The consultants have found that PIN and partners have put be sex-disaggregated (available considerable effort into data collection at all levels and for at the field level but not in a all aspects of the project. There was no lack of data to consolidated form) work with for this evaluation. 4 Explore a more comprehensive PIN has given a comprehensive response to the monitoring tool such as the Household of HH income by the project. While it is always possible to Economy Approach (HEA) to be collect lots of data, as PIN pointed out, this requires a lot of able better to prioritize which time and HH financial situations are very difficult to sectors and income streams measure accurately. The consultants agree with this matter most for poor rural analysis and also agree that relevant data necessary to households measure the project income-indicators was collected – any additional data would have been superfluous. 5 Follow up on the late payment This issue did not have any impact on the project as it only issue (default interest on late affected transfers from EU to the HQ in the Czech Republic payments) – the project was never short of finances for implementation 6 In terms of an "Exit Strategy", PIN pointed out that the project did have an exit strategy. A projects of this length should aim specific result was designated to strengthening partners’ to empower local partners up to capacity to continue. Implementation of the project was a point where the international also largely delegated to partners which helped to build partner itself becomes their experience for future projects. The consultants agree "superfluous" by (or, ideally, that post-project continuation was a strong focus of PIN before) the end of the project - (and they have now developed another project with some of this may need a re-think of the same partners which can help build on the Partnership modalities achievements of this one).

The consultants consider that PIN responses have been well thought out and presented in their response sheet to the ROM and their conclusions are largely corroborated by the findings during this evaluation.

IV.2.4 Gender aspects of project implementation The project conducted a Gender Analysis in 2014 to gain a better understanding of gender issues in the livestock sector in the target areas. Some conclusions from this study were: Page 36

 Women are more responsible for pigs & poultry (men mostly involved in cattle raising)  The economic role of women is not always considered as important as men, despite the fact that women contribute significantly to household income  Some women felt that men have better communication skills to contact VAHWs and brokers (even with skills, given the burden of household activities, women lack time to go out to contact VAHWs or brokers). But several women also showed confidence to negotiate with brokers.  Some women face restricted mobility and some men may exercise power to decide about women’s attendance of various trainings. Therefore it is important to motivate men to support their wives to access technical know- how through the trainings

While these issues were not new to the implementing partners, the study helped to highlight them in defining project strategy to ensure gender balance. The main beneficiaries of this project have been women as the female members of the target households are those who spend most time taking care of chickens. Even though the listing of LFN members suggests that the composition of women is about 75%, in practice it is almost 100%. Where the membership lists males, this is because the male member of the household was the person who attended the meetings and trainings – but in practice, the work was still done mostly by the females. Discussions with LFN members during this evaluation revealed that the women not only do the most work regarding chicken raising; they are also chiefly responsible for selling and for managing the income from the sales. Many of them noted that this has gained them additional respect in their families and has even reduced domestic tension/violence. Regarding other project stakeholders, the VAHWs are mostly male, with only a few villages having a female VAHW. Most of these VAHWs have been in place long before this project started and their activities had mostly focused on vaccinations and treatment of pigs and cattle – which is work that appeals to men more than women. With the increased focus on chickens, especially promoting wider use of vaccinations, it could have been a useful strategy to encourage at least every LFN to have one women designated as a focal person for chicken vaccinations (not a VAHW). This might have led to higher vaccination rates.

IV.2.5 Communication and visibility plan The project has been excellent in its communication and visibility. Starting with the initial familiarization workshops, project partners have clearly communicated the project donors, scope and objectives, at all workshops, meetings and trainings. The consultants found that there was good knowledge about the project among all stakeholders – even if the name of the project (CLIMAD) was not familiar to them, they could explain the key concept (improved production and market linkage). Regarding donor visibility, signs were displayed in numerous places. Every village had a signboard as well as shops and VAHWs (including on equipment provided) showing the support of the donors and implementing partners. The project logos were also displayed at all workshops and on all training materials distributed during the project.

IV.3 Effectiveness

Key questions addressed under this section: - To what extent have the expected results and objectives of the project been achieved - What were the major factors influencing the achievement and non-achievement of the objectives? - From an effectiveness perspective, which activities should be strengthened in future interventions / scale up, and which on the contrary limited

Page 37

IV.3.1 Achievement of results and objectives

For the overall objective, specific objective and results, indicators were determined in the project design, the measurement of which would lead the project to conclude if the results and objectives were achieved. These indicators are discussed below from the bottom up, starting with the results and then moving to the specific objective and finally the overall objective.

IV.3.1.1 Result 1  At least 70% of established LFNs are operating (jointly procure veterinary services and products and/or have shared animal products marketing channels and/or production assets and/or share know-how on livestock production)

Throughout the course of the project partners were monitoring the extent of joint activities among LFN members. From early in Phase 2, this task was assigned to the VAHWs who each monitored from 20 to 25 LFN members every month. Although the monitoring data is extensive and very detailed, joint activities of LFN members focused mainly on collective selling, not much on the issues listed in this indicator. However, during the endline survey, a question was added to the sample to collect data on joint activities. The table below summarizes the responses, analyzed separately for LFN members under Phase 1 and Phase 2. Table IV.3.1 – Joint animal husbandry activities of LFN members Joint activities Target group ‐ PH1 Target group ‐ PH2 #%'s#%'s Joint vaccination 105 29.17% 72 21.62% Technical training 128 35.56% 183 54.95% Know‐how experience sharing 265 73.61% 276 82.88% Share animal production assets 16 4.44% 29 8.71% Make chicken feed together 180 50.00% 195 58.56% Members who joined at least one of the above 358 99.44% 334 100.00% For LFN members under both project phases, the responses show that sharing know-how and experiences is the most common activity among LFN members. This is followed by making feed together and attending joint technical training. The least number of responses from both phases were about share production assets. Although some aspects measured are below the 70% expected by this indicator, overall the indicator has been achieved as almost all members under Phase 1 and 100% under Phase 2 have participated in some joint activities. Some activities, such as making feed, do not necessarily require joint action; most important they are practicing what they learnt from either the training or from sharing with each other. The evaluation interviews with LFN members corroborated this data from the endline survey.  The % of households using at least once per year the services of VAHW has increased by 40% as compared to pre-project situation This indicator was measured through baseline and endline surveys with Phase 1 and Phase 2 LFN members as well as with a control group of farmers (at initial baseline as well as endline stage). The percentages using VAHW services (at least once per year) are shown in the table below: Table IV.3.2 – % of LFN members who use VAHW at least once per year Phase 1Phase 2 Control Baseline 2013 55.15% 57.40% Baseline 2015 40.12% Endline 2016 60.00% 63.66% 32.87% Changes: BL to EL 2016 4.85% 23.54% ‐24.53% Rate of change 8.79% 58.68% ‐42.73% Page 38

This data shows that the expected increase of 40% has been well achieved among Phase 2 LFN members. Although the change among Phase 1 LFN members is less, the percentage using VAHW services is almost equal to Phase 2 as they already reported a higher usage rate at the baseline stage. Compared to the control group, where the rate of usage has even dropped, the rate of usage among LFN members is an excellent achievement.  The % of target households which are regularly vaccinating their animals has increased by at least 35% as compared to pre-project situation Although the main focus of the project was on chicken raising, LFN members received training on the importance of vaccines for the key diseases of pigs and cattle as well. Therefore the baseline and endline surveys collected data on these three types of animals. Table IV.3.3 – % of LFN members who vaccinate their animals Poultry Newcastle Cholera Fowl pox Phase 1Phase 2 Control Phase 1Phase 2 Control Phase 1Phase 2 Control Baseline 2013 5.57% 2.10% 1.19% 0.90% 3.26% 0.60% Baseline 2015 1.80% 1.50% 1.50% Endline 2016 14.01% 18.58% 2.63% 12.61% 12.61% 1.46% 15.41% 18.32% 2.05% Changes: BL to EL 2016 8.44% 16.79% 0.54% 11.42% 11.12% 0.56% 12.14% 16.82% 1.45% Rate of change 151.40% 934.51% 25.56% 961.97% 742.52% 62.77% 371.99% 1123.66% 241.81% Pigs Pest Salmonelosis Pasterilosis Phase 1Phase 2 Control Phase 1Phase 2 Control Phase 1Phase 2 Control Baseline 2013 27.96% 33.33% 18.28% 25.00% 13.04% 20.00% Baseline 2015 32.04% 26.21% 12.62% Endline 2016 49.33% 29.11% 38.71% 33.33% 13.92% 25.81% 26.67% 6.33% 12.90% Changes: BL to EL 2016 21.38% ‐2.92% 5.38% 15.05% ‐12.29% 0.81% 13.62% ‐6.29% ‐7.10% Rate of change 76.46% ‐9.13% 16.13% 82.35% ‐46.88% 3.23% 104.44% ‐49.85% ‐35.48% Cattle Pasterilosis FMD Phase 1Phase 2 Control Phase 1Phase 2 Control Baseline 2013 39.23% 65.16% 37.35% 58.47% Baseline 2015 72.36% 30.15% Endline 2016 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Changes: BL to EL 2016 60.77% 27.64% 34.84% 62.65% 69.85% 41.53%

Rate of change 154.90% 38.19% 53.46% 167.71% 231.67% 71.01% Change between baseline and endline data for LFN members under both phases of the project shows significant increases in the percentage of farmers vaccinating their chickens and the changes are more positive among LFN members than among the control group. However the actual rates are still relatively low (the highest rates being about 18% for Phase 2 members for Newcastle and Fowl Pox). The percentage of LFNs vaccinating pigs has dropped significantly for Phase 2 LFN members. From discussions with LFN members (and project partners), the consultants would attribute this to the increased focus of these LFN members on chicken raising, with a number of members saying they have stopped raising pigs as the market prices is too volatile and they can now get better income (with less costs) from chicken raising. The expected increase of 35% of LFN members vaccinating their animals has been fully achieved for cattle and this is largely due to the government’s annual campaigns carried out by the OAHPs in collaboration with the VAHWs. Overall, the consultants would consider the project has achieved this indicator.

 The target HHs experience on average 30% lower animal mortality as compared to pre-project situation This indicator was also measured through the baseline and endline surveys as shown in the table below: Page 39

Table IV.3.4 – Change in animal mortality (% of LFN members) Hens/cocks Chicks Pigs Phase 1Phase 2ControlPhase 1Phase 2ControlPhase 1Phase 2Control Baseline 2013 30.93% 31.88% 62.43% 59.69% 8.36% 15.38% Baseline 2015 22.84% 53.69% 15.99% Endline 2016 25.31% 13.34% 32.30% 59.75% 52.82% 64.85% 11.84% 4.12% 10.40% Changes: BL to EL 2016 ‐5.62% ‐9.50% 0.42% ‐2.68% ‐0.87% 5.16% 3.48% ‐11.88% ‐4.99% Rate of change ‐18.17% ‐41.60% 1.32% ‐4.29% ‐1.63% 8.64% 41.63% ‐74.25% ‐32.43% The expected rate of reduction in mortality has been well achieved in respect of pigs and also for hens/cocks among the Phase 2 farmers. But there has been minimal change in the mortality rate of young chicks. This is possibly linked to the previous indicator which showed that vaccination levels are still low and also due to the use of low quality vaccines. Farmers also reported that high mortality of young chicks occurred during some abnormally hot periods and also some extremely cold nights. While housing chicks in separate cages is beneficial to their growth, this separation denied them the warmth they would have got from their mothers. Temperature control is therefore something farmers need to manage for the young chicks2.  At least 60% of LFNs' members started using promoted marketing practices This indicator was only measured at the endline survey stage. The questions were only asked of the LFN members as the question was considered irrelevant to control farmers. Table IV.3.5 – Marketing practices of LFN members Phase 1Phase 2 #%'s#%'s Involvement in collective sale 88 24.44% 160 48.05% Contacting brokers before selling (negotiating with middleman 61 16.94% 52 15.62% Used the seasonal calendar advice for production 46 12.78% 54 16.22% Share/discuss market information with other LFN members during meetings/trainings 30 8.33% 110 33.03% Members who joined at least one of the above 178 49.44% 269 80.54% Sharing of promoted marketing practices has been much higher among Phase 2 LFN members than Phase 1 (although almost 50% of them took part in at least one of the activities mentioned). Almost 50% of Phase 2 members reported taking part in some collective sales of chickens. The other most common activity was sharing marketing information among each other. With over 80% of Phase 2 LFN members taking part in at least one of the marketing activities, the indicator of 60% was well achieved.

Conclusion on Result 1 Result 1 expected “5,735 households' cooperation enables them to access veterinary, animal husbandry and marketing services increasing the effectiveness and environmental sustainability of their production strategies”. Taking the results of Phase 2 LFN members as the key measurement of project success (as Phase 1 was intended to be a learning phase to better inform Phase 2), the five indicators measured above show that 100% of members are cooperating well in their livestock raising activities; there has been an increase of almost 60% in the number of members using VAHW services; vaccination of chickens has increased from almost zero to about 18% of members; mortality rates of chickens has dropped by over 40% (but negligible change for young chicks); and over 80% of members are adopting recommended marketing strategies.

2 Comment PIN: in the chick management training that was provided to LFNs in Phase 2 areas towards the end of the project, they have been advised to place pieces of cloth in the chick cage, so that the chicks can keep warm in the evenings, and have been advised to use stronger materials for the chick cages (e.g. solid cardboard instead of netting) that better protect them from exposure Page 40

These changes have been remarkable given the short timeframe of the project. The consultants conclude that this result has been achieved.

IV.3.1.2 Result 2  At least 75% of trained VAHWs pass selected training post-tests Many training courses were organized for VAHWs over the two phases of the project. The consultants received 14 reports on these trainings. The table below summarizes the data from these reports. Table IV.3.6 – VAHW post-test training results SN Course title Year Training by Participants Pre‐ Post‐ Change % of participants (female) test test who passed 1Vetinary Technical Training 2013 OAHP ‐ KCH 24 (1) 45% 72% 27% 93% passed 2Technical training on animal raising 2013 OAHP‐KCH 25 (5) 41% 64% 23% 82% passed 3 Capacity building of VAHWs 2013 OAHP‐KCH 24 (0) n/a 79% n/a 100% passed 4Poultry technical training 2013 CEDAC 25 (5) 41% 64% 23% 82% passed 5Training of trainers 2013 PNKA n/a 11% 100% 89% 100% passed 6Refreshment of Training Course to VAHWs 2013 SORF & OAHP 49 (1) 79% 83% 4% 100% passed 7Presentation & communication skills 2013 CETP 68 (?) n/a n/a n/a 100% passed 8 Development analysis 2013 EPDO 13 (1) n/a n/a n/a n/a 9Business skills 2014 PIN 68 (?) n/a n/a n/a 100% passed 10 Environmentally Sensitive Livestock Production 2014 CEDAC 72 (3) 43% 65% 22% 80% passed 11 Marketing and Customer Serive 2014 BKP and Medivet 84 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Product storage and management 2015 OAHP 74 (6) 76% 100% 24% 100% passed 13 Chicken bio‐security and facilitation skills 2015 EPDO & OAHP 17 (1) n/a n/a n/a 88% passed 14 Chicken raising technique 2015 CEDAC 150 (11) 33% 70% 37% n/a 15 Refresher of Training on Pig and Cattle raising 2015 OAHP ‐PST 34 (3) 66% 82% 16% 100% passed 16 Saving Group concept and effective facilitation 2015 EPDO 25 (1) n/a n/a n/a 100% passed Although the number of participants who passed was not recorded for two of the courses, the data from the table above shows a 100% pass rate for most of the courses and the others were all over 80%. So this indicator has been well achieved.  The average number of clients served by one VAHW has increased by 60% Baseline and endline data was collected from VAHWs about the average number of clients per month. However the questions were a bit ambiguous and some VAHWs answered about the average over the year to date and others gave the exact number in the most recent month. This makes the data unreliable and incomparable3. Therefore the consultants use the information given by respondents to the KIIs. These KIIs were attended by 31 VAHWs (approximately 20% of the VAHWs in the target villages). All of them said that the number of clients they serve has increased a lot since the start of the CLIMAD project. Estimates they gave ranged from 60% to 70%.  At least 5 supported Vet Associations perform majority of their main functions The results of an end of project survey conducted by PIN and partners with 17 VAs, exploring some key functions of their associations, is shown in the table below: Table IV.3.7 – Assessment of VA performance Key functions explored Those who can perform Number Percentages VA has developed by‐laws 11 65% Has good financial recording 6 35% Can organize meeng by their own(Y/N) 17 100% Have minutes of meetings 424% Members know cash balance 11 65% Contact OAHP/DV to join meeting 5 29% Share the information about livestock 17 100% VA interviewed = 17

3 Comment PIN: the biggest issue we found, that is worthy of mention here, is the unreliable baseline data we received from VAHWs, as when the project started very few (if any) VAHWs were actually recording their clients on a monthly basis, and when asked this question we believe they over-reported it (as comparisons with the endline data do not show significant increases, although their income and services have gone up substantially).

Page 41

The data above shows that the majority of the functions explored can be performed by more than the expected 5 VAs, with many of the function being done by all – especially the ability to organize meetings and share livestock information. The weakest issues are taking minutes of meetings, inviting OAHP or district vets to meetings and the quality of financial recording.  At least 75% of veterinary products shops in target areas have functional cool chain facilities An assessment of 30 shops in the two provinces which had been supported by the project showed the following information in relation to vaccines: Table IV.3.8 – Cool chain shop facilities Cool Chain BL‐2013 EL‐2016 Cold Chain for vaccines Fridge 58% 90%

Ice‐box 42% 10% Vaccines kept at right temperature Always 65% 90% Sometimes 23% 10% Rarely 8% Never 4% There has been a significant increase in the number of shops that now have fridges. This has been made possible by the gradually expanding electricity supply network throughout the districts and communes. As discussed in the findings in the previous chapter, all shops visited had fridges and 24-hour electricity supply.  At least 2 Phnom-Penh-based companies and 5 provincial/ district shops provide to their clients (shops, VAHWs) embedded advisory services The shop assessment mentioned under the previous indicator also looked at the services provided to customers in addition to selling products: Table IV.3.9 – Additional services provided by shops Support provided to customers by shops BL‐2013 EL‐2016 Provides advice Usually 61% 83% Sometimes 36% 13% Rarely Never 4% 3% Demonstrates to customers Usually 43% 67% Sometimes 43% 23% Rarely 11% 3% Never 4% 7% The data above shows that shops are increasingly providing more advice and practical demonstrations to their customers on the use of their products. Discussions with both shop owners and their clients during the evaluation interviews corroborated this. Regarding the 2 main companies in Phnom Penh who have worked closely with the project (BKP and Medivet), the shops they supply (and also the VAHWs) all confirmed receipt of good advice (and noted that it is easily available as they are welcome to telephone any time if they have questions).

Conclusion on Result 2 Result 2 expected “At least 325 (290 VAHWs and 35 shops) local suppliers of veterinary products and services from 7 target districts have sufficient capacity to respond to the needs of at least 17,200 poor farmers, especially women and youth farmers”. The five indicators discussed above show increased capacity by the VAHWs resulting in an increase of 60-70% in their client base; VAs are able to organize their own meetings and share information on livestock issues; there are functioning cool chain facilities in shops supplying vaccines; and an increasing number of shops provide advice and demonstrations to their customers on the use of their products. In addition to the above data, discussions with all farmers, VAHWs and shops during the evaluation confirmed that there are no Page 42 problems accessing the products and services they require. All farmers were very happy with the speed of response of their VAHWs and the quality of services they provide. The consultants conclude that result 2 has been achieved.

IV.3.1.3 Result 3  Representatives of at least 70% targeted LFNs have actively participated at Commune Forums Forums were held in every commune throughout the duration of the project, in some cases combining two smaller communes. Some communes held more than one forum and in total 37 forums were held across the 33 target communes. Reports on these forums show that they were attended by representatives from all LFNs in the communes.  Representatives of at least 70% LFNs have contributed to the Commune Investment Planning (CIP) process Similar to the commune forums discussed above, representatives from all LFNs took part in the consultation meetings with commune councils leading up to the updating of the CIPs.  # of LFN's priorities requested during CIPs which have been addressed Follow up was done with a few sample communes by PNKA in Kompong Chhnang and EPDO in Pursat to check on the progress of issues raised during CIP preparation. Only the 2014 CIP data is used as the CIPs of 2015 were only presented at the District Integration Workshops (DIWs) at the end of 2015 so there was no time to follow up on progress (as projects are still being implemented throughout 2016). Data from PNKA for 2014 shows the following progress for the sampled communes: Table IV.3.10 – CIP 2014 follow up (Kompong Chhnang) Sector# issues raised Issues included in CIP Projects implemented Number Percentage Number Percentage Crop growing 3 3 100.00% 1 33.33% Education 4 3 75.00% 2 66.67% Health 10 9 90.00% 4 44.44% IG 2 1 50.00% 0 0.00% Infrastructure 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% Irrigation 3 3 100.00% 2 66.67% Land 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% Livestock6 6100.00%583.33% NRM 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Social issues 11 7 63.64% 6 85.71% WATSAN 4 4 100.00% 4 100.00% 49 41 83.67% 24 58.54% Of the six livestock projects raised, all were included in the CIP and only one was not finally implemented. For Pursat, EPDO only collected the data on livestock projects, not the full list of projects included in the CIP: Table IV.3.11 – CIP 2014 follow up (Pursat) Type of livestock project# issues raised Issues included in CIP Projects implemented Number Percentage Number Percentage Animal disease management 2 1 50.00% 0 0.00% Cattle vaccinations 2 2 100.00% 1 50.00% Grant support for chicken raising 1 1 100.00% 1 100.00% Providing good breeds 13 13 100.00% 5 38.46% Technical training on animal raising 2 2 100.00% 2 100.00% Training on feed production 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% Training VAHWs 7 7 100.00% 7 100.00% 28 27 96.43% 16 59.26% Almost all livestock issues raised were considered priority for including in the CIP. Of these, almost 60% of them were actually implemented, including 100% of projects related to training of VAHWs. Page 43

 # of documented cases when OAHP as a result of LFFs actively responded to farmers' requests Livestock Farmer Forums (LFFs) were held at district level and generally referred to as District Livestock Forums (DLFs). 10 of these were conducted throughout the project cycle. There was good participation in these forums which were attended by representatives of the OAHPs, VAHWs, LFNs, local partners and PIN staff. Many issues were raised by farmers (including many from women participants), most of which were dealt with by advice from OAHP at the forum. A number of issues were outstanding at the end of the forums so the NGO partners conducted follow up with the OAHPs towards the end of the project to check on the progress. The result of this follow up is shown in the table below: Table IV.3.12 – Follow up on issues from DLFs SN Issues raised Response Action plan Follow up the result 1 Use vaccine but chicken OAHP: three possible reasons: Waiting for new law New law is now approved and still sick 1. using vaccine incorrectly. approved by the king, launched. OAHP’s officials are 2. using incorrect quantities OAHP will check all shop trained on new law and it will 3. bad quality of vaccine how to manage vaccine. be enforced from 2016 2 Some chicken kept in OAHP: feed not enough (quantity and OAHP will promote on feed ASPIRE is now implementing coops grow slower than quality) making to farmers on next chickens roaming free 5 months after ASPIRE project approved 3 Why was the mortality OAHP: there are five points you have to OAHP will promote on ASPIRE is now implementing rate of the chicken high? focus on before raising the chicken: raising chicken to farmers Location and pen building, Breed on next 5 months after selection, Feed making, Vaccination, & ASPIRE project approved Bio-security 4 Why does not OAHP OAHP: government focuses on cattle OAHP will ask DHAP in the No result yet provide chicken vaccine? becaue it is priority for traction next year.

5 Why does not OAHP OAHP: we did not have cock or hen OAHP will promote on ASPIRE and EU project will provide good breed (hen breed selection for farmers but OAHP raising chicken to farmers organize chicken demo farm & cock) to farmers? has the program to provide artificial on next 5 months after and chick producer that breeding on pig and cattle funded by ASPIRE project approved farmers can access to good EU. breed 6 Why were the process of OAHP: It was law so that we have to OAHP and district governor Farmers got contact of district selling cattle in the follow. The role of VAHW was to make are waiting for calling governor and chief of OAHP. commune too late (need sure that the animal was healthy, complain from farmers all So they can ask for to sign from VAHW, Village chief confirmed that the animal time. intervention any times. OAHP village chief, and sold and commune chief confirmed that also raised this issues in commune chief and the the animal could move to other meeting with district vet to problem was that communes. For why this takes time, inform about this issues commune chief give a refer to District Governor sign but clerk was not District’ governor: If any commune sign)? How do we do? clerks delay above process, please call

7 Chicken stolen District governor: Please keep taking District governor are No follow up care and inform to village chief or call to waiting for calling complain commune police. from farmers all time.

Follow up to outstanding issues suggests that OAHP is interested to deal with the issues but they often lack resources. The new ASPHIRE project is therefore referred to a number of times as an excellent opportunity to assist farmers with these issues.

Conclusion on Result 3 Result 3 expected “At least 5,735 poor households represented by 620 grassroots groups have increased their engagement with local and provincial authorities and actively influenced decision making processes affecting their livelihoods”. From the discussion under indicators above, it is clear that there has been considerable engagement between LFNs and local and provincial authorities through the many commune and district forums that have been organized as well as through participation in making the annual CIP.

Page 44

IV.3.1.4 Result 4  Three months after provided training/ coaching on selected topics, 70% of partners' trained staff is able to pass training post-test Over the duration of the project a number of training courses were organized directly by PIN in response to partners needs. In addition to these courses, partners were allocated funds to implement various other capacity building elements of the organizational capacity plan. The consultants received reports on seven of the training courses organized by PIN and the table below summarizes the results from the pre- and post-tests. Table IV.3.13 – Partner training courses post-test results SN Course title Year Training by Participants Pre‐ Post‐ Change Comment (female) test test 1Vetinary Technical Training 2013 OAHP ‐ KCH 4 (1) 45% 72% 27% 93% passed 2 Environmentally Sensitive Livestock Production 2014 CEDAC 12 (4) n/a n/a n/a n/a 3Market Oriented Development Approach (MODA) 2014 CEDAC 24 (4) 40% 82% 42% 100% passed 4 Fundraising and proposal writing 2014 VBNK 15 (1) 28% 74% 46% 100% passed 5Saving Group for Vet Association 2015 Yun Yean 15 (6) n/a n/a n/a n/a 6Chicken raising technique 2015 CEDAC 27 (7) 33% 70% 37% 100% passed 7Nutrition, Feeding, Diseases & Incubation 2015 CelAgrid 51 (20) 51% 81% 30% 100% passed 8 Community Development & Facilitation Skills 2015 IIRR 30 (8) n/a n/a n/a 100% passed 9 Fundraising and proposal writing 2015 OD consultant 14 (2) 37% 77% 40% 100% passed Although the indicator was phrased as “three months after training”, only the last three courses in the table above were measured after three months. The results of these tests showed a pass rate of 95%, 94% and 71% respectively for these three courses (in order of the SN in the table). The immediate post tests for the other courses show excellent results, well above the expectation of 70% - the two courses where specific data is not available are courses where the partners joined with other groups (e.g. VAHWs, VAs) so specific data on the partner staff was not presented. During the evaluation interviews with partners, the consultants discussed their perceptions on the trainings and all partners interviewed were very pleased and felt that they have gained a lot of knowledge and capacity from them.  At least 4 out of 5 partner NGOs have developed at least 3 new NRM projects each and received funding for at least one of them Out of the original five partners, only three of them continued into the second phase of the project – AARR and TDSP were dropped after phase 1. AARR currently has no projects running and, due to internal organizational issues, TDSP is unlikely to have many more. Of the remaining three partners, all have other projects ongoing with various donors, with two of them (EPDO and PNKA) continuing with PIN for the new livestock sub-project under MAFF. But none of their ongoing projects are specifically NRM projects; although there are elements of environmental sustainability in them (e.g. like the bio-gas element of animal husbandry).  Partners were able to organize at least 4 Bi-annual Forums and share with the key stakeholders their experience and best practices with pro-poor market development and NRM programming PIN and partners were able to organize six bi-annual exchanges workshops – five bi-annual workshops at the provincial level and one National Sharing Workshop conducted to share the lesson learned from the CLIMAD project among livestock development actors (NGOs), OAHPs and private sector companies (this workshop was also attended by a representative from the EU). The provincial level bi-annual exchanges were also attended by LFN members and VAHWs as well as government, NGOs and private sector companies.  Partners advocated at least 10 development agencies in favor of VAHWs' market- based services Local NGO partners attend regular quarterly meetings in each of the provinces. These meetings are attended by between 8 and 10 other development NGOs. Through these meetings, the partners were able to promote good lessons learned about market-based approaches from the CLIMAD project. Page 45

Conclusion on Result 4 Result 4 expected “Five province, district and/or commune-based CSOs have capacity to design, mobilize resources and implement natural resources management programs providing sustainable benefits to the most vulnerable populations in their area”. The wording of this result is a bit out of sync with the actual focus of the program as also are some of the indicators discussed above. The emphasis on NRM is a bit broad considering that the main focus of the project is livestock management, and more specifically market- based approaches. Naturally there are some environment-related issues with livestock management but not specifically “natural resources”. But the consultants understand from discussions with PIN and partners that the main purpose of including this result was to build the capacity of the local NGO partners. In that context, they have succeeded with three of the five partners – as two have already stopped.

IV.3.1.5 Specific objective

 Increased levels of HH income generated from animal raising in targeted communities at the end of the project as compared to pre-project situation The baseline and endline surveys asked farmers about their income from animal raising over a three month period prior to the survey. The table below shows the average per HH at each of the survey stages: Table IV.3.14 – Changes in income from animal raising Chickens Pigs Cattle Phase 1Phase 2 Control Phase 1Phase 2ControlPhase 1Phase 2 Control Baseline 2013 20.86 27.63 209.57 248.36 482.74 631.46 Baseline 2015 13.67 317.57 829.29 Endline 2016 49.07 80.50 18.08 495.50 351.96 465.28 1158.33 940.16 1134.62 Changes: BL to EL 2016 28.21 66.83 ‐9.55 285.93 34.40 216.92 675.60 110.88 503.16 % increase 135% 489% ‐35% 136% 11% 87% 140% 13% 80% The indicator did not specify any level of increase required and it can be seen from the data that income has increased for all types of animals and for both program phases. As chicken raising was the main focus of the project, it is interesting to see the significant increase in average income from chickens among the Phase 2 HHs. Phase I has also increased but not by as much. The data on pigs and cattle is a bit deceptive though because there were not many responses as many of the respondents did not raise these animals so the data may not be representative of the entire population. In particular, pig raising was not so common among Phase 2 HHs as the selection process was better refined to focus more strongly on HHs who were most committed to chicken raising. It was also noted earlier that many of these HHs now see chicken raising as more lucrative than pig raising when they compare the income they can received with the relatively low cost involved.

 Animal mortality in target communities decreased as compared to pre-project situation Animal mortality has already been discussed under Result 1 (refer to data in Table IV.3.4). To recap, mortality rate has reduced considerably in respect of pigs (from 16% to 4%) and hens/cocks (from 23% to 13%) among the Phase 2 farmers. Comparative figures from non- target farmers showed an increase in mortality among hens/cocks and only a 5% reduction in pig mortality. But there has been minimal change in the mortality rate of young chicks, with the rates still over 50% for target farmers and almost 65% for non-target farmers.

Page 46

 Increased % of households living in higher community wealth ranking category as compared to pre-project situation The project does not conduct wealth ranking itself; as with most projects in Cambodia now, the IDPoor rankings of the Ministry of Planning determine the poverty status of HHs. In order to accurately measure this indicator, an updated IDPoor ranking would be needed. But the Ministry of Planning only updates the data about every three years and not necessarily in all areas of the province at the same time. Even if the data were available, it is not completely reliable – there are still many poor HHs who are not ranked as IDPoor and many better off HHs who hold IDPoor cards. Therefore during baseline and endline surveys, PIN and partners introduced a question to the sample respondents on their own perceptions of where they fit into the poverty scale compared to other HHs. The percentages of LFN members who reported their perceptions as being “better than others” (others being IDPoor HHs) in their village are shown in the table below: Table IV.3.15 – % of LFN members who perceive themselves as better-off than other IDPoor Phase 1Phase 2Control Baseline 2013 19.44% 19.44% Baseline 2015 30.24% Endline 2016 60.56% 66.67% 37.60% Changes: BL to EL 2016 41.11% 36.43% 18.16% A much higher percentage of LFN members now see themselves as better off than others compared to the responses at the baseline stage whereas the a much smaller percentage of non-target HHs feel their situation has improved.

Conclusion on Specific Objective The specific objective was: “17,200 poor farmers have thanks to enhanced demand for and supply of community- based veterinary, animal husbandry and marketing services sustainably improved their livelihoods while not undermining their natural environment”. The indicators measured above show increased income, especially from chicken raising, reduced mortality of pigs and hens/cocks and an increased perception of being better-off than before compared to other HHs. This has been achieved without any negative impacts on their natural environment as the project emphasis was on “environmentally-sensitive” animal raising – including promoting the use of bio-digesters for animal waste to reduce the use of wood or charcoal. The objective aimed to reach out to 17,200 beneficiaries. This was more than achieved, with the total direct beneficiaries reaching over 18,000 (see discussion in next section on cost per beneficiary). The conclusion of the consultants is that the project has achieved its specific objective.

IV.3.1.6 Overall objective  Percentage of population living below poverty line compared to pre-project situation Statistics on the percentage of the population living below the poverty line are published by the National Institute of Statistics but only down to commune level; specific data for each village is not published. But PIN and partners included some “proxy” indicators in their baseline and endline surveys which provide some indications on poverty. One of these questions asked about whether the HH had enough food to eat or not. The responses at the endline survey showed a significant change from the baseline; from only about 20% of HHs having enough food to eat at the start of the project to almost 80% at the end (see table below). As the change among control HHs (those not part of CLIMAD) was less, it is possible to conclude that the project had an impact on reducing the lack of food among these LFN members. Page 47

Table IV.3.16 – % of HHs with enough food to eat Enough food to eat Phase 1 Phase 2 Control Baseline 2013 20.28% 19.72% Baseline 2015 18.10% Endline 2016 75.56% 77.18% 66.30% Changes: BL to EL 2016 55.28% 59.07% 46.57%

Another proxy indicator related to some key assets owned by the HHs. Three categories of assets are shown in the table below – motorbikes, mobile phones and house roofing. But there was some problem with the question at the Phase 1 baseline stage regarding house roofing – possibly the question was misunderstood so all the responses were zero. Table IV.3.17 – % of HHs who own certain asset types

HHs with motorbikes HHs with mobile phone HHs with zinc/tiled roof Phase 1Phase 2 Control Phase 1Phase 2 Control Phase 1Phase 2 Control Baseline 2013 26.67% 34.72% 51.11% 50.56% 0.00% 0.00% Baseline 2015 42.51% 61.38% 82.04%

Endline 2016 61.11% 65.47% 50.42% 64.72% 71.77% 60.45% 93.06% 90.99% 91.92% Changes: BL to EL 2016 34.44% 22.95% 15.70% 13.61% 10.39% 9.89% 8.96% The table above shows a significant increase in the percentage of LFN members who now have a motorbike and mobile phone compared to the start of the project; and the rates of ownership are higher than non-LFN members. Although there is no comparative data for the Phase 2 LFN regarding house roofing, there has been almost 10% increase in the number of LFNs who have improved their house roofing since the baseline. It was mentioned above that nationally published data is only available at commune level. That level of data would be more relevant to the project if all villages in the commune had been targeted. But in only four of the 33 target communes were all villages included in the project. Nevertheless examination of the data shows some interesting statistics related to poverty reduction. A list of 30 of the 33 communes is shown in Annex 5 (the three communes (sangkats) in Pursat Municipality are excluded as there are only a few isolated villages targeted there). This Annex shows the poverty rates in 2012 (before the project started) and those in 2015 (the latest available data). The change in the commune poverty rates are then compared to the situation of the overall district to see if CLIMAD supported communes have improved better or worse compared to the overall situation in the districts. A higher percentage of communes in Pursat province have reduced poverty compared to the district statistics than those in Kompong Channang: Table IV.3.18 – Poverty rate changes in target communes Province Comparison of commune to district rate Better Slightly worse Worse K. Chhnang - # target communes 518 36% 7% 57% Pursat - # target communes 13 2 1 81% 13% 6% Total target communes 18 3 9 60% 10% 30%

In particular, all communes that were covered 100% by the project have reduced poverty at a faster rate than the overall district averages; and those where there was least coverage have reduced slower – see selected items from Annex 5 in the table below:

Page 48

Table IV.3.19 – Extracts from Annex 5 (selected commune poverty rate data)

District/communePoverty ratesReduction Comparison of commune to # vill in # vill % 2012 to 2015 district rate commune CLIMAD coverage Y-2012 Y-2015 Better Worse Baribour 28.72 23.91 -4.81 Chak 26.56 20.30 -6.26 X 5 5 100% Ponley 18.71 19.02 0.31 X 6 1 17% Trapeang Chan 29.72 23.13 -6.59 X 4 4 100% Rolea B'ier 24.52 21.39 -3.13 Krang Leav 27.78 23.17 -4.61 X 8 8 100% Prey Mul 24.62 23.90 -0.72 X 7 1 14% Rolea B'ier 17.76 21.05 3.29 X 6 1 17% Krakor 31.52 25.41 -6.11 Anlong Tnaot 26.68 24.56 -2.12 X 12 2 17% Kampong Pou 36.11 27.06 -9.05 X 8 8 100%

Although this data is influenced by many factors other than CLIMAD, the positive changes in communes where the project was implemented in all villages suggest that coverage may be an important contribution to achieving results.  Increased participation of women in decision making processes in targeted communities at the end of the project as compared to pre-project This is a rather obscure indicator for measuring the overall objective as the project design has only limited focus on “women in decision making” although there was a very strong focus on women in general. As discussed under gender issues in the previous section (IV.2.4), women have been the main beneficiaries of the project. They have also been active in raising issues through commune and district forums. But such activities are not primarily “decision making”, rather they show increased confidence of women to speak out about issues of importance to them. But women did note that they play an increased role in decision making within their households – over the sale of assets, particularly the chickens they raise; they can decide when to sell and they manage the money from the sales.

 Increased percentage of youth participating in targeted communities in livestock production at the end of the project as compared to pre-project situation The project design intended to encourage youth as well as women to become LFN members. In practice this was a challenge as many of the youth leave the village after finishing school – those who pass their high school exams often move onto higher education and the others to work in factories or building sites in the capital, Phnom Penh or in other districts or provinces away from their villages. Nevertheless approximately two-thirds of respondents to the endline survey say that there is some involvement of youth in livestock raising in their village (see table below). This is almost twice as high as the responses from non-target villages where the percentage of respondents who say youth are involved has dropped by almost 50%. Table IV.3.20 – % of respondents who say youth are involved in livestock raising Phase 1Phase 2 Control Baseline 2013 75.83% 72.42% Baseline 2015 45.21% Endline 2016 60.28% 66.07% 34.26% Changes: BL to EL 2016 ‐15.56% 20.86% ‐38.16% These high percentages of youth involvement are a indication that at least some youth see livestock raising as a viable means of income generation compared to other options available to them. The increased involvement in target villages compared to a reduction in non-target villages is an indication that the improved production and marketing techniques introduced by the project may be an influencing factor.

Page 49

Conclusion on the Overall Objective The overall objective of the project was: “To contribute to reduction of poverty of vulnerable rural households by strengthening CSOs and private sector’s capacity to sustainably promote, facilitate and support women’s economic empowerment and inclusion in decision- making as well as engaging youth in rural economic opportunities”. As would be expected the overall objective is something to which the project makes a contribution to, rather than achieving within the lifetime of the project. The goal of any project is to achieve the specific objective as being this contribution. As discussed earlier, the consultants are satisfied that the specific objective was achieved. By doing so, the project has contributed to poverty reduction, strengthening of CSOs, improved market linkages between private sector companies, youth are playing an active part in livestock raising and women are gaining respect within their households for the additional income they are bringing in. Therefore the consultants are pleased to conclude that the overall project objective has been achieved.

IV.3.2 Main factors influencing achievement of objectives The main factors that influenced the achievements discussed in the previous section stemmed from the project strategy which included:  Working with partners that had long established roots in the target communities  Taking a market-based approach (in particular, linking the various actors in the value chain)  Focus on the poor – bringing poor households up to marketing level (adding them to the value chain)  Partnering with private companies to build capacity of suppliers of vetinary products and services (builds sustainable linkages)  Partnering with OAHPs to deliver refresher trainings to VAHWs (re-establishing links that had been dormant since their initial establishment and bringing some previously inactive VAHWs back into action)  Supporting VAHWs to act as model farmers (provided good examples which could be used to enhance practical training of farmers)

IV.3.3 Activities that should be scaled up or limited in future interventions The consultants do not consider that any of the activities should be excluded. All activities have proven to be effective (already or in the future). Some additional activities (or slight revisions to existing ones) that would enhance future interventions will be discussed in the next section under recommendations.

IV.4 Efficiency

Key questions addressed under this section: - To what extent was the project implementation cost-efficient? - From a cost-efficiency perspective, which activities and their components should be strengthened in future interventions / scale up, and which on the contrary limited

IV.4.1 Cost-efficiency of project implementation The first aspect of cost-efficiency to examine is the proportion of costs allocated to project implementation compared to personnel and supporting costs. As the project has produced a final estimate of expenditure compared to budget, the expenditure figures are used for this

Page 50 calculation (as the project has not yet been completed, this final estimate may differ slightly from the final financial report to be submitted by the project). The table below shows that over 60% of the budget was spent directly on the project activities – as the project focused strongly on capacity building and technical support, all human resources of a technical nature are defined as direct costs. The consultants consider this an appropriate allocation for such a project. Table IV.4.1 – Allocation of direct vs. indirect expenditure Description of costs Estimated % of total final expend Direct project costs Human Resouces - Technical 420,529 37% Activity costs 313,066 28% Sub-total - Direct costs 733,595 64% Indirect project costs Human Resouces - Admin/support 134,334 12% Running costs (travel, office, equipment) 131,153 12% Other services (audits, evaluations, visibility, publications etc) 64,728 6% Administration 74,467 7% Sub-total - Indirect costs 404,681 36% Total project cost 1,138,276 100% The next aspect to examine is the efficiency of budget management – i.e. the comparison of budget with actual expenditure. The budget uses the revised version after some minor allocations were approved. Table IV.4.2 – Budget versus Actual expenditure Description of costs Revised budget Actual expend Balance % spent Human Resources Technical 351,669 420,529 -68,860 120% Administrative/support 146,394 134,334 12,060 92% Subtotal Human Resources 498,063 554,862 -56,799 111% Travel costs 26,850 26,612 238 99% Project equipment 18,080 16,377 1,703 91% Running costs 92,914 88,164 4,750 95% Expenditure verification 32,000 33,174 -1,174 104% Mid-term and final evaluations 13,200 15,258 -2,058 116% Visibility actions 4,375 7,962 -3,587 182% Publications and other services 11,725 8,333 3,392 71% Sub-total - Support costs 199,144 195,881 3,263 98% Activity costs: Familiarization workshops 960 535 425 56% Activities under Result 1 217,590 219,439 -1,849 101% Activities under Result 2 110,100 55,082 55,018 50% Activities under Result 3 17,230 13,318 3,912 77% Activities under Result 4 20,723 24,693 -3,970 119% Sub-total - Activity costs 366,603 313,066 53,537 85% Direct eligible costs 1,063,809 1,063,809 0 100% Administration 74,467 74,467 0 100% Total project cost 1,138,276 1,138,276 0 100%

The table above shows that expenditure was closely in line with budgeted costs, with all major categories of expenditure within roughly 10% of the original estimates. The biggest budget lines are human resources and activity costs, particularly under Result 1. For human resources, an examination of the numbers of personnel and the cost of each shows very reasonable costs. This was made possible partly by the implementation of projects in partnership with local NGOs who have a relatively low monthly salary costs. The reasonableness of activity costs will be examined below in relation to the beneficiary coverage for each result. The final aspect of cost efficiency to examine is the cost per beneficiary per expected result and for the overall project. To compute this, the total number beneficiaries for each result was calculated and then overlaps (persons included in more than one computation) were excluded. The result is shown in the table below: Page 51

Table IV.4.3 – Cost per beneficiary Project beneficiaries Result 1Result 2Result 3Result 4 Total Overlap Net Total LFN members 6,937 6,937 6,937

VAHWs ‐ target villages 163 163 163 VAHWs ‐ other villages 127 127 127 Non‐LFN VAHW clients 6,520 6,520 6,520 VA members 138 138 ‐138 0 Shops & companies 37 37 37 Clients of shops 7,980 7,980 ‐3,990 3,990 1,850 1,850 ‐1,480 370 DLF participants 490 490 ‐245 245 Local NGO partner staff 37 37 37 Totals 13,457 8,445 2,340 37 24,279 ‐5,853 18,426 Direct project costs 219,439 55,082 13,318 24,693 312,531 313,066 Direct per beneficiary 16 7 6 667 13 17 Total project cost 1,138,276 Overall cost per beneficiary 62

Costs per beneficiary are very low for all results except result 4. In relation to this result, the consultants consider the cost acceptable as, although there are only few immediate beneficiaries (the staff of the local NGO partners who were trained), the practical application of their increased capacity will have extended impact over the years as they implement new projects with target communities. Considering the extensive number of activities carried out over the 3.5 years, the overall cost of only EUR 62 per beneficiary is very low compared to other projects of a similar nature that the consultants have evaluated over the last number of years. Thus the consultants conclude that the project has been very cost-efficient.

IV.4.2 Activities that should be scaled up or limited in future interventions As discussed in the previous section, the project has been found to be very cost effective. There are no activities that would warrant exclusion from a cost perspective. At the current cost of activities, all could be included again in future projects.

IV.5 Impact

Key questions addressed under this section: - What is the impact of the project on the different target groups, and how has the situation of these groups changed - What long-term changes positive or negative are likely to take place as a result of the project? What is the evidence? - Is there any evidence of innovative ideas, behavior or action amongst the target beneficiary group

IV.5.1 Impact on target groups For LFN members, the main impacts they have experienced to date are: reduced disease, especially among chickens (still a lot of young chicks die) due to improved flock management (keeping them in coops, feeding more regularly and ensuring better sanitation by cleaning out coops and feeding troughs regularly); and higher income: resulting from larger flocks and increased understanding of the market pricing as well as quicker raising times because of improved feed. This increased income has enabled many of the LFN members to improve their houses, buy clothing and supplies for their children to attend school, and has contributed to reduced food insecurity as they can now afford more food to eat. A number of LFN members have also stopped migrating for work as they see that chicken raising can provide them with a better source of income at home. Reduced migration of parents increases the probability that their children are better looked after and attend school more regularly. Page 52

In respect of the VAHWs, they now have improved capacity to deliver their services because of the training they received; it has been many years since many of these VAHWs had received any refresher training. Because of this they now attract more customers, and customers have more confidence in their ability to treat their animals. More customers has led to higher incomes; VAHWs can now earn from 200,000 to 800,000 Riels per month which is a big increase on their average income before the project started. Although the Vet Associations (VA) are still limited in their range of functions (operating mainly as savings groups), they have noted the following changes since they received support from the CLIMAD project: they have better able to manage funds for members to borrow for their business (but skills in book-keeping are still limited); they are more cohesive, exchanging experiences through monthly meetings; the members have better technical knowledge to help farmers which has helped to increase their income (and thus their capacity to save). The impacts noted for LFNs and VAHWs have a spill-over impact on shops selling vetinary products. Increase numbers of livestock producers (with larger flocks), creates a demand for animal feed, vaccines and medicines. Thus the business of shop owners has increased. The supply of subsidized fridges to smaller shops has enabled them to stock vaccines for sale whereas before the project they could only order when required as they only had iceboxes which could not maintain the proper temperature constantly. Through the implementation of the project, partners now have improved technical knowledge on livestock management as they attended technical trainings and also were coached directly by experienced vetinary personnel of PIN. They are also better able to write proposals and have improved financial management (through training received on Quickbook accounting package).

IV.5.2 Long-term changes as a result of the project The immediate impacts noted above should multiply over the coming years if the target groups continue to practice the techniques introduced during this project. Thus the flocks of chickens should expand, providing more income which may encourage even more households to adopt this income generation activity as an alternative to migrating for work. If this happens, the long term changes could be profound with more youth staying in the villages which helps to keep the communities vibrant and resulting in a better standard of living, economically (reduced poverty) and socially (kids better educated, less domestic violence, increased participation in ceremonies and festivals).

IV.5.3 Innovations resulting from the project The project’s market-based approach, while not specifically innovative as there are other organizations that also take this approach (e.g. iDE), is new to the livestock sector. Taking a multi-stakeholder approach involving farmers, vetinary services, government, and private sector companies has built up linkages that have enhanced better understanding of each others’ needs. One strategy that has been particularly innovative is the introduction of a user-pay system for farmers to pay VAHWs for training services. So far, farmers have been willing to pay but most stakeholders have reservations as to whether this will continue without NGO partner facilitation. This issue will be discussed further in the next section on sustainability below. In order to reduce the time spent on chicken feed preparation, the project has worked with students from the Agriculture University in Phnom Penh to research labor-saving techniques and develop some prototype, non-energy using, machines for chopping vegetation. However, these prototypes are still in an early stage of development and have not yet been widely tested.

Page 53

IV.6 Sustainability

Key questions addressed under this section: - To what extent are the links initiated/strengthened by the project likely to be sustained after the project ends (links between farmers in their LFN groups, links between farmer groups and VAHWs, links between vet shops and companies and VAHWs, links between OAHP and VAHWs/shops) - What factors have influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project? - Have the projects necessary pre-conditions to sustainability been well considered and supported, and has the project supported a clear exit strategy

IV.6.1 Extent to which links between different groups are likely to be sustained The table below analyzes the possible sustainability of the various links that have been promoted by the project: Table IV.6.1 – Sustainability of linkages SN Links Potential for sustainability 1 Members within LFNs The LFNs are a very loose network. That was the intention of the project as the partners’ experience showed that formal groups stop functioning when projects finish. Thus, while they don’t hold any formal meetings, the current informal sharing of experiences is likely to continue as the members all live close to each other and meet each other regularly. 2 LFNs and VAHWs So far the LFN members who have strongest linkages with their VAHWs are those that also raise pigs and cattle as well as chickens. These links have existed before the project and will continue as they rely on the VAHW for vaccinations and treatment. But for those who only raise chickens, their links with the VAHW have mostly been for training as those who vaccinate mostly do it themselves (they were trained by the VAHW to do this as the VAHWs deemed it a skill that farmers could do themselves). But as their flocks get bigger, they are more likely to require the VAHW to assist with this work and also to treat any diseases among their flocks. 3 Vet shops and Many of the vet shops are actually run by VAHWs – and the vetinary VAHWs skills of these shop owners is one of the reasons they get a lot of customers. VAHWs who don’t have their own shops need to access supplies so they will continue to link with the vet shops in their area 4 Vet shops and Vet shops are highly appreciative of the advice and support they get Companies from companies (particularly BKP and Medivet). These companies give them good service – they can order by phone and the company sends the products immediately; they provide advice on use of products and they are available any time by telephone if the shop has any questions. Thus these links are highly likely to continue 5 OAHPs and VAHWs OAHP at provincial level has limited opportunity (time or resources) to keep in regular contact with each VAHW but the important link is the District Vets. Even if they don’t go to every village regularly to meet the VAHWs, they attend monthly meetings with those who are members of VAs. Thus to ensure stronger linkages, developing or strengthening commune level VAs is an important element of ensuring links from VAHWs to the OAHP 6 OAHPs and shops Linkages are weak between these two groups. Due to the numerous shops in each province (or even district), and the limited number of OAHP staff, it is unlikely that they can spend any time monitoring products or services supplied 7 VAs and OAHPs See point 5 above

Page 54

IV.6.2 Factors that influenced sustainability From the perspective of linkages discussed above, the most important factor that will influence sustainability is common interest. In line with the market-based approach, if one party provides goods or services that the other party requires, and the quality and price is acceptable to them, they will continue to do business. For the sustainability of chicken raisers, critical issues are scale and quality. Farmers will continue to raise chickens as long as they make a profit. According to the VCA conducted by the project, the best profits come when farmers have a flock of at least 50 heads of fowl. But the biggest obstacle to profit is disease; this was also noted during the field action research conducted. Recommendations from this field research were that vaccinating chickens plus good bio-security is the best way to avoid or reduce disease. However, in spite of strong emphasis put on vaccinations during technical training, the adaption rate has been quite low and PIN and partners were interested to learn if there were some underlying reasons for this. Therefore they conducted a study on possible barriers to chicken vaccinations. Data from this study show some positive attitudes that should encourage vaccinations such as almost 100% of respondents saying there were no cultural taboos or community laws that would inhibit such practice. On the other hand 71% of those who currently vaccinate believe their chickens can still get the diseases they were vaccinated against; and remembering to vaccinate seems to be an issue, with 56% expressing some difficulty in remembering to vaccinate. As the study is only being finalized at the time of this evaluation, there has not yet been any dissemination or discussion about the impact of the findings. Market traders say there is no shortage of markets for good quality local chickens and this is supported by data issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. But these traders worry that the adoption of the techniques promoted by the project may transform the quality of chickens (from local, free range fowl into “farm chickens”). This is a perception that could be damaging to the market price the farmers will get for their chickens and the perception may be true if too many chickens are kept in a small area or too much market feed is given to the chickens. Farmers can overcome this problem if they can fence off a larger area so chickens are free to roam and provide enough natural vegetation in this area to attract edible insects like worms or termites. It has been noted already that LFNs are a very loose network; not a formal group. This is sustainable on the one hand because there is nothing to desist once the project finishes. On the other hand it is a lost opportunity to pool resources to aid access to capital. Some of the NGO partners have had good experience with Saving for Change (SfC) projects; adding this element at the formation of future LFNs (or if possible to existing LFNs) could assist the network to build the resources to expand their chicken raising. The project strategy of minimal physical inputs and concentration instead on capacity building has been a contributing factor to sustainability. In particular, the improved technical capacity of VAHWs, as well as their increased confidence in conducting training and disseminations, will be of benefit to farmers for many years. But, although farmers all expressed willingness to pay VAHWs for training (as long as the amount was relatively small), the majority of stakeholders had no confidence that this will happen without external facilitation. Possibly this view stems from the fact that such a practice is still a very new concept to them and they have only seen it work where there has been NGO partner facilitation; such user-pay trainings have not yet been initiated by the VAHWs themselves. Given these factors, the consultants consider that it is rather ambitious to expect many VAHWs to start initiating such user-pay trainings. What may be more sustainable would be to develop a small pool of skilled trainers (say 2 to 3 VAHWs) per commune and encourage the OAHP to ensure regular upgrading of their technical knowledge (via the District Vets) so that they have new and interesting topics to invite farmers to learn. The farmers will pay as long as the training is useful to them and somebody initiates it. Page 55

IV.6.3 Analysis of pre-conditions and exit strategy

Pre-conditions The box below shows the pre-conditions identified in the project design: General: The absence of major economic, political, or natural/environmental upheaval which would include the absence of major animal epidemics, civil unrest, large scale floods or droughts etc Specific: 1) Financial resources are available upon the start of the project. 2) Government's attitudes towards NGOs allow the applicant and its partners to implement proposed project. 3) Commune Councils and Village Chiefs are supportive of the establishment / strengthening LFNs during the project 4) Population in target areas is willing to change their livestock management and marketing practices and attend capacity building training sessions. 5) The absence of high levels of inflation / fluctuation of exchange rates to allow for a smooth implementation of the project without being forced to reduce several activities due to budget constraints

In relation to the general pre-condition, there were no economic, political or climatic events that had a significant bearing on the project. Partners reported some curtailment to their activities during the campaigning for the 2013 elections but it did not have a significant impact. Regarding climatic events, while there were no major floods or droughts during the period, increasing temperatures (and occasionally, very cold nights) over the last two years have been reported by farmers as a reason for the deaths of chickens. Specific pre-conditions 1, 2 and 3 were fulfilled. The HQ of PIN provided transfers timely to the project and PIN likewise provided funds on time to all partners. All levels of government, provincial, district, commune and village level were totally supportive of the project. For condition 4, farmers willing to change practices and attend training, in general this was the case – and for training in particular all target groups were more than willing to attend. But as noted in other sections of this report, not all techniques trained were totally adapted. Regarding the final pre-condition, while there was no significant inflation during the period, there was a significant reduction in the exchange rate between the Euro and the US Dollar. As the dollar is the main currency used in Cambodia and the budget was approved in Euros, this meant fewer dollars for the same amount of Euros. However, as the change happened gradually over the last two years of the project, PIN and partners were able to adapt and by only dropping some extra promotion events planned for non-target villages, the project was able to implement all the planned activities.

Exit Strategy The project strategy of focusing on capacity building, rather than physical inputs, as discussed above has, in addition to contributing to sustainability, also been an element of the exit strategy in that the project sought to minimize dependence on the implementing partners. As discussed under Table IV.2.2 above, the project included an exit strategy, with the local implementing partners being a key element. A specific result was designated to strengthening partners’ capacity to continue. Under this result partners were supported to Page 56 develop organizational capacity building plans. They were then allocated funds to implement priority aspects of these plans. These priorities included building their capacity on fund raising and proposal writing as well as improving their management and financial systems. Implementation of the project was also largely delegated to partners and that has helped to build their experience for future projects. The increased organizational capacity plus this practical implementation experience has given PIN the confidence to partner with some of these same NGO in developing a new proposal for a sub-contract from the Ministry of Agriculture (funded by the EU) which will continue to strengthen the livestock sector in these target provinces (as well as other provinces).

Page 57

V. Learnings, Recommendations & Conclusion

V.1 Learnings Some key learnings from the implementation of this project include:  To improve farmer livestock production, the presence of an active VAHW is essential; where existing VAHWs are found to be too busy with other occupations or not so interested in helping poorer farmers, the OAHP should be encouraged to select alternatives  All stakeholders felt that providing in-kind support has been more effective than providing cash  It is possible to encourage people to pay VAHWs for training (but it still requires someone to take the initiative)  A well organized, participatory M&E system made it easier to monitor the project  Involvement of VAHWs in monitoring and data collection provides a good opportunity for them to interact regularly with the farmers and the data provides them with information that is useful to them as well as to the project holders  During forums organized under Phase 2, certificates of accomplishment were given to outstanding farmers and VAHWs – this is a very good way to encourage those who perform well and acts as a stimulus for others to replicate what they have done

V.2 Recommendations As the findings from this evaluation have generally been very positive and the project has achieved its objectives, there are not many recommendations. Those noted are intended to assist PIN and partners in their reflection on future project design. Of course PIN and partners are not obliged to accept any or all of the recommendations if they have good justification for not doing so. The recommendations are combined under three main headings: Duration & targeting; Program strategy; and Technical issues. Although many of the issues leading to the recommendation have already been discussed elsewhere in this report, a short background description is given prior to the recommendation. Discussion on issue Recommendation A. Duration and targeting Although this project had a 3.5 year duration which seems a 1. Duration of future projects reasonable timeframe to implement the scope of activities should ensure that there is planned, the division into two phases meant only about 1.5 at least two years of follow years for each phase, including the selection, training and up and support after follow up with target HHs. While the consultants understand training and other inputs that timing of projects is often dictated by available funding have been provided mechanisms, if possible future projects should allow more time to support and monitor the activities. Coverage of all villages in selected communes aids OAHP to 2. Targeting should ensure develop full linkages; if some villages are strengthened and that all villages in selected others are not, it is difficult for OAHP to develop standard communes are covered appoaches. Also, having at least 1 or 2 LNFs in any village can help to promote the project techniques B. Program strategy As the OAHP is the key institution in the provinces responsible 3. Sub-contract for livestock production, future projects should partner more implementation of the closely with them. The current project sub-contracted aspects project to OAHP as the of the project to local NGOs who worked in cooperation with key implementing OAHPs; it would be more sustainable if future projects worked partner,(in cooperation the other way around. with local NGO partners)

Page 58

Discussion on issue Recommendation Some of the local NGO partners have good experience with 4. Encourage LFNs to savings groups (e.g. Saving for Change implemented by develop a savings EPDO). If future projects could add such a saving element to component (e.g. like the the LFNs, it would bring the members together on a more Saving for Change regular basis to share experiences as well as building up a projects of local partners) savings fund. Creating a habit of saving is in itself a good practice and these savings may later help members to buy shares in a Farmers’ Cooperative (see recommendation 9 below) Encouraging all families to vaccinate chickens has been a 5. Promote chicken challenge for the project and, as the study on barriers noted, vaccination campaigns at there are a number of reasons why this is so. But chicken least every two months, mortality (especially young chicks) is still at unacceptably high using focal women levels. Future projects should promote regular chicken vaccination promoters vaccination campaigns (similar to the cow/buffalo campaigns rather than busy VAHWs conducted annually by the OAHP – and the endline survey showed 100% vaccination of cattle). These would need to be more frequent than cattle vaccinations, at least every two months. It is unlikely that all (or any) VAHWs will be too interested in this as their main concerns are pigs and cattle so the project should consider selected focal women vaccinators. The project has good experience introducing user-pay for 6. Develop a pool of trainers training but most respondents to the evaluation don’t believe it per commune (or district) will work without the NGO facilitation. The consultants agree that can conduct quality with them that it certainly needs an initiator. Preferably that training that farmers are person would be the VAHW – e.g. he/she receives some new willing to pay for training or technical information, invites farmers to hear about it and suggests a contribution to cover his/her time and expenses. But the VAHWs differ in capacity (especially training and dissemination capacity). It may be better to focus on a few key trainers per commune (or district) that could conduct quality training that farmers would be willing to pay for (other VAHWs would still continue to provide their normal vetinary services). New information and technical innovations are often known to 7. Further capacity building the OAHPs (from the Ministry) and their main contact with of VAs on record keeping VAHWs is the district vet (or vets, but for many districts there and financial management is only one). But these district vets don’t have the time or (and simplify the recording resources to meet with all VAHWs. For communes that have system) VAs, they have good opportunity to consult with the district vet as he normally attends their monthly meetings. Therefore supporting the establishment of VAs in all communes would 8. Expand VAs to all ensure that VAHWs have this link to higher levels of livestock communes authority. But even for those communes that have VAs already, there is still a lack of capacity on financial management and they complain of too many forms that they 9. Support OAHP and don’t understand. The OAHPs rightly point out that these VAs partners to form Farmers are not fully recognized as associations with legal structure. A Cooperatives next step would be (after they have strengthened their financial incorporating VAs and systems) to upgrade them as Agriculture (or Farmers’) LFNs/other farmers Cooperatives. This would give them legal status to access support and funding but the membership base could be broadened beyond only VAHWs to include interested LFN members (or other farmers)

Page 59

Discussion on issue Recommendation VAs and shops all expressed an issue with lack of capital to 10. Future projects should expand their businesses. The CLIMAD project was most include another linkage: successful due to its multi-stakeholder approach. But one financing institutions (e.g. aspect missing was possible financing institutions. As VAs MFIs) that can provide and shops expand their activities they often need access to capital to shops and capital. It would be in line with the market-based approach for VAs/Cooperatives PIN and partners to help build links with relevant MFIs to provide opportunities for credit access. Finding good quality chicks to raise is often a problem for 11. Support the establishment many of the farmers. They say it is difficult to know what type of chicken hatcheries in at of chicken it will turn out to be. In order to ensure that farmers least every 2-3 are raising the best breeds that bring high market prices, communes, preferably as supporting VAs to establish chicken hatcheries would benefit an activity of the VAs the farmers and also the VAs (or future Cooperatives) C. Technical issues Many LFN members (both from Phase 1 and Phase 2) 12. Promote the use of wire reported that the nets they bought (or received) did not last mesh for chicken coops long because dogs, rats and other animals can break through instead of netting the netting. So many have since stopped using netting. For future projects, stronger material such as wire mesh (already bought by some farmers) should be promoted instead Market traders raised some important issues in relation to the 13. Ensure farmers make a techniques promoted by CLIMAD – in particular related to large protected area (with keepinng in coops and feeding quality. They worried that natural vegetation) to LFNs chickens were moving away from “local“ to “farm“ allow chickens to forage chickens. Their perceptions are very important as they are the naturally ultimate buyers (either direct from farmers or from the middle men in the village). They agree that it is good to keep small chicks in coops for a while but feel the chickens should be allowed to roam free for a while before selling. They say that when kept constantly in a confined space, they pluck each other’s feathers out – and this makes it difficult for de- feathering later with machine (the flesh gets damaged). These issues could be overcome by farmer creating a larger “recreation“ space for their chickens. The second issue related to food. The traders worry that the quality of meat is not as tasty as local chickens if the farmers use too much market or commercial food. The project already promotes the inclusion of vegetables and fish (and if possible woms and termites but not many farmers have yet done this). But if the enlarged “recreation“ area is well covered with natural vegetation, the chickens should have ample opportunities for natural foraging. Apart from the low percentage of farmers that actually 14. Promote use of good vaccinate their chickens, often those who do so use low quality quality chicken vaccines untrustworthy vaccines imported (often illegally) from Vietnam. through cost/benefit If, after vaccinating, the farmer still experiences high mortality, analysis with farmers he/she is unlikely to spend time and money to vaccinate in the future. But if farmers use good quality vaccines and see the level of protection they get from those, it is likely they can be convinced to spend this (relatively small) amount). It would be reasonably easy to facilitate cost/benefit analysis on this issue with farmers as the project already has experience doing business planning with farmers.

Page 60

Discussion on issue Recommendation From discussions with farmers, it appears that they have 15. Put more focus on farmer limited time to monitor frequently enough to identify and extract monitoring to quickly sick chickens so they can isolate them. Putting more extract sick emphasis on this aspect could save a lot of chickens – the sick chicks/chickens and ones by being given “special” treatment and the others by isolate them avoiding catching the sickness. The OAHPs, shops and VAHWs all expressed problems with 16. Advocate with MAFF for the use of vetinary products that do not have Khmer language translations of instructions instructions on contents and directions for usage. They all feel into Khmer language for this is a national issue that should be taken up by the Ministry. all vetinary products sold In future project, PIN could use its influence to advocate on in Cambodia this issue.

V.3 Conclusion

The CLIMAD project concluded with a lot of success, reaching out to even more beneficiaries than intended. There are many farmers in the 155 villages targeted that are now better off than before, with more income to meet their needs. They are more secure and confident in the capacity of their VAHWs to provide the vetinary services they require and they have good knowledge of a number of market traders to ensure they get a fair price when they sell. The VAHWs can access all the supplies they require from well-managed shops and those shops have good contacts with companies who provide them with any advice they require. If all these stakeholders on the chicken value chain continue, and expand, their activities and services, they can look forward to an even more secure livelihood in the future. If PIN and partners can build on these successes, taking into consideration the recommendations above, the benefits can be extended to many other communities if donors are willing to support them. In conclusion, the consultants thank all those who gave up their valuable time to participate in this evaluation and wish all stakeholders success with their activities to support a vibrant, environmentally sensitive, livestock sector in Cambodia.

Page 61

Terms of Reference for External Final Evaluation

Community Livestock Market Development (CLIMAD) project

1. Project Background Community Livestock Market Development (CLIMAD) project engages the private sector, civil society organizations and relevant authorities in reducing the poverty of 30,000 livestock smallholders living in 205 villages of Pursat and Kampong Chhnang provinces. CLIMAD’s team is working to enable local veterinarians, veterinary companies and local shops to improve the quality, accessibility and demand for private, community-based veterinary and marketing services. As a result, farmers are able to boost their incomes from livestock production while service providers increase their profits, generating lasting win-win solutions for addressing livestock smallholders’ needs. At the same time, CLIMAD ensures that the promoted livestock raising practices are environmentally sensitive and benefit the key animal caretakers – women and youth. Close cooperation with the Commune Councils furthermore enables farmers to advocate for the support they need.

CLIMAD is implemented by a Czech NGO People in Need (PIN) with the financial support of the European Union and the Czech Development Agency. PIN partners with and supports the capacities of its key national partners – AARR, EPDO, PNKA, SORF and TDSP – and actively cooperates with the Provincial Offices of Animal Health and Production and MAFF. With a duration of 3.5 years, total budget of 1.4 million USD and a team of 34 staff, CLIMAD belongs among the largest livestock market development projects in Cambodia. The projects Overall Objective is: To contribute to reduction of poverty of vulnerable rural households by strengthening CSOs and private sector’s capacity to sustainably promote, facilitate and support women’s economic empowerment and inclusion in decision-making as well as engaging youth in rural economic opportunities. The projects Specific Objective is: By mid-2016, 17,200 poor farmers (at least 12,900 women and youth) have sustainably improved their livelihoods while not undermining their natural environment due to enhanced demand for and supply of community-based veterinary, animal husbandry and marketing services. People in Need (PIN) is a Czech non-governmental organization providing relief and development assistance in developing countries while working to defend democratic freedoms. PIN has worked in Cambodia since 2008, supporting the implementation of the Royal Government of Cambodia's development priorities in 3 sectors: market development for improved livelihoods and environmental protection; maternal and child health with a special focus on nutrition and newborns; and disaster preparedness and response. PIN closely cooperates with 8 local partner NGOs, and relevant Government departments.

Purpose and Objective of the Evaluation CLIMAD is implemented in two phases. The first phase commenced in March 2013 and went until the end of December 2015, targeting 88 villages in 4 districts: - Krakor and Bakan in Pursat - Boribor and Rolear Phaer in Kampong Chhnang.

Page 62

Phase 2 started in December 2014 until July 2016 and was implemented in 6 districts: - Kandieng, Krong Pursat and Krakor in Pursat - Boribor, Rolear Phaer and Kampong Tuk Phos in Kampong Chhnang.

The purpose of the evaluation

The overall objective of the final evaluation is to make an overall independent assessment of the project performance, paying particular attention to the impact of the project actions against its objectives. It is also to identify key lessons and to propose practical recommendations that will enable PIN, its partners and other stakeholders to enhance the impact of future, similarly-focused programs.

General objectives

The objective of the evaluation is to:  Evaluate the CLIMAD project focusing on the main evaluation criteria and principles set out in the DAC evaluation quality standards (comprised of Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability)  Propose recommendations for future project implementation and scale up

2. Scope and focus of the evaluation: 2.1 Evaluation The consultant will have to analyze CLIMAD project according to the following criteria: Relevance and quality of design: - To what extent have the project objectives been in line with the problems, real needs and priorities of target groups / beneficiaries? - To what extent the project design/intervention logic has allowed the project to achieve its objectives? - The extent to which the nature of the problems originally identified (at project design stage) have changed during project implementation Effectiveness - To what extent have the expected results and objectives of the project been achieved - What were the major factors influencing the achievement and non-achievement of the objectives? - From an effectiveness perspective, which activities should be strengthened in future interventions / scale up, and which on the contrary limited Efficiency - To what extent was the project implementation cost-efficient? - From a cost-efficiency perspective, which activities and their components should be strengthened in future interventions / scale up, and which on the contrary limited Impact: - What long-term changes positive or negative are likely to take place as a result of the project? What is the evidence? - What is the impact of the project on the different target groups, and how has the situation of these groups changed - Is there any evidence of innovative ideas, behaviour or action amongst the target beneficiary group

Page 63

Sustainability: - To what extent are the links initiated/strengthened by the project likely to be sustained after the project ends (links between farmers in their LFN groups, links between farmer groups and VAHWs, links between vet shops and companies and VAHWs, links between OAHP and VAHWs/shops) - What factors have influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project? - Have the projects necessary pre-conditions to sustainability been well considered and supported, and has the project supported a clear exit strategy

Methodology of project implementation: - Target group – To what extent have the beneficiaries been well identified? What selection criteria would be recommended for future interventions? - Participatory methodology – To what extent have all relevant stakeholders been involved in planning and implementation? - Assess the extent to which the project has been able to implement and act on the recommendations detailed in the external mid-term evaluation, and the Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) review. - Gender – were gender aspects considered and sufficiently addressed during project implementation? - Visibility – Has the projects communication and visibility plan been well implemented

2.2 Workshop Before finalizing the evaluation report, the consultant will facilitate a workshop to present the main conclusions of the evaluation to PIN, its partners and other key project stakeholders. The conclusions of the workshop will be integrated to the final report.

3. Stakeholder involvement and methodology: PIN will recruit Evaluation Consultant(s) externally to carry out the evaluation. Additionally, PIN will assign an Evaluation manager (Livelihoods and Environment Program Manager) who will represent PIN during the evaluation. Participatory evaluation should be an integral component of evaluation design and planning as well as information collection and findings. The consultants are also expected to use a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods and work with primary and secondary data sources. The Evaluation manager will be responsible for: . Overall responsibility and accountability for the evaluation. . Guidance throughout all phases of execution. . Approval of all deliverables. . Co-ordination of the PIN‘s internal review process. The Evaluation Consultant will be responsible for: . conducting the evaluation; . the day–to–day management of operations; . regular progress reporting to PIN’s evaluation manager; . the development of results . the production of deliverables in accordance with contractual requirements.

The Consultant will report to PIN's evaluation manager.

Page 64

4. Methodology The consultant will have to present a clear methodology that is discussed and approved by People in Need. The offer has to include a detailed budget as well as a calendar of the evaluation including: preparation, field work, workshop, debriefing and report delivery. The consultant will have to study existing reports or information on the subject concerning Cambodia and other livestock/market-based interventions in a similar context or with a similar approach.

The evaluation will be carried out in conformity with the principles, standards and practices set out in the DAC evaluation quality standards. The consultant is expected to conduct a participatory evaluation providing for active and meaningful involvement by beneficiaries and other stakeholders.

Following the conclusion of the fieldwork, the consultant will be expected to lead a workshop with CLIMAD stakeholders to present the conclusions of the evaluation, and gain inputs from stakeholders to help validate the findings.

5. Deliverables

The Consultant will prepare an evaluation workplan and a final evaluation report that will describe the evaluation and include evaluator’s findings and recommendations. The consultant will also have to present the findings during a workshop with PIN, its partners and other CLIMAD stakeholders.

These deliverables are to be: . Prepared in English only . Submitted to PIN electronically via e-mail . Submitted in hard copy format

6. Evaluator qualifications:

The evaluation will be carried out by external consultant. As part of the application it is recommended that the consultant submits his/her educational qualifications, along with the number of years of relevant work experience.

The Consultant is expected to be: . A reliable consultant with experience conducting evaluations, and a proven track record in delivering professional results . Experience working in Cambodia or the region . Experience working in the livestock sector . Experience evaluating and/or implementing projects that utilise market-based approaches Please note that: . Travel from office to the field will be arranged by PIN . Required equipment (laptop etc.) is to be provided by the evaluator . Insurance costs will not be covered, the evaluator shall manage their own insurance and provide the details of this cover to PIN before starting the assignment . National staff will support the external consultant during the field visit

Page 65

7. Resources and time allocated: Expected Start Date: Early July 2016 End Date: Late July 2016 Workshop: Early August 2016 Submission of Final Report: Mid to Late August 2016

List of the relevant project documents: . Project proposal . Interim Reports . Baseline and endline data . External Mid-term evaluation . PIN and partners formative research reports: Usage, Attitude and Image Survey, Business Competence Survey of Private Veterinary Services, Smallholder Chicken Value Chain Analysis, other relevant reports Approximate budget allocation: 7500 USD

8. Application Process:

Interested applicants should send an updated CV and Cover Letter to Julien Brewster including a detailed technical and financial proposal with the following components: 1. Methodology of how the evaluation will be conducted to meet the objectives detailed in this TOR 2. Time and activity schedule 3. Budget for the entire consultancy 4. An example of previous similar work Deadline for the applications: 13th of July 2016

Contact: For any clarifications required, please contact:

Julien Brewster Livelihoods and Environment Program Manager in Cambodia Phone: +855 88 965 3692 Email: [email protected]

Page 66

Final Evaluation of CLIMAD project Interview Guide

Topics to guide the qualitative interviews (KIIs and FGDs) are attached for the following groups of respondents:

1. Provincial Department of Agriculture (OAHP) 2. Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs) 3. Vet’s Associations 4. Livestock Farmer Network (LFN) groups/members 5. Livestock Market Traders 6. Suppliers/retailers of vetinary products/services 7. Commune Councils 8. Local NGO implementing partners 9. PIN project team 10. Companies in PNP

Page 67

1. Provincial Department of Agriculture (OAHP)

A. Animal raising in the province 1. General statistics on animals raised in the province (types, % of HHs raising, scale of production) 2. Which animals are most important to the poorer HHs (and why)? 3. What does D/OAHP observe to be the main roles of women in livestock raising (and how do these differ from men)? 4. How important is livestock raising compared to other income generation options (for poorer HHs)? 5. Value chain (from farm to customer, who is involved in the sale/purchase of the different types of animals, how do prices vary across the chain and vary per season – explore for each type) 6. What are the main constraints faced by HHs raising animals (and how does the D/OAHP respond to these constraints)?

B. The CLIMAD project 1. What does D/OAHP understand about the CLIMAD project (objectives, target area, implementing partners, etc.)? 2. How has D/OAHP been involved with this project (main activities)? 3. What does D/OAHP feel are the main strengths of the CLIMAD project? 4. What do they think are weaknesses or areas that could have been done better (or areas that were not addressed)? 5. Are there other projects in the province addressing livestock issues (if so, which ones and what are they doing)? 6. How does D/OAHP manage coordination among agencies supporting the livestock sector (frequency of meetings, forums, etc.)? 7. Has the CLIMAD project helped to strengthen the D/OAHP (if so, how)?

C. Government vets and VAHWs 1. How many government vetinary staff are there at Provincial, District and Commune level in this province? 2. What training has been provided to these government staff (content, frequency)? 3. How many VAHWs have been recognized by the D/OAHP? How were these selected? 4. Are there sufficient VAHWs to serve all farmers – or are there too many VAHWs? 5. What training has been provided to the VAHWs by the D/OAHP? What training has been provided by other agencies (who, what, when)? 6. How does D/OAHP rate the quality of services provided to farmers by the VAHWs? 7. What are the main constraints faced by VAHWs (and how does D/OAHP respond to these constraints)? 8. How would D/OAHP rate the VAHWs supported by the CLIMAD project compared to other VAHWs (explore reasons in detail)? 9. What is your view on the user-pays training system (farmers pay VAHWs for training received) the project has supported, is this a viable solution to improve livestock extension services in Cambodia?

D. Vet Associations (VAs) 1. How many VAs have been formed in this province? On average, how many members in each VA? How many of these are supported by the CLIMAD project? 2. What support has D/OAHP provided to these VAs? 3. What are the main activities carried out by these VAs? Are these activities the most important to their members or should they be doing anything else/different? 4. Do VAs make reports to the D/OAHP (if so, how frequently and are there specific formats for such reports)? Page 68

5. What constraints do VAs face (and how does D/OAHP respond to these constraints)? 6. What % of these VAs does D/OAHP feel are strong and can sustain themselves in the future without support? 7. If there are some VAs that D/OAHP feels cannot sustain themselves, what more needs to be done to strengthen them?

E. LFNs (Livestock Farmer Networks) 1. Which districts and communes of the province have LFNs (Livestock Farmer Networks)? 2. What was the process of formation of these LFNs (who initiated, how were members identified) 3. Were these all formed under the CLIMAD project or were some formed by others? 4. How has the D/OAHP been involved to date with these LFNs (e.g. training, meetings, monitoring)? 5. What constraints do LFNs face (and how does D/OAHP respond to these constraints)? 6. Has D/OAHP addressed issues raised through District Farmer Forums – how many Forums conducted; what issues were raised; how were they addressed (or if not addressed, why)? 7. Has D/OAHP addressed any livestock issues raised through CIPs – what issues were raised; how were they addressed (or if not addressed, why)? 8. What does D/OAHP think is the benefit of having LFNs (as opposed to farmers working individually)? 9. How does D/OAHP rate the technical competency of LFN members compared to other farmers (if better, why/what are they doing better; if not as good, why/what are they not doing so well)?

F. Private sector retailers/suppliers 1. Who are the main providers of inputs to farmers raising livestock (within the province or from outside)? 2. Are these providers accessible to all farmers (distance, capacity to buy)? 3. Can these providers meet the demand of farmers (if not, why and what is missing? 4. How does D/OAHP feel about the quality of the inputs provided (discuss separately for each type of provider)? 5. How has the CLIMAD project been involved with these suppliers (and how has it impacted on their services)? 6. How good is the cool-chain for veterinary products in the province now; has the project had any impact on this? 7. What is the relation between D/OAHP and suppliers of vetinary products (do they do any monitoring or spot-checks on quality or storage facilities)?

G. Suggestions, recommendations & final comments 1. Does D/OAHP believe the project’s impacts will be sustainable, and if so/not, why? 2. Are the links established between VAHWs and LFN groups (with VAHWs providing veterinary services, trainings, marketing services to LFNs) likely to continue after the project ends? 3. If a similar project was to be done again, what changes would D/OAHP like to make (to processes, targeting or types of activities)? 4. Other recommendations (addressed to whom)? 5. Is there anything else you would like to tell me (that we did not cover already)?

Page 69

2. Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs)

A Animal raising in the commune 1. General statistics on animals raised in the commune (types, % of HHs raising, scale of production) 2. Which animals are most important to the poorer HHs (and why)? 3. What do VAHWs observe to be the main roles of women in livestock raising (and how do these differ from men)? 4. How much are youth involved in animal raising (if not so much, why)? 5. How important is livestock raising compared to other income generation options (for poorer HHs)? 6. What do the VAHWs see as the main constraints faced by HHs raising animals? 7. Deleted

B Vetinary services/customers 1. How many VAHWs are there in this commune (for how many villages)? 2. What other vetinary services are available to farmers? 3. Are there enough (or too many) vetinary service providers (gave reason for answer)? 4. How were VAHWs selected (by whom, when)? 5. On average, what percentage of VAHWs time is spent on provision of vetinary services compared to their other agriculture or business activities? Does income earned reflect this percentage? 6. What training or other support have they received since selection? What specific support have they received from the CLIMAD project? 7. Number of clients served by VAHWs (before start of CLIMAD and current) – if changed (positively or negatively) what are the main reasons for the change? What % of clients are members of LFNs? What % of clients are female? What % are youth? 8. Which services are most often requested to VAHWs from farmers (list for different types of livestock)? 9. Has the CLIMAD project enabled VAHWs to provide any new types of services to farmers, and if so, which ones? 10. Are there any requests for services from farmers that the VAHWs cannot provide (if so, why not)? 11. How much do VAHWs charge for their services (check for each type of service)? Do VAHWs feel these fees are reasonable (if not, why)? Are farmers willing to pay (and do they pay on time)? 12. What about payments for training of farmers by VAHWs – are farmers willing to pay for training? If so, how does this impact on the effectiveness of the training?

C VAHWs views on LFNs 1. How would the VAHWs classify the LFNs supported by the CLIMAD project as regards poverty status in their villages (% poor; % medium; % better-off)? 2. Do VAHWs feel that the CLIMAD project is focusing on the right group of farmers? Are there other farmers that would be a better target group? 3. From the observation of the VAHWs, after receiving training from the CLIMAD project, what % of LFN members actually put the training into good practice? 4. What % of LFN members practice good bio-security on their farms? If not all practice, what are the main reasons why they don’t? 5. From observation of the VAHWs, what % of LFN members practice improved marketing techniques (check a range of market prices, collective sales venue, etc.)? 6. How many of the VAHWs have a model farm (with good husbandry, bio-security, practices) to demonstrate to villagers?

Page 70

D Acquiring vetinary supplies 1. Where do VAHWs normally purchase their supplies (list per type of products)? 2. Do VAHWs buy collectively or individually? 3. What do the VAHWs feel about the quality of the products they buy (answer for different types of products/suppliers)? 4. Are there any products (or services) that VAHWs want but suppliers cannot provide (if so, why not)? 5. After acquiring vetinary supplies, how do the VAHWs store these before selling (or using during treatment) to farmers?

E Vet Associations (VA) 1. Are VAHWs members of a VA? 2. What is the purpose of the VA and what do members/leaders do? How do members feel about the quality of VA leadership? 3. What do VAHWs have to pay to be a member (once-off payment or regular payments)? 4. How does membership of the VA help the work of the VAHWs? 5. What activities of the VA are most useful to the VAHWs (and why)? 6. Have they experienced any problems with their VA? 7. What more needs to be done to make the VA stronger (or more relevant to the needs of the members)?

F Linkages and networking 1. Apart from the VA and suppliers mentioned already, what other groups do the VAHW have linkages with? 2. How would the VAHWs rate the support they get from D/OAHP/District or Commune Vets? Describe what type of support and how it benefits them. 3. What, if any, relationship do the VAHWs have with their Commune Councils? Do VAHWs take part in the commune planning process? 4. Do the VAHWs believe that farmers (LFN members) will continue to be interested in purchasing training services from them, for a fee, after the end of the CLIMAD project? 5. How would the VAHWs describe the support/advice they receive from veterinary companies (describe the support and how it benefits them)? 6. What is the VAHWs view on the participatory monitoring system that the project supported? Was the data that was collected useful to the VAHWs work/business development? Did this system help the VAHW develop stronger relationships with LFN members, and gain new clients?

G Change as a result of CLIMAD project 1. How would VAHWs compare their capacity before CLIMAD project and now (if different, why)? 2. How does income earned by VAHWs now compare to income before CLIMAD project (if changed, what are the main reasons)? 3. What are the main changes the VAHWs have observed among farmers as a result of the project (positive or negative)? 4. Has the project improved the lives of women in any specific ways? What about their role as decision-makers in the community – has that changed in any way (give examples)?

H Suggestions, recommendations & final comments 1. If a similar project (to the CLIMAD one) was to be done again, what changes would the VAHWs like to make (to processes, targeting or types of activities)? 2. Other recommendations (addressed to whom)? 3. Is there anything else you would like to tell me (that we did not cover already)?

Page 71

3. Vet’s Associations (VAs)

A Formation and membership 1. When was this VA established? 2. What was the process of formation (whose idea; who supported)? 3. How many members are there in the VA (how many females)? Has membership changed since formation? Are all members VAHWs? 4. Is the VA registered with the D/OAHP?

B Activities & support from CLIMAD/Others 1. What are the main functions of the VA (describe in detail)? 2. What support has VA received from CLIMAD project (training, material, etc.)? 3. Have they received support from any other source (describe)? 4. How has the support enabled them to perform their key functions? 5. What, if any, challenges have they faced to date? 6. Do you have relations with the D/OAHP? If so, in what ways do they relate with you and how do you feel about this relationship? Does the VA have to make reports to the D/OAHP (if so, are reports in writing; how frequently do they need to report)? 7. Do you have relations with your Commune Council? If so, in what ways do they relate with you and how do you feel about this relationship?

C Financial situation 1. How much do members save (per month or other frequency)? 2. Do they earn other income besides member savings? 3. What is the total income of the VA to date? 4. What expenditure has the VA incurred to date (list types and amounts)? 5. What is the current fund balance of the VA? Where is its kept (cash/bank/other)? 6. Have the VA encountered any problems with financial management?

D Changes/impact 1. What are the main changes you have observed in the functioning of the VA over the last three (or if newer, since formation) years? 2. Do you think that the VA has helped to improve the services of the members to the farmers in their villages (if so, how; if not, why)?

E Suggestions, recommendations & final comments 1. What more do you think needs to be done to make your VA more sustainable? 2. Any other recommendations (mention to whom)? 3. Is there anything else you would like to tell me (that we did not cover already)?

Page 72

4. Livestock Farmer Network (LFN) members

A Introduction 1. What are the most important types of occupations generally in the village? What about for the LFN members (current respondents)? 2. How important is livestock raising (give reasons)? 3. How important is chicken raising in particular (especially for poorer HHs)? 4. On average what portion of LFN members’ income comes from livestock raising? 5. What are the roles of family members (adult males, females or children) in taking care of animals (check about different types of animals)?

B Formation of the LFNs 1. When were LFNs formed in this village? (If members are from different LFNs, check for each one separately) 2. What was the process of formation (why was it formed; who initiated; who participated; what were the criteria for selection as LFN members) 3. How many members in each LFN (male/female; youth members – U-25 years)? Have membership numbers changed since formation (if so, why)? 4. What is the structure of the LFN (leader, deputy, secretary etc. etc.)? What are the roles and responsibilities of each (are these in writing)? 5. Do the LFNs have internal rules and regulations for managing the LFN? (are these in writing)? Do members generally follow the agreed rules (if they don’t what happens)?

C Training & support 1. What types of training have LFNs received since formation (list topics, duration, trained by whom)? 2. How have these trainings helped LFN members with their livestock raising (if so how; if not, why not)? Have they been able to apply what they learnt (if not, why?) 3. Apart from training, have LFN members received any other types of support (if so, what and from whom – check cost/value of any items supplied)? Check if any repayments are necessary (if so, when and to whom?). 4. Have any of the groups here contributed some of their own money to join a training from VAHWs? If yes, what are your views on this user-pays system? Did you notice any improvements in the quality of the training? Would you be happy to continue doing this in the future?

D LFN activities 1. What types of animals do LFN members raise (which type is most frequently raised by most respondents)? 2. Have members faced any problems with their animal raising since forming the LFN (if so, how did they solve)? 3. How often do LFN members meet (officially; unofficially)? If official meetings, do they keep minutes of their meetings? 4. Do members exchange experience/know-how with each other about livestock raising? How does this take place and how frequently? 5. Do LFN group members jointly procure vetinary services and products or does each member do individually? [Explore reasons for answer in respect of different products/services] 6. Among the livestock management techniques promoted by CLIMAD (pen construction, separation by age of animals, feeding, bio-security measures, timing of production to match market demand), which have been the most difficult to apply (and why)? 7. Do LFN members share livestock marketing information (if so, how and what type of information)? 8. Since participation in the LFN has there been any reduction in mortality rates of livestock (if so, why; if not, why not – explore for different types of livestock? Page 73

9. How many of the LFN members feel that they practice good bio-security on their farms? 10. Do they sell animals collectively or individually? [Explore reasons for answer] 11. Do buyers come to their farm or they have to take their animals to the buyer? 12. How do they know who are good buyers and what should be the market price? Has the project helped you to better understand the demands of market traders (e.g. regarding the quality of livestock produce)? 13. Since participation in the LFN have member incomes from animal raising increased (if so, why; if not, why not – explore for different types of livestock)? 14. Have LFN members attended any commune forums or commune planning activities (e.g. CIP process) over the last two years? If so, what was the result; what benefits did they see from attending these activities?

E Vetinary and extension services 1. Where do LFN members usually procure vetinary products/services? [Explore for different types – vaccinations, de-worming, treatment of diseases, advice on husbandry techniques – for different types of animals] 2. How many of the LFN members (present at the meeting) vaccinate their animals (check for each type of animal)? 3. How many VAHWs in the village? How do members feel about the services of their VAHW (easy to contact; quick service; good advice; etc.)? 4. Are there services you require that the VAHWs cannot provide (if so, why not)? 5. What fees do LFN members pay for VAHW services (check per service type)? Do members feel these fees are reasonable cost (if not, why)?

F Change as a result of CLIMAD project 1. What are the main changes the LFNs have observed in livestock management as a result of the project (positive or negative)? 2. Has the project improved the lives of women in any specific ways? What about their role as decision-makers in the community – has that changed in any way (give examples)?

G Suggestions, recommendations & final comments 1. If a similar project (to the CLIMAD one) was to be done again, what changes would the LFNs like to make (to processes, targeting or types of activities)? 2. Other recommendations (addressed to whom)? 3. Is there anything else you would like to tell me (that we did not cover already)?

Page 74

5. Livestock Market Traders

A Introduction 1. What types of animals do you trade in? 2. What is the geographical area that you cover? 3. Who are your main customers to buy the animals? 4. Is your trade in live animals or do you sell animal meat?

B Demand for livestock 1. What are the quantity requirements (for each type of animal) that your customers require per month? 2. Do your customers have specific quality requirements (discuss per animal type)? 3. Do you face any problems meeting the above requirements (quantity/quality)? If so, what type of problems and how could they be overcome?

C Supply of livestock 1. How many farmers supply to you within your geographical area? 2. How do you organize the purchase of animals from these farmers? 3. What benefits do you see from collective purchasing of animals (for you and for the farmer)? 4. What are the main problems you face in purchasing from farmers (and how can these problems be overcome)?

D Pricing 1. Who sets the market price for different livestock? Who do you contact to know what prices you can offer to customers? 2. What profit margin do you decide on for each type of animal? How much space is there for the customer to bargain with you? 3. Do you think it is possible for prices of local breed chickens to compete with hybrid chickens?

E Working with CLIMAD project 1. Have you been involved with the CLIMAD project (if so, describe what kind of activities you were involved with)? 2. Have you participated in any collective purchasing of livestock (especially chickens) from farmers? If so, what do you think were the benefits of such collective sales? 3. Do you think that LFN members are now clearer on their quality demands compared to before the project (or compared to other non-LFN farmers they buy produce from)?

F Suggestions, recommendations & final comments 1. What more do you think needs to be done to ensure sufficient, high quality, local chickens to meet market demand (and by whom)? 2. Any other recommendations (mention to whom)? 3. Is there anything else you would like to tell me (that we did not cover already)?

Page 75

6. Suppliers/retailers of vetinary products/services

A Suppliers in the region 1. How many shops are there in this area (specify district/commune as appropriate) that supply vetinary products/services (name each type of shop/supplier)? 2. What types of products/services do they each supply? 3. What types of vetinary products do you (respondent to interview) sell/supply? 4. What is your coverage area (how far away do customers come)? 5. Do you sell other things besides vetinary products (if so, what)? 6. Do you think there are enough suppliers of vetinary products to serve all the farmers in this area (if yes, why; if not, why not)?

B Training/support received 1. What training did you get to enable you to run this business? When, where, about what and from whom? 2. Do you know about the CLIMAD project? Did you get any training or other support from this project (if so, describe what and how has it helped your business)? 3. Has the CLIMAD project enabled you to gain access to new technical advice or experience from any national veterinary companies? if so, which ones, and what types of advice? 4. Do you have relations with the D/OAHP? If so, in what ways do they relate with you and how do you feel about this relationship?

C Source of supplies 1. Where do you source your products? How many different companies/suppliers sell products to you (detail for different product types)? 2. How do you decide where to buy your products (what influences your decision)? 3. Have you experienced any problems with sourcing supplies (if so, what kind)? 4. Are you happy with the quality of products that you buy (check for different products)? 5. Do your suppliers advise you on the use of the products they sell you? Do you have to ask specifically for advice or do they provide it willingly/freely? 6. Do suppliers tell you about new products that you may be interested in stocking?

D Stock management 1. How are your supplies stored in your shop? (observe in practice) 2. How often does your stock revolve (what are the fastest revolving items)? 3. Is there cool-storage for vaccines or other perishable items (does it have electricity supply 24 hours a day)? What do you do if the electricity cuts out

E Customers & services provided 1. Who are your main customers (e.g. individual farmers, VAHWs, government vets, others)? 2. How many customers do you have on average? Has the CLIMAD project had any impact on the number of customers (if more, why; if less, why)? 3. What types of services does shop provide apart from selling products? 4. What types of products/services are most often requested by customers? Which types of customers request which products/services? 5. Are there any requests for products or services from customers that the shop cannot provide (if so, what types and why not)?

F Suggestions, recommendations & final comments 1. What do you think needs to be done to improve vetinary services to farmers (especially the poorer farmers)? 2. What ideas do you have to improve your own business? 3. Any other recommendations (addressed to whom)? 4. Is there anything else you would like to tell me (that we did not cover already)?

Page 76

7. Commune Councils (CC)

A Livestock raising in the commune 1. General statistics on animals raised in the commune (types, % of HHs raising, scale of production) 2. Which animals are most important to the poorer HHs (and why)? 3. What does CC observe to be the main roles of women in livestock raising (and how do these differ from men)? 4. How much are youth involved in animal raising (if not so much, why)? 5. How important is livestock raising compared to other income generation options (for poorer HHs)? 6. What does the CC see as the main constraints faced by HHs raising animals? 7. Deleted

B The CLIMAD project 1. What does the CC understand about the CLIMAD project (objectives, target area, implementing partners, etc.)? 2. How has the CC been involved with this project (main activities)? 3. Are there other projects in the commune addressing livestock issues (if so, which ones and what are they doing)? 4. Has the CC organized forums specifically to discuss livestock issues? If so, how often, who attends, and what issues were raised (and how were they addressed)?

C Livestock Farmer Networks (LFNs) 1. How many LFNs have been formed in this commune (in how many villages)? 2. How were members selected to join LFNs (what criteria)? 3. Do CC think it is useful for farmers to belong to an LFN (if so, how; if not, why?) 4. Do CC meet with these LFNs (if so, how often and what do they discuss)? 5. Do LFN members participate in the CDP/CIP process? If so, in what way? 6. Have priority issues raised by LFN members been included in the CIP (if so, what has been done to date; if not, why)?

D Vet Association (VA) 1. Is there a VA in this commune? If so, what is it called, how many members does it have and what is its main purpose? 2. How does the CC relate to the VA (do they meet? do they report to CC?) 3. What does the CC see as the main benefit of having a VA?

E Change as a result of CLIMAD project 1. What are the main changes the CC have observed as a result of the project (positive or negative)? 2. Has the project improved the lives of women in any specific ways? What about their role as decision-makers in the community – has that changed in any way (give examples)?

F Suggestions, recommendations & final comments 1. If a similar project (to the CLIMAD one) was to be done again, what changes would the CC like to make (to processes, targeting or types of activities)? 2. Other recommendations (addressed to whom)? 3. Is there anything else you would like to tell me (that we did not cover already)?

Page 77

8. Local NGO implementing partners

A Partnership and targeting 1. Background to partnership with PIN 2. Working with PIN on CLIMAD (strong points; weak points; challenges; learning)? 3. Selection of target villages (criteria, process) – discuss separately for Phase 1 and Phase 2 (including role of NGO partners in the process) 4. Selection of LFN members (criteria, process)

B Project relevance and design 1. How important is livestock raising in the context of the overall HH economics of the IDPoor HHs supported by the project? Is it different for wealthier categories? 2. Have there been any significant changes in the context since the start of the project (and, if so, how has the project evolved to address these)?

C Effectiveness 1. What do partners feel were the main achievements of the CLIMAD project (and what were the main reasons that helped these achievements 2. Were there any things that were planned that the project could not do or that did not go as well as planned? (if so, why?) 3. Many service providers were used for capacity building throughout the project – how do partners feel about the quality of capacity building provided (strong points; weak points – explore for both capacity building of target groups and partners themselves)?

D Efficiency 1. Did partners feel there were adequate human resources available to implement the project (quantity and quality)? 2. Was there adequate time available for the implementation and monitoring of the project? [Explore with partners the monitoring systems in place] 3. What, if any, were the main constraints faced during implementation?

E Impact 1. What long-term changes are likely to take place as a result of the project? Is there already evidence of these changes (give examples)? 2. How have partner organizations benefited (organizationally) from the project? 3. What would partners identify as “innovations” introduced by the project?

F Networking and adaptation 1. What meetings, workshops or forums have partners organized (or participated in) throughout the project? How do they feel about the value of each of these? 2. How many new NRM projects have each NGO prepared since they received training via the CLIMAD project? How many of them have received funding (list titles and donors)? 3. Are there any key messages, related to VAHW services, that partners have tried to advise other NGOs (development agencies) about based on the learning from the CLIMAD project? What are these messages, and roughly how many other NGOs have been advised about this (and through which channels) 4. Have any other organizations they know adopted any strategies introduced by CLIMAD (what, where and by whom)?

G Sustainability 1. What do partners feel are the aspects of the project that are most sustainable (and why)? 2. What aspects are possibly least sustainable (and why)? 3. Do partners have follow up plans to work with any of the project’s target institutions (if so, what and where)? Page 78

H Suggestions, recommendations & final comments 1. If a similar project was to be done again, what changes would partners like to make (to processes, targeting or types of activities)? 2. Other recommendations (addressed to whom)? 3. Is there anything else you would like to tell me (that we did not cover already)?

Page 79

9. PIN project team

A Partnerships and targeting 1. Local NGO partners (discuss selection process and PINs assessment of their performance) 2. Who were the other key partners (e.g. local authorities, government, private sector) throughout the implementation process (and opinions of PIN about how they contributed) 3. Selection of target villages (criteria, process) – discuss separately for each Phase 4. Selection of LFN members (criteria, process)

B Project relevance and design 1. How important is livestock raising in the context of the overall HH economics of the IDPoor HHs supported by the project? Is it different for wealthier categories? 2. Have there been any significant changes in the context since the start of the project (and, if so, how has the project evolved to address these)?

C Effectiveness 1. What do PIN feel were the major achievements of the project? (what were the main reasons that helped these achievements?) 2. Were there any things that were planned that the project could not do or that did not go as well as planned? (if so, why?) 3. Many service providers were used for capacity building throughout the project – how does PIN feel about the quality of capacity building provided (strong points; weak points)?

D Efficiency 1. Does PIN feel there were adequate human resources available to implement the project (quantity and quality)? Was there adequate time available for the implementation and monitoring of the project? 2. Did PIN feel that the financial resources were sufficient to undertake all tasks (any constraints or restrictions with financial management – e.g. exchange rates)? 3. What, if any, were the main constraints faced during implementation?

E Impact: 1. What long-term changes are likely to take place as a result of the project? Is there already evidence of these changes (give examples)? 2. What would PIN identify as “innovations” introduced by the project? What is the status of the “feed chopping machine” being developed by Agriculture University students (is that Chamkar Doung University)? 3. Have any other organizations adopted any strategies introduced by CLIMAD (what, where and by whom)?

F Sustainability: 1. What does PIN feel are the aspects of the project that are most sustainable (and why)? 2. What aspects are possibly least sustainable (and why)? 3. What exit strategy has been agreed on with local partners/target institutions?

G Suggestions, recommendations & final comments 1. If a similar project was to be done again, what changes would PIN make (to processes, partner selection or types of activities)? 2. Other recommendations (addressed to whom)? 3. Is there anything else you would like to tell me (that we did not cover already)?

Page 80

10. Companies

A General Discussion  Official recognition as vetinary supply company from whom (MAFF or other)  Types of products and supplies (competitiveness of market)  Source of supplies (plus opinions on quality and pricing)  Opinion on quality control of vetinary products (who does/should do)  Coverage area for sales  Main customers (vets, farmers, other)  Problems/issues in meeting farmer demand

B Company’s role in CLIMAD (verification of issues from MOU)  How many staff were assigned to work (on MOU with PIN)  Capacity building, training and coaching – to whom, where and what topics?  VAHWs (best ones) to organize technical training to farmers (how did this go)?  Promotion events (how many, where, about what, who attended)?  Quarterly meetings with VAHWs (opinion on quality and value of these)  Cost sharing – what did the Company pay for?

C Concluding remarks  General opinion on partnership with PIN – how does it compare to partnerships (if any) with other organizations  Suggestions/recommendations for possible future interventions

Page 81

Annex 3 Field Evaluation Schedule

Day Date Time Location Meet with Interviewer(s) Mon 1‐Aug 8.00 Pursat province Local NGO partners Bernie Mon 1‐Aug 8.00 Pursat province PDA/OAHP Vanda Mon 1‐Aug 10.00 Pursat province Livestock Market Traders Bernie Mon 1‐Aug 10.00 Sya/Kanchor, Kandieng VA: Sya/Kanhchor Alliance Vanda Mon 1‐Aug 11.00 Sya commune, Kandieng Shop ‐ Vin Choam Bernie Mon 1‐Aug 11.30 Kanchor commune, Kandieng Shop ‐ Kho Saroun Vanda Mon 1‐Aug 13.30 Srae Sdok commune, Kandieng VAHWs Vanda Mon 1‐Aug 14.00 Srae Sdok commune, Kandieng Commune Council Bernie Mon 1‐Aug 15.00 Srae Sdok commune, Kandieng LFNs Chamreh village Bernie/Vanda Tue 2‐Aug 7.30 Srae Sdok commune, Kandieng LFNs Veal village Bernie/Vanda Tue 2‐Aug 10.00 Beung Kantout commune, Krakor Shop ‐ Sin Dara Bernie/Vanda Tue 2‐Aug 11.00 Kbal Trach commune, Krakor VAHWs Vanda Tue 2‐Aug 11.00 Kbal Trach commune, Krakor VA: Saving association K. Trach Vanda Tue 2‐Aug 11.00 Kbal Trach commune, Krakor Commune Council Bernie Tue 2‐Aug 15.00 Kbal Trach commune, Krakor LFNs Kralanh village Bernie/Vanda Tue 2‐Aug 17.30 O'Sandan commune, Krakor Shop ‐ Leng Sovanara Bernie/Vanda Wed 3‐Aug 8.30 Kbal Trach commune, Krakor LFNs Trapeang Rumdenh village Vanda Wed 3‐Aug 11.00 Phsar commune, Boribo Shop ‐ Lim Kealy Vanda Wed 3‐Aug 11.30 Taing Krasang commune, Teuk Phos Shop ‐ Hum Bunthat Vanda Wed 3‐Aug 14.00 Phnom Penh PIN project mangement Bernie Thu 4‐Aug 8.00 Kompong Chhnang province Local NGO partners Sarith Thu 4‐Aug 8.00 Kompong Chhnang province PDA/OAHP Vanda Wed 4‐Aug 8.30 Phnom Penh Medivet company Bernie Wed 4‐Aug 10.30 Phnom Penh BKP company Bernie Thu 4‐Aug 10.30 Trapeang Chan commune, Baribour Commune Council Sarith Thu 4‐Aug 10.30 Trapeang Chan commune, Baribour VAHWs Vanda Thu 4‐Aug 13.30 Trapeang Chan commune, Baribour VA: Saving association T. Chan Vanda Thu 4‐Aug 15.00 Trapeang Chan commune, Baribour LFNs Kandal village Vanda/Sarith Fri 5‐Aug 7.30 Trapeang Chan commune, Baribour LFNs Trapeang Chan village Bernie/Vanda Sat 5‐Aug 9.30 Svay Chum commune, Rolea B'ier LFNs Phlov Veay village Bernie/Vanda Fri 5‐Aug 10.30 Svay Chum commune, Rolea B'ier Shop ‐Chou Sokhim Bernie/Vanda Fri 5‐Aug 13.30 Svay Chum commune, Rolea B'ier VAHWs Vanda Fri 5‐Aug 14.00 Svay Chum commune, Rolea B'ier Commune Council Sarith Fri 5‐Aug 14.30 Svay Chum commune, Rolea B'ier VA: Reachsey Svay Chrum Vanda Fri 5‐Aug 15.00 Svay Chum commune, Rolea B'ier LFNs Krang Prasvay village Vanda/Sarith Sat 6‐Aug 7.00 Svay Chum commune, Rolea B'ier Livestock Market Traders Bernie/Sarith Fri 6‐Aug 8.00 Prey Khmer, Rolea B'ier Shop ‐ Kong Kimsou Bernie/Sarith

Page 82 Annex 4 List of persons who provided information

Topic Name Sex Age Date Postion Phone No PIN - PNP Julien Brewster M 3-Aug-16 Livelihoods & environment program manager 088 965 3692 PIN - PNP Chourn Bunnara M 3-Aug-16 Livestock sector coordinator 077 243 666 PIN - PNP Bun Penhpheak M 3-Aug-16 Market Development Advisor 077 777 527 PIN - PNP Van Saran M 3-Aug-16 Project officer 077 455 788 Companies PNP Dr. Narin M 4-Aug-16 Technical manager 012 973 398 Companies PNP Tray Bunlay M 4-Aug-16 Director 012 912 420 Companies PNP Hor Kry M 4-Aug-16 Assistant Director 012 969 758 EDPO-Pursat Samreth Out M 63 1-Aug-16 EDPO Director 092 157006 EDPO-Pursat Hoem Saroeun M 52 1-Aug-16 SORF Director 017 707 296 EDPO-Pursat Seang Set M 33 1-Aug-16 EDPO Coordinator 092 731343 EDPO-Pursat Phath Sanvath M 29 1-Aug-16 EDPO staff 017 900982 EDPO-Pursat Phun Somaly F 23 1-Aug-16 EDPO staff 092 557447 EDPO-Pursat Ly Vong M 55 1-Aug-16 SORF staff 011 818885 Traders Phin Savuth M 23 1-Aug-16 Livestock market trader 071 662 2212 Traders Doeun Thavy F 22 1-Aug-16 Livestock market trader 071 662 2212 Aninal Health Dept Bin Sinnara M 46 1-Aug-16 Deputy Animal Health Dept 017 330476 VA-Sya/Kanchor Kho Sanoun M 53 1-Aug-16 Village Vet-Boeng Kranh-Shop 097 2696646 VA-Sya/Kanchor Kou Yat M 65 1-Aug-16 Sya Commune Vet 017 430227 VA-Sya/Kanchor Lim Vannak M 56 1-Aug-16 Village Vet-Trapaing Thmor 097 8770604 VAHW-Srae Sdok Bun Mang M 52 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village 095 870455 VAHW-Srae Sdok Morl Min M 51 1-Aug-16 Pou Nhy Village 012 503287 VAHW-Srae Sdok Keo Sothea M 47 1-Aug-16 Thmei Village 017 799579 VAHW-Srae Sdok Yous Choeng M 49 1-Aug-16 Bakou Village 092 148366 VAHW-Srae Sdok Kory Phy M 53 1-Aug-16 Sareang Village 097 6597813 VAHW-Srae Sdok Tep Seng M 53 1-Aug-16 Veal Village 092 914076 VAHW-Srae Sdok Sim Horn M 58 1-Aug-16 Senchey Village 097 4644455 VAHW-Srae Sdok Khoeun Khen M 36 1-Aug-16 Kdey Chhvit Village 088 9815232 VAHW-Srae Sdok Ke Sina M 37 1-Aug-16 Banteay Krok Village N/A VA-VAHW Houn Sao Rom M 1-Aug-16 Kandal Village 097 53271773 VA-VAHW Sem Bunthoeun M 1-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A VA-VAHW Soeng Hean M 1-Aug-16 Dankao Mao Village 088 9144340 VA-VAHW Nhean Vicheth M 1-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village 092 546859 VA-VAHW Ven Sareth M 1-Aug-16 Kbal Damrei Village 088 8862476 VA-VAHW Seang Pi M 1-Aug-16 Anlong Village 088 6025568 VA-VAHW Khem Ny M 1-Aug-16 Kbal Damrei Village 068 600098 VAHW-Dong Mon Lech M 45 2-Aug-16 Village Vet-Dong 012 973426 VAHW-Dong Uch Hoeng M 51 2-Aug-16 Village Vet-Trapaing Smach 089 272998 VAHW-Dong Tong Sarith M 26 2-Aug-16 Village Vet-Trapaing Romdenh 077 759897 VAHW-Dong Doeun Chek M 45 2-Aug-16 Village Vet -Kralanh 097 4265125 VAHW-Dong Nhil Saren M 50 2-Aug-16 Village Vet-Srai Russei 089 654744 CC-Srae Sdok Pha Kimsoeun M 53 1-Aug-16 Srae Sdok commune 012 752833 CC-Srae Sdok Nhok Theang M 56 1-Aug-16 Srae Sdok commune 012 680550 CC-Srae Sdok Theam Yit F 51 1-Aug-16 Srae Sdok commune 017 9534995 CC-Srae Sdok Hy Vy M 63 1-Aug-16 Srae Sdok commune 012 1788633 CC-Srae Sdok Hai Thearavann M 36 1-Aug-16 Srae Sdok commune 092 652882 CC-Kbal Trach Doung Sarin M 67 2-Aug-16 Kbal Trach Commune N/A CC-Kbal Trach Som Chab M 65 2-Aug-16 First Deputy Commune N/A CC-Kbal Trach Doep Samoeun F 46 2-Aug-16 Second Deputy Commune N/A CC-Kbal Trach Svay Chea M 48 2-Aug-16 Kbal Trach Commune N/A CC-Kbal Trach Ngoun Saron M 46 2-Aug-16 Secretary Commune N/A Shop Vin Choan M 1-Aug-16 Vet shop, Sya Commune 097 2690163 Shop Kho Saroun M 1-Aug-16 Vet shop, Kanchor commune 097 2696646 LFN-Chamres Meach Phally F 48 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Ouk Non F 51 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A

Page 83 Annex 4 List of persons who provided information

Topic Name Sex Age Date Postion Phone No LFN-Chamres Lonh Bonny F 37 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Cheam Vouch F 53 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Meach On F 46 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Thon Mao F 26 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Chhut Vith F 36 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Ve Choem M 56 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Vann Non M 62 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Suth Dip F 23 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Khounh Khom M 53 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Kan Eiv F 54 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Bun Rany F 24 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Thai Thorn M 53 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Chamres Pech Choun F 58 1-Aug-16 Chamreas Village N/A LFN-Veal Koeun Vanna F 27 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Patt Sary F 29 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Your Hoem F 37 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Oun Ly F 52 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Yong Sokry F 29 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Khon Khoy F 51 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Um Nun F 49 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Phong Chanry F 36 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Choub Kimea F 33 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Bith Kea M 49 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Bin Pun M 25 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Thlang Theav M 57 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Oun Thy F 55 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Leap Kan F 27 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Chea Ei M 54 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Tep Seng M 53 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Sim Lon M 52 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Veal Chett Chamm F 35 2-Aug-16 Veal Village N/A LFN-Kralanh Chhon Kun M 50 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village 088 90000395 LFN-Kralanh Chhom Min F 56 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village N/A LFN-Kralanh Chhim Khon F 58 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village N/A LFN-Kralanh Roem Run F 57 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village N/A LFN-Kralanh Cheng Chantha F 52 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village 069 294685 LFN-Kralanh Nai Mab F 36 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village 088 8434614 LFN-Kralanh Thim Khun F 52 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village N/A LFN-Kralanh Thach Veang M 50 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village 077 524535 LFN-Kralanh Kong Bunthoeun M 52 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village 078 8906081 LFN-Kralanh Dok Mach F 36 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village N/A LFN-Kralanh Ei Rorn M 53 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village N/A LFN-Kralanh Top Thim M 50 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village 097 9284258 LFN-Kralanh Sith Sothy M 35 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village N/A LFN-Kralanh Meas Sung M 56 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village N/A LFN-Kralanh Nhem Savuth M 52 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village 088 9599388 LFN-Kralanh Thoeun Oeun M 33 2-Aug-16 Kralanh Village 096 4678413 LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Suy Chandoeun F 32 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Theam Pao F 46 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Chhon Ny M 53 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Khin Mao M 26 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Noun Neav F 48 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Boun Damm F 52 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Khan Tha F 55 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A

Page 84 Annex 4 List of persons who provided information

Topic Name Sex Age Date Postion Phone No LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Pou Kakk M 42 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Chea Khoun M 37 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Oeur Moem M 47 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Ly Phy M 34 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Khy Channith M 25 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Tong Sarith M 36 3-Aug-16 Village Vet-Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Or Sok F 25 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Leng Pao M 26 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Sann Pun M 59 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A LFN-Trapaing Romdenh Mao Soeun M 37 3-Aug-16 Trapaing Romdenh N/A PNKA-Kampong Chnang Nhim Sokha F 4-Aug-16 Field Officer 096 3535976 PNKA-Kampong Chnang Kong Kith M 4-Aug-16 Field Officer 012 1852366 PNKA-Kampong Chnang Ouch Mida F 4-Aug-16 Field Officer 095 433009 PNKA-Kampong Chnang Um Sreypao F 4-Aug-16 Field Officer 097 2347809 PNKA-Kampong Chnang Lim Ravy M 4-Aug-16 Field Officer 077 472752 PNKA-Kampong Chnang Som Vuthy M 4-Aug-16 Field Officer 089 623968 PNKA-Kampong Chnang Til Sophat M 4-Aug-16 Project Coordinator 012 519695 Traders Lay Thouk M 36 6-Aug-16 Talo Village 092 134493 Aninal Health Dept Kroeng Samath M 1-Aug-16 Director of Animal Health Dept 012 923606 VA-VAHW Chhin Kimhak M 36 5-Aug-16 Svay Chek Village 077 882128 VA-VAHW Long Sinang M 36 5-Aug-16 Svay Chrum Village 017 545648 VA-VAHW Som Bonthoeun M 41 5-Aug-16 Dambok Kokoh Village 071 8701777 VA-VAHW Im Sovoeun M 55 5-Aug-16 Oktompor Village 012 1855922 VA-VAHW Sao Brong M 57 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village 085 600381 VA-VAHW Em Ngoeun M 54 5-Aug-16 Toul Trea Village 097 980132 VA-VAHW Sim Sovannara M 46 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Anhchanh 092 198480 CC-Trapaing Chan Sngoun Samean F 4-Aug-16 Commune Leader N/A CC-Trapaing Chan Sok Sothearath M 4-Aug-16 Commune Secretary N/A CC-Trapaing Chan Long Roen M 4-Aug-16 Commune Assistant N/A CC-Svay Chrum Khy Phoun M 60 5-Aug-16 Commune Leader 096 239990 Shop-Boribo district Loem Kealy F 32 3-Aug-16 Boribo district 012 642869 Shop-Teuk Phos Hum Bunthat M 43 3-Aug-16 Phum Chas, Teuk Phos 092 689 221 Shop-Svay Chrum Chou Sokhim F 5-Aug-16 Svay Chrum 012 491139 Shop Kong Kimsour M 48 6-Aug-16 Psa Prey Khmer 017 7946668 LFN-Kandal Leng Kunthy F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village 097 8656867 LFN-Kandal Mok Rann F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Men Thouk F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Chhut Phon F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Soe Lath F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Boun Soeung F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Hong Roeun F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Nol Seap F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Taing Soros F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Long Phoeun F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Kay Long F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Sor Sophors F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Chhoeun Sopheap F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Kong Kea F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Kandal Thai Bon F 4-Aug-16 Kandal Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Nhean Mao F 52 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Ean Phan F 37 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Sem Buntha F 38 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Kon Kealy F 39 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Phan Sonan F 32 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A

Page 85 Annex 4 List of persons who provided information

Topic Name Sex Age Date Postion Phone No LFN-Trapaing Chan Kon Leap F 30 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Pao Sophean F 18 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Soeng Touch F 31 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Yean Sary F 39 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Touch Roun F 56 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Sous Ravy F 27 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Chum Sarin M 67 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Sem Bunthoeun M 41 5-Aug-16 Village Vet-Trapaing Chan N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Nhean Vicheth M 37 5-Aug-16 Village Vet-Trapaing Chan N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Mok Kim F 45 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Trapaing Chan Phoung Nhim F 50 5-Aug-16 Trapaing Chan Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Som Thoeun M 42 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village 088 5882285 LFN-Phlov Veay Sorn Sothida F 37 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village 097 3293278 LFN-Phlov Veay Sath Puthy F 40 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Som Malis F 27 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Uk Nary F 52 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Khen Voleak F 20 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Srey Sophany F 17 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Long He F 55 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Nov Sary F 42 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay So Phorn F 45 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Phin Dara M 34 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Ek Thun F 53 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Da Savuth F 27 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Mao Sothy F 38 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Ek Tha F 51 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Loeung Sreiry F 25 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Brak Neth F 41 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Phlov Veay Bi Soul F 60 5-Aug-16 Phlov Veay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Sim Say F 56 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village 012 674546 LFN-Kraing Prosvay Ngoun Chhoey M 68 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Pen Nary F 45 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Sim Chan Phearin M 38 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village 097 2745945 LFN-Kraing Prosvay Tep Sopha F 53 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Phon Rosea F 48 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Pech Yen F 58 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Huy Phoeun F 60 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Seang Chan F 46 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Siv Sotha F 29 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Kae Soen M 64 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village 017 360421 LFN-Kraing Prosvay Sao Sitha M 32 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Chim Sakin F 68 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Uk Chamroeun M 41 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Son Sothun F 42 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Men Chandy F 36 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A LFN-Kraing Prosvay Chim Sory F 50 5-Aug-16 Kraing Prosvay Village N/A

Page 86 Annex 5 Poverty Rates for target districts and communes

GIS District/communePoverty rates ** Reduction Comparison of commune # vill in # vill % 2012 to 2015 to district rate comm- CLIMAD cover- Y-2012 Y-2015 Better Slightly Worse une age worse 401 Baribour 28.72 23.91 -4.81 40103 Chak 26.56 20.30 -6.26 X 5 5 100% 40104 Khon Rang 27.64 24.49 -3.15 X 10 6 60% 40106 Melum 29.64 25.37 -4.27 X 5 3 60% 40107 Phsar 30.10 23.70 -6.40 X 7 3 43% 40110 Ponley 18.71 19.02 0.31 X 6 1 17% 40111 Trapeang Chan 29.72 23.13 -6.59 X 4 4 100% 406 Rolea B'ier 24.52 21.39 -3.13 40603 Cheung Kreav 26.98 17.80 -9.18 X 11 3 27% 40606 Krang Leav 27.78 23.17 -4.61 X 8 8 100% 40609 Prey Mul 24.62 23.90 -0.72 X 7 1 14% 40610 Rolea B'ier 17.76 21.05 3.29 X 6 1 17% 40612 Svay Chrum 22.93 22.98 0.05 X 22 16 73% 408 Tuek Phos 29.82 23.16 -6.66 40801 Akphivoadth 28.90 24.18 -4.72 X 9 3 33% 40803 Chaong Maong 30.26 25.91 -4.35 X 8 4 50% 40807 Tang Krasang 27.17 21.56 -5.61 X 12 5 42% 1501 Bakan 28.57 23.15 -5.42 150104 Me Tuek 30.51 23.15 -7.36 X 15 8 53% 150105 Ou Ta Paong 33.04 26.34 -6.70 X 18 7 39% 150108 Svay Doun Kaev 26.48 19.97 -6.51 X 9 5 56% 1502 Kandieng 27.18 22.94 -4.24 150201 Anlong Vil 29.72 24.39 -5.33 X 16 5 31% 150204 Kanhchor 32.77 22.30 -10.47 X 12 3 25% 150206 Srae Sdok 33.61 26.71 -6.90 X 17 5 29% 150208 Sya 32.93 24.50 -8.43 X 11 5 45% 1503 Krakor 31.52 25.41 -6.11 150301 Anlong Tnaot 26.68 24.56 -2.12 X 12 2 17% 150302 Ansa Chambak 29.33 23.88 -5.45 X 7 3 43% 150303 Boeng Kantuot 29.16 23.11 -6.05 X 11 3 27% 150304 Chheu Tom 31.01 24.14 -6.87 X 12 6 50% 150306 Kampong Pou 36.11 27.06 -9.05 X 8 8 100% 150307 Kbal Trach 33.49 26.89 -6.60 X 11 9 82% 150308 Ou Sandan 32.42 22.69 -9.73 X 8 7 88% 150310 Svay Sa 34.22 27.27 -6.95 X 5 1 20% 150311 Tnaot Chum 30.79 23.33 -7.46 X 15 4 27% Total 18 3 9 60% 10% 30% K. Chhnang 5 1 8 36% 7% 57% Pursat 13 2 1 81% 13% 6%

[Note: List excludes 3 communes in Krong Pursat where only a few villages were included in the project]

** Source: Commune-Sangkat of Ministry of Planning: Prepared by Working Group of Decentralize and Deconcentration and Sethkomar

Page 87