Download - Bolivia: Food Security evaluation
ICCO food security programme Country report BOLIVIA – final version
Country report Bolivia ACE Europe December 2010
ICCO Food Security Programme In Bolivia
Bruno Kervyn
María del Carmen Camacho
AKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thanks very warmly all the people who made
possible a mission much improvised.
And especially the directors and staff of SARTAWI, PASOS, IFFI
and AIPE. Many thanks also to the comunarios of the communities
we visited in Northern Potosi, Oruro, Chuquisaca and
Cochabamba, who accepted to take part in workshops and answer
to our (sometimes) odd questions with much patience. Thanks also
to the women from the “Ricomida” association who, as well as their
time, offered us a sample of their good cooking.
María del Carmen Camacho and Bruno Kervyn
Table of content
1. Introduction 9
1.1 context of FS in Bolivia 9
1.2 Introduction to the evaluation in Bolivia 14
2. Main Findings 19
2.1. Relevance of the underlying policy and strategy of the program 19
2.2. Coherence of the implementation of the strategy 22
2.3. Improved food availability at the household level 25
2.4. Improved access to food by vulnerable households and individuals 28
2.5. Improved (proper) utilization by food by vulnerable households and individuals 31
2.6. Improved position and capacity of organizations to influence policy making 33
2.7. National and international policy makers demonstrate more interest in the right to
food 38
2.8. Assessment of the contribution of ICCO/KIA 41
3. Findings on the network of partners 44
3.1. The Past 44
3.2. The present 45
3.3. The future 46
3.4. The level integration of collaboration 46
3.5. The Collaborative Process 47
4. Conclusions 48
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 6/90
5. Annexes 55
5.1. List of abbreviations 55
5.2. Annex 1 - Comments on the evaluation framework (contextualising) 56
5.3. Annex 2 - List of documents consulted 56
5.4. Annex 3 - Programme of the mission 57
5.5. Annex 4 - List of persons interviewed 60
5.6. ANNEX No. 5 – LIST OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING 61
5.7. Annex 6 - PPT used for debriefing 70
5.8. Annex 7 - Short internal report on the indepth work sessions in the villages 70
1. Introduction
1.1 CONTEXT OF FS IN BOLIVIA
1.1.1 STATUS AND TRENDS IN FOOD INSECURITY
Bolivia is the poorest country of the Andean region and the second poorest in Latin America
with extreme inequality levels of income. Moreover, it has one of the highest indices of income
concentration in Latin America estimated to be 57.2 (Gini coefficient1) in 2007. Approximately
39% of the total population live below the poverty line and do not have enough income to
purchase the basic food basket and at the same time satisfy their basic needs in education,
health and housing. According to the Unsatisfied Basic Needs2 indicator (UBN) this figure is
close to 91% in the rural area. Bolivia is classified as a country of medium level of human
development, occupying the 95th place out of 169 in the HDI (Human Development Index) in
2010.
Of a total of 327 municipalities in Bolivia, 200 are mainly devoted to subsistence production and
148 are considered highly vulnerable (WFP 2005). Current migratory characteristics result in
extension of rural poverty to the major cities, increasing extreme poverty in peri-urban areas.
Chronic malnutrition remains practically unchanged in Bolivia in the last decade, affecting
26.4% of the population under five years of age, with 8% as severely malnourished. The
highest percentage of chronic malnutrition (35.4%) is found in infants between 24 and 35
months of age. 38.6% of children in the rural areas are chronically malnourished compared to
17.2% in the urban areas. Potosí, Chuquisaca and Oruro have the highest rates of chronic
malnutrition with 43.7%, 35.8% and 33.4% respectively (ENDSA 2008).
Table No. 2 Chronic Malnutrition in Bolivia (1989 – 2008)
(In Percentage)
Year National urban Rural Highlands Valleys Plains
1989 38.3 31.5 35.0 44.0 40.7 21.4
1994 28.3 20.9 36.6 33.3 29.9 18.2
1998 25.6 18.3 35.6 31.1 24.2 19.4
2003 26.5 18.0 37.0 32.1 29.3 15.8
2008 26.4 17.2 38.6 34.0 29.7 12.9
Source: National Health and Demographic Survey (ENDSA)
1 The value of the GINI coefficient varies from 0 indicating perfect equality (everyone has the same income) to 100
indicating perfect inequality (one individual concentrates all the country’s wealth). 2 The UBN measures accessibility to basic services (education, electricity, potable water and basic sanitation).
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 10/90
Achievements to improve food access have been insufficient, thus Bolivia continues to present
a deficit in food consumption. The most vulnerable groups are small farming families in the
highlands and valleys without irrigation systems, isolated by distance from the main markets or
without technical assistance to improve their agricultural output or decrease risks in their
productive process. In addition, climate risks such as drought, hail and floods are high in this
region of the country, subjecting the population to increased vulnerability.
Insufficient and weakly diversified agricultural production of poor rural families is not
compensated by other income sources due to the lack of opportunities to obtain other income.
Consequently, lack of capacity to buy food and therefore, poverty, continues to be the main
cause of food insecurity in Bolivia.
1.1.2 CAUSES OF HUNGER AND FOOD INSECURITY
During the 1980s and part of the 90’s the Government of Bolivia identified the greatest problem
of food security as availability. Consequently, national policies were aimed at increasing
agricultural production and productivity. Food production in Bolivia passed from 6 million MT in
1989/90 to 12 million MT in 2005/06 and to 15 million MT in 2008/093, an increase of 150% in
11 years. However this increase was characterized by a more important weight of industrial
production such as rice, cereals, sugar, soya, etc. against traditional product such as potatoes,
and by an increase of the relative importance of medium to large farms production from the
“Oriente” (Eastern part of Bolivia), against the peasant production of the poorer regions of the
“Altiplano” and “Valles”. Globally there is no lack of food in Bolivia but a problem of inequality
and quality. Later strategies (PRSP)4 recognize the problem of accessibility: the major reason
for food insecurity in Bolivia is poverty. An estimated 60% of Bolivian homes suffer food
insecurity resulting in malnutrition, anemia and high rates of mortality, essentially due to current
social and economic conditions. Inefficient use of agricultural land, an inequitable land
distribution, progressive deterioration of soil fertility and very scare access to water for irrigation
are also causes of this precarious situation.
Food imports have also considerably increased during these last ten years. More than half of
these imports are wheat but the tendency is towards a diversification of imports, which reflect
the increasing integration of Bolivia in the international food market. Presently 45% of Bolivia’s
food imports is composed of products the country also produces itself for the national or even
the international market, while this proportion was only 20% in 1992.
3 See Control Ciudadano: “Soberanía alimentaria en Bolivia entre el discurso y la realidad”, CEDLA, Boletín de
Seguimiento a Políticas Públicas, año VII, No 15, La Paz, Noviembre 2010. 4 Bolivian Strategy of Poverty Reduction, which proposed four main investment areas: (i) Employment and income
opportunities; (ii) Development of productive capacities; (iii) Security and protection to the poor; and (iv) Participation and social integration.
1.1.3 ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON FOOD SECURITY
Food imports in Bolivia have also increased; almost 600.000 tons of foods were imported from
2006 to 2009 for approximately 1.2 billion dollars. On the other side, Government policies are
more oriented to protect consumers and are not promoting internal food production.
The food deficit in the country is 21% and the external dependence of daily energy (Kcal.) per
person is estimated to be 18.6%, with 21.1% for proteins (FAO)5. The supply of food per capita
in Bolivia is only 2,240 Kcal., with a consumption of proteins of 59.1 grams. In the poorest and
most vulnerable municipalities, chronic malnutrition can reach 50% of children under five years
of age and the deficit of calorie intake is around 35% of recommended energy.
1.1.4 STEPS TO TAKE
Food security should be carefully studied taking in account aspects that were already
mentioned as sustainable access and use of soils, prices and marketing, responsible
agricultural production (not transgenic), respecting indigenous territories, protected national
areas, etc., the challenge continues to be enormous.
There is still a lot to be done at governmental stages, not only under the productive perspective,
but in the fight against poverty, which is fundamental to allow better conditions for adequate
access and use of food in rural families throughout the country.
Some governmental initiatives and actions in this matter include the approval of laws to enrich
wheat flour with folic acid, iron and complex B vitamins; vegetable oil with vitamin A; and salt
with iodine. The Ministry of Health and Sports with support from the WHO, gives a food
supplement to all children between 6 and 24 months of age called “chispitas nutricionales”
(nutritional sparkles) that contain iron, vitamin C, retinol, folic acid and zinc to prevent anemia.
Also some school feeding programs are being carried out in the most vulnerable municipalities
of the country (WFP 2007).
In terms of the food and nutritional policies institutionalization, during 2003 the Feeding and
Nutritional National Council was created to coordinate inter-institutional and inter-sectorial for
the follow-up and formulation of national policies.
5 Unfortunately these data are national averages and hide the real consumption by socio economic strata. Given the
social and economic inequalities en Bolivia, the majority of the population will have caloric and protein consumption much below the national average.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 12/90
1.1.5 POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
Public policies are extremely disperse and are not in harmony between the central level and
sub-national to have a significant effect. According to the new autonomous law (“Ley de
Autonomías”), each sub-level (regional governments and local governments or municipalities) is
“autonomous” in relation to superior levels. Therefore a national programme is difficult to
implement because each level has to agree “freely” on how it will be implemented6. Financial
and technical assistance programs that are offered to medium and small scale producers
continue to be insufficient.
Agricultural and farming development policies and/or food security policies at municipal levels
have not been paid much attention, only a few have invested in the School Feeding Program,
purchasing agricultural products to encourage local food security.
Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America that has no serious conditional cash transfer
programme to the poor, in spite of its indigenous and left-wing government. Amongst the few
existing programmes, the most successful, called “Bono Juancito Pinto”, consists in giving US$
29 a year to every child attending regularly a public primary school. According to people
interviewed during the field visits, this programme really reaches the target group and is
successful in keeping children in school until the end of the school year (it reduces the
desertion rate).
1.1.6 ICCO IN BOLIVIA
At a regional level, the main focus of ICCO is on the following:
− Reinforcing small producers through facilitating access to (inter)national markets − Corporate Social Responsibility − Right to land and food − Young people and safety (incl. child labour) − Climate change (retaining the tropical rainforest)
The Bolivian programme of ICCO reflects these priorities. The main programmes, at national
level, are:
− Democratization: land conflicts and territories − Fair and sustainable economic development: access to markets, financial services,
associations of producers 6 There are 9 Departments or Regions in Bolivia and 329 Municipalities.
− Food security: lobbying, studies and grass root activities
− Basic education − Children at risk
In turn, the Food Security programme is important at a regional level and is lead by the
Peruvian NGO KALLPA. At a Bolivian level, the Food Security budget line has three
different components. The first is a very long term support to AIPE which is at the same
time an umbrella organization of around 20 different local NGOs, but also a strong and
experimented NGO by itself, specialized in lobbying and studies related to food security.
The second is the financing of many micro interventions, mostly in very poor rural regions of
Bolivia, of which the sample visited by the evaluation team is probably a good example. To
a certain point, these intervention are undistinguishable from rural development activities
such as irrigation projects, cattle breeding, vegetable production, etc., and there is an
unavoidable overlap with the “fair and sustainable economic development” programme7.
The third is a common programme on food security for the years 2010 to 2013, in which
participate 6 different local NGOs and which is called “Promoting food security by local
economical development”8 . There is one budget, not divided in 6. How much each partner
will receive is a question internal to the group but only partly relevant because most
activities financed are collective (exchange of experience, common training, research, etc.).
In this sense most of the budget is for “exchange and cooperation”
An important institutional characteristics of ICCO in Bolivia is the installation in La Paz of a
decentralized office, ICCO headquarter for the South American region (7 countries where
ICCO focuses its interventions), which exists only since April 2010. It has established a
“Regional Council” (Consejo regional) composed of 14 persons from 7 different countries.
This council meets twice a year and should design the ICCO strategy for South America. It
began working in November 2010. This is the application of the ICCO PROCODE process
(PROgramatic approach, COresponsibility and DEcentralization) which began in 2004.
Decentralization means that the relations between ICCO and its Bolivian partners will be
closer and that there will be more discussions on strategic orientations9. The PROCODE
process also meant a progressive shift toward programmes based on a multilevel (local,
regional, national) and a multiactors (target group, NGO, local (or regional) government,
other actors public or private…) approach.
7 However ICCO has no specific water programme in Bolivia, except for a project on fight against pollution of the
Pilcomayo river. It has no health project either. 8 This point is explained in chapter 3: Findings on the network of partners. 9 Interview with Connie Toornstra on November 18, 2010.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 14/90
1.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION IN BOLIVIA
1.2.1. PARTNER SELECTION FOR THE FIELD MISSION
During the inception phase, Bolivia was chosen as one of the countries for a field mission. This
choice was based on a number of specific criteria as explained in the inception report. Within
the country, three partners were chosen for a visit: SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI. These partners
were chosen through a set of criteria such as: the budget for the programme and the budget
which was exclusively destined to food security and the budget allocated to objective 1 (direct
poverty alleviation). AIPE, an NGO network on food security was included in the sample for a
visit (not an indepth visit though) given the importance of the ICCO budget and the role of this
network in policy influencing. The focus was on the projects executed between 2007-2010. The
evaluation was not designed to evaluate the individual partners as such. Below, an overview of
the partners included in the indepth visit is provided.
The evaluation was build around 8 evaluation questions .The main findings and conclusions of
this evaluation are presented in this report through an answer to each of the 8 evaluation
questions and this answer is explained by references to judgement criteria attached to each
evaluation question.
It should be noted that in the debriefing meeting in Cochabamba (October 4, 2010) participants
asked to have access to all the results of the ICCO evaluation on Food Security, implying also
the final report.
Name PO Project Name start date end date total MFS FS
component budget for
obj. 1
IFFI
Bolivia Promoción DEL con SSAN y Genero 2009 1/01/2009 31/12/2009 € 50.000 € 50.000 € -
Bolivia Promoción DEL con SSAN y Genero 2010-2012
1/01/2010 31/12/2012 € 50.000 € 37.500 € -
Desarrollo Distrital con Enfoque de Género 2005 - 1/01/2005 31/12/2007 € 96.000 € 19.200 € 57.600
Promoción SAN y DEL con enfoque género 1/01/2008 31/12/2010 € 250.000 € 200.000 € 100.000
PASOS
Sembrando Seguridad Alimentaria 1/11/2007 31/12/2010 € 135.000 € 33.750 € 108.000
SARTAWI SAYARIY
Desarrollo Rural Altiplano 2007 - 2009 1/01/2007 31/12/2009 € 150.000 € 75.000 € 105.000
SARTAWI SAYARI 2010-2012
1/01/2010 31/12/2012 € - € -
Name PO
Project Date target group location objective
IFFI
2009 Consumers, women, local government, migrants, youth and children
Poor districts of Cochabamba
Defending women's rights and promoting good health care. Income generating activities,
2010-2012 Consumers, women, local government, migrants, youth and children
Poor districts of Cochabamba
strengthening local governance, combating children malnutrition and income generating activities for men and women
2005 -2007 Poor people, especially women, youth, and children
Districts 6 and 14 of the Cercado Municipality in the Department of Cochabamba.
The activities of the foreseen program will not include direct interventions at community level, but rather concentrate on institutional and technical development, generating proposals and lobby strategies for local economical development with food security. Improve socio-economic conditions including gender equity.
2008-2010
Producers organizations especially women in the rural areas of the Valleys Highlands. Potential women entrepreneurs and their families. in the metropolitan areas of the Department of Cochabamba
Municipality of Arani (rural), Municipalities ofCercado, Tiquipaya, Quillacollo, Sacaba, Colcapirhua (urban).
The activities of the foreseen program will not include direct interventions at community level, but rather concentrate on institutional and technical development, generating proposals and lobby strategies for local economical development with food security. Strengthening of links between SAN and DEL through the creation of synergies within the rural and urban families to assure food and nutritional security.
PASOS
2007-2010 308 small farmer families in 8 communities (consumers, women, youth and children)
Poor communities of the Municipality of Alcalá, Province Tomina in the Department of Chuquisaca
Contribute to a sustainable and just economic development in Tomina. Improve nutritional and alimentary security through: adequate and sustainable management of water resources; sustainable management of productive bases, improvement of malnutrition status and incidence in nutritional and alimentary security public policies in the Municipality of Alcalá.
SARTAWI SAYARIY
2007 - 2009
2,007 small scale farmers and their families (farmers, women, children) and local government
Poor communities in the Provinces of Calamarca in La Paz, Machacamarca in Oruro and Colquechaca in Potosí
Improvement of food security and income generation through: an increase in agricultural production and diversification of animal husbandry and the introduction of productive chains; strengthening civil society and organizations; and strengthening women’s role in production and socio-organization topics. Including a gender focus.
2010-2012
3,612 families (consumers, women, children and youth) and local government in 80 poor communities
Poor and marginal communities of the Altiplano (Departments of Oruro, La Paz and Potosí) with hard soil and weather conditions.
Improvement of water and soil use, agricultural and animal productivity including productive chains to contribute to alimentary and nutritional security. Income generation activities, defending peasants rights at municipal levels and strengthening local governance. Including a gender focus.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 16/90
1.2.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE FIELD MISSION
In the framework of the overall evaluation exercise, the objective of field missions is to
contribute evidence-based elements to the overall evaluation process through assessment in
the specific country context. In line with the proposed methodology in the inception report, the
eight evaluacion questions (EQ), judgement criteria and indicators, the country missions worked
through:
− Bilateral workshop with Partners of ICCO, to assess the impact and sustainability of
their activities between 2007 and 2010, the relevance of envisioned results within the local
context and taking into account their capacity, the evolution of their capacity and the role of
ICCO for their capacity development and operations.
− Meetings with stakeholders (other than partners), directly or indirectly involved in the
program as ally or as opponent, but not partner of ICCO.
− In-depth sessions with beneficiaries in villages to assess the type and level of changes
that the population is experiencing regarding food security and their right to food and
whether some of these changes have been influenced by the programs of ICCO’s partners.
These sessions were structured along 5 modules based on the PADEV-methodology.
− Collective meetings with partners as members of the network/coalition on FS, with
the purpose to (i) validate findings from the mission and to (ii) assess the approach of
ICCO, the programmatic approach and practice in the country with all Food Security
partners of ICCO.
− Interviews with ICCO staff, to discuss issues from the evaluation framework as
implementation of the ICCO FS strategy, the input provided to partners to strengthen their
capacity to influence policy making and the input of ICCO and role in the country.
1.2.3. ORGANISATION OF THE MISSION IN BOLIVIA
This report is the result of series of activities that can be divided into the following:
− A preparatory phase, before the country visits, where main documents have been
consulted, see list of documents in annex.
− A field/country phase of 16 days duration undertaken by a team of two consultants. This
evaluation took place in Bolivia between the 20 of September and the 5 of October 2010
(16 days). The programme of the mission, the list of persons interviewed and the list of
participants in workshops are included in the annexes 3, 4 and 5. The power point
presented in the debriefing meeting at the end of the mission is presented in annexe 6.
− A reporting phase with some additional interviews
For each of the three partners selected for an indepth visit, communities/villages have been
visited, see overview below:
Partner Region Municipality Community
SARTAWI Oruro Machacamarca Realenga
SARTAWI Potosí Colquechaca Uluchi Bajo
PASOS Chuquisaca Alcalá Limabamba Bajo
PASOS Chuquisaca Alcalá Garzas Chica
IFFI Cochabamba Arani Serrano
IFFI Cochabamba Cochabamba Ricomida
Table No 1: Location of Communities visited during the Field Visit in Bolivia
1.2.4. DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED AND LIMITATIONS OF THE EXERCISE
Organisation of the mission by ICCO regional office: although the time for the mission was
communicated as early as July (see inception report), it was very difficult for the ICCO regional
office to accommodate the mission in the month of September. The office was heaviliy involved
in the screening of new programmes and the set-up of the regional office. A final agreement on
the timing of the mission was agreed upon in a late stadium which complicated the preparation
by the local consultant of the meetings with the partners. As a consequence the first meetings
were organised with a great deal of improvisation.
Constraints related to the travel conditions in the country (poor road conditions, remote position
of villages where the partners intervene) and the mobilisation of beneficiaries: a lot of time was
needed for travel; further to that it proved very difficult for the partners to mobilise beneficiaries
for joint sessions of two days; therefore the planned session in the villages were organised as
focus groups, structured along the main issues of the 5 modules proposed in the inception
report. The conclusions stemmed from a consensus between participants rather then from a
debate inside small working groups (even between men and women).
Contacting stakeholders in the villages: it was difficult to get appointments with other
stakeholders active in the same intervention area (related to the travel conditions and
disponibility of these actors). As a consequence some of the findings are more hypothetical
(although confirmed by the different partners in the debriefing). This is indicated as such in the
report.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 18/90
Translation: most of the community meetings were carried out in Quechua, with translation into
Spanish. There may have been some distortion in translation, but on the other hand, the
availability of translation permitted far greater participation at community level.
2. Main Findings
2.1. RELEVANCE OF THE UNDERLYING POLICY AND STRATEGY OF THE PROGRAM
EVALUATION
QUESTION
DESCRIPTION CENTRAL
QUESTION JUDGEMENT CRITERIA
EQ 1: Relevance of
the underlying policy
and strategy of the
program
To what extent have the ICCO policy and strategies offered a specific framework to address the rights and needs related to food security of the most vulnerable?
1.1 ICCO has developed clear and useful strategies and policies.
1.2 The strategies and policies are relevant with view to current context and policies regarding the right to food.
Main Findings and Conclusions:
− The strategy of ICCO does not consist in developing its own policy document on Food
Security in Bolivia, but in supporting on a long term basis a Bolivian network (AIPE)
specialized on FS and in encouraging its Bolivian partners in developing their own
strategies at local level.
− It is an appropriate strategy as far as it guarantees appropriation and permits adaptation to
different contexts. However this strategy is debated because it also implies supporting
many micro interventions which can be well designed, well implemented and efficient, but
which have a very local impact and mitigate the effects of poverty rather than reduce its
causes.
2.1.1. CLARITY OF STRATEGY
There is no contextualised policy (document) on FS for Bolivia, nor at a regional level. ICCO
Utrecht has developed a general policy document in 2008 (see “Por una Alimentación
Suficiente, Segura y Nutritiva para todos”, ICCO & Kerk in Actie, 2008). The food security
programme takes into account the history of development in Bolivia, such as: (i)
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 20/90
decentralisation of responsibilities and means to Bolivian local government and (ii) recently: the
importance of the link with grass roots organisations10. The two programmes are:
1. Cooperation between 6 ICCO partners on FS and the link with local economic
development aiming at ensuring adequate attention for FS in programmes for local economic
development.
2. Regional programme in which AIPE is involved
2.1.2.RELEVANCE OF STRATEGY
The programmes in particular evolved from the longstanding experience of ICCO in working
with Bolivian partners. This experience was build on two tracks (i) allowing interventions at the
level of the target group (FS, production and processing of products, technical interventions in
the field of water) and (ii) supporting local governments in planning (of infrastructure,
development of local markets). Over the years, ICCO has stimulated partners to find ways to
systematize their experience at the level of the target group and to mainstream successful
approaches in the policy of local government. Partners have as such evolved to an approach at
three levels: direct interventions at the level of the target groups, dialogue with local
government and support to the organisation of civil society groups. AIPE is the only ICCO FS
partner who is not active at the level of the target group but is stimulating learning and linking
between NGOs that are active at local and departmental level and reflection on the role of the
NGOs in Bolivian society; thanks to input from ICCO this network strongly developed its work
on FS.
The development of the programmes was mainly based on internal evaluation experiences with
implementation of previous programmes and some input of regional experts (to ensure the link
with the local context). There has been one specific meeting with partners in Bolivia in 2008 to
discuss a common programme with the partners. For the development of the future strategic
plans 2011-2015 the same process is envisaged (now also with the input of the newly
established regional Regional Council or Advisory Board). However ICCO will have to apply the
reduction plan which means a cut of 30% of its public financing11. This cut will also apply to the
FS programme.
10 This importance comes from the present tendency, in the Bolivian Government, to link activities and proposal on rural
development to grass root organizations akin to the Government, such as the indigenous women organization,” The Bartolinas” and CSUTCB (Confederación Sindical Unica de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia - a peasant union. AIPE, for example, must now pass through one of these organizations to present its legal proposals to Parliament.
11 The Financing which comes from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs through DGIS.
ICCO does not execute a contextual analysis: partners are required to pay attention to some
specific indicators related to FS (in their programme proposals and execution). Partners are
explicitly asked to collect and report on information related to relevant international standards
such as the household food security index and the dietary diversity index (and to stimulate local
governments to keep records of these – see for e.g. IFFI). Partners have been instructed to do
so. Complicating factor: all donors have other requirements for baseline studies, which makes it
sometimes difficult to collect comparable information in an efficient and effective way.
ICCO’s partners are applying precise indicators in order to measure the impact of their
intervention on the food security of their target groups. However these measurements are too
recent and it is not yet possible to know whether these interventions have an impact on the
nutrition habits of the target groups. With few exceptions (such as the Ricomida project – see
box in EQ8), all are working with the most vulnerable. In Bolivia, the poor are mostly
concentrated in the rural areas of the Altiplano and Valleys. The poverty map of Bolivia shows
that all the municipalities visited, with the exception of the city of Cochabamba, belong to the
two poorest categories of the map (4 and 5). Inside the rural municipalities, differentiation
between one village and another or inside the villages themselves, is usually limited.
Conclusion on EQ 1:
The strategy of ICCO does not consist in developing its own strategy on Food Security in
Bolivia, but in supporting on a long term basis a Bolivian network (AIPE) specialized on FS and
in encouraging its Bolivian partners in developing their own strategies at local level. At the
network level (AIPE) the first FS strategy was drafted in 1996 and the Bolivian NGOs partners
of ICCO and member of AIPE stated that they develop their strategies in a dialectical process
with ICCO (meaning: learning from each other through dialogue and exchange).
This way ICCO does not “offer a specific framework to address the rights and needs related to
food security of the most vulnerable”, but is probably applying the best possible strategy
because:
− It ensures ownership of strategies by Bolivian partners
− It is adapted to very different local contexts
− It permits a quick adaptation to changes in the context
The twofold strategy (support to small initiatives and support to networking through AIPE) has
the advantage of being well adapted to a country which does not face food availability
problems, and where food insecurity is linked to unequal access to food, poverty and a lack of
public action. By supporting small local initiatives, it develops concrete experiences which can
serve as examples and have a multiplier effect. The disadvantage of this strategy is that,
through these small interventions (often well designed and well implemented), it has only a local
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 22/90
impact reduced to small target groups. These impacts cannot reverse some long term trends
linked to more global phenomenon such as the relative impoverishment of the small peasant
agriculture or the loss of soil fertility due to erosion or pollution.
Partners adapt their operational strategy to the context. All develop similar activities that
complement each other. And all begin with water and further develop activities linked to a better
use of water: organization, cattle breeding, vegetable production, nutrition, etc. according to the
local context. Few linkages exist with other ICCO programmes because FS budget line
encompasses a large variety of activities and does not require to be complemented by other
programmes. Additionally, there are no specific ICCO interventions on water, health or rural
infrastructures.
Complementarities between objectives, partners, and country strategies are being recently
studied and exploited through a common programme developed by the “Group of 6” (see
further under point 3).
2.2. COHERENCE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY
EVALUATION
QUESTION
DESCRIPTION CENTRAL
QUESTION JUDGEMENT CRITERIA
EQ 2: Coherence of
the implementation
of the strategy
To what extent are the ICCO strategies and policies translated into the cooperation and to what extent have possible synergies in the strategies been used optimally?
2.1. The ambitions and theory of change of the ICCO food security strategies are translated into partner selection and in the budget allocation
2.2. ICCO can guarantee that translation of strategies in the field are adapted to local context
2.3. Complementarities between objectives, partners, country strategies have been optimally used
2.2.1. TRANSLATION IN PARTNER SELECTION AND BUDGET ALLOCATION
The ICCO strategy on Food Security has not been translated automatically to partners (see the
above). Partners know at least some principles of this strategy but this knowledge is unequal
between partners and inside each partner NGOs. Some partners state that ICCO has learned
from its Bolivian partners about FS strategies. They also strongly argue that FS is not a specific
or a medium term objective, but a global (long term) objective which can/should be attained
through many activities in rural development, such as infrastructure, health, education, etc. As
such, they do not understand the separation, in ICCO, between a “food security” programme
and an “economic development” programme because the two belong to a same process.
Each NGO has its own strategy, according to its own reality and proper development. For
example, SARTAWI will develop cattle breeding because the Altiplano (Oruro and Northern
Potosi) has a long cattle tradition and some potential in this sector, PASOS attaches more
importance to water because they are working in a dry region where everything depends on
water, IFFI will work with women groups in villages because they focus more on gender issues.
At the level of AIPE, the first FS strategy was drafted in 1996 as a working document for the
NGOs belonging to the network. This strategy was updated in 2002 and presented as a
proposal for a public policy in this field12.
Objectives are fully shared between ICCO and its partners. No negotiation process is needed
and no imposition from the side of ICCO is felt by the partners. The partners set their priorities
and present proposals to ICCO whose observations are appreciated as relevant, useful and
respectful of partners’ autonomy.
The partner selection by ICCO is not clear. Initial contacts are so old that the origin cannot not
be precisely remembered (for eg. relations between ICCO and AIPE started in 1988!). In one
case information was passed over to ICCO by SNV. A formal selection process was not
organised by ICCO. The same holds for the target group selection: this is rarely the result of an
explicit and rigorous process, but rather the fruit of personal contacts, observation and
experience of the partners.
As far as the evaluation team could observe, the partner mix reflects a wide range of
specialities and experiences. But this was probably not purposely done by ICCO (see interview
with ICCO in EQ1): the criterion to maintain a relation is rather the strength of the organization:
the long term capacity to execute efficiently a programme and to absorb funds.
2.2.2. ADAPTATION TO LOCAL CONTEXT
All partners have a good knowledge of the local context. Their strategy is not always based on
explicit studies, external or internal. Sometimes the strategy is adapted to the municipal
12 “Propuestas de Seguridad Alimentaria Nutricional en Políticas Públicas”, AIPE Marzo 2002.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 24/90
development plan (PDM). In the AIPE case, a lobbying activity is normally based on information
and studies stemming from the group itself (Unidad de Gestión or network’s partners) and also
from outside experts.
Target group and/or local authorities (and network’s partners in the case of AIPE) participate in
the design of the operational strategies and often in the monitoring and internal evaluation of
the actions, for example through their participation in the NGO’s annual meeting on planning
and evaluation. The evaluation team could appreciate the ownership of the projects during the
focus group meetings with beneficiaries. The projects usually responded directly to
proposals/questions from the population and were often strongly defended by the beneficiaries
and the NGO during the municipal planning process in order to ensure access to the scarce
municipal funds. The level of ownership is confirmed by the ICCO organizational scans of IFFI
and PASOS: the scan noted in relation to accountability and participation, that both partners
have a system that enables beneficiaries to co-decide to some extent, especially about
activities. And that beneficiaries are in a position to enquire about organisation’s performance.”
The local strategies of the NGOs adapt to the priorities identified by the beneficiaries but also
offer a diversified set of complementary actions. For example, SARTAWI bases it strategy on
the complementarities between production, knowledge and organization, and will therefore
develop activities at each of these three levels. PASOS works first on water, and then on
activities which depend on water: vegetable production, cooking, nutrition, etc. In the case of
AIPE, the lobbying themes chosen reflect a consensus amongst the network partners.
Baselines are drawn and used to assess the results of actions (e.g. in IFFI the nutritional
situation of the women entrepreneurs is periodically evaluated). AIPE drafted a complete and
complex information system (recollection and processing) on food security called SISAN13
which seems to be applied by 6 partners NGOs among which IPTK and PROAGRO, but none
of the 3 NGOs visited by the evaluation team.
2.2.3. USE OF COMPLEMENTARITIES
Complementarities between local partners and objectives are being recently exploited through
the formation of the “Group of 6” or “National Group” which is now implementing a common
programme called “Bolivia Promoción DEL con SSAN y Genero 2010-2012” for a total amount
of 240.000 €. This programme is too recent to show already very concrete results, but local 13 SISAN is a complete computerized system to gather and process information on food security, which AIPE is
developing since 10 years. According to an interview (Mónica Rodriguez from EC Delegation in La Paz), this is a very good instrument but which has not been sufficiently promoted and used outside AIPE. However the evaluation team did not evaluate as such the effectiveness of the SISAN system.
partners feel that they are engaged in a common dynamic (see more on this under ‘Findings on
network of partners’).
The final aim of this group and its future relations with ICCO (will it in the long run replace or
complement bilateral relations?) are not completely clear to all partners. Other doubts stem
from the implication of the “multilevel and multiactor” programmes14 and from the consequences
of the ICCO decentralization process which is currently being executed.
2.3. IMPROVED FOOD AVAILABILITY AT THE HOUSEHOLD LEVEL
EVALUATION
QUESTION
DESCRIPTION CENTRAL
QUESTION JUDGEMENT CRITERIA
EQ 3: Improved food
availability at the
household level
To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence food availability for vulnerable households in a structural and gender sensitive way and why ?
3.1. Availability of food for vulnerable households has changed
3.2. The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households
3.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household level
Main Findings and Conclusions:
− Visits to the communities show that there has been a slight improvement in availability of
food, always based on a greater supply of water. This is not surprising given the fact that
problems of food security are concentrated in the highlands and dry valley regions (without
irrigation).
− Most changes observed are sustainable for vulnerable households because there is a
genuine ownership which allows for (slow) changes in attitudes as part of a long term
dynamic, and because people can control the production chain.
− ICCO partner organizations have played an important but not exclusive role in these
changes. Their success is due to strategies well adapted to the local context, but also to
general progress observed in education, health and communication in the areas of
intervention.
14 Multilevel refer to the recommendation that a programme should include at least two levels: a local and a regional one.
Multiactors means that a programme should involve a diversity of different actors such as NGOs, grass root organizations, local governments, etc.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 26/90
2.3.1. CHANGES
At a national levels, important changes have occurred in food production during the last years,
increasing food production in 150% in 11 years (see 1.1.2 and “Control Ciudadano”, op. cit.).
These changes were confirmed by the meetings with target groups.
Interaction with beneficiaries has brought to the surface following elements:
− Very few families suffer from a hunger period, but when they do ( for e.g. in Alcalá), this is
due to a combination of bad harvest and migration of men who leave behind their families
with little food and little money.
− In most of the communities visited, availability of food has improved on a small scale
through the implementation of some or all of the following elements: (i) water systems for
clean drinking water and irrigation contributing improved and diversified agricultural
production; (ii) recovery and management of soils, seedlings and forestation; (iii) animal
husbandry with improved cattle, balanced animal feeding, construction of cowsheds to
protect animals and animal sanitation. The training and education component reinforced
and strengthened community members in different topics such as irrigation and water use
and management, feeding and nutrition including cooking practices, production, communal
organization and leadership
− Some of these changes such as orchards and vegetable production, and dairy production
have influenced in particular the availability of food for women and children. These changes
are also most commonly mentioned by women during the focus group meetings.
2.3.2. SUSTAINABILITY OF CHANGES
Regarding the sustainability of the changes of food availability, participants of focus group
meetings highlight the following:
− The main changes are based on an increased supply of water, both for irrigation and for
domestic consumption. Water systems are always delicate (especially at organizational and
distribution level) and numerous examples in some of the communities visited show
abandoned past irrigation projects with infrastructure that is not in use any more. Access to
water can rarely be guaranteed in the long run, especially when external factors such as
climate change (droughts) or mine contamination can affect water supply.
− However, in the communities visited irrigation systems are being financed by local NGos
and municipalities.15 They are sometimes constructed with great efforts from the population
and are very much appropriated by the population. Water committees are being organized
in each community for system maintenance and management, which will also influence
water availability and sustainability. The water source protection (ANSAS) project in Alcalá,
with PASOS, also includes tree planting in the surrounding areas to assure better and more
even water supply.
− The important investment at family and community levels in the project implementation thus
has a positive effect on sustainability. This investment is done in terms of providing work
force but also in terms of maintenance and in organization (institutional investment) of water
committees to ensure a distribution of water, the control of its use, etc.
− If water supply is assured, then sustainability of orchards and vegetable cultivation is
ensured since the people (especially women) control the whole production chain: seed,
water, cultivation, harvest, cooking, and marketing.
2.3.3. SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION OF THE PARTNER NGOS
− Partners, through the implementation of their programmes, have played an important
(though not exclusive) role in the above mentioned changes at a family and at a community
level. Yet, their interventions were on a small scale and often confronted with adverse
trends or situations (soil erosion, river contamination, land division, climate change, altitude,
dryness…) which cannot be easily reversed at the micro level where partners are
intervening. In many cases, especially in the Altiplano, the improvements are mitigating the
effects of wider negative changes.
− Partners have applied strategies that are well adapted to local reality, starting by improving
the water supply and then introducing a set of interlinked and complementary interventions
such as: (i) diversification of agricultural production, orchards and vegetables; (ii)
improvement of cattle breeding in pasture, balanced feeding, sanitation, quality
improvement; (iii) introduction of small dairy transformation units at family or community
level; (iv) training in water management, agriculture and vegetable production, livestock
and animal husbandry, nutrition, cooking; (v) training in organisation capacity in order to
15 In the communities visited investments in infrastructures were jointly financed by an NGO and a municipality, usually
with a repartition ranging from 85%-15% to 70%-30% (for the municipality). This was typically the case in the areas of SARTAWI and PASOS who always signed official agreements with the municipalities they work with.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 28/90
improve capabilities of communities to claim their rights and present projects at the
municipal or regional level.
− For the interventions visited and studies by the evaluation team, the budget and the
partner’s implementation capacity were in line with the intended results. The community
invested high amounts of work, and the municipality contributed with a significant part of
their scarce resources16.
− Participants in the focus group meetings mentioned a large number of changes that
occurred over the last 10 years. In almost all cases they referred to a significant
improvement in access to education, health services, transportation, electricity, tapped
water, etc. These changes mitigate the effects of poverty (but don’t solve the poverty
problem) and explain part of the effectiveness of the partner’s intervention.
In only one case (Mujeres emprendedoras) in Cochabamba the evaluation team observed a
clear lack of sustainability due to the fact that the partner (IFFI) is assuming very important roles
(credit, control and monitoring) which cannot be assumed by the women’s organization. The
high cost of these roles (credit without interest, individual daily financial reporting…) do not
make things easier either. Four years after the beginning of the activities, the consequences of
the end of IFFI’s support have not yet been seriously discussed between the NGO and the
women organization (See box on RICOMIDA after EQ8).
2.4. IMPROVED ACCESS TO FOOD BY VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS AND INDIVIDUALS
EVALUATION
QUESTION
DESCRIPTION CENTRAL
QUESTION JUDGEMENT CRITERIA
EQ4: Improved
access to food by
vulnerable
households and
individuals
To what extent have the interventions contributed to a changed access to food for households and individuals in a structural and gender sensitive way and why?
4.1. Access to food and food ingredients for vulnerable households and individuals has changed
4.2 The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households and individuals
4.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household and individual level
16 Typically, in Oruro and Northern Potosi, Sartawi will pay 70% of the material cost of an irrigation project, while the
municipality will cover the remaining 30%.
Main Findings and Conclusions:
− As poor peasants are more integrated in the labour market, the share of monetary income
in the total family income is increasing and people acquire more diverse food items on the
market. However, this also means that access to food is more influenced by international
food prices.
− This change seems irreversible because it is part of a general trend observable worldwide.
− Partner organizations have contributed to a better access to food through small dairy
projects and vegetable cultivation. These changes are significant in the sense that they give
more access to food to women.
2.4.1. CHANGES
Changes in food access are not well documented at the level of poor communities. Even at a
global level we mostly dispose of consumption surveys which are not comparable through time.
Most participants to the focus group discussions assess the following:
− They now (compared to 5-10 years ago) have access to a greater variety of food products
by complementing their own production with purchases at the market. In the Altiplano, the
normal diet now comprises noodles, rice and sometimes fruits, apart from the traditional
potatoes and green beans. This is mainly due to a greater integration in the labour market17
(more seasonable migrations) and corresponds to a general trend observable nationwide18.
− In some communities (e.g. Machacamarca) agricultural incomes have improved thanks to
diary projects which permit women to sell daily some milk, yogurt or cheese at the market.
In these cases women have a better control on the family monetary income.
− No indication is given that the lean period has changed: in communities in Chuquisaca for
e.g., problems of access to food may still be important when harvest has been poor and
when, after harvest, men migrate. Women may stay at home with children with little food
and even less money.
17 The slow process of modernization of the small peasantry in Bolivia (and worldwide) leads to a greater integration into
the product market (inputs and agricultural product) but also a greater dependence on non farm production: seasonable migration, remittances, etc.
18 See Control Ciudadano: “Soberanía alimentaria en Bolivia entre el discurso y la realidad”, CEDLA, Boletín de Seguimiento a Políticas Públicas, año VII, No 15, La Paz, Noviembre 2010.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 30/90
− No indication was given that saving behavior has changed or that access to credit has
improved (none of the participants has had access to credit).19
2.4.2. SUSTAINABILITY OF CHANGES
Changes towards food diversification are certainly sustainable since they pertain to a long term
trend: peasants depend less and less on their own production for their food consumption (land
is scarcer and often quality is diminishing) and more and more on purchases at the market.
It must be noted that this evolution means that problems of access to food depend more and
more on price fluctuation, which in turn depends increasingly on international prices rather than
on the seasonable fluctuations of domestic prices. The international food crisis of 2008 strongly
hit Bolivian poor peasants and national prices remain high (in comparison to the pre crisis
period). Access to food has probably not improved during the last 4 to 5 years, in spite of the
high level of economic activity which doesn’t seem to have trickled down to the small peasantry:
the extraordinary boom in commodity prices (almost 60% of Bolivian exports) which fuelled a
strong increase in State revenues and a boom in the construction industry is very little
noticeable in the poor rural regions of Bolivia.
Cases observed of increase in agricultural income (dairy project) seem sustainable since
peasants control the production chain from water, to pastures and animal feeding, and animal
quality. Clearly, the sustainability of water systems will be key in this. This in turn may depend
on long term trends such as climate change or on other exogenous factors such as water
contamination by mines.
2.4.3. SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION OF PARTNER NGOS
The change in food diversification is a long term trend. Partner organizations (and other NGOs)
have supported this change to a limited extend in a number of areas through their support to
diversified food production (mainly through orchards and vegetable production). This was the
case in all the communities where focus group meetings were organized.
19 None of the NGO visited had a rural credit scheme linked to their projects. RICOMIDA (see box after EQ8) has an
urban credit scheme linked to a commercial activity. Although Bolivia was a pioneer country in Latin America in microcredit development (SARTAWI, until about ten years ago, was essentially a microcredit NGO) and although this activity has been largely taken over by commercial institutions, peasants have very little access to credit because small scale agriculture is too risky and because subsidized state (or private) credit schemes to small peasants have ceased to be fashionable.
In the cases of the dairy project, the relevance and coherence of these interventions should be
stressed. They have a strong impact on women autonomy, implementation capacity of partners
is good, and the budget is relatively modest in comparison with the results obtained (good cost-
effectiveness).
2.5. IMPROVED (PROPER) UTILIZATION BY FOOD BY VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS AND
INDIVIDUALS
EVALUATION
QUESTION
DESCRIPTION CENTRAL
QUESTION JUDGEMENT CRITERIA
EQ 5: Improved
(proper) utilization by
food by vulnerable
households and
individuals
To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence households’ and individuals’ utilization of food in a structural and gender sensitive way and why?
5.1. Proper utilization of food has structurally changed
5.2 The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households and individuals
5.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household and individual level
Main Findings and Conclusions:
− At a national level, malnutrition has diminished in Bolivia. In the communities visited
households are improving knowledge, attitudes and practices in feeding and nutrition
habits.
− At a local level these changes seem sustainable because, according to the participants in
the sessions in villages, they stem partially from a change in attitudes and also from a
better access to health services. The changes are also part of a general evolution
observable in Bolivia
− Partner’s interventions contributed to important changes in household feeding and nutrition
habits and to a more balanced nutrition.
2.5.1. CHANGES
In the communities visited by the evaluation team, households are improving knowledge,
attitudes and practices in feeding and nutrition habits; local food is more diversified with
vegetables and fruits production for consumption. Provision of clean water to poor communities
is definitely the most important factor supporting these changes.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 32/90
According to the National Health and Demographic Survey (ENDSA), the chronic malnutrition
indicator for Bolivia has improved from 32.2% in 2003 to 26.4% in 2008 for children under the
age of five, but, it is not possible to draw a link between this national indicator and the actions of
the NGO partners. At municipality level periodic monitoring and evaluation of children in this
range of age reported that chronic and global malnutrition rates have dropped although
systematic observation of nutritional indicators by the public health centers network is relatively
recent (3 to 4 years in most cases) and do not yet allow for a trend observation. On the other
hand the direct surveys conducted by ICCO’s partners, such as PASOS or IFFI are also too
recent to demonstrate concrete changes.
2.5.2. SUSTAINABILITY OF CHANGES
Most results and effects that partner NGOs achieve through their projects contribute to food
security maintaining self consumption, increasing sustainability and strenghening marketing
negotiation capacity. Important attitude changes in people should be considered structural
given their investment in project implementation. However it should also be noted that in all the
communities visited, participants to the focus group meetings state that they observe a long
term trend towards an improvement of access to health services: more health centers, easier
access to vaccination and to medical services, etc.
This long term trend can be clearly seen, for example, in the evolution of the number of
deliveries in hospitals and health centers, as compared to home deliveries20 (). Although the
evolution is different from one department to another and slower in the poorest departments, all
show a higher increase in deliveries attended in health institutions, than at home.
2.5.3. SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION OF PARTNER NGOS
Partner’s interventions and support to water and irrigation systems along with training in feeding
and nutrition and introduction of vegetable cultivation and consumption contributed to important
changes in household feeding and nutrition habits and to a more balanced nutrition for adults
and especially for children. At individual level, participants (especially women) in the focus
group meetings stressed that attitudes and knowledges are changing and that there is a rising
in consciousness to improve their life conditions and to seek ways for realising this.
20 see Bolivia: deliveries from 1998 to 2008 by department, ORS, 2009.
2.6. IMPROVED POSITION AND CAPACITY OF ORGANIZATIONS TO INFLUENCE POLICY
MAKING
EVALUATION
QUESTION
DESCRIPTION CENTRAL
QUESTION JUDGEMENT CRITERIA
EQ 6: Improved
position and capacity
of organizations to
influence policy
making
To what extent have partner organizations improved their organizational capacity and accountability, to what extent are they part of structural networks (i) to learn about the right to food and (ii) to represent together the target group towards other local and national stakeholders and (iii) to diversify their resources ?
6.1 Organizational capacity and accountability of partner organizations has changed
6.2 Cooperation of partner organizations with other relevant organizations develops into legitimate networks
6.3 Changed recognition and capabilities of the network and of the partner organizations to claim right to food
6.4 Partner organizations have contributed to improved positions of networks to influence policy making
Main Findings and Conclusions:
− All partner NGOs state that their organizational capacity has improved, which is confirmed
by the results of their organizational scan.
− Changes occurred and are occurring in NGOs in Bolivian networks but many organizations
suffer from a legitimacy crisis stemming partially from the government itself who doesn’t
appreciate this form of organization externally financed and difficult to control.
− Huge progress has been made in the constitutional recognition of the right to food
(although the attribution question remains) but little or no progress is observed in claiming
this right and in the implementation of better food security. Bolivia is at the same time the
poorest country of Latin America, and the country where human rights are best recognized
by the Constitution.
− At national level, attribution problems impede an impact assessment of the lobbying
capacity of ICCO’s partners on FS21. At regional level, the influence of NGOs networks is
hardly observable yet. At local level the influence is clear because this is an operational
level where NGOs have a direct influence facilitated by Bolivia’s decentralized
administrative system: SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI had all official agreements with the
municipalities where they were working, which demonstrate their influence on municipal
policies over food security, infrastructure and gender issues.
21 The evaluators did not come across a paper trail of AIPE enabling them to check whether documents of AIPE have
been used to draft policies. However, the non existence of such a paper trail is no proof of no impact.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 34/90
2.6.1. ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY
According to the four NGOs interviewed, organizational capacity has improved in the following
aspects22:
− Monitoring, control and evaluation
− Internal organization
− Planning system
− Administration
− Human resources (better capacity for analysis and better formation)
− Drafting of a strategic plan
This is confirmed by the organizational scans of IFFI and PASOS23 which offer the following
results on their organizational capacity:
Criteria IFFI
score24
PASOS
score
5 Planning, monitoring and evaluation system C/D C
6 Operating principles and procedures C C
7 Human Resources policy C C/D
8 Staff composition: representation of target group D B
10 Track record (past performances) C D
Source: ICCO Organizational Scans of IFFI (March 2009) and PASOS (February 2009)
This table shows the following:
− According to ICCO’s appreciation, IFFI and PASOS25 have high levels of organizational
capacity ;
− Both organizations show very similar results in the different field (except for staff
composition);
− The “weakest” criteria is the staff composition of PASOS which, according to the definitions
used in this scan, shows that “The target group (in terms of men/women, ethnicity, religion
22 Since the evaluation did not allow an extensive organisational analysis of the NGOs in the sample, the evaluators do
not pronounce themselves on organisational capacity. It should be remarked though that this scan does not take into account evolutions.
23 No organizational scan were available for SARTAWI and AIPE. 24 scores range from A (lowest) to D (highest) 25 The evaluation team thinks that the organizational capacity of SARTAWI and AIPE are no less good than of IFFI and
PASOS.
and disability) is represented in the organisation to some extent”. However the
representation of the target group in the local NGO may be a disadvantage as well as an
advantage, for obvious reasons linked to conflicts of interest, potential “clientelism” etc.
This table says nothing on the evolution of these criteria, but according to the four NGOs
interviewed, they all have improved their organizational capacity.
Additionally, some NGOs can clearly explain what their priority areas for improvement are26.
All are accountable towards their target groups (this is almost obligatory in Bolivia when working
with municipalities – see also EQ2). AIPE is closely monitored by its affiliates.
2.6.2. COOPERATION
ICCO’s partner NGOs belong to two types of networks:
1. Networks directly supported by ICCO
2. Other
Belonging to the first category are the following:
− The “National group” or “Group of 6”: SARTAWI, PASOS, IFFI, Yunta, IICCA, CEPAC. This
is an initiative stemming from these organizations. It is directed towards FS and is presently
united by a common programme called DELSSA (Programa de Desarrollo Económico
Local, Seguridad y Soberanía Alimentaria) with a budget of around 240.000 € for 3 years
starting in 2010, financed by ICCO and administrated by IFFI (see 3. Findings on the
network of partners).
− AIPE (Asociación de Instituciones de Promoción de la Educación) which is an old network
(founded in 1984) directly supported by ICCO since 1988 whose objective it is to strengthen
its affiliates (20 organizations presently) and to lobby on food security matters.
− “Mesa de Administradores” (Administrators Roundtable) created in 2006 who has 25
affiliates (not necessarily specialized in FS) and whose objective is to improve the
adaptability of NGOs to the changing national context.
Some partners belong also to other networks, not supported by ICCO. The main objectives of
these networks are normally to strengthen the organizations (share information) and defend
them against the government (this necessity is presently strongly felt by NGOs who fear that
the GoB wants to control them).
26 For example, PASSOS grew so rapidly that their planning and administrative capacity lagged behind and are now set
as a priority.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 36/90
Apart from financing AIPE, ICCO started to support collective actions and coordination between
its partners in Bolivia in 2004 through the process of decentralisation and programmatic
approach.
The “National Group” is too recent to show an impact already. AIPE has developed relations
with other networks in Bolivia, such as UNITAS, Coordinadora de la Mujer, and others. It also
co-founded an international network on food security (ASSANA) and it belongs to a worldwide
network and participates regularly to international meetings on this subject. According to the
partner NGOs, it is playing an important role issues related to rural development and food
security. On the one hand it is a very useful source of information, advice and technical
assistance27 for its affiliates. On the other hand it has achieved significant results in its lobbying
activities, e.g. with the mention of the right to food security in the 2009 constitution (this is the
most commonly mentioned impact), although this result was the product of the thinking and
actions of many actors, both public and private, and although the Constitution mentions almost
all possible human rights (more than 20 fundamental rights are guaranteed by the State).
AIPE is also experimenting a new approach by improving the flow of information coming from
its affiliates and by incentivising lobbying at regional level (e.g. by a redistribution of its
budget28). It seems to have gained more legitimacy amongst its members. These state that
relations are now more reciprocal and that regional context is more taken into account because
the importance of regional lobbying is now directly addressed by AIPE.
2.6.3. CHANGED RECOGNITION OF THE NETWORKS AND CONTRIBUTION OF
PARTNER NGOS
In Bolivia the right to food security is recognized by the 2009 Constitution, but no concrete duty
bearer is responsible for ensuring that the right is respected (to whom should one “claim its right
to food”?). Therefore the problem is not yet to “claim the right to food”, but to ensure that the
question of food security is taken seriously (adequate policies) at the national, regional and
local levels.
At the AIPE level there has been an improvement of the network’s capabilities (according to
AIPE and cross checked with members and other social organisations at the national level).
Members are less numerous than before (passed from a maximum of 36 to a present number
of 20), but seem more consolidated (according to AIPE). Respective roles of AIPE and its
affiliates have been clarified. AIPE specialized progressively on its lobbying role and on 27 Technical assistance mentioned by NGOs interviewed cover food security surveys, FS project formulation and
presentation, concepts of food security and food sovereignty, etc. 28 AIPE is organizing regional lobbying activities through its affiliates by financing directly these activities. Therefore part
of AIPE’s budget is spend by its affiliates for regional lobbying.
supplying services to its affiliates. However there has been no diversification of financial
sources and AIPE remains totally dependent on a few external financing, as most Bolivian
NGOs.
According to partners there has been a significant improvement of the NGOs partner capability
to act in favour of the right to food at the local level by influencing the municipal plans and some
specific actions. Many evidence of this exists. SARTAWI and PASOS lobby at a local level in
order to include some specific collective investment (mostly in irrigation and drinking water) in
the municipal plans, and sign official agreements with the municipalities in order to define
precisely the duties and obligations of each party. IFFI does much the same by identifying
collective needs in communities in order to present them to the municipality for co-financing.
IFFI is also very active in lobbying in favour of more gender equality (e.g. through an
“observatory of gender equality” in Cochabamba). PASOS worked in favour of the school
breakfast including only local products. Most of these consist in offering to the municipalities a
leverage (of one to three in some cases until one to eight in others)29 for their own investments.
Partners plan to work on the design and drafting of the “cartas orgánicas” (kind of mini
constitutions at local level) of the municipalities. They can also influence some local policies,
e.g. by demanding that the school breakfasts be prepared with local inputs. This is partially a
result of the changes in AIPE and the strengthening of lobbying capacity of partners (and not
only of the “Unidad de Gestión” of AIPE).
The main missing link is the meso or regional level where something can be done to change
things at a constitutional level, but for which NGOs are ill prepared because it is a more recent
institutional level. Effective action would imply a larger united front and more collective action
between the NGOs. However in most Departments (regions) there are regional organizations
(in Chuquisaca, e.g. there is a regional representation of AIPE composed of 4 organizations).
Evidence also exists of improved capacity of target groups30 (rural communities or womens’
groups) to claim their rights, and present projects and proposals to municipalities (or even to
regions).
External events with negative effects on FS can be mentioned: river contamination by mining
companies is frequent in Bolivia; the 2008 food crisis hit strongly poor people; development of
agro-fuels leave less place for food production; droughts seem stronger and more frequent than
before, but this should be confirmed by long term observations and linked to climate change31.
29 If the municipality invest 1 the NGO will invest 3, and up to 8 depending on circumstances. 30 This is especially true in the communities where SARTAWI is working, one of which, e.g., obtained funding from the
Oruro region (a bulldozer) for the construction of a irrigation canal. 31 Climate change is not addressed as such by ICCO’s partners (no project is entitled “effects of climate change”), but all
the projects promoting irrigation and a better use of water are trying to mitigate the consequences of climate change.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 38/90
2.7. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS DEMONSTRATE MORE
INTEREST IN THE RIGHT TO FOOD
EVALUATION
QUESTION
DESCRIPTION CENTRAL
QUESTION JUDGEMENT CRITERIA
EQ 7: National and
international policy
makers demonstrate
more interest in the
right to food
To what extent have partner organizations and/or their networks changed their lobby and advocacy activities and to what extent have they been able to influence the interest of the policy makers to promote the right to food for all?
7.1 The national and international lobby strategies of partner organizations address relevant issues
7.2. Interest of national and international policy makers in the right to adequate food has changed
7.3 Partner organizations have contributed to increased interest of policy makers for the right to food for all
Main Findings and Conclusions:
− All issues addressed by AIPE and by partner’s organizations in their lobby strategy are
relevant, which does not mean that all relevant issues are addressed.
− Interest of national and international policy makers in the right to adequate food has
increased but has stayed very much at a declaration level: very little has trickled down to
the poor.
− As far as crosschecking was possible, this mission could assess that AIPE’s activities had
a real impact on the groups and institutions it worked with. The impact on an increased
interest of policy makers (JC 7.3) is difficult to assess because of the attribution problem.
2.7.1. LOBBY STRATEGIES
Some of the recent targeted lobby-actions executed by AIPE with its partners are the following:
− In 2002 AIPE published a document called “Proposal for a Public Policy on Food Security
and Nutrition”. This document contained 13 concrete proposals, including school breakfast,
inclusion of food security in the school curriculum, subsidy to pregnant women, etc.
According to AIPE, 11 of these proposals were adopted by the successive governments.
− Since 2006 AIPE worked on the introduction in the Constitution of the right to food security.
This right was included in the new 2009 Constitution (article 16).
− Through the Commission of Human Rights of the national Assembly, AIPE presented a law
proposal on the right to food in 2008. The proposal was not discussed and was presented
again in 2009 but without success because it was not a priority for the present government.
− Presently AIPE is working with the indigenous women organization (“Las Bartolinas”) on a
law proposal on food sovereignty.
According to AIPE and to other interviewees its lobby activities have been generally successful
and all the issues chosen were relevant, but this does not mean that all relevant issues have
been tackled. Issues on international trade, on agro-fuels and on promotion of traditional crops
are on AIPE’s agenda (they have been given priority) but have not been addressed yet.
AIPE is very much specialized on the legal or legislative level. Inclusion of the right to food
security in the Constitution is considered as a great success and it certainly is. But Bolivia is at
the same time the poorest country of Latin America and the country which recognizes the
highest number of human rights in its laws and Constitution. In Bolivia, as in many other Latin
American countries, the problem does not lie any more at a legislative level but at the
implementation and claiming levels: laws or principles exist but are not applied.
AIPE is adapting its lobby strategy to the present political situation by directing its activities
towards important social actors such as the indigenous women organization (“Las Bartolinas”)
instead of presenting directly proposals to the parliament. This way the political visibility of the
network will diminish (which is viewed as positive), but the technical difficulty of its activities will
considerably increase since these will necessarily include a significant component of training of
social organizations.
At a local level several examples of actions in favour of women rights are given by IFFI and by
other partners: women observatory, micro irrigation, FS roundtable, clean water distribution,
etc… Certainly all these issues are relevant and are especially noticeably at the local level.
2.7.2. CHANGES AT THE LEVEL OF POLICY MAKERS
According to most observers and actors interviewed, there is a significant change in awareness
to FS in the present government (the principle of “Vivir Bien”) but less significant changes are
observed in commitments, public programmes or policies. The present government is not
known for its effectiveness, technical capacity has diminished and bureaucracy has worsened.
According to different sources the main present public policies in favour of food security are:
− A multisector programme “Desnutrición Cero” that is well designed but, according to field
visits and to opinion of experts on FS , does not reach its target Group.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 40/90
− A conditional cash transfer to children in primary public schools (US$ 29 – Bs 200 - by
child/year) which is effective and has a positive impact on school attendance (“Bono
Juancito Pinto”).
− A national FS programme (PASA) financed by the EC/IDB which has shown some results
in the past but, according to the country evaluation of EC cooperation with Bolivia, became
largely ineffective since it took the form of a budget support because it ceased to be strictly
controlled by an external institution .
− Things are easier at local level where more awareness is, at least in part, attributable to
partner’s activities and is normally followed by actions in favour of FS, often co-financed
with NGOs .
2.7.3. CONTRIBUTION OF PARTNERS
AIPE is very confident about the effectiveness of its lobbying activities, gives many examples of
this effectiveness and may be right. This evaluation mission contrasted these opinions against
three others which totally confirmed the relevance and effectiveness of AIPE (see box next
page). But for some activities such as lobbying for changes in the constitution, the attribution
problem remains: how to distinguish AIPE’s impact from that of other organisations?
AIPE
AIPE (Asociación de Instituciones de Promoción y Educación), as a NGO and/or Social
Development Private Institutions Network, has been working in a proactive manner with
different social organizations that contribute to changing processes in the country within the
new Constitution context. It is actually known as the “Alimentary Sovereignty Network” due to
its action against neoliberal policies, raising its compromise to the Change.
According to the Municipality of La Paz, AIPE has been very supportive to Food Security (FS) in
Bolivia. The elaboration and development of several proposals in Food Security and Nutrition
(such as the School Feeding Program) were presented to different government levels and were
approved for implementation and several became relevant to decrease nutritional national
rates. However, on the legislative field, several important FS policies were included in the
Constitution and are considered as a triumph, but at the moment they are not being applied.
AIPE not only developed the right to food security that was included in the new constitution, but
also worked closely with civil society organizations such as CIOEC (Coordinadora de
Integración de Organizaciones Económicas Campesinas) which in turn represents the different
peasants marketing and productive organizations (OECAS). CIOEC is now recognized in the
Constitution (art. 304) and also support many peasants marketing and productive organizations
(OECAS- Peasant Economic Organizations), but still need support to develop operational plans
and strategies.
The indigenous women organization,” The Bartolinas” and CSUTCB (Confederación Sindical
Unica de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia - a peasant union) are also civil actors that are
working closely with AIPE in its lobby strategy to develop new policies on food security and
sovereignty that will be presented to the National Assembly (Congress) for approval.
2.8. ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF ICCO/KIA
EVALUATION
QUESTION
DESCRIPTION CENTRAL
QUESTION JUDGEMENT CRITERIA
EQ 8: Assessment of
the contribution of
ICCO/KIA
To what extent has ICCO applied different roles and how have these been appreciated by ICCO’s partners? To what extent have ICCO and its partners developed adequate partnership relations to reach their objectives? To what extent does ICCO add specific value compared to other programs and stakeholders? How efficient have the contribution of ICCO and partners been ?
8.1 Extent to which ICCO has played different roles
8.2 Partners appreciate the role of ICCO and the partnership relation supports the objectives of the partners and ICCO
8.3 Possibility to verify and support the efficiency of the program
Main findings and conclusions:
− The 3 main roles of ICCO are its financial role, capacity development and lobbying. The
two last ones are often highlighted by Bolivian partners because they are more seldom
found amongst aid agencies.
− Partners detail a long list of ICCOs qualities in each of these 3 roles. They stress that ICCO
works with partners with whom it shares the same objectives. Therefore there is no
negotiation (nor need for it) during the funding process. They also stress that ICCO is very
respectful of its partners, practical and flexible. They much appreciated the monitoring from
Utrecht32, which they felt very useful without being a burden.
− Partners feel that ICCO has enough information to verify and support the efficiency of the
program. However this view is not fully shared by the ICCO representatives in Bolivia, who
32 The monitoring consisted essentially in a biannual visit from the ICCO representative of the FS budget line.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 42/90
stress that one of the objectives of the decentralization process is to have a better access
to information and closer ties with local partners. They feel that the reporting, monitoring
and evaluation system of ICCO is sufficient and do not intent to change it. “Closer ties”
means more visits and exchanges, not different monitoring mechanism. The evaluation
team has no reasons to think that ICCO lacks access to enough and good quality
information.
2.8.1. ROLES PLAYED BY ICCO AND OPINIONS OF LOCAL PARTNERS
− Financial: ICCO is quick, flexible, and respectful. Relation is based on trust. Reports are on
an annual basis, are simple and practical. ICCO’s financial forms are used by the partners
for their own book keeping (no time lost). Audits are general (not specific to a project)
Timely disbursements. Good coordination between staff inside ICCO.
It should be noted that ICCO is not always a very important donor for its partners in Bolivia: it
contributes between 20% (PASOS) and 27% (IFFI) to the 2010 budget of its counterparts.
These, in turn receive funds from between 4 (SARTAWI) and 12 (PASOS) agencies. AIPE is an
exception receiving almost 40% of its funding from ICCO. The number of donors of AIPE is
currently passing from 7 to 5.
− Capacity development: ICCO offers many suggestions for institutional strengthening in
interacting with its partners on the following issues networking, strategic planning, definition
of indicators, training, etc.. Good suggestions to improve project proposals. ICCO finances
institutional strengthening, participation to international events, etc. Very good monitoring
(visits) from ICCO.
− Lobbying: networking and coordination are encouraged (and financed). ICCO is very
proactive on this matter. AIPE is a good example of this. See also the programme
“Promoting Food Security by Local Economical Development” (see 3. Findings on the
Network of Partners).
According to partners, ICCO is better than most broker institutions. Its institutional culture
can be compared to OXFAM GB. No special weakness is mentioned, except the fact that
one partner feels that it could give more importance to the concrete results shown in the
field, meaning that effectiveness and impact should be the main evaluation criteria.
Partners simply want more of the best of ICCO.
2.8.2. APPRECIATION
Partners appreciate the three roles of ICCO. They stress that they share the same objectives,
that ICCO supports an institution more than just a project and that they have been strengthened
by this relation.
Some suggestions are made by ICCO’s partners concerning, e.g. the strong relation between
local economic development and FS (why are they separated in ICCO’s financing?), or the
necessity for clear messages concerning decentralization, and multiactor, multilevel
programmes.
Partners supply examples of mechanisms for replication (but not necessarily supported or
stimulated or facilitated by ICCO): wells, improved cattle, water source protection, “sistema de
mejoramiento y recuperación nutricional ambulatorio de niños y niñas de menos de 5 años”…
The mechanisms for replication are usually very simple: other peasants and/or other
communities come and visit the project and try to do the same. Knowing this, ICCO’s partners
give importance to field visits, peasants networks and exchanges.
2.8.3. POSSIBILITY TO VERIFY EFFICIENCY
According to local partners, objectives, expected results and indicators (in project proposals)
are clear. They think that project design is good and takes into account institutional capacity.
Timing is not always realistic (but errors are often due to local partners) and replication
mechanism are rarely provided in a project/programme proposal. ICCO can verify the efficiency
of programmes through its system of monitoring, reporting and evaluation.
Local partners think that field results influence the ICCO support to particular partners but also
stress that there are non written criteria (on institutional development for e.g.) and that ICCO
accepts that results may only appear after a long time and may be reversible.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 44/90
“RICOMIDA”
IFFI, as part of its Food Security Program (FSP), has also been supporting an enterprising women’s initiative that consists of a Restaurant chain called “RICOMIDA”
that operates according to a franchised business model, but with a big difference: the franchisee pays nothing and receives many advantages, from loans to free training.
There are actually 38 ladies in this group who run their own food business in the marginal
areas of the city of Cochabamba, (covering the Municipalities of Cercado, Quillacollo,
Colcapirhua, Sacaba and Tiquipaya) with a total of around 20,000 clients per month. The main objective of this project is to change alimentary habits together with improving
feeding, food manipulation and hygiene habits and accessible price for target population.
ICCO’s funding in this project is supporting a rotating fund that provides loans to these
entrepreneurs. The loans are given to women who are willing to join the franchised
business (RICOMIDA). The highest amount of the loan is US$ 250.00, no interest is
charged and they have to reimburse the total amount within a year. Other direct benefits provided by IFFI to these women association are: (a) training in food elaboration
(nutritional, hygienic, tasty and variable); (b) training in the use of good quality provisions
for cooking; (c) education on quality and kindly hostelry; (d) training in management and
administration for a detailed accounting control and (e) continuous follow-up and
monitoring to maintain quality. The chain restaurant is doing well (the large majority of the
women are making a profit) but the project is not sustainable. Four years after it start neither the
women association nor IFFI have an idea on how it could work without the support of IFFI. The
problem stems from the fact that the monitoring (a strict control is indispensable in a franchised
system) and the loan systems are expensive and cannot be covered by the association as
such. It is very probable that the day IFFI stops its support, RICOMIDA ceases to exist.
3. Findings on the network of partners
3.1. THE PAST
During an AIPE meeting in 2007 where each participant was describing what he was doing,
three NGOs (IFFI, CEPAC and IICA) started discussing the possibility of exchanging
experience and information on a regular and more formal basis. PASOS promptly joined the
group and after a few meetings they agreed on the idea of implementing a joint programme.
They presented the idea to ICCO who quickly backed the project. In 2008 a formal proposal
was drafted, discussed, amended and accepted by ICCO who also suggested that two other
partners (SARTAWI and YUNTA) could join the group. This was agreed by the four initial
partners and in 2009 a first one year experimental programme was launched, followed by a
three years joint programme of 240,000 € which is being implemented by the 6 partners since
2010, CEPAC taking the direction of the programme and IFFI covering its administrative part. It
is one contract with one budget. The Spanish title of the programme is “Programa de Desarrollo
Económico Local, Seguridad y Soberanía Alimentaria” or DELSSA, which is equivalent to
“Promoting food security by local economical development”.
3.2. THE PRESENT
The 6 partners (the “Group of Six”) describe themselves as a group of likeminded NGOs
implementing a common programme, and are cautious emphasizing that they are not a network
inside a network (AIPE). They are also clear in that they are following their own dynamic
independently from AIPE, although they do not question their affiliation to AIPE of which they
are active members. According to the project plan (p.2), “the actions to be undertaken during
the present three year program are basically: development and systematization of sustainable
production strategies, participatory studies on local market development and climate change,
exchange of experiences among the technical staff and leaders of civil society organizations,
strengthening of organisations of small producers, actualization of the conceptual framework for
local economic development with food security en gender focus and design and validation of
indicators to measure the impact on food security at household level”.
No concrete results may yet been shown because the programme is too recent. However,
according to ICCO (project plan), the results of the one year experimental programme (2009)
are the following:
− A good working relation with AIPE, with a clear division of areas of work in order to reach
complementarity
− a first draft of the conceptual framework and identification of some main indicators,
− an inventory of interventions and experiences of each participant in the program, as well as
multi-stake holder analysis and an inventory of local demands and potential for
development
− exchange visits to the projects of IICCA, CEPAC, YUNTA and SARTAWI.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 46/90
3.3. THE FUTURE
This “Group of Six” has no very clear plan or strategy for the future. They want to continue
what they are presently doing: analysing past experiences, and implementing applied research
on technologies of use of soils, water and genetic material (seeds) in order to diffuse them and
become a reference in Bolivia on these matters.
They expect ICCO supporting them on two levels: (1) a financial level in order to gain
experience and legitimacy, until they gain independence and have access to other financial
sources; (2) an intellectual level, in order to continue the conceptual debate on Food Security
and Local Economic Development. At the same time they feel this debate should not be
restricted to the group of directors/leaders of the present partners NGOs. Some also feel they
should open to other actors in Bolivia.
3.4. THE LEVEL INTEGRATION OF COLLABORATION
Participants to the Joint Partners Workshop were asked to assess the maturity of the network
(where is the network situated when looking at membership and type of collaborative actions),
following strictly the methodology proposed. On the same token they were also asked to assess
the collaborative process as a network on food security (how strong is the collaborative process
on a scale of 0 to 4?).
It can be clearly seen that partners know where their network is situated when looking at
membership and collaboration actions. 86% of participants (6 of 7) believe that the network has
moved forward to a stage where programmatic alignment as well as dialogue and knowledge
sharing is being developed. On the other side, 57% or 4 out of 7 participants consider that the
degree of diversity of the committed members has moved on to the stage where initial mixing of
entities but with limited mutual dependency.
0 0 0 0
Meeting
Results
0 14 430
43%
0 0 430
43%
0 00
14%
100%
Increasing Degree of Integration
Dialogue and knowledge sharing
Success for "Inter-connected Development" - Creating Networks of Deepening Integration
Syneergetic membership from all
sectors (civil society,
government, private sectors and
funders)
Initial mixing of entities but with
limited mututal dependancy
Homogenous; often just civil
society membership
Independent Performance
knowledge sharing, exchange
contacts and data, institutional
learning. Members continue to
independently direct their own
activities
Integrated Performance, better cost-
benefit, larger scope of activities, take
successes to scale, improved quality,
increase impact and
influence/advocacy through
integration. Members activities are
jointly designed and undertaken
through colaboration
Programmatic alignment (as well as
dialogue and knowledge sharing)
Programmatic integration (as well as
dialogue and knowledge sharing)
Coordinated Performance, minimize
duplication, align energy to increase
impact, stronger voice in policy.
Memebers direct their own activities
in ways to align with the work of
others.
Incr
ea
sin
g D
eg
ree
of
Div
ers
ity
of
Co
mm
itte
d M
em
be
rs
3.5. THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
The figure below shows the results of the assessment of the collaborative process. The seven
participants to the workshop have given notes from 0 to 4 to each one of the six criteria used in
the figures. The following steps were carried out for the assessment of collaborative process:
(a) A copy of the scheme was distributed to each of the seven participants, we explained the
purpose of the exercise and went through each of the six elements to be sure they all
understand the exercise; (b) An agreement was reached for each element. Some items came
out from the discussion between participants, only a few were brought up by the consultants to
open discussion; (c) Each participant was asked to score. They all mentioned their names and
entity; (d) Papers were collected, which can be found in the Annex of this document.
It can be seen that there is a great homogeneity in the answers; both between criteria (figure 3)
and between partners (figure 2). In general the notes are high for all criteria. The criteria with
the highest notes are “embrace diversity” and “competent representation”. The first is an
expected result since the participants feel that the diversity of the group is one of its major
qualities and potential. Also and curiously, the two representatives of CEPAC have given very
different answers for “effective collaboration”, which shows that two persons from the same
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 48/90
institution do not share necessarily the same views on the collaborative process of the “Group
of Six”.
Figure No. xx Assessing Collaborative Processes – Total Group
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Collaborative
context
Competent
representation
Embrace diversity
Collaborative
attitude
Effective
communication
Collaborative
structure
Assessing Collaborative Processes
Total Results
Total
4. Conclusions
EQ1: To what extent have the ICCO policy and strategies offered a specific framework to
address the rights and needs related to food security of the most vulnerable?
The ICCO strategy did not consist in developing its own framework to address the questions of
food security in Bolivia, but to encourage its partners developping their proper framework. This
way ICCO ensured a better adaptation to the local context, incentivated a national debate on
topics related to food security such as food sovereignty and the relation between food security
and rural development, and guaranteed the ownership.
The most interesting aspect of ICCO’s strategy in Bolivia, is to rest on two feet: one is the
experimented NGO and network on food security: AIPE. This institution is conducting research,
projects and lobbying on food security (and on other subjects) since more than 25 years,
represents around 20 different NGOs and is a reference on this topic. The second foot is a set
of small local interventions which have only a limited impact but which offer a solid background
of concrete experiences and a direct relation with the problems of food insecurity in some of the
poorest regions of Bolivia.
The participants to the joint final workshop (where assisted representatives from the “Group of
Six”) stressed that a very general lesson learned can be expressed the following way:
“After NGOs and others have worked for years and decades so that the poor in Bolivia would
gain access to power, the indigenous people finally are governing this country. Now we
discover that our yesterday’s allies and beneficiaries are not our friends anymore and that
instead of gaining legitimacy we are losing it. Instead of facilitating our work the government is
making it more difficult. Instead of being more certain, our future is more insecure.”
EQ2: To what extent are the ICCO strategies and policies translated into the cooperation
and to what extent have possible synergies in the strategies been used optimally?
− The ICCO strategy on Food Security has not been translated automatically to partners. At
the network level (AIPE) the first FS strategy was drafted in 1996 and the Bolivian NGOs
partners of ICCO and member of AIPE think that the relation with ICCO on strategies is
more a dialectical process (each learning from the other in a reciprocal way) than a
translation from one to the other.
− At a local level partners adapt their operational strategy to the context. All begin with water
but develop activities complementary to water supply according to the local context:
organization, cattle breeding, vegetable cultivation, food transformation, nutrition, etc.
− Complementarities between objectives, partners, and country strategies are being recently
exploited through a common programme developed by the “Group of 6”. One of the
objectives of this programme is to define “best practices” and lessons learned from the field
experience of its members. In this sense one of the potential synergies of ICCO’s strategy
(support to small local interventions) is finally put into practice.
− Synergies between AIPE and its affiliates are exploited since many years (information
sharing, training, technical assistance…), but seems to have improved since more
responsibilities were attributed to affiliate for lobbying at regional and local levels.
EQ3: To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence food availability for
vulnerable households in a structural and gender sensitive way and why ?
− Visits to the communities show that there has been a slight improvement in availability
of food, on a small scale and always based on a greater supply of water. This is not
surprising given the fact that problems of food security are concentrated in the
highlands and dry valley regions (without irrigation). This improvement takes the form
of a diversification of production mostly towards vegetables because these changes
are often driven by women. No other important technical change has been reported
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 50/90
recently and land productivity does not seem to have improved much during these last
years.
− Most changes observed are sustainable for vulnerable households because there is a
genuine ownership which allows for (very slow) changes in attitudes as part of a long
term dynamic, and because people can control the production chain.
− ICCO partner organizations have played an important but not exclusive role in these
changes. Their success is due to strategies well adapted to the local context, but also
to general progress observed in education, health and communication in the areas of
intervention.
Lesson learned: NGOs interventions are more successful when they accompany a long term
trend in the same direction: changes in consumption habits, evolution of the role of women,
diversification of incomes (see EQ4), better communications, etc.
EQ4: To what extent have the interventions contributed to a changed access to food for
households and individuals in a structural and gender sensitive way and why?
− As poor peasants are more integrated in the labour market, the share of monetary
income in the total family income is increasing and people acquire more diverse food
items on the market. However, this also means that access to food is more influenced
by international food prices. The main items whose weight is increasing in the food
consumption basket are rice, noodles and vegetable oil.
− This change seems irreversible because it is part of a general trend observable
worldwide.
− Partner organizations have contributed to a better access to food through small dairy
projects and vegetable cultivation. These changes are observable on a small scale but
are significant for the beneficiaries in the sense that they give more access to food to
women and permit a better control by women on the family monetary income
EQ5: To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence households’ and
individuals’ utilization of food in a structural and gender sensitive way and why?
− At a national level, malnutrition has diminished in Bolivia. In the communities visited
households are improving knowledge, attitudes and practices in feeding and nutrition
habits. These changes are slow but during the meetings they were clearly expressed by
women who compare there present diet with that of their parents.
− At a local level these changes seem sustainable because they stem partially from a change
in attitudes and also from a better access to health services which is well documented. The
changes are also part of a general evolution observable in Bolivia
− Partner’s interventions contributed to important changes in household feeding and nutrition
habits and to a more balanced nutrition. These results and impacts are observable at a
very small scale: the beneficiaries from the interventions visited seem gaining a few years
on a very slow general evolution towards the same direction.
EQ6: To what extent have partner organizations improved their organizational capacity
and accountability, to what extent are they part of structural networks (i) to learn about
the right to food and (ii) to represent together the target group towards other local and
national stakeholders and (iii) to diversify their resources ?
− All partner NGOs state that their organizational capacity has improved, which is
confirmed by the results of their organizational scan.
− Many Bolivian NGOs suffer from a legitimacy crisis stemming partially from the
government itself who doesn’t appreciate this form of organization externally financed
and difficult to control.
− Huge progress has been made in the constitutional recognition of the right to food
(although the attribution question remains) but little or no progress is observed in
claiming this right and in the implementation of better food security. Bolivia is at the
same time the poorest country of Latin America, and the country where human rights
are best recognized by the Constitution.
− At national level attribution problems makes difficult an impact assessment of the
lobbying capacity of ICCO’s partners on FS, but according to different independent
sources AIPE has played an important role in Bolivia in promoting food security
policies. At regional level, the influence of NGOs networks is hardly observable yet. At
local level the influence is clear because this is an operational level where NGOs have
a direct influence facilitated by Bolivia’s decentralized administrative system:
SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI had all official agreements with the municipalities where
they were working, and influence municipal policies over food security, infrastructure
and gender issues. This influence is greatly facilitated by the leverage capacity which
they offer to the municipalities33.
− All partner NGOs state that their organizational capacity has improved, which is
confirmed by the results of their organizational scan.
− Changes occurred and are occurring in NGOs in Bolivian networks but many
organizations suffer from a legitimacy crisis stemming partially from the government
itself who doesn’t appreciate this form of organization externally financed and difficult
to control.
33 This leverage consists in the following: by paying 15 to 30% of the material cost of a project, a municipality guarantees
that the total cost is covered, the rest of the material cost being paid by the NGO and the labour cost being covered by the community beneficiary.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 52/90
− Huge progress has been made in the constitutional recognition of the right to food
(although the attribution question remains) but little or no progress is observed in
claiming this right and in the implementation of better food security. Bolivia is at the
same time the poorest country of Latin America, and the country where human rights
are best recognized by the Constitution.
− At national level attribution problems impede an impact assessment of the lobbying
capacity of ICCO’s partners on FS. At regional level, the influence of NGOs networks is
hardly observable yet. At local level the influence is clear because this is an operational
level where NGOs have a direct influence facilitated by Bolivia’s decentralized
administrative system: SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI had all official agreements with the
municipalities where they were working, which demonstrate their influence on municipal
policies over food security, infrastructure and gender issues.
EQ7: To what extent have partner organizations and/or their networks changed their
lobby and advocacy activities and to what extent have they been able to influence the
interest of the policy makers to promote the right to food for all?
− All issues addressed by AIPE and by partner’s organizations in their lobby strategy are
relevant, which does not mean that all relevant issues are addressed. Issues on AIPE’s
agenda (not tackled yet) are: international trade, agro-fuels and promotion of traditional
crops.
− Interest of national and international policy makers in the right to adequate food has
increased but has stayed very much at a declaration level: this interest has given rise to
very little concrete policy measures and even less has trickled down to the poor.
− As far as crosschecking was possible, this mission could assess that AIPE’s activities had
a real impact on the groups and institutions it worked with. The impact on an increased
interest of policy makers (JC 7.3) is difficult to assess because of the attribution problem.
EQ8: To what extent has ICCO applied different roles and how have these been
appreciated by ICCO’s partners? To what extent have ICCO and its partners developed
adequate partnership relations to reach their objectives? To what extent does ICCO add
specific value compared to other programs and stakeholders? How efficient have the
contribution of ICCO and partners been ?
− The 3 main roles of ICCO are its financial role, capacity development and lobbying. The
two last ones are often highlighted by Bolivian partners because they are more seldom
found amongst aid agencies.
− Partners detail a long list of ICCOs qualities in each of these 3 roles. They stress that ICCO
works with partners with whom it shares the same objectives. Therefore there is no
negotiation (nor need for it) during the funding process. They also stress that ICCO is very
respectful of its partners, practical and flexible. They much appreciated the monitoring from
Utrecht, which they felt very useful without being a burden.
− Partners feel that ICCO has enough information to verify and support the efficiency of the
program. However this view is not fully shared by the ICCO representatives in Bolivia, who
stress that one of the objectives of the decentralization process is to have a better access
to information and closer ties with local partners. They feel that the reporting, monitoring
and evaluation system of ICCO is sufficient and do not intent to change it. “Closer ties”
means more visits and exchanges, not different monitoring mechanism. The evaluation
team has no reasons to think that ICCO lacks access to enough and good quality
information.
Overall conclusion
The main characteristic of ICCO’s interventions on Food Security in Bolivia, is that it rests on
three feet:
1. At international, regional and national level, AIPE conducts lobbying activities coupled
with research, publications, technical assistance and the leadership of a network of
around 20 NGOs. At local level its affiliates conduct projects on a very small scale but
mostly well designed and well implemented34.
2. This way they gain experience, they are involved in the local context and they are in a
good position for lobbying at a local level (municipalities), which they do with some
success thanks to their leverage and mobilisation capacity.
3. Six of these affiliates form a group and conduct a collective programme in order to
analyse the best practices in water, seeds and soil, gain influence at a regional level
and improve their lobbying capacity at a local level.
This institutional architecture is a powerful potential tool because it covers the whole chain from
very concrete actions at the local level, to participation in international meetings on food
security. It has potential but this depends on a good coordination and synergies between each
link of the chain. This link is relatively solid between the national and international levels on one
side (AIPE) and the local level on the other side (affiliated NGOs). It is recently developing
between the local NGOs (group of six). But it is important to understand that in this kind of chain
each link is important and is useful to the functioning of the whole process. Without the very
small local activities with limited impact, the national, regional and international level will partly
34 This hypotesis is based on a visit to only 3 of these affiliates : SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 54/90
lose their basis, experience, legitimacy and “raison d’être”. Without the higher levels, local
activities will remain what they are: limited improvements with scarce perspectives.
5. Annexes
5.1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIPE Educational and Promotion Institutions Association ACLO Loyola Cultural Action Foundation ANSAS Water Sown Natural Areas ASSANA Food and Nutritional Security and Sovereignty Alliance CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CEPAC Farming and Stockbreeding Promotion Centre DAADE DEL Local Economic Development DELSSA Local Economic Development, Food Security and Sovereignty Program EC European Community ENDSA National Health and Demographic Survey EQ Evaluation Questions FS Food Security FSP Food Security Program HDI Human Development Index I Indicators IDB Inter-American Development Bank IFFI Institute for Integral Feminine Training IICCA Institute for Farmers Training and Research INE Statistics National Institute IPTK I P Tupac Katari JC Judgment Criterion NGO Non Governmental Organization PADEV Evaluation Methodology PASA Food Security Support Program PASOS Foundation Participation and Sustainability PDA Areas Development Program – World Vision PDM Municipal Development Plan POA Operational Annual Plan PPT Power Point Presentation PROAGRO Agricultural Program PROCADE Farmer Alternative Development Program PRODECO Community Development Program PROMENU Program for Nutritional Improvement SAN Food and Nutritional Security SSAN Food and Nutritional Security and Sovereignty SINNSAT National System of Early Warning and Monitoring of Food Security
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 56/90
SISAN Food and Nutrition Security Information System UBN Unsatisfied Basic Needs UNDP United Nations Development Program UNITAS United Nations WFP World Food Program
5.2. ANNEX 1 - COMMENTS ON THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK (CONTEXTUALISING)
Available upon request
5.3. ANNEX 2 - LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
− AIPE: La Paz, et, al, “Situación de la Seguridad Alimentaria Nutricional en Bolivia”, De la
Vega Cecilia
− AIPE: La Red de la Soberanía Alimentaria, “Bodas de Plata de la AIPE, Ensayo Histórico”,
Rafael Puente, Agosto 2009
− Alianza Boliviana de la Sociedad Civil para el Desarrollo Sostenible, “Agricultura y Pobreza
en Bolivia”, Julio Prudencio Bohrt, La Paz – Bolivia, Octubre 2009
− Alianza Boliviana de la Sociedad Civil para el Desarrollo Sostenible, “Modelos y Políticas
Públicas de Desarrollo Sostenible en Bolivia” Memoria, La Paz – Bolivia, 2009.
− Chumacero Juan Pablo, Fundación Tierra “Seguridad Alimentaria y Desarrollo Rural en
Bolivia” , Septiembre 2010
− Espinoza Roberto, “Wheat Grain and Wheat Flour Availability until March 2004”, WFP, La
Paz, Bolivia, May 2004.
− Ministry of Health and Sports, Agencia Canadiense para el Desarrollo Internacional,
“Programa de Apoyo al Sector Salud – PASS”, La Paz - Bolivia, Mayo 2007
− National Institute of Statistics (INE) , “National Demography and Health Survey” La Paz –
Bolivia, May 2008
− National Institute of Statistics (INE), “Poverty Map of Bolivia” La Paz – Bolivia, September
2003.
− PMA, SINNSAT, ”Resultados de la Encuesta de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional en
Municipios Vulnerables de Bolivia”, La Paz – Bolivia, Septiembre de 2006
− Programa Interagencial de Naciones Unidas, “Apoyo a la Implementación del Programa de
Desnutrición Cero (2007 – 2011), La Paz – Bolivia, Octubre 2007
− Different documents :presentations, evaluations, reports, organizational scans (IFFI and
PASOS), Project plans, Project proposals, external evaluations, institutional publications
(AIPE: Quienes somos? La Red de Soberanía Alimentaria; Bodas de Plata de la AIPE –
ensayo histórico), from SARTAWI, PASOS, IFFI and AIPE
5.4. ANNEX 3 - PROGRAMME OF THE MISSION
PROGRAMME OF THE MISSION
(September 15 - October 5, 2010)
Date/Hours International Consultant (BK) Local Consultant (MCC)
Wednesday September
15 To
Friday September 17
International trip Preparation, Organisation and
Consultations)
Saturday September 18 Arrival at La Paz
Sunday September 19
14:30 - 21:30
Briefing with MCC to discuss
methodology, organisation of
mission, logistics, etc. at office.
Briefing with BK to discuss
methodology, organisation of
mission, logistics, etc. at office.
SARTAWI Field Visit to Oruro and Potosí: BK,MCC with P. Morales
Monday September 20
8:00 - 10:30 Sartawi – Briefing and video Sartawi – Briefing and video
10:30 - 12:00 Travel to Calamarca Travel to Calamarca
12:00 - 12:40 Visit Dairy Processing Plant in
Calamarca
Visit Dairy Processing Plant in
Calamarca
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 58/90
12:40 - 14:00 Travel to Machacamarca Travel to Machacamarca
14:00 - 18:30 Work session with target group
- Realenga
Work session with target group -
Realenga
18:30 - 19:30 Visit Realenga Families and
Irrigation System
Visit Realenga Families and
Irrigation System
19:30 - 20:45 Travel to Oruro Travel to Oruro
Tuesday September 21
7:30 - 10:00 Travel to Colquechaca, Potosí Travel to Colquechaca, Potosí
10:00 - 11:00 Visit Uluchi Bajo Irrigation
System Visit Uluchi Bajo Irrigation System
11:00 - 16:30 Work session (focal group) with
target beneficiaries
Work session (focal group) with
target beneficiaries
While travelling Work session with Sartawi staff Work session with Sartawi staff
17:00 - 23:30 Return to La Paz Return to La Paz
PASOS Field Visit to Sucre: BK and MCC
Wednesday September 22
09:40 - 10:30 Travel to Sucre Travel to Sucre
14:30 - 19:30 Work Session with PASOS staff Work Session with PASOS staff
Thursday September 23
06:00 - 9:30 Travel to Alcalá, Limabamba Travel to Alcalá, Limabamba
10:00 - 13:30 Work session with target group Work session with target group
13:30 - 14:30 Lunch Break Lunch Break
14:30 - 18:30
Work Session with PASOS
Director, Visit Alcalá's Mayor
(José Rojas Salazar) BK
Work session with target group
(continue) MCC
Friday September 24
07:30 - 08:00 Breakfast with all Breakfast with all
08:00 - 08:30 Meeting with School Principal Meeting with School Principal
08:30 - 09:00 Meeting with Hospital Director Meeting with Hospital Director
09:00 - 09:30 Travel to Garzas Chica Travel to Garzas Chica
09:30 - 15:30 Focal Group Work Focal Group Work
15:30 - 16:30 Lunch Lunch
16:30 - 17:00 Travel to Alcalá Travel to Alcalá
18:00 - 21:30 Return to Sucre Return to Sucre
Saturday September 25
08:30 - 10:00 Common Work with MCC Common Work with BK
14:30 - 20:00 Desk work Desk work
IFFI Field Visit to Cochabamba: MCC and BK
Monday September 27
07:00 - 07:20 Travel to Cochabamba Travel to Cochabamba
08:30 - 12:30 Work Session with IFFI staff Work Session with IFFI staff
14:30 - 18:30 Work Session with IFFI staff
(continue) BK Desk work
Tuesday September 28
08:30 - 12:30 Desk Work Desk work
12:00 – 14:30 Visit a Ricomida Restaurant Visit a Ricomida Restaurant
15:00 - 18:30 Focal Group Work with
Ricomida Association
Focal Group Work with Ricomida
Association
Wednesday September 29
08:30 - 09:45 Desk Work Travel to Arani - Community of
Serrano MCC
10:00 - 15:00 Desk Work Work session with target group
15:30 - 16:45 Desk Work Return to Cochabamba
20:00 - 20:20 Return to La Paz Return to La Paz
Work in La Paz
Thursday September 30
08:30 - 12:30 Common work in La Paz Common work in La Paz
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 60/90
14:30 – 16:30 Desk Work Desk Work
17:00 - 18:30 Meeting with Emma Saavedra –
ICCO, La Paz Desk work
Friday October 1
8:30 - 12:30 Desk work Desk work
15:00 - 16:30
Meeting with other actors
(independent consultants) at
AIPE: Roberto Soriano and
David Haquim
idem
16:30 -21:30 Meeting with AIPE Meeting with AIPE
Saturday October 2
08:30 - 20:00 Preparation of Debriefing Desk work
Monday October 4
07:00 - 07:20 Travel to Cochabamba Travel to Cochabamba
08:30 - 13:30 Meeting with 6 Partners
(National Program)
Meeting with 6 Partners
(National Program)
13:30 - 15:00 Visit a Ricomida Restaurant for
lunch with all
Visit a Ricomida Restaurant for
lunch with all
15:30 - 19:00 Common Work Common Work
20:00 - 20:20 Return to La Paz Return to La Paz
Tuesday October 5
08:30 – 13:00 Common work / last visits Common work / last visits
15:00 – 18:30 Bruno returns to Europe Desk Work
5.5. ANNEX 4 - LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED
Name Organisation and Function Date of
Interview
Antonio Aramayo PASOS, Executive Director 23/09/2010
Celier Rodas PASOS, Social Coordinator, Alcalá Office 23/09/2010
Willy Zegarra PASOS, Water and Irrigation Responsible, Alcalá 23/09/2010
Carolina Gutierrez PASOS, Food and Nutritional Education Coordinator 23/09/2010
Sergio Aparicio PASOS, Territorial Development Coordinator, Alcalá 23/09/2010
Hugo Morales García Alcalá School Director 24/09/2010
Mery Salazar Alcalá Hospital Director 24/09/2010
José Rojas Salazar Alcalde de Alcalá (City Mayor) 24/09/2010
Miriam Gamarra IFFI, Ricomida Program Supervisor 28/09/2010
Virginia Quezada IFFI, SANDEL Program Coordinator 28/09/2010
Lionel Grageda IFFI, Rural Technician SANDEL Program 29/09/2010
Nivia Suarez IFFI, Rural Technician on Rights, SANDEL Program 29/09/2010
Gladys Espejo IFFI, Rural Technician on Nutrition, SAN Program 29/09/2010
David Haquim Extenal FS Consultant 1/10/2010
Rodolfo Soriano Independent Consultant - Rural Economic Development
1/10/2010
Victoria Ginga WFP Representative 4/10/2010
Mónica Rodriguez Comunidad Europea 1/10/2010
José Maguiña Ayuda en Acción Bolivia 8/10/2010
5.6. ANNEX NO. 5 – LIST OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING
(i) Bilateral Workshop with Partners
Bilateral Workshop with SARTAWI on September 20 and 21st, 2010
Name Function
Patricia Morales Executive Director
Melesio Gonzales Coordinator and Animal Husbandry Technician - Oruro
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 62/90
Fernando Guardia Soils and Irrigation Technician, Machacamarca, Oruro
Cristina Cegarra Social Technician, Machacamarca, Oruro
Efraín Gonzales Coordinator and Irrigation Technician - Potosí
Maximiliano Flores Animal Husbandry Technician - Colquechaca, Potosí
Bilateral Workshop with PASOS on September 23, 2010
Name Function
Juan Carlos Beltrán Programmes and Projects Department Chief
Oscar Alvarez Economic Development Department Coordinator
Efraín Peducassé Economic Development Department
Gonzalo Rivera Food Security and Nutition Project Responsible,
Alcalá
Sergio Moscoso General Administrator
Bilateral Workshop with IFFI on September 27, 2010
Name Function
Cecilia Estrada Executive Director
Tatiana Collazos Responsible for Food Security, Nutrition and
Local Economic Development Program
(ii) Joint workshop with ICCO partners
Joint Workshop with ICCO Partners on October 4th
, 2010
Name Organisation Function
Juan Siancas CEPAC DELSSAN Program
Coordinator
Widen Abastoflor CEPAC Executive Director
Daniel Avendaño Romero IICCA Técnico Agroecología
Antonio Aramayo PASOS Executive Director
Juan Medeiros YUNTA Director
Patricia Morales Sartawi Sarariy Executive Director
Tatiana Collazos IFFI Programa DELSAN
(iii) Joint workshop with AIPE
Joint Workshop with AIPE on October 1th
, 2010
Name Organisation Function
Aquiles Dávalos AIPE Director Ejecutivo
Aida Ruegenberg AIPE Executive Director
Claudia Terán AIPE
David AIPE
Rodolfo Soriano Desarrollo Económico Rural Consultor Independiente
David Haquim Consultor Independiente
(iv) Session of Two Days in Village and Focus Group Discussions (See Sheets of Paper)
Partner: Sartawi Village: Realenga
No. Name Sex Age Profession
1. Frilán Yucra M 49 Agricultor
2. Saturnino Flores M 52 Agricultor
3. Gertrudis Choque F 46 Comercio Informal
4. Octavina Taqjuichiri F 48 Comercio Informal
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 64/90
5. Benigna Yujra F 51 Ama de casa
6. Dionisia Cruz F 50 Agricultor
7. Felipa Aguilar F 56 Empleado Público
8. Javier Chambi M 50 Agricultor
9. Nabil Choque M 39 Agrónomo
10. Filiberto Gonzales M 50 Agropecuaria
11. Pedro Taquichiri M 51 Agricultor
12. Antonio Perca M 79 Agricultor
13. Oscar Yucra M 41 Agropecuaria
14. Segundino Quispe M 65 Agricultor
15. Cervando Lima M 46 Agricultor
16. Walter Choque M 45 Agricultor
17. Pio Sena M 43 Agricultor
18. Sandro Choque M 35 Ganadería
19. Serafín Edcobar M 40 Agricultor
20. Juan Cena Cruz M 68 Agricultor
21. Anacleto Mamani M 45 Agricultor
22. Julia Sunko vargas F 61 Empleado public
Partner: Sartawi Village: Uluchi Bajo
No. Name Sex Age Profession
1. Claudio Layme M 40 Agricultor
2. Adolfo Choque M 36 Agricultor
3. Cirilo Aguilar M 50 Agricultor
4. Mario Choque M 38 Agricultor
5. Evaristo Mazo M 21 Agricultor
6. Bertha Chambi F 27 Agricultor
7. Jaime Ticona M 36 Agricultor
8. David Totola M 37 Agricultor
9. Hilarión Laime M 35 Agricultor
10. Modesto Cruz M 32 Agricultor
11. Casiano Mazo M 58 Agricultor
12. Zacarías Mazo M 29 Agricultor
13. Rolando Ríos M 29 Agricultor
14. Magdalena Canaviri F 36 Agricultor/Ama de casa
15. Felicia Alvarez F 40 Agricultor/Ama de casa
16. Zaida Rocha F 30 Agricultor/Ama de casa
17. Reynaldo Cabezas M 62 Agricultor
18. Angel Mamani M 25 Agricultor
19. Silvia Rocha F 22 Agricultor/Ama de casa
20. Evaristo Mazo M 27 Agricultor
21. Lidia Mazo F 29 Agricultor/Ama de casa
22. Grifón Humawa M 39 Agricultor
23. Edgar Humaña M 34 Agricultor
24. Máximo Luna M 59 Agricultor
25. Emiliana Cabezas F 49 Agricultor
26. Juan Vargas M 69 Agricultor
27. Ruth Soeta F 46 Agricultor/Ama de casa
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 66/90
28. Hugo Vargas M 49 Agricultor
Partner: PASOS Village: Limabamba Bajo
No. Name Sex Age Profession
1. Nazario Rodas M 29 Agricultor
2. Cirilo Carvallo M 38
3. Pedro Rodas M 30 Agricultor
4. Dionisio Vasques M 40 Agricultor
5. José Silvestro M 46 Agricultor
6. Francisco Estrada M 67 Agricultor
7. Gregoria Cerezo F 46 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
8. Marcial Morenpo M 48 Agricultor
9. Corsina Rodas F 62 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
10. Nieves Barrón F 37 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
11. Martha García F 36 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
12. Maria Elena Casso F 35 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
13. Maribel Rodas F 25 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
14. Rómulo García M 46 Agricultor
15. Pedro Gonzales M 52 Agricultor
16. Sebastían Rodas M 60 Agricultor
17. Máximo Carvallo M 37 Agricultor
18. Felix García M 45 Agricultor
19. Candelaria Romero F 44 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
20. Armando Rodas M 26 Agricultor
21. Constantino Jauri M 26 Agricultor
22. Apolinar Carvallo M 75 Agricultor
23. Valentín Barrientos M 70 Agricultor
24. Andrés Jauri M 43 Agricultor
25. Florentino Jauri M 60 Agricultor
26. Natividad Díaz F 32 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
27. Desideria Canaviri F 36 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
28. Marcelina Veliz F 66 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
29. Julia Umaña F 45 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
30. Hilaria Umaña F 48 Agricultora/Ama de Casa
31. Damián Aguilar M 46 Agricultor
Partner: PASOS Village: Garzas Chica
No. Name Sex Age Profession
1. Silvia Rodas F 36 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
2. Cristina Pórcel F 55 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
3. Graciela Chinao F 28 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
4. Celia chinao F 18 Estudiante
5. Arminda de Chinao F 27 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
6. Ercilia de Chinao F 32 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
7. Leonor Rosado F 33 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
8. Emilio Cejas M 25 Agricultor
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 68/90
9. Nazario Guzmán M 65 Agricultor
10. Tecla Gonzales F 64 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
11. Nelly López F 34 Agricultor
12. Bernardino Solis M 36 Agricultor
13. Anicelta Sejas F 51 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
14. Victoria Estrada F 35 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
15. Inés Ruiz F Ama de Casa/Agricultora
16. Teolinda Sejas F 41 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
17. Urbano Rosado M 69 Agricultor
18. Sergio Sejas M 63 Agricultor
19. Leocadio Gutierrez M Agricultor
20. Mauro Rodas M 27 Agricultor
21. Faustino Sejas M 27 Agricultor
22. Marino Plata M 34 Agricultor
23. Juana Rosado F 45 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
24. Erdulfo Sejas M 46 Agricultor
Partner: IFFI Village: Serrano
No. Name Sex Age Profession
1. Lucía Gallinati F 52 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
2. Hilaria Camacho F 43 Agricultura/venta
3. Rosmeri Guarayo F 40 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
4. Pilaricia Guarayo F 34 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
5. Amalia Cruz F 19 Estudiante
6. Epifania Vázques F 47 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
7. Zulma López F 20 Estudiante
8. Roberto Cano M 40 Albañil/Agricultor
9. Nazaria Vázques F 39 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
10. Guillermina Vidal F 56 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
11. Matilde Cruz F 55 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
12. Pastora Vázques F 38 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
13. Remigia Vásquez F 51 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
14. Flora Cruz F 60 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
15. Feliciano Rosas M 31 Agricultor
16. Hilarión Gallinati M 40 Agricultor
17. Felipa Valderrama F 33 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
18. Francisca Torrico F 17 Comerciante
19. Nicolasa Castro F 37 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
20. Vitalia Rodriguez F 50 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
21. Prudencia Vásquez F 44 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
22. María Rodríguez F 35 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
23. Sabina García F 55 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
24. Teodora Ponce F 59 Ama de Casa/Agricultora
25. Juan Lopez M 45 Agricultur
26. Eloy Quispe M 38 Agricultor
27. Santiago vásquez M 60 Agricultor
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 70/90
5.7. ANNEX 6 - PPT USED FOR DEBRIEFING
Available upon request
5.8. ANNEX 7 - SHORT INTERNAL REPORT ON THE INDEPTH WORK SESSIONS IN THE
VILLAGES
Community Partner Date of
Workshop Men Women
Total Participants
Realenga (Machacamarca - Oruro) Sartawi 20/09/10 16 6 22
Uluchi Bajo Colquechaca (Norte Potosi)
Sartawi 21/09/10 20 8 28
Limabamba Bajo (Alcalá – Chuquisaca) PASOS 23/09/10 19 12 31
Garzas Chica (Alcalá – Chuquisaca) PASOS 24/09/10 10 14 24
Serrano (Arani – Cochabamba) IFFI 29/09/10 6 21 27
Conclusions by Consultantss (Module 1)
1.1 Which events have been very important for their influence on food security? Which has been named more?
Which have been stressed more by men/women or age groups?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Participants identified positive and negative events:
Positive: (a) Animal husbandry: Training in animal health; Balanced animal feeding; introduction of improved cattle, cattle infrastructure; cuyes raising (b) Water and Irrigation: micro irrigation systems construction; training in irrigation and water use and management; installation of water wells; (c) Recovery of soils: soil management and forestation; tree plantation; (d) Production: improved pastures; improved seeds and installation of a seed rotating found; introduction of products in markets and ferias; (e) Training: to promoters, on women leadership, municipal organization strengthening women´s role.
Negative: More river pollution; land losses in river borders; less rain
Changes in water and irrigation, introduction of improved animals and introduction of improved seed were more stressed by participants.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Important events identified by participants that helped community members to increase food production and consumption, to improve soil conditions and animal husbandry for trading, water and irrigation, production and diversification of new vegetables, pastures and seedlings, animal sanitation, construction of barns and improvement of animals (livestock), and training on agriculture and irrigation systems. Water and irrigation, and vegetable production were named more.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Positive: Production of orchards/gardens before PASOS with PRODECO, vegetable production; clean drinking water; training in orchards/gardens management; training in feeding and nutrition including cooking practices; training in community organization; the municipality
Negative, Less rains and forests; less water for irrigation and less clean drinking water for home consumption, fewer pastures to feed animals, less animals (goats, sheep and cattle) and some are sick.
Vegetable production was named more by women.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
On the positive side:
Project of drinkable water with vegetal protection of sources (ANSAS) one year ago with
PASOS but with other institutions before
Introduction of vegetables cultivated in small gardens 3 years ago (PASOS)
Capacitating (training) in nutrition
On the negative side:
Less rain
More damages to crops due to animals
Animals: less of all animals, all are more sick (goats resist better)
More pollution due to use of chemicals
The changes more stressed by women are the drinkable water (one tap per
house/family), and the introduction of vegetables
Older stress the diminution of rain and scarcity of water
IFFI Serrano
Positive: Change in alimentary habits; training and education on Feeding and Nutrition;
strengthening of community organizations; coordination with Municipality of Arani; and a
rotating fund that is functioning very well in this community are contributing to improve
their poor conditions.
Negative: Changes in weather, drought during the dry season and hail and freeze (this
community is almost 3,800 meters over sea level) during the winter season; the pieces
of land they own are smaller in time and it is not enough for production or for animal
husbandry; less rains and forests; less water for consumption and irrigation, less
agricultural production; less pasture to feed animals, less animals (sheep and cattle)
and most of them are sick; lack of money for agricultural production.
Lack of water for consumption and irrigation and drought were named more by
participants.
1.2 What has been the main origin of the events and of the most named events? Have many external
influences been mentioned?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
Most events were introduced by Sartawi, which coordinates with the Municipality of
Machacamarca. Some NGOs also helped to develop some water projects a few years
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 72/90
(Machacamarca) ago; however, they are not working anymore.
They also mentioned that river pollution is a severe problem since water comes
contaminated with mineral disposals from mines.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Most of community members recognized that Sartawi helped them improve their life
conditions and quality through water and irrigation systems constructed in different
communities for most families in the area. They also mentioned that training and
education was an important component of Sartawi´s project.
Drought and soil erosion are a serious problem in this area.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Different Projects were developed in last few years by NOGs: ACLO with a seed
endowment for orchards/gardens and training women in different topics; PRODECO
promoting chicken and egg production for self consumption, training in feeding and
nutrition, and training and education to health promoters; CEDEC, PROSCAN and
CARE also developed housing improvement projects; Departmental government
participated in an irrigation project recently. PASOS in coordination with the
municipality has also developed several projects as water and irrigation system
construction, School construction with its corresponding green house; training in feeding
and nutrition with cooking practices, seedlings and others.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
On the positive side, all events have been introduced by NGOs projects, in recent years in association with the municipality. At least four main institutions have been mentioned as the most important: PASOS, ACLO, CARE, PRODECO.
On the negative side the main negative influence is the lack of rain which conditions everything else
IFFI Serrano
IFFI manages the rotating fund and gives the loans to community families, no interest is
being charged, but they have to completely return the loan within one year. The
amount of the loan is up to Bs 3,000 (around US$ 400).Training and education on
feeding and nutrition and citizenship rights is being implemented by IFFI. Lack of water
and rain and changes on weather have a negative effect on productive chain.
Interpretation by consultant (not in plenary session but afterwards)
1.3 Are ICCO programs/partners mentioned? In what way?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Sartawi was many times addressed by participants for their support in different
components of their program including the installation of water and irrigation systems
and dairy plants to produce cheese and yogurt.
But the evaluators got the impression that the meeting was too much directed towards
SARTAWI and its interventions, so as to sell the idea that SARTAWI is the only actor in
the community or at least the only significant one.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Most of participants mentioned Sartawi and are very thankful of the work they carry out
in the communities. They recognize that efforts to achieve social and self governance
sustainability will take time and are aware that follow up is still needed.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
PASOS was mentioned several times for the different interventions done in the
community and for the way it works coordinating with the municipality. Participants in
these workshop recognized that PASOS has helped them to diversify their crops,
production of vegetables, fish rising and consumption, better use of fresh products and
others.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Yes PASOS is repeatedly mentioned for its support to the drinkable water project, on
nutrition and introduction of vegetable cultivation. Peasants stress the utility of the
interventions, while authorities stress the collaborative spirit of PASOS which looks for
cooperation with public authorities and other NGOs. This is not always common
amongst NGOs in Bolivia
IFFI Serrano
IFFI was mentioned several times for its rotating fund and training and education
component that is helping in their economic situation. Participants also referred to the
fact that IFFI is helping them in the elaboration of a water project profile that will be
presented to the municipality.
1.4 Do you find the strategy of ICCO’s partner and program takes into account these events and trends?
How? Why?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Taking in account these events and trends, Sartawi aims to improve coordination and
relationship between communities and municipalities to better manage natural
resources (water and soil) and in farming and stockbreeding productivity in order to
assure food security and income generation. This is carried out through its Project
components: (a) social, promoting and facilitating organization, community and family
proposals to the municipalities, (b) Implementation of infrastructure to manage water
and soil, and (c) Animal management.
Stockbreeding improvements means that the family’s beneficiaries from this project
have now a small but regular (daily) monetary income, selling milk, yogurt or cheese on
a family basis or in some cases through a small collective milk transformation unit.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Same as before
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
As lack of water is the main problem in project area, PASOS along with community
members, municipality and other authorities and entities developed an integral program
that includes a water and irrigation, production and Food and Nutrition Security training.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Yes! Clearly the water scarcity is by very far the main problem of the people. PASOS is
addressing it in a comprehensive and intelligent way.
IFFI Serrano
IFFI is working in the community to help them address their problems and has (a) a
rotating fund to help peasants buy seeds, animals, etc. to improve their economic
situation and (b) developed a training program that is being implemented. According to
the technicians the community leaders and representatives have already been in touch
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 74/90
with the Municipality representative and will coordinate to construct a water and
irrigation system.
Conclusions by Consultantss (Module 2)
2.1 Has there been a positive influence on food security? Which ? Is this change considered as important? Via
which capabilities has food security been influenced positively, via which capabilities? Es algo redundante
con la pregunta 1 del modulo 1
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
As communities have water, they have developed different activities that lead to food
security: water wells and irrigation systems helped human and animal consumption and
production of different traditional and new crops and pastures for animals. Further, dairy
processing plants have been installed and are producing yogurt and cheese that children
and adults consume and surplus is sold. All this changes are considered very important
because having capabilities like good water resources management, improved food
production and trading; the communities will improve food security. Other changes
mentioned, that are not attributable only to one institution were: (a) More road
construction; (b) better transportation; (c) introduction of electricity and communications
(cell phones) leaded the communities to more product trading (buying and selling) and
more availability of food and people are better informed about markets and prices; (d)
more schools were constructed and children have the opportunity to study more than
before; (e) training and education also changed to benefit communities in organization
and governance (f) women become leaders and youth go to other cities and countries to
study at universities; (g) migration to other countries (Argentina) has also lowered.
This seems very enthusiastic. No doubt things have changed and are changing. But
people in the Altiplano are still very poor and will continue to be poor, in part because of
the very difficult natural conditions (climate and altitude).
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Communities in this municipality have started to work with Sartawi only five months ago
(Sartawi’s second phase) and continue to implement water and irrigation systems. At
this stage, they already have an important change towards food security since some are
using water resources for consumption and irrigation. Capabilities to negotiate with
municipality authorities have been developed and are being strengthened.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Many changes were implemented in terms of food security. Participants identified that
they have new habits for feeding and nutrition. Diversification of products for
consumption (different vegetables) contributes to a more balanced nutrition for adults
and especially for children. Also the following points were mentioned: (a) children are
consuming better food and immediate effect is that they are healthier and study more;
(b) women participate in training sessions on leadership and feeding and nutrition
including cooking practices that replicate in their homes, they are also involved in
vegetable production, generating additional income when selling surplus; (c) Trading
their products in markets and ferias; (d) youth that finish school migrate to other cities,
but return with seeds for production and different types of food. (e) in terms of
relationship within the family, women and husband now decide together what part of
crops are for consumption and which part will be sold: (f) In terms of community
organization they now can negotiate better their projects with municipal authorities as to
improve water and irrigation projects; (g) women organizations trends are to visit other
communities to interchange new projects and cooking practices.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
The main change on food security has been through production and consumption of
vegetables which have diversified diet, especially of children. Also the various public
programs of school alimentation (desayuno y almuerzo escolar) have had a positive
influence on children.
Women knowledge on nutrition has been strengthened. The school in Alcalá (primary
school) is incorporating the food security question (nutrition) in its curriculum, seemingly
with some success.
Other changes mentioned with effects on food security are the following:
� They are more and better roads (dirt roads): institutions (e.g. ambulance) can enter
easier and it is easier to sell products from the farm.
� Electric light: great influence on quality of life; less smoke from candles and
kerosene lamps (effect on health); huge potential for education (at night), use of
electric domestics, etc.
� Cel phones: less time lost in waiting, in coordination and administration, but often ill
used by youngsters
� Education: more schools and better quality: less time lost in transport, better
alimentation (school breakfast and lunch), access to state help (bonos Juanito Pinto
of US$ 30/student/year), and more openness to change. But loss of respect and of
some traditional values
� Health: better access to health services: hospital and visits to the villages. Children
are healthier but adults more delicate
� Hygiene has improved: personal, house, cooking (cleaner)
� Women are more autonomous, participating more in public roles, have a stronger
voice. But their work is the same.
� Politics: people know more of politics, of laws, of their rights and obligations
� Organisation: better organized, more knowledge, more women participation
� More emigration now
� Other changes such as in land tenure, soil quality, forests coverage, use of
machinery or better tools, global incomes, are not clear or there was no consensus
in the group.
With some exceptions (roads, electricity, schools, wealth, etc.) these changes are not
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 76/90
attributable to one event or to one institution.
IFFI Serrano
A positive change in food security that was expressed by participants is that people in
the community are consuming more products than the traditional ones, they like to
diversify their food with vegetables and small children like them a lot. This was possible
for some peasants through the rotating fund that allow them to buy agricultural
productive items or animals and through the training sessions.
Other changes that participants mentioned are: (a) Soil lost its nutrition values due to the
use of chemical fertilizers and now is producing small products, most of which have to
be treated because of generalization of worms (c) Since pieces of land are too small,
production of different commodities has a high rotation and quality of these has lowered;
(d) Land in river side have been lost with floods and have not been restored; (e) The
main road to the community has been improved (from dirt to stone brick) and so did
transportation, products can reach faster to markets and ferias; (f) Electricity has a
positive effect in peasant’s home, householders wake up earlier when still dark and cook
before they go out for work, less expenses in batteries for lighters; (g) Training in basic
sanitation helped to understand the importance of hygiene and waste disposals; (g)
There are two types of migration: the ones that are seeking jobs in Santa Cruz and
northern Cochabamba, who return for scatter time bringing back seeds and food; and
migration to other countries (mainly Spain and Argentina) seeking more permanent jobs,
who send remittances.
2.2 Has there been a negative influence on food security? Is this considered as important? How has food
security been influenced negatively, via which capabilities?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Scarcity of rain and water has a negative influence in production, the result of this
situation is less quantity and low quality of the crops as is the case of the quinua. This
means less income to buy food.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Droughts and soil erosion in the area are hitting strongly these communities and
therefore their food security, to the extent that people need to look for alternative
activities to assure food for the family as seeking for jobs far from their homes.
In some communities presence of other projects with “paternalism” focus left within the
population dependency, low capacity of management and lack of knowledge of their own
potentialities and therefore limited efforts to develop.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Drought and lack of rain is mentioned several times as negative influences for food
security. It has a direct influence in agricultural production, animal husbandry,
consumption of nutritional products and income generation.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Negative influence through the consequences of water scarcity already mentioned.
Impact are less agricultural production, less access to food, less animals, less selling of
animals, less monetary incomes, less natural fertilization, less quality of soils, less
production
IFFI Serrano
Lack of water and weather conditions as mentioned before is main cause of food
insecurity in this community. Less agricultural production, less animal raising and
selling, less income generating and smaller pieces of land.
2.3 What have been major discussion points within the sub groups?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
No major discussion points were raised; there was consensus within the group.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
No major discussion points were raised; there was consensus within the group.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
No discussion points were noticed.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
No, there was a consensus in the group on almost all points
IFFI Serrano No discussion points were raised. People seemed to be a little shy
2.4 Is there a lot of difference in perception regarding the effects and regarding changes in food security
between the subgroups? Why is this so? What can you conclude from the analysis of these differences?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
No differences were identified by participants, they were all in agreement.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
No differences were identified by participants, they were all in agreement.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
No differences were identified by participants, they were all in agreement.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
No, there was a consensus in the group on almost all points
IFFI Serrano No discussion points were raised. People seemed to be a little shy
2.5 Have negative changes been countered by positive effects? Which? How?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
The fact that CARE installed water and irrigation system and it is not working anymore,
probably had a positive influence to implement a new system that should carefully be
constructed to last for a long time and to become sustainable.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Some land on the river side has been lost during floods and they are recovering these
lands to produce vegetables and pastures, however, strong protection or “atajados” are
being built.
PASOS 1. Communal green house was implemented with CARE’s intervention and worked well for
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 78/90
Limabamba Bajo a year or so, the problem was that the land owner decided that he would use his land to
scatter new products. The communal green garden ended its production. The
community now with PASOS interventions are first improving water supply for irrigation
and will improve agricultural production. Orchards/gardens will be implemented in a
different perspective.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Very difficult to say. Positive effects are on a very small scale. Population does not
increase, so pressure on resources does not increase either.
IFFI Serrano Not identified in this community
2.6 Considering the positive, negative changes and stable factors, how sustainable can the overall changes be
? Are some negative changes or stable elements putting the evolution at risk or possibly undermining the
positive changes for food security? Are the changes supported by changes in systems and attitudes, are
the changes sufficiently structural ? Can the changes reduce risks at the household level? Does the
continuation of the changes need reinvestments? And how realistic is this within the total set of changes?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Most results and effects that this project achieves should contribute to food security,
Sartawi aims to (and should) maintain self consumption, systems sustainability and
marketing negotiations. Important attitude changes in people since the beginning might
be considered sufficiently structural because all the efforts they invested in the project
implementation. Household risks can be reduced to very low levels if reinvestment could
assure the continuation of changes. In this way the total set of changes would also
include household sustainability.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Sartawi identifies two different phases working with communities: (a) construction of
irrigation systems, wells, barns, and corresponding training, and (b) the community
slowly takes over responsibilities of their projects to assure capabilities and
sustainability.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Although a PASOS objective is to jointly (with social actors) contribute in generation,
execution and evaluation of integral proposals for rural development with sustainable
effects, lack of water and scarcity could weaken this objective.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
If climatic change makes water definitely scarcer, this will undermine the positive
changes in food security.
On the other hand water management is always delicate and it is too early to evaluate
the sustainability of the changes recently introduced (vegetable cultivation, drinking
water distribution, protection of water sources.)
IFFI Serrano
Some changes in attitudes were identified as alimentary habits and knowledge, but the
most important change is consciousness rising to improve their life conditions and are
finding ways to do it.
Conclusions by Consultantss (Module 3)
3.1 Which are the most vulnerable groups? What are their main characteristics for food security and for the way
they handle food security, for human capabilities and for their social participation? What were major
discussion points within the subgroups?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
According to the group interviewed, only some persons that do not want to work (idlers)
or do not want to participate in project are having hunger and nutritional problems. This
has not been supported by external opinions.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Only a few persons were identified as having food security and nutrition problems, some
elderly and persons that do not have jobs. Apparently, there is much homogeneity inside
the community because it obeys to the traditional land distribution system according to
which the land belongs to the collectively and is equally distributed amongst the families.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Families with small pieces of land for production and/or very small production scale,
widows, and elderly are the most vulnerable groups in the community.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
In Alcalá, families are relatively homogeneous, withount huge differences between rich
and poor. All are small subsistence farmers. Soils and weather conditions are to difficult
to get rich on farming. The richest and the poorest migrate because there is no other
option.
As everywere, the widows are the group most at risk when they still have small children
at home.
IFFI Serrano
All families in the community are very poor, however, children of a few idlers that do not
want to work and drink alcohol are the group most at risk, and they are scarily fed and
clothed.
3.2 Did the opinions differ a lot between the subgroups in the workshop? How? Why ? What do you conclude
from the analysis of these differences/variation?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Opinions were not different; most of them were supported by others.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Opinions were not different; most of them were supported by others.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Opinions were not different; most of them were supported by others.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
No, there was a consensus in the group on almost all points
IFFI Serrano No discussion points were raised. People seemed to be shy
3.3 Is there a lot of difference in characteristics between the different wealth categories? If yes, between all
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 80/90
categories or mainly between categories at the top or bottom end?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
There are no big differences between families in the community. Families that have a
few more animals and land, started to improve their situation and have installed some
dairy processing plants to sell yogurt and cheese.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Apparently, there is much homogeneity inside the community because it obeys to the
traditional land distribution system according to which the land belongs to the collectivity
and is equally distributed amongst the families.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
No significant changes were mentioned by participants, some people in the community
had worsened their situation due to lack of rain and diseases in animals and crops.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
In Alcalá, families are relatively homogeneous, withount huge differences between rich
and poor. All are small subsistence farmers. Soils and weather conditions are too difficult
to get rich on farming. The richest and the poorest migrate, the first because they want
to progress and the second because there are no other option.
As everywere, the widows are the group most at risk when they still have small children
at home.
IFFI Serrano No significant changes were mentioned by participants, some people in the community had worsened their situation due to water and weather conditions.
3.4 What percentage of the population of the village belongs to the lowest 2 categories?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
There are no big differences between families in the community.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
There are no big differences between families in the community.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
There are no big differences between families in the community.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
NOT RELEVANT
IFFI Serrano There are no big differences between families in the community.
3.5 Are specific societal groups like orphans, HIV+, unmarried mothers etc. identified under
certain wealth categories?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Not really, participants mentioned that community works are extended to help all.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
Not really, participants mentioned that community works are extended to help all.
(Colquechaca)
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Participants do not make differences nor talk about wealth categories.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
See anwer to 3.3
IFFI Serrano The only difference they made was about the idlers that spend their money drinking
alcohol and are in worst life conditions than the rest of the families.
3.6 Have the participants indicated certain evolutions over time in the attributions or representation of different
wealth categories ? Which evolutions? Why?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
There are no big differences within community families, but we can mention that families
that have cattle increased the amount of milk production and are able to sell surplus.
Some families that installed dairy processing plants also increased their incomes
through the production and sell of yogurt and cheese. Some other families that started to
produce pastures are also selling a part of their crops, which means they are increasing
their incomes.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Los cambios que han mencionado los participantes se deben a mejores condiciones de
vida que han logrado y se manifiestan a través de mayores intercambios (compra y
venta) de productos, pues tienen mayor información sobre mercados y precios; el hecho
de que los jóvenes se van para ser profesionales. Estos efectos son resultado también
de una mejor capacitación y organización. El papel de las mujeres en la toma de
decisiones es otro indicador de cambio en ciertas familias.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
No significant changes have been mentioned.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
No, this has not been discusssed with the participants
IFFI Serrano No significant changes have been mentioned.
Interpretation of consultant (not in plenary session but afterwards)
3.7 Knowing the poverty profile of the village, does the strategy of ICCO’s partners reflect the poorest target
groups explicitly or implicitly? Are the partners’ strategies (i) inclusive (also reaching out to the 2 poorest
categories) or rather, (ii) specifically targeted to these poorest categories or (iii) not mention them at all?
Are strategies adapted to the characteristics of these target groups? How explicit? How? Why? Does the
partner use specific selection mechanisms for the poorest categories (for all activities or for some specific
activities)? How?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Sartawi did not mention if there are differences in poverty families, they are all suffering the water scarcity and weather conditions and project implementation will try to benefit the great majority. Participants said that project implementation works are extended to reach all families even if they are not participating.
SARTAWI 2. Same as before
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 82/90
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
The entire community has water and irrigation problems and they are trying to solve this problem for all.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Not relevant because of 3.3. The problems lies not between poor and rich, but between
a sector or a community which has access to a drinkable water house tap because it is
near the source of the water, and a group or village who does not have this access
because it is to far from the source. These last people complain strongly of not
benefitting from the water project with its corrolaire of vegetables production and
consumtion etc.
IFFI Serrano This is not relevant for this community since water problems have not started to be
solved.
3.8 Which are the most vulnerable groups? What are their main characteristics for food security and for the
way they handle food security, for human capabilities and for their social participation? What were major
discussion points within the subgroups?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
As mentioned before, there are no big differences between families. They are all small
farmers that subsist in difficult conditions where lack of water sources is the main
problem.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Same as before
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
The problem in this area is also the scarcity of water sources and the weather conditions
that hit the entire community, therefore no differences between rich and poor families
have been mentioned.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Redundant See 3.3
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
No big differences between families were identified. Idlers’ children are part of the school
feeding program. These few persons don’t want to participate in community activities
and marginalize themselves.
3.9 Did the opinions differ a lot between the subgroups in the workshop? How? Why ? What do you conclude
from the analysis of these differences/variation?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
No, there was consensus in most of the points discussed.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
No, there was consensus in most of the points discussed.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
No, there was consensus in most of the points discussed.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Redundant. See 3.2 and others
IFFI Serrano No, there was consensus in most of the points discussed.
3.10 Is there a lot of difference in characteristics between the different wealth categories? If yes, between all
categories or mainly between categories at the top or bottom end?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
This point was not discussed because there are no big differences between families;
they are all poor and living in extreme need of water to improve life conditions.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Same as before
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
No big differences were mentioned and they don´t see that this is relevant since they are
all trying to overcome this water scarcity situation.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Redundant. See 3.3
IFFI Serrano This point was not discussed because there are no big differences between families;
they are all poor and living in extreme need to improve life conditions.
3.11 What percentage of the population of the village belongs to the lowest 2 categories?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
IRRELEVANT
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica IRRELEVANT
IFFI Serrano
Conclusions by Consultantss (Module 4)
4.1 Can the group recall many development efforts related to food security or with effects on food security? Are
they concentrated in specific sectors? Have specific sectors received more or less development efforts for
food security? What type of actors are mainly involved?
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 84/90
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
There are not many efforts that were developed in this community, CARE and Food for
the Hungry were mentioned with water projects, but are not in the area anymore and
systems build by these NGOs are not working anymore. Water and irrigation projects are
being implemented by Sartawi with the help of Municipalities.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Food for the Hungry was the only NGO mentioned that developed a water system (is not
working anymore), but Sartawi is coordinating with the municipality and Caritas in the
new irrigation project that is being constructed.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
They mentioned several projects that were/are developed:
• ACLO Vegetable Seeds Implementation of orchards/gardens
• ACLO Training to women
• PRODECO Health Promoters Training Feeding and Nutrition Component
• PRODECO Chicken and egg Eggs for consumption
• CARE Communal garden Production of some vegetables
• Chuquisaca
Government Water system (just started a week ago)
• PASOS Water Source and training ANSAS (water source protection)
• PASOS Vegetable Seeds Vegetable production
• PASOS Training Feeding and nutrition (cooking practices)
• Municipality Projects Counterpart Participates with PASOS and Community
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
The main actors are:
Central Government: FIS, education, health (hospital)
Local government: municipality
NGOs: 7 different NGOs have been mentioned
The main sectors concerned are:
� Access to water
� Agricultural production
� Rotating credit
� Training in nutrition
� Housing
IFFI Serrano
The only actors they have mentioned are:
• PDA (Programa de Desarollo de Areas) – Visión Mundial that helpes only families
that have children attending school (school materials, clothing and health and
nutritional control)
• IFFI – Rotating fund and training
• Municipality – School feeding Program and starting to coordinate actions
4.2 Which projects have very high or very low scores and why? Are very positive or negative judgements
concentrated in specific sectors? Why?
Sartawi 1. They did not score, they mentioned that these projects were very useful and tried to help
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
to have water for consumption.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Same as above
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Participants did not score, just mentioned the projects developed and that they are
useful.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
People don’t want to score. They say all help is useful.
IFFI Serrano
Participants didn’t score, but complain that a PDA project includes only a few families
that have children attending school. These PDA beneficiaries also complain because
they have to pay a Bs. 6 fee every three months.
4.3 Have there been important discussions within the subgroups? Which and why? Have there been important
differences between subgroups? Which and why?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
There was consensus in most of the points.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
There was consensus in most of the points.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
There was consensus in most of the points.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
No, there was a consensus in the group on almost all points
IFFI Serrano No, there was consensus in most of the points discussed.
4.4 Have projects of ICCO’s partner(s) been named? If yes, how have they been judged and perceived? What
have been strong and weak points? How does the judgement compare to other projects in the same and in
other sectors?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
They mention Sartawi a lot of times and are very thankful to the efforts and support.
Water and irrigation along with training will improve their food security situation. They
also recognize that these interventions are assuring productive systems and
sustainability. There are no other entities working in the area
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Most of the participants mentioned the support that Sartawi is introducing through the
implementation of the different components of the Project: water and irrigation, nutrition
and production of vegetables and pastures and animal husbandry. They also mentioned
that Municipality is also participating.
PASOS 1. PASOS was mentioned several times for its work in the community, they mentioned that
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 86/90
Limabamba Bajo the efforts made by PASOS are systems that will be sustainable in the long run.
Participants stressed the training in water systems maintenance and in different topics of
feeding and nutrition. They also raised the fact that municipality and authorities are being
involved in these interventions.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Redundant. See 1.3
Yes PASOS is repeatedly mentioned for its support to the drinkable water project, on
nutrition and introduction of vegetable cultivation. Peasants stress the utility of the
interventions, while authorities stress the collaborative spirit of PASOS which looks for
cooperation with public authorities and other NGOs. This is not always the case amongst
NGOs in Bolivia
IFFI Serrano
IFFI was constantly mentioned for its rotating fund and nutrition and rights training
program. They also raised the fact that municipality will be helping to implement a water
system.
4.5 Have many other projects contributed in the same sector as ICCO’s partner? Are there differences between
these projects in terms of approach, target group etc? In terms of judgement ?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Food for the Hungry´s intervention was mentioned, an irrigation system was
implemented and it is not working anymore.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
PRODECO and ACLO are developing productive projects, however no water for
irrigation components are part of these interventions.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Only one other project contributed to drinkable water but it limited itself to captation and
distribution. It did not include protection of water sources.
IFFI Serrano PDA is the only institution working in the project area and does not include any of IFFI’s
components
Conclusions by Consultantss (Module 4)
5.1 Which wealth categories have mainly been influenced for which type of impact (food security, capabilities)?
Why? Which projects have influenced the poorest categories and why?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Families participating in Project implementation are directly benefitting from improved
production. Children are now improving consumption with more vegetables and milk
production. The yogurt produced is being sold to municipalities for school breakfast.
Animal husbandry is also improving with barns, sanitary control, drinking water spouts
and improved animals, and generating income through trading in ferias.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Some families are being directly benefitting from water and irrigation systems, since crop
production has improved, however not all projects have been implemented yet.
Diversification of products is improving children and women feeding and nutrition.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Protection of water sources are contributing to improve production of vegetables and
diversification, the direct beneficiaries are families participating in the project. Families
are also being benefited through the implementation of orchards/gardens; children are
improving their nutrition and feeding. Training is also an important component that is
recognized by participants especially in feeding and nutrition, women like cooking
practices. Participants also mentioned that production of vegetables; use and
consumption of food are improving their nutritional status.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Women and children are probably the first categories to benefit from crop diversification
and vegetable production because they control vegetable cropping and consumption.
They are also the first benefitting from drinkable water house distribution because before
that they had to fetch water far away and carry it to the house.
IFFI Serrano
Families participating in Project implementation are directly benefitting from rotating
fund. Children are now diversifying their feeding. Apparently PDA is also helping
families with small children that attend school.
5.2 How diversified is the type of impact between the development efforts? Is there a concentration? Clear
gaps? Similar question for wealth categories: concentration of impact? Clear gaps? Have synergies or
complementarities been named between projects ?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
Project efforts aim to Strengthen agricultural and stockbreeding through water and
irrigation systems. Once water supply for consumption and irrigation is consolidated,
peasants will improve their production conditions and impact will probably be more
sustainable. There are no other institutions working in the area, coordination with
municipality is contributing in project implementation.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Same as above
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
The main problem in the community is lack of drinking water and irrigation systems for
agricultural production and most projects and organizations are coordinating activities to
improve this problem. Organizations are working in different components; however,
PASOS interventions are integral and working closely with municipal authorities.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
Development efforts have to begin by addressing the water problem. Without an
improvement in water supply, little else can be done in a sustainable way.
No contradictions or overlapping has been observed between projects and institutions,
but complains have been heard that some institutions are paternalistic (providing
everything) (CARE) or do not coordinate with other public or private institutions. This is
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 88/90
not the case of PASOS who’s coordinating spirit is highlighted.
IFFI Serrano
The community is looking forward to start working closely with the municipality in the
construction of a water system and to improve their life conditions. Both institutions are
working independently with different objectives and components, therefore, no
overlapping of efforts was observed.
5.3 Have there been important discussions within the subgroups? Which and why? Have there been important
differences between subgroups? Which and why?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
There was consensus in most of the points.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
There was consensus in most of the points.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
There was consensus in most of the points.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
No, there was a consensus in the group on almost all points
IFFI Serrano There was consensus in most of the points. People was shy.
5.4 Has the project/program of the ICCO partner been treated in this exercise? If not, why not? What
capabilities and food security aspects have been influenced by ICCO’s partner(s)? Which wealth
categories? What other remarks, success, challenges came up in the discussion? Are these findings
coherent with the intended results of the project of ICCO’s partner? Or coherent with evaluations of the
project?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
The Sartawi Program was mentioned several times, since they are still working in the
community and no other institutions are. Agricultural production diversification, animal
improvement, milk and yogurt production were identified as more useful interventions.
Training and education in nutrition and organization and governance also were
mentioned as changes for the community. The water committee seems to be working
very well.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
Almost the same as above.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
PASOS was mentioned several times, since participants stressed the water source
protection project that is useful for production and diversification. The fact that this
program is integral seems to be sustainable. Coordination with other institutions and
municipality were also strengthening. Feeding and Nutrition including cooking practices
were much appreciated.
PASOS 2. Yes, the PASOS program was often mentioned during the workshop. Capabilities on
Garzas Chica nutrition and cooking have been strengthened.
The water systems installed by PASOS seem sustainable: organization is good, water is
paid for, and water sources are protected from cattle damage and planted with trees and
plants.
IFFI Serrano
IFFI’s program was mentioned several times during the workshop, the rotating fund is
working very well, there is almost no default on returning the loans and they are asking
for larger loan amounts.
5.5 How does the impact of the project(s) of ICCO’s partner(s) compare to the other efforts in terms of type of
impact on capabilities, different aspects of food security and wealth category? What have been stronger or
weaker aspects and what do they add specifically to other development efforts?
Sartawi 1.
Realenga
(Machacamarca)
There are no other institutions working in the area, therefore they cannot compare other
efforts. They mentioned FH interventions, but they are no more working in the
community. Efforts are being coordinated with municipality and economical resources
are being assigned as counterpart.
SARTAWI 2.
Uluchi Bajo
(Colquechaca)
No other institutions are working in the area at this time.
PASOS 1.
Limabamba Bajo
Participants recognize that all institutions working in the influence area are very useful
and seem to be complementary actions; they appreciate and learn from them. However,
PASOS is very clear in its interventions, jointly implements the specific components and
follows up activities. The complete community participates and is working for long run
sustainability.
PASOS 2.
Garzas Chica
People do not compare institutions and projects, but for the evaluators PASOS
interventions seem more encompassing (addressing different complementary issues)
and more sustainable than others.
However the housing project was certainly a very visible success: all houses have new
tile (“de tejas”) roofs.
IFFI Serrano
Except for PDA, there are no other institutions working in the community and they are
implementing a different program that cannot be compared. IFFI started with the
rotating fund which is very helpful to the peasants and is developing a training
component that is changing beneficiary’s attitudes towards feeding and nutrition.
OTROS COMENTARIOS GENERALES:
− EN EL CASO DE LAS POLÍTICAS BOLIVIANAS, ES RELEVANTE EL ENFOQUE DE
SOBERANÍA ALIMENTÁRIA. POR ELLO, ES IMPORTANTE QUE SE TRATE DE HACER
UN ANÁLISIS ENTRE LA RELACIÓN O NO SEGURIDAD ALIMENTÁRIA – SOBERANÍA
ALIMENTÁRIA.
ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 90/90
− EL HECHO DE TENER UNA PRESENCIA REGIONAL MARCA UN CLARO “ANTES” Y
“DESPUÉS” EN LAS RELACIONES DE ICCO CON SUS SOCIOS. LA VISIÓN REGIONAL
SOBRE NUESTRA APUESTA EN SEGURIDAD ALIMENTÁRIA ESTÁ EN PROCESO DE
CONSTRUCCIÓN A PARTIR DE UNA MIRADA LOCAL, POR ELLO, ALGUNAS DE LAS
CONCLUSIONES QUE LA EVALUACIÓN SEÑALA, SERÁN TRATADAS EN ESTE
ESPACIO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN DE UNA IDENTIDAD LOCAL.
− PARA LA OFICINA REGIONAL ES RECOMENDABLE QUE SE INCLUYA UN ACÁPITE
DE RECOMENDACIONES Y-O SUGERENCIAS EN LAS QUE EL EQUIPO CONSULTOR
MENCIONE PROYECCIONES, PERO TOMANDO MUY EN CUENTA LA PRESENCIA DE
ICCO EN LA REGION A TRAVÉS DE SU OFICINA REGIONAL.