CDZ Agriculture and Rural Development for Poverty Reduction CHAPTER 5 FY 2008/09 PILOT PROJECT This Chapter 5 discusses the pilot projects which were commenced in FY 2008/9. In this fiscal year, in addition to such projects which had been tried in the target 6 villages of FY 2007/08, component-wide type projects have also been tried. The component-wide type pilot projects were tried in the sectors of agriculture and livestock by giving a serious of trainings to the TS extension staff. Following sessions present implementation methodology, consensus making process, activities undertaken and those outputs, contents of trainings, latest status as of February 2010, etc. Evaluation for the project is to be discussed in the last sub-chapter, and also lessons which have been deduced and thereby can apply to other projects are to be elaborated in the Main Report. 5.1 Implementation Methodology by Project Type Following table indicates proposed contents of the pilot project and their implementing approaches (whether project oriented or component-wide) and the interrelationship showing that in which type each individual pilot project has higher priority. The Study Area is subdivided into 5 categories: the type 1 represents the area along Bago Hills where the climate is driest and people suffer from high degree of poverty, vice versa the type V indicates the area where paddy area accounts for more than 40% and more than 40% of the paddy land is irrigated with the highest average income (whereas big disparity may persist between paddy farmers and the landless). According to the ranking order marked in the table with ○, ◎ and ●, the priority of the project is getting higher. Table 5.1.1 Components of Pilot Projects in FY 2008/09 Candidates of Pilot Project Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Project type Component- Number of TS covered in (in total 6TS) Pilot Project wide 1 1 2 1 1 A1. Improved Paddy Cultivation ○ ○ ○ ◎ ● A2. Organic Farming Promotion ○ ● ● ◎ ◎ ○ A3. Improved Seed Regeneration ○(3villages) ○ ◎ ◎ ◎ ○ A4. Mushroom Culture ○(2villages) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ A5. Small-Scale Irrigation ○(2villages) No water ○ ◎ ○ A6. Crop Storage Depot ○(2villages) ○ ○ ◎ A7. Minimum Tillage Promotion ○(2villages) ◎ ◎ ◎ ○ ○ A8. New Variety Adaptability Trial Test ○(6villages) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ L1. Goats Revolving ○ ● ◎ ○ ○ L2. Piggery Revolving ○ ○ ◎ L3. Livestock Feeding Improvement ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ C1. Village Revolving Fund ○(3villages) ○ ○ ◎ ◎ ◎ I1-1. Firewood Substituting Bio-fuel ○(3villages) ◎ ◎ ◎ ◎ ◎ I1-2. Improved Cooking Stove I2. Paddy Husk Power Generation ○(1village) ○ ◎ I3. Children’s Nutrition Improvement ○(1village) ◎ Note: *Minimum tillage cropping promotion and new varieties testing trial can in principle be implemented through component-wide approach. However, implementation of these is planned in limited villages or with project-oriented approach because they have major character of test trials. 5.1.1 Quantity of Implementation Sites in the Project Type Approach In the case that the pilot project is implemented through project type, 6 villages (6TS) implemented in FY 2007/08, or their neighboring villages in the same TS, are as a rule selected as the target villages. Such a selection not only facilitates follow-up and monitoring by the Study Team and also it is envisaged evaluating the effect of integrated rural development oriented approach that is implemented along with plural components in an area. As to the quantities of implementation (target villages covered by implementation), they are shown in the above table. Basic principles of implementation are: 1) rice husk power generation incurring MOAI 5-1 JICA CDZ Agriculture and Rural Development for Poverty Reduction enormous construction cost will be implemented in only one village, 2) all other projects should be carried out at least in 2 villages for comparative evaluation and 3) new variety test trials are conducted in different villages because it is required to make them try under various conditions. As regards concrete sites (TS and villages) of implementation by pilot project, they are basically determined at the TS (and a village therein) with higher priority of the project. That is to say, villages located in TS labeled with their priority of a particular project in the order ●→◎→○ in the previous table are chosen as the targets of their pilot project. Yet, adjustment must be made taking into account the balance among target TSs because it is impossible to carry out all the necessary projects across the types from the viewpoint of both the amount of fund availability and logistics of implementation. As such, the number of pilot villages where the project is carried out with project type approach and their relationship with types that are to be covered with project type approach is briefed in the following table: Table 5.1.2 Number of Target Villages under Project Type Approach in FY 2008/09 Candidates of Pilot Project Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Nr. of Priority in TS Number of TS covered in (in total 6TS) Pilot Project Project Pilot Implem’d 1 1 2* 1 1 A3. Improved Seed 3 Priority in TS ○ ◎ ◎ ◎ ○ Regeneration villages Pilot Implem’d done in 2007 ✔✔ ✔ 2 Priority in TS ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ A4. Mushroom Culture Villages Pilot Implem’d ✔ done in 2007 ✔ Done in 2007 2 Priority in TS No water ○ ◎ ○ A5. Small-scale Irrigation Villages Pilot Implem’d ✔ ✔ 2 Priority in TS ○ ○ ◎ A6. Crop Storage Depots Villages Pilot Implem’d ✔ ✔ A7. Minimum Tillage 2 Priority in TS ◎ ◎ ◎ ○ ○ Promotion Villages Pilot Implem’d ✔ ✔ A8. New Variety Adaptability 6 Priority in TS ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Tests Villages Pilot Implem’d ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ C1. Village Revolving 3 Priority in TS ○ ○ ◎ ◎ ◎ Fund Villages Pilot Implem’d ✔** ✔ ✔ I1-1. Firewood Substituting 3 Priority in TS ◎ ◎ ◎ ◎ ◎ I1-2. Improved Cooking Stove Villages Pilot Implem’d 3 Villages from those with high production output of Jatropha I2. Paddy Husk Power Priority in TS ○ ◎ 1 Village Generation Pilot Implem’d ✔ I3. Nutrition Improvement Priority in TS ◎ 1 village Centre Pilot Implem’d ✔ Note:*As to Type III, one village each to Sagaing Division and Mandalay Division, namely 2 villages are included. ** It was planned in Type V, but participants in the kick-off meeting suggested to move this component from Type V to Type I since Type V villages are already somewhat developed. 5.1.2 Quantity of Implementation in the Component-Wide Approach The other type of approach, i.e., component-wide one, is realized in providing MAS and LBVD extension staff stationed in 6 (or 12 in case of MAS) TSs with trainings. Thus, the extension workers who participated in the training are to individually extend extension activities based on what they have learned during the training, given minimum inputs and logistics support from JICA after they return to their jurisdictional TSs. The table below indicates kinds of individual project to be promoted with component-wide approach and their relationship with the types that have higher priority on their implementation. For example, as regards paddy cropping improvement, type I, with the most rigorous natural conditions, doesn’t have priority on project implementation thereof because it doesn’t have substantial paddy area, whereas type V, with tracts of irrigated farmland, has the highest priority. Likewise, in case of JICA 5-2 MOAI CDZ Agriculture and Rural Development for Poverty Reduction livestock, higher priority is attached to those where higher degree of dryness prevails (i.e., type I and type II), while type V has higher priority in introducing piggery revolving because rice bran and other by-products can be utilized as feed: Table 5.1.3 Number of Target Villages under Component Wide Approach in FY2008/09 Candidates of Pilot Project Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Number Priority in TS Number of TS covered in (in total 6TS) Pilot Project of Pilot 1 1 2 1 1 Project Implemented A1. Improved Paddy ○ ○ ✔ ● 12 TSs Priority in TS A2. Organic farming ● ● ✔ ✔ ○ Pilot Implem’d ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ L1. Goat Revolving ● ✔ ○ ○ L2. Piggery Revolving 6 TSs Priority in TS ○ ✔ L3. Livestock Feeding ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Pilot Implem’d ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Source: JICA Study Team Despite the fact that the projects have individual priorities according to the types they are classified, all the types should be adopted as the targets of the pilot project to be promoted with component-wide approach by the following reasons: 1) In implementing projects with component-wide approach, training for extension staff concerned comes at the first step, while training per batch can accommodate 30 to maximum 60 trainees, 2) The trained staff happen to be transferred through personnel transfer to another TS with different type (that is to say, there is future possibility of being transferred from a place without suitable land for paddy cropping to another area abundant with paddy), and 3) For certain subjects of training like IMO utilization and livestock feeding improvement, it is desirable for every staff to attend training lectures/ exercises because these are the components commonly required irrespective of the type. About 16 extension staff on average are stationed in an agricultural extension office at TS level, and 4 staffs on average belong to a livestock extension office, LBVD TS office, at the said level. It is planned to provide training at the rate of 3 staff each for target 12 TSs in terms of agriculture, and all 4 staff in terms of livestock. Districts and divisions are placed superior to TS level, and the participation of these staff in the training is requested at the rate of