IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

Research article
erd

Possibility of Participatory Evaluation for Promoting
Sustainable Agriculture Project in Samroung Commune of
Cambodia
JUN FUJIHIRA
Institute of Environment Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo, Japan

MACHITO MIHARA*
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Email: m-mihara@nodai.ac.jp
Receivedn 26 October 2013

Accepted 1 March 2014(*Corresponding author)

Abstract In all over the world, many organizations implement project from a viewpoint ofsustainable development. In case of Japan, 10.5 billion USD is used for Official
Development Assistance (ODA) in 2012. Projects were not only implemented but also
evaluated by donors, experts and implementers such as NGO and universities. This kind of
conventional project evaluation is designed mainly by implementer side and local people
regarded as just informants. But criticisms for conventional project evaluation were alsostudied by other researchers. In 2000, previous study stated that thinking of experts often
different from that of people in developing country. Other studies also mentioned that, for
improving quality of assistance, it is necessary to conduct project evaluation by adding thepoint of view of local people and feedback results of project evaluation to local people.
However,implementation of participatory evaluation also has difficulties such as resource
limitation and conflict of interest. So, this study dealt with the possibility of implementing
participatory evaluation for project from a viewpoint of sustainable development inSamroung commune of Cambodia. The study was advanced through comparing evaluation
result of conventional evaluation and model participatory evaluation. Result shows that
result of two evaluation approaches has some differences because of resource limitationand less objectivity. Therefore, this study concluded that project evaluation better to bedone not only by experts but also by local participants. This study proposes different
approach of participatory evaluation for evaluating the project properly with more local
voice in shorter time and less expense. This approach has potential to enhanceaccountability toward stakeholdersof Japanese ODA because result of evaluation is led
with more local voices with objectivity of experts. Process of this approach also has
potential as capacity building for stakeholders including local people in Cambodia.
Keywords participatory evaluation, conventional evaluation, participation level,sustainable development, Japanese ODA

INTRODUCTION
In all over the world, many organizations implement project from a viewpoint of sustainable
development. In case of Japan, 10.5 billion USD is used for Official Development Assistance(ODA) in 2012 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014). Projects were not only implemented but also
evaluated by stakeholders such as implementer, donor and expert. This kind of conventional project
evaluation is designed mainly by implementer side and local people regarded as just an informant.
By framework of ladder of participation that is considered as one of the classic and most influential
participation theories, this participation level is evaluated less than placation under degree of
tokenism. It is because that the ground rules allow people to advice but retain for the power holders
the continued right to decide (Arnstein, 1969).
Criticisms for conventional project evaluation were also studied by other researchers.
Chambers (2000) stated that thinking of experts often different from that of people in developingⒸ ISERD

82

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

country. Other studies also mentioned that, for improving the quality of assistance, it is necessary
to conduct project evaluation by adding point of view of local people and feedback of the results.
Participation of stakeholders for evaluation is recognized to have benefit not only for improving
their knowledge and technique related to evaluation but also for their capacity development on
development management. For JICA (2001), the participatory evaluation has 4 objectives: 1)
building management capacity, 2) promoting ownership, 3) enhancing effective feedback, and 4)
advancing accountability for donor and Japanese citizens. So, participatory evaluation can beconsidered as one method for capacity building and for expecting sustainability of future activities
on project site because stakeholders learn method of project evaluation, strengthen ownership ofprojects, and improve their management skills in project implementation. Although participatory
evaluation does not have a fixed and agreed-upon definition, this study applies the definition of
Cousins and Earl (1999) who defined participatory evaluation as applied social research thatinvolves a partnership between trained and practice-based decision makers, organization memberswith program responsibility, or people with a vital interest in the program. But it also has
difficulties to implement. For example, to make reasonable evaluation result without conflict ofinterest seems to be difficult to make because this evaluation system involves more stakeholders as
evaluator. If there is no conflict of interest, result of evaluation will be trustable and carry out
positive impact for accountability toward donor and citizens. So, for implementing sustainable
development positively, this study dealt with the possibility of implementing participatory
evaluation for project from a viewpoint of sustainable development in Samroung commune of
Cambodia.
Study Site
Study covered 11 villages which are located in Samroung commune, Phrey Chhor district,Kampong Cham province, Cambodia. These villages consist of Bonteay Thmey, Takrit,
KondalKoang, TompangRisey, Svayprey, Samroung, Sodey, Thmey, Veal, Smei and Preykhcheay
village. This commune is located at the distance of 83 kilometers from Phnom Penh cityand 8,111
people are living in 2011 (Fig. 1). In Samroung commune, conventional farming system is mainly
applied for production in order to increasing yield. For promoting sustainable farming systems
through sustainable agriculture based on natural resource circulation, Institute of Environment
Rehabilitation and Conservation (ERECON) and Tokyo University of Agriculture has been
implementing a projectt itled project on promoting sustainable agriculture in Samroung communeof Kampong Cham province, Cambodia since April 2011.

Kampong Cham province

Cambodia

Phrey Chhor district

Kampong Cham province

Samroung commune
Phnom Penh
0

0

20km

100km

Fig. 1 Location of Samroung commune in Kamong Cham Province
METHODOLOGY
For achieving objective, the study was advanced through model participatory evaluation, focus
group discussion, with 6 committee members of farmers’ group and a school director on 27Ⓒ ISERD

83

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

September, 2013. In model participatory evaluation, definition of evaluation, criteria for evaluation,and basic information and activities of the project were shared in order to implementing adequate
evaluation. Result of evaluation was answered by score on five points Likert Scale along thecontinuum of not satisfied at all to very satisfied. For avoiding conflict of interest, researcher acted
just as facilitator encouraging participants to answer their opinions without hesitation.
In the project, 17contents were implemented from April 2012 to March 2013, Japanesefinancial year of 2012. For evaluating activities in 2012, researcher explained contents under 5activities briefly and form question with participants. Then, participants evaluated these activities
based on OECD criteria for evaluation such as relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impacts andsustainability (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Materials for explaining process of participatory evaluation (left)
and model participatory evaluation with local participants (right)
Conventional Evaluation Approach and Results in 2012
From the 1st year of the project, implement organization named Institute of Environment
Rehabilitation and Conservation (ERECON) organize evaluation meeting as mid-term evaluation at
the end of each financial year. The evaluation team comprised eight experts from Thailand,
Cambodia and Japan having expertize in evaluation of international cooperation activities.The teamvisited project site in Samroung commune from 6 to 7 March, 2013. In the observation, meetings
were held for direct interviews by evaluators to farmers, school teachers and concerned government
officers in farmlands, elementary schools and market. The evaluation team also observed farmers
group meeting as well as workshop on promoting sustainable agriculture.Through the observationin site, every team member evaluated project achievements by using evaluation sheets based on
OECD criteria for evaluation. Finally, the team concluded “Summary of Evaluation” at theevaluation meeting on 8th March where 31 participants from collaborated organizations
attended.At the end of the evaluation meeting, summary of evaluation was submitted from leader of
evaluation team to representative of project implementer. Evaluation team evaluated the project as
satisfactory in terms of activities for farmers, but could not evaluate impact of activities inelementary schools because they could not observe activities for this criterion.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparing Results of Conventional Evaluation and Model Participatory Evaluation
Table 1 shows contents and evaluated activities done by evaluation team on March and local
participants on September 2013. Contents of activities which has asterisk were observed andevaluated by evaluation team on March, 2013.
As Table 1 shows, project team could observeonly 7 contents in 5 activities at project site
because of the time limitation. They evaluated almost all of activities as satisfactory and fewⒸ ISERD

84

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

activities were evaluated as the highest or the second highest score through observation.
Yet, local participants evaluated 17 contents. Besides, as different from evaluation team, theyevaluated not only activities but also individual content as possible as they could.
Table 1 Result of evaluation by evaluation team and local people
Contents of activity in 2012
(From April 2012 to March 2013)* Activities which evaluation team observed
Activity 0
1. Conduct evaluation meeting for 2011
2. Distribute materials for 139 farmers

Activity 1
1. Set 33 model farms*
2. Select core members for farmers’ group in eachvillage
3. Form group on Samroung Safe Agricultural
Products (SSAP) and select committee members
4. Conduct technical training at Thailand
5. Conduct workshop for local farmers who do notbelong to the farmers’ groups by SSAP*
Activity 2
1. Establish Pellet Compost Center*
2. 22 rear cars were distributed

Activity 3
1. Hold meeting for project teams of surveying
agricultural product market
2. Hold meeting for project team of products with lesschemical input sales*
3. Register to Cambodian Organic Agriculture
Association (COrAA)
Activity 4
1. Promote the food, agriculture and environment
education through activities at organic farm*
2. Conduct rice growing experiment with different
three formulas were conducted at each school as thefood, agriculture and environment education. *3. Conduct training on the food, agriculture andenvironment education for school teachers
Activity 5
1. Organize evaluation meeting on 2012*
2. Publish and distribute newsletter which includes
the contents of activities and the outcomes as wellas project evaluation

Criteria ofevaluation

Evaluation byevaluation
team(March 2013)

1. Relevance
2. Effectiveness-3. Efficiency-

4. Impact
5. Sustainability-

1. Relevance

Satisfactory

2. Effectiveness

Satisfactory

3. Efficiency

Satisfactory

4. Impact
5. Sustainability

Satisfactory
Satisfactory

1. Relevance
2. Effectiveness

Satisfactory
Satisfactory

3. Efficiency
4. Impact
5. Sustainability

Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

1. Relevance
2. Effectiveness3. Efficiency

Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

4. Impact

Satisfactory

5. Sustainability

Satisfactory

1. RelevanceHighlysatisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory-

2. Effectiveness3. Efficiency
4. Impact
5. Sustainability

Potentiallysatisfactory

1. RelevanceHighlysatisfactory
Satisfactory

2. Effectiveness3. Efficiency
Satisfactory
4. Impact
Satisfactory
5. Sustainability Satisfactory
Source: Summary of Evaluation for Year 2 and focus group discussion in 2013, ERECON

Evaluation by farmers(September 2013)

Very satisfied
Very satisfied(For 2, satisfied)
Very satisfied(For 2, satisfied)
Very satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied(For 2 and 3, normal)
Very satisfied(For 2 and 3, normal)
Satisfied(For 4, very satisfied)
Very satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied(For 2, satisfied)
Very satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied(For 3, normal)
Very satisfied(For 3, normal)
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied(For 3, normal)
Very satisfied

Very satisfied
Very satisfied(For 2, satisfied)
Very satisfied
Very satisfied
Very satisfied

As same as Chambers (2000) mentioned, result done by evaluation team and local people
showed some differences.
Firstly, local participants evaluated activity 0 which evaluation team did not evaluate. Also,Ⓒ ISERD

85

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

they recognized not completely satisfactory toward effectiveness and efficiency on distributing
materials to 139 farmers. It is because that some farmers did not practice adequately even theyreceived materials for practicing the learnt techniques such as compost and bio-pesticide making.
Some farmers seem to busy with other tasks and less motivation for practicing the learnt
techniques.Distributing 22 rear cars were also regarded low effectiveness and efficiency at the
moment because some farmers not yet use for the intended purpose and just keep these at theirhouse.
Secondly, local participants evaluate low on selecting core members and forming farmer'sgroup. Forming farmer's group is not special for farmers. Reason of low evaluation was that thegroup was not registered as agricultural cooperative to the Cambodian government. However,registration of farmer's group to government is not included as project purpose.
Thirdly, activities at elementary schools were evaluated very high by both of evaluation teamand local people. Butparticipants especially teacher regarded impact of the rice experiment was
normal.They regarded it was just beginning and they would like to continue experiment withvegetable in order to teach advantages of sustainable agriculture to students.
At last, it was also revealed through focus group discussion that some farmers did not know
attached newsletter named Sustainable Agriculture in each village. It was attached on information
board in each village in order to share result of activities and evaluation meeting on previous year.
Discussion
JICA (2001) mentioned participatory evaluation is needed in JICA project because sustainability of
project will be improved, and beneficiaries can understand project and accept them more readily. It
applied same in Samroung commune because local participants mentioned they could understandproject design and activities well through model participatory evaluation. But, through model
participatory evaluation, it was considered that farmer's tend to evaluate contents of activities
positively. It may cause conflict of interest on result of evaluation. Facilitator needs to consider theway to prevent conflict of interest carefully.
Meanwhile, evaluation by experts did not evaluate the project properly because time limitation
did not allow them to observe all of activities and process of implementation. Opinions of the entire
range of beneficiary local people were also difficult to be involved because the evaluation team
could discuss with only some of farmers who were selected by implementer. As Beatrice (2008)
stated, proper information and feedback may only be obtained through interactive participation andrequired involvement of relevant stakeholders in the project at Samroung commune.
Normally, participatory evaluation was conducted with participation of experts and local
participants at the same time. But, as same as JICA (2001) studied, not enough time and money canbe considered as limitations for implementation.
So, this study would like to propose different approach of participatory evaluation for midterm and terminal evaluation as experienced from the case of Samroung commune.In detail, local
participants evaluate contents of activities through observation and focus group discussion withproject implementer. It is similar to monitoring but its purposes are not only checking progress andadjustment points of the project activities but also its impact and sustainability based on OECD
criteria. Tentative summary of the earlier evaluation should be shared with the evaluation team as
their reference. Evaluation team conducts observation after checking tentative summary of earlier
evaluation that is made by local evaluators. Under this approach, experts can understand voice of
local people properlywith shorter time and less expenses if they would read tentative summary ofearlier evaluation before their observation. In addition, sustainability can be evaluated fromcontents of tentative summary because management capacity of local people will be shown onsummary. JICA (2012) wrote some project conclude that they have sustainability if there were no
problems when evaluation conducted. But, in fact, it seems not proper way to evaluation
sustainability.
It was also considered that facilitator needs to improve knowledge related to evaluation andfacilitation for improving effectiveness and efficiency of participatory evaluation. Their facilitation
seems essential for conducting proper participatory evaluation without conflict of interest.
Ⓒ ISERD

86

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

Besides, this study could not check possibility of improving ownership of local people throughparticipatory evaluation because it needs to be studied by how their involvement changed, and how
their participation level improved in future activities. It needs to be studied in future studies.
CONCLUSION
According to the result and discussion done in this study, it can be concluded that Samroung
Commune has possibility of implementing participatory evaluation. Result of the study shows thatconventional evaluation done by only experts seems not evaluate the project properly because oftime limitation and less involvement of local people. In addition, result of evaluation done byexperts and local participants has some differences. However, local participants seem to evaluate
the project positively and they may evaluate some points which are not included as project
purposes. From these points, evaluation seems better to be done not only by experts but also by
local participants. So, this study proposes different approach of participatory evaluation forevaluating the project properly with more local voice in shorter time and less expense. This process
also seems able to evaluate sustainability of the project properly. In addition, this study could not
check possibility of improving ownership of local people through participatory evaluation. So it
needs to be studied in future studies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to express appreciation to all of colleagues at ERECON and relatedorganizations, especially project evaluation team in 2011 and 2012.
REFERENCES
Arnstein, R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4),216-224.
Beautrice, O. 2008. Strengthening rural agricultural training program through participation and training needs
assessment. Netherlands.
Chambers, R. 2000. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Intermediate Technology Publications.
London.
Cousins, J. and Earl, L.M. 1999.When the boat gets missed: Response to M.F. Smith. American Journal of
Evaluation, 20, 309-317.
Cullen, A. and Coryn, C.L.S. 2011. Forms and functions of participatory evaluation in International
development: A review of the empirical and theoretical literature. Journal of Multi Disciplinary
Evaluation, 7-16.
ERECON. 2012. Annual report 2011 of program on promoting sustainable agriculture at Kampong Champrovince in Cambodia. Consortium of Institute of Environment Rehabilitation and Conservation andTokyo University of Agriculture, Japan.
ERECON. 2013. Annual report 2012 of program on promoting sustainable agriculture at Kampong Champrovince in Cambodia. Consortium of Institute of Environment Rehabilitation and Conservation andTokyo University of Agriculture, Japan.
JICA. 2001. Participatory Evaluation and International Cooperation. Japan.
JICA.2012. Report on Perspective of Evaluation and Standardization of Criteria Related to OECD-DAC
Evaluation criteria.
Michael, K. 1997. Participation in development: the question, challenges and Issues. Symposium on
Participation in Development; The Question, Challenges and Issues.
Mihara, M. and Fujimoto, A. 2000. Sustainable farming practices for environmental conservation. Institute ofEnvironment Rehabilitation and Conservation and Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan, 1-9.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2014. Overview of Japan’s ODA White Paper, Japan.
Miyoshi, K. et al. 2008. Theory of Evaluation.Sekaishisousya Co., Ltd., Japan.
Ohashi, M. et al. 2003. Project evaluation on international cooperation. The International Development
Journal, Japan.

Ⓒ ISERD

87