Second Evaluation of the Mae Chaem Watershed Development Project, Thailand
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Second Evaluation of the Mae Chaem Watershed Development Project, Thailand Prepared for the U.S. Agency for International Development under contraci number PIC-1096.I-17-5049-00 Dr. Alan 1). Roth Mr. Paul Liou I)r. Chaiwat Roongruangsee Dr. Be (Ted) Cheng Sheng Dr. Benchaphun Shinawatra Dr. Aniruth Tengchai June 1987 Development Alternatives, Inc. 624 Ninth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 1 U II VI ill hil 6I il 1101 I"njilwlowl I itzilVIiiti 01'fI1 L'~fIt, fhC1;J 1 i I II1 1 U Il ~h~ Ltf .. .tIll 111II*1 Iw111IQ) I )1 01.~l1~bJ um'li' l11jnnr4fillWV1UII In 1IflhI1mtmiJZ Wa 11:iIm nI mI~ti itmal ~I111 1A HfIX~~IAIm 1 i Ii I U1 II lililIsIS II Ill 4iiiwii Lu h IA 00A son um ni'l IL 4iut l1m mU iiU:I im l'WGum1lI1iie Mnadb~ I Ha~J Vi~~lira: am WI1~hfmlInd NIAn 1UV11JIiuhI1JvInrm1 11h 1mil' II'I1 IIfl1~i1i; 11 1U I~IW Y JII5 adt (4iluU YJ I ILrhra:I I ,111in 6 rid 1ul tall IU 4 MIl)IiW Mfl1UUIIlfl f; gJvwl U I A-111$1 jWIY)~l~ I I V'In iUllJ~~l r'l1I ~~1til~~1J1~~~IUWUmm Thu 41h1WY&h'1ltI 1 fJ111VYIt) Ibi Nr4afl l1h1imil' I J'?l(.iim V1Ylim A At oEI1IIludlu1linIna I 'IAnfJUIM1 fl fihJ~~lJ 1 i l91adIfl1110rl~'LOdWI 1q1W1l i 41 MiIlIIitLt;ia I yI IL'.n ii tlJ'h I TioiV1 I O l 111. lIrfu~1411~fI~ f i1 w~ mid 1luvi li gll 1u1CJ11II A1A ,lhil I I j0,111 ayiU -1ihfIl1U Iw Iiu4o laV Valuammcuimll alaNUA FIImulultk~a mu va "chiailcS. II PREFACE This is the second evaluat ion of the Mae CIlaem Watershed Development Project (MCWDP). The project began in 1980 and was first evaluated in May 1983. This second evaluation was done when many activities were being phased out and tile project was about to be extended for another two years to finish the renmining activities and improve village capabilities foi sustainable growth. iecause of the short time remaining in the project, the project managers and U.S. Agency for International Developitlent project officers had already made plans foi the two-year extension. The plhns had been approved at the provincial level and were awaiting approval at the national evel. The -ole of the evaluation team was to assess progrcss, examine constraints, aid provi6, guidance for decision making for the remaining years. The team found that many ke" issues haJ already been identified by project management and viable solutions were already being proposed. In effect, the team confirmed what project management already knew, and generally supports the solutions proposed. This project is unusual in the level of management support it has received from the Royal Thai Government (RTG) and USAID. From the RTG side, much of the uccess can be attributed to the strong role of the Governor of Chiang Mai as Project Director. From the USAID side, capable project officers over the years have spnt -onsiderable time in the field working closely with project management. The evaluation team benefited greatly from discussions with well-informed f roject leadeis and implementers. A weak point was an inadequacy of data to describe conditions in the project area. The result ,zi that the team had to depend . perceptions from the seven days it had in the field. This evaluation is therefore mainly qualitative, drawing on data when possible. To some extent it is anecdotal, although anecdotes, when used, are to illustrate general per,.eptions rather than to make conclusions that are based on only one or two cases. To the extent that we have been able to accomplish our evaluation objectives, much can be attributed to the support we received. We woulu like to extend our grateful appreciation for the information and insight we received from the iroject Director, Governor Chaiya Poonsiriwong; the Ljeputy Administrative Director, Chom Kwandee; the USAID Project Officer in the field, Atisai Pangspa; a former Project Lfficer and now Director of the USAID's Agriculture and Natural Resources Division, David Delgado; and USAi'-s Evaluation Officer, Roger Montgomery. Kenneth Kampe, the MCWDP Train:ng Advisor, not only was a valuable resource for project information, but also was cf tremendous assistance with team logistics. The directors and staff of the various project components provided valuable assistance in discussing their activities and in accompanying the team into the field. 0 lul2i1 A~~liu LI mol i ll m~ l I V11,1Y ThU i9ul 10.11,iLIJluit J11I 1u1ffJ4 ]II Jd~ it fifuzam h1zt u hijow i nri~i il );I liI II lo in I1a atI~I Ij AmU l ibr u Ii n~u Iv I luo 11 li t ri inumainuouMunLbude uma;ll ww i;Ol ml4 rMfU1t 25230 Iv In the rul to produce a draft of the report in Chiang Mai, the team appreciates the assistance it received from translators Duangta Siiwuthiwong and Dr. Anurak Tanyanunrat, and from Kenneth Johnson, our English editor. Alan D. Roth Team Leader Paul Liou, Agronomist Chaiwat Roongruangsee, Sociologist Tse (Ted) Cheng Sheng, Wateished Management Specialist Benchaphun Shinawatra, Agricultural Economist Aniruth Torgchai, Engineei Washington, D.C. June 1987 wri~ i nitu 11 Ili1 1mi1kLJ WMI 15 flMP 17 19 19 1nij111 N IL mumP61@1 17 217 lfl~ilfilliJU 17112 4. ~ ~ lll AILLZ)~U)U~~Ii iii lW2)1 jutL~UL 'I~liiu nii~i~LL~~nT~~a1U~f1J21 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE.......... ............. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW .... ......... 2 BACKGROUND . ........ 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT ............ .......................... 4 U.S. ASSISTANCE. ....................................................... 4 THE PROJECT AS A MODEL ........... ......................... 4 EVALUATION............................. 6 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS ............ ............................ 6 Quality of Life ............. .............................. 6 Agri'!ulture .............. ............................... 6 Marketing............................. 8 Infrastructure............................ 8 Project Management ............ ........................... 8 Inteface Teams ............ ............................. 10 Forests and Watershed .......................... 12 Opium and Drug Addiction ......... ........................ ... 12 MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS ........... ........................ 14 Overall ............................... 14 Agriculture ........... ............................... .14 Marketing .............................. 14 Soil Conservation .......... ............................. ... 14 Infrastructure ............. .............................. 16 Self-help Capability .......... ............................ .16 Training ............ ................................. ... 16 Information .............. ............................... 1P Forests and Watershed ......... ........................... ... 18 CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIMENDATIONS BY ISSUE ......... 20 QUALITY OF LIFE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ........... 20 1. Have Quality of Life Standards of the Various Groups Living in the Watershed Improved? .... .. .. .. 20 2. Have the Rice Banks Provided a Viable Means for Improved Nutritional Security in Mae Chaem Villages? . .. .. 22 3. Has Integration of Ethnic Minorities and Womer, into the Social, Political, and Economic Life of the District Increased? ... .......... .24 4. Have the !F Teams Contributed Significantly to Achievement of Project Objectives? .................................. .26 5. Have Villagers Learned to Solve Their Own Problems? . 28 6. Have Villagers' Drug Practices Been Decreased? . .. .. 32 vii ,JIA~ In~-11o -1 kit itfPJ)I4j ' 1 d!Jiwil i'J 2!) hL~ iUL33 * ~iiirradi11111m111u1-RI TI )j ifl r)1Jklv~i k 33 'l~invn~u~In9~ih 237 L~I IPTV L(AU 11I 1Ji~tnTri ftfi139 10. ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ i~h7 43 12. UaTh'c'i@1U1O'f 1IIwian iiiaJi 49 1JL~1flJ I~JhJ53 59 IJUI(UL frn iu163 'h~.imIijuil~i1~lJ 763 17. 1u uiunJibi iic IfVtmuamu~ ll h, 65 1 *d4LflIlVflfl8. 19iLLfl11MU Ii l 7 1. 'r 1JI milt m i il uam~V LJU3 1i4i~ 2 71 rjm*unii:~ i~itu7 91 q tin 1,,1J1U 93 viii PROJECT MANAGEMENT ISSUES ........... ....................... 32 7. Has tile Project Been Adequately Decentralized to Facilitate Field Coordination ,nd Promote Sustainability? . .. .. 32 8. Have the Project's Financial Planning and Management Systems Bnen Improved? . .. .. .... 36 AGRICULTURE ISSUES ........ ............................. 38 9. Has Rice Self-Sufficiency Peen Attained? .. .. .. .. 38 10. Have Annual Cash Crops Beeii Adopted to Meet Project Objectives? ....... .......................... 42 11. Have Tree/Perennial Cash Crops Been Adopted to Meet Production, Income, and Sustainability Objectives of the Project? . 46 12. Has Land Terracing Met Objectives of Improve Soil Conservation and Improved Crop Yields? . 50 13. Have Water Control Structures Increased Land under Irrigation to Meet Project Targets? . ...... ...... .. .. 54 14. Has There Been a Decrease in Opium-Producing Areas and Production? . .. ....... ........ 58 15. Has the Mae Chaem Cooperative Met Farmers' Marketing Needs? . .. 60 WATERSHED ISSUES ...................................... 64 16. Have Forest Protection and Reforestation Activities Been Adequate to Prcserve the Watershed Now and into the Future? ......... ... 64 17. Are Road Objectives Being Met in Terms of Quality, Quantity, and Location? . ......... ... 66 18 Are the Current Hydrology Research and Monitoring Acti,,ities Sound? . .. 72 FINDINGS BY ISSUE .... .............. ... 76 QUALITY OF LIFE AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ......................... 76 I. Have Quality of Life Standards of the Various Groups Living in the Watershed Improved? . .. .. .. 76 Project Objectives .......... ........................ .. 76 Evaluating Change ........... ........................ 78 Nutrition ........... ............................ .82 Health ........... .............................