⹏ଔ⺞ᩏ⚿ᨐⷐ⚂⴫㧔⧷ᢥ䋩
Summary of Evaluation

I. Outline of the ProjectCountry㧦 Royal Government of Cambodia

Project Title㧦 The Battambang Rural Area Nurtureand Development Project

Issue/Sector㧦 Solid Waste ManagementCooperation scheme㧦 Technical Cooperation Project

Division in charge㧦 JICA Cambodia OfficeTotal Cost㧦 Approximately 300 Million Yen

PeriodofCooperation

(R/D): 30 November 2006 to 31

Partner Country’s Implementing Organization:

March 2010

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(MAFF) and Battambang Provincial Department ofAgriculture (PDA)

1. Background of the Project
Agriculture is an important sector in Cambodia. Agricultural production contributes to approximately 35%of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and approximately 75% of the national population makes
their living from agriculture. Despite the abundant farmland, agricultural production is still low due to anumber of factors and one major factor is extension service delivery.

To increase productivity and diversification of agriculture, the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC)
submitted a proposal to the Government of Japan for a Technical Cooperation Project, namely “Battambang
Rural Area Nurture and Development (BRAND) Project” (the Project). This was submitted through therequest survey mechanism for Japan’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) for Japanese Fiscal Year2006. The objective of the Project was to improve agricultural production through improved agriculturalextension service delivery.

In response to the request of the RGC, the proposal was approved by the Government of Japan and theRecord of Discussion (R/D) on the Project was signed on 30 November 2006. The three and a half year longproject started on 30 November 2006 and will end on 31 March 2010.

As the Project has come to a point six months before the project completion date, Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) dispatched an evaluation team to Cambodia from 6 December 2009 to 21
December 2009 to conduct the terminal evaluation of the Project. The evaluation was a joint undertaking by
the Cambodian and Japanese sides, with full cooperation from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry andFisheries (MAFF).
2. Project Overview(1) Overall Purpose:
Farming system of farmers in the target districts in Battambang Province is improved.

(2) Project Purpose:
Agricultural service delivery to farmers is enhanced in the target communes.

(3) Outputs:< Output 1 >Extension plans are formulated according to the agricultural potentials and extension needs offarmers in the target communes.
< Output 2 >Improved agricultural techniques and methods are developed for extension according to the needs ofthe farmers.
< Output 3 >Agricultural extension activities are carried out in the target communes according to the needs offarmers.
< Output 4 >Collaboration among parties involved in agricultural production, marketing and policies is enhanced.

(4) Inputs (as of the terminal evaluation)
Japanese Side:<Dispatch of Japanese experts> Long-term experts: 3; Short-term experts: 9<Training> 2 participants on training in Japan and 3 participants on technical exchange in Thailand andLaos<Equipment> USD47,005 and 2,186,330 Yen<Local Cost> US$574,124
Cambodian Side:<Counterparts> A total of 17 Cambodian officers have been deployed and currently 16 counterparts arestill assigned to the Project.
<Office space> Project office and its utility costs were borne by RGC sideII. Evaluation Team
MemberofTeam Leader

Mr. Yasujiro Suzuki, Chief Representative, JICA Cambodia
OfficeEvaluation
Farming SystemTeam

Mr. Toyoshi Miyanaga, Former Executive Director, Japan
Agricultural Mechanization Association

Planning Management 1

Mr. Yukihiro Shibuya, Representative, JICA Cambodia OfficePlanning Management 2

Ms. Shoko Meguro, Staff, Paddy Field Based Farming Area
Division 1, Rural Development, JICA

Evaluation and Analysis

Mr. Ken Shimizu, Director, Because Institute Co., Ltd.

Period of Evaluation: 6 December 2009 to 21 December

Type of Evaluation: Terminal Evaluation

2009
III. Results of Evaluation
1. Achievements (as of December 2009)(1) Output 1: Extension plans are formulated according to the agricultural potentials and extension needs offarmers in the target communes.
Output 1was perfectly achieved by verifying the indicators as originally scheduled as follows.
Objectively verifiable indicators

The achievements

1-1) Agricultural extension plan

- Agricultural extension plans have been developed as “Actionis formulated for all targetPlans” for extension activities based on the commune Agrocommunes.

Ecosystem Analysis, several surveys and meeting results.

1-2) The extension plans areimproved

accordingto-The plan was discussed and endorsed by two workshops andthe final version of the three-year Action Plan was formulated.

monitoring and evaluation ofimplementation.

(2) Output 2: Improved agricultural techniques and methods are developed for extension according to theneeds of the farmers.
The Project, even at present, has performed better than expected and shown greater practicalaccomplishments.

Objectively verifiable indicators

The achievements

2-1)

for

- 7 types of extension materials (Technical Bulletins) have been

rice-based farming systems

developed and disseminated to 23 villages. Manuals of theis developed.

extension guidelines and materials will also be developed andImproved

guidelinedistributed to extension workers and farmers before thetermination of the Project.

2-2) At least one demonstration
farmisestablishedand- The Project established a total of 36 demonstration farms in the23 villages.

managed in each of the 23- In addition, the Project carried out its extension services in a

project villages.

further 19 locations following requests from many farmers.

(3) Output 3: Agricultural extension activities are carried out in the target communes according to the needsof farmers.
Output 3 has already been achieved. However, farmers’ group activities need to be considered and followed
up by the PDA.
Objectively verifiable indicators

The achievements

3-1) Extension activities such as- Extension activities about rice and vegetable products wereFFDs are carried out at

carried out at the demonstration farms. The total participants indemonstration

the activities reached 2,680 as of 5 November 2009 including

farms

established in each of the 23

about 500 participants in 19 additional places for workshops.

project villages.

- Short-term experts conducted a total of 7 seminars to introduce
their activities and made recommendations.

3-2) Information is regularly- Cambodian project members maintained the informationdelivered to and gatheredboards installed in all of the 23 target villages. 9 comments

from/requests from the farmers were promptly responded to by thefarmers

using

theinformation boards in eachproject team and PDA.

of the 23 project villages.

(4) Output 4: Collaboration among parties involved in agricultural production, marketing and policies isenhanced.
This is a challenging part of the Project. Some activities started in late 2008 and it is too early to determine
its achievement.

Objectively verifiable indicators

The achievements

4-1)

communes- 20 of the 37 communes in the four target districts havecommuneincluded extension activities, such as demonstration farms, ininvestment plan that reflects

their Commune Investment Plans (CIPs) for 2010 based on

agricultural extension plan.

proposals of the Project. However those demonstration farmAlltarget

developactivities

could

not

secureanadequate

budgetfor

implementation in year 2010.

4-2)

4-3)

Gradingfor-Grading and certification systems and a logo have already been

Battambang Brand Rice isestablished. Three rice millers have already been certified asestablished.

Battambang Brand Rice suppliers. A monitoring system has

Certification

systemsystem forjust started actual implementation in 2009.

Battambang Brand Rice isestablished.
4-4)

Monitoring

systemfor

Battambang Brand Rice isestablished.
4-5) A logo for Battambang
Brand Rice is established.

4-6) Achievements of the project
areciteddocuments.

inofficial- The Project was referred to in the MAFF Annual Report(2008-2009). The Rural Development Bank and BRAND
jointly conducted a rice seminar and farmers, various ministries
and related organizations have recognized the activities of theProject through 10 seminars organized by the Project in Phnom
Penh and Battambang in 2009.

2. Summary of the Evaluation Results(1) Relevance
The Project has a high degree of relevance for its approach and regional needs.

The Project’s relevance is high vis-à-vis the national policies of Cambodia, needs of farmers andgovernment officials in the region and the official development policies of Japan.
Rice-based farming continues to be an indispensable part of rural people’s livelihoods and their demands forimprovement to the farming system remain high. The Project’s Overall Goal to support the farming systemof farmers is very much in the interest of local communities.
Farmers are suffering not only from limited access to technical information of farming, but also from limitedaccess to market information of their products. The Project formulated an agricultural service extension plan
based on the regional potential and delivered agricultural services in the target areas. In addition, the Projectprovided a backward approach from commercial agro-enterprises to farmers by establishing the BRPC
which is expected to capitalize on regional strengths.
The Project has selected its target areas through the AEA based on Pro-Poor oriented criteria and theselection is turning out to be conducive to achievement of the Project objectives and the Overall Goal.

(2) EffectivenessThe effectiveness of the Project is relatively high.

The Project has already achieved most of its expected outputs to achieve the Project Purpose with only afew pieces left to catch up on. There are positive outcomes in the productivity of the target farmers.

Project Purpose: Agricultural service delivery to farmers is enhanced in the target communes."

Objectively verifiable indicators

The achievements

1)More than 50% of the farmers whoAccording to a survey, 53% of the farmers who

participate

in

theworkshops,participated in FFDs actually applied “Salt water seedseminars, and Farmers’ Field Days

selection and Hot water disinfection”. They have(FFDs) organized by the project

reduced seed rate from 90kg/ha in 2007 to 66kg/ha inadopt at least one of the improved

2009. 42% of farmers who joined FFDs followed

techniques listed below.

BRAND recommended fertilizer application.

a) Salt water seed selectionb) Reduced seed ratec) Vegetable seedlingd) Other techniques introduced by theproject2)Marketing environment of rice has
improved2-1)

AtleasttheThe survey in July 2009 showed that 56% of thefinalfarmers (182 participants) who participated in FFDs are

Farmers’ Field Day session

aware of the Battambang brand rice, “Battambang

recognize Battambang Brand

Aromatic Rice”.

participants

50%ofoftheRice.
2-2) At least five (5) rice millers

Three rice millers have already been certified as Brand

are certified as Battambang

Rice suppliers, while three more millers are due to beBrand Rice suppliers.

certified upon the installation of rice polishingmachines expected to arrive by the end of 2009.

The Team, however, would like to mention several issues regarding the effectiveness of the Project.
- Team is a little concerned about is an absence of comparison analysis on productivity of the demonstration
farm and non-demonstration farm to keep effectiveness of the Project perfectly clear.
- There seems to be a gap between BRPC promotion activities and other activities in a project. The Teamalso encouraged all stakeholders to reconfirm the objectives of BRPC and promote a win-win relationshipbetween farmers and commercialized business groups in order to avoid incoherence of the project activities.

(3) Efficiency
Overall the level of efficiency of the Project was satisfactory. The achievement of outputs is adequate andmost of the activities were carried out as per schedule. The quality, quantity and timing of the provision ofinputs from both sides were fair and were utilized to achieve the Project Outputs.

The Team concluded that there are areas not covered, non-rice crop cultivation, but these are based onrational decisions.
There were some evidence that the Project have been hindered by inadequate coordination and management
at the regional level due to unclear responsibilities of relevant persons in the Project.

(4) Impact
In the near future, the prospect of the Overall Goal being achieved after the completion of the Project is highif the relevant authority is able to follow up the activities.

At the same time, we must pay more attention to the future direction of “Battambang rice is marketed as

Battambang Brand Rice” through BRPC's activities because if BRPC’s activities start to accelerate a
growing economic gap between city and remote areas or a gap between rich and poor, it could have negativeimpacts.

(5) Sustainability
There were the positive aspects and negative aspects on the sustainability. Even if the Project has achieved
its target, it is not enough because this is a just primary goal or the first milestone in the long winding roadof national level agricultural development.

The technical skills introduced by the Project were of a basic level and simple and easy for the farmers but
they have unparalleled influence in farmers’ agricultural activities. As far as the technical aspect isconcerned, there is a sound sustainability.

The most significant challenge, however, is the financial constraints of the Cambodian side in order tofollow up agricultural extension activities after the completion of the Project. The current government
financial situation has shown itself to be unable to maintain financial sustainability and to maintain further
agricultural extension service delivery system. How to move towards a resolution remains unclear.

On the other hand, the Project has encouraged communes to include extension plans in their CIPs and 20
communes have already included agricultural extension activities in their CIPs. Although there have been nopositive signs of funds from NGOs or other donors for the activities in fiscal year 2010, the commune chiefs
showed their commitment to seek funds.

3. Major Findings(1) Key Success Factors< “Simple & Easy” basic techniques to improve farmers’ agricultural activities >“Simple & Easy” techniques introduced by the Project are being widely adapted by the farmers in thetarget area and contributed to the improvement of agricultural productivity. The smallholders are more
motivated because they can quickly adapt those techniques without any additional resources. This could be
evidence that the Project contributed to some extent to poverty reduction.

< Proactive extension activities in the field >The Project improved the information access of farmers. The Information Boards are equipped withcorrespondence boxes so that farmers can ask about anything. A strategic selection of the demonstration

farmers e.g. commune chiefs, key persons in the villages, in the first stage created good influential flow ofextension.
Team received a lot of generous praise towards the staff, especially extension workers who arewholeheartedly working for the farmers.

The strategy of including extension works in CIPs encouraged commune authorities to get involved inagricultural extension works more actively and paved the way for better relations between the PDA andlocal authorities.

< Comprehensive economic approach >The concept of the BRPC is a backward approach from enterprise to farmers’ activities and he Project
offered opportunities to the regional economic growth in the future.

(2) Challenging Factors< The path to the national development goal >One of the main development goals in the agricultural sector is “To increase productivity and diversificationof agriculture “in the country. The Project is a step of the path to the national development goal but steps tothe goal are not clear.

< Sustainable and Pro-Poor economic growth as a fundamental principle >The Team is concerned about the fact that the BPRC does not have any representatives of farmers or a clear
mission statement that expresses how the committee is to promote regional economies based on sustainableand pro-poor growth as a fundamental principle.

< Project framework >The Project has no clear description of responsibilities for three project directors and sometimes sufferedfrom poor liaison among them.

4. Recommendations by the termination of the Project(1) Recommendations to the Project< A quick impact survey >The Project is recommended to carry out a quick impact survey on comparison of the demonstration
farm and non-demonstration farm on the change in productivity.

(2) Recommendations to the Project & BRPC
< A clear mission statement of the BRPC >The BRPC must have a clear mission statement that expresses the committee’s aim to promote regional
economies based on sustainable and pro-poor growth as a fundamental principle. The Team also
recommends that the BPRC invite representatives of farmers in the future as members of the committee.

< Annual activity plan & medium and long-term plan of the BRPC >A detailed annual production schedule and long-term plan including the financial strategy and humanresource development plan of the BRPC’s must be developed and would be reviewed regularly.

The Team would like to highlight the necessity of hands-on assistance in this regard in a timely manner.

(3) Recommendations to the communes in target area
< More realistic extension plans in CIPs >The 20 communes which already developed CIPs with agricultural extension activities are recommended
to review their CIP proposals and make them more realistic so that the proposals can attract sources offunding.

(4) Recommendations to the MAFF
< Sharing the outcomes of the Project >It is recommended that the MAFF take necessary measures and instruct Battambang PDA to share theoutcomes of the Project with relevant authorities like:* The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF)* The National Committee for the Decentralization and Deconcentration (NCDD)* The Provincial/Municipal Rural Development Committee or the Executive Committee (ExCom)* Other line departments of the MAFF
* The general public through public media, such as TV or Radio5. Measures to be taken after the termination of the Project(1) Recommendations to the MAFF
< Integrate the Project’s experiences with national agricultural extension plan >The MAFF expected to integrate the simple technologies extension method and sustainable extension
approach with the national level agricultural extension plan and facilitate other PDAs to follow themethod.

6. Lessons Learned(1) Importance of dialogue on how to reach the development goal of the country
There should have been more intensive dialogue between stakeholders on how to reach the national
development goal, “To increase productivity and diversification of agriculture “in the county, during theproject period.

(2) Set an appropriate level of the Overall Goal of the Project
The Overall Goal of the Project, having improvements in the particular province, is too narrow and thislimits the range of its target.

(3) Attempt to assure the source of funds
Though the present financial situation of the country cannot be overcome immediately, the MAFF
should accelerate attempting to find a source of funds for the agricultural extension activities. Moredirect involvement of key actors, like the MEF, in the JCC would be recommended.

(4) Capacity Development approach
A project’s aim should not only concentrate on particular development activities, but also try to improve
the problem-solving capacity of the recipients.

(5) Flexible & forthcoming project implementation
The appropriate techniques and extension approaches in a flexible and forthcoming manner based on thereal situation of the target areas is a key success factor. It is widely recognized but rarely materialized.

(6) Clear project implementation framework
A project must have clear responsibilities for the management and decision making level in order tosecure the smooth and effective implementation.