Terminal Evaluation Report 2014
Rural Economy Advancement Program Phase I
Research and Evaluation Division GNH Commission Royal Government of Bhutan Copyright © Gross National Happiness Commission, 2014 Royal Government of Bhutan Published by Gross National Happiness Commission ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Research and Evaluation Division, GNH appreciation to Dr. Sonam Wangyel Wang Commission would like to thank all those and his team from Happiness Consulting who contributed to this evaluation report. Group for leading the evaluation process In particular, special thanks are extended and preparing this report. This evaluation to the Evaluation Reference Group for their has been made possible with the support of guidance. We would also like to extend our UNDP Bhutan country office.
Evaluation Reference Group:
1. Sonam Tobgyal, RED, GNH Commission 2. Lekey Wangdi, RED, GNH Commission 3. Tashi Dorji, UNDP 4. Tashi Yangzom, PPD, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests 5. Gyeltshen, Assistant Planning Officer, Wangdue Phodrang Dzongkhag 6. Wangmo, Tarayana Foundation
iii iv Table of Contents
Abbreviations...... 1 Foreword...... 3 Executive Summary...... 5 1. Introduction...... 10 2. Methodology...... 13 3. Findings...... 16 4. Conclusions...... 30 5. Lessons Learned...... 31 6. Recommendations and way forward...... 33 7. Appendices...... 36 Appendix 1: Terms of reference...... 36 Appendix 2: Evaluation design matrix...... 41 Appendix 3: Questionnaires...... 44 Appendix 4: Individual and overall ratings of the program...... 51 Appendix 5: Assessment of expenditure progress against planned budget...... 52 Appendix 6: Assessment of achievements against planned Outputs...... 53 Appendix 7: Histogram and normal curves for descriptive statistics...... 62 Appendix 8: List of documents reviewed...... 63
v LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Program summary...... 10 Table 2. Budget Outlay and Funding Source...... 10 Table 3. Profile of respondents...... 14 Table 4. Evaluation criteria and their description...... 14 Table 5. Evaluation ratings...... 15 Table 6. Mean change in the ability to earn money post and pre REAP I compared...... 21 Table 7. Mean change in annual savings post and pre REAP I compared...... 22 Table 8. Improvement in living conditions of the beneficiaries post REAP ...... I 23 Table 9. Overall ratings...... 25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Poverty incidence map of Bhutan showing REAP 1 sites...... 11 Figure 2. Annual incomes from variety of sources...... 20 Figure 3. Correlation between abilities to earn cashand feed families...... 22 Figure 4. Mean percent distribution of household expenditure on essential goods...... 22 Figure 5. Proportion of respondents expending on essential items...... 23 Figure 6. Histogram for housing...... 24 Figure 7. Histogram for education...... 24 Figure 8. Histogram fo health...... 24
vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AWP Annual Work Plan BDFC Bhutan Development Finance Corporation CDR Combined Delivery Report NRP National Rehabilitation Program GNHC Gross National Happiness Commission GNH Gross National Happiness HAB Handicrafts Association of Bhutan HCG Happiness Consulting Group LGs Local Governments MoAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forests NFE Non Formal Education NGO Non Government Organization Nu Ngultrum NWFPs Non Wood Forest Products PB Program Boards PEI Poverty Environment Initiative RED Research and Evaluation Division REAP Rural Economy Advancement Program RGoB Royal Government of Bhutan SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation SHGs Self Help Groups TE Terminal Evaluation ToR Terms of Reference UN United Nations UNDP United National Development Program USD United States Dollar US$ United States Dollar
1 2 FOREWORD
Royal government of Bhutan initiated the achievement of intended outcomes of the Rural Economy Advancement Programme programme and take stock of lessons learnt. (REAP) under Targeted Poverty Initiatives Therefore, the terminal evaluation of REAP during the 10th five-year plan, starting in I was carried out from October to December 2009, to reach out to the poorest of the 2013 by an independent consulting firm, poor. GNH Commission coordinated the Happiness Consulting Group. implementation of REAP I in partnership with local government, central agencies and We hope that this evaluation report will be Tarayana Foundation, which covered 17 useful input in improving REAP II, which poorest villages across the country. While the will have wider coverage during the 11th five- broad-based development programs continue year plan. to alleviate poverty, REAP seeks to target the extreme poverty that may not be adequately addressed through broad-based development programs.
(Thinley Namgye) As the implementation of REAP I was Director completed in 2012, it was timely to assess
3 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. THE PROGRAM
The Rural Economy Advancement Program reached communities who had not Phase I (REAP I) was initiated in 2009 benefited much from broad based poverty for a period of 3 years and implemented reduction interventions and economic during the 10th Plan in 17 poorest growth. A participatory culture-based, villages (Lamtang in Zhemgang; Pam and gender sensitive, and environmentally Chaibi in Mongar; Ungar in Lhuentse; friendly approach was adopted. Mondokha and Choleykha in Chukha; Sanu Dungtoe in Samtse, Ritey in Sarpang; The interventions were targeted at Lopokha, Shoba, Nazhina and Rukha in enhancing income generation and Wangduephodrang; Samcholing in Trongsa; productive capacities of the communities Thangdokha,Ngatsena and Dramekha in focusing on agricultural productivity Haa; Lauri in Samdrup Jongkhar) with through inputs supply, access to market and funding from SDS, UNDP (Poverty Thematic skills development. Trust Fund and Poverty Environment Initiative), and German Embassy. The total 1.2 Outcomes budget allocation was Nu.38.605 million. The program was conceived in line with the Royal The program sought to pursue its purpose Government of Bhutan’s developmental through four key output areas. priorities for the 10th five year plan, which Outcome 1. Capacity of targeted focused on targeted poverty reduction and communities developed to increase sustainable livelihoods for the poorest of the agricultural productivity for income poor. The program was coordinated by GNH generation. Commission and implemented by the local Outcome 2. Increased agricultural governments, MoAF, MoLHR and Tarayana productivity and diversification for food Foundation. security. Outcome 3. Enhanced employment 1.1 Program Purpose opportunities and income. Outcome 4. Improved living conditions. The program aimed to address the specific needs of the extremely remote and un-
5 1.3. Evaluation Objectives and Methodology
A scientific inquiry method was developed evaluation also addressed the following and used to carry out the evaluation, while issues: also drawing on the guidelines provided in • The extent to which the planned the ToR as well as the UNDP monitoring program outcomes and outputs have and evaluation policy to collect credible, been achieved; • The strengths and weaknesses of reliable, and useful data. The Data collection program design, implementation, method in particular used a mixed method monitoring, and adaptive to allow for triangulation of information management; from variety of sources. Evaluation design • The extent to which the program matrix built around the key questions given facilitated the participation of the in the ToR was used to guide the overall local communities in natural resource methodology including the development management and decision making of questionnaires. Special effort was made processes; • Extent to which REAP I interventions to re-confirm the progress reported in influenced the communities in progress reports (especially physical) addressing poverty environment during the field visits. issues and gender equality in an integrated manner. This evaluation aims to i) evaluate the concept and design of the program; ii) assess 2. RESULTS OF EVALUATION if the desired outcomes and objectives of the program were achieved; iii) evaluate The final evaluation contained in this the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, document is intended to assess the relevance, and sustainability of the program; iv) its effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of implementation in terms of quality and the program. The evaluation also identifies timeliness, financial planning, monitoring and documents lessons learned and makes and evaluation; v) identify challenges and recommendations. opportunities; vi) identify the most effective interventions for scaling up and replication. 2.1 Relevance
The evaluation covered all key activities The program is designed and appropriately undertaken under REAP I as reported in implemented strengthening the technical the program proposal, progress reports, and institutional capacities for poverty and annual work plans of the program. The alleviation in the poorest villages in 6 Bhutan. The relevance and suitability of institutions (RNR Centers, Agricultural the interventions to the beneficiaries needs Machinery Center, Handicrafts Association were confirmed during the process of of Bhutan, etc), and civil societies (Tarayana this evaluation especially in the field. The Foundation) suggests that the approaches program and its objectives are consistent used were appropriate. with the priorities of the Government of Bhutan and relevance of the program in the It is important to highlight the effectiveness context of priorities of the funding agencies of several activities that were implemented and the overall national current poverty to achieve the purpose of the program alleviation policies and strategies. The such as: capacity building of communities relevance of the program has been rated to including women, in income generating be highly satisfactory. activities, formation of numerous self-help groups, day care facilities that freed women to spend time on productive activities such 2.2 Effectiveness as weaving, vegetable gardening, etc., to help support their families. Local capacity The program’s effectiveness is rated as highly building on natural resource management satisfactory. The purpose of the program has enhanced the use of sustainable was satisfactorily achieved. Outstanding harvesting and management of natural progress was made against planned resources including water and soil. These outcomes and life in the poorest villages interventions have resulted in communities changed for better. The planned outputs, actively engaging in productive enterprises and activities, effectively contributed to the including sustainable harvesting and achievement of the program’s original goals management of NWFPs and smart and targets. agriculture. A highly significant and remarkable impact is perhaps the increase The program design and implementation in their average monthly savings (Nu. approach provided a sustainable 1300), which is above the national extreme mechanism for poverty alleviation through poverty line (1154.74; PAR 2012). capacity building, increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food The effectiveness of the program may security, and expansion of economic be attributed to the participation of the opportunities to enhance income generation communities in articulation of their needs by establishment of micro and small and the strong coordination between business units. The very positive response the local governments and stakeholders to the program by the local governments, concerned. 7 2.3 Efficiency 2.4 Poverty environment linkage
The outputs and over 11 major thematic The program was able to promote poverty, activities carried out were technically environment and livelihood linkages adequate and implemented within the in the targeted communities through agreed time frame in the annual work capacity building in sustainable natural plans or amended in consultation resource management, eco-tourism, and with the beneficiaries and LGs. The smart agriculture. The increased level implementation efficiency is considered of awareness on poverty environmental satisfactory as planned activities were linkages have motivated farmers to embrace implemented at reasonable cost. The environmental friendly practices, including presence of local extension agents and use planting of fodder species to conserve soil, of their knowledge and expertise and the as well as feeding livestock and sustainable technical backstopping by relevant sectors harvesting, production, and marketing of and stakeholders contributed to efficient NWFPs, which earned them much needed execution of the planned activities. cash income.
While program funds were expended 2.5 Sustainability in line with the financial plan, a few re- appropriations were carried out whenever The program design and implementation required in accordance with the changing approach provided a sustainable mechanism priorities and relevance of the planned for applying capacity building, diversified activities. This confirms adaptability and agricultural production, and development flexibility that was maintained to achieve of enterprises for income generation as more efficiency. The program was able to tools for poverty alleviation. achieve all its outputs at 89.26 percent of its budget. The program was efficiently With impressive efficiency, the program managed by using existing government has delivered a series of strategies and mechanisms without setting up of new a framework for alleviating poverty in offices or recruitment of additional the poorest villages in Bhutan. These manpower. enterprises will not require significant inputs in the future to run as they have been well established and profit making already. Program sustainability is rated as satisfactory. 8 3. LESSONS LEARNED 4. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Stakeholder involvement and Program design must take into consideration government ownership and civil society the implementation capacity of the various partnerships are important tools for partners. Where partners lack the ability to poverty alleviation efforts especially adequately implement, the program may when dealing with natural resources consider building such capacities for the as they facilitate participation, sustainability and enhanced effectiveness of better understanding of issues, and the implementation. cooperation; It is recommended that a program • Institutional strengthening and capacity coordinating body with well-defined ToR be building are critical for achievement institutionalized to support REAP. of benefits through partnership and stakeholder involvement; It is recommended that a strong monitoring and evaluation mechanism be established. • Micro-enterprise development as a An independent, responsible unit (Program tool for poverty alleviation becomes Coordination Body) should be tasked with even more potent when it is linked this role so that effective progress monitoring to environment, agriculture, and can be implemented to generate best practices livestock. It enhances employment and and document program outputs, outcomes, income generating opportunities for and impacts. rural poor. Given the positive impacts accrued from • Saving schemes with revolving micro- REAP phase I, it is recommended that REAP credit is a sustainable financing phase II and other programs of similar nature mechanism for poor people; be given top priority by the Government, civil societies, and development partners.
9 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Poverty reduction presents a formidable Table 1. Program Summary challenge to the country’s unprecedented economic development progress. The Program Title: Rural Economy Country: Bhutan Advancement Program Phase I Poverty Analysis Report (2007) estimated (REAP I) that at least 23.2 percent of the population Implementing Agencies: Local Governments, Ministry lived in poverty, of which 98% were living in Executing body: Gross of Agriculture and Forests, National Happiness rural areas primarily engaged in subsistence Ministry of Labour and Commission Human Resources, and agriculture. If not addressed efficiently, this Tarayana Foundation situation can widen the already existing gap Program duration: Total Budget: BTNU 38.605 between urban and rural population, which 2009-2012 Million contradicts with the development philosophy of Gross National Happiness. Realizing this, The Gross National Happiness Commission the Government adopted targeted poverty (GNHC) executed the REAP Phase Istarting reduction as a strategy to reduce the number June 2010 with a total funding of Nu. 38.605 of people living under the poverty line, in million with the contribution from various addition to mainstream poverty programs development partners as provided below in implemented by the various sectors. The the table. Rural Economy Advancement Program Phase I (REAP I) and the National Rehabilitation Table 2. Budget Outlay and Funding Source Program (NRP) were the two programs initiated to reduce poverty and achieve the Budget Total Expenditure Funding poverty reduction goals. Outlay 24.138 19.991 SDS 11.145 11.145 PTTF/PEI 0.175 0.175 WWF 0.368 0.368 UN 0.576 0.576 German 0.145 0.145 RGoB 2.058 2.058 PEI (survey) 38.605 34.458 Total
10 REAP I in particular was focused on pest management, organic farming, and meeting the special needs of the hard-to- improved home gardens. In addition to reach rural poor by the broad based poverty agricultural inputs and practices, post-harvest interventions. The interventions varied facilities and technologies were provided. between villages depending on the results The program facilitated enhancing access to Table 2.Budget Outlay and Funding Source of the comprehensive needs assessment as markets to generate cash income. Budget Outlay Total Expenditure Funding reported in the village development plans
(VDPs).24.138 The actual19.991 implementationSDS of 11.145 11.145 PTTF/PEI the program was carried out by the local 1.3 Outcomes 0.175 0.175 WWF governments,0.368 MoAF, MoLHR0.368 UNand Tarayana 0.576 0.576 German Foundation.38.6050.145 34.4580.145 TotalRGoB The program sought to pursue its purpose 2.058 2.058 PEI (survey) through four key outcome areas. REAP I in particular was focused on meeting the special needs of the hard-to-reach rural poor by the 1.2broad basedProgram poverty interventions. purpose The interventions varied between villages depending on the results of the comprehensive needs assessment as reported in the villageOutcome 1. Capacity of targeted communities developmentThe plans program (VDPs). The aimedactual implementation to address of the program the specific was carried outdeveloped by to increase agricultural the local governments, MoAF, MoLHR and Tarayana Foundation. needs of the extremely remote and hard- productivity for income generation. 1.2. Programto- purpose reach communities through enhancing The programagriculture aimed to address productivity, the specific needs access of the to extremelymarket remote and and hardOutcome to 2. Increased agricultural reach communities through enhancing agriculture productivity, access to market and skills development (Figure 1). productivity and diversification for food skills development.(Figure 1). security.
Outcome 3. Enhanced employment opportunities and income.
Outcome 4. Improved living conditions.
1.4. Scope and Objectives of this
Figure 1.Poverty incidence map of Bhutan showing REAP 1 sites. Evaluation Figure 1. Poverty incidence map of Bhutan showing REAP 1 sites. The context, objectives, and scope of the These were achieved primarily by providing evaluation13 are set out in the ToR found rural farmers with agricultural inputs, and in Appendix 1. The Terminal Evaluation technical backstopping, skills, and improved (TE) is intended to provide an objective agricultural practices- improved knowledge and independent assessment of program on sustainable land management, integrated implementation and impact including 11 achievement of benefits and lessons learnt to program outcomes and outputs have guide future efforts. The principal purpose been achieved; of Terminal Evaluation is to specifically assess the level of achievement of the results • The strengths and weaknesses of and to draw lessons that will both improve program design, implementation, the sustainability of benefits from REAP monitoring, and adaptive phase I, and aid in the development and management; implementation of REAP II. This evaluation • The extent to which the program aims to i) evaluate the concept and design of facilitated the participation of the the program; ii) assess if the desired outcomes local communities in natural resource and objectives of the program were achieved; management and decision making iii) evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, processes; relevance, and sustainability of the program; • Degree of gender sensitivity and iv) its implementation in terms of quality and inclusion in the implementation and timeliness, financial planning, monitoring, impacts; and evaluation; v) identify challenges and opportunities; vi) identify the most effective • The extent to which REAP I interventions for scaling up and replication. interventions influenced the communities in addressing poverty The evaluation covered all key activities environment issues in an integrated undertaken under REAP I as reported in manner. the program proposal, progress reports, and annual work plans of the program. The Lessons learned have also been identified and evaluation also addressed the following recommendations have also been suggested issues: to improve the design and implementation of • The extent to which the planned future programs.
12 2. METHODOLOGY
A scientific inquiry method was developed discussions and interviews with implementers and used to carry out the evaluation, while as well as beneficiaries using structured also drawing on the guidelines provided in questionnaires (Appendix 3) were carried the ToR as well as the UNDP monitoring and out. evaluation policy to collect credible, reliable, and useful data. Data collection method in The meetings were conducted with particular used a mixed method to allow for representatives from implementing partners triangulation of information from variety of including TF, MoAF, SDS, UNDP, and sources. Evaluation design matrix (Appendix GNHC. Following this, questionnaire based 2) built around the key questions given interviews were also conducted to gauge in the ToR was used to guide the overall their understanding of the program impacts, methodology including the development of sustainability, as well as factors that impeded questionnaires. Special effort was made to or contributed to the success of the program. re-confirm the progress (especially physical) reported during the field visits. This was followed by a field visit to the sites selected in consultation with the GNHC 2.1. Desktop review of documents and the reference group. In all these sites, focus group discussions were held with the The TE included a thorough review of the beneficiaries to gather information about program documents including program the program impacts (positive or negative) proposals, annual work plans, available on their livelihoods. This was followed by progress reports, and field visit reports, to individual interviews using a structured assess against evaluation criteria. Reported questionnaire. Interviewees were selected achievement against planned outputs was using a stratified random sampling method extracted to assess program progress. to guarantee representation of gender, self- help groups, age, etc. Where there were few 2.2. Focus group and interviews beneficiaries, all of them were interviewed. A profile of the respondents interviewed is given To augment and reconfirm the data from in Table 2. These interviews also focused on desktop review, field visits, focus group validating the reports and indicators.
13 Table 3. Profile of respondents (N= 174; 2013)
Pam & Chaibi Sites Lopokha Sanu Dungtoe* Lamtang Samcholing Ungar * Attributes N % N % N % N % N % N %
Male 19 70 16 59 4 25 5 36 25 45 12 44
Female 8 30 11 41 12 75 9 64 31 55 15 55
≥44 10 37 22 81 12 75 8 57 20 36 16 59
<44 17 63 5 18 4 25 6 43 36 64 11 41 Literate 4 15 7 25 2 12 0 0 10 18 4 15 Illiterate 23 85 20 74 14 88 14 100 46 82 23 85 *100% beneficiaries interviewed; Considered literate if able to read and write. 2.3. Data Analysis Table 4. Evaluation criteria and their description. Data collected from the field through questionnaire surveys were compiled into Criteria Description an excel database, cleaned, and analyzed Extent to which the program initiative and its intended outputs are consistent Relevance using both Excel and Stat Plus to ascertain with national and local policies, and the changes and impacts in the livelihoods of needs of intended beneficiaries. Measure of the extent to which the the beneficiaries within the context of the Effectiveness program intended results (outputs or five capitals (Human Assets, Social cultural outcomes) have been achieved. Measure of how economically resources Assets, Physical and financial assets, and Efficiency or inputs (such as funds, expertise and Natural). The data was also analyzed to time) are converted into results. Extent to which the benefits of the ascertain empirical evidence to triangulate Sustainability program will continue after external and support observations made during the assistance ceases. What has changed in human development evaluation and findings as reported in the and people’s wellbeing that are brought progress reports. Results about by the program interventions, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
14 The results of the program were examined 2.4. Evaluation ratings to determine whether they were positiveor negative. Sustainability of the interventions Using the evaluation criteria given in the and results were examined to determine ToR (Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, the likelihoodof whether the benefits would Sustainability, and Results; Table 3), this continue to be accrued post program. The section details out the evaluation of the sustainability was examined fromvarious program achievements made against planned perspectives including financial, social, objectives, outputs, activities, and indicators. environmental, and institutional.
To make the evaluation more accurate, 2.5. Limitations the elements that constitute the evaluation criteria were used to scalethe program The evaluation has a limitation due to lack of activities (Appendix 4). In this evaluation, proper documentation of designchanges at each activity is rated from 1 to 4 with 1 being the time of formulating the program including highest (highlysatisfactory) rating and 4 a clear and detailed logical framework. This being the lowest (Table 5). problem was further compounded due to lack of time especially for field surveys and Table 5. Evaluation ratings. that we had to resort to sampling of sites and respondents. Program Achievement Rating Qualitative Rating %
1 Highly Satisfactory 80-100
2 Satisfactory 65 – 79 Marginally Satisfac- 3 50 – 64 tory 4 Unsatisfactory Less than 49
15 3. FINDINGS
The overall performance of the program were well established in the target villages has been evaluated based on the evaluation complimented this achievement. Planned criteria (relevance,effectiveness, efficiency, outcomes have all been achieved with and sustainability). almost all the target groups having access to program results which include common 3.1 Program results facility centers, green houses, day care facilities, weaving and tailoring, micro- 3.1.1. Attainment of objectives credits, etc. Target groups have also reported overwhelming improvement in overall The appraisal of the program against set quality of life with 80% (P<0.001) and 84% targets, as defined by key indicators set out in (P<0.001) of the respondents reporting the inception phase is presented in the ensuing improved livelihood and improved access to sections. The assessment is summarized in education respectively. the appendix 6. The first 2 columns (activities and targets/indicators) are extracted from Indicators adequately described the benefits Program Proposal, ProgressReports, and target groups were expected to derive from Annual Work Plans. The third column the results. Targets set at the inception have enumerates the output delivery as confirmed proven pretty accurate. In some cases, the from available terminal progress report, field actual outreach of the program has surpassed reports, from the interviews, consultations targets including establishment of more with stakeholders and field officers and re- than targeted farmer groups, trainings (e.g. confirmed during the field visit to the study Lamtang).All groups targeted were included sites. and the evaluation did not identify any reduced outreach or exclusions. The quality of outcomes is excellent demonstrating the soundness of program The results demonstrate the realization of planning which clearly established the planned benefits to the target groups inclusive relationship between the planned outcomes of improved food security, increased abilities and the program objectives. The use of to earn money and feed families, access to annual work plans which placed activities better health and educational facilities and related to realization of outcomes within a increased capacities for income generation time frame and availability of field officers including women. This translates into from the implementing partners who achievement of the program objectives.
16 Appendix 6 details the results as they stand at expected outputs targets as detailed below. A the end of the program. more detailed analysis is found in Appendix 6. A critical discussion of results and 3.1.2. Analysis of achievements against impactsfollows each activity achievements. outcomes. Outcome 1. Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural Analysis of achievements is presented productivity for income generation by gauging attainment of results against
Intended outputs Outputs delivered - 239 Farmers trained on vegetable production
- Increased capacity for cultivation and management of - 114 Farmers trained on cash crop production including vegetables and fruits. oranges, citrus, walnut, etc)
- Availability of training programs on smart agriculture - 105 Farmers trained on compost making, integrated (compost, farming demonstration, integrated pest pest management, organic farming. management, organic farming, home gardening, producing organic fertilizers, managing wastes, post - 204 Farmers trained in livestock and poultry production harvesting, and use of silos) includingbreed and feed/fodder improvement and management. - Increased capacity building for livestock farming, development, and marketing livestock products. - 25 Farmers trained in sustainable harvesting, management,and production of NWFPs including - Increased capacity building on sustainable harvesting cane and bamboo, mushrooms, paper production, etc. and management of non-wood forestproducts (NWFPs) including mushroom cultivation and post- - Skills training conducted in hair cutting (6 farmers), harvest technologies for drying. tailoring(5), carpentry (44 farmers), masonry (20), use of powerchains(15), internal electrical wiring and use - Increased capacity building on other skills including of processingmachines such as rice hullers, flour mills, hair cutting, tailoring, bee keeping, electrical wiring, etc. arts and crafts, masonry - 28 Farmers participated in study tours on ecotourism - Increased awareness on health and sanitation and farming and awareness programs held on health, sanitation, and education.
The needs based assessments in the REAP including women. Many of the beneficiaries I sites were carried out through a thorough and stakeholders reported significant gains in participation by target groups and key the process of program implementation. The stakeholders, which led to identification of field survey data showed an over whelming relevant interventions that contributed to 98% rating all capacity building exercises increased level of income generation. as highly relevant. Many beneficiaries The REAP I program has built capacities mentioned the capacity building initiatives for poverty alleviation to significant extent have increased their skills and opportunities. amongst stakeholdersat various levels 17 The Capacity building initiative in particular agriculture. Field visits have re-confirmed brought about a commendable change in the with evidence of farmers adopting soil and behavior of the local stakeholders, especially water conservation techniques including towards health, sanitation, education, intercropping, cover crops, and terracing. In environment with significant number of addition, trainings in improved agriculture, households having their own waste pits and sustainable use of natural resources, and engaged in soil and water conservation as diversification of crops have improved well as sustainable harvesting of NWFPs. farming practices. Target groups have taken up cane and bamboo management, nurseries, As a result of the program interventions, vegetable gardening, and other enterprises to beneficiaries were able to link issues of poverty improve their livelihoods. with environment 60% of the respondents reported that their understanding on the Outcome 2. Increased agricultural importance of environment for development productivity and diversification for food have improved and are now engaged in smart security
Intended outputs Outputs delivered
- Over 232 households supplied with vegetables seeds including - Increased supply and distribution of high ginger, asparagus, potato, etc. and vegetable gardens established. yielding variety seeds in all 10 villages. - Over 246 households supplied with 2,878 no of orange seedlings. - Increased agricultural productivity - Seeds were also provided for cereals such as Paddy (500kg), through use of improved agricultural Wheat (500kg) implements/tools - Seedlings of Guava, mangoes, walnut, litchi, etc. were also - Increased agricultural productivity by supplied to anumber of households. reduction in frequency of crop damage by - Agricultural implements and tools including water pipes, etc. wildlife. provided.
- Increased agricultural productivity - 10 numbers of alarm fences provided to ward-off wildlife from by supporting water management for cropped fields. irrigation and domestic use. - Irrigation feasibilities undertaken and water conservation methods including drip irrigation introduced. - Increased livestock productivity through improved breeds. - 3 mithuns, 3 nublangs, 3 donkey studs, 21 jersey and 8 breeding piglets supplied - Increased productivity and diversity - 10 numbers of greenhouse nurseries established and in use. through facilities of green houses. - Other environmentally friendly agricultural practices such as compost, silos, land management etc. established.
18 In order to achieve agricultural productivity, resilience to natural disasters and unforeseen the program provided farmers with improved losses in crop or livestock. agricultural, livestock inputs including environmentally friendly skills. Many The presence of alarm fences has reduced farmers have reported increased yield as the time farmers spent guarding their crops a result of combined efforts (for example, from wild animals. According to the village providing improved seeds with support for tshogpa, alarm fences have helped the soil conservation, composting, and pest farmers in guarding their crops. They no management has increased vegetable yield. longer have to worry about wildlife damaging ‘We no longer have to purchase vegetables, the crops and have more time to spend with instead have excess, which we sell in their families as well as carry out productive Pangtang’, said a farmer from Lamtang.). activities at home. A similar impact was found These interventions contributed towards in another assessment study undertaken by sustaining food security.Diversification Wildlife Conservation Division (2013), where of agricultural practices and provision of the presence of alarm fences has contributed variety of inputs for agriculture (especially to increase in the yield of potatoes for the vegetables and fruits) andlivestock (poultry, farmers in Ura, Bumthang Dzongkhag. dairy, fisheries) further enhanced farmers’
19 Outcome 3. Enhanced employment opportunities and income
Intended outputs Results delivered
- Over 20 different groups formed and engaged in variety of enterprises including poultry, weaving, cane and bamboo, tapioca, artisan, carpentry, masonry, vegetables, fruits, piggeries, mushroom cultivation, etc. - Conducted NWFP inventory and carried out resources mapping. - Self-help Groups formed - 2 poultry sheds, 42 pig sties, 16 cattle sheds, a fishery developed, and supplied and enterprise developed poultry, piglets, mares, and thrabams. for income generation. - Feeds supplied and fodder developed with introduction of legumes, grasses, etc. - Increased support to sustainable harvesting and - 1 cooking stove (100 liters), 25no of milk cans (40 liters each), and 20 numbers of production of NWFPs. milkbuckets - Increased support to - Textiles and handicrafts sold through rural craft outlet in Thimphu. livestock production for income generation. - Two Artisans participated in Trade fair in Delhi and earned Nu. 46,000. - Increased support - Improved tools supplied to artisans, carpenters etc. for improving the quality of inmarketing products. their products. - Increased support for post- - 3 maize grinding machines, 6 rice hullers, 3 flour mills, 1 unit of mushroom harvest technologies. dryingand collection unit, 1 corn flakes machine, 1 oil expeller, and marketing sheds established. - Improved eco-tourism facilities. - 34 km of Lopokha, Adha, Nazhina, and Rukha repaired with 2 bazams constructed. - Increased access to micro- - Facilities such as hot stone baths (2nos), canopy, kitchen with stores, view point, credits with proper signage established. - 30 eco-tourism staff supplied with trekking gears. - Eco-tourism trail maintained and facilities established in Ungar. - Micro-credit (ranging from Nu.10,000 to 100,000) provided to more than 14 people for purchase of power chain saws and maize grinding machines.
The program interventions created a suite of income generating opportunities especially for the villagers(Figure 2). This is commendable given that there existed almost no such opportunities before the programand reflects in the change of attitude. Diversification of income generating opportunities also added toimproving resilience of the communities against unforeseen risks such as pests, drought, etc. as well as compounded theirincomes. Many beneficiaries praised these interventions and are already deriving Figure 2. Annual incomes from variety of sources significant incomes (Figures 2, 3; Tables 6, 7). 20 The program surpassed its targets in where producers are given free transportation establishing income generating enterprises and lodging. Tarayana also helped artisans to contributing to cost effectiveness of the showcase their products in trade fairs outside program. These are confirmed from the the country, thereby enhancing their income field visits and survey data. Lack of markets earning opportunities. Aside from producing forlocal products and quick transport variety ofproducts, training on tailoring facility was seen as a big challenge in income has enhanced skills and added value to the generation especially with perishable items products. This has benefitted the farmers like vegetables and fruits. through cost saving, as they no longer have to go outside the village to stitch their own Improved quality products from weaving, clothes. handicrafts, cane and bamboo, which are also diversified to meet the demands of the markets These interventions have generated and compete with other producers, have also employment opportunities in the community. become an important source of income for For example, 10 youths are already families. The products are sold at any available employed in the pickle bottling facility in markets either within the villages, in nearby Goling,Zhemgang. towns or at the Tarayana Fair in Thimphu,
Table 6. Mean change in the ability to earn money post and pre REAP I compared (N = 174;2013)
REAP I sites Ability to earn money Lamtang Lopokha Pam & Chaibi Samcholing Sanu Dungtoed Ungar Total % Low Post REAP 0 0 1 7 0 1 9 5 Low Pre REAP 20 21 12 51 26 19 149 86 Medium Post REAP 7 4 4 20 2 9 46 26 Medium Pre REAP 0 1 2 4 0 6 13 8 Good Post REAP 13 18 9 28 24 15 107 62 Good Pre REAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No idea Post REAP 3 5 0 1 1 2 12 7 No Idea Pre REAP 3 5 0 1 1 2 12 7
As shown in Table 6, 88% of the respondents end of the program. This significant change have improved their ability to earn money in new income has translated into improved moving from low (pre-program 86%) to livelihoodsincluding abilities to feed their either medium (26%) or good (62%) by the families.
21 Table 7. Mean change in annual savings post and pre REAP I compared(N = 174;2013)
Sanu Dung- Pam &Chaibi Overall Lamtang Lopokha Samcholing toed Ungar Mean savings (n = 14) (N = 174) (n = 23) (n = 27) (n = 56) (n = 27) (n = 27)
14,750 29,889 15,167 (11, 15,960 Post-REAP 1 3409 (1630) 9,083 (7,786) 15,833 (15,550) (8,741) (19,926) 796) (12200)
750 7,735 6,530 Pre-REAP 1 2000 (74) 2,625 (2,250) 7,900 (6,348) 8,500 (630) (196) (4,870) (3,115)
Note: Values in the parenthesis indicate mean annual savings considering the total respondents in the site.
This increase in income is visible in the improvement in savings of the beneficiaries (Table 7).For those reporting an increase in savings, on average they saved about Nu. 15,960 per annum post REAP I compared to Nu.6,530 pre REAP I which is an increase of almost 3 fold. This also translates into a monthly savings of Nu. 1330 per month, Figure 3. Correlation between abilities to earn cash and which is above the extreme poverty line feed families (r=1.0) (Nu1,154.74; PAR 2012) and little below total poverty line (Nu 1,704.84; PAR 2012). This is If increased income generation leading a significant improvement as a result of REAP directly to increased savings and abilities I. to feed families and if expenditure is a function of these attributes, then the results Enhanced income and savings directly of expenditure (Figure 4.) support an translated into increased ability of equitabledistribution of benefits amongst the beneficiaries to feed their families.This is beneficiaries. evidenced from the direct correlation (r = 1) between abilities to earn money and feed families (Figure 3).
Figure 4. Mean percent distribution of household expenditure on essential goods. 22 Figure 4. generated from an analysis of basic Outcome 4:Improved living conditions. statistics shows a normal distribution in expenditures reported by the beneficiaries, Intended outputs Outputs delivered - Over 58 eco-friendly houses - Increased which implies normal distribution of income, constructed and CGI sheets number of suppliedto 28 households. thereby confirming equitable distribution of housingim- - Over 65 eco-friendly toilets provements with benefits especially income generating. and over 58 garbage pits eco-friendlyde- constructed. signs Farmers expended their incomes on variety - Day care center established - Common facility centers es- - Increased access of essential goods (Figure 5.). While 66% tablished allowing self-help to education groups to interact,train, and of the respondents reported to have bought work. rice, only 6% of the respondents bought vegetables. REAP II may want to focus more Many respondents reported satisfaction with on rice production. 28% of respondents still the level of improvement in living conditions, depend on kerosene as source of energy. which is evident from improved physical infrastructure such as houses, toilets and common facilities. Beneficiaries reported improved access to health (83%), education (84%), better roads(52%), and housing (80%) (Table 8).
Table 8. Improvement in living conditions of the beneficiaries post REAP 1
Figure 5. Proportion of respondents expending on Housing Education Health Road essential items Rate % % % % Highly improved 45 51 29 23 Improved 35 33 54 29 Same 20 16 17 48 Total 100 100 100 100
23 Availability of common facility area equipped with solar lighting and furniture in Lamtang village allowed target groups especially women to increase productivity. This facility is also used for trainings and meetings, which reinforces community interactions and connectivity, contributing towards Figure 8: Histogram for health improving human and social capitals. In addition, the constructions of eco-toilets, pit 3.1.3. Poverty environment linkage latrines and waste pits in Lamtang, Pam and Chaibi have improved sanitation and health. The program was able to promote poverty, While construction of eco-toilets under this environment, and livelihood linkages in the achieved 100% results,those without are target communities,both through capacity eagerly waiting to avail the same facility. A building in natural resource inventory/ normal curve of the data on access to health, mapping and smart agriculture. The officials education, and housing showed a normal from national parks and forest sectors distribution indicating equitable distribution were instrumental in the success of these of these benefits as shown in Figure 6,7 & 8. interventions. The result showed that this increased level of awareness about poverty environmental linkage have motivated farmers to adopt environmentally friendly practices and enterprises such as sustainable harvesting, production,and marketing of NWFPs. This has enabled the communities to conserve their natural resources and earn additional incomes.
Figure 6: Histogram for housing 3.2 Performance of the program
3.2.1. Overall rating
From the overall evaluation, the program has been rated to be highly satisfactory (80–100%;Table 5) in achieving its stated purpose. A summary of the evaluation ratings for each of the activity assessed against targets Figure 7: Histogram for education and other findings are given in Appendix 4. 24 Table 9. Overall ratings.
Criteria Comments Overall Rating
The program design, approach, objectives, products, outcomes are very Relevance relevant to the developmental priorities of the country. Highly Satisfactory
Effectiveness The program has been effective in delivering results. Highly Satisfactory
Efficiency The programhas achieved well in budget and physical targets. Highly Satisfactory
The interventions will continue to sustain itself as a result of and the Sustainability Satisfactory enhanced capacity and economic empowerment in the villages.
The program has achieved outstanding results, which has brought over- Results Highly Satisfactory whelming positive changes in the livelihoods of the beneficiaries.
3.2.2. Relevance addressed through broad-based development programs of the sectors. REAP I along with The relevance of the program has been rated other targeted programs have contributed to to be highly satisfactory as evidenced from: reduction of poverty to 12% by 2013.
Alignment with national priorities: 3.2.3. Effectiveness Recognizing the continued prevalence of poverty in Bhutan with 23.2 % in 2007, the The REAP I has achieved all the expected Royal Government accorded highest priority outcomes set out in the program document in addressing poverty during the 10th Five and is rated as highly satisfactory. Year Plan (2008-2013). In addition, Bhutan has made several international commitments 3.2.3.1. Program design and implementation to address poverty issues such as Decade of Poverty Alleviation (2005-2015), SAARC The design of the program was found to be Development Goals and Millennium effective and sustainable, wherein, GNH Development Goals. To realize these Commission assumed the coordinating role priorities, the Royal Government has come and engaged local governments, central up withseveral poverty alleviation initiatives, agencies and CSOs in formulation and which includes targeted poverty initiative, implementation of the program. namely REAP I and NRP. While the broad- Several interventions were found to be based development programs continue to more effective such as, capacity building of alleviate poverty, the REAP I sought to target communities especially women in income extreme poverty that may not be adequately generating activities, formation of numerous 25 self-help groups,day care facilities that freed centre was not felt necessary as it may increase women to spend time on productive activities bureaucratic procedures and cause delays. such as weaving, vegetable gardening, etc., to The interventions proposed were endorsed help support their families. as long as it had local government approval. The decentralization approach was found to 3.2.3.2. Primary stakeholder representation be effective. However, the need for a central coordinating body should also be considered The program design ensured that primary for effective coordination, monitoring, and stakeholders were well represented in evaluation purposes. the program formulation,design, and implementation. The village development 3.2.3.3 Country ownership plans (VDPs) which provided selected interventions were a productof an extensive Country ownership of a program is a critical consultative process and the program feature of any evaluation as it inevitably achievements must be attributed to this provides an indication of the future process. sustainability of the program. This program exhibits excellent government ownership as Here we highlight two important illustrations indicated by: of commendable stakeholder representation: i) GNHC as a coordinating body was able • The program’s relevance to the to bring together the representatives from Government’s ongoing national efforts various sectors; and ii) the level of inclusion to reduce poverty incidences in some at the locallevel was significant. The process of the poorest rural communities in to deliver and endorse the VDPs at both the Bhutan; local and district levels not only re-confirmed the proposed interventions but also motivated • The Government through GNHC and these sectors to take ownership leading to local governments has shown strong successful implementation. ownership and demonstrated visible interest and presence throughout The management of the program was the duration of the program. GNHC deliberately kept simple so that local appointing a REAP focal officer under governments could have a larger role RED to coordinate the program and in making decisions on the activities taking up the role of executing agency implemented in their own communities. As of the program in itself is a huge such, the need for a management board at the testimony to the complete Government 26 stewardship of the program thereby 3.2.4. Efficiency ensuring sustainability. The outputs and over 11 major thematic • The anticipation of REAP phase activities carried out were technically II waiting to be implemented is in adequate, implemented within the time frame fact the biggest commitment by the agreed in the annual work plans or amended government to poverty alleviation by the local governments in consultation with and the sustainability of REAP GNHC. Program implementation efficiency interventions; is rated highly satisfactory.
3.2.3.4 Planned resource and time span 3.2.4.1. Implementation modalities and program management The planned time span of 3 years was appropriate and a total fund of 38.605 The Gross National Happiness Commission million Ngultrums (Nu) was adequate for (GNHC) as the national executing agency the program results envisaged. Infact, the coordinated the program implementation, program has achieved a lot more for each while relevant sectors, local governments and dollar than expected due to value additions CSOs were responsible for implementation. from various sources, which is a direct The accountability and delivery of results advantage of involving local government, rested with the implementing partners. and well established NGOs as implementers with strong Government ownership. In In case of REAP under Tarayana Foundation, some places additional activities were a Program Manager was designated to carried at no extra costs, while in others oversee the overall management and activities were re-appropriated or dropped implementationof the program on a day-to- due to changing priorities at the time of day basis and for preparing and submitting program implementation displaying active reports. adaptive management. An analysis of budget expenditures indicated that the program 3.2.4.2. Financial planning and cost expended a sum of Nu. 34.458 million (with a effectiveness financial progress of 89.26 percent; Appendix 5) which is an outstanding achievement given While the monitoring and reporting the diversity of the interventions, extent, and especially between the executing agency the remoteness of the program sites. and the implementing partners was not as rigorous as it could have been. The program 27 is cost effective and generated good value cost effective delivery of outputs. The program for money for the countryand development procurements were implemented using partners. To assure quality for the UNDP RGoB Procurement Rules and Regulations, component, PB endorsed the AWPs before 2009. As such, average costs of the execution being approved by the GNHC and UNDP. of activities and acquisition of materials and Successful financial planning stems from equipment for the program are in complete the fact that AWPs were finalized using a conformity with existing procedures and multi-stakeholder and consensual approach remain cost effective. involving geog tshogdue, dzongkhag tshogde, and program management board meetings. 3.2.4.3. Monitoring and Evaluation High annual delivery levels confirm the effectiveness of financial planning. There was no specific clause on monitoring and evaluation in the REAP I Proposal to The information on delivery levels SDS, which is perhaps an oversight. However, provides only a rough overview of the UNDP program agreement required for total expenditures, and does not reveal regular monitoring and submission of expenditure as a function of outcomes to see progress report on a quarterly and annual the effectiveness of the financial spending. To basis. Probably owning to the softer augment this information the data presented requirement in theprogram proposal, the in Appendix 5 is used in order to establish any evaluation was unable to see records to linkages between the use of financial resources indicate regular monitoring and consistent and completion of activities. The planned reporting even for UNDP component and actual expenditure are all reported in except for a one time study commissioned to Bhutanese Ngultrum. The planned budget identify best practices in Lamtang, and Pam and expenditures have been derived from the and Chaibi. program document commissioned in 2010 and re-casted in the AWPs, progress reports, In general, a terminal report describing and are classified according to the planned physical and financial report was made activities. available during the evaluation and used in the evaluation. Required inputs including experts were appropriate in numbers, timing of dispatch, While the processes, stakeholder and specialization fields of knowledge. Inputs identification, ownership, etc have been to facilitate effective implementation were great; the evaluation would like to stress also delivered on time allowing timely and (based on the evidences available) the 28 need to improve monitoring, evaluation, Output sustainability: reporting, and consistent record keeping by the implementing agencies, UNDP, SDS, and • Outputs such as newly built houses, GNHC. kitchen gardens, livestock, cash crops,sanitary facilities are being used 3.2.5 Sustainability and managed by either the individual households or self-help groupswho The program has built capacities and are already showing strong ownership; established required structures to generate incomes. These enterprises will not require • Enhanced capacity of stakeholders significant inputs in the future to run, as they including beneficiaries to efficiently are already well established. Sustainability of manage these interventions and their the program is as reflected below: impacts.
Institutional sustainability Financial sustainability:
• The program design and • Availability of micro-credits from implementation approach assured saving schemes reinforced by sustainability of the program benefits. continued income from productive activities including cash crops, • The government has committed to vegetables, art and craft products, upscale this program to 116 villages as well as from livestock will render financial sustainability. Micro-credits during the 11thFive Year Plan; and saving schemes were introduced in Lamtang by Tarayana Foundation, • The complimentary role of the program is very popular with the villagers. The interventions to the government’s reason being that farmers have to pay poverty alleviation efforts along with only 7% interest without having to strong support by relevant agencies. provide any guarantee. The micro- credit and savings group are not only • Self-help groups have strengthened lending money amongst their group community cooperation establishing members but also to those outside. and reinforcing institutionalcapacity. This has allowed many farmers to either start small businesses including purchase of horses and agricultural implements. 29 4. CONCLUSION
The REAP I set out on an ambitious path to benefits for the target community including: i) help achieve the national goal of reducing enhanced integration amongst various groups poverty by at least 15%from 23.2% (2007 working on variety of productive activities; PAR). Given the small program team and ii) improved interactions amongst the a modest budget, coupled with diversity of beneficiaries including women; iii) improved interventions andremoteness of REAP I sites, sanitation and health conditions; and iv) day the program has made a good achievement. It care facilities enabled children to prepare has managed to complete all the interventions. themselves for school as well as saved time This invariably contributed to the reduction for women that translated into productive of poverty rate to 12% by 2012. outputs. Analysis of the descriptive statistics for improved access to basic facilities such as The program is highly relevant and in health, education, and housing indicate that conformity with the government’s priority of thereis an equitable distribution of benefits poverty alleviation. The program design and amongst the beneficiaries. This is further approach were well developed. The outputs confirmed by the normal distribution of and activities carried out were technically expenditure patterns. adequate,achieved well within the program timeframe, and costs were reasonable for the The program management model with achievement of the program objectives. government taking full ownership but implemented by the local governments and The program results yielded numerous other partners who have substantial but impacts transforming the lives of the rural focused presence in the field has contributed poor in the target areas. The program significantly to the overall success of the interventions have produced significant program. The partnership with NGOs positive results whereby beneficiaries are, enabled optimizing their core capacities and engaged in income generating enterprises. expertise. Overall, their quality of life has improved with better housing, decent toilets, improved However, some of the challenges faced access to education and health facilities, during the program implementation markets, and financial schemes. Self-help were – differing priority and mandates of groups have directly or indirectly encouraged implementing partners and beneficiaries, and nurtured a sense of community and remoteness of the target areas, lack of proper goodwill amongst the community members transport,accessibility, traditional habits thereby enhancing support systems, which of target groups and low capacities at local will render sustainability. In particular, government. the program has had some very important
30 5. LESSONS LEARNED
For strengthening stakeholder participation other program activities. and implementation: Multilevel integrated management approach with different agents Program partnership: The partnership of public, private, and NGOs combining between Government and Tarayana different levels of administration were not Foundation as the implementer in3 REAP well defined at program design and later I villages in Mongar and Zhemgang is an in the implementation. In this context ideal model and one that can be adopted a management system with rules and for all futureprograms of similar nature. It procedures should be established to maintain not only optimizes the expertise available in effectiveness and consistency in program the country but also allows theGovernment implementation. agencies to focus more on their original mandates of quality assurance through Implementation by local governments monitoring andevaluation. proved to be effective especially in avoiding duplications through the development of Application of adaptive management VDPs. However, during the implementation strategies: The program presented a high process, the program faced reduced standard of initiative,adaptability, and institutional ability of the local governments to innovation by quickly shifting to new needs play an important role to coordinate concerned based interventions when the original stakeholders and to support implementation interventions failed to work either due to due to technical constraints. This has led to new developments in government policy or poor integration of REAP I interventions peoples priorities. Inthese areas, efficiency into local plans. Local administration staff was achieved by optimizing local actors and must be trained in planning skills especially resources. linking poverty, environment, and livelihoods issues to enhance their efficiency to integrate Efforts to secure sustainability: The interventions into their local plans. program made great progress to secure sustainability, by aligning the interventions The presence of multiple actors implementing and incorporating them into local plans. As programs especially in Zhemgang diluted most of the interventions fall well withinthe the effectiveness of the programs as well as mandates of the local development sectors developed some resentment amongst the such as agriculture, forests, and livestock, beneficiaries to participate in meetings, and implementation through these sectors at
31 local governments is an excellent strategy. there has been little attempt to document The interventions themselves were proposed these impacts and share them. The evaluation by the individual households and reflect their suspects this, as it is not specifically addressed needs. As such, the prospects for continuation in the program framework. of the interventions post program is pretty good.The program has achieved significant Role of M & E in program implementation results in increasing the productivity of and its effectiveness: Vigilant monitoring agricultural, livestock, and NWFPs including and evaluation is key to the success of any local handicrafts. However, owing to the program especially in context like ours where remoteness of these sites, access to market program sites are not easily accessible and remains a major challenge and needs special dealing with poor people. This will ensure attention. effective implementation of program to achieve its goals. REAP I has made excellent Knowledge transfer: While the program achievements and changed the lives of many achieved its goals and had positive impacts, poor for better.
32 6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD
Program design: Program design must take and documenting lessons learnt for adaptive into consideration the implementing capacity management. of the various partners. Where partners lack the ability to adequately implement, The Program Board under the leadership of the program may consider building such GNHC has performed outstandingly well, capacities for the sustainability and enhanced and has the potential to take bigger roles to effectiveness of the implementation. approve plans and budgets, which can then be released by GNHC. It is recommended Program design may also want to take into that a Program Board be formed for future consideration the number of programs programs of similar nature. being taken up in the targeted sites, as too many programs will render lack of Independent evaluation: Evaluations tends participation on one side and questions of to be murky when implementers drive the equity in distributionof interventions across evaluation process.It is recommended that the country on the other hand. Whenever an independent evaluation expert/firm possible, it is recommended that programs be contracted to carry out midterm and be merged to reduce time demand on the terminal evaluation. A midterm evaluation beneficiaries. will catalyze a smooth implementation leading to outcomes.In particular it will Strengthen the REAP Unit: Inspite of a clarify achievements and implementing REAP unit being set up at RED, GNHC, the processes, and examine whether the plans program has suffered from lack of high quality ofthe program are appropriate, focusing on record keeping, progress reporting, regular efficiency, relevance, etc. These assessments monitoring and evaluation. While the DPOs by an independent consultant will assure were responsible for monitoring aspects of credible and neutral assessment of program the program, it is crucial that a central agency performances. such as REAP unit at RED with a dedicated focal official to collate and document progress Access to markets: Poverty alleviation reports from the field and implementing program like this when targeted at enhanced agencies. The REAP Unit at RED must try production for food security and income to refrain itself of implementation and focus generation, must pay special attention on assuring quality through monitoring and to markets. Products without markets evaluation of program progress and impacts will dolittle to help alleviate poverty.It is
33 recommended that DAMC work with local women. In moving forward, the evaluation communities to establish direct linkages would like to recommend the program between them and potential consumers partners to take the recommendations and including local hotels etc. lessons learnt in this phase and take into consideration the best practices as outlined Innovative thinking and adaptive below: management should not be limited by the The best practices developed in this program program design: While the program has will constitute useful experience for REAP made immense contributions towards phase II and other programs of similar nature. changing attitudes, behaviors towards This includes: environment, gender, and increased incomes thereby raising the overall living standards • The institutional arrangements with of the beneficiaries, there has not been much Government taking full ownership; effort to quantify the increases in awareness, capacities, and how these are leading to • The development of participatory impacts as it was not within the program Village Development Plans are an framework. Perhaps thinking outside the excellent tool for identification of program framework for value addition and needs based interventions; generating knowledge is encouraged, even when the program achieves it goals and • Involvement of local governments as outcomes. It is also recommended to promote implementer has contributed to the the continuity on generating knowledge and efficiency of the program due to their share the experiences achieved through this extensive reach; program with other stakeholders. • Involvement of NGOs – as an Based on the findings and lessons learnt, implementer; the evaluation would like to recommend for REAP phase II to move forward quickly to • Availability of dedicated field staff alleviate poverty for the rural poor including from local governments;
34 Some of the interventions that has successfully kept the age old community values; contributed to the success of the program include: iii) Micro-finance, which enabled farmers to start enterprises without i) Capacity building and awareness having to worry about guarantees, on empowerment, gender, poverty etc; environment linkages; iv) Construction of houses, bridges, day-care centers, etc., which directly ii) Creation of self-help groups for contributed to improved quality of income generating opportunities, life in the villages. which aside from being productive
35 7. APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Terms of reference (Tor)
Evaluation of Rural Economy Advancement Programme (REAP PHASE I)
1. Background Recognizing the continued prevalence of and Chaibi in Mongar; Ungar in Lhuentse; poverty in Bhutan with 23.2 % in 2007, the Mondokha and Choleykha in Chukha; Royal Government accorded highest priority Sanu Dungtoe in Samtse, Ritey in Sarpang; in addressing poverty during the 10 Five Year Lopokha, Shoba, Nazhina and Rukha in Plan (2008-2013). In addition, Bhutan has Wangduephodrang; Samcholing in Trongsa; made several international commitments Thangdokha,Ngatsena and Dramekha in to address poverty issues such as Decade of Haa; Lauri in Samdrup Jongkhar). The actual Poverty Alleviation (2005-2015), SAARC implementation of REAP I was started in Development Goals and Millennium 2010 and was completed in the year end of Development Goals. 2012.
Against this background, the Royal 2. Purpose Government has come up with several poverty alleviation initiatives, which includes The main purpose of the evaluation of REAP targeted poverty initiative, namely Rural I is to assess the level of achievement of the Economy Advancement Program (REAP). results and to draw lessons that can both While the broad-based development program improve the sustainability of benefits from continue to alleviate poverty, the REAP seeks this phase, and aid in the development and to target the extreme poverty that may not be implementation of REAP II. adequately addressed through broad-based development programs. 3. Objectives
REAP I was coordinated by GNH The main objectives of the evaluation shall be Commission in partnership with local as follows: government and non-governmental organizations, as a pilot program, covering 17 1. To assess the outcome of the program poorest villages (Lamtang in Zhemgang; Pam 2. To assess the effectiveness, efficiency
36 and sustainability of the program 5. Scope of the evaluation: the evaluation 3. To identify the challenges and should cover the following areas of REAP opportunities intervention: 4. To identify the most effective interventions for up scaling and 1. Ownership and participation of the replication intervention at the national and local levels; 4. Evaluation Questions 2. The review will be required to look at the cross cutting issues: Based on the above evaluation purpose and • Governance - How has the program objectives, the main evaluation questions are: facilitated the participation of the local communities in natural 1. Is there increase in household income resource management and after interventions? decision making processes? 2. What is the consumption and • Promotion of gender equity: Has expenditure pattern? the program considered gender 3. Is there increase in savings after sensitivity or equal participation interventions? of man and women and boys and 4. Is there improvement in the living girls in decision making processes? conditions? • Poverty-environment linkages 5. Is there improvement in access to – how the REAP intervention health and education? has influenced the communities 6. How effective were the interventions? in addressing PE issues in an 7. Which interventions were the most integrated manner. beneficial and effective? 8. Can communities continue to have 3. Describe the main lessons that have increased level of living conditions emerged in terms of: without further program support? • strengthening stakeholder 9. Were the resources efficiently utilized? participation; 10. What were the opportunities and • application of adaptive challenges faced in implementing the management strategies; program? • efforts to secure sustainability; 11. How equitable was the distribution of • knowledge transfer; and benefits among the households within • Role of M & E in program the village? implementation and its effectiveness. 37 6. Methodology 9. Evaluation Team
The evaluation must provide evidence‐ A national consultant shall be hired to based information that is credible, reliable form the evaluation team.The consultant and useful. The evaluation methodology shall have prior experience in evaluating shall involve mixed method of quantitative similar programs. Experience with Poverty- and qualitative methods. Quantitative data environment related programs will be an shall be collected through field surveys and advantage. secondary data, while the qualitative data shall be collected through interviews of key • The consultant must present the informants and focus group discussions. following qualifications: However, the actual method shall be • Professional background in rural determined by the evaluation design matrix development, poverty-environment to be prepared by the evaluation team. related fields. A minimum of 7 years of working experience is required; 7. Management Team • Previous experience with results‐ based monitoring and evaluation Research and Evaluation Division, GNH methodologies; Commission in collaboration with UNDP • Highly knowledgeable of participatory shall form the management team. The monitoring and evaluation processes, management team shall coordinate the and experience in evaluation of overall evaluation activities. The evaluation technical assistance programs with team shall report any matter concerning major donor agencies; evaluation activities to the management team. • Demonstrate ability to assess complex situations, succinctly distils critical 8. Reference Group issues, and draw forward-looking conclusions and recommendations; A reference group shall be formed to provide • Ability and experience to lead multi- technical advice to the evaluation team disciplinary teams, and deliver quality to ensure the quality and standard of the reports within the given time. evaluation process. The reference group shall • Writing and communication will be be comprised of officials from Research and Evaluation Division, GNHC, UNDP M & in English, and must be excellent in E group, Tarayana, Ministry of Agriculture English and communication skills. and Forests and Evaluation Association of Bhutan. 38 10. Evaluation Time frame
The total duration of the evaluation will be according to the following plan:
Activity Timing Completion Date
Inception report (Preparation and endorsement 25 October 2013 by RED) 3 days
Field survey, interviews, desk reviews. 25 days 25 November 2013 De-briefing of the initial findings of the 1 day 28 November 2013 evaluation Submission of the draft report 5 days 6 December 2013 Final Report 1 day 13 December 2013
11. Deliverables
The evaluation team is expected to deliver following outputs:
Deliverable Content Timing Responsibilities
Evaluator submits to RED/ Evaluation design matrix and work GNHC. plan. Within 3 days of the Inception Report Field mission will commence award of the contract. Data collection instruments (eg. only upon endorsement of questionnaires). the inception report by RED/ GNHC. Within 3 days of the end Management team and De-briefing Initial findings of the evaluation. of evaluation mission stakeholders. Full report with annexes Within 8 days of the Sent to RED/GNHC and Draft Final Report The evaluation report must include a presentation of initial management team. chapter providing a set of conclusions, findings recommendations and lessons.
Upon incorporating feedback and Within 1 week of comments from the management team, Final Report receiving comments on Sent to RED/GNHC relevant stakeholders and reference draft final report group.
39 12. Payment modalities and of the assignment (including daily fee, per specifications diem and travel costs). UNDP applies a fair and transparent selection process that will
% Milestone take into account the competencies/skills
Upon submission of Inception Report and of the applicants as well as their financial 15% endorsement by RED/GNHC proposals. Qualified women and members of Following submission and approval of the 1st draft 20% evaluation report social minorities are encouraged to apply. Following submission and approval of the final 65% evaluation report by RED/Management Team. 14. Selection Criteria
13. Application Process The consultants who fulfill the above requirements will be assessed based on the Applicants are requested to apply by email to following criteria: procurement at [email protected] Technical evaluation comprising of 70%, and by 21stOctober 2013. Individual consultants Financial evaluation of 30% are invited to submit applications together with their CV for these positions. The Annex A: List of Documents to be application should contain a current and reviewed by the evaluators complete C.V. in English with indication of the e‐mail and phone contact. The consultant Sl. # Documents should also submit a methodology outlining 1. REAP I Village Development Plans how s/he will undertake the evaluation 2. REAP I work plans and progress Reports process and data analysis. The consultant will 3. Baseline data collected and Village Profile be assessed based on the quality of proposed 4. Poverty and Environment Initiatives Documents methodology and expertise in evaluation. 5. REAP Strategic Framework UNDP Report: MDG 1 achievements and scaling 6. Shortlisted candidates will be requested to up strategies 2011 submit a price offer indicating the total cost 7. SDS Progress Reports
40 APPENDIX 2. EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX
Information Data collection Data analysis Key Questions Indicators sources (sample) methods methods Is there increase in household income after interventions? Income from sale of agricultural, artisan Progress reports Inferential 1.1. What is your annual income products and eco- Household and statistics, before the interventions? tourism, as reported interviews, Focus Respondent qualitative in progress reports group discussion 1.2. What is your income now? interview analysis and respondent interviews
What is the consumption and expenditure pattern? Generate a list of items consumed and get estimated expenditures for procuring each items consumed?
2.2. What are the major items that List of items Descriptive Household you and your household consume? purchased, and Household statistics, cost responses, (list them) amount of money interviews, Focus benefit analysis, Community spent on purchase of group discussion qualitative 2.3. How much do you spend on responses purchasing each items consumed? each item. analysis
Is there increase in savings after interventions? (Get income in Ngultrums per year?
Amount of money the 3.1. What is your annual savings farmers were able to Household Inferential Household before the interventions? save annually since responses, statistics, interviews, Focus the inception of the Community qualitative 3.2. What is your annual savings after group discussion the interventions? program. responses analysis
Is there improvement in the living conditions? (Improvement will be rated as: highly improved 3, improved 2, and little improved 1.
4.1. Has your access to basic Descriptive No of eco-friendly education, health and other Household statistics, houses, pit Household livelihood sources improved as a responses, descriptive latrines, water taps interviews, Focus result of the interventions? If yes, rate Community statistics and constructed group discussion them as: highly improved, improved, responses qualitative little improvement. analysis
Is there improvement in access to health and education? (quantify interms of no walking days reduced, more staff etc)
Household responses, Reduction in the progress reports, 5.1. How has your access to health amount of time Descriptive program Household improved? If yes, by how? spent on accessing statistics, documents, interviews, Focus health and education qualitative 5.2. How has your access to education Community group discussion facilities after the analysis improved? If yes how? responses interventions. Hospital, BHU reports
41 How effective were the interventions? Progress reports, Progress reports, program program Descriptive To what extent have the program No or % of planned documents, field documents, and inferential objective been achieved? Please rate outputs achieved. visit reports, household statistics as highly satisfactory, satisfactory, Terminal report for responses unsatisfactory for each program REAP 1, objectives) Household interviews, Focus Which interventions were the most Progress reports, group discussion, Comparative beneficial and effective? Rate as Out achievement of household Terminal and inferential highly effective, effective, ineffective various interventions interviews report, Program statistics against each program interventions. documents, AWPs, field reports Can communities continue to have increased level of living conditions without further program support?
Communities’ Household capacity to interviews, Review and manage identified 8.1. How has the interventions financial and analysis of interventions Progress report, increased the capacity of beneficiaries physical reports, sustainability including group Community to sustain outcomes? policy and plans initiatives formation response, developed towards including 8.2. What policy and fiscal policy enhanced. Govt policy on continued support, capacity changes have been instituted to Enabling policy and poverty alleviation program reports, building, sustain interventions? regulatory framework mid term and final financial inputs. for Rural Livelihood evaluation reports interventions.
Household Were the resources efficiently interviews, utilized? Physical and financial and Cost benefit To what extent have the results financial progress physical reports, analysis, Maximization of the been delivered with the least costly reports, terminal policy and plans descriptive available physical and resources possible. (please rate them report, program developed towards statistics, financial resources as highly satisfactory, satisfactory, document, continued support, qualitative unsatisfactory) beneficiaries program reports, analysis mid term and final evaluation reports
What were the opportunities and challenges faced in implementing the program? Household Community and 10.1.What are the factors outside responses, hh interviews, the program that have assisted and/ financial financial and Descriptive Achievements or non prevented the program outcomes? and physical physical reports, and inferential achievement of the progress reports, policy and plans statistics program against their 10.2. What are the factors within terminal report, developed towards (correlation) planned targets, and the program that have assisted and/ implementers continued support, and qualitative reasons. prevented the program outcomes? (GNHC, local program reports, analysis extension officers, mid term and final donors evaluation reports
42 Community and hh interviews, and focus groups, Distribution Comparative How equitable was the distribution financial and of program Progress reports, analysis (means, of benefits among the households physical reports, interventions across community %, ANOVA), within the village? Rate as highly policy and plans all sectors of the response, hh qualitative equitable, equitable, not equitable) developed towards society and resultant response, analysis. continued support, income generation. program reports, mid term and final evaluation reports
How has the interventions promoted poverty environment linkages
12.1. Have the beneficiaries including local government staff been trained in skills and innovations to address poverty and conservation of natural resources? No of capacity building trainings 12.2. How has it empowered conducted on poverty Household beneficiaries to take decisions to environment theme. Desk top review, Comparative interviews, focus switch to environmental friendly No of hh involved focus group statistics group discussion, systems (agriculture, livestock, in organic farming, discussion, (chi-square, progress reports, forests) organic manure, progress reports correlation) list of participants water conservation and respondent and qualitative 12.3. Have you been involved in in decision (drip irrigation), no interviews analysis environmental decision making making process. process to address natural resources participants including and poverty issues local government officials 12.3. Have you taken up environmental friendly activities to conserve soil and water? List activities
Capacity building Household meetings, revised Beneficiaries, interviews, focus policies, plans at 13. Have environmental and implementers, group discussion national, sectoral qualitative livelihood issues been integrated into progress reports, with implementing and local levels that analysis national, sectoral and local plans? national, sectoral agencies, local are environmental and local plan. leaders, progress friendly. Legal reports documents
43 APPENDIX 3. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
QUESTIONAIRE FOR IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES
Assignment: Rural Economy and Advancement Program (REAP 1)
Interview with implementing partners (MoAF, GNHC, Tarayana, UNDP, Local Government)
Survey I.D. number ______Date______
A. Respondent Profile
1.Name:______2. Position:______3.Sex (check one) ______male ______female 4. What is your age? ______yrs 5. Educational level (highest achieved) ______
B. Performance of partners
1. Did the program design illustrate the connection with Bhutan’s national developmental priorities? 2. Was the design process participatory? 3. Has the design adequately defined and addressed the program goals and objectives? 4. Did the design adequately address targeting, participation and gender issues? 5. Was the design suitably modified if necessary (e.g through an MTR or learning process) 6. Did resource allocations accord with program objectives/goals? 7. Are objectives currently relevant to target group aspirations/needs? 8. Has the program been innovative? 9. Has GNHC been active in creating an effective partnership for implementation? 10. Has GNHC and Tarayana sought to influence poverty policies (by being an advocate for the rural poor)? 11. Has the supervision program been well arranged (frequency, composition, continuity)? 12. Have implementation problems been highlighted and appropriate remedies suggested? 13. Has the supervision process enhanced implementation and poverty impacts?
44 C. Government and GNHC performance
1. Has government correctly assumed ownership and responsibility for the program? 2. By its actions and policies has government been fully supportive of program goals? 3. Did government contribute adequately to the program preparation process? 4. Has adequate staffing and program management been assured? 5. Has appropriate staff training been arranged and funded? 6. Have administrative arrangements (especially procurement) been suitable for implementation needs? 9. Have participatory approaches included in the design been encouraged and/or adopted? 10. Has coordination of the implementing agencies been well arranged? 11. Has policy guidance been provided to the program management where necessary? 12. Has the program management discharged its functions adequately? 13. Has government facilitated the work of NGOs and civil society where appropriate? 14. Has adequate reporting and auditing been arranged? 15. Has the government planned an exit strategy and/or made arrangements for the continuation of program activities?
D. General queries
1. Please provide information on the number of capacity building trainings provided.
Skills development training types Village name No of groups No of participants trained F:M
2. State the kinds of program activities implemented and rate its achievement of purposes? Please rate as fully achieved, partly achieved or not achieved
Reasons/Challenges faced Activities Rate Input cost Outcome indicators Annual income (Nu) in implementation # ppl Net in- # groups Total income trained come
45 3. How is your agency working together with your partner agencies to implement this program? (joint teams, meetings, progress reports)
Implementation Agencies involved Frequency and year
Joint team visit
Meetings
Progress reporting
Any other means
4. What are the facilitating factors that affected the ability of your organization to work closely with partner organizations?
5. What are the challenges that affected the ability of your organization to work closely with partner organizations and what may be done to overcome these challenges?
Partners Challenges Suggestions to overcome challenges Farmers GNHC UNDP MoAF Tarayana Public institutions (ministry, local govt, extension officers)
6. Sustainability 6.1 Was the program designed to be sustainable? 6.2 What are the challenges that you see in making this program sustainable in the future (after withdrawing donor support)? 6.3. What strategies are being developed to address the sustainability challenges identified above?
7. Has your program been audited? If yes when? (please ask for a copy of the audit report) 8. How has the program interventions promoted poverty environment linkages? 9. Have the beneficiaries been trained in skills and innovations to address poverty and conservation of natural resources? 10. How has it empowered beneficiaries to take decisions to switch to environmental friendly systems (agriculture, livestock, forests) 46 11. Have you taken up environmental friendly activities to conserve soil and water? List activities 12. Have environmental and livelihood issues been integrated into national, sectoral and local plans? Which plans have been revised to incorporate PE issues? 13. Please provide general feedback on the following components of REAP 1 using the ratings as highly satisfactory, satisfactory, unsatisfactory. Briefly justify your response if applicable. 13.1. Effectiveness the extent to which an objective has been achieved. 13.2. Efficiency the extent to which results have been delivered with the least costly resources possible. 13.3. Sustainability the likelihood and intervention benefits will continue after completion of the program. 13.4. Stakeholder participation how well do you believe that the relevant program stakeholders were involved in the program design formulation, implementation and monitoring. 14. What are the factors outside the program that have assisted and/ prevented the program outcomes? 15. What are the factors within the program that have assisted and/ prevented the program outcomes? 16. Please list strengths of REAP 1 intervention. 17. State any major changes that have affected the program since its formulation if any. 18. Overall, how do you rate this program in achieving its original goals? ______highly successful ______successful ______not successful why______
QUESTIONAIRE FOR BENEFICIARES
Directions: Speak to either a male or female 18yrs of age who lives full-time in the house selected by the survey organizer. Begin with the following introduction: Good Day. My name is ______. I am visiting people in your villages to learn about how UNDP program implemented by Tarayana Foundationhave impacted your lives and incomes. The results of the study will never reveal your name (it will be kept confidential). If okay with you, I would like to ask you a few questions – your opinion is very important to this study. Thank you in advance for helping us with this study.
47 PERSONAL INFORMATION (about who is answering the questions)
We’d like to begin by learning about you.
1. Name______2. Sex (check one)______male ______female 3. What is your age? ______yrs 4. Did you go to school? If so state the last level ______5. How many people currently live in your household?______under 18 yrs old ______18 yrs old or older 6. Are you a beneficiary of the REAP 1 Programs? If no then stop survey. 7. Which income generating opportunity do you participate in? please also rate support received.
Income generating opportunities (e.g. eco- Rate support from implementing tourism, handicrafts, livestock, agriculture Yes or No # of participants Reasons agency (excellent, good, poor) etc)
8. How has these new opportunities helped enhance your ability to earn money? Please rate
Ability Before the program After the program Comments/suggestions for improvement Low Medium (some ability but not a lot) Good Same
9. What is the consumption and expenditure pattern
What are the major items consumed? How much do you spend on purchasing these items
48 10. How has these new opportunities helped enhance your ability to feed your family/ please rate.
Comments/suggestions for Ability Before the program After the program improvement Low Medium (some ability but not a lot) Good Same
11. what is your costs and benefits from the opportunity? (Only for group that they participate in).
Income generating opportunities Set up costs (Nu) Income (Nu) Challenges Total income Input costs
12. Is there an increase in your savings after the interventions?
What is your annual savings after the interventions? What is your annual savings before the interventions?
13. Is there improvement in the living conditions (housing, education, health, etc, please rate as highly improved = 3; improved = 2; little improvement=1. 14. Has your access to health and education improved as a result of the interventions? 15. What kind and how many training programs have you attended and how has these trainings helped you alleviate time constraints? 16. What were the constraints faced by women in participating in training programs before the program. 17. Did the training program enhance your skills? (tick YES or NO) If YES in what field?
Skills developed in the field of: YES or NO Rate (as excellent, good or poor) Suggestions to improve the training program if any
49 18. How has the interventions promoted poverty environment linkages. 19. Have the beneficiaries been trained in skills and innovations to address poverty and conservation of natural resources? 20. How has it empowered beneficiaries to take decisions to switch to environmental friendly systems (agriculture, livestock, forests) 21. Have you taken up environmental friendly activities to conserve soil and water? List activities 22. Have environmental and livelihood issues been integrated into national, sectoral and local plans? 23. What are the factors outside the program that have assisted and/ prevented the program outcomes? 24. What are the factors within the program that have assisted and/ prevented the program outcomes? 25. Please list strengths of REAP 1 intervention. 26. State any major changes that have affected the program since its formulation if any. 27. How has the program strengthened your abilities to make decisions independently and create new opportunities? 28. Have you or the group that you work with been able to make choices on development of new opportunities for you? If yes list. 29. In your community are you able to address many problems locally? 30. How equitable was the distribution of benefits amongst the household within the village? Rate as highly equitable = 2; equitable = 1; not equitable = 0. 31. What were the main threats to your survival livelihood before the program? 32. How would you have rated your ability to earn money before the program? 33. How would you have rated your ability to feed yourself/ your family before the program? 34. How would you have rated your ability to protect yourself from the threats before the program? 35. Have the conditions that you identified in question 30 changed now? How? 36. Please provide general feedback on the following components of REAP 1 using the ratings as highly satisfactory, satisfactory, unsatisfactory. Briefly justify your response if applicable.
36.1. Effectiveness the extent to which an objective has been achieved.
36.2. Efficiency the extent to which results has been delivered with the least costly resources possible. 50 36.3. Sustainability the likelihood and intervention benefits will continue after completion of the program.
36.4. Stakeholder participation how well do you believe that the relevant program stakeholders were involved in the program design formulation, implementation and monitoring.
APPENDIX 4. INDIVIDUAL AND OVERALL RATING OF ACTIVITIES OF THE PROGRAM.
Outputs/Activities Timeliness Achievement of Completion activities useBudget Impact Public participation Monitoring rating Activity Increased agricultural productivity and diversification 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 for food security Increased agricultural productivity and 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 commercialization for income generation Decreased wildlife threats and damage to crop, 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 livestock, and people Increased production for rural based, traditional arts 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 and crafts for income Improved health awareness and disease prevention 1 1 1 1 1 2 through improved housing and sanitation Increased access to and relevance of education 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Increased productivity of eco-tourism for income 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 generation Increased access to and awareness of micro-credit 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 lending opportunities Increased sustainable usage and management of non 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 wood forest products for income generation Decreased land degradation and unsustainable land 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 use practices
51 APPENDIX 5. ASSESSMENT OF EXPENDITURE PROGRESS AGAINST PLANNED BUDGET (SOURCE: GNHC, TERMINAL PROGRESS REPORT 2010 TO 2013)
Nu in Million Percentage Dzongkhag Village Outlay Total Expenditure Financial Progress
Chukha Mondokha and Choleykha 0.336 0.578 172.02
Haa Bebji, Dramekha, Ngetsena 1.951 2.802 143.62
Lhuentse Ungar 3.543 3.619 102.15
Samdrup Jongkhar Lauri 4.362 3.364 77.12
Lopokha, Shoba, Nazhina, Wangduephodrang 9.172 6.945 75.72 and Rukha
Sarpang Ritey 3.572 1.065 29.82
Trongsa Samcholing 0.616 0.665 107.95
Samtse Sanu-Dungtoe 1.850 2.217 119.84
Monggar Pam and Chaibi 4.624 4.624 100.00
Zhemgang Lamtang 6.521 6.521 100.00
REAP I socio-economic survey 2.058 2.058 100.00
Total 38.605 34.458 89.26
52 APPENDIX 6. ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST PLANNED OUTPUT.
Planned activities Target indicator Evidences of output delivery
REAP Site 1. Lamtang Village, Goshing Gewog, Zhemgang Dzongkhag. Outcome 1: Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural productivity for income generation 1.1. Capacity Building of Farmers trained in smart agricultural practices and farmers on smart agriculture 40 compost sheds have been established and are in (organic farming/ home use. 8-member farmers’ study tour conducted. gardening/ producing organic Training conducted on vegetable production and fertilizer/ managing wastes/ plantation of orange. Farmers were also trained and post harvest/ using of silos, using post harvest technologies including silos. vegetables) Trained 10 people in carpentry and 20 in masonry, At least trains 40 farmers in smart 15 people in use of power chains and were involved 1.2. Skills development training agricultural practices including in construction of eco-friendly houses as well as on carpentry, masonry, and vegetable production, through working as contract builders in the neighboring handicrafts on field training sessions/ areas. Provided training on improvement of the demonstrations. quality of handicrafts. Six members trained in basic At least one workshop conducted hair cutting. 5 people trained in tailoring. in each village to enhance skills of 1.3. Capacity building on farmers on post harvest practices Target groups trained on poultry management with farming and marketing of Eco-friendly houses constructed. ---poultry farms in place. livestock products Eco-friendly toilets constructed to improved health and 12 new houses constructed. 8 houses are under sanitation. 1.4. Housing improvement with construction with the aim of completing them A common facility center and day ecofriendly design by December 2010. Materials for construction of care centers constructed. remaining 20 houses are being collected. A resource map available for 1.5 Improve health, sanitation planning purposes In collaboration with local health and education staff, & education: Awareness awareness campaign on public sanitation conducted. programs Garbage pits are dug and latrines are constructed.
1.6. Support construction of A common facility center constructed and used by common facility center self help groups for training, meetings, etc.
1.7. Construction of day care A day care center established and in use. center
53 Outcome 2:Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security 2.1. Increase yield through introduction to improved high 40 vegetable gardens established and are in full yielding varieties: vegetables At least 75% of the farmers use. Gingers being cultivated. Polythene pipes (radish, cabbage, kidney beans, us improved seeds and micro and watering can supplied. Each of 40 households cauliflower, ginger) nutrients to increase productivity supplied with 40 orange seedlings, 10 arecanut and 5 2.2. Introduction of agricultural Use of water conservation guava seedlings on Kamzhing. inputs/tools measures such as drip or sprinklers 2.3. Support of water management including drip Crop protection measures in Supplied polythene pipes for kitchen gardening. irrigation, sprinklers place 2.5. Introduce methods to reduce crop damage from wild Irrigation feasibility report in 10 alarming fences to drive away wild animals from animals place crop fields distributed and are in use. 2.6. Study irrigation feasibility Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunitiesand income 2 poultry groups formed. 1 chili group with female members formed. 1 weaving group with 25 female members established. Banana group with 15 female members and Tapioca group with 20 members 3.1. Enterprise development/ including female members established. Cane and group formation (production, bamboo group with 25 members including female post production and members established and earned Nu.10,000 already. processing) including one A saving group with 25 members formed and women’s group At least 3 groups including one Nu.22,000 already collected from the members. The women group established and capital fund is available as loan to members as well as engaged in productive activity other people in the village. Supplied 2 sets of sewing leading to income generation machines. 40 silo bins supplied. A mechanism to sell clothes and handicrafts through 3.2. Support for marketing agro Number of rural farmers Rural Craft Outlet in Thimphu established. About products and facilitating sales accessing rural credit. Nu.25000 already earned by the communities. of artisan products. Communities will sell their products in annual Number of rural farmers (by Tarayana Trade Fair regularly. gender) accessing rural credit. Loan provided to one person to buy power chain saw. Farmers raising chicken and pigs 10 more applications are approved ranging from Nu. 3.3. Access to Micro credit Resource map available 10,000 to Nu. 1,00,000 to purchase maize grinding machines and power chain saws. 3.4. Support livestock productions 2 poultry sheds constructed and supplied with 3.5. Increased support to poultry birds, feeds, and watering cans. 42 pigsties sustainable harvesting and build and supplied with piglets. management of NWPFs REAP Site 2: Lopokha Village, Athang Gewog, Wangduephodrang
Outcome 1: Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural productivity for income generation 1.1. Capacity Building of farmers on smart agriculture (organic Atleast 25 farmers trained farming/ home gardening/ in composting and pest 25 farmers were trained producing organic fertilizer/ management managing pest/ post harvest/ using of silos, vegetables)
54 1.2. APPA training and 74 households trained and participated in APPA. APPA report available with self consultation for self help group 20 Farmers participated in farmer study tour on eco- help groups identified identification. tourism 1.2. Skills development training Training on cane and bamboo 20 farmers trained and now producing cane and on carpentry, masonry, and crafts bamboo products handicrafts 1.3. Capacity building on 25 households trained and engaged in poultry and farming and marketing of pig productions livestock products Farm houses of eco-tourism groups now equipped 1.4. Housing improvement with Toilets and bathrooms in farm with toilets and bathrooms ecofriendly design houses constructed
1.5. Procurement of extension 6 extension kits supplied. kits
Outcome 2: Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security
2.1. Increase yield through introduction to improved Seedlings of asparagus, ginger, passion fruit, and high yielding inputs/varieties: vegetables provided to the targeted households. 250 vegetables (asparagus, ginger, citrus seedlings were also distributed. garlic, potatoes, etc), fruits At least 75% of the farmers 1.5 metric tons, 500 kgs, and 500 kgs of potato, wheat (avocado, soft walnut, passion us improved seeds and micro and paddy seeds distributed to the target groups fruit, citrus, and wheat and nutrients to increase productivity paddy seeds. One no power tiller supplied 2.2. Introduction of agricultural Breeding bulls Supplied and is being used by the farmers equipments (power tiller) A jersey bull provided and being used by the 2.3. Breed improvement beneficiaries
Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunities and income
3.1: Enterprise development/ group formation (production, Marketing shed available for use A marketing shed constructed and in use by farmer post production and Supply of piglets and layers groups processing) including one 34 km of eco-trail maintained women’s group 2 hot stone bath facilities 3.1. Support livestock established 15 households supplied with piglets and layers productions A canopy along with a store and kitchen constructed at Nazhina 34 km of eco-trail repaired and facilities including 2 A view point constructed at hot stone bath, a canopy along with store and kitchen 3.2. Renovation of migratory Lopokha at Nazhina, and a viewpoint established. Proper trail and establishment of Installation of sinages sinages are also appropriately place. 30 Eco-tourism facilities for eco-tourism Construction of 2 bazams staff were also supplied with trekking gears. 2 Bazams were also constructed.
55 REAP Site 3: Pam-Chaibi village, Gongdu Gewog, Mongar Dzongkhag Outcome 1: Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural productivity for income generation 1.1. Capacity Building of farmers on smart agriculture Conducted smart agriculture techniques training (organic farming/ home Farmers and groups trained through demonstration, field attachments. 18 gardening/ producing and using improved seeds and compost sheds established and are in use. Silo bins organic fertilizer/ managing micronutrients distributed and farmers engaged in using silos. wastes/ post harvest/ using Atleast 115 acres inventoried of silos, vegetables) for NWFP resources and report available for planning Farmers trained in green house, poultry rearing, and 1.2. Develop farmer skills livestock management. 1.3. Establishment of Forest Pit latrine for atleast 25 Forest nursery established and supplying seedlings to Nursery households farmers. 1.4. Improve health, sanitation 14 new houses constructed and 4 Awareness campaign conducted. 25 pit latrines and and education houses renovated, CGI supplied 18 garbage pits dug and used by target farmers. 1.5. Housing improvement with to target households. Supplied CGI sheet to all target households. 4 ecofriendly design houseses renovated, 14 new houses constructed. Outcome 2: Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security 2.1: Increase yield through 18 vegetable gardens established and are in full use. introduction of improved 20 mango seedlings planted by each of 10 households high yielding varieties (maize, on kamzhing. Introduced wheat in two plots on trail vegetables, legumes incl beans, At least 75% of the trained basis. On-farm training on wheat in 2 plots. fruits) farmers use improved seeds and micronutrients to increase 2 green houses established from where vegetable 2.2. Green house for citrus productivity. seedlings were supplied to all households. The green nursery establishment houses are also being used to raise citrus seedlings. Green houses established 2.3. Post harvest technologies Supply of silo bins to already trained farmers who are for storing and processing of 1 mithun and 1 donkey stallion now engaged in silo production and use. surplus produce supplied 1 mithun, 21 jersey cows and 1 donkey stallion 2.4. Breed improvement supplied and in use (donkey has died) Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunities and income
3.1: Enterprise development/ group formation (production, Artisan, weaving, carpentry, vegetable groups formed post production and and engaged in productive activities. A shed for these processing) including one groups to use has been constructed At least 3 groups including one women’s group women group established and their capacity enhanced in each Loan provided to 3 person who have bought power 3.2. Access to Micro credit village. chain saw. Number of rural farmers (by 3.3. Support for marketing gender) accessing rural credit. 2 artisans participated in trade fair in Delhi and agro products and Markets and transportation earned Nu. 46,000 from sale of cane and bamboo facilitating sales of artisan available for local products products. products Supply of 20 piglets NWFP inventory and resource 3.3. Support livestock Improved sties constructed and 18 piglets supplied to maps available productions 10 households 3.6. Increased support to Over 115 acres of resources inventoried for sustainable harvesting and harvesting and use. management of NWPFs
56 REAP Site 4: Samcholing Village, Drakteng Gewog, Trongsa Outcome 1: Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural productivity for income generation 1.1. Capacity Building of farmers on smart agriculture Farmers trained on vegetable and Farmers including 115 non group farmers were (organic farming/ home fruit production trained in vegetable production, poultry and pig gardening/ producing organic Farmers trained in piggery and management and 3 groups formed are engaged. fertilizer/ managing wastes/ poultry management post harvest/ using of silos, vegetables) Outcome 2: Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security 2.1: Increase yield through 120 households were provided with improved introduction of improved high vegetable seeds,. 1650 nos of mandarin seedlings yielding varieties of vegetables were also distributed to all 188 households. and fruits. Farmers provided with improved vegetable seeds and fruit 2.2. Facility of green houses seedlings 5 green house established and in use for production established 2 green houses constructed of mandarin seedlings. 2 green house established 2.3. Farm production through Improved agricultural implements and tools supplied improved agricultural and in use piglets and birds were also supplied implements enhanced Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunities and income 3.1. Enterprise development/ 3 groups for production of poultry, pigs, and group formation (production, 3 Self help groups formed for vegetable formed and working to generate income. post production and income generation 1 nos each of rice huller and flourmill established and processing) including one 1 rice huller and 1 flourmill used by farmers. women’s group established Farmers supplied with poultry 3.2. Support livestock birds and piglets All three groups supplied with piglet, poultry birds production systems and vegetable and fruit seedlings/seeds.
REAP Site 5: Sanu- Dungtoe Village, Dungtoe Gewog, Samtse
Outcome 1: Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural productivity for income generation
1.1. Capacity Building of farmers on smart agriculture Farmers trained in vegetable and (organic farming/ home fruit productions gardening/ producing organic Farmers trained in citrus production. fertilizer/ managing wastes/ Farmers trained in poultry post harvest/ using of silos, management (30 hh), group vegetables) management, book keeping, internal electric wirings, and 24 households trained in poultry production systems carpentry. and poultry group formed. Training on internal 1.2. Develop farmer skills Framers aware of group guarantee wiring conducted and 27 houses internally wired. 18 loan scheme farmers trained in carpentry. Awareness program implemented for poultry group.
57 Outcome 2: Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security 2.1: Increase yield through Farmers provided with improved introduction of improved high vegetable seeds and fruit 18 households provided with 1188 orange seedlings, yielding varieties of vegetables seedlings which are now growing well. and fruits. Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunities and income A poultry group with 24 members established and 3.1. Enterprise development/ now engaged in poultry production. group formation (production, Poultry self help group formed 1 nos each of rice huller and flourmill established and post production and 1 nos each of rice huller and flour used by farmers. processing) including one mills supplied Electricians earning income from internal wiring of women’s group electricians earning income houses. Poultry shed constructed. All three groups supplied with piglet, poultry birds 3.2. Support livestock Group provided with pullets, and vegetable and fruit seedlings/seeds. production systems feeds and layermesh 1 block 4 unit poultry shed constructed and in operation. 370 pullets supplied with 9000 kg of feeds.
REAP site 6: Ungar Village, Metsho Gewog, Lhuntse
Outcome 1: Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural productivity for income generation
1.1. Capacity Building of farmers on smart agriculture 11 households trained in (organic farming/ home mushroom cultivation 11 households trained in mushroom cultivation and gardening/ producing organic Farmers trained in walnut and walnut and asparagus production. fertilizer/ managing wastes/ asparagus cultivation post harvest/ using of silos, vegetables, fruits) Farmers trained in sustainable 36 farmers trained in sustainable harvesting of NWFPs and 20 individuals trained in producing 1.2. Develop farmer skills harvesting of NWFPS and carpentry phob and Dakpas. Farmers were also trained in eco- tourism and diary and fishery productions. Outcome 2: Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security 2.1: Increase yield through Farmers provided with improved introduction of improved high vegetable seeds and fruit 36 households provided with 50 asparagus seedlings, yielding varieties of vegetables seedlings and walnut seedlings. and fruits. Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunities and income 3.1. Enterprise development/ group formation (production, Phob and Dakpa makers earning Phob and Dakpa being sold in local markets. post production and income Farmers earning income from sale of mushroom and processing) including one Farmers earning income from asparagus. women’s group sale of mushroom and asparagus Ecotourism trail maintained, and Eco-tourism trail maintained, and facilities such as 3.2. Ecotourism development necessary facilities established museum established and in use. Fishery and diary products 3.3. Support to livestock developed A fishery pond and diary productions are in place production
58 REAP Site 7: Lauri Village, Lauri Gewog, Samdrupjongkhar Outcome 1: Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural productivity for income generation 1.1. Capacity Building of farmers on smart agriculture (organic farming/ home Farmers and groups trained and 18 farmers trained litchi cultivation, 33 in potato gardening/ producing using improved seeds and growing, and 4 in shitake mushroom cultivation and organic fertilizer/ managing micronutrients are now engaged in productions. wastes/ post harvest/ using of silos, vegetables, fruits) Train 10 individuals in mask 9 households trained in mask carving, 13 households carving, 5 individuals in cane trained in cane and bamboo making skills, 7 and bamboo, 10 individuals 1.2. Develop farmer skills individuals trained in choesum making, 7 individuals in Choesham making, and 5 trained in masonry training from VTI Zhemgang. All individuals in masonry works. are actively engaged in practicing their skills. Farmers trained and engaged 9 individuals trained in Daphne production; 21 1.3. Training on sustainable in sustainable harvesting of households trained in processing and marketing of harvesting and management of NWFPs and groups formed. NWFPs; 19 individuals trained in harvesting and NWFP management of monkey apple, and lanyeru Outcome 2: Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security 2.1: Increase yield through introduction of improved Supply improved potato seeds, 33 households supplied with potato seeds, 18 high yielding varieties (maize, litchi seedlings, mushroom household supplied with litchi seedlings and vegetables, legumes incl beans, spawns. producing them. fruits) 2.2. Support green house Supply of 3 nos of plastic sheet Nurseries established and in use. establishment for nursery 2.3. Post harvest technologies Drying and collection sheds Mushroom drying unit established and in use. A for storing and processing of constructed collection shed constructed and in use. surplus produce 2.4. Breed improvement 1 donkey stallion and 2 nublangs 1 donkey stallion and 2 noblangs supplied and in use supplied 2.5. Support to land 10 acres of land management completed benefiting management 10 acres of land conserved 26 households. Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunities and income
3.1: Enterprise development/ Groups formed and engaged in productive activities group formation (production, relating to NWFPs, diary including a group on Star post production and Anise community forestry group. processing) Corn Flakes machine supplied and in use Groups formed with necessary 3.2. Support for marketing technical support agro products and Mushroom cultivation in Mushroom billets and other materials supplied and facilitating sales of artisan progress in use. products Supply livestock inputs 1 cooking stoves of 100 liters, 25 nos of 40 liter milk can and 20 nos of milk buckets supplied to the 3.3. Support livestock farmers and in use. productions 19 jersey cows supplied to 13 villagers, along with 24 piglets, 345 nos of pullets and free feeds for 6 months.
59 REAP Site 8: Ritey Village, Jigmecholing Gewog, Samdrupjongkhar Outcome 2: Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security 2.4. Breed improvement Supply 1 donkey stud and 1 bull 1 donkey stallion and 1 a bull supplied and in use Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunities and income
3.1: Enterprise development/ group formation (production, Rice huller and maize grinders established with post production and Support rice and maize sheds. processing) enterprises with machines Supply livestock inputs 3.3. Support livestock 16 households supplied with a mare each. Cattle productions sheds and silo pits were also constructed and in use.
REAP Site 9: Mandokha and Choleykha Villages, Dungna Gewog, Chukha
Outcome 1: Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural productivity for income generation 1.1. Capacity Building of 22 farmers trained in compost 22 farmers trained in compost making, integrated pest farmers on smart agricul- making, IPM, vegetable pro- management, and vegetable production. 1 day training ture (organic farming/ home duction and breed manage- each for breed management, pasture management, and gardening/ producing organic ment. animal health management conducted for 23 villagers. fertilizer/ managing pest/ post Improved bhatti constructed for A improved bhatti for cardamom post harvest process- harvest/ using of silos, veg- cardamom ing constructed and in use. etables)
Outcome 2: Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security
1.1. Increase yield through introduction to improved high yielding inputs/varieties: vegetables (asparagus, ginger, Vegetable seeds supplied and kitchen gardens devel- garlic, potatoes, etc), fruits oped. (avocado, soft walnut, passion Kitchen gardens improved and fruit, citrus, and wheat and vegetable seeds supplied. paddy seeds. 2 mithun bulls and 2 breeding 1.2. Introduction of agricultural piglets supplied 1 maize grinding mill and 1 rice huller supplied in equipments (power tiller and benefit of 22 households and sheds constructed. rice huller) 2 mithun bulls and 8 breeding piglets supplied and in 1.3. Breed improvement use
60 Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunities and income
3.1. Support livestock produc- Supply of piglets, feed and fod- Fodder developed with legumes and grass mix. tions der developed
REAP Site 10: Thangdokha Village, Gakiling Gewog, Haa
Outcome 1: Capacity of targeted communities developed to increase agricultural productivity for income generation 1.1. Capacity Building of farmers on smart agricul- ture (organic farming/ home Farmers trained on operation of gardening/ producing organic Farmers trained to operate oil expeller and rice huller. oil expeller and rice huller fertilizer/ managing pest/ post harvest/ using of silos, veg- etables) 28 households supplied with 40 nos of 8 feet long CGI 1.2. Housing improvement with 28 households supplied with sheet for roofing. ecofriendly design CGI sheets
Outcome 2: Increased agricultural productivity and diversification for food security
1.1. Increase yield through introduction to improved high yielding inputs/varieties: vegetables (asparagus, ginger, Kitchen garden established Farmers engaged in kitchen gardening. garlic, potatoes, etc), fruits (avocado, soft walnut, passion fruit, citrus, and wheat and paddy seeds. Breeding bulls supplied A breeding bull provided and being used by the ben- 1.2. Breed improvement eficiaries
Outcome 3: Enhanced employment opportunities and income
3.1: Enterprise development/ group formation (production, 1 nos each of oil expeller, 1 flour mill and 2 rice hull- post production and process- Rice huller, oil expeller available. ers supplied to the farmers. ing) including one women’s group Supply of piglets and thrabams 14 households supplied with 15 piglets 3.2. Support livestock produc- Feed and fodder available 14 thrabams (heifers) supplied to 14 households tions Oat and Napier and Gautemala supplied and in production
61 APPENDIX 7. HISTOGRAM AND NORMAL CURVE FROM DESCRIPTIVE STATITISTICS
62 APPENDIX 8. LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
1. Baseline data collected and Village Profile
2. Best Practices for the Program for Enhancing Rural Income and Livelihoods through Sustainable Agricultural Development and Micro-Enterprise in Bhutan
3. GNHC: Strategic Framework for Targeted Poverty Interventions (TPI)
4. Poverty and Environment Initiatives Documents
5. Program Proposal: Rural Economy Advancement Program (REAP I)
6. REAP Strategic Framework
7. REAP I work plans and progress Reports
8. REAP I Village Development Plans
9. SDS Progress Reports
10. UNDP Annual Work Plans
11. UNDP (2009) Handbook on planning, monitoring and evaluation for development results
12. UNDP Report: MDG 1 achievements and scaling up strategies 2011
13. Other available documents
63