2 CAVAC should its approach to M&E, drawing upon independent expertise, with a view to improving accountability, results measurement and communication. This might include reinstating a M&E specialist on the CAVAC team and/or reaching out to other DFAT MSD programs to compare systems and approaches. Agree will review its approach to M&E. This will be managed to ensure that CAVAC’s strong learning culture and adaptive management processes are continued, while accountability, results measurement and communication are enhanced. CAVAC notes that considerable work has been undertaken in recent months improving communication of M&E results. Improve communications of M&E results with internal and external program stakeholders. Review and, as required, restructure the M&E team to ensure continued focus on monitoring and adaptive management balanced with more effective evaluation and knowledge management. Engage an external expert to undertake a detailed analysis of of CAVAC’s largest markets and review progress towards systemic change in them. On-going By September 2017 By December 2017 3 Consistent with its goal statement Phase two, CAVAC should measure and report on net attributable income change for smallholder farming households. The resulting information can be used to allocate resources and select interventions that will maximise the program’s impact. It will also assist in establishing a set of clear, measurable targets to aid in program performance assessment and in communicating the program’s results. External expertise will be engaged to develop a methodology to measure impact and net attributable income - or advise why this is not possible. While we will do this if we can, we have some concerns that this may not be possible within Cambodia’s complex and rapidly changing agricultural context within a reasonable resourcing envelope. It may be that a more achievable approach may be to estimate and report, rather than measure and report. If ‘measuring and reporting’ is not possible, we will document why this is Engage an external expert with experience with other MSD programs and DFAT priorities to work with the team to develop a methodology to measure impact and net attributable income, or advise why this is not possible and suggest an alternative approach. Organise an M&E Impact Workshop to review the work to date and report targets for the program. By October 2017 After Review in 2018 term trial
the case and what alternative actions we can take in order to improve outcomes in this area in CAVAC II. Information produced can be used internally for management purposes and externally for reporting. 4 should investigate and strategically pursue links between its irrigation, agribusiness and rice milling and export interventions. There is an opportunity under CAVAC Phase II to enable the market to deliver a complete package of inputs and services to targeted farmers alongside enhanced water availability to further improve agricultural productivity and maximise household income. Increased focus on diversification beyond rice will also be critical Agree Work in this area has already begun. Some team members experienced in MSD have been transferred to oversee a number of activities that are underway. The Strategic Coordination Unit will play a role in influencing knowledge, attitudes and practices amongst beneficiaries, government, development partner and private sector counterparts. Work with the Strategic Advisory Team to develop a full and targeted strategy in this regard. The SAT will provide advice on trends in this field in agriculture and strategies for design, implementation, evaluation and analysis. Engage with Cambodian research institutions, donors especially and relevant Australian Government Departments to provide specialist inputs and sectoral advice. A conference will be convened to share the outcomes of these cross Component activities with CAVAC key partners. Outcomes will also be shared with key partners. By December 2017 December 2017 Late 2018 5 should support gender equality and women’s economic empowerment objectives consistent with DFAT policy settings, with appropriate staff resourcing, staff training and monitoring and Agree The Team Leader will have direct oversight of this with the Women’s Economic Empowerment Adviser, ensuring it is prioritised across the program. The Team Leader will lead the Program-wide integration of WEE policies and Recruit a full time Economic Empowerment Adviser on the Women’s Economic Empowerment Strategy and develop an integration workplan. Advice from SAT WEE and Gender Adviser July 2017 September 2017 December 2017
39 CAVAC provided mixed messages on its focus to alleviate poverty. CAVAC’s research on its potential to alleviate poverty was suitably nuanced. However, CAVAC ultimately stopped short of measuring its impact on poverty. Recommendation 1 Recommendation 2 Recommendation 3 Recommendation 5 Section 7.3 Evaluation question / sub-question Evidence required Data collection method & source Analytical approach Sustainability: Are the benefits from CAVAC likely to be sustained? Have improvements in yields, incomes and trade achieved during Phase one been maintained? (S1) If improvements have not been sustained what factors have contributed to the decline? Document review: CAVAC M&E data including Knowledge Attitude Practice (KAP) surveys, work plans that identify start-finish dates for individual activities. Key informant interviews: user groups, small holder farmers, CAVAC supported businesses Test for changes post intervention by running analysis on CAVAC M&E data. Explore any apparent decline. Have the support services that CAVAC assisted in making available to smallholder farming households continued following removal of the CAVAC subsidy? (S2) Are CAVAC supported interventions (e.g. training in fertiliser use) continuing? group meetings: Water user groups, small holder farmers, CAVAC supported businesses, other supported) business Test for continuation of CAVCAC supported interventions.
Identify any examples of substantial changes in approach and/or programming and ascertain how these changes were managed. Actual direct intervention cash costs (AUD/year) Number of participating farm households (HH/year) and $/HH for the different schemes. former members of CAVAC implementing team, ACIAR Evaluation question / sub-question Evidence required Data collection method & source Analytical approach Inclusivity: Did CAVAC take adequate account of the needs of women, people with disabilities and the poor? Did employ an effective strategy for engaging women and enabling them to contribute fully to increased agricultural productivity? (W1) Were/are CAVAC Phase 1 & 2 gender strategies adequate, implemented and reported against? How did monitor the impact of, and involvement in, its activities on/ by Cambodian women and important sub-groups of Cambodian women? What if any sex disaggregated data did collect? Was program data disaggregated by other important demographic variables? (E.g. ethnicity, socio-economic characteristics such as migration affects, marital status, disability, age and/ or other). Are there any examples of how CAVAC has altered its approach in order to improve outcomes for women and/or sub-groups of women? What are female interviewees’ most pressing needs for action, according to them? Has CAVAC responded to these needs? Labour productivity is a key factor in improving household income - did it change that particularly for women Document review: CAVAC gender strategies & studies, sex disaggregated CAVAC M&E data, CAVAC work plans and progress reports. Key informant interviews: DFAT post, DFAT gender adviser, CAVAC implementing team, Focus group meeting: local women Describe CAVAC’s approach to ensuring gender equality. Test for monitoring against gender outcomes and adaptation of the approach if necessary. Noting that CAVAC did generally not work directly with smallholder farming households how did it ensure that services it supported were benefiting the poor? (P1) What if any poverty analysis did CAVAC undertake in each activity location? Were CAVAC activities explicitly targeted to the poor? How did CAVAC monitor the impact of its activities on the end user / poor? Document review: poverty analysis, project design, work plans and progress report. Key informant interviews: DFAT post, CAVAC implementing team, CAVAC supported business, Describe CAVAC’s approach to the poor. Test for monitoring of impact on the poor.
Scheme Name Sbov Andeth (Kampot) 2011/14 Chamlong (Kampot) 2013/14 Rokar Chhouk (Takeo) 2013/14 Wat Thmey (WT) (Takeo) 2014/15 Boeung Leas (Kampong Thom) 2014/15 Tang Krasang or 6 January SC1,2&3 (Kampong Thom) 2013/14 Target Area in ha HH’s 1,196 950 306 225 539 687 2,117 1,966 300 250 1,456 789 Connected Area in ha HH’s 1,250 - 3 rice 950 100 % About 60% as others take water from adjoining Wat Thmey pumping scheme. Very few effectively connected for the EWS crop as the scheme runs out of water 100% 100 % the new pumps were installed in April 2017 0% as water is blocked by main canal construction. The first year 100 % Scheme type Main canal run-of-the river; water distributed by individual mobile pumping Pumping station at head of the main Water distributed through canal network by gravity Main canal run-of-the river; water distributed by individual mobile pumping Pumping station at head of the main canal. Water distributed by canal network by gravity. Pumping station at head of the main canal. Water distributed by canal network by gravity. Water taken from Main Canal of the Tang Krasang reservoir and distributed through canal network by gravity. Costs– total 1,033,661 828,768 328,501 4,286,106 Second pump station was constructed during Phase two. This amount combines all. 877,284 1,825,259 Cost $/ha 2,708 609 2,025 2,924 1,254
Irrigation Service Fee (ISF) 50 kg of paddy Will be to zero by next year. Farmers claim high pumping costs are the main reason KHR 1,350 per kWh consumed for pumping. This includes operational and maintenance costs. Electricity cost per kWh = KHR 740 KHR 20,000 = USD 5 Will be close to zero by next year. Farmers claim high pumping costs are the main reason KHR 1,550 per kWh consumed for pumping. This includes operational and maintenance costs. Electricity cost per kWh = KHR 720 KHR 20,000 = USD 5 Will be to zero by next year. Farmers claim high pumping costs are the main reason % of farmer paying ISF 20% 100% 11% 100% 100% 0% as water has been blocked by construction in Main canal by ADB funded project Access Roads Power Road constructed along main canal No Power Road constructed along main and secondary canals Power connection available Road constructed along main canal No Power Road constructed along main and secondary canals Power connection available near 2nd PH Road constructed along main and secondary canals No power connections variable (diesel genset) Road constructed along secondary canals No Power Yield increase by 2015 – rice t 8,066 23,247 12,400 1,128 832 3,968 Life of project After 7 years, performance will reduce to 30 % due to silting up of main canal. 20 years 7 years, performance will reduce to 30 % due to silting up of main canal. Water resources availability not secure. Scheme will be largely served by new scheme to be constructed in 2018 20 years 20 years Depending on maintenance of main Expected to be 15 years as some reduction is expected after 10 years of operation due to lack of sufficient maintenance. Effectiveness of FWUC Expected to fail after 1 or 2 years as no ISF will be collected anymore. FWUC Committee members will be reluctant to work for free. Well-functioning FWUC. Expected to continue as 100% of farmers pay ISF Expected to fail after 1 or 2 years as no ISF will be collected anymore. FWUC Committee members will be reluctant to work for free’ Well-functioning FWUC. Expected to continue as 100% of farmers pay ISF Well-functioning FWUC. Expected to continue as 100% of farmers pay ISF FWUC will need to be after completion of construction work along Main Canal by ADB. No FWUC is being established by ADB as far as we know. Ideally a
Scheme sustainability score 0-10 4 4 7 2 1 0 2 Schemes not visited by the evaluation team (continued) Scheme Name Spean Touch (Kampot) 2012/13 Prey Leu (Kampot) 2012 Hay Saun (Kampot) 2013/14 Reservoir 77 (kampot) 2013/14 Thnoat Chum (Kampong Thom) 2011/14 Angko (Kampong thom) (2011/12/14/15) Target Area in ha HH’s 1,663 1,815 900 942 643 724 250 280 1,200 1,275 1,100 313 Connected Area in ha HH’s 271 EWS 1,250 WS 60 DS 3 rice crops 375 EWS 900 WS 120 DS 3 rice crops 570 EWS 643 WS 150 DS 3 rice 250 WS 1 rice crop 150 EWS 1,200 RR 50 DS 3 rice 540 EWS 1,200 RR 50 DS 3 rice crops Scheme type Main canal run-of-the river; water distributed by individual mobile pumping Main canal run-of-the river; water distributed by individual mobile pumping and some PWSs Main run-of-the river; water distributed by individual mobile pumping and pump house for the extension of the scheme Reservoir mainly for supplementary wet season irrigation Run-off from Main Canal; water distributed by gravity for most of the command area. Pump station at the river bank (screw pump). Water distributed by gravity Costs – total 654,183 431,175 890,025 336,214 682,418 1,783,800