2. cosop results review mtr 2016

Cambodia

COSOP results review

Main report and appendices

(DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION)

Document date: Insert dateReport no: [Insert report number]

Click here and select divisionProgramme Management Department

Cambodia

Contents

ContentsCurrency equivalents iii

Weights and measurements iii

Abbreviations and acronyms iv

Map of IFAD Operations in Cambodia vi

I. Have there been major changes in the country? 1

II. Have any of the risks materialized or have new risks appeared? 1

III. Are the country development goals supported by the COSOP still relevant? 1

IV. Are the COSOP objectives still relevant and likely to contribute to the country development goals confirmed above? 2

V. Has the combination of lending and non-lending activities presented at COSOP approval been updated and is it likely to deliver the expected outcomes? 2

VI. Is implementation on track? 2

VII. What progress has been made in achieving the results described in the results management framework? 4

VIII. What changes should be made to the results management framework, if any? Are the targets still relevant? 4

IX. Which lessons from COSOP implementation could be valuable for other countries or regions? 5

X. Does the COSOP period need to be extended or a new COSOP developed? 5

XI. Summary of Recommendations 5

List of figures

[click here and insert List of Figures]

List of tables

[click here and insert List of Tables]

i

Cambodia

AppendicesAppendix 1: Results Framework at Time of Design 1Appendix 2: Results Management Framwork Updated With Progress 1Appendix 3: Proposed Changes to Results Management Framework 1Appendix 4: Implementation Progress 1Appendix 5: Progress to Strategic Objectives 1Appendix 6: Programme Management and Coordination 1

ii

Cambodia

Currency equivalents

Currency unit = Cambodian Riel (CR)US$1.0 = 4,100 CR

Weights and measurements

1 kilogram (kg) = 2.204 pounds (lb)1 000 kg = 1 metric tonne (t)1 kilometre (km) = 0.62 miles (mi)1 metre (m) = 1.09 yards (yd)1 square metre (m2) = 10.76 square feet (ft2)1 acre (ac) = 0.405 hectares (ha)1 hectare = 2.47 acres

iii

Cambodia

Abbreviations and acronymsADMAC Agriculture Development in Mined Areas of Cambodia (CIDA financed

project)

AIMS Accelerated Integrated Markets for Smallholders

APIP Agriculture Productivity Improvement Project

ASPIRE Agriculture Services Programme for Innovation, Resilience and Extension

ASSDP Agriculture Sector Strategic Development Plan

CARD Council for Agriculture and Rural Development

CBRDP Community Based Rural Development Project

CCTT Climate Change Technical Team (inter-Ministerial team )

COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities Programme

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations)

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Fund

iDE International Development Enterprises (NGO)

IGRF Improved Group Revolving Fund (PADEE)

LIG Livelihood Improvement Group (of beneficiary farmers)

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MoE Ministry of Environment

MoWRAM Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology

MRD Ministry of Rural Development

NCDD-S National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development Secretariat

NSDP National Strategic development Plan

PADEE Project for Agriculture Development and Economic Empowerment

PDA Provincial Department of Agriculture

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia

RMF Results Management Framework

RPRP Rural Poverty Reduction Project

RULIP Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project

SNEC Supreme National Economic Council

SNV Netherlands development agency

iv

Cambodia

SO Strategic Objective

SP Service Provider (e.g. firms contracted to provide services under TSSD)

S-RET Building Adaptive Capacity through the Scaling-up of Renewable Energy Technologies in Rural Cambodia (S-RET)

TA Technical Assistance

TSSD Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and Smallholder Development Project

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

v

Cambodia

Map of IFAD Operations in Cambodia

vi

Cambodia

vii

Cambodia

I. Have there been major changes in the country?1. COSOP was designed to respond to profound changes in Cambodian rural economy and society including (1) rapid GDP growth accompanied by poverty reduction from over 50% to around 20% in 15 years1; (2) increasingly market driven agriculture; (3) demand for labour driving migration and mechanisation; and (4) a rapid expansion of rural credit. Poverty was replaced by vulnerability: many former poor are marginally above the poverty line. Farms are small and rural landlessness is increasing. Agriculture processing is under-developed. Long-term threats include rapid deforestation and degradation of natural resources, declining soil fertility and climate change.2. These trends have broadly continued in 2013-16. Overall growth remains strong but the agriculture sector appears to have stalled2. The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) regards strong agriculture growth and employment as a key plank of its strategy to raise Cambodia to sustainable middle-income country status.

II. Have any of the risks materialized or have new risks appeared?

3. Risk: Ineffective targeting of poorer smallholders in trying to develop inclusive value chains. This has two dimensions: (1) failing to reach the poor; and (2) reaching the poor with activities that are inappropriate to their needs. Targeting performance is satisfactory but strategy may need to evolve to meet the needs of poor households without land and resources for market agriculture.4. Risk: Ineffectiveness of capacity development activities due to weaknesses in the civil service and public financial management systems. Despite ongoing reforms, these weaknesses persist. ASPIRE is designed to enhance service delivery capacity through core government systems but this is a challenging task.5. Risk: Inability to develop sufficient consensus on policy reform. There is not yet full consensus within RGC and with IFAD on the purpose, scope and expected results of the policy component of ASPIRE. Policy is an essential dimension of the COSOP and there is a need for work to establish a renewed understanding.6. Risk related to implementation arrangements. The mitigation measures proposed in the COSOP have been only partially implemented. Priority needs include timely recruitment and effective deployment of TA and strengthening project leadership focus on achievement of strategic results.7. Emerging risk: Outreach will be substantially below COSOP targets by 2018.

III. Are the country development goals supported by the COSOP still relevant?

8. COSOP aligns with the RGC’s Rectangular Strategy for and the NSDP (2009-13) which target (1) Increasing agricultural productivity and diversification; (2) Promotion of agro-industries; (3) Expanding system of technical and agricultural extension services; and (4) Further strive toward linking farmers to the regional and global agricultural markets. COSOP also supports the Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export of Milled Rice and Strategy for Agriculture and Water (SAW, 2010-13).9. RGC rural development strategy remains essentially unchanged. Policy developments since 2013 include (1) formation of the National Council for Sustainable Development to coordinate climate change response and green growth; (2) the adoption

1 World Bank 2012 Where Have All the Poor Gone? Poverty estimates are based on per capital consumption with the “total poverty line” set at a per capita consumption of KHR 5,326.26 ($1.32) for Phnom Penh, KHR 4,272.85 ($1.06) for other urban areas and KHR 3,913.79 ($0.97) for rural areas.2 World Bank 2015: Cambodian Agriculture in Transition

1

Cambodia

of the Policy For Agriculture Extension (2015) ; (3) the move to 100% Programme Budget modality in MAFF, including establishing the PDA as Budget Entities; (4) a review of responsibilities for forestry, fisheries and protected areas; and (5) a review of Economic Land Concessions resulting in the announcement that a substantial area of concession land will be re-assigned to the Social Land Concessions programme.10. The development goals supported by the COSOP remain relevant and remain as priorities of RGC. However the SAW is no longer regarded as an active policy document and is likely to be replaced.

IV. Are the COSOP objectives still relevant and likely to contribute to the country development goals confirmed above?

11. The RB-COSOP 2013-18 has the following Strategic Objectives:(a) SO1 Poor smallholders enabled to take advantage of market opportunities;

(b) SO2 Poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate and other shocks;

(c) SO3 Poor rural households improve access to strengthened rural service delivery by Government, civil society and private sector agencies.

12. From the analysis of trends in the country context and RGC policy discussed above, it is concluded that the Strategic Objectives remain relevant, responsive to the needs of poor rural Cambodians and consistent with policy.

V. Has the combination of lending and non-lending activities presented at COSOP approval been updated and is it likely to deliver the expected outcomes?

13. COSOP attributes results to PADEE, ASPIRE and AIMS. PADEE has now passed mid-term, while ASPIRE is active and AIMS is in preparation. These projects closely match the SO and are likely to deliver the anticipated results. However, the ASPIRE outreach targets foreseen in the COSOP will not be achieved by 2018, while AIMS will only start to deliver results in that year.14. TSSD results were omitted because of doubts over IFAD’s continued support. These doubts are now resolved and TSSD is contributing to the COSOP strategic objectives.15. One additional project, S-RET, will start in 2016 and will contribute to SO1 and SO2 by assisting PADEE beneficiaries to access renewable energy technologies.

VI. Is implementation on track?16. Implementation progress of the ongoing COSOP projects is reviewed in Appendix 4. PADEE has disbursed at a faster rate than planned and it is now intended to close the project in 2017 rather than 2018. TSSD disbursement in TSSD has accelerated after a slow start and the project is expected to complete on schedule. ASPIRE has started slowly but the programme design allows for a preparatory phase before the major roll-out of extension activities.17. Project supervision report ratings of TSSD and PADEE have improved during 2012-15, as illustrated in Figure 1. Performance of TSSD remains slightly below satisfactory overall while PADEE has consistently been rated satisfactory or better.

2

Cambodia

Figure 1: Project Supervision Report Ratings: Trend

18. Mid-Term Reviews (MTR) of both PADEE and TSSD took place in 2015. The TSSD MTR found improved performance in formation of Livelihood Improvement Groups (LIG), transfer of Group Revolving Funds and capacity development. Service providers have improved performance but further strengthening is necessary, while demonstration and training activities continue to face delays. Sustainability of the LIG continues to be a concern and the MTR recommended further study of pathways to sustainability for these groups. 19. The PADEE MTR found good implementation progress in most components. The Rural Stimulus Fund was found not to be cost-effective. The biodigester activities are also dropped but support will continue under S-RET. The use of a service provider to maintain the IGRF accounts considered a success but sustainability depends on the groups themselves paying the costs; achieving this is a challenge. Other findings included (1) ongoing perceived weakness in targeting; (2) need to further strengthen market orientation; (3) need to introduce a complementary farmer-to-farmer learning strategy; and (4) recommendation to introduce a social marketing strategy for nutrition activities. PADEE faces financial shortfalls partly as a result of the declining SDR exchange rate and the MTR designed additional financing to offset this.20. No ASPIRE supervision has been conducted as yet but there are indications that some activities are delayed. The programme design assumes a preparatory period before roll-out of the extension activities. There is a risk that some sub-components, which are essential to the success of the overall design, could be overlooked.21. IFAD funds a number of regional grants supporting activities in Cambodia. A brief review of these activities is reported in Appendix 4. Coordination between projects and grants activities is limited and important opportunities for synergies are missed.

VII. What progress has been made in achieving the results described in the results management framework?

22. The Updated Results Framework is presented as Appendix 2 and is analysed in Appendix 4.23. Of the seven Outcome Indicators for SO1, three are considered likely to be achieved by 2018, two will require a longer time; one has no related activities and one cannot be measured using the current set of M&E tools.

3

Cambodia

24. ASPIRE and AIMS will not achieve the results assumed in the RMF by 2018. No activities are planned relevant to the result for “farmers with new land.” 25. Household assets and decline in childhood malnutrition are measured as proxy indicators for resilience (SO2). The PADEE household survey indicates the asset target is conservative. The survey also found modestly encouraging results on malnutrition, though attribution is problematic.26. Milestone indicators associated with PADEE are mainly on track. One indicator relates to the bio-digesters dropped from PADEE but to be supported under S-RET. Climate resilient planning and infrastructure development milestone targets (ASPIRE) are achievable by 2018. However the outreach target of 100,000 farmers (ASPIRE) cannot be achieved by 2018.27. Outcome indicators for SO3 (Poor rural households improve access to strengthened rural service delivery by Government, civil society and private sector agencies) appear to be on track, mainly due to inclusion of the related activities in the ASPIRE programme.

VIII. What changes should be made to the results management framework, if any? Are the targets still relevant?

28. Appendix 3 presents recommended changes to the RMF, with the purpose of:(a) Removing results that are not achievable;

(b) Improve definition and measurability of indicators;

(c) Improve the congruence between indicators and Strategic Objectives;

(d) Identify any additional indicators that are needed.

29. The RMF indicators are tied to specific projects and are somewhat inconsistent. TSSD results are omitted. Proposed revised indicators aggregate results from all projects on a common basis. Project-based milestone indicators are retained. 30. It is recommended to drop two indicators relating to “Non-rice agriculture production” and “households with new land”.31. One additional indicator is proposed for SO2: % of investments in vulnerable communities. This indicator links the RMF to the M&E framework of the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan. 32. Revised targets are proposed but the level of these depends on the COSOP timeframe. The proposed general form of the outcome indicators is “[75% of outreach target] with [impact] after 3 years’ participation in programme activities.” By 2018, 85,000 households will have completed three years’ participation; by 2021 the aggregate outreach of TSSD, PADEE, ASPIRE and AIMS should reach 256,000.

IX. Which lessons from COSOP implementation could be valuable for other countries or regions?

33. COSOP implementation has resulted in valuable insights in the following areas:(a) Ensuring that extension training subject matter and format is responsive to farmers’

needs (PADEE);

(b) Careful design of revolving fund groups to foster sustainability (PADEE);

(c) Need for project managers, including those at provincial level, to be accountable for delivery of strategic results and to have flexibility to allocate resources accordingly (ASPIRE);

4

Cambodia

(d) Need for programme and project strategy to be backed by robust, strategically oriented M&E capacity including the ability to understand and measure economic impacts at household, community and macro levels (all).

X. Does the COSOP period need to be extended or a new COSOP developed?

34. For the reasons discussed above, the targets of the COSOP RMF will not be fully achieved by 2018. Three options are identified:

(a) End the current COSOP and design a new one to begin from 2018;

(b) Extend the COSOP period to 2021; or

(c) Design a new COSOP from 2018, incorporating targets carried over from the current COSOP.

35. The third option is considered attractive as there is likely to be considerable continuity of strategy in the next COSOP.

XI. Summary of Recommendations36. The key recommendation emerging from this review of the COSOP are:

(a) Revisions to the COSOP results framework and time frame, as discussed above.

(b) Consider strategies to better address child nutrition. The positive experience with RULIP (cooking competitions, "Champion Mothers" and mother-to-mother social marketing activities) should be considered for replication;

(c) Strengthening of arrangements for M&E and knowledge management, with the following elements:

(d) Introduction of improved indicators with particular emphasis on measuring economic impacts of IFAD interventions, at farm level and at local area level, together with capacity development to assist MAFF to integrate these indicators into the Programme Budget M&E framework;

(e) Standardisation of M&E tools across the IFAD country projects, i.e. a consistent approach to survey design, sampling, MIS etc;

(f) Develop a programme-level database of key outputs, milestones and results contributing to achievement of the COSOP Strategic Objectives;

(g) Sharing of resources, particularly technical assistance, for M&E, between projects;

(h) A shared approach and resources for knowledge management. This could include one or more knowledge management specialists funded from the projects but working on a COSOP-wide brief.

37. Looking beyond the current COSOP, the major evolution of strategy that should be considered is a more explicit dual targeting strategy (productive smallholders and rural poor with subsistence agriculture activities) embracing different sets of activities appropriate to each group and (potentially) different implementing partners.

5

1

[Click here and insert country name]

Appendix I

Appendix 1: COSOP results management framework at design

2


Appendix I

Country Strategy Alignment COSOP Strategic Objectives

COSOP Outcome Indicators(by end 2018)

COSOP Milestone Indicators COSOP Institutional/Policy

Objectives (in partnership mode)

IFAD investments would be aligned to:

(i) Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency and the National Strategic Development Plan (2009-13):

Increasing agricultural productivity and diversification

Promotion of agro-industries Expanding system of

technical and agricultural extension services

Further strive toward linking farmers to the regional and global agricultural markets

(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export of Milled Rice and in particular with the following objectives:

Paddy surplus reaches 4 million tons

Milled rice exports of at least 1 million ton

Develop arrangements for information sharing with stakeholders in domestic market

(iii) Strategy for Agriculture and Water (2010-13):

SO1: Poor smallholders enabled to take advantage of market opportunities

Average labour productivity of 49,000 targeted households increases by 25%3 (PADEE)(a)

Average household non-rice agricultural production of 49,000 targeted households increased by 20% (PADEE)(b)

80% of IGRFs increase the size of their fund by 30% after three years (not including Group Conditional Capital Transfers) (PADEE)(c)

Average household agricultural production value of 100,000 targeted households increased by 15% (ASPIRE)(d)

Net farming income of 1,500 poor farm households with access to new land above poverty line level (ASPIRE)(e)

15 innovation sub-projects at different development stages approved for financing under iRAD (ASPIRE)(f)

Minimum of 20% increase in average net farming income of 80,000 HH participating in 8 value chains (AIMS)

By end 2015: Around 200 Farmer Business

Advisors providing extension services and supply of farm inputs to beneficiaries in a sustainable way (PADEE)

By end 2016: 490 CEWs trained and working, of

which 50% are women (PADEE) 49,000 HHs beneficiaries of

conditional group capital transfers and trained in financial literacy (of which at least 50% are women) (PADEE)

500 existing GRFs supported to improve performance (PADEE)

For each IGRF at least one woman elected as one of the three group leaders (PADEE)

By end 2017: 49,000 beneficiaries trained in

first and second year extension packages (PADEE)

6,000 outstanding farmers trained in first and second year packages; (PADEE)

3,800 beneficiaries trained in non-land based income generating activities, of which at least 70% are women (PADEE)

By end 2018: 100,000 beneficiaries trained in

extension packages that fully incorporate farming as business considerations (ASPIRE)

1,800 poor farm households receive Agricultural support

Extension materials and technical protocols used by MAFF decentralized staff based on market demand and farming as business

Improvement in knowledge and methodologies on conditional capital transfers to poor households

Contribute to improved training packages on financial literacy for poor rural households

Contribute to the development of a tailored agriculture support package for poor farm households with access to new land

Develop efficient mechanisms for RGC to enter in public-private partnerships for extension service provision

3 Accounts for both on farm and non-land based income generating activities.

3


Appendix I





Agriculture and agri-business that make effective use of inputs and market opportunities, are steadily intensifying and diversifying production, and deliver full benefits to farmers, rural communities, and other stakeholders (output F)

package for farmers with access to new land


(i) Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency and the National Strategic Development Plan (2009-13)

Finding resources, support and financing for solving climate change issues

Strengthen natural resources management

Educate and propagate on climate change

Accelerate implementation of programme activities on National climate change adaptation

(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export of Milled Rice:

Focus on constructing and maintaining rural roads connecting rice production

SO2:Poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate and other shocks

Value of household assets owned by participating households increased on average by 25% (PADEE)(g)

Percentage of children under 5 suffering from chronic malnutrition disaggregated by gender is reduced by 10% in targeted communes (Mainstreaming Nutrition Activities)(h)

(i) By end 2016: 4,000 pro-poor bio-digesters

constructed and operating (PADEE)

(j)(k) By end 2018: Minimum of 120 climate-resilient

productive infrastructure sub-projects, complying with eligibility and selection criteria, identified through local planning process and executed with quality (AIMS)

Minimum 80% of completed sub-project infrastructures are adequately operated and maintained (AIMS)

100 commune climate resilience plans completed (AIMS)

100,000 beneficiaries trained in extension packages that fully incorporate climate resilient considerations; (ASPIRE)

Pro-poor climate change adaption extension materials used by extension service providers

Targeted communes integrate climate resilience measures in their development plans

Contribute to development of an efficient delivery mechanism for climate-resilient productive infrastructure that can be up-scaled

4


Appendix I





areas to markets


A comprehensive and coordinated capacity to assemble and utilize agricultural and water-related knowledge, information and technology transfer (output C)

Agricultural systems and community arrangements that enable poor and food insecure Cambodians to have substantially improved physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food at all times to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (output D)


(i) Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency and the National Strategic Development Plan (2009-13):

Creating an enabling environment to attract private investors, domestic and foreign

SO3: Poor rural households improve access to strengthened rural service delivery by Government, civil society and private sector agencies

A policy for climate sensitive Agricultural Extension Services integrating public sector, private sector and civil society roles is developed and adopted (ASPIRE)

40% increase in the number of agriculture education and extension service providers that are using good quality extension materials reviewed and disseminated by MAFF (ASPIRE)

By end 2016 At least three training

workshops on analytical methods for policy-making in ARD implemented successfully (Small grants)

By end 2017 Draft policy for Agricultural

Extension Services integrating public sector, private sector and civil society roles is finalized for discussion (ASPIRE)

By end 2018: Land and non-land based

(m) Policy for Agricultural

Extension Services is developed and adopted

Increased number of diversified extension service providers delivering advice sustainably in rural areas

Contribute to formulate new proposals on how to

5


Appendix I





Welcoming the contribution from NGOs and other to ensure the transfer of know-how and new technology to farmers in regard to crop farming and animal rearing.

Continue partnership between the owners of small farming land and plantation and other agricultural production corporation and between economic land concession and social land concession to create job opportunity and market for local people

(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export of Milled Rice:

Expand agriculture extensive services to commune level

Improve the legal framework for investment and other related regulations if necessary


A sound policy and legal framework to enable development of the Agriculture and Water sectors (output A)

A sound institutional, administrative, research and education basis for effective

At least three major policy studies and associated publications will be produced by SNEC, discussed with stakeholders and disseminated (Small grants)

Ex-post economic rate of return of directly supervised projects financed under COSOP is at least 15%(l)

training packages developed (minimum 10 and 4 respectively), updated and endorsed by MAFF and MOWA (PADEE)

75% of extension materials endorsed by MAFF incorporating farming as business and resilience considerations (ASPIRE)

1,000 trainers and extension agents from Government, civil society and private sector trained in farming as business and climate resilient production techniques (ASPIRE)

Agricultural support package for poor farmers with access to new land developed and endorsed by MAFF (ASPIRE)

improve incentive structure of public service delivery in rural area including the possibility of programme budgeting(n)

6


Appendix I





work performance in agricultural and water resource development and management (output B)

1.

7

Appendix 2: Progress to Strategic Objectives and Updated Results Mangement Framework

I. Strategic Objectives1. The Results-Based COSOP (2013-18) responds to IFAD’s global Goal which is to “Enable poor rural people to improve their food security and nutrition, raise their incomes and strengthen their resilience” 4and to the policies of the Royal Government of Cambodia as expressed in its Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency, the National Strategic Development Plan and agriculture and rural development sector policies.

2. Accordingly, the COSOP identifies three strategic objectives (SO):


SO2: Poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate change and other shocks

SO3: Poor rural households improve access to strengthened rural service delivery by Government, civil society and private sector agencies.

3. The following sections review progress to the Strategic Objectives achieved by the time of the MTR in early 2016.

SO1 Poor smallholders enabled to take advantage of market opportunities

4. Progress to Strategic Objective 1 is measured by outcome indicators and by milestone indicators, as well as by progress towards associated policy and institutional results. Table A2.1 summarises the status of the outcome level indicators for SO1.

Table A2.1: Status of SO1 Outcome IndicatorsOutcome Indicator Contributing Activities Measured

ResultsLikelihood of Achievement

Average labour productivity of 49,000 targeted households increases by 25% (PADEE)

PADEE on target to reach 49,000 HH by 2015

MTR survey indicates decline in labour productivity but calculation requires many assumptions

Likely to be achieved but this is an area that would merit further study as it is key to demonstrating agriculture can be a pathway out of poverty

Average household non-rice agricultural production of 49,000 targeted households increased by 20% (PADEE)

PADEE on target to reach 49,000 HH by 2015

22% increase by MTR (PADEE survey)

On track

80% of IGRFs increase the size of their fund by 30% after three years (not including Group Conditional Capital Transfers) (PADEE)

772 IGRF’s operating According to MBWIn, IGRF groups retained profits equal to 11% of equity in 2015

On track

Average household agricultural production value of 100,000 targeted households

ASPIRE will start extension activities in

Will not be fully achieved by 2018

4 IFAD Strategic Framework 2011-15

8

increased by 15% (ASPIRE) 2016 but will not reach 100,000 HH by 2018

Net farming income of 1,500 poor farm households with access to new land above poverty line level (ASPIRE)

ASPIRE final design does not include specific activities for this group

Low. Review relevance of indicator

15 innovation sub-projects at different development stages approved for financing under iRAD (ASPIRE)

IRAD concept modified in final version of ASPIRE (focus on testing CR-agriculture)

Indicators needs re-definition. However, ASPIRE and S-RET will support innovation grants

Minimum of 20% increase in average net farming income of 80,000 HH participating in 8 Value Chains (AIMS)

AIMS design scheduled for 2016

Low chance of achievement by 2018

Table A2.2 shows the status of SO1 milestone indicators.Table A2.2: Status of SO1 Milestone Indicators

Milestone Indicator Progress (to end 2015) Likelihood of achievement

By end 2015:Around 200 Farmer Business Advisors providing extension services and supply of farm inputs to beneficiaries in a sustainable way (PADEE)

175 FBA in place at time of MTR [246 shown in tracking matrix]

On track / achieved

By end 2016:490 CEWs trained and working, of which 50% are women (PADEE)

496 CEW trained and working, 50% women n PADEE392 CEW and CAA trained and working in TSSD (50% women)ASPIRE to recruit

On track

49,000 HHs beneficiaries of conditional group capital transfers and trained in financial literacy (of which at least 50% are women) (PADEE)

38.600 HH trained in financial literacy (PADEE)XXX HH trained in financial literacy (TSSD)

On track

500 existing GRFs supported to improve performance (PADEE)

500 existing GRFs assessed for support needs

Only limited support to 120 GRF planned

For each IGRF at least one woman elected as one of the three group leaders (PADEE)

All 772 IGRF (PADEE) and 1,239 LIG (TSSD) have at least one woman officer

On track

By end 2017:49,000 beneficiaries trained in first and second year extension packages (PADEE)

38,600 beneficiaries trained in first year package18,604 beneficiaries trained in second year package

On track

6,000 outstanding farmers trained in first and second year packages; (PADEE)

Not done Dropped from PADEE results framework

3,800 beneficiaries trained in non-land based income generating activities, of which at least 70% are women (PADEE)

1,362 beneficiaries trained On track

By end 2018:100,000 beneficiaries trained in extension packages that fully incorporate farming as business considerations

May not reach 100,000 HH by 2018

(ASPIRE) 1,800 poor farm households receive Agricultural support package for farmers with access to new land.

No specific activity in ASPIRE

Table A2.3 summarises the progress towards institutional and policy objectives associated with SO1.Table A2.3: Status of SO1 Institutional and Policy Objectives

9

COSOP Institutional / Policy Objectives (in Partnership mode)

Achievements Future

Extension materials and technical protocols used by MAFF decentralized staff based on market demand and farming as business

11 extension packages (topics) developed under PADEE in partnership with GDA and SNV

Further development of extension packages planned under ASPIRE

Improvement in knowledge and methodologies on conditional capital transfers to poor households

Innovative arrangements in place for PADEE IGRF (partnership with FAO)

Need to conduct studies identified in PADEE ISM report

Contribute to improved training packages on financial literacy for poor rural households

Financial literacy training packages developed by MAFF with FAO support (PADEE) and by NCDD-S/SP2 (TSSD)

Contribute to the development of a tailored agriculture support package for poor farm households with access to new land

No action Not in plan

Develop efficient mechanisms for RGC to enter in public-private partnerships for extension service provision

iDE FBA model supported by PADEE considered a successful demonstration of PPPFurther PPP activities under ASPIRE to begin in 2016

To be addressed under ASPIRE

5. Most indicators for SO1 are on track although it is not yet possible to measure significant results at the outcome level.

6. It is expected that some results of the current COSOP will not be reached by the target date, mainly because these have not been prioritized in project and programme design, including:

The ASPIRE outreach targets 100,000 household and associated results will not be fully achieved by the target date of 2015, based on the ASPIRE implementation plan. These targets may be reached by 2019 or 2020;

Similarly, results related to the pipeline value chain project, AIMS, are unlikely to be achieved by 2018 as design of this project is now provisionally scheduled to begin in 2016;

Farmers with new land (e.g. on social land concessions) are not specifically targeted by ASPIRE, as had been envisaged, and related indicators should be reviewed;

The concept of an “Innovation Research and Development” (IRAD) fund in ASPIRE was modified in the final design to a fund specifically financing field research for climate resilient agriculture. The COSOP indicator should be modified accordingly;

Some secondary targets were modified or abandoned in the PADEE MTR. These include scaling back of the proposed support to existing GRFs and dropping the target of training 6,000 outstanding farmers (though a modified version of this approach is introduced through the new emphasis on farmer-to-farmer learning).

7. Some milestone targets associated with PADEE indicators may not be achieved based on current performance. Activities experiencing delays include the roll-out of the Farm Business Adviser programme, training of outstanding farmers in association with the IGRFs, and non-land-based livelihood activity training.

SO2 Poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate and other shocks

8. The key indicators of increased resilience associated with SO2 are proxy indicators: value of household assets and incidence of malnutrition, as show in Table 5.

Table A2.4: Status of SO2 Outcome Indicators.

10

Outcome Indicator Contributing Activities

Measured Results Likelihood of Achievement

Value of household assets owned by participating households increased on average by 25% (PADEE)

55% increase in hh assets measured by PADEE MTR

On track

Percentage of children under 5 suffering from chronic malnutrition disaggregated by gender is reduced by 10% in targeted communes (Mainstreaming Nutrition Activities)

Social market approach to nutrition training introduced by PADEE MTR

Severely malnourished (height for age) reduced from 40.1% at baseline to 31.9% at MTR (PADEE)

On track

9. The results of the PADEE MTR survey indicate that the household asset target is conservative. However, direct attribution to the project impacts is problematic as (on average) assets in control group households increased by an equal amount).

10. The PADEE MTR produced encouraging results on child malnutrition using the key height-for-age indicator of chronic malnutrition. The decrease was slightly larger in the treatment group compared to the control group, though not significantly so.

11. Other indicators of malnutrition have shown less improvement and in fact there was a small but significant increase in number of acutely malnourished children (wasting) between the baseline and the MTR. It should be noted that the acute malnourishment indicator may be sensitive to the time of year I which the survey is undertaken.

12. Findings of the PADEE baseline survey are broadly in line with national data (box).

13. The PADEE MTR recommended a new social market approach to child nutrition education. Implementation of this approach should be monitored carefully and if it is successful, it could be replicated elsewhere in the country programme.

14. The status of milestone indicators is show in Table 6.

Table A2.5: Status of SO2 Milestone IndicatorsMilestone Indicator Progress (to end 2015) Likelihood of achievementBy end 2016:4,000 pro-poor bio-digesters constructed and operating (PADEE)

Bio-digester designs prepared Roll-out dropped from PADEE but will be supported by S-RET

By end 2018:

Box: Child Nutrition Indicators in PADEE Baseline Survey Compared with National DataStunting Wasting Underweight

CDHS 2005 43% 8% 28%CDHS 2005 40% 11% 28%PADEE Baseline (IGRF members) 40.1% 12.6% 28.7%PADEE Baseline (control group) 41.3% 13.4% 32.3%PADEE MTR (IGRF members) 31.9% 15.8% 26.1%PADEE MTR (control group) 33.6% 16.2% 28.4%

11

Minimum of 120 climate resilient productive infrastructure sub-projects, complying with eligibility and selection criteria, identified through local planning process and executed with quality (AIMS)

Performance Based CR Grants included in ASPIRE

On track

Minimum 80% of completed sub-project infrastructures are adequately operated and maintained (AIMS)

On track

100 commune climate resilience plans completed (AIMS)

Supported under ASPIRE On track

100,000 beneficiaries trained in extension packages that fully incorporate climate resilient considerations; (ASPIRE)

May not reach 100,000 HH by 2018

15. The development of a pro-poor biodigester model PADEE is nearing completion. However following the MTR is was decided not to proceed with roll-out of the bio-digesters under direct PADEE funding. Instead, the new S-RET project, closely integrated with PADEE, will support roll out of bio-digesters as well as other smallholder agriculture applications of renewable energy technology. The climate resilient infrastructure programme, foreseen to be under AIMS, is now included in ASPIRE, meaning that the COSOP targets should be achieved. As noted above, the 100,000 household outreach target for ASPIRE may not be achieved by 2018.

Table A2.6: Status of SO2 Institutional ObjectivesCOSOP Institutional / Policy Objectives (in Partnership mode)

Achievements Future

Pro-poor climate change adaption extension materials used by extension service providers

Testing of climate resilient agriculture technologies under ASPIRE

Targeted communes integrate climate resilience measures in their development plans

Included in ASPIRE design

Contribute to development of an efficient delivery mechanism for climate-resilient productive infrastructure that can be up-scaled

ASPIRE PBCR Grants share basic design with UNDP-GEF and UNCDF-LoCAL

16. The climate resilient infrastructure component of ASPIRE shares design features with other donor projects including UNDP’s GEF-Resilient Livelihoods Project which will begin implantation in 2016. There is considerable scope for inter-agency cooperation leading to a sustainable mechanism for sub-national climate change adaptation financing. There is also scope for cooperation with the UNDP project and potentially other projects on development of climate resilient agriculture technologies and extension packages.

SO3 Poor rural households improve access to strengthened rural service delivery by Government, civil society and private sector agencies

17. Outcome indicators for SO3 appear to be on track, mainly due to inclusion of the related activities in the ASPIRE programme.

Table A2.7: Status of SO3 Outcome IndicatorsOutcome Indicator Contributing

ActivitiesMeasured Results Likelihood of

AchievementA policy for climate sensitive Agricultural Extension Services integrating public sector,

ASPIRE Component 1

Policy for Agriculture

On track: review of policy will take place

12

private sector and civil society roles is developed and adopted (ASPIRE)

Extension approved in 2015 influenced by ASPIRE design

after MTR of ASPIRE


Baseline will be measured by Extension Practioner Survey (ASPIRE)

On track


Supported under ASPIRE Component 1

On track

Ex-post economic rate of return of directly supervised projects financed under COSOP is at least 15%

Major Impact Surveys (PADEE, ASPIRE)

On track

18. The policy development activities foreseen at the time of the COSOP preparation to be financed through a Small Grants programme with SNEC, are now included in ASPIRE.

Table A2.8: Status of SO3 Milestone IndicatorsMilestone Indicator Progress (to end 2015)

Measured ResultsLikelihood of achievement

By end 2016At least three training workshops on analytical methods for policy-making in ARD implemented successfully (Small grants)

Will be achieved under ASPIRE Comp. 1 On track

By end 2017Draft policy for Agricultural Extension Services integrating public sector, private sector and civil society roles is finalized for discussion (ASPIRE)

Policy on Agriculture Extension adopted by MAFF in 2015 is influenced by ASPIRE design.

On track

By end 2018: Land and non-land based training packages developed (minimum 10 and 4 respectively), updated and endorsed by MAFF and MOWA (PADEE)

10 land-based training packages developed4 non-land-based training packages developedOn track

On track

75% of extension materials endorsed by MAFF incorporating farming as business and resilience considerations (ASPIRE)

On track

1,000 trainers and extension agents from Government, civil society and private sector trained in farming as business and climate resilient production techniques (ASPIRE)

On track

Agricultural support package for poor farmers with access to new land developed and endorsed by MAFF (ASPIRE)

Not in plan

19. Accordingly, the institutional objectives associated with SO3 remain achievable (Table 10)

Table A2.9: Status of SO3 Institutional ObjectivesCOSOP Institutional / Policy Objectives (in Partnership mode)

Achievements Future

Policy for Agricultural Extension Services is Policy on Agriculture Extension ASPIRE will support

13

developed and adopted adopted by MAFF in 2015 is influenced by ASPIRE design.

implementation and measure effectiveness, followed by policy review after ASPIRE MTR

Increased number of diversified extension service providers delivering advice sustainably in rural areas

Supported by ASPIRE

Contribute to formulate new proposals on how to improve incentive structure of public service delivery in rural area including the possibility of programme budgeting

Provincial sub-programmes integrated into MAFF Programme Budget structure

Development of performance assessment and introducing results based financing within Programme Budget framework

14


Appendix II

UPDATED RESULTS MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKCountry Strategy Alignment COSOP Strategic

ObjectivesCOSOP Outcome Indicators(by end 2018)

COSOP Milestone Indicators COSOP Institutional/Policy Objectives (in partnership mode)


(i) Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency and the National Strategic Development Plan (2009-13):Increasing agricultural productivity and diversificationPromotion of agro-industriesExpanding system of technical and agricultural extension servicesFurther strive toward linking farmers to the regional and global agricultural markets

(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export of Milled Rice and in particular with the following objectives:Paddy surplus reaches 4 million tonsMilled rice exports of at least 1 million tonDevelop arrangements for information sharing with stakeholders in domestic market

(iii) Strategy for Agriculture and Water (2010-13):Agriculture and agri-business that make effective use of inputs and market opportunities, are steadily


Average labour productivity of 49,000 targeted households increases by 25%5 (PADEE)Not reliably measured

Average household non-rice agricultural production of 49,000 targeted households increased by 20% (PADEE)Achieved: 22% increase in MTR

80% of IGRFs increase the size of their fund by 30% after three years (not including Group Conditional Capital Transfers) (PADEE)On Target: IGRF groups retained profits equal to 11% of equity in 2015

Average household agricultural production value of 100,000 targeted households increased by 15% (ASPIRE)Delayed: ASPIRE will not reach 100,000 hh by 2018

Net farming income of 1,500 poor farm households with access to new land above poverty line level (ASPIRE)No relevant activities in ASPIRE

15 innovation sub-projects at different development stages approved for

By end 2015:Around 200 Farmer Business Advisors providing extension services and supply of farm inputs to beneficiaries in a sustainable way (PADEE)274 FBA by end 2015By end 2016:490 CEWs trained and working, of which 50% are women (PADEE) 496 CEW trained by PADEE, 50% women. 392 CEW and CAA trained by TSSD (50% women)49,000 HHs beneficiaries of conditional group capital transfers and trained in financial literacy (of which at least 50% are women) (PADEE)PADEE: 49,000 beneficiaries achieved and 38,600 trained in financial literacy500 existing GRFs supported to improve performance (PADEE)Only limited support to 120 GRF is plannedFor each IGRF at least one woman elected as one of the three group leaders (PADEE)Achieved in PADEE and TSSDBy end 2017:49,000 beneficiaries trained in first and second year extension packages (PADEE)38,600 trained in first year package, 18,604 trained in second year package6,000 outstanding farmers trained in first

Extension materials and technical protocols used by MAFF decentralized staff based on market demand and farming as businessImprovement in knowledge and methodologies on conditional capital transfers to poor householdsContribute to improved training packages on financial literacy for poor rural householdsContribute to the development of a tailored agriculture support package for poor farm households with access to new landDevelop efficient mechanisms for RGC to enter in public-private partnerships for extension service provision

5 Accounts for both on farm and non-land based income generating activities.

15


Appendix II




intensifying and diversifying production, and deliver full benefits to farmers, rural communities, and other stakeholders (output F)

financing under iRAD (ASPIRE)Consistent with ASPIRE and S-RET work plans

Minimum of 20% increase in average net farming income of 80,000 HH participating in 8 value chains (AIMS)Will not be achieved by 2018

and second year packages; (PADEE) Not done3,800 beneficiaries trained in non-land based income generating activities, of which at least 70% are women (PADEE) 1,362 beneficiaries trainedBy end 2018:100,000 beneficiaries trained in extension packages that fully incorporate farming as business considerations (ASPIRE)Not started yet1,800 poor farm households receive Agricultural support package for farmers with access to new landNot in plan



Finding resources, support and financing for solving climate change issuesStrengthen natural resources managementEducate and propagate on climate changeAccelerate implementation of programme activities on National climate change adaptation

(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice

SO2:Poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate and other shocks

Value of household assets owned by participating households increased on average by 25% (PADEE)55% increase measured in MTR

Percentage of children under 5 suffering from chronic malnutrition disaggregated by gender is reduced by 10% in targeted communes (Mainstreaming Nutrition Activities)PADEE: Severely malnourished (height for age) reduced from 40.1% at baseline to 31.9% at MTR[NB MTR REPORT HEADLINES SEVERE CHRONIC MALNUTRITION FIGURE ONLY: 11.9%]

By end 2016:4,000 pro-poor bio-digesters constructed and operating (PADEE)Biodigester roll-out dropped from PADEE but to be done by S-RET

By end 2018:Minimum of 120 climate-resilient productive infrastructure sub-projects, complying with eligibility and selection criteria, identified through local planning process and executed with quality (AIMS)Starting 2016 (ASPIRE Comp 4)Minimum 80% of completed sub-project infrastructures are adequately operated and maintained (AIMS)Not yet100 commune climate resilience plans completed (AIMS)Starting 2016 (ASPIRE Comp 4)100,000 beneficiaries trained in extension

Pro-poor climate change adaption extension materials used by extension service providers Targeted communes integrate climate resilience measures in their development plansContribute to development of an efficient delivery mechanism for climate-resilient productive infrastructure that can be up-scaled

16


Appendix II




Production and Export of Milled Rice:Focus on constructing and maintaining rural roads connecting rice production areas to markets

(iii) Strategy for Agriculture and Water (2010-13):A comprehensive and coordinated capacity to assemble and utilize agricultural and water-related knowledge, information and technology transfer (output C)Agricultural systems and community arrangements that enable poor and food insecure Cambodians to have substantially improved physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food at all times to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (output D)

packages that fully incorporate climate resilient considerations; (ASPIRE) Delayed: ASPIRE will not reach 100,000 hh by 2018


(i) Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency and the National Strategic Development Plan (2009-13):Creating an enabling environment to attract private investors, domestic and foreignWelcoming the contribution from NGOs and other to ensure the transfer of know-how and new technology to farmers in regard to crop farming and animal rearing.


A policy for climate sensitive Agricultural Extension Services integrating public sector, private sector and civil society roles is developed and adopted (ASPIRE)Achieved: Extension Policy adopted in 201540% increase in the number of agriculture education and extension service providers that are using good quality extension materials reviewed and disseminated by MAFF (ASPIRE)Not yet (baseline to be measured by Extension Practitioner Survey in 2016)

By end 2016At least three training workshops on analytical methods for policy-making in ARD implemented successfully (Small grants)Starting 2016 (ASPIRE and S-RET)By end 2017Draft policy for Agricultural Extension Services integrating public sector, private sector and civil society roles is finalized for discussion (ASPIRE)Policy adopted in 2015By end 2018:Land and non-land based training packages developed (minimum 10 and 4 respectively), updated and endorsed by

Policy for Agricultural Extension Services is developed and adoptedIncreased number of diversified extension service providers delivering advice sustainably in rural areasContribute to formulate new proposals on how to improve incentive structure of public service delivery in rural area including the possibility of programme budgeting

17


Appendix II




Continue partnership between the owners of small farming land and plantation and other agricultural production corporation and between economic land concession and social land concession to create job opportunity and market for local people

(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export of Milled Rice:Expand agriculture extensive services to commune levelImprove the legal framework for investment and other related regulations if necessary

(iii) Strategy for Agriculture and Water (2010-13):A sound policy and legal framework to enable development of the Agriculture and Water sectors (output A)A sound institutional, administrative, research and education basis for effective work performance in agricultural and water resource development and management (output B)

At least three major policy studies and associated publications will be produced by SNEC, discussed with stakeholders and disseminated (Small grants)Consistent with ASPIRE and S-RET work plans

Ex-post economic rate of return of directly supervised projects financed under COSOP is at least 15%No ex-post analysis conducted to date

MAFF and MOWA (PADEE)Achieved by 201575% of extension materials endorsed by MAFF incorporating farming as business and resilience considerations (ASPIRE)Starting 20161,000 trainers and extension agents from Government, civil society and private sector trained in farming as business and climate resilient production techniques (ASPIRE)Starting 2016Agricultural support package for poor farmers with access to new land developed and endorsed by MAFF (ASPIRE) Not in plan

1.

18

Appendix 3: Proposed changes to results management framework

I. Purpose of Review1. As part of the Mid-Term Review of the Results Based COSOP2013-18, the Results Management Framework has been analysed with the purposes of identifying any changes that may be needed. It is important that the changes to the RMS do not represent any fundamental change to the objectives of the RB-COSOP; and do not degrade the compatibility between the RMS indicators and the M&E tools already in place.

2. The objectives of the review of the RMS are considered to be:

To identify planned results that are no longer achievable, or that do not correspond to any actual or planned programme activities;

To check that all indicators are clearly defined and measurable;

To identify any improvements that can be made in the match between the Strategic Objectives and the indicators;

To identify any additional indicators that may be needed, for example because of an evolution in IFAD country programme strategy.

Unified Set of Indicators3. The Outcome indicators in the COSOP results framework are in almost all cases tied closely to the results expected of individual projects, primarily PADEE, ASPIRE and AIMS. This approach is found to be unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

4. One important project, TSSD, is entirely omitted from the COSOP results framework. This arose because of uncertainty over the future of the project at the time of COSOP preparation. That uncertainty is now resolved and this successful project should be properly included in the measured results of the country programme;

5. Project-level indicators merely duplicate project level reporting, rather than seeking to aggregate results to measure programme-level impacts;

6. Within the COSOP results framework, there are a number of indicators taken from project logframes that measure very similar things in slightly different ways.

7. Therefore, it is proposed to revise the COSOP outcome indicators to aggregate results across all the active projects (TSSD, PADEE, ASPIRE, S-RET and AIMS). It is proposed that a common basis for measurement of household level indicators should be “[impact] measured after three years’ participation in COSOP programme activities.” Examination of the COSOP RMF shows that most household-level indicators can be converted to this common basis with relatively little adjustment, and without any impact on the validity of data already collected through household surveys and project monitoring.

19

8. It is proposed that the common basis of measurement should be impact achieved for 75% of the core target group of each project. The numbers of core beneficiary households per project are set out in Table A4.1 below.

Table A4.1: Core Beneficiaries of COSOP ProjectsProject Type of households targeted Total number

planned (hh)Number to be counted in COSOP targets

TSSD LIG members 27,314 20,485PADEE IGRF members 49,000 36,750ASPIRE / S-RET

Smallholder Learning Group 100,000 75,000

AIMS Smallholder participants in value chain 80,000 60,000256,314 192,235

9. However, many of these beneficiary households will not be reached, or will not have completed three years’ participation, by 2018. Therefore, if the COSOP timeframe is maintained as 2013-18, the number of beneficiary households should be modified as shown in Table A4.2

Table A4.2: Core Beneficiaries of COSOP Projects (3 years participation by 2018)Project Type of households targeted Total number

plannedNumber to be counted in COSOP targets

TSSD LIG members 27,314 20,485PADEE IGRF members 49,000 36,750ASPIRE / S-RET

Smallholder Learning Group 9,000 6,750

AIMS Smallholder participants in value chain

- -

85,314 63,985

10. The RMS contains milestone indicators which are also tied closely to individual project activities. It is proposed to retain the project-specific milestones, subject to adjustment of targets to what can realistically be achieved within the COSOP timeframe.

II. Strategic Objective 111. The RMS contains seven indicators for Strategic Objective 1 (Poor smallholders enabled to take advantage of market opportunities). It is noted that:

12. Two indicators relate to gross agricultural production, which in itself is a poor indicator of achievement in increasing market linkages;

13. One indicator “non-rice agriculture production” is not compatible with a market led approach. A market-orientated farmer should be encouraged to switch between rice and non-rice crops according to market signals. If farmers switch from corn to rice in response to market signals, the indicator will decline but the underlying intention of the SO will be enhanced. Therefore, this indicator should be dropped as having no relevance to the SO.

20

14. The indicator of labour productivity is of key importance in assessing the effectiveness of extension activities (because if productivity of on-farm labour is below available returns to wage labour, increased effort in farming cannot improve the farmer’s livelihood. However, this indicator has proved very difficult to measure. It is proposed to retain the indicator in modified form, subject to a specific effort to develop a viable method of measurement

15. It is proposed that ideally the following set of indicators would be measured for all farmers participating in extension and market-linked smallholder agriculture support activities:

16. Production value, as this is the basis of other more meaningful indicators;

17. Value added, which measures the farmer’s gross returns from farming and also the contribution to agriculture GDP. NB that value added includes both own consumption and marketed surplus;

18. Net cash income from farming, considered as the best indication of market linkages;

19. Productivity of own-farm agricultural labour (see above).

20. Table A4.3 shows proposed revisions to the SO1 outcome indicators.

Table A4.3: Proposed Revisions to SO1 Outcome IndicatorsOutcome Indicator Comment Proposed action Revised indicatorAverage labour productivity of 49,000 targeted households increases by 25% (PADEE)

Key indicator but hard to measure

Cannot be adequately measured by HH survey approach at present.

At least 3 major extension packages shown to increase productivity of own-farm labour by 25%.

Average household non-rice agricultural production of 49,000 targeted households increased by 20% (PADEE)

Not an appropriate indicator. Market-linked approach should be neutral between rice and non-rice production

Drop this indicator. It has no strategic significance

Drop

80% of IGRFs increase the size of their fund by 30% after three years (not including Group Conditional Capital Transfers) (PADEE)

Measures sustainability of GRFs. Can equally well apply to TSSD groups

Wording is not very clear.

Generalise At least 1,7806 GRFs shown to have retained surplus averaging 10% of capital value at the start of the year, each year for three years (excluding additional transfers received)

Average household agricultural production value of 100,000 targeted households increased by 15% (ASPIRE)

Production value is a crude indicator but has to be measured in order to measure economic indicators. Re-define as general indicator

Average household agriculture production value of 64,0007 smallholder households has risen by 15% after three years participation in programme activities

Net farming income of 1,500 poor farm households with access to new land above poverty line level (ASPIRE)

No relevant activities planned

Drop Drop

15 innovation sub-projects at different development stages approved for financing under iRAD (ASPIRE)

Innovation sub-projects to be funded by ASPIRE and iRAD

Keep but re-define slightly

15 innovation sub-projects at different development stages approved for financing

Minimum of 20% increase in average net farming income

Key indicator of market-linked agriculture – not only

Re-defined and measure for all projects

Net cash income from farming of 64,0000

6 i.e. 80% of PADEE and TSSD GRFs7 Or 190,000 if the COSOP timeframe is extended to 2021

21

of 80,000 HH participating in 8 Value Chains (AIMS)

applicable to AIMS smallholder households increased by 20% after 3 years’ participation in programme activities

21. In order to effectively plan, implement and monitor interventions in support of market-driven smallholder agriculture, an improved understanding of agricultural economic indicators is needed. This is true at the project level and within the planning, budgeting and M&E systems of MAFF which remain dominated by a production focused approach. Accordingly, it is proposed to add one indicator to the COSOP Institutional / Policy Objectives (Partnership mode) column, as follows:

Improved capacity to measure and analyse the economic impacts (micro- and macro-) of a range of interventions to support market-driven smallholder agriculture.

III. Strategic Objective 222. The RMS contains two indicators for Strategic Objective 2 (Poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate and other shocks). The indicator for household asset value was selected as a simple proxy indicator for household resilience to shocks. It is proposed to retain this indicator but to re-define the target using the common basis adopted for the Strategic Objective 1 indicators (see above).

23. The second indicator (childhood malnutrition) should also be retained but the indicator should be slightly re-defined in line with actual M&E practice (see Table A4.4).

24. Neither of the indicators measures either vulnerability or resilience directly. Recently, Ministry of Environment has introduced a Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI), based on Commune Database (CDB) data, measuring the level of climate vulnerability of local communities. It is not realistic to expect COSOP interventions to result in an attributable change in the value of this indicator over a short period. However, the CVI could be adopted as an indicator of targeting quality, thereby also providing a link to RGC’s M&E framework for climate change adaptation. It is proposed to introduce this indicator for monitoring purposes without a specific target defined at this stage.

25. The proposed changes are summarised in Table A4.4.

Table A4.4: Proposed Revisions to SO2 Outcome IndicatorsOutcome Indicator Comment Proposed action Revised indicatorValue of household assets owned by participating households increased on average by 25% (PADEE)

Should be generalised to all projects (not just PADEE)Should state a time period

Revise indicator Value of household assets owned by 64,000 smallholder households increase by average of 25% after three years participation in programme activities

Percentage of children under 5 suffering from chronic malnutrition disaggregated by gender is reduced by 10% in targeted communes (Mainstreaming Nutrition Activities)

Project Major Impact surveys do not attempt to measure population-level prevalence as sampling frame is project beneficiaries

Re-define sampling frame to XXX target households

Retain target

Percentage of children under 5 in 64,000 target households suffering from chronic malnutrition (stunting) is reduced by 10% after 3 years participation in programme activities

(New indicator) Ministry of Environment have recently introduced a Climate Vulnerability Index capable of identifying most

Add indicator tracking COSOP expenditures in vulnerable communities (no

% of COSOP local level investments targeted to most vulnerable 40% of Communes measured by CVI

22

vulnerable communities specific target)

IV. Strategic Objective 326. The RMS contains four indicators for Strategic Objective 3 (Poor rural households improve access to strengthened rural service delivery by Government, civil society and private sector agencies).

27. It is noted that the SO3 indicators do not directly measure farmers’ access to or use of extension services. Given the increasing diversity of service providers (public sector / civil society / private sector) and delivery mechanisms (traditional trainings / demonstrations / farmer-to-farmer learning / IT based) this might be a better methodological approach in the long run. This point should be considered in formulation of the next COSOP.

28. It is proposed to retain the RMS indicators essentially unchanged. However, consideration to measuring farmer’s access to and use of services should be considered as the central indicator of service delivery effectiveness in a future COSOP.

Table A4.5: Proposed Revisions to SO3 Outcome IndicatorsOutcome Indicator Comment Proposed action Revised indicatorA policy for climate sensitive Agricultural Extension Services integrating public sector, private sector and civil society roles is developed and adopted (ASPIRE)

OK OK n/a


OK, but important that ASPIRE extension practitioner baseline is properly conducted to enable measurement.

Implement ASPIRE extension practitioner baseline

n/a


OK, though not clear that SNEC will be the implementing agency for the studies. Studies will be conducted under ASPIRE Component 1 and under S-RET (also AIMS?)

Remove reference to SNEC

At least three major policy studies and associated publications will be produced by discussed with stakeholders and disseminated


OK, though an adequate methodology for measurement is needed.

IFAD to develop methodology

n/a

[Click here and insert country name] Appendix III

PROPOSED REVISED COSOP RESULTS MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK





(i) Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency and the National Strategic Development Plan (2009-13):Increasing agricultural productivity and diversificationPromotion of agro-industriesExpanding system of technical and agricultural extension servicesFurther strive toward linking farmers to the regional and global agricultural markets

(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export of Milled Rice and in particular with the following objectives:Paddy surplus reaches 4 million tonsMilled rice exports of at least 1 million tonDevelop arrangements for information sharing with stakeholders in domestic market

(iii) Strategy for Agriculture and Water (2010-13):Agriculture and agri-business that


MODIFIED: At least 3 major extension packages shown to increase productivity of own-farm labour by 25%.

MODIFIED: 80% of Group Revolving Funds (at least 1,780 GRFs) shown to have retained surplus averaging 10% of capital value at the start of the year, each year for three years (excluding additional transfers received)

MODIFIED: Average household agriculture production value of 64,000 smallholder households has risen by 15% after three years’ participation in programme activities

MODIFIED: 15 innovation sub-projects at different development stages approved for financing

MODIFIED: Net cash income from farming of 64,0000 smallholder households increased by 20% after 3 years’ participation in programme activities

By end 2015:Around 200 Farmer Business Advisors providing extension services and supply of farm inputs to beneficiaries in a sustainable way (PADEE)By end 2016:490 CEWs trained and working, of which 50% are women (PADEE) 49,000 HHs beneficiaries of conditional group capital transfers and trained in financial literacy (of which at least 50% are women) (PADEE)500 existing GRFs supported to improve performance (PADEE)For each IGRF at least one woman elected as one of the three group leaders (PADEE)By end 2017:49,000 beneficiaries trained in first and second year extension packages (PADEE)6,000 outstanding farmers trained in first and second year packages; (PADEE)3,800 beneficiaries trained in non-land based income generating activities, of which at least 70% are women (PADEE)By end 2018:100,000 beneficiaries trained in extension packages that fully incorporate farming as business considerations (ASPIRE)

Extension materials and technical protocols used by MAFF decentralized staff based on market demand and farming as businessImprovement in knowledge and methodologies on conditional capital transfers to poor householdsContribute to improved training packages on financial literacy for poor rural householdsContribute to the development of a tailored agriculture support package for poor farm households with access to new landDevelop efficient mechanisms for RGC to enter in public-private partnerships for extension service provision

Improved capacity to measure and analyse the economic impacts (micro- and macro-) of a range of interventions to support market-driven smallholder

23





make effective use of inputs and market opportunities, are steadily intensifying and diversifying production, and deliver full benefits to farmers, rural communities, and other stakeholders (output F)

agriculture.



Finding resources, support and financing for solving climate change issuesStrengthen natural resources managementEducate and propagate on climate changeAccelerate implementation of programme activities on National climate change adaptation

(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export of Milled Rice:Focus on constructing and maintaining rural roads connecting rice production areas to markets

(iii) Strategy for Agriculture and Water (2010-13):A comprehensive and coordinated capacity to assemble and utilize agricultural and water-related

SO2: Poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate and other shocks

MODIFIED: Value of household assets owned by 64,000 smallholder households increase by average of 25% after three years participation in programme activities

MODIFIED: Percentage of children under 5 in 64,000 target households suffering from chronic malnutrition (stunting) is reduced by 10% after 3 years participation in programme activities

NEW: % of COSOP local level investments targeted to most vulnerable 40% of Communes measured by CVI

By end 2016:4,000 pro-poor bio-digesters constructed and operating (PADEE)

By end 2018:Minimum of 120 climate-resilient productive infrastructure sub-projects, complying with eligibility and selection criteria, identified through local planning process and executed with quality (AIMS)Minimum 80% of completed sub-project infrastructures are adequately operated and maintained (AIMS)100 commune climate resilience plans completed (AIMS)100,000 beneficiaries trained in extension packages that fully incorporate climate resilient considerations; (ASPIRE)

Pro-poor climate change adaption extension materials used by extension service providers Targeted communes integrate climate resilience measures in their development plansContribute to development of an efficient delivery mechanism for climate-resilient productive infrastructure that can be up-scaled

24





knowledge, information and technology transfer (output C)Agricultural systems and community arrangements that enable poor and food insecure Cambodians to have substantially improved physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food at all times to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (output D)


(i) Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency and the National Strategic Development Plan (2009-13):Creating an enabling environment to attract private investors, domestic and foreignWelcoming the contribution from NGOs and other to ensure the transfer of know-how and new technology to farmers in regard to crop farming and animal rearing.Continue partnership between the owners of small farming land and plantation and other agricultural production corporation and between economic land concession and social land concession to create job opportunity and market for local people

(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice


A policy for climate sensitive Agricultural Extension Services integrating public sector, private sector and civil society roles is developed and adopted (ASPIRE)


MODIFIED: At least three major policy studies and associated publications will be produced by discussed with stakeholders and disseminated


By end 2016At least three training workshops on analytical methods for policy-making in ARD implemented successfully (Small grants)By end 2017Draft policy for Agricultural Extension Services integrating public sector, private sector and civil society roles is finalized for discussion (ASPIRE)By end 2018:Land and non-land based training packages developed (minimum 10 and 4 respectively), updated and endorsed by MAFF and MOWA (PADEE)75% of extension materials endorsed by MAFF incorporating farming as business and resilience considerations (ASPIRE)1,000 trainers and extension agents from Government, civil society and private sector trained in farming as business and climate resilient production techniques (ASPIRE)Agricultural support package for poor farmers with access to new land developed and endorsed by MAFF

Policy for Agricultural Extension Services is developed and adoptedIncreased number of diversified extension service providers delivering advice sustainably in rural areasContribute to formulate new proposals on how to improve incentive structure of public service delivery in rural area including the possibility of programme budgeting

25





Production and Export of Milled Rice:Expand agriculture extensive services to commune levelImprove the legal framework for investment and other related regulations if necessary

(iii) Strategy for Agriculture and Water (2010-13):A sound policy and legal framework to enable development of the Agriculture and Water sectors (output A)A sound institutional, administrative, research and education basis for effective work performance in agricultural and water resource development and management (output B)

(ASPIRE)

1.

26

2. cosop results review mtr 2016

Government & Nonprofit