LIVELIHOODS and FOOD SECURITY TRUST FUND – DELTA 1 EVALUATION Evaluation Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LIVELIHOODS AND FOOD SECURITY TRUST FUND – DELTA 1 EVALUATION Evaluation Report Final report Valentina Barca, Nils Riemenschneider with the collaboration of Kyaw Shaw, Hnin Nu Hlaing, Ei Ei Htwe, Kyaw Linn Htet, Kyaw Min Htun June 2012 Oxford Policy Management Limited 6 St Aldates Courtyard Tel +44 (0) 1865 207300 38 St Aldates Fax +44 (0) 1865 207301 Oxford OX1 1BN E-mail [email protected] Registered in England: 3122495 United Kingdom Website www.opml.co.uk Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund – Delta 1 EvaluationReport Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the contributions of a very experienced team of qualitative researchers from Myanmar Survey Research (MSR), including (in no particular order) Hnin Malar Phyu, Naw Margaret Han, Aye Hnin Phyu, Thandar Oo, Zin Min Htay and Daw Ni Ni Aye. Their very qualified supervisors have been included as co-authors as they contributed to all stages of the analysis. The MSR quantitative team also did a great job under excellent supervision. We would like to acknowledge the contributions of all team members, including supervisors Zaw Win Maung, Thet Zaw Oo, Than Myat Soe, Kyaw Min Lwin, May Phyo Aung Thwin and Daw Htay Htya Ohn and enumerators Wai Wai Tun, Aye Kyu Kyu Thin, Zaw Naing Win, Ko Phyo, Thet Htar Khin, Zar Chi Soe, Nge Nge Aung Tun, Nay Win Htun, Hnin Sabei Win, Cho Mar Khin, Shwe Wadi, Khin Nyein Nyein Aye and May Lin Thandar Aung. At MSR, we would not have been able to conduct this research without Kyaw Shaw and Hnin Nu Hlaing’sconstant help and support. We would like to thank contact partners at the Implementing Partners for their support in better understanding their activities, namely Uwe Hermann, Oddy Angelo, Naw Genevieve, Jitendra Jaiswal, andDavid H. Mueller. We would also like to thank all the Implementing Partners who helped us during the fieldwork period. We are indebted toYe’ Winn, Myint Kyaw, Pwint Phyu Soe, Win Win Myint, Than Tun, Ihan Ian, Naw Tin Thet Sann, Sein Myant, ATO, Daw Thuzar, Kiran, Harald Kreuscher and Andrew Kikwoodat UNOPS for generously giving time, ideas and support and to George Collet for tirelessco-operation and encouragementthroughout. While we are indebted to all those who made this work possible, all mistakes are our own. Oxford Policy Management i Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund – Delta 1 Evaluation Report 1 Executive summary 1.1 Structure of the summary This summary starts with a brief description of the background, objective and methodology of the study, followed by the findings. These first state which activities have been effective for rice farmers in increasing their incomes, and which had mixed effects and why. It considers questions of sustainability, mode of provision and methods of training. This is followed by an overview of the activities targeted at the poor and vulnerable. Subsequent paragraphs consider wider findings by evaluation area, including the extent of recovery to pre-Nargis levels (including food security) and considerations on targeting and cost-effectiveness. 1.2 Background, objective and methodology In May 2008, Cyclone Nargis swept through the Ayeyarwady Delta with devastating effects, killing some 140,000 people. In 2009,themulti-donor Livelihood and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT) was set up. It set out to support rice farmers and poor and vulnerable households by way of providing inputs and training, as well as social protection and local capacity-building measures. In 2010– 11,LIFT funded 22 Implementing Partners (IPs) to work across 1,300 villagesin the Delta. Overall, the Delta region received support of about $200millionfrom various donors after Nargis. The LIFT contribution in 2010 was $19.5million, and it started after many of the other programmes. This is of relevance for this evaluation as many villages are likely to have received interventions from multiple programmes, including non-LIFT. Moreover, the communities were often not aware of LIFT, as the interventions were carried out under the name of the IP or their national/local counterpart. In addition, many of the LIFT Delta 1 interventions were no longer in place in late 2011, when this evaluation was taking place. Consequently, determining the precise impact of LIFT interventions is, understandably, very difficult. The overarching purpose of this evaluation is to learn from the experiences of implementing projects under the Delta1 phase so that they can be used to inform future LIFT-funded programming. This evaluationfocuses onestablishing which measures and procedures have worked particularly well and been most useful to help recipients increase their incomes and food availability. Attention has also been paid to trying to assess what kind of changes would be required to improve their impact andlonger-term sustainability. In addition, questions around targeting, social mobilisation, accountability and cost-effectiveness were addressed. The evaluation consisted of a qualitative and quantitative study, carried out in November 2011. Sixty-four focus group discussions (FGDs) and at least two key informant interviews (KIIs) per village were conducted in 16 villages in the Delta area, selected to provide a spread of activities and IPs. The quantitative survey took place in 100 randomly selected villages, and consisted of 100 KIIs and 800 household interviews. ii Oxford Policy Management Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund – Delta 1 EvaluationReport 1.3 Findings by activity 1.3.1 Rice farmers Overall effectiveness The activities that were most effective for rice farmers were those that helped to ‘kick start’ and improve their farming activities after the devastation of Nargis. The provision of buffaloes, power tillers and seeds were particularly useful inputs that helped to increase income and were also seen as sustainable. Fertiliser provision helped to increase income, but was seen as less sustainable. Training on seed treatment, pest control and soil management taught techniques which were widely adopted. Participants appreciated learning how to prevent soil degradation, recognise plant diseases and select viable seeds.These training sessions were credited with increasing incomes. It was widely expected that the skills gained would also be applied in the future. Other inputs and training had a more mixed effect. Post-harvest equipment and drum seeders were useful to some farmers and not used by others. Training on transplanting, organic fertiliser production, and inorganic fertiliser usage were also useful to some, but not others. One common reason for the ineffectiveness of certain activities was the lack of adaptation to the local context. For example, drum seeders were only seen as useful on high/dry land and not during the monsoon season. Similarly, transplantingwas often adopted by farmers on parts of their land (reflecting their willingness to test it), but considered too costly (because of the additional labour costs) and not appropriate for land which was prone to flooding. The local context also played a role with respect to post-harvest equipment: many farmers had to repay loans straight after the harvest and could not store their yieldto realise a higher sales price. In other cases, key inputs were not easily available locally,posing problems for the sustainability of certain activities. Overall, it should be noted that these failures do not mean these activities were always unsuccessful. For example, those farmers who did use drum seeders experienced an increase in yield, as did those who could afford to store their harvest, for example by using air-tight bags. With respect to sustainability, buffaloes were seen as very sustainable (because of their offspring), especially when a vet was available locally. The sustainability of power tillers depended on the group ownership arrangements(including number of people per group and whether maintenance training was provided). At the time of the study, all power-tiller groups encountered were still functioning well. Seed banks were widely perceived as sustainable as they were replenished every harvest, except for systemic risk. Of the four most effective inputs, only fertiliser was not seen as sustainable, due to its high cost. Nevertheless, it could be argued that if a one-off provision of fertiliser boosts harvest and incomes, this has a long-term impact on the overall debt 1 cycle. We hereby briefly summarise the main lessons learned on the agricultural training methods and on the provision of inputs, analysed in detail in Section 3.8 and Section 5. 1 It may be added that the sustainability of the fertiliser practices promoted by IPs may depend on whether the optimal fertiliser use was proven to be viable to farmers. A separate survey conducted by UNOPS (the ‘baseline survey’) indicates that fertilizer is being used by nearly two-thirds of rice farmers in the Delta. Oxford Policy Management iii Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund – Delta 1 Evaluation Report The best training, as reported by respondents, wasvery practical that clearly explained and demonstrated every phase of the agricultural technique being taught. Consistent interactionssuch as regular meetings with villagers as part of the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) or at least a go-to contact person in the closest townhelped to build the trust and confidence of training participants. The systematisation of knowledge spreading, through Farmer Exchange Groups or other informal farmer networks, appeared to be useful in helping knowledge on new techniques to be spread. A further success factor that was reported by a few of the IPs was the linking of the agricultural training with expertise from the Myanmar Agriculture Service (MAS), including MAS extension workers themselves being paid to give the training. Importantly, as stated above, the lack of appropriate tailoring to local conditions played a role in non-adoption of agricultural techniques. A greater knowledge of village-level constraints(such as land distribution, soil conditions, labour supply and demand, and access to agricultural markets, e.g.