Summary of Terminal Evaluation
１.

Outline of the ProjectCountry: Laos P.D.R.

Project Title: Forest Management and Community
Support Project（FORCOM）

Issue/Sector:

ForestResource

Management, Cooperation Scheme : Technical Cooperation

Community Development
Division in charge: JICA Laos OfficeTotal cost (at the terminal evaluation study): About
660,000,000 yen

Period ofFebruary 2004- February 2009

Partner Country’s’ Implementing Organization：

Cooperation(5 years)National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES),
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF)

Background of the project
Agriculture and forestry sector, in which about 80% of the total population currently sustains
their livelihood, is the most important industry accounting for a half of total gross domestic
product in Lao PDR. Shifting cultivation is the major agriculture production system in thenorthern Lao PDR. The land type mainly consisting of fallow of the shifting cultivation has
rapidly increased in recent year and it occupies more than 60% of the total land in the northin 2002. It is considered that the increase of shifting cultivation is the primary cause of thehigher rate of forest loss in the region than the national average.
Forest Management and Community Support project (FORCOM) aims at shifting cultivation
stabilization and preventing forest resources through Community Support Programme (CSP).
Income generation activities of CSP are livestock activities, aquaculture, agroforestry,waving, orchard, paddy field expansion and so on. Before six month of the projecttermination, the Team implemented evaluation study in order to assess the achievement levelof the project and make recommendations on measures to be taken for improvement of theproject.
1-1

１-２ Project Overview(1) Overall Goal
Decreasing rate of forest cover is reduced in the districts where project sites are located.
(2) Project Purpose
Activities leading to sustainable land and forest use begin to expand in the project site and its surrounding
areas, initiated by villagers.
(3) Outputs
Output 1: Activities based on appropriate land and forest use are demonstrated in the Initial Sites.
Output 2: Extension staff (DAFEO/PAFEC) gain extension skills and techniques through training.
Output 3: Under the framework of Community Support Programme (CSP), activities based on appropriate
land and forest use are implemented at the Pilot Sites by villagers and extension staff.

vii

Output 4: Recommendations are made on sustainable land and forest use practices and on extension
systems and methods.
(4) Inputs (JFY 2004-2008)
Japanese Side
Long-term Experts: 11 personnel in total of 323PM
Short-term Experts: 9 personnel in total of 15PM
Training of Lao Counterparts in Japan: A total of 25 personnel
Equipment supplied by JICA:
29 units of motorbike, office equipment and so on. Total cost US$ 1,258,116(as of March 2008)
Local cost: JPY17,000,000
Lao SideCounterparts: Presently 43 personnel (the project office 11, 13 from PAFO in 6 provinces, 24 fromDAFO in 9 districts and NAFES 3)
Facilities: Office spaces (Luang Prabaung and NAFES)
Local cost: NAFES 52,525US$（JPY5,600,000）Provincial and district government 60,652US$（JPY6,500,000）（Note：Cost of Provincial and district government does not include budget of JFY 2008/9）
２.Evaluation Team
Membersof Mr. Hiroto Mitsugi (Team Leader)

Evaluation
Team

Period ofDirector, Forestry and Nature Conservation Division I, Global Environment
Department, JICA
Mr. Shozo Kitamura (Forest Management)
Auditor, Forestry Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Mr. Akira Nagaoka (Community Development)
JICA Expert, Department of Planning, MAF
Mr. Shingo Takeda (Evaluation Planning)
Associate Expert, Forestry and Nature Conservation Division I, Global
Environment Department, JICA
Mr. Makoto Hatano (Coordinator)
Assistant Resident Representative, Laos Office, JICA
Mr. Toyomistu Terao (Evaluation Analysis)
Senior Consultant, Fisheries Engineering Co., Ltd.
June 29th, 2008-July 25th, 2008

Type of Evaluation: Terminal Evaluation

Evaluation
３.Result of Evaluation
３-１ Accomplishment of the project(1) Activities

The project activities related to Output 1, 2 and 3 have been implemented as planned.
viii

Some activities under Output 4 were delayed, however it is supposed to be finished until
December 2008. The first six months of the project term was spent to lay the groundworkfor the overall project operations, where PDM, PO, and Project Document were revised
through the basic survey and workshops. Since commencement of the major project
activities in August 2004, most activities in the Initial Sites have been implemented
according to the original plan. The production activities in the Pilot Sites started a littleearlier (2nd quarter 2005) than the original plan (3rd quarter 2005) because the project was
positively received by the target provinces and there was a keen interest from some districtsin the target provinces to expand the project activities. As a result, the project sites reached
34 sites in total, 4 sites as the Initial Sites and 30 sites as the Pilot Sites as of 30 June2008.
(2) Outputs

Most of the indicators for the outputs have been achieved. Output 1 (Initial sites)
included a process to review plan and management of CSP and thus gave a base to draft
CSP Operational Manual. Output 2 (training) had been focused mostly on OJT in village
level. Output 3 (Pilot sites) developed 30 pilot sites in the 9 districts. Output 4 is aimed atdevelopment of recommendations to be extracted from operation of activities under theabove outputs.
(3) Project Purpose

Among five indicators for the project purpose, indicators 1 and 2 are difficult toachieve. Performance of both of them depend on a period of time needed to operate therevolving fund, that is to say, a time period needed to revolve fund and to generate income.
Activities of long-term return such as cow raising and orchard have shown they will needmore time to meet the indicators 1 and 2. Activities of short-term return such as pig andchicken raising have mostly achieved these indicators.
３-２

Summary of Evaluation Result(1) RelevanceThe relevance of the project is high. The project’s activities contribute to policy of Lao
PDR, which are shifting cultivation stabilization, capacity building for agriculture andforestry sector and poverty eradiation. One of the main tasks of NAFES has been placed onprovision of effective training for extension staff in PAFO and DAFO. The project could
give a series of practical training to the extension staff from DAFO in the target 9 districts
and from PAFO in 6 provinces. Moreover, inputs and techniques of CSP are relevant withand meeting the needs of participating households, and 1404 participating households havereceived benefits from CSP activities.
(2) Effectivenessix

The effectiveness of the project is high. It is judged that the project purpose is achieved. Most ofachievement of the project purpose depends much on performance of CSP in 34. Outputs 1, 2 and 3 canbe seen a series of task from preliminary work of CSP activities in initial sites to the development of CSP
activities in pilot site. All these tasks are executed aiming at the achievement of the project target.
(3) Efficiency
The efficiency of the project is high. In respect of inputs from the government of Lao PDR and JICA,
deployment of the experts and counterpart personnel, delivery of the equipment and preparation of theoffices have been done as scheduled. Sufficient inputs have been made for operating the project
activities, therefore outputs of the project are achieved.
(4) Impact
The impact of the project is moderate. Participating households of CSP have decreased their shifting
cultivation area during the project period, therefore the route of accomplishment of overall goal isadmitted. The 9 districts have 57,305 households in 699villages in total. When 20,000 households istargeted after termination of the project, it would cost 4.3 million US$ in order to achieve the overall
goal. Even if necessary budgets are prepared, it is uncertain that the local governments can provide
sufficient human resources for full scale implementation of the project. This means that NAFES/MAF
will have to design a stepwise approach to achieve the overall goal.
(5) Sustainability
The sustainability of the project is high in terms of the current project benefits. In addition to that,
remarkable development of efforts by related government organizations involved to sustain CSP wasobserved recently. Final draft of the Action Plan for implementing CSP after termination of the project
has been prepared by many of the six CSs and submitted to the authorities for enabling budget allocation
in FY 2008/9 that starts October in 2008. This will ensure strong government’s support for continuing
CSP. Action Plan specifies amount of budget that will needed for planned works for extension services
including provision in-kind fund in case of some DAFO. In national level, it may be necessary to have aloan project assisted by some of donors for funding Action Plans in the 6 provinces.
３-３

Factors of promoting project progress(1) Factors concerning to PlanningyIt is thought that a background of CSP well function has a feature in a mechanism, for example
revolving fund by in-kinds, adoption of the low-cost technology, introduction of various productive
techniques not related to NTFP, and repeated training for extension staff and participants.

(2) Factors concerning to Implementation ProcessyA series of consignment survey, which are baseline, households and self evaluation survey, wasimplemented, as a result it was able to improve an accuracy of the project design and feedback CSP

xactivities specifically by each implementation stage based on achievement
yEstablishment of Committee for sustainability of FORCOM outputs recommended by mid term
evaluation and making the Action Plan by 6 target provinces became one of the methods forensuring government support for continuing CSP implementation.

３-４ Factors of inhibiting project progress(1) Factors concerning of Planning
There is no correspondence(2) Factors concerning to Implementation ProcessyThe project target area increased 6 to 9 districts, however the 9district have 699 villages in total. It
is thought one of the reasons to make the condition of accomplishment of overall goal difficult.

３-５ConclusionFORCOM developed CSP for supporting production activities in a sustainable manner as alternatives ofshifting cultivation, the project has expand CSP activities in 34 villagers, 9 districts, 6 provinces sinceFebruary 2004 and total participating households reached 1,404. The project contributed to Laogovernment policies such as shifting cultivation stabilization, human resource development in agriculture
and forestry sector and poverty eradication through the project activities.
３-６ Recommendations(1) Consolidation of CSP
5)Consolidation of CSP activities into extension system through Coordination Group6)

Each target province should secure necessary budget and strengthen the implementation structure
for continuing CSP through committee for sustainability of FORCOM’s outcomes7)

It is necessary to coordinate how CSP build in village cluster and technical service center andcooperate with other organizations

8)

Training for extension staff by NAFES and relevent organizations(2) Expansion of CSP at the fiela level
6)

Continual capacity building of extension staff and villagers in order to CSP expansion

7)

Development of visual extension materials

8)

Analyze to improve revolving system

9)

Examination of a method to develop revolving system to village fund creation

10) Analyze about changing of individual farmer's cropping system (influence on changing shifting
cultivation and household income) though CSP activities(3) Land and forest use
2)

Strengthening of land and forest management by land use planning, public awareness and so on.

xi３-７ Lessons learned(6) The project document was revised six months after commencement of the project. By this revision,
design of the project, especially in respect of CSP activities, could be made more specific and given
details. This has led a successful operation of CSP afterwards.
(7) Production activities of CSP include those of long-term return and short-term return. It seems someof the achievement indicators for these activities might require detail studies to reflect difference
between them.
(8) This project has been based at place far from a capital city, being the first case among the past
Japan’s ODA technical cooperation projects in Lao PDR. There are fewer officers in local
government who are capable of speaking and writing English. Under such a condition, managementof the project could be reinforced by assigning the Japanese experts who are fluent in Lao language.
(9) Huge efforts have been paid to organize and hold the Evaluation Preparatory Committee for
FORCOM (EPC) at time of mid-term and terminal evaluation. This process was prioritized by bothNAFES and FORCOM as it was expected to be able to give chances for people involved to learn
about the project. In fact, the EPC could give a rather remarkable contribution to deepen
understandings of Lao members on what the project is going to achieve, as well as on procedures ofthe project evaluation.
(10) Sufficient numbers of the counterparts have been stationed at LPB project office, and they havebeen assigned to tasks in full time basis. They could fully have contact with the experts and also
contribute to operation and management of the project.

xii