Interim evaluation
Project design and objectives
Target
group
The EZ comprises the project area of FEZAP, the population in 1991 was
estimated at 191 000 and the target group comprised a total of 21
730 households (131 000 people). The latter were defined as farm families
with less than 3.0 ha and incomes of no more than the lowest paid government
employees (105 USD per capita). Irrigation schemes to be rehabilitated
would be selected where 50% of the households would have wetland less
than 0.3 hectare.
Objectives and components
The Project sets out to improve the living standards, cash incomes and
household food security of the small farmers with holdings below 3.0 hectare.
Five project components were included in the original SAR design:
(i) Renewable natural resource development (RNR; (ii) Small-scale
irrigation; (iii) Participatory community development; (iv) Credit; and
(v) Institutional support. The RNR components comprised support for
research, extension, and the Natural Resources Management Unit.
Expected effects
and assumptions
The RGOB policies for rural development, expressed through the "Five
Year Plans" aim to reduce income disparities, curb the drift from
rural to urban areas and protect the environment. Soil degradation and
erosion arise if households are forced to continue extensive cultivation
systems. But relevant production technology must be first generated to
permit an agricultural intensification to proceed that generates higher
land and labour productivity. The generation of such technology is constrained
by the wide variation in cropping suitability, microclimate and market
access.
The path to progress is to design the processes where the emerging capabilities
in technology generation are supported by the building-up of institutions
and methodologies for decentralised decision making. Rural communities
are best served when their own location specific priorities guide research
as well as project supported service provision. The shift from directed
service provision in research and extension, and from central to decentralised
decision making for rural communities, in determining priorities and annual
work programmes is a tall order not just in Eastern Bhutan. To achieve
success, issues must be correctly defined: methodologies must be made
transparent, processes of solutions can then be more easily agreed upon.
This was not the case in the design of the FEZAP, in two central areas,
in the generation of production technology and in participation: outcomes
then were not in line with needs or expectations.
First, the SAR underplayed the importance of designing capabilities to
generate processes and production technology relevant to the great variation
in location specificity. With the benefit of hindsight, it is fair to
state that the principal cause of FEZAP’s problems rests in the ambiguity
created in the SAR as to the Project’s proper nature. The SAR under
project risks, stated: "Technically no unusual risks are involved
as the Project would promote proven technology. The farmers are conservation
minded and have demonstrated their willingness to adopt new and financially
viable technical recommendations." The only exception in the SAR
concerned essential oils, where reference was made to the risk that high
quality standards required for premium export prices may not be maintained.
The ambiguity about the true nature of the Project was compounded by
the rationale provided by the SAR for the farming systems component. The
farming systems research was not described as an effort that primarily
would generate useful technology or relevant recommendations by involving
farmers.. Instead, this component would identify constraints and development
opportunities for the various farming systems. The point was never driven
home that farmers need to fully participate in research and trial design,
if efforts are to become productive and generate results that are ultimately
adopted by farmers.
The Project should have been presented as a research and development
operation in RNR of national interest. It should have been presented as
a Project that would generate and test different technologies and village
level interventions, and where extension would support farmers’ capacity
to experiment, not least because of the wide variation in agro-ecology
and farming conditions. Standard messages would be adapted. Technology
and recommendations would be forthcoming, aligned with the great disparity
in farming conditions.
Second, the bias in favour of merely extending already proven messages
was compounded. since the RGOB Blue Book in redefining the SAR proposed
participatory community development component, removed the participatory
elements. The rural awareness and empowerment elements were removed: this
component was narrowly redefined as organising farmers to receive technical
extension messages, again reflecting the incorrect notions that adequate
technology was available and that extension is a simple one way diffusion
process.
The key to economic, social and environmental benefits from research
investments and subsequent development and extension efforts is to design
technologies which farmers can access, and choose to use. Institutional
capabilities for R&D, especially a well directed process supported
by effective training delivery, are required to reach this end. The final
design for FEZAP excluded this necessary institution building.
Evaluation
Methodology
Purpose: The evaluation sets out to understand to what extent
MoA programme managers, project and Dzongkhag staff review implementation
progress against the physical targets set. Moreover, are they also seeking
the data that show impact at the village and farm level? Finally, are
they trained and encouraged not only to explore causes to variations in
performance, but also to seek to address these underlying causes?
Data have been obtained with which to understand: (i) farmers' constraints
and their coping strategies; and (ii) how the Project has managed to assist
farmers to overcome or mitigate their constraints? The OE conducted one
survey in preparation of the evaluation (wealth ranking and poverty profile),
the FEZAP conducted the PBME; moreover, the mission conducted a PRA and
an informal survey of irrigation schemes.
Wealth Ranking and Poverty Profile: Precise data on the size distribution
of resource endowments were not available at the time of design. The SAR
presumed that 80% of the households would possess livestock and almost
all households owned some land. More precise and up-to-date data sets
were required for the IE. The First Phase IE mission which visited the
FEZAP project area in Bhutan in October - November 1995, explored a methodology
for wealth ranking. Distinctions between wealthy and resource poor households
were explored with structured but open ended questionnaires, in four villages,
two in Khar gewog in Pemagatshel and two villages in Toetse gewog in Trashiyangtse.
Some 40 farmers classified as poor were interviewed to determine if the
use of the farmers’ direct ranking correspond well with an "actual"
or objective ranking of their assets (owned wetland, dryland and livestock).
This testing confirmed that the direct method of ranking farmers can be
used as a shortcut to identify those that are resource poor.
The PRA undertaken by the mission confirmed the validity of the Phase
I IE wealth ranking. The PRA was conducted in three villages (in Khar,
Lhuntse, and in Menjabi gewogs). It confirmed that the absolutely poor
are those who borrow food and money in order to survive the hungry season.
Data on food insecurity and on entitlements of productive assets represent
powerful indicators for poverty.
The PBME: The FEZAP replicated the wealth ranking in its own survey,
the PBME survey, on a wider scale. The PBME survey, conducted in two gewogs
in each of Pemagatshel, Lhuntse and Trashigang Dzonkhags, sampled 477
households. FEZAP should be praised for issuing its report in advance
of the mission’s arrival. Yet, much important data remained to be
analysed by the IE on return to Rome (Chapter 5).
Implementation context
The Zonal Administrations were abolished shortly after FEZAP became effective
(October 1992). Responsibility for project implementation shifted to the
six eastern Dzongkhag Administrations, supported by a new Project Facilitation
Office (PFO). Project activities became part of the individual Dzongkhag
development plans. Important changes were: (i) the resources and activities
of the Community Development Division and the Natural Resources Management
Unit were transferred to the training and extension programme to be undertaken
by the PFO and the District Administrations; (ii) the irrigation programme
was extended to include new schemes (up to 400 ha); (iii) a crop promotion
programme was introduced; (iv) financial support was given to a breeding
programme for Mithun (draught) cattle and to fodder development; and (v)
the credit component was taken out (grant funding was available from another
donor).
Project achievements
Progress: The FEZAP organisation and management structure has
evolved satisfactorily once the reorganisation of the administrative structures
was completed and roles and responsibilities of the PFO had been re-established.
The task is huge of operating through six different Dzonkhag administrations
in vast and remote areas. Satisfactory relationships between the PFO and
Dzongkhag staff have been reached.
Physical progress has surpassed targets in many areas, over the last
two years. Physical progress across the crop and livestock sub-components
(all part of the RNR component), implemented through the Dzongkhag administrations
on the whole has been quite satisfactory. FEZAP is funding the livestock
stations at Lingmethang and Arong, both have been fully equipped. The
irrigation component is making steady progress; unit costs have been lower
than expected, and disbursements are less than planned, but physical progress
in terms of construction activities ranges between 20%- 45% of targets
in the 7th FYP.
Research is undertaken by the RNRRC, but progress has been stymied by
insufficiencies in direction, in the building-up of capabilities, and
in transport equipment. Support for the PFO is well on target, with civil
works and equipment all being provided. Yet, provisions for vehicles and
training are far below requirements.
Constraints: FEZAP has continued to operate under three critical
handicaps. First, the misconception based on the notion of "proven"
technology led to a minimal appreciation of the need of direction in research:
capabilities were not put in place to generate relevant improved technology
to farmers. Proven messages were available for some produce, for potatoes
and vegetables; some of the local cereal varieties were of reasonable
quality in some niches and altitudes. But the actual extent of missing
knowledge and insufficient capabilities increasingly have become visible.
To wit: (i) proven technology and recommendations were not - and are
not - available for improved maize and rice varieties across the agro-ecologies;
(ii) fertiliser and manuring recommendations for cereals are too high
and not used by most farmers; (iii) the irrigation systems could not generate
expected productivity: agro-economic parameters, geotechnical considerations
and soil instability were not sufficiently considered in design; maintenance
costs become too high in relation to overall earnings of farmers, and
capacity to contribute cash and labour; (iv) soil erosion has become a
major issue not least on wetland, but relevant approaches and messages
for soil conservation have not been generated; mere propagation of vetiver
grass is insufficient; (v) the relevancy, and productivity of pasture
and fodder production is not confirmed, and little progress in found for
fodder trees: (vi) farmers’ adoption of AI, and natural insemination
for improved breeds is uncertain in the absence of a subsidy; (vii) capacity
utilisation at the Lingmethang farm is low in producing improved poultry;
unit costs of feed are too high in relation to selling price, and experiments
need to be designed in decentralising poultry multiplication to the village
level are required; and (viii) a study of pig production and feed under
village conditions is underway, but results are not complete and not sufficiently
monitored.
Second, the misconception as to proven technology was accentuated because
of the biases against fact finding about farmers’ conditions and
reflection: (i) insufficiently participative methodology and procedures
also within the commodity driven research system; (ii) limited use made
of the technical assistance provided; and (iii) an inward looking M&E
unit, developing neither any indicators for progress, adoption and constraints
at the gewog, WUA and farm levels, nor any updated farm budgets.
Third, the removal by the RGOB of the directly participatory elements
included under the SAR design meant that FEZAP did not have at hand the
overall capabilities, resources and methodology with which to train EAs
to empower farmers and encourage experimentation in group mobilisation
and farmer led diffusion methods. Moreover, the importance was not appreciated
of supporting the GYT mechanism with which to encourage feed back from
the gewogs so that RGOB and FEZAP resources could provide services in
line with local priorities.
Staff skills, staff positions, technical assistance were defined narrowly.
The capabilities set-up were aligned with an extension project: i.e. the
dissemination of proven technology and farming and irrigation systems.
The importance of creating capabilities for diagnosis, research and technology
generation was not set out: what was not clearly understood could not
be resolutely acted upon.
Addressing design weaknesses: the FEZAP staff should be praised.
They increasingly realised that they needed far more research support
to generate productive messages that would respond to farmers’ constraints,
but that this support was not forthcoming. The PFO and RNRRC staff should
be much acknowledged for their efforts in reducing uncertainty and re-directing
the Project through: (i) the two village level studies, conducted with
SNV support, on adoption behaviour for maize and rice, which defined a
proper methodology for obtaining farmers’ screening criteria; (ii)
the training workshops with extension agents in supporting them with methodology
to undertake experiments with farmers; (iii) the undertaking of the far
ranging PBME survey; (iv) supporting a pilot project to develop community
based land use development plans; and (v) applying the requirement that
farmer communities themselves request assistance with irrigation scheme
rehabilitation.
Effects assessment
and sustainability
Growth has taken place across the project area, especially farmers with
more land are benefiting from increased specialisation in production and
trade in horticulture and vegetable, but the resource poor households
are far from sharing proportionately in these benefits. Overall land distribution
across the Eastern Zone is unequal rather than equal. Although land poor
but labour rich households rent in wetland and the distribution of owned
and operated land is more equal than that of owned land (Chapter 5), the
limited assets of land and livestock contribute to low productivity of
labour and high degrees of food insecurity. Resource poor farmers have
little choice but to increase the input of the only resource they control,
their family labour. They benefit only to a smaller degree in the overall
growth related mainly to marketing of cash crops. Moreover, prospects
for off-farm cash income to women through weaving are bleak because of
the competition from cheap manufactured Indian cotton cloth. The IE Phase
I survey showed that of the resource poor farmers, two thirds are food
insecure for more than three months; of the latter, half had not repaid
their borrowed food even after the harvest.
Declining physical resource endowments increase already high labour loads
of women: the Project has not directly eased women’ labour constraints
. Distances involved in herding cattle and to collect fuelwood are increasing.
Labour productivity declines further when mineral fertiliser or organic
manure is not available. The effects of peak labour loads and prolonged
food security is associated with high incidence of malnutrition, and with
illiteracy, of adults and children.
Women in resource poor households may sleep only three hours per night
during the peak labour season, and the incidence of diarrhoea and malnutrition
increases. The frequency of children under five years of age, exposed
to chronic malnutrition (height for age) in the EZ was recorded at a far
too high rate of 64% in 1989. Stunting levels of children probably still
remain far too high, and recent research confirm that future mental capacity
is then impaired.
Farmers with little land, in addition, are less literate and their children
are more likely to drop out of school. The illiteracy of those most resource
poor is as high as 80%; moreover, 36% of the children in the poorest group
are dropping out; compared to 22%, and 17% in the next two size groups.
Productivity in farming is negatively affected by such low levels of literacy
and schooling.
Current inequities in distribution of land and access to production technology
can be justified neither in terms of equity, nor growth. Those owning
little land are highly efficient in their resource use; their cereal yields
are higher, and they contribute less to soil erosion in relative terms.
The latter may be explained since ownership, compared to tenancy, is normally
associated with more incentive to invest labour in soil conservation and
erosion control.
Perpetuated literacy and malnutrition for the already food insecure and
most resource poor farmers should be a cause of concern. Their situation
is further worsened because of the RGOB legislation to prohibit the use
of traditional tsheri. The damage of crops by wild animals is already
unacceptably high and negates much of the overall RNR efforts: losses
are probably increasing when the prohibition to use tsheri land is enforced:
wild animals may come closer to the settlements.
Main issues and recommendations
Two critical features stand out in this evaluation. First, the ineffectiveness
of FEZAP as a vehicle for extending proven technology because of its weaknesses
in design; and second its praiseworthy efforts in addressing the original
shortcomings. The knowledge basis has begun to be slowly built-up to permit
system design and extension recommendations to spring first from a diagnosis
of the constraints that affect the target groups, and then a pursuit of
experimentation and testing of viable solutions accepted by local farmer
communities. But these efforts, or their impact, will remain marginal
and not be properly supported unless the entire Project is correctly defined.
It must be understood that: (i) technology generation through research
and experimentation at the village and farm level needs to precede extension;
and (ii) this process needs to be supported by the creation of institutional
capabilities for the delivery of services to the rural communities.
Vicious circles perpetuate poverty and food insecurity in the EZ and
a two pronged strategy is called for. The concerns of those which have
already a surplus of marketable produce need to be addressed. Nonetheless,
for the RGOB it is neither equitable nor efficient to permit the resource
poor farmers to fall further behind. To begin with, technology needs to
be developed through on-farm and village level trials that suits the particular
need and niche of resource poor households. It has to meet the needs of
food security, be land saving, generate higher labour productivity and
reduce incidence of erosion. A properly designed R&D project can and
should be an effective vehicle for poverty alleviation: this was not the
case so far under FEZAP.
The demand of smaller farmers for cereal varieties that meet their need
of food security (shorter maturities) and for relevant manuring recommendations
must be met. About 40% of all households have no cattle; on average, probably
about 10% of overall farmers, or 30% of the food insecure households,
have neither pigs nor poultry. Improved breeds of poultry and pigs normally
represent a highly productive investment for the resource poor, generate
animal protein, a decent return on labour and reduce overall risk. But
such breeds are made available by FEZAP only in very limited numbers.
Recommendations for feed and maintenance under village level conditions
are to be developed through adaptive research and testing.
Second, the institutional component will have to ensure that: (i) mineral
fertiliser is more accessible to permit smaller farmers to realise their
comparative advantage in production (yields); (ii) a strong extension
programme is carried out especially for vegetables to permit smaller farmers
to progress beyond cereal production and share in the benefits of vegetable
production; the latter compared to perennial crops (oranges and apples)
is neutral to scale, may contribute to less erosion, and generate earlier
needed cash; (iii) infrastructure for the marketing is available; (iv)
farmer-to- farmer extension approaches are used to increase coverage and
increase FEZAP cost-effectiveness; and (v) group credit is becoming available
to permit smaller farmers to diversify their enterprises and reduce co-variant
risk.
But smaller farmers are exposed to the inequities of the current land
distribution which is unequal rather than equal. For this reason, a priority
is to: (i) make more wetland with improved irrigation available to smaller
farmers by ensuring that inequities in the present land distribution,
especially of wetland are removed; and (ii) target the rehabilitation
of irrigation schemes to those wetlands where 75% of all farmers have
landholdings below 0. 3 ha.; per se this should reduce the incidence of
soil erosion.
To wit, the benefits of a future programme to farmers in general and
smaller farmers in particular will be compromised unless: (i) the current
prohibition for farmers to use their tsheri land is redesigned; and (ii)
effective measures are finally introduced to combat widespread damage
to crops of wild animals. The widespread damage to crops by wild animals
acts as a disincentive for parents to send their children to school: current
high illiteracy rates are perpetuated.
Once the nature of the Project is recognised, the FEZAP Phase II Project
should be redefined as a research and development project to: (i) devise
extension recommendations for annual and perennial crops, for livestock
and to design small scale irrigation systems to serve not least the resource-poor
families in the different agro-ecologies; (ii) develop productive,
sustainable and equitable approaches to overall land use and the maintenance
of soil fertility and moisture; and (iii) devise and set in train a process
of awareness and training in order for the relevant national institutions
and other partners in development to appropriate the methodology of programming
and executing research, development and ensuing extension activities through
participatory processes.
This strategy translates into four sectoral objectives: (i) Renewable
Natural Resource Development: crops, livestock and irrigation; (ii)
small scale infrastructure and marketing support; (iii) credit;
and (iv) institutional development. A final priority for a future
FEZAP II is to co-operate closely with an organisations such as UNICEF
and the Ministry of Health, to ensure that the health and nutrition dimensions
are properly followed up on. Essential is to ensure that indicators for
nutritional status are monitored, presented and discussed, for a representative
sample of villages in the project area.
Renewable Natural Resource Development including Irrigation: the
component entitled Renewable Natural Resource Development should include
irrigation to become a component designed to improve farmers' overall
systems which comprise both dry- and wetland. Farmers strive to cope with
the demands for intensification, but without improved technology their
productivity of efforts is falling behind. So far little has come of the
approach advocated in the SAR with the recommendations to address soil
erosion with emphasis on permanent cropping measures (pasture, trees,
horticulture, strip farming, contour and bunding on cropped areas most
at risk together with conservation of up-slope forested areas). Instead,
soil erosion has become more serious, more on wetland and dryland than
on shifting cultivation land. Community based solutions to shifting
cultivation should be sought for: moreover, it is not realistic to presume
that permanent cultivation can or should become a universal solution.
In the irrigation sector, a two pronged strategy is called for that
combines raising productivity and reaching more farmers, but at a lower
RGOB cost per benefiting farmer. The RGOB cannot afford in the longer
run to provide continued subsides, beyond the regular first year "put
right" support, to almost all completed irrigation schemes, even
though maintenance requirements and repairs exceed the farmers ability
to contribute. Farmers’ capacity to contribute. maintain and self
manage will increase only when productivity in total water use is improved.
The first prong in this strategy comprises raising scheme productivity
by improved design (emphasis on secondary and tertiary canals, geophysical
factors, agronomy, e.g. crop rotation to reduce soil erosion). Criteria
for selecting schemes for rehabilitation would be where: (i) market access
for cash crops is ensured, which translates into high returns to farmers
on cash and labour; (ii) a reasonably effective WUA has been already created;
and (iii) the resource poor farmers share proportionately in the benefits
that accrue (the targeting dimension).
The second prong of this strategy is to start a sub-programme, a pilot
programme, to rehabilitate a subset of the large numbers of FMIS, which
can be improved without large investment or high unit costs. This
effort emphasises training of farmers that have been selected by the farmers
themselves and through this training of trainers approach, the direct
involvement of the irrigation sector staff can be reduced.
The experiment-demonstration element needs to be broadened and diversified.
The extension of relevant messages, for instance, of the Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) recommendations against fruitfly in Khar, needs to be
made more effective. Alternative methods for farmer-to-farmer diffusion
and group extension need to be explored.
Community based programmes: a community oriented approach offers
much promise in promoting a sustainable pattern of improved land use,
soil conservation and reduced erosion. Farmers’ patterns of overall
land use, interactions between different enterprises and factors explaining
labour constraints need to be pursued at the local level. Interactions,
constraints and feasible local institutional solutions emerge only through
a dialogue with farmers and interest groups at the community level. The
MoA LUPP Unit in Thimphu has undertaken a praiseworthy survey and developed
a master plan for improved land use for Drametse gewog in Mongar. The
FEZAP has built on this design. An experimental design for a community
development plan has been drafted, oriented towards sustainable land use
including social forestry; and necessary changes in land use regulation
were to be approved in Thimphu. This orientation needs further support:
technical solutions have to be designed through participatory methods,
and incentives in undertaking conservation measures need to be properly
explored. Pilot initiatives need to be launched to test technical solutions,
approaches and acceptability at the local levels. As regards fodder trees,
and living hedges, a research programme needs to be mounted, together
with the Forest Services, without delay.
The core programme would comprise a set of community development plans
in each gewog: co-operative solutions to land use should be tested based
on the local priorities. With an approach geared to needs, agro-economic
potential and to tangible solutions by type of households, family income
status and food security can be analysed with a set of indicators.
Small Scale Infrastructure and Marketing Support: The marketing
of horticultural crops, vegetables, potatoes and oranges needs targeted
support. Demand in India and Bangladesh provide the main impetus in marketed
cash production. Markets are becoming more efficient, farmers even in
distant communities are aware of border prices, but limited road access,
storage and transport constrain supply response. Success in intensification
necessarily requires higher margins for output to justify rising labour
inputs, irrigation scheme maintenance and fertiliser application.
A Community Development Fund is proposed to propel the creation
of small scale infrastructure, power tiller roads, hanging bridges, storage
sheds at the road side. This infrastructure would be built on a self-help
basis; farmers in Bumdeling gewog stating their need for such a road and
a shed at the road side, were prepared to provide the necessary labour
themselves. More often than not, such infrastructure is a requisite for
a take-off in the production of cash crops for outlying gewogs.
The need of finding effective solutions to improving the delivery of
mineral fertiliser falls under this component. The financing arrangements
of the commission agents selling fertilisers need to be reviewed, so as
to ensure that farmers actually obtain the means with which to improve
soil fertility.
Credit: The RGOB and BDFC must ensure that the rural financial
services are becoming more accessible and farmers’ transactions costs
are reduced. A pilot credit component should be designed to explore decentralised,
self-governing financial services with autonomy vis-à-vis the rest of
the Project. Typically, farmers’ transactions costs for accessing
BDFC credit are high, if not prohibitive. More easily accessible credit,
with the use of group collateral to reduce risk, is fundamental in order
to provide a take-off for intensified production where a market is already
available. This component, must incorporate experimentation and testing
in order for the BDFC and NWAB to merge and devise methods for setting
up decentralised rural financial services. Rural financial services should
reach first those gewogs where a sufficient loan volume can be foreseen.
This is the rationale for the proposed Gewog Banking Units.
Institutional Support and Strengthening: the institutional support
and strengthening component is expected to answer to three "transversal"
objectives, namely: (i) analysis of the socio-economic environment
and the building-up of a gewog based progress and performance monitoring
system; the responsibility belongs to the M&E Unit and the Dzongkhag
planning officers; (ii) promoting the research and development methods
and extending testing and pilot efforts to support farmer group approaches
to multiply: these responsibilities all fall under a strengthened extension
component together with the RNRRC and the irrigation sections; and (iii) promoting
participation to generate higher efficiency of resource allocation though
feed back and aligning gewog level activities with local preferences.
A seconded institutions specialist is required at the level of the PFO.
The institution building component should be linked to the community development
fund to permit the finance for self-help projects, to drive also the institution
building efforts.
Reassessment of land use legislation: Present land use patterns
and legislation need to be reassessed The current RGOB prohibition of
shifting cultivation on tsheri land needs to be re-evaluated; the findings
of this IE reconfirm the negative assessment of the current legislation
by FAO in 1989. An argument can be made in favour of a land redistribution
on five grounds, to: (i) increase overall production from a given area;
(ii) improve food security and nutrition of the resource poor; (iii) provide
better incentive to farmers in undertaking the additional labour required
for soil conservation measures, since they own the land; (iv) improve
parents’ capacity to send their children to school and raise the
literacy of their children; and (v) facilitate the uptake of technology
by the next generation of farmers.
The argument has already been made: the LUPP study for Drametse argued
for a redistribution of land, since one or two land owners in this gewog
had very large areas of land.
Targeting: targeting mechanisms are most effective when technology
is developed through on-farm and village level trials that suit the particular
need and niche of resource poor households. It is for this reason that
a properly designed R&D project can and should be an effective vehicle
for poverty alleviation. A second priority is to ensure that inequities
in the present land distribution, especially of wetland are removed. A
third priority it to target the rehabilitation of irrigation schemes to
those where 75% of all farmers have landholdings below 0.3 hectare.
Nutrition Monitoring: a final priority for a future FEZAP II is
to co-operate closely with an organisations such as UNICEF and the Ministry
of Health, to ensure that the health and nutrition dimensions are properly
followed up on. Essential is to ensure that indicators for nutritional
status are monitored in a representative sample of villages in the project
area.
Lessons learned
(a) FEZAP has Four Essentials Lessons to be Borne in Mind for Research
and Development Projects:
Need to recognise "research and development needs"
It is fundamental, before designing any project, to identify those recommendations
that are available, i.e. sufficiently tried out and adapted to the point
where they are suited for extension purposes, or have begun to be adopted.
This means discerning also those that need further development, testing
and adaptation to the conditions of the target area and target group,
and those that should be discarded.
Too often, projects are designed with limited data and knowledge as to
the degree of variation in farmers’ productivity, entitlements, constraints
and risk. What is not observed is not explained. The economic justification
and analysis of benefits versus costs is further constrained by the emphasis
on obtaining a quantifiable ERR. The latter accentuates the bias towards
overestimating the extent of the actual knowledge and the usefulness of
available or so called proven technology.
This means that projects too often are justified as extension projects
when they should have been designed as research and development projects.
The case for farming systems research and on-farm and village level testing
that should drive the generation of improved production technology is
then either not understood in-country, or it is underplayed.
A primary precondition for more appropriate project design is that more
attention is placed on the diagnosis of research and development needs;
it is essential that this process be conducted in representative locations
together with the target group itself. By such diagnosis, farmers’
actual preferences and community level constraints can be understood.
Design of extension activities can be avoided that will later prove
ill-adapted and not effective.
Knowledge generation and diffusion
In the first place, a research and development project has to be developed
in terms of the methods of approach and not in terms of detailed activities
and outcomes. First, results should be seen in terms of gaining knowledge
and know-how, and not of material achievements. Second, against the overall
project strategy, measurable objectives need to be specified to assist
the local staff and the relevant institutions to acquire the necessary
skills in this research and development. Thirdly, a series of indicators
need to be designed against which acquisition of skills can be monitored.
Fourthly, research and development take time: this dimension needs to
be taken into account in order to secure continuity in the approach beyond
project end.
An R&D approach for rural financial services
Extending provision of financial services into rural areas is vital to
encourage intensification and diversification of farm enterprises. Alternative
innovative models need to be tested so as to increase access to credit
for the rural population. This is the case, especially when credit supply
is not well adapted to demand, transaction costs of borrowers are prohibitively
high, and there are no institutional solutions in the country that are
backed by sufficient experience, and are established, recognised and replicable.
Innovative solutions are required for technical assistance
Innovative or alternative solutions need to be found for long-term technical
assistance. A compromise is required between the need of reduced costs,
as against securing continuing longer term benefits from the knowledge
generation process. Long-term partnership arrangements with institutions
specialising in research and development, with regular support missions,
training courses and attendance at workshops, is one solution. Such "twinning"
arrangements should be explored with both bilateral and multilateral donors.
(b) Lessons Learnt for Project Design in
General
Aside from the lessons learnt concerning the need for making precise
distinctions as to the actual knowledge available, and about proven technology,
and the need to adopt a research and development methodology and clear-cut
procedures at the design stage, FEZAP has seven lessons to impart as regards
project design in general.
An understanding of initial socio-economic conditions
The project's acquaintance with the socio-economic conditions of the
target group at the start was limited. The greater is this initial insufficiency,
the higher is the probability that changes to the project concept will
be needed in the course of execution. Moreover, the harder it will be
to modify and adapt a project during its implementation. This is why it
is essential, at the design stage, to analyse the target group's socio-economic
as well as physical environment, and to conduct highly specific surveys
to ascertain its constraints, preferences to contribute labour, and approval
.
Low cost survey technology
Structured approaches are necessary for obtaining the necessary data.
A low cost "survey technology", described in the IE report,
is available to obtain better data on resource poor farmers. In preparation
for the Interim Evaluation, a wealth ranking exercise was undertaken in
the project area. Villagers themselves were asked to identify the resource
poor households. The reliability of the results was confirmed by direct
interviewing. The experience proved the benefits of using low cost methods
for wealth ranking followed by subsequent targeted surveys. Once identified,
the resource poor households are interviewed: feasible solutions to reduce
constraints and food insecurity can then be discussed with them, and pursued.
Institution building and capabilities
The creation of capabilities should be part of a sector strategy with
which to raise productivity in the systems for the delivery of services
to the rural population. But the creation of capabilities for generating
better performance within and across projects is a neglected dimension
at time of design. At the stage of design, a strategy for training, for
creating capabilities, a management structure, and financial resources
for training must be formulated. Training should focus on: (i) the processes
required for generating knowledge from diagnosis, experiments, testing
and monitoring; (ii) disseminating the knowledge generated from the R&D
among local staff and institutional partners; and (iii) evaluation.
Extension activities
Conventional, ministry driven transfer of technology oriented agricultural
extension has failed to promote rural development in particular in those
regions defined as agro-ecologically diverse, resource poor and risk prone.
It is recognised that farmer-led approaches better integrate research
and extension functions drawing upon knowledge and research capacities
of local communities and combining them with those in formal research
and development organisations. Local capacity for experimentation must
be supported so as to permit technology to be adapted and further disseminated.
Present diffusion models need review. The possibility of using farmers
as part time lower level extension workers (after necessary training)
need to be explored. The use of village level extension workers offers
promise in terms of a cheaper, more effective channel to encourage farmers'
experimentation, relevant feedback, and dissemination of extension messages
in the remote villages. Such farmer-extension agents would not be directly
paid by Government, but could be assisted in kind through free inputs,
training, etc., and villagers could compensate them for foregone earnings
(labour lost).
Land use and conservation
Project based lending normally fails to generate productive and sustainable
land use that reduces soil erosion. Projects concerned with the development
of land and water resources should identify and address cases to already
visible erosion. Soil erosion needs to be analysed by type of land, and
by type of management and cropping system. The current IE has found that
soil erosion on small owned plots is less than on larger holdings. Smaller
farmers who own their land, cultivate more intensively, and are likely
to generate less erosion. Such findings should lead to reflection and
further exploration. In future projects, land use and soil erosion should
be monitored by type of land and size of entitlements of farmers.
Neglect of small livestock
Much attention is normally given to large stock across projects in contrast
to small stock, pigs and poultry. Pigs and small poultry under right conditions
provide high returns to female household labour and provide animal protein
as well as cash. Research support for small stock is often minimal, and
this area of intervention is one of the most promising in assisting the
IFAD target group.
More attention to animal feed
In the light of the tight feed situation, continued acquisition of more
cattle (even if improved) gradually becomes counter-productive. Compensating
measures are needed to increase feed while reducing useless cattle units.
(c) Lessons Learnt as Regards Project Operation
FEZAP offers three important lessons for project implementation in general:
Beneficiary participation and tenancy
In sites where tenancy rights are uncertain, voluntary labour contributions
are not forthcoming for channel rehabilitation. Tenants are reluctant
to participate/contribute to channel rehabilitation, since their short-term
tenure preclude reaping their longer-term benefits. Implementation is
delayed and disputes need early arbitration. Other channels that are not
affected by unequal ownership patterns and/or disputes should be given
chronological priority.
The introduction of new water users' groups has often resulted in conflict
and lack of participation, as has happened in some other Asian countries.
Areas of conflict between different users should be monitored to explore
more efficient and equitable mechanisms for water sharing, which then
can be supported by project interventions.
Beneficiary participation: labour constraints
The management unit of the Project should maintain close, ongoing co-ordination
with the district authorities to ensure that the demands for beneficiary
labour contributions are not excessive and do not interfere with agricultural
and other income-generating activities. Full account must be taken of
higher on-farm labour requirements resulting from project initiatives
to promote infrastructure and increased cropping intensities. The RGOB
still practices a system of taxing rural households through labour contributions:
the timing and the extent of such labour needs to fit into the seasonal
farming calendar so as to not worsen food insecurity.
M&E
The evaluation and support provided by IFAD and the Co-operating Institution
are essential for developing the capacities of the monitoring and evaluation
units. The competence of these units should be related to job descriptions
and activities, be specified at the outset and be upgraded over time.
The units should not be permitted to be overloaded with demands for its
services. Otherwise, their ability to gather and analyse information,
and to develop its own capacity for reflection and adaptation will suffer.
