grant 0302: emergency food assistance project additional financing final completion report.pdf ·...

EFAP Quarterly Report -1st October to 31st December 2014

GRANT 0302: EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROJECT -

ADDITIONAL FINANCING

IMPLEMENTATION OF DIVERSIFIED LIVELIHOODS AND NUTRITION

COMPONENT

Project Completion Report March 15, 2013 – March 31, 2015

Submitted to

Central Project Management Unit Ministry of Economy and Finance

By


“Promoting child rights to end child poverty”

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................. 3

A. Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 4

B. Project Description ............................................................................................................. 7

C. Project Stakeholders’ Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................. 8

D. Project Outputs ................................................................................................................. 10

E. Project schedule ............................................................................................................... 25

E. Gender .............................................................................................................................. 27

F. Project Costs .................................................................................................................... 28

G. Disbursements.................................................................................................................. 33

I. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers ............................................... 34

J. Performance of SGs ......................................................................................................... 37

K. Evaluation of PLAN’s Performance.................................................................................. 39

L. Lessons Learnt and recommendations............................................................................ 43

M. Appendixes ....................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix 1: Matrix on Targets .............................................................................................. 45

Appendix 2: Internal evaluation & lessons learned report .................................................... 45

Appendix 3: SGs performance evaluation report ................................................................. 45

Appendix 4: SHGs Assessment Report................................................................................ 45

Appendix 5: Closure workshops report Takeo ..................................................................... 45

Appendix 6: Closure workshops report Kampong Thom...................................................... 45

Appendix 7: Closure workshops report Siem Reap.............................................................. 45

Appendix 8: List of HHs with outstanding payments (only submitted electronically) ........... 45

Appendix 9: Contact details FPs, VAHWs, VHSGs & CCDMs (only submitted electronically)

............................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix 10: Gender Indicators ........................................................................................... 45

Appendix 11: PLAN Logframe and M&E Framework ........................................................... 45

Appendix 12: DRR Communal Activities .............................................................................. 45

Appendix 13: List of SHGs that received Vegetable seeds (only submitted electronically) 45

Appendix 14: List of SHGs (only submitted electronically.................................................... 45

Appendix 15: GAFSP Core Project Progress Indicators ...................................................... 45

Appendix 16: Final financial report ....................................................................................... 45


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

AMK AMK Microfinance Institution Plc.

BER Bid Evaluation Report

CC Commune Council

CBO Community Based Organisation

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CCDM Commune Committee for Disaster Management

CCWC Commune Committee for Women and Children

CIP Commune Investment Plan

CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation

CPMU Central Project Management Unit

DRM Disaster Risk Management

EFAP-AF Emergency Food Assistance Project – Additional Financing

FiAC Fisheries Administration Cantonment

FLD Farmer Livelihood Development

FO Farmer Organisation

FP Farmer Promoter

HC Health Centre

HURREDO Human Resource & Rural Development Organisation

HVCA Hazard Vulnerability Capacity Assessment

HH Household

IA Implementing Agency

IEC Information Education Communication

JPNA Joint Participatory Needs Assessment

MAFF Ministry of Forestry, Fishery and Agriculture

MEF Ministry of Economy & Finance

MoWA Ministry of Woman’s Affairs

MoH Ministry of Health

MRD Ministry of Rural Development

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NAS Nak Akphivath Sahakum

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

ODF Open Defecation Free

PADEK Partnership for Development in Kampuchea

PCDM Provincial Committee for Disaster Management

PDA Provincial Department of Agriculture

PDRD Provincial Department of Rural Development

PDWA Provincial Department of Women’s Affairs

PHD Provincial Health Department

PJNA Participatory Joint Needs Assessment

PLAN Plan International Cambodia

PGLD Provincial Government Line Department

PK Ponleur Kumar

POAHP Provincial Office of Animal Health & Production

PPMS Project Performance Management System

PPMU Provincial Project Management Unit

PRC Procurement Review Committee


QPR Quarterly Progress Report

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia

SG Sub-Grantee

SHG Self-Help Group

SK Srer Khmer

SP Sovann Phum

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SSO Santi Sena Organisation

TNA Training Needs Assessment

TOR Terms of Reference

ToT Training of Trainers

VAHW Village Animal Health Worker

VC Village Chief

VHSG Village Health Support Group

WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

A. Executive Summary

This report details the final results of the Emergency Food Assistance Project -Additional Financing (EFAP-AF) implemented by Plan International Cambodia over 24 months.

Plan International Cambodia (PLAN) supported the Central Project Management Unit (CPMU) of the MEF to realize two project outputs: (i) increased availability to and awareness of nutritious food and hygiene among food-insecure households; and (ii) increased access to improved agricultural inputs and

technologies among food-insecure farmers and women. To achieve Output 1, PLAN contributed to improved health and nutrition mainly by training male and female caregivers in food use and nutrition, home gardening, health and sanitation, and the provision of appropriate inputs. For Output 2, PLAN was

responsible for: (i) promoting diversification of livelihoods for women and men through activities in the livestock and fish farming sectors, and (ii) participatory planning and training focusing on gender awareness and (iii) emergency preparedness and mitigation in agriculture mainly for Self-Help Groups (SHGs).

PLAN provided its services from 15th March 2013 to the 31st March 2015, including a 4.5 month no-cost extension in 100 communes in ten targeted provinces reaching 46,221 poor households with at least one

intervention (including over 50 % of female beneficiaries and 401 SHGs). The primary beneficiaries were ID Poor 1 and 2 as identified under national targeting mechanisms developed by the Poor Households Programme of RGC’s Ministry of Planning. PLAN has been successful in helping the targeted poor

households strengthen their food security by increasing their awareness on good food utilization, increasing food availability and diversifying their livelihoods through small scale farming. PLAN worked in partnership with eight local organisations/sub-grantees (SGs); around 2,400 Farmer Promoters, and 1,083 Village

Health Support Groups (VHSGs). The table below summarizes the beneficiaries reached by PLAN’s training and awareness raising activities during the contract:


Table 1: Participants in training activities1

Training Activity Participants

Cooking demonstrations 63,185

Sanitation awareness raising 55,244

Basic health care 32,218

Nutrition awareness campaigns 42,934

Hand-washing campaigns 36,276

The table below summarizes those beneficiaries that received project inputs:

Table 2: Beneficiaries that received inputs

Inputs Beneficiary HHs

Sanitation incentives 22,132

Vegetable seeds 4,221

Aquaculture inputs 2,437

Poultry 5,670

Piglet 16,456

The 4.5 month no-cost extension granted by ADB after their mid-term review provided the additional time

required to address procurement challenges, and the late inclusion of beneficiary contributions. In February and March 2015 PLAN conducted an internal evaluation which showed that the work of PLAN has significantly helped the poor households of the target one hundred communes.

Progress towards achievement of outcomes

In February 2015 PLAN conducted an internal evaluation to assess progress towards the outcomes of the intervention. Although PLAN does not have the technical capacity and means to conduct a comprehensive

nutrition survey (which will be conducted as part of the EFAP-AF end-line survey) the results of the internal evaluation conducted by PLAN in February 2015 revealed improvements in the quantity and quality of beneficiaries’ diets such as:

83.7% of the HHs have consumed rice, vegetables, fish or meat.

85.4% respondents were aware of Bobo KrubKroeung and key ingredients.

82.8% of the HHs provide only breast milk if they have a 3-month baby

Regarding hygiene practices and sanitation the table below compares the results PLAN had in the JPNA and

the Internal evaluation:

Comparisons of key findings on Hygiene and Sanitation

Field Needs Assessment (October 2013) Project Evaluation (February 2015)

Latrine usage: 18.4% Open defecation: 81.6%

Access to latrine: 49.5% Open defecation: 21.3% (13.7% of them

bought latrine materials)

HHs treating drinking water: 48% HHs treating drinking water: 85.4%

Hand washing with soap/detergent powder:

66.1%

1 This are the total number of training participants as counted from the list. Therefore there is double countin g of

beneficiary households if some of them participated several times in the same training.


The indicators in the table above give some useful information on the different knowledge and

practices of beneficiaries at the beginning and end of the PLAN contract. Those households that participated in fish and vegetable growing mostly use the harvest for household consumption rather than selling in the market. However all livelihood diversification components have improved the

availability and access to food of beneficiary households to improve their diets. Regarding social capital the project also has made progress with the organisation and capacity building of SHGs as well as the empowerment of women beneficiaries:

Comparisons of key findings 2


SHG members: 13.0% of the HHs SHG members: 20.9% of beneficiary HHs

Benefits Access to low interest loans (83.3%) was the primary benefit from the SHGs

Role of women Among the members, 62.9% affirmed that women should play whatever role they can depending on their capacity. They can be

in the management committee also.

The results of the internal evaluation conducted in February 2015 are encouraging and may indicate that the EFAP-AF end line survey will reveal a reduction in the main malnutrition indicators achieving the expected

targets for the project. The main lessons learnt aligned with the evaluation report findings, are as follows:

1. In the view of SG partners the Nutrition, hygiene and sanitation are the components that have reached

most beneficiaries and are most relevant for them.

2. Livestock raising have also been popular, it is preferred because they can provide income for the household and fits well with the local farming systems.

3. The participation of PGLDs with SGs for the implementation of the components was adequate as they

had complementary skills, which optimized the use of resources and capacities. 4. Most project inputs were provided in-kind and the lack of familiarity of PLAN with the SOPs of RGC

made the process too long. If beneficiaries had received the inputs earlier more time could have been

spent on providing monitoring and follow up support. 5. Procurement of livestock and poultry is easier, faster and better if done locally close to beneficiaries 6. Most beneficiaries that received a sanitation incentive used it to build a latrine or prepared to build a

latrine. 7. Migration of the households was a key concern for project sustainability in addition to disasters and

climate change. PLAN worked with non-migrant households, and worked with CCDMs to develop

commune disaster preparedness plans and raise awareness on climate change adaptation. 8. The contract timeframe was short for building the capacity of SHGs to be registered as Farmer

Organisations.

9. The inclusion of contributions increased the number of beneficiary households participating in chicken and pig raising whilst decreased the number of beneficiaries on home-gardening and aquaculture.

10. Beneficiaries had a very good opinion of the vegetable seeds produced by EFAP-AF.

Main recommendations:

11. The overall project design should have considered giving more options to beneficiaries regarding livelihoods diversification. Especially the opportunity to establish or expand small off-farm businesses.

12. PLAN should have familiarised earlier with the SOPs of RGC so that implementation would have been

faster. 13. There should have been more coordination with PPMUs regarding the distribution of vegetable seeds . 14. Beneficiary cash contributions should always be collected on the spot at the same time that the inputs

are being distributed. 15. More capacity building is required from PDA until the SHGs are finally registered.

2 Project evaluation results for HH surveys were sample based, whereas the fields needs assessment was census covering all the target

beneficiaries of EFAP-AF. Further, EFAP-AF baseline was also a sample based, but used control and treatment groups.


B. Project Description

PLAN supported the MEF, which is the Executing Agency for EFAP-AF, through the CPMU, to realize two

outputs for the project: (i) Output 1 - increased availability to and awareness of nutritious food and hygiene among food-insecure households; and (ii) Output 2 - increased access to improved agricultural inputs and technologies among food-insecure farmers and women.

Of the three activities proposed under Output 1, PLAN contributed to improved health and nutrition mainly by training male and female caregivers in food use and nutrition, home gardening, health and sanitation, and

provision of appropriate inputs. On the other hand, out of the four intended activities for Output 2, PLAN was responsible for: (i) promoting diversification of livelihoods for women and men through activities in the livestock and fish farming sectors, and (ii) participatory planning and training focusing on gender awareness

and (iii) emergency preparedness and mitigation in agriculture mainly for self-help groups (SHGs). Twenty four and a half months of service have been provided for the project. The specific scope of services included the four key tasks of (i) selection of beneficiaries, (ii) planning and appraisal for support, (iii) capacity

building/trainings, and (iv)monitoring, evaluation, and reporting. An inclusive, pro-poor approach for the project has been adopted in all aspects of food security including: (i)

increased production of livestock, fisheries, and vegetables; (ii) increased purchasing power through promotion of micro agro-enterprise; (iii) improved utilization focusing on increased awareness about health and sanitation, food use and nutrition; and (iv) increased stability by mainstreaming disaster risk

management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) in agriculture through the formation3, training and strengthening of SHGs. PLAN strived to ensure that the most deserving beneficiaries were selected and that distribution of inputs was transparent and participatory.

PLAN and SGs worked alongside communities and institutions to address the interrelated issues of health,

nutrition, food security, water, and sanitation from a rights-based approach. Solid partnerships with community and government stakeholders ensured quality implementation of the proposed interventions leading to sustainable impacts. PLAN worked with selected NGO Sub-Grantees with

track record in community development to implement the project in the target provinces as follows: Farmer Livelihood Development (FLD) in Preah Vihear, Otdar Meanchey, and Takeo provinces; Partnership for Development in Kampuchea (PADEK) in Prey Veng province; Human Resource and Rural Economic

Development Organisation (HURREDO) in Siem Reap province; Ponleur Kumar (PK) in Banteay Meanchey province; Sovann Phoum (SP) in Kampong Speu province; Nak Akphivath Sahakum (NAS) in Kampong Cham province; Santi Sena Organization (SSO) in Svay Rieng province; and Srer Khmer (SK) in Kampong

Thom province. The map below (Figure 1) shows the 10 provinces targeted for the project.

Figure 1: Map of the EFAP-AF Target Provinces

3 If in some target communities there already exist some functional SHGs, then the project will work with them instead of forming new ones.


These communes are characterized by poor smallholder farm households, high levels of food insecurity, and high vulnerability to droughts and floods. The list of target communes is based on the list provided by the CPMU at the very beginning of the contract. During the Participatory Joint Needs Assessment (PJNA) in

November/December 2013, PLAN and SGs decided that it was relevant and possible to work in all the target communes based on the assessment results.

C. Project Stakeholders’ Roles and Responsibilities

For the solid engagement of all project stakeholders, PLAN adhered to the guidelines provided in the EFAP Project Administration Manual. Relevant government strategies also guided the intervention. The assignment was implemented in close coordination with all stakeholders, including the CPMU, the PPMUs,

and all relevant IAs. Coordination mainly focused on joint development of work plans, preparation of packages of inputs, training in monitoring and evaluation and joint monitoring visits, all of which enhanced ownership by relevant stakeholders and sustainability.

PLAN was the umbrella NGO that had overall responsibility for the project, but it was the 8SGs who

implemented the project activities in the target communities. These 8 SGs directly coordinated with the relevant Provincial Government Line Departments (PGLDs) such as the Provincial Department of Agriculture (PDA), the Provincial Health Department (PHD), the Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD)

and the Provincial Department of Women Affairs (PDWA) for the implementation of project activities in the target communities. The SGs mobilized communities, selected beneficiaries, coordinated with local authorities, organized the distribution of inputs and conducted monitoring whilst the PGLDs led on the

village-based trainings (PGLDs also supported SGs with the monitoring and follow up of beneficiaries).

SGs identified amongst the beneficiary households those who were most motivated, enthusiastic, and interested in the project. Those who were identified became the FPs who provided peer to peer training and extension services to other beneficiaries and villagers so that beneficiaries had someone whom they could

ask questions when needed and hence completed the learning cycle based on indigenous knowledge, previous experience and learning by doing.

Gender, DRM, and CCA was also mainstreamed in all stages of project implementation. In addition to gender-related governmental strategies and policies, the EFAP Gender Action Plan (GAP) guided this

assignment, particularly aiming to: (i) promote women’s decision-making and membership in newly-established SHGs and their management, (ii) ensure women’s equitable access to agriculture-related productivity inputs and extension training, (iii) target women for improved home-based vegetable gardening

and fish and livestock production, and (iv) raise awareness of both women and men in improved nutrition, food preparation, hygiene and feeding practices. Provincial Committees for Disaster Management trained CCs and SHGs on DRM and CCA helping beneficiaries become more resilient to disasters and shocks and

their livelihoods more adapted to the changing climate. Further details of the roles of all project stakeholders are provided in the matrix of project stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities on the table below:


Table 3: Matrix of Project Stakeholders’ Roles and Responsibilities

Key Stakeholders Roles and Responsibilities

Plan Cambodia

Umbrella NGO with overall supervision and responsibility for the

implementation of the Livelihoods, WASH and Nutrition components of the EFAP Project

Ensures consistency in the project implementation approach and

methodologies used by the SGs Defines the beneficiary selection criteria, community mobilization strategy and

the investment packages

Organizes ToT and technical training for SGs and PGLDs staff for capacity building

Involve stakeholders in M&E of the project and disseminate findings to all

stakeholders Mechanisms:

Submit progress and financial reports to CPMU Monthly field visits by Plan Cambodia specialists to provide monitoring and

follow-up on project activities and to receive feedback from stakeholders

Quarterly review meetings with SGs Half yearly provincial cluster workshops with representatives from all

stakeholders of the project

CPMU Project management unit of the entire EFAP-AF Project

PPMU Provide coordination on agreements and project activities

SGs

Work in partnership with PLAN EFAP project team and develop the detailed work plan and budget to implement the project activities :

o Conduct field assessment and TNA

o Identify beneficiaries and manage the beneficiary list o Community mobilization and organization of project activities at

community level

o Organize distribution of inputs Implement the project activities and train beneficiaries with close cooperation

with PGLDs, PCDM, CCs, Village Chiefs and other relevant stakeholders

Lead the monitoring and follow up of activities in close coordination with the PGLDs

Mechanisms: Sub-contract the Government line department staff for project activities Assign and coordinate the roles and responsibilities of Government line

department and local authorities Submit progress and financial reports to PLAN


Government Line

Departments

Work together with the SGs in all steps of project implementation to ensure relevance, appropriateness and sustainability of the activit ies

Ensure Inclusion of the programme in the Government development plan and process for the communes

Provide training for beneficiaries for all project activities

Collaborate in monitoring and follow up support and technical advice activities Ensure sustainability of the intervention and replication of project successes in

other communities of the province

Team of SGs and

PGLDs

Training to FPs and beneficiaries following current strategies of the

Government Line Departments that select a focal point (the FP) in the communities for the implementation of their programmes

Team of SGs and

PDRD

Training to beneficiaries, FPs and VHSGs on CLTS, Health Promotion and

WASH Support CCWCs committees in conducting monitoring and follow-up activities

Team of SGs,

PHD, and PDWAs

Technical training to VHSGs & FPs on nutrition and food utilization to conduct awareness raising to women in the villages

Commune HCs Conduct mobile nutrition awareness campaigns and cooking demonstrations for

beneficiaries

SGs and PDA Training to beneficiaries on home gardening, small scale livestock production

and aquaculture by crop production, POAHPs & FiACs

SGs and PCDM Training to CCDMs and SHGs on disaster risk management and climate

change adaptation in agriculture and rural livelihoods

CCWC Focal point at community level to improve their participation

Disseminate project information

Local Authorities

(Village Chiefs,

Deputy Chiefs and

Assistant)

Focal point at village level for project activities

Assist in needs assessment, TNA for the project

Coordinate with SHGs

Follow up support and monitoring of project activities

SHGs

Develop linkages with markets, PGLDs, private sector institutions and project beneficiaries

Introduce new production techniques, technical assistance, exploit market opportunities, and contribute to improve local governance

Offer financial services to their members and benefit from collective action to increase their power in the market supply chain

D. Project Outputs

While the longer-term outcome-level results will be measured through an end-line survey administered by CPMU which will mirror the methods and coverage of the baseline survey, PLAN has conducted an internal assessment to gather initial findings. Please note the methodological limitations highlighted in the evaluation

report; these findings are illustrative only and not methodologically comparable to the baseline. They are based on internal evaluation questionnaires and interviews. With inputs distributed in the final months of the project, it is not yet possible to see impact, but rather progress towards impact. The key findings in relation to

this outcome are outlined below.

Summary on key findings – Nutrition, home gardening and basic health


Summary on key findings – Nutrition, home gardening and basic health

Dietary diversity 94.2% of the respondents have consumed rice, fish or meat the previous day, while

83.7% of the HHs have consumed rice, vegetables, fish or meat.

Compulsory

breast-feeding 82.8% of the HHs provide only breast milk if they have a 3-month baby; while less

than 2% of the HHs indicated they would provide only condensed milk or rice porridge to their 3-month baby.

47.5% of the HHs stop breast-feeding after 2 years, while 31.1% of the HHs stop breast-feeding after 1 year.

Complementary feeding

85.4% respondents were aware of Bobo KrubKroeung and key ingredients.

PLAN focused on behaviour change to improve hygiene and sanitation through the implementation of Community Lead Total Sanitation (CLTS), hygiene campaigns and the provision of sanitation incentives to the poorest households who wanted to improve their health outcomes. The table below compares the

different results of the internal PLAN Surveys conducted so far:

Comparisons of key findings on Hygiene and Sanitation


Latrine usage: 18.4% Open defecation: 81.6%

Access to latrine: 49.5% Open defecation: 21.3% (13.7% of them bought

latrine materials)

Didn’t receive incentives: 29.2%

HHs treating drinking water: 48%

HHs don’t treat water: 52%

HHs treating drinking water: 85.4%

HHs treating drinking water always: 54.0%

NA HHs who hand wash: 96.2%

Hand washing with soap/detergent powder: 66.1%

Lack of awareness on critical times for hand

washing: 0.2%

The indicators in the table above give some useful information on the different knowledge and practices of beneficiaries at the beginning and end of the PLAN contract. Regarding the livelihoods diversification

components, the chart below shows how beneficiaries use them:

Through their participation in the EFAP-AF Project beneficiary households have increased their availability and access to protein-rich food and vegetables to improve their diets, not only by eating more of the foods they produce at home, but also by buying more food with the income generated through marketing their

home grown products. PLAN has also made progress with the organisation and capacity building of SHGs as well as the empowerment of women beneficiaries:


Summary on key findings – SHGs

SHG

membership

20.9% of the respondents were SHG members including 53.8% females, while

79.1% of them were not members (compared to only 13.0% at the JPNA in October 2013).

Benefits 83.3 % of SHGs benefitted from access to low interest loans

Role of women Among the members, 62.9% affirmed that women should play whatever role they

can, depending on their capacity. They can be in the management committee also.

The results of the internal evaluation conducted in February 2015 are encouraging and may indicate that the EFAP-AF end line survey will reveal a reduction in the main malnutrition indicators achieving the expected

targets for the project. The table below shows the total number of ID Poor households per province that have benefited directly from the PLAN intervention by participating in at least one activity:

Table 1: Number of beneficiary households that have participated in at least one PLAN activity

Province HHs

Banteay Meanchey 5,021

Kampong Cham 4,521

Kampong Speu 5,238

Kampong Thom 5,681

Preah Vihear 1,203

Prey Veng 7,375

Svay Rieng 6,144

Siem Reap 5,693

Takeo 3,958

Oddar Meanchey 1,387

Total 46,221

The following tables show the progress made on each indicator by the end of the project period as well as

the reasons for any deviations. Overall the target on input distribution was revised based on the following aspects:

Reconfirmation from beneficiaries based on their preferences and interests. Progress on implementation Budget availability

Output 1: Increased availability and awareness of nutritious food and hygiene

Indicators:

72% of target beneficiaries households (28,800 beneficiaries) receive training on nutrition and hygiene (at least 50% are women)

Increased small-scale household food production of vitamin and protein rich food items in 36% of

targeted beneficiary families Increased dietary diversity in 36% of target beneficiary families


Activities Target4 Project progress at project completion

Comments

Activities 1.1: Food use and nutrition training to

women and children

9,600 awareness-raising food cooking demonstrations

organized with participation from women and children

6,986 awareness-raising food-cooking

demonstrations were conducted across the target provinces.

63,185 beneficiaries participated in the food

cooking demonstrations (77% female).

535 awareness-raising events

organized that focus on health education about locally available food, different food

groups, nutritious recipes, and feeding practices

535 awareness-

raising events held

100% achieved as planned

(7,514 participants, 71% female, 31% VHSGs, 69% FPs)

2,354 general health education events organized

2,144 general health education events are

organized.

91% of the target achieved. The number of events

required was reduced as in some villages there were few beneficiaries and the event

was organised per village cluster 28,315 participants (67%

female)

4,536 health centre monitoring and follow-up activities held among women

and children

4,256 health centre monitoring and follow-up activities were

held.

94% of target achieved5. Health Centre staff in most provinces completed the

follow up as planned although some Health Centres did not do all visits

as they were not necessary

12,000 training materials developed/updated



1,083 VHSGs supported in

building capacity on general health education

1,083 VHSGs

supported in building capacity on general health education.


(one VHSG supported per village which is a total of 1,083 VHSG volunteers)

1,083 community campaigns

on micronutrient deficiency

1,083 community

campaigns on micronutrient deficiency were

organized covering all target villages.

100% achieved as planned.

44,436 participants in total (around 41 participants per campaign)

Activities 1.2: Home gardening training and

inputs


1,083 training materials

developed/updated

100% achieved as planned Posters and booklets were

printed in close collaboration with the GDA and technical support/expertise from Plan

Canada’s Graphic Designer..

1,083 village based demonstration plots identified and established

1,083 village based demonstration plots were identified and

established.


1,700 training sessions (e.g. land preparation, seed selection, germination,

planting, watering, fertilizer/manure application, weeding, integrated pest

1,700 training sessions on home gardening are

completed

100% achieved as planned, 16,572 beneficiaries trained (55% women)

4 On Annex 1 of this report it has been included the Matrix on targets which is part of the investment package report as well

as the rational followed to decide on those targets. This was submitted by PLAN and approved by CPMU in February 2014. 5 This activity does not have record of beneficiary numbers as it consists of household visits.


management, post-harvesting management, and storage) provided

5,002 home gardening input

package distributed to beneficiary households

Home gardening

input distribution was done for 4,221 HHs.

84% of target achieved. The

simultaneous distribution of vegetable seeds by EFAP-AF through PPMUs meant a

significant reduction in beneficiary interest and lower number of HHs covered for

the activity. 4,221 beneficiary households received the seeds whilst the remaining

seeds were distributed to demonstration plots.

5,415 follow up support visits regularly provided to

beneficiaries

3,863 follow up support visits were

provided to beneficiaries after the distribution of the

vegetable seeds.

71% of target achieved. The reduced number of

beneficiaries that received the vegetable seeds meant that so many visits were not

required

1,083 field days were organized for home gardening

808 field days were organized for home gardening.

75% of target achieved. The initial target was to conduct one event per village.

However, some villages had very few beneficiaries and the event was organised at

village cluster level which explains the lower number of events.

At least 9,424 beneficiaries participated in field days, 61% of them female (this

includes also participants in the livelihoods diversification field days as the data is not

disaggregated by component)

Activities 1.3: Health and sanitation training and

inputs

4,945 awareness-raising activities on hygiene and

sanitation (e.g. excreta disposal, hand-washing practices, drinking water

safety (purification, storage, and conservation), prevention and management of

diarrhoea) organized

4,945 awareness-raising activities on

hygiene and sanitation were organized across the

provinces.

100% achieved as planned, 34,987 participants in these

activities.

22,859 beneficiary households received provision of sanitation

incentive

Provision of sanitation incentive distributed to 22,132 beneficiary

households

97% of target achieved. Sanitation incentives were provided on condition that

the beneficiary household participated in training and made sustainable changes

for good hygiene and sanitation at the household. A few selected household

failed to do this and did not receive the incentive.

1,083 CLTS community mobilization and awareness

raising activities carried out

1,083 CLTS community

mobilization and awareness raising activities carried out

100% achieved as planned (one per village)

38,924 participants (44% female)


9,600 Training materials on CLTS developed/updated

9,600 Training materials developed/updated

100% achieved as planned (materials produced and distributed)

The table above shows that PLAN has achieved the expected indicator results as over 72% of beneficiary households (28,800 beneficiaries) have participated in training on nutrition and hygiene (over 50% of them female). The table below summarizes the number of beneficiaries that have participated in trainings and

awareness raising:

Training Activity Participants

Cooking demonstrations 63,185

Sanitation awareness raising 55,244

Basic health care 32,218

Nutrition awareness campaigns 42,934

Hand-washing campaigns 36,276

Also over 36% of beneficiaries (14,400 beneficiaries) have increased household food production and the diversity of their diets. The table below summarizes those beneficiaries that received project inputs:

Inputs Beneficiary

HHs

Sanitation incentives 22,132

Vegetable seeds 4,221

Aquaculture inputs 2,437

Poultry 5,670

Piglet 16,456

Output 2: Increased access to improved agricultural inputs and technologies

Indicators:

36% of target beneficiary families adopted high-yielding inputs and technologies

At least 72% of target beneficiary families received training and/or provision of packages for small scale food production at the household level

400 existing and/or established SHGs registered at the commune level

Activities Target Project progress at project completion

Comments

Activities 2.1: Diversified

livelihood (livestock, poultry, and

aquaculture)

9,033 households poultry input package

5,670 households received poultry input

package (1 rooster and 5 hens per family)

63% of the target. The high vulnerability to disease of

poultry made beneficiaries switch input choice from poultry to piglets

11,605 households received pig

input package

16,456 households

received pig input packages (1 piglet per family)

142% of the target. Disease

outbreaks in poultry made beneficiaries switch input choice from poultry to piglets. This

explains the significant increase in pig input packages.

2,773 households received aquaculture input packages

2,437 households received aquaculture

input packages (a fishing net or 500 fingerlings)

88% of the target achieved. Delays in the procurement

process meant that aquaculture inputs were distributed later than initially planned, hence

fewer beneficiary households were reached.

269 pig and poultry demonstration farms identified

and established

269 pig and poultry demonstration farms

identified and established

100% of the target reached. PLAN established one

demonstration plot for each cluster of 4 villages.

269 aquaculture demonstration farms identified and established

269 aquaculture demonstration farms

100% of the target reached. PLAN established a


identified and established.

demonstration plot for each cluster of 4 villages.

6,108 beneficiary households trained on pig raising

11,631 households were trained on pig

raising.

190% of the target achieved. However, the target should have

increased to 16,456 beneficiaries which is the number of beneficiary families

that received a piglet. Only 71% (11,631 of 16,456) of piglet recipients received training. This

was due to the late delivery of piglets as a result of the last-minute switch from poultry to

piglet inputs by many beneficiaries. These late beneficiaries were therefore

trained through FPs and field days instead of formal trainings with the PGLDs. This is the

reason for the low number of beneficiaries trained compared with the number of piglets

distributed.

14,812 beneficiary households trained on poultry raising

10,738 households were trained on poultry raising.

72% of the target achieved. It is almost double the number of families that received poultry for

the reasons mentioned above. Many families were supposed to receive poultry but they later

decided to change to piglets because of disease outbreaks with chicken in the target

villages.

5,527 beneficiary families trained in aquaculture

5,032 families were trained on aquaculture

91% of the target achieved although it was unnecessary to train so many families because

only around 50% of them received aquaculture inputs in the end for the reasons

mentioned above.

269 field days on pig & poultry raising as well as aquaculture organized

269 field day were organized for livelihood

diversification activities

100% of the target reached. PLAN conducted one field day for each cluster of 4 villages.

At least 12,072 beneficiaries participated in field days, 54% of them female

5,415 monitoring and follow up

visits provided to beneficiaries participating in pig/ poultry raising and aquaculture

4,241 follow up and

monitoring visits were provided to beneficiaries of

livelihood input recipients.

78% of the target achieved.

Delayed procurement reduced the period of time available for monitoring visits after

distribution6.

8,229 Training materials developed/updated

8,229 Training materials

developed/updated

100% of the target achieved. Posters and booklets were

developed

6 No data available on the number of households visited during the follow up visits


Activities 2.2: Participatory planning and

training for community based activities

including DRM in agriculture involving Self-

Help Groups (SHGs)

400 newly formed and/or existing SHGs formed and/or identified

401 SHGs are formed and/ or existing SHGs identified.

100% of the target achieved. 73% of the SHGs existed before

the project implementation, and were linked with the project.

The SHGs consists of 15,393 members of which 8,624 (56%) are women and 9,379 (61%) are

ID Poor.

400 newly formed and/or existing SHGs formed, identified and have developed by-laws and

structures, and as well have been given recognition from relevant departments

401 SHGs are formed/ identified and have developed by-laws

and structures.

100% of the target achieved

30% of women take leadership

roles in newly established/existing SHGs

49% of women take

leadership roles in the project linked SHGs.


Most SHGs selected for the project had already high levels of women participation,

especially in the management committees. The capacity building conducted during the

project further increased their participation. Of the 15,393 SHG members

8,624 (56%) are female. Of the 1,602 SHG committee members 778 (49%) are female

400 awareness raising events on

climate change adaptation and mitigation provided to target beneficiaries

400 awareness-raising

events on climate change were provided to the beneficiaries.


2,981 participants, 63% female

100 mechanisms established at

commune and organizational levels

Complaint

mechanisms already exist in all 100-target communes.


Commune Councils have to establish these complain mechanisms as part of their

rules and regulations

100 communal activities (repair of ponds, tube well establishment, and ponds)

carried out for the project

154 communal activities were completed in 100

target communes.

More than100% of the target achieved. The higher number is explained because in the initial

target it was assumed that each commune would do only one communal activity. However at

the time of implementation CCs decided to divide the budget in several small communal

activities.

100 training sessions provided to CCs on Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment

(HVCA) in Disaster Risk Management (DRM)

100 trainings sessions were carried out by the SGs for CCDMs

on HVCA.

100% of the target achieved 2,010 participants/15% women

100 disaster preparedness and response plans in agriculture

developed

100 disaster preparedness and

response plans were developed


100 Training materials developed/updated

100 Training materials developed/updated


Of the 3 indicators for this output PLAN has achieved 2 of them. As over 36% of beneficiaries (14,400) have

adopted high-yielding inputs and technologies as well as over 72% (28,800) received training and/or


provision of packages for small scale food production at the household level. However of the 401 SHGs that participated in the project only a small percentage is registered at commune or provincial level. Further

capacity building is required for the SHGs to get registered.

Beneficiaries and Targeting

Beneficiary targets were established at the start of the project based on PLAN’s experience in project areas, and presented in the inception report submitted in August 2013 with the understanding that numbers would

be validated through a needs assessment. In September and October 2013, a participatory joint needs assessment (PJNA) was conducted by PLAN to determine the technically and financially feasible investment packages for beneficiaries based on the needs, capacities and preferences of beneficiaries. Based on this

information, beneficiary targets were adjusted, submitted in the investment package report and approved by CPMU in February 2014. Since that time, the targets were adjusted several times during project implementation to take into consideration the local context and needs.

Soon afterwards PLAN was advised by CPMU to request cash contributions from beneficiaries for inputs in order to better ensure commitment to project activities and prevent dependency on handouts as well as to be

in line with other EFAP-AF components because beneficiaries were already paying contributions for the seeds and fertiliser provided. This had an important impact on beneficiaries’ preferences and interest shifted from food producing activities (e.g. home-gardening and aquaculture) to income generating activities such as

poultry and pig raising7. Vegetables and fish are usually for subsistence to eat at the household as these are an important part of the daily diet. Chicken and pork are only eaten for celebrations and ceremonies because they are much more expensive. Therefore households raise chicken and pig mostly to sell them and with the

money to buy rice, fish and vegetables to eat. As a result, it was necessary to re-assess beneficiary targets in order to accurately capture shifting input priorities, and the first round of beneficiary number validation took place.

Since the JPNA took place in November 2013 beneficiary numbers have changed, as have the associated inputs requested. The table below shows how beneficiary numbers have been changing up to now:

Table 4: Beneficiary numbers

Activity/Beneficiary

Households

Number of

beneficiaries approved in the

Investment package (Feb 14)

First

Round (Ap. 14)

Second

Round (July 14)

Final

beneficiary target for inputs (First

round + Second round)

Final

number of beneficiaries reached with

inputs

Sanitation incentives 22,859 11,866 10,993 22,859 22,132

Vegetable seeds 23,706 5,002 0 5,002 4,221

Aquaculture inputs 5,527 1,775 998 2,773 2,437

Poultry raising 14,812 7,636 1,397 9,033 5,670

Pig raising 6,108 6,218 5,387 11,605 16,456

In August 2014 PLAN discussed with CPMU the fact that some beneficiaries were very poor and had been

selected as ID Poor card holders in the last survey from the Ministry of Planning, however they had not yet received the ID Poor card and their name was not in the database. CPMU agreed that these households could be included in the project as beneficiaries and their details should be added to the beneficiary lists and

database. The total number of beneficiaries reached by the project activities (e.g. inputs, awareness raisings, SHGs, and so forth) without overlapping is 46,221 HHs.

Procurement Before the procurement started PLAN had a meeting with CPMU were an initial induction was provided to

the PLAN team about the SOPs of the RGC for the procurement of inputs. At this meeting also several examples were provided in hard and soft copy of the bidding papers, bid evaluation reports (BERs), Procurement Review Committee (PRC) meeting minutes and contracts.

This was followed up with additional CPMU support for every step of the procurement process. PLAN drafted the required procurement papers (e.g. bidding papers, BERs, PRC meeting minutes, contracts) and CPMU

7 Please see Annex 2 – Internal Evaluation & Lessons learnt for specific data on what beneficiaries do with chicken and pigs they raise.


revised them thoroughly until they met the required quality standards.

Table 5 Summary of Activities for reporting period and update on work-plan

Component/activity heading

Planned Activity Achieved Explanation

Start-up phase Develop selection criteria for proposed

activities and selection of SHGs and FOs

Selection criteria developed and consolidated in JPNA. Based on

these criteria investment package report submitted to CPMU and endorsed on the 6th February.

401 SHGs joined the project (over 100% of the target). SHGs have a total of 15,393

members (56% are women and 61% ID Poor) 2,423 FPs selected and trained

(53% female)

Over time the investment

package changed and adapted to

beneficiaries’ preferences (e.g. after

inclusion of beneficiary cash

contributions there was an important

increase in beneficiaries preferring

piglets instead of vegetable seeds,

aquaculture inputs or poultry).

Ever since the start of the project total

membership in SHGs has decreased as

those members with weak

commitment leave the groups whilst

the percentage of women participation

has increased.


Selection of beneficiaries

Input distributions are completed and the number of beneficiaries that

received inputs are as follows:

Input Beneficiaries

% of targe

t

Sanitation

incentives

22,132 97%

Vegetable seeds

4,221 84%

Aquaculture inputs

2,437 88%

Poultry 5,670 63%

Piglets 16,456 142

%

Beneficiary numbers have had several

changes throughout the project due to

several reasons such as the

introduction of contributions and delayed

distribution of the inputs. In the last quarter

the main issue was disease outbreaks

amongst the poultry population in

some provinces that made

beneficiaries change their mind and

request piglets instead of chickens.

Implementation

phase (Task 2: Selecting households, Self-

help groups and Farmer Organisations for

the support).

Development and

finalization of training modules and schedules, Training of Trainers

(ToT) and IEC materials

Completed as planed

Implementation phase (Task 3: Carrying out

planning and appraisal for the support).

Community mobilization and awareness raising

Completed as planed


Procurement of goods, works and services

All procurement was completed in January 2015.

Underperforming contracts for chicken

and piglets were stopped in October with

mutual agreement of both parties.

Contracted suppliers managed to

distribute only 25% of the agreed

chicken and 50% of the agreed piglets.

Then the remaining undistributed

chicken and piglets were procured and

distributed through the local

procurement system which has been very

successful in quickly procuring and

distributing chicken and piglet to most

beneficiaries and at lower prices.


Distribution of procured packages including livestock and fisheries

inputs

By mid-January all inputs were distributed to interested beneficiaries as shown in the table

above.

After approval from CPMU the remaining undistributed sachets of

vegetable seeds were handed over to SHGs in 6 target provinces for their members to cultivate.

It was challenging to procure and

distribute so many inputs in 10 provinces

and over a short timeframe but

in the end has been possible to do it.

The management

of the undistributed seeds by

SHGs provides them with an opportunity to

build their capacity and support their

members to improve their food security

Linkages development/strengthening

Capacity building of SHGs continued up to the end of the contract. A rapid assessment of the

groups revealed that 181 of them are weak, 162 medium and 58 strong. The respective PDAs have

registered 29 SHGs as farmer organisations.

Linkages between SHGs and animal health workers, farmer promoters and village health support groups

have been strengthened through the regular organisation of meetings, awareness raising sessions and

trainings to improve the impact and sustainability of the intervention.

The capacity building of SHGs and the

strengthening of linkages needs to

continue until the end of EFAP-AF by

PPMUs and Provincial Government

Line Departments. Still most

SHGs are not registered at the Provincial

Department of Agriculture and they need

further support and training to achieve

registration and become sustainable.


Training to CCDM on HVCA in DRM in agriculture

400 awareness raising events on climate change for SHGs conducted (2,981 participants/ 63% women)

154 communal activities approved for implementation and completed

CCDMs and SHGs completed

their training on DRR and Climate

Change Adaptation as well as the

communal activities. PLAN

developed guidelines for the operations

and maintenance of the

communal activities and trained CCs

and communities to ensure their

sustainability. CCs and communities

have now the responsibility for the

sustainability and maintenance

of these communal activities


Delivery of trainings ToT on Nutrition to VHSGs/FPs: 5,482 participants trained (59% women)

Cooking demonstrations: In total 48, 434 participants in cooking demonstrations (74% women)

CLTS Triggering to beneficiaries: In total 55,244 participants (67% women)

Basic health care training to beneficiaries: In total 32,218 participants (68% women)

Nutrition campaign: 42,934 participants (62% women) Hand-washing campaign:

Completed with 36,276 participants (78% women) Home gardening training: 16,572

beneficiaries trained (55% women) Aquaculture training to beneficiaries: In total 5,032 beneficiaries have

been trained (51% women) ToT on piglet and chicken raising: 1,936 VAHWs and FPs trained

(34% women) Chicken raising to beneficiaries: 10,738 participants (21% women)

Pig raising to beneficiaries: 11,631 participants (21% women)

Training to beneficiaries and

awareness raising activities have

been completed in the last

quarter.

Transforming SHGs to FOs

491 meetings took place to strengthen the capacity of the SHGs

and start the registration process with the PDA: 5,968 participants (65% women). So far 29 SHGs have

been certified as FOs (7%). PLAN and SGs continued capacity building activities up to the end of the

contract.

Further capacity

building will be required to ensure the

sustainability of the groups. It is planned to

continue supporting SHGs up to

the end of the contract. It is expected that

at least 58 additional SHGs will be

registered as FOs because the

assessment showed that they have

strong capacity.

Implementation phase (Task 4:

Monitoring & Evaluation).

Monitoring of activities according to monitoring

plan and provision of support to local NGO partners in M&E

Throughout the contract PLAN provided support to SG partners for

meeting the M&E requirements of the project.

PPMS and Gender

Progress Report are prepared and

submitted to CPMU when required.


Workshops for review/information sharing and adjustment

of work plan

This quarter two one-day workshops with SG partners took place on a monthly or fortnightly basis as

required to develop and adjust the work plan for the no-cost extension as well as to explain local

procurement and actions to minimise mortality of chicken and piglets

Reporting Inception report,

quarterly report and final report

Inception report and six quarterly

reports already submitted.

.

Final

completion report submitted on

the 30th April 2015

E. Project schedule

The table below show the project workplan. The initial plan per the inception report is presented in dark grey,

with the diagonal stripes presenting the actual timeline of activity implementation.

Colour Legend

Workplan as in proposal

Actual workplan as it happened

Activity 2013 2014 2015

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

I. Start-up Phase*

Introductory meeting with CPMU

Placement and orientation of project staff

Finalization of selection of local NGO partners and their orientation

Conduct planning workshops at national and

provincial level

II. Implementation Phase

TASK 1: Selecting households, Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and Farmer Organizations (FOs) for the support

Develop selection criteria for proposed activities and selection of SHGs and FOs

Finalization of communes and number of

beneficiaries by activities and geographical areas

Selection of beneficiaries

TASK 2: Carrying out planning and appraisal for the support

Participatory joint needs assessment for livelihoods (livestock and aquaculture)

Training Needs Assessment (TNA) of partner NGOs

Development of investment packages and review and endorsement by EA (livestock and aquaculture)

Development and finalization of training modules

and schedules, Training of Trainers (ToT) and IEC materials

Development of procurement packages and sharing with EA for review and endorsement

TASK 3: Carrying out capacity building/training and delivery of the support

Community mobilization and awareness raising

Procurement of goods, works and services

Distribution of procured packages including

livestock and fisheries inputs

Linkages development/strengthening

Training to CCDM on HVCA in DRM in agriculture

Transforming SHGs to FOs


Delivery of trainings (food use and nutrition, home gardening, health and sanitation)

TASK 4: Monitoring and evaluation

Preparation of a monitoring and evaluation plan and sharing with EA for review and endorsement

Monitoring of activities according to monitoring plan

and provision of support to local NGO partners in M&E

Workshops for review/information sharing and adjustment of work plan

III. Reporting

Inception report, quarterly report and final report

The reasons for delays in the implementation of the workplan were the following:

i. inception report

The first deliverable due to CPMU was the inception report. While this was due within one month of the project start, on-going discussions between Plan and CPMU regarding the format and content of the report necessitated a longer timeframe. CPMU’s feedback enabled Plan to improve the quality of the inception

report so that it could be used as a detailed roadmap for the project moving forward. CPMU approved for the final submission to be shifted to the 15th of June and the report was endorsed and accepted by CPMU at the beginning of September 2013. Once the inception report was approved, Plan was able to move forward with

the signing of the agreement with SG partners as this required an approved budget. Once the inception report was approved and the agreements with SGs signed, PLAN prepared the PJNA which took place in November-December 2013 with the submission of the Assessment report and proposal for the investment package in December 2013.

ii. beneficiary contributions

After submission of the draft investment package for approval, CPMU recommended that PLAN’s components should follow the same approach as the rest of the components in the EFAP-AF project by requiring beneficiary cash contributions to the cost of inputs . This was a new approach for PLAN and as

such it took time to put appropriate measures in place internally and with local partners to ensure compliance with Plan’s policy. The investment package report was revised accordingly to include the beneficiary payment of contributions for the inputs. The investment package was final ly approved at the beginning of

February 2014.

The inclusion of the beneficiary contributions also meant that beneficiary lists had to be revised as they were

not informed about the payment of contributions when they first signed up to receive inputs. It took PLAN and SGs two months to go back to the target communities and revise the lists. Many beneficiaries changed their mind, some dropped from the list completely and others changed the component as described earlier

on this report. At the same time that the beneficiary lists were revised PLAN also developed the beneficiary contributions collection guidelines as it was the first time that PLAN was collecting cash from beneficiaries. Based on their experience, CPMU suggested to PLAN that SGs collect the cash contributions on the spot at

the time of distributing the inputs but after conducting a risk assessment it was mutually agreed to engage AMK. Collecting large amounts of money in rural villages of Cambodia had a number of implications and risks (e.g. security, fraud, developing guidelines for managing the contributions in a transparent way and so

forth) and using the services of a financial service provider such as AMK seemed more suitable (AMK was already going to be contracted for the delivery of the cash incentives). Therefore it required two months of preparatory work to develop the cash collection guidelines, AMK ’s contract and appropriate accountability

systems for the collection of contributions. Beneficiaries that were selected in the first round in March-April 2014 were given the options of making their contribution payment within two months after the distribution (which would be collected by the local MFI named “AMK) or paying their contribution upfront. Most

beneficiaries opted to pay their contributions on the spot at the distribution site where they received their inputs. The ToT for SG staff and PGLDs was also conducted during this period to ensure a consistent technical approach in the project.

iii. Procurement process

Before the procurement started CPMU provided a briefing about the SOPs of the RGC for the procurement of inputs. At this meeting several examples were provided in hard and soft copy of the bidding papers, bid evaluation reports (BERs), Procurement Review Committee (PRC) meeting minutes and contracts.


Revised beneficiary lists were ready in March 2014. Also in March CPMU endorsed all bidding papers

prepared for procurement and PLAN started the procurement process. The first bids were for training materials and fishing nets. Few bids were submitted to PLAN and none of them met the Procurement standards and requirements. After a meeting with CPMU it was decided to re-bid but this time PLAN

organised a meeting to explain to all interested bidders how to fill the bid papers and submit a suitable bid. Overall potential bidders were unhappy but eager to adhere to PLAN requirements as their buy-in was ensured through the pre-bidding orientation meetings. PLAN and SGs continuously provided support and

struggled to get the minimum number of required bids. By mid July 2014 all bids had been selected, endorsed by CPMU and the contracts signed. CPMU provided continuous support for every step of the procurement process. PLAN drafted the required procurement

papers (e.g. bidding papers, BERs, PRC meeting minutes, contracts) and submitted them to CPMU which revised them thoroughly until they met the required quality standards.

iv. Performance of contracted suppliers for piglet and chicken

Plan faced initial challenges in securing suppliers who were able to meet the capacity requirements of the

project. While suppliers were contracted to distribute all inputs by the end of August, they were unable to meet this deadline. Further details of the procurement process are provided in Section I. As a result of supplier challenges, their contracts were terminated and Plan proceeded with local procurement as

recommended by CPMU. The contract no cost extension allowed PLAN to meet the procurement objectives and local procurement of chicken and piglets ended in mid January 2015.

E. Gender

Gender was mainstreamed in all stages of project implementation and the EFAP-AF Gender Action Plan

(GAP) guided this process. Details on the progress on each gender indicator are provided in Annex 10. All IEC materials used in the project do not specifically show equal roles of men and women. However, in

order for the beneficiaries, especially those illiterate women and men, to understand these IEC materials; testing of the materials has been done twice: first with local NGOs and second with beneficiaries. The Project made sure women's role and gender equality through trainings and awareness generation. IEC

materials on nutrition, hygiene and sanitation show the involvement of men, women, boys, and girls . PLAN prioritised using IEC materials that had already been used and approved by the relevant government line departments. Overall this was very positive because the Government Line Departments were responsible for

the training conducted in the EFAP-AF components implemented by PLAN. Therefore the PGLDs were already familiar with these IEC materials. Developing new materials would have been time consuming not only because of the time required to develop them but also because Government approval and testing would

have been required. However using existing materials limited somewhat the capacity of PLAN to adapt these materials to the project needs in terms of Gender mainstreaming and promotion of female participation.

There has been a high level of participation of women in all EFAP-AF components implemented by PLAN. This was highest in awareness raising sessions and campaigns on nutrition, health and hygiene as shown in the following chart:

Chart 1: Women participation


Women’s participation has been higher in those components closer to their traditional gender roles such as nutrition, health and hygiene. In livelihoods activities their participation is the lowest but still over 50% for

those components that produce mostly food for the household consumption. Chicken and piglet raising may have less involvement of women because they are more oriented to income generation and hence more men tend to work on them. These two components, chicken and piglet raising where actually the most

preferred components after the inclusion of the beneficiary contributions. Contributions might have precluded some women (without the resources) that participated in nutrition awareness raising activities to complete the learning cycle as they did not have the opportunity (after the activity) to produce some vegetables and

increase the quantity and quality of the food they eat.

Female headed households and ID Poor households with women of reproductive age and small children

have been especially targeted by the project which probably increased female participation. Women participation in the implementation of the project components may have helped them raise their profile in the communities as they became more vocal and participative during meetings, talking in public and having

more self-esteem about the type of income generation activities they can undertake as well as their active participation in the management of SHGs and other community initiatives. 53% of Farmer Promoters (FPs) and 56% of SHG members are women whilst 49% of the SHG’s management committees are female. Many

women participated in the meeting to decide the DRR communal activities for their commune. The project also made an effort to include men in nutrition, health and hygiene awareness sessions to challenge traditional gender roles and also acknowledging that often it is not only women who care for children but also

unemployed men, eldest siblings and the elderly. If women in a household work more than other household members and have to look after the children, it is important that they also participate in the awareness raising campaigns and sessions organised by PLAN. Finally 39% of PLAN and SG staff were women. All

these organisations have HR policies promoting women’s participation and having good gender balance in the project teams. However, the wide geographical coverage of the EFAP-AF has meant for field officers a lot of travelling along rural and sparsely populated areas of the country with weak security which can be an

important concern for female field officers.

F. Project Costs8

The total budget spent as of 31st March 2015 was US$3,925,292 representing 99% of the agreed budget of

US$3,960,000. Throughout the project, Plan monitored spending against each budget line, taking into account changes to activities and ensuring funds were utilized in the most efficient and effective way to meet the project results. Majority of the inputs distributed were piglets and chickens that were procured by field

teams over a vast geographical area and would require extra time in processing payments and recording in Plan’s systems. A total of US$ 34,708 remained unspent as a result of cost savings achieved by PLAN during the procurement process as well as suppliers not being able to distribute all of their piglets and

chickens as explained below. Given that PLAN completed all the procurement and delivery of inputs to

8 Please see Appendix 11 – Final financial report


beneficiaries in January 2015 it was too late to re-program the available under spent budget of USD $34,708 for additional inputs as lead times in identifying additional beneficiaries, finalizing procurement and

distribution could not have been achieved in the time frame of the project. The table below shows the original budget as per contract, the revised budget as per the contract modification signed in November 2014 as well as the final expenditure and balance:

Description

Original (according to initial

contract signed)

Revised

(according to contract

modification)

Final expenditure

Balance

Competitive components

Remuneration, international 153,643 186,405 183,859 2,546

Remuneration, National 185,656 238,305 238,195 110

Reimbursable expenses 124,701 55,881 50,527 5,355

Sub-total 464,000 480,591 472,581 8,010

Non-Competitive components

Contingency and provisional sum

Office operations 100,000 331,338 330,798 540

Communications 18,000 11,526 10,740 786

Report preparation, production and transmission

10,000 3,764 4,984 -1,220

Others 3,168,000 3,080,730 3,016,916 63,815

Seminars, workshops, training 50,000 38,184 75,407 -37,223

Studies, Surveys and reports 50,000 13,867 13,867 --

Contingency 100,000 -- -- --

Sub-total 3,496,000 3,479,409 3,452,712 26,697

Grand Total 3,960,000 3,960,000 3,925,292 34,708

In addition to the US$ 3,925,292 of ADB funds spent on the project, Plan contributed an amount of US$ 588,738 from its internal sources that was utilized to cover staffing and office operation costs that were not covered under ADB budgets. This enabled Plan to deliver on contracted outputs.

Implementation delays:

The original contract between PLAN and CPMU was scheduled to end November 14, 2014. However, as of the end of October 2014 the total expenditures were US$1,601, 281 which was 40% of the total budget of US$3,960,000 as a result of delays and implementation challenges highlighted above. At this point, less than

50% of the planned inputs had been procured and distributed. In order to ensure the project delivered on contracted outputs with high quality, PLAN requested a no cost extension up to the 31st March 2015 to the CPMU and ADB Mid-term evaluation mission that visited the project in October 2014.

Once it was decided that beneficiary contributions were required, Plan conducted extensive consultations with beneficiaries to explain the process and requirements. Based on the recommendation from CPMU, Plan

agreed to collect payments upfront/on the spot. Finalizing this process took longer than expected, resulting in continued staff costs

Procurement of chicken and piglets:

The budgeted unit cost for each chicken was US$6.67 per head X 6 chickens per beneficiary equalling

US$40 per head. This second time most bids submitted met the requirements and were not rejected. For training materials, demonstration plots and aquaculture inputs the bid prices were very close to the estimated prices. However for chicken and piglets the unit prices were considerably higher than the

budgeted unit price. For chicken the following contracts were signed with suppliers:


Table 6: Suppliers of chicken

Province Supplier Heads Unit cost

(US$)

Total

(US$)

Siem Reap Chheang Hout 6,204 8.5 52,734

Banteay Meanchey Chheang Hout 2,406 8.5 20,451

Kampong Cham Chheang Hout 5,892 8.0 47,136

Kampong Thom Chheang Hout 6,444 7.5 48,330

Kampong Speu Chheang Hout 6,558 7.5 49,185

Oddar Meanchey Chheang Hout 2,736 9.0 24,624

Preah Vihear Chheang Hout 4,962 10 49,620

Takeo MAKDA 3,945 8.9 35,032

Prey Veng Sing Chob 3,930 7.2 28,217

Svay Rieng Chan Kosal 5,046 5.5 27,543

TOTAL 48,123 8.0 382,872

Final and accepted bids were therefore over budget by US$ 65,620 when compared with the budgeted unit price mentioned above for 48,123 heads, however the suppliers only managed to distribute less than 25% of

the contracted chicken heads and there was only a small overspending. For piglets the following contracts were signed with suppliers:

Table 7: Suppliers of piglets

Province Supplier Heads Unit cost (US$)

Total (US$)

Siem Reap Chheang Hout 1,372 70 96,040

Banteay Meanchey Chheang Hout 190 90 17,100

Kampong Cham

Kampong Thom

Kampong Speu Chheang Hout 541 70 37,870

Oddar Meanchey Chheang Hout 535 70 37,450

Preah Vihear

Takeo Chheang Hout 867 70 60,690

Prey Veng Thoung Moeun 482 69.5 33,499

Svay Rieng Chheang Hout 688 70 48,160

TOTAL 4,675 71 330,809

In Kampong Cham, Kampong Thom and Preah Vihear the selected supplier (it was the same supplier for all three provinces) did not want to sign the contract as he could sell the piglets at higher price somewhere else.

PLAN bid a third time but all bids submitted had unit prices higher than US$90. By then PLAN was already discussing with CPMU the possibility of doing local procurement to which CPMU agreed. Budgeted unit cost was US$ 60 per head, which meant that at an average price of US$71 across all suppliers there would have

been an overspending of US$50,309, however contracted suppliers only managed to distribute around 50% of the contracted piglet heads and the overspending was only around US$25,155. The fact that the contracts with suppliers were cancelled before completing the distributions and the introduction of the local

procurement system meant more flexibility for beneficiaries. Many of them shifted from chicken to piglets on the last quarter of 2014 as they got scared of their chicken dying due to some disease outbreaks.

No cost extension:

Due to the delays mentioned above in the implementation of activities for the EFAP-AF Project PLAN

received approval for a no-cost contract extension of 4.5 additional months (until March 31, 2015) in order for PLAN to complete the following activities while ensuring full programmatic quality:

a. Collection of first round of beneficiary contributions: The beneficiaries that received project inputs in the first round of distributions were informed that they would have to pay their contribution 2 months after the distribution. Due to the delay in the procurement and distribution of the inputs for

most beneficiaries they had to pay their contribution in the first quarter of 2015. b. Local procurement of piglets and chickens: As a result of the difficulties encountered in procuring

chickens and piglets at competitive prices using Standard Operational Procedures (SOPs), CPMU

suggested shifting to local procurement. PLAN developed local procurement guidelines and the local procurement of chickens and piglets commenced in October ending in mid-January 2015.


c. Distribution of project inputs: Apart from the chickens and piglets PLAN also distributed fishing nets for beneficiaries recently identified in September 2014 as well as vegetable seeds that were

not distributed during the first round. d. Training and follow up of project beneficiaries: Due to the delay in procurement most beneficiaries

received their inputs from October to December 2014. Therefore, it was important that additional

follow up support was provided to beneficiaries throughout the no cost extension. e. Completion of communal activities for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation:

Communes started their communal activities in September 2014 and these were completed by the

end of the no cost extension. f. Capacity building of Self-Help Groups (SHGs): The 401 SHGs participating in the project required

continued capacity building support and follow up so that eventually they will become Farmer

Organisations registered at the Provincial Department of Agriculture. During the no cost extension period PLAN conducted a rapid assessment9 of their capacity development needs and then, based on the assessment results PLAN developed and implemented the capacity development plan until

the end of the no cost extension. g. Sustainability of the intervention: During the no cost extension period more focus was on

strengthening the existing community-based mechanism to ensure the sustainability of the

components so that beneficiaries continue having support on extension and veterinary services, health, sanitation and nutrition beyond the contract timeframe.

h. Approved changes in the Investment Package: In the investment package the budget allocated to

inputs for beneficiaries was adjusted based on the changes happening in the field (e.g. reduced interest in vegetable seeds, increased interest on piglets, and so forth). Additionally some budget was allocated to cover the extra expenses of the increased number of staff and transportation

costs associated with local procurement. A total of US$39,800 was included for this purpose. In order to extend the contract timeframe by 4.5 additional months, PLAN reduced the total value of the investment package by US$87,271.

i. Proposed changes in the Remuneration Budget: The contract of the Specialists were extended up to December 2014 for the Nutrition & Gender Specialists as well as the Community Development Specialist as well as up to March 2015 for the Project Manager, Livelihoods & Extension Specialist

and the Agriculture & Fisheries Specialist. j. Proposed changes in the Reimbursable Expenses: The budget for per diem and land transport

was increased so that the Specialists could conduct follow up visits and support beneficiaries

k. Proposed changes in Provisional Sums: The budget for support costs of SGs and for communications was increased to cover the additional expenditure during the no cot extension whilst other lines with little spending were adjusted to the revised level of expenditure during the

no cost extension. l. Finally PLAN proposed to use the contingency sum of US$100,000 to cover part of the

administrative budget for the no cost extension. This contingency budget covered the extra cost of

staff and required administrative costs to provide follow up support and capacity building to project beneficiaries and Self-Help Groups.

Later on the 22nd January 2015 PLAN reported to CPMU that there was an under-spending on some lines of the investment package budget and PLAN proposed to use some of this under-spent budget on three activities relevant for the phasing out of PLAN from the EFAP-AF. Initially it was expected that beneficiary

preferences for piglets would have compensated the under-spending in other lines. However the increased number of piglets distributed to beneficiaries had not been enough to cover all the expected under-spending in other components.

The approved additional activities were the following:

1. End of contract accountability workshops10: 3 cluster one-day workshops to inform all relevant stakeholders about the end of the contract for PLAN and participation in EFAP-AF. Workshop participants prepared a sustainability workplan for the EFAP-AF components implemented by

PLAN. 2. Internal evaluation of the project components: two day workshop in Phnom Penh of PLAN staff

and SGs to evaluate the different EFAP-AF components implemented by PLAN.

3. Payment of surveyors and data entry: A rapid internal evaluation of the components was conducted which required additional capacity to conduct a small survey and data entry.

4. Production of videos: showing the impact of the EFAP-AF components

9 Please see Appendix 4 for further details about this assessment.

10 Please refer to Appendixes 5, 6 and 7 for details of these workshops


In total PLAN requested to use US$42,792 from the under-spent budget in the investment package to cover

these additional activities.

Contributions from beneficiaries:

According to the initial plans PLAN should have collected the following amount in cash contributions from beneficiaries:

Table 9: Estimated beneficiary contributions

Activity Benef. Package per

HH % Contrib.

Home-gardening 1,987 4.27 US$ 100%

Aquaculture 2,437 25 US$ 50%

Poultry raising 5,670 40 US$ 50%

Pig raising 16,456 60 US$ 50%

Actual amount of cash collected:

Table 10: Actual cash collected from contributions

Description USD

currency KHR

currency

Amount of cash contributions collected by PLAN 477,977.95 25,051,000.00

Amount of cash contributions collected by AMK 429.00 87,667,600.00

Total amount of cash collected in US$ and KHR 478,406.95 112,718,600.00

Grand total11 in US$ US$506,586.60

The final amount of cash collected was slightly higher than the planned amount because in some provinces the inputs were procured at a higher price than planned. PLAN transferred the contributions collected independently to the EFAP-AF Project account at the bank. The table below shows the number of

households per province that have not yet paid their contributions. In annexes there is a more detailed list with the full name and address of these households.

Table 11: Outstanding debt from beneficiaries

Province HHs Total (US$)

Kampong Speu 667 7,890

Prey Veng 890 15,600

Kampong Thom 260 3,134

Siem Reap 250 1,708

11

Exchange rate of 4,000 KHR per US$)


Preah Vihear 675 20,210

Oddar Meanchey 462 10,421

Takeo 808 21,592

Banteay Meanchey 180 3,588

Kampong Cham 137 2,288

Svay Rieng 1065 25,916

TOTAL 5,394 US$112,347

The collection of the beneficiary contributions required the collective effort and close collaboration of the SGs, local authorities and AMK staff which in some communes was slightly challenging due to

misunderstandings and miscommunications, especially during the first days of organising the collection of the contributions. However the reason why these 5,394 households did not pay their contributions seems to be linked to the fact that they had to pay 2 months after receiving the inputs. Therefore by the time they were

requested to make the payment some had migrated, others were unable to pay because they had some urgent emergencies (e.g. other debt repayment, health issues and so forth) and others refused to pay because they claimed that the inputs were not good. A lesson learnt as also highlighted by CPMU, was to

collect contributions from beneficiaries upfront, instead of allowing a collection period of two months.

G. Disbursements

As a result of slower than expected spending in the first year of implementation it was necessary to extend

the bank guarantee twice in order to cover two additional quarters (up to March 2014). From March 2014 onwards PLAN sent monthly invoices to CPMU for reimbursement of project expenditures.

H. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement

The figure below (figure 2) shows the organigramme within the PLAN team for the implementation of the

contract:

PLAN contracted 6 consultants with the disciplines and described in the table below: Table12: List of Specialists contracted by PLAN

Plan Int. Cambodia Country

Director

CPMU PPMUs

IAs

Project Manager/

Livelihoods

Specialist

Graphic

Designer

Training & Capacity Building

Specialist

Livelihoods & Extension

Specialist

Nutrition &

Gender

Specialist

Community

Development

Specialist

Agriculture

& Fisheries

Specialist

Local

partner NGOs

Plan Int.

Canada

support

Project support

personnel


Consultants were recruited as required following what was agreed in the contract and in close coordination

with CPMU for any replacement required and for contract extensions. Most consultants were recruited at the beginning of the contract and worked up to the end. Only two posts required a replacement:

- The Capacity Building & Training Specialists resigned in April 2013 for health reasons just after signing the contract as he was a very senior person that had just had surgery. CPMU was informed about his

resignation and the recruitment process for a replacement started straightaway. A new consultant was identified and after endorsement from CPMU she was contracted and joined PLAN in June 2015.

- The Nutrition & Gender Specialists also resigned in April 2014 for personal reasons and a replacement

was quickly identified and contracted after CPMU endorsed her recruitment.

Due to the delays in implementation of the contract all consultants had their contracts extended so that they

were in the field supporting capacity building activities and distribution of inputs. The table below shows the initially agreed contract length and the final:

Table 13: Initial versus final person-months for PLAN specialists

I. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers

Once beneficiary lists were adjusted and all selected beneficiaries were aware of the contributions’ payment

Main disciplines of the assignment

Responsible

Lead

Project management, oversight incl. finance, compliance, M&E

- Project Manager/Livelihoods Specialist (Team Leader)

Food use and nutrition

trainings

- Capacity Building/Training Specialist

- Nutrition and Gender Specialist

Home gardening trainings - Capacity Building/Training Specialist - Agriculture and Fisheries Specialist

Health and sanitation

trainings


- Nutrition and Gender Specialist

Disaster risk management

in agriculture


- Agriculture and Fisheries Specialist

Diversified livelihoods (livestock and aquaculture)

- Agriculture and Fisheries Specialist - Livelihoods and Extension Specialist

Design of training materials Graphic Designer

Responsible Initial Final

Lead (Months) (Months)

Project Manager/Livelihoods Specialist 12.00 15.36

Capacity Building/Training Specialist 6.23 8.95

Agriculture and Fisheries Specialist 18.01 23.64

Nutrition and Gender Specialist 15.01 17.75

Community Development Specialist 15.01 17.32

Livelihoods and Extension Specialist 12.01 22.95

Graphic Designer 1.15 0.55


the procurement process started in April 2014 with the call for bids and selection of most competitive bids. Vegetable seeds were requested from Kbal Koh Agricultural Research Station which is also participating in

EFAP-AF through the production of quality vegetable seeds. It was agreed that PLAN would pay the production costs. Bids for aquaculture inputs submitted price quotations at the estimated market price. To avoid long travelling hours for fingerlings, chicken and piglets the bidding process was geographically limited

to the province level. However bids for chicken and piglets submitted price quotations at higher prices than the estimated market price. Re-bidding for some inputs took place as many as three times, with no supplier meeting the expected

market price. After PLAN presented clarification for the higher bid prices, CPMU granted permission to select the supplier with the best bid even if the price was much higher than expected. Most contracts were awarded to Chheang Hout Company based in Phnom Penh which submitted the lowest unit price in most provinces

and met all bid requirements and agreements were signed by mid-July 2014. Input distributions were contracted to be completed no later than the end of August 2014. Contracted suppliers for chicken and piglets made very slow progress every week. PLAN had several meetings with the contracted suppliers to try

to understand what the issues were and find solutions. Suppliers promised to complete all distributions by the end of September but their performance did not improve and by the end of September less than 50% of the contracted chicken and piglets had been distributed. A second and final meeting took place at the end of

September to end the contracts by mid-October as per the “contract termination clause”. By mid-October the companies contracted were able to distribute only 50% (2416 heads out of the contracted 4,655) of the piglets agreed and 25% of the agreed numbers of chicken (7,560 heads out of the contracted 45,498).

Simultaneously PLAN had a meeting with CPMU in early August and discussed this issue. The problem seemed to be that in Cambodia there are only few farms producing chicken and piglets but these farms

produce to sell in big urban centres and the breeds they raise are high yielding exotic breeds not adapted to the living conditions in rural Cambodia. Therefore to procure the local breeds preferred by ID Poor households the contracted suppliers had to buy them from collectors in the target communes which bought

the chicken and piglets from small farmers. Therefore the collectors bought the chicken and piglet at the market price, then sold them to the contracted supplier for a profit and then the contracted supplier sold them to PLAN for a profit. As a result the procurement price paid by PLAN was much higher than the market price.

Moreover, the contracted suppliers were managing the procurement and distribution of chicken and piglets (taking place in the target communes) from their office in Phnom Penh and it was very challenging for them to coordinate properly with SGs (this was essential because SGs knew beneficiaries and close coordination

with them was required to arrange distributions). Therefore misunderstandings and conflict was not unusual because of miscommunications and because sometimes SGs did not like the chicken and piglets provided by the supplier. At the meeting with CPMU PLAN agreed to procure chicken and piglets directly from small

farmers and collectors locally in the rural areas so that procurement prices would be the market price and the animals procured would be straightaway distributed to beneficiaries which would minimize stress and animal mortality because of the close follow up of the distribution and the little travel time required for the

animals from the procurement place to the distribution point. The following table summarizes the differences between the SOPs and the local procurement systems:

Table 14: Comparison between standard ADB procurement and Local Procurement

SOPs (for chicken and piglets) Local procurement

Suitable for larger companies that are able to understanding and submitting bids and meet all the

requirements

Simple procedures adapted to small suppliers in rural areas

Templates require a lot of writing in formal English language

Forms are still in English but much simpler and only require the basic information

needed for the procurement

Managed by PLAN staff to minimize complications in case corrections and re-submissions are required

Participation of local authorities (Commune Chief) in procurement committee

Most of the work before signing the contract takes place in Phnom Penh

Most of the work before signing the contract takes place in the field

During distributions difficult to manage complains

because the supplier is not based in the field

Complaints are managed on the spot

because all relevant stakeholders are in the field and can be reached straightaway

Many phone calls are required and misunderstandings

are frequent because the supplier and the target communes are very far away

Coordination, transparency and

accountability with local stakeholders and beneficiaries is easy because everybody can


SOPs (for chicken and piglets) Local procurement

see what is happening

More staff are required to write procurement documents in English that meet the standards

More field officers and transport means are needed to procure the animals

Weak follow up of animals which results in higher mortality rate

Close follow up of animals to ensure they are properly handled during transport, distribution and that animal health issues are dealt with

straightaway which lowers mortality rate.

Procurement prices much higher than market price because company buy from middlemen at provincial

level

Procure at market price as we buy directly from farmers and local collectors

Only 15% of the total number of piglets distributed and 31% of chicken were procured following the SOPs

before the local procurement guidelines were developed and approved. Local procurement started in September 2014 and finished in mid-January 2015. In September 2014 Plan quickly recruited five additional staff and worked together with local SG partners to ramp up local procurement efforts. During the distribution

of chicken there were some disease outbreaks that caused the sudden death of many chickens in some villages (especially in Preah Vihear and Banteay Meanchey provinces) and made beneficiaries change their mind and prefer piglets instead of chickens even if chickens were more profitable and easier to market than

piglets. Vegetable seeds were provided to a total of 4,221 households. Table 15: Sachets of Vegetable seeds distributed and remaining

Provinces Sachets

Distributed

Sachets

remaining

Preah Vihear 1080 6934

Siem Reap 1884 2124

Kampong Cham 1152 996

Oddar Meanchey 1386 720

Prey Veng 2511 2436

Banteay Meanchey 1044 396

Kampong Thom 1593 1378

Kampong Speu 4446 1320

Svay Rieng 1356 8371

Takeo 984 678

Total 17436 25353

For the remaining sachets PLAN submitted a proposal to CPMU requesting its distribution to beneficiaries through the SHGs. The proposal was submitted in February 2015 and requested to distribute the remaining vegetable seeds to EFAP-AF beneficiaries although there was some constraints to consider:

a. The seeds were collected from Kbal Koh in May 2013, most of this time the seeds had been

stored at the office of the SGs in the target provinces of the project. Therefore it was possible that

the germination capacity of the seeds had been affected. b. PLAN contract ends on the 31st March 2015. Therefore there was limited time available. Within

this timeframe it was not possible to conduct a beneficiary selection and distribution of seeds.

Considering these two important constraints PLAN proposed to distribute the seeds to the SHGs participating in EFAP-AF so that they distribute the seeds to EFAP-AF beneficiaries’ members of their

groups. This would have two advantages; firstly EFAP-AF beneficiaries would grow vegetables and hence improving the diversity and quality of their diet; secondly this would contribute to strengthening the capacity of the SHGs as they would have to manage the seeds and distribute them in a transparent way accountable

to their members. SHGs signed an agreement with PLAN committing them to:


Use the seeds exclusively for the benefit of EFAP-AF beneficiaries (ID Poor households in the target commune).

Conduct a simple germination test to find out the germination capacity of the seeds. Decide whether to charge beneficiaries recipients of the seeds a small fee per sachet or give them

for free. This would depend on the results of the germination test as well as on what the SHG

Management committee decides. The fee charged to beneficiaries could not be more than 500 KHR per sachet.

SHGs must keep appropriate records of the results of the SHGs as well as the distribution lists

and cash collected. All cash collected must be used for the non-profit activities of the SHG (e.g. awareness raising

sessions) or for the micro-finance activities (e.g. use the money to provide loans to members)

The seeds were distributed to SHGs in Siem Reap, Banteay Meanchey, Prey Veng, Svay Rieng, Kampong

Thom and Kampong Cham12. The SHGs in Preah Vihear, Takeo, Oddar Meanchey and Kampong Speu did not received seeds because the SGs were unable to provide the required support. Therefore and considering the limited time available those 6 provinces were the SGs could support the distribution of seeds

to SHGs were prioritized. As mentioned in previous sections of this report all consultants contract by PLAN performed well and when a replacement was required the recruitment process was quickly done in close consultation with CPMU.

J. Performance of SGs13

To assess the performance of the eight Sub-grantee partners that have worked in the EFAP-AF Project PLAN has developed a list of indicators and a scoring system which tries to balance the different levels of

difficulty found by each partner in their province and their own capacity to perform the tasks assigned. The table below describes the criteria used and the scoring system:

Table 16: Scale for SGs scorecard

Criteria for scorecard Good (2 points) Average (1 point) Weak (0 points)

Beneficiary HHs/village Less than 35 35 to 60 More than 60

Beneficiary HHs/staff More than 1,100 800 to 1,100 Less than 800

Experience field officers Most staff experienced

Half staff experienced

No experienced staff

Experience Project Coordinator More than 8 years

experienced

5 to 3 years

experienced

Less than 3 years

experience

Budget/ Beneficiary HHs Less than US$35/ HHs

US$39 to US$45 per HH

More than US$45 per HH

Beneficiary HHs/SHGs Less than 100 100 to 135 More than 135

% Strong SHGs More than 30% 20-30% Less than 20%

% Beneficiary HHs received agricultural inputs*

More than 65% (6 points)

40 to 65% (4 points)

Less than 40% (0 points)

Piglet mortality rate Less than 3% 3 to 10% More than 10%

Chicken mortality rate Less than 10% 10 to 30% More than 30%

Percentage beneficiary HHs

received incentive**

More than 60%

(4 points)

30 to 60%

(2 points)

Less than 30%

(0 points)

% Beneficiaries participants in sanitation training

More than 65% 50 to 65% Less than 50%

% Beneficiaries participants in cooking demonstrations


% Beneficiaries participants in

nutrition campaigns


% Beneficiaries participants in hand-washing campaigns


% Beneficiaries participants in field days


12

Please see Appendix 14 for a comprehensive list of the SHGs that received the seeds 13

Please refer to Appendix 3 for a full report on the assessment and evaluation of the SGs that signed agreements with PLAN for the

implementation of the contract.


Most criteria have a standard score of 2 points for good performance, 1 point for “average” and no points for bad performance. However there are a few exceptions in the scoring system with the aim to make a fairer

evaluation of the SG’s performance. These are the following: In-kind input distribution: This required a considerable effort from the SGs staff in terms of field

coordination, strong management systems and strong coordination with all project stakeholders (e.g. PLAN, PPMU, local authorities). Besides the distribution of inputs is a key and essent ial part of the project. Because of these reasons for the good performance PLAN allocates 6 points, 3

points for average and 0 points for weak performance. Sanitation incentive: The same rational applies to this input although it is easier to deliver cash

grants than in-kind inputs such as live animals. Therefore the score given is 4 points for good

performance, 2 points for average and 0 points for weak performance. PLAN Score: The PLAN team of specialists was required to give a score from 10 to 0 points to

each one of the SGs based on the following criteria:

o Commitment and support to the project from the Core team at HQ o Quality of reports and information submitted

o Quick action taken to address issues during implementation

The results of the scoring exercise were the following:

Table 17: Scorecard on SGs assessment

Criteria for scorecard

NAS PADEK PK SK SP HURREDO SSO FLD FLD FLD

KPC PV BMC KPT KPS SRP SVR TKO OMC PVH

PLAN Score 5 4 7 6 9 8 10 2 3 1

Beneficiary HHs/village

1 0 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 0

Beneficiary HHs/staff

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1

Experience field

officers

0 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 2 2

Experience Project Coordinator

1 0 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

Budget/

Beneficiary HHs

2 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 2

Beneficiary HHs/SHGs

1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

% Strong SHGs 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2

% Beneficiary HHs received

agricultural inputs

0 0 0 3 3 6 6 6 3 0

Piglet mortality rate

1 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0

Chicken mortality rate

2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 0

Percentage

beneficiary HHs received incentive

2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 0

% Beneficiaries

participants in sanitation training

1 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1


cooking demonstrations

0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0


nutrition campaigns

2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0


% Beneficiaries participants in hand-washing

campaigns

2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 0

% Beneficiaries participants in field days

0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 2

SCORE 21 18 29 23 29 35 32 27 28 12

The following chart shows the ranking of SGs according to their score: Chart 2: Ranking of SGs according to their performance

As the ranking in the chart above shows HURREDO has been able to achieve the most with the resources given in the project. Santi Sena, Sovann Phum and Ponleur Kumar have performed very well although they

had more resources/ budget to do it. In general the performance of all SG partners was satisfactory as all met the minimum required standards to play their role in the project according to the agreement signed between them and PLAN. SGs had complimentary skills to their government counterparts (PGLD staff)

because SG staff had more flexibility and resources to mobilise communities, draft beneficiary lists, coordinate with local authorities and so forth. On the other hand PGLDs had more technical expertise and training skills. Therefore they made a good match for the implementation of the components.

HURREDO’s performance is rated as highly satisfactory. Probably the key to their success is the strong support that the project team had consistently from the executive director of the organis ation. Santi Sena,

Sovann Phum and Ponleur Kumar also had satisfactory performance. In these 3 partners there was a strong Project Coordinator with solid experience and clear leadership. Farmer Livelihood Development, Srer Khmer, NAS and PADEK had a partly satisfactory performance. All these 4 partners had little support from

their Executive Director and a weak Project Coordinator. The relatively good performance of Farmer Livelihood Development in Oddar Meanchey and Takeo was eclipsed by their very weak work in Preah Vihear province.

K. Evaluation of PLAN’s Performance14

In February 2015 PLAN conducted an internal evaluation of the contract made up of semi -structured interviews with SGs, FPs and VHSGs as well as a household survey in the target communes using a 2%

sample size. All the information compiled together with the regular monitoring data has been used to evaluate the performance of PLAN in this contract and document the lessons learnt to be used in future

14

Please see Appendix 2 for the full report of the internal evaluation & lessons learnt


programming. The evaluation questions were developed by the PLAN team and have the limitations that any internal evaluation would have although it has been an honest effort for constructive criticism and struggle

for improvement. Limitations on Evaluation

The evaluation was conducted by PLAN and the project SGs with FPs and VHSGs, who are direct

implementers of the project; hence, this is a non-independent internal evaluation. Lack of dedicated resource time, dedicated and trained staff, and vast geographical spread of HH survey sample were the k ey limitations of the evaluation. The HH survey was conducted immediately after the project activities, whilst

some follow up and monitoring activities were still ongoing. Hence, the beneficiaries may have not realized the project benefits at the time of the survey. Moreover, this evaluation focused on the immediate impact within the project target beneficiaries and key partners. This evaluation is not comparable with EFAP -AF

baseline study due to different survey methodologies applied. Overall, the internal evaluation affirms that PLAN has been successful in helping poor households of the target one hundred communes strengthen their food security by increasing their awareness on good food utilization, increasing food availability and

diversifying their livelihoods through small scale farming.

Relevance:

All stakeholders consulted believe that the components implemented by PLAN are very relevant in the target communities were poverty levels and malnutrition rates are high whilst access to health services and

sanitation infrastructure is weak. Beneficiary participation has been consistently high in all training and awareness raising activities which is the best indicator to assess the relevance of the components.

Targeting: Using the ID Poor database for targeting beneficiaries is the right approach for this project considering the

large geographical area covered and diversity of the communities targeted in each province. With a different system it would be difficult to ensure consistency in the targeting approach of the project. Besides supporting RGC systems further strengthens their sustainability and makes it easier to coordinate the work with other

development agencies and find synergies that optimize the impact of the work. It takes some years until the ID Poor database is updated and because of that some households graduate out of poverty but they are still ID Poor card holders. The opposite situation also happens and some households fall into poverty but they do

not have the ID Poor card yet and some household have been awarded the ID Poor status but their card has not arrived yet due to the slow progress in the administration system of the Department. All these issues had to be dealt with in close cooperation with local authorities to avoid conflict and raising tensions in the

communities. The inclusion of beneficiary contributions includes an important element of “self-targeting” in the project.

Arguably it can be said that if beneficiaries had to pay for the inputs this would limit the participation to those that are really interested in the inputs. This is not entirely true as it does happen that some non-beneficiaries request eligible beneficiaries to buy inputs for them so that they can benefit of the lower prices. Some

beneficiaries can sell the inputs right away after distribution and still make a profit. However it is only fair to acknowledge that the contributions help get beneficiaries in the project that are genuinely interested and committed to the components. On the negative side, contributions also discourage the participation of those

most vulnerable, such as female headed households. The inclusion of the contributions affected radically beneficiaries’ preferences and they shifted from food producing components to income generating components where women’s participation is lowest according to the training records PLAN has.

Efficiency:

Probably the implementation of the components would have been more efficient if not so many delays had taken place as these meant that staff and offices had to be running while very little of the components was

being implemented in the field. The delays meant that PLAN had to request a no cost extension to finish the implementation of the components with a shift of resources from the investment package to the admin and support costs budget. This resulted in a less efficient intervention. To improve efficiency PLAN should have

put more resources on reporting and procurement which would have made the approval process quicker and speed up implementation. Probably ADB/CPMU could have also provided a more comprehensive induction at the very beginning of the contract providing templates and a description of the standards required for

submission of documents. The introduction of the local procurement system improved the efficiency


(effectiveness, sustainability and so forth) of the component implementation. If this had been the system from the beginning a lot of time and work would have been saved.

Effectiveness:

The components implemented were effective to strengthen the food security of the target households and communities. Maybe more flexibility during implementation would have allowed a higher level of effectiveness. For instance, the options for livelihoods diversification were already decided by the project and

beneficiaries had no choice outside of those options. Including a component for small business creation would have been positive for many ID Poor households that instead of an agricultural activity they could have established a small-shop or do petty trade in their village. The household survey revealed that 83.7% of

the households surveyed eat meals with foods from all three groups (carbohydrates, proteins and vegetables or fruits) as shown in the chart below:

Chart 3: Dietary diversity

Awareness of exclusive breastfeeding the first six months of life is also high (81.2%) as shown in the chart

below: Chart 4: Exclusive breastfeeding

Over 70% of the beneficiaries that received a sanitation incentive built a latrine or bought materials to build one:

Chart 5: Use of sanitation incentives


Therefore even if it is still too early to assess the full impact of the project the results of the household survey

show a high level of awareness amongst the target population regarding good nutrition and hygiene practices. Probably it would have been better if PLAN had involved the local media (TV and radio) in the campaigns to raise awareness. Involving also the private sector (local latrine manufacturers, soap

manufacturers and so forth) would have allowed the key awareness messages to have more resources and to reach persons that cannot be reached with traditional awareness raising methods. Journalists could also be trained to better understand the issue of food insecurity and malnutrition in Cambodia so that they can

report about it in their channels. For instance, disabled people or the elderly with reduced mobility can listen to the key messages on the radio or TV but they may not be able to go out of their house and participate in the village based awareness raising sessions. Other beneficiaries that are busy with livelihood activities

during the day can miss the awareness raising session in the village but may listen to the messages on the radio/TV in the evening when they are back at home. Local latrine manufacturers and soap manufacturers15 may be interested in participating and supporting hygiene awareness and sanitation promotion activities.

PLAN contacted the international organisation “International Development Enterprises (IDE)16” to link communities with the network of local latrine manufacturers. However closer and more comprehensive collaboration with the private sector could lead this type of intervention to be more effective in reaching the

expected results with less resources. The private sector also could have been more involved in the livelihood diversification activities. More communication between traders and farmers could help farmers to produce the agricultural products demanded by the markets that meet the required quality standards. This would

result in higher income for farmers.

Sustainability:

The sustainability of the components depends to a large extent on the interest of beneficiary households to continue applying what they learnt in the project. All components are relevant for beneficiaries, therefore

most probably beneficiaries will try to continue applying what they learnt in the project unless it becomes irrelevant or impossible for them. Many beneficiaries now built a latrine and have diversified their livelihoods through a project component that increases their food production and/or income.

Over 50% of beneficiaries claimed that they will continue raising livestock or poultry beyond the project timeframe. PLAN took some actions to strengthen the sustainability of the components. For instance, the components were implemented through village volunteers (FPs and VHSGs), local NGOs and Provincial

Government Line Departments. This is very important for sustainability because all of them will continue working in the target communities for many years after the end of the project and they can continue providing further support to the target communities. PLAN also trained Commune Councils for the operations

and maintenance of the DRR communal activities and the vegetable seeds distributed are “non hybrid” so that beneficiaries can save seeds from the harvest and use them in the next seasons. Similarly with the livestock and poultry components PLAN, SGs and PDA staff put a lot of emphasis on ensuring the

15

Popular soaps in Cambodia are produced by multinational companies such as Unilever 16

http://www.ideorg.org/WhereWeWork/Home.aspx

http://www.ideorg.org/WhereWeWork/Home.aspx


vaccination of the animals and linking beneficiaries with the local VAHWs so that they can access veterinary services when required. Finally around three quarters of the 401 SHGs participating in the project already

existed when PLAN signed the contract. This was done on purpose to maximize the sustainability of the work done in the project with SHGs, efforts to have them registered should continue because registration (and hence legal recognition) is also very important for sustainability of the groups.

To maximise the sustainability of the interventions PGLDs, CCs and FPs/VHSGs should continue providing follow up support to beneficiaries and communities for as long as required. In February PLAN organised

closure workshops and invited all these stakeholders to participate and come up with a workplan to ensure the sustainability of the components. The results of the workshops are included in the Appendixes. Other factors affecting sustainability are migration and disasters/ climate change. ID Poor households are very

mobile and it is common they migrate for some periods of the year to urban centres or neighbouring countries for casual labour jobs. This greatly affects the sustainability of activities. However, there are many households, where only some members migrate (usually the young adults), whilst the rest stay at the village.

PLAN and SGs prioritized to train and work with those household members that stayed in the village. Disaster and climate change can affect people’s livelihoods as the resilience of rural livelihoods does not continue to be strengthened/ adapted to the new weather patterns as well as the capacity of communities

and authorities to reduce vulnerabilities and prepare to respond in case of disasters. This type of preparedness goes across all levels of the Government administration, from the national (or even at ASEAN regional level) to sub-national and to the local level. PLAN and SGs have put the foundations in raising

awareness amongst target communities, training CCDMs. Nevertheless, further follow up support needs to be done given the possibilities for increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Globalisation also brings new risks to these communities. Any disaster or shock that impacts the US Dollar or the price of

rice will negatively impact local livelihoods in the target communities (similar to 2008 with the global food crisis) making it harder for ID poor households to secure food for a healthy life. Hence, continued efforts are required to build the resilience and capacity of people and communities to improve their food security and to

adapt to live in the volatile environment of the future.

L. Lessons Learnt and recommendations

Overall, the internal evaluation affirms that PLAN has been successful in helping poor households of the

target one hundred communes strengthen their food security by increasing their awareness on good food utilization, increasing food availability and diversifying their livelihoods through smal l scale farming.

1. Nutrition, hygiene and sanitation are the components that have reached most beneficiaries with the support of VHSGs. SSIs also indicated that these are the components most relevant for beneficiaries, which also have the highest impact. Cooking demonstrations and awareness raising sessions seem to

be preferred by VHSGs and considered more effective than campaigns. 2. Livelihood diversification components have also been popular amongst beneficiaries, especially livestock

and poultry raising because of the higher chance for beneficiaries of earning an income from them compared to home-gardening and aquaculture which are mostly oriented to food production for the household. Even if livestock and poultry raising are much riskier17, beneficiaries still preferred them

considering the return on investment and also because they fit well with the local farming systems. 3. Future projects should consider giving more options to beneficiaries regarding livelihoods diversification.

All components were agriculture based, but in rural areas of Cambodia a lot of poor households make a living (or can make one) from small businesses such as food vendors, petty trade, small grocery shops, sewing, mechanics, and so forth. These activities encourage women participation as they can be done

near the household, where they can take care of their children. However, the fields needs assessment conducted allowed PLAN to design each component to match the needs, capacities and preferences of beneficiaries.

4. The participation of PGLDs with SGs for the implementation of the components was adequate as they

had complementary skills, which optimized the use of resources and capacities. SGs mobilized communities, coordinated with local authorities and selected beneficiaries whilst PGLDs conducted training and capacity building activities. SGs claimed that the participation of PGLDs made the work with

local authorities easier as they were more receptive and willing to help, knowing that PGLDs were involved in the project.

17 Riskier in the sense that they are more vulnerable to disease and theft


5. Most project inputs were provided in-kind and the lack of familiarity of PLAN with the EFAP-AF SOPs made the process too long. Procurement took a long time and many months were lost. If beneficiaries

had received the inputs earlier more time could have been spent on providing monitoring and follow up support which would have positively increased the impact of the components on beneficiaries. Soon after signing the contract. CPMU provided extensive support to PLAN. At the very beginning PLAN

participated in a meeting where the main parts of the SOPs were explained. This was followed by additional meetings where CPMU revised the procurement documents submitted by PLAN, corrected them and provided alternatives and solutions to overcome any challenges faced by PLAN. The PLAN

team of Specialists did not have any staff specialised on procurement and it is recommended that for future projects at least one person in the team is specialised in procurement and a longer training is provided at the start of the project.

6. Procurement of inputs for food and agricultural production seems to be easier, faster and better if done

locally close to beneficiaries, this is especially the case for life animals such as fingerlings, livestock and

poultry because transporting them and changing their surrounding environment, food and water cause them a lot of stress which makes them weak, vulnerable to diseases and more likely to die. The development and approval of the local procurement guidelines was a turning point for PLAN in the

implementation of the contract as for the first time many beneficiaries were receiving their livestock inputs quickly and budget spending was high. This does not apply to seeds, as there are no local producers. The EFAP-AF approach was correct producing the seeds in collaboration with the General

Directorate of Agriculture (GDA). Beneficiaries had a good opinion of the seeds considering them of good quality with high germination capacity and able to produce seeds for future agricultural seasons. If EFAP-AF was already distributing them through the PPMUs then it would probably had been better for

PLAN not to distribute seeds simultaneously as this confused beneficiaries and duplicated efforts. 7. To improve hygiene and sanitation PLAN provided cash incentives so that it was in agreement with

PLAN programme and its agreements with the Cambodian Ministry of Rural Development. This was the first time that PLAN was providing sanitation incentives and the evaluation results show that 71.6% of the beneficiaries interviewed used the incentives to build a latrine or prepared to build a latrine. It was

also the first time that PLAN collected beneficiary contributions, which worked well when the contributions were collected on the spot at the same time that the inputs were given to beneficiaries. For those beneficiaries that were given the chance of paying two months later some of them did not pay in

the end. In future projects all contributions should be collected at the same time that the inputs are delivered to beneficiaries as advised by CPMU from the beginning.

8. The inclusion of the contributions after beneficiary selection caused delays as beneficiaries had to be informed of the contributions and beneficiary lists had to be re-done. This has been also the first time that PLAN collects beneficiary contributions and it took PLAN a long time to fully understand the

implications of this activity as well as to come up with a system to do it after assessing all risks involved with it. Beneficiary contributions could have been included in the project from the beginning so that PLAN had had more time to prepare accordingly.

9. The inclusion of contributions increased the number of beneficiary households participating in chicken

and pig raising (were women participation is low) whilst decreased the number of beneficiaries on home-

gardening and aquaculture (where women participation was higher). To encourage women participation PLAN should have made an extra effort to implement these components in a way that facilitates women participation and challenges gender roles in the target households and communities. This should be

considered in future projects. 10. The project has worked with SHGs to build their capacity developing by-laws, having good management

systems and having saving and loans for the members. However the contract timeframe was very short for building the capacity of SHGs to be registered as Farmer Organisations at the Provincial Department of Agriculture. Future projects should allocate more resources (human and material) for the capaci ty

building of SHGs as well as a longer timeframe. 11. To strengthen the effectiveness and sustainability of PLAN’s work on food security it should be

considered to work more closely with the private sector from the beginning and create opportunities in

the project for direct engagement between producers and traders so that farmers can produce good demanded by markets and of the required quality so that farmers can sale more and at higher prices.

12. PLAN also could engage more with the media (especially radio and television) and the private sector to raise awareness on nutrition, health and sanitation so as to reach more beneficiaries and over a longer


period of time. Journalists could also be trained to understand better the issue of food insecurity and malnutrition in Cambodia so that they can report about it in their channels.

13. Finally, the components implemented affirms sustainability, as they are relevant for beneficiaries who

have been trained in the importance of these components in their lives and how to continue with them

beyond the lifespan of the project. Working with local NGOs based in the target provinces and PGLDs, and training village based volunteers have further strengthened the sustainability of the project. However, migration of the households was a key concern for sustainability in addition to disaster and

climate change. To avoid this PLAN worked with non-migrant households, and worked with CCDMs to develop commune disaster preparedness plans and to raise awareness amongst the population on how to reduce vulnerability to disasters and adapt to climate change.

M. Appendixes

Appendix 1: Matrix on Targets

Appendix 2: Internal evaluation & lessons learned report

Appendix 3: SGs performance evaluation report

Appendix 4: SHGs Assessment Report

Appendix 5: Closure workshops report Takeo

Appendix 6: Closure workshops report Kampong Thom

Appendix 7: Closure workshops report Siem Reap

Appendix 8: List of HHs with outstanding payments (only submitted electronically)

Appendix 9: Contact details FPs, VAHWs, VHSGs & CCDMs (only submitted electronically)

Appendix 10: Gender Indicators

Appendix 11: PLAN Logframe and M&E Framework

Appendix 12: DRR Communal Activities

Appendix 13: List of SHGs that received Vegetable seeds (only submitted electronically)

Appendix 14: List of SHGs (only submitted electronically

Appendix 15: GAFSP Core Project Progress Indicators

Appendix 16: Final financial report

ENDS

grant 0302: emergency food assistance project additional financing final completion report.pdf ·...

Documents