Food Security and Water Sanitation Program Evaluation Preah Vihear

Food Security and Water Sanitation Program Evaluation

Preah Vihear Province

Final Report – Donor Briefing Draft

DGDev – GPR/AIDCO/2000/2015/1/0

April 30, 2004

(Evaluation conducted over March-April 2004)

Evaluator:

AAH Preah Vihear April 2004 DG Dev Final Evaluation - 2 -

Contents

1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Target Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Main Objectives of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 Project Achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Objectives of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Component Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1 Establish Village Development Committees project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2 Increase Household Income (Piglet Distribution) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3 Increase Rice Production (Bull Distribution) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.4 Increase Veterinary Knowledge (Village Livestock Agent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.5 Vaccination Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.6 Fish Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.7 Year Round Vegetable Growing & Crop Production Agents . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.8 Protein/Cash Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.9 Fruit Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.10 Improve Local Meals (Nutrition & Household Econ. Training) . . . . . . . . . 35 5.11 Community Water Points & Improvement of Traditional Wells . . . . . . . . . 38 5.12 School Latrines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5.13 Water Jars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5.14 Dykes & Stream Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.15 Testing of Rice Varieties & Production Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.16 Ministry Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

7. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Annexes Annex 1: Map of Cambodia Annex 2: Map of Preah Vihear Annex 3: Map of Chom Ghsan and Koulen Districts Annex 4: Evaluation Participants Annex 5: Initial Household Interview Questionnaire Annex 6: Revised Household Interview Questionnaire Annex 7: Household Resources Annex 8: Seasonal Calendars Annex 9: Problem Ranking Annex 10: Venn Diagrams


List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CEDAC Centre d' Etude et de Development Agricole Cambodgien CARDI Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute CPA Crop Production Agent FRP Fish Raising Promoter

DEEP Development Education pour l'Eau Potable DG Dev Directorate General for Development (EC Brussels) PDRD Provincial Department of Rural Development FFW Food For Work HKI Helen Keller International MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MRD Ministry for Rural Development PDAFF Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries PDWVA Provincial Department of Women and Veteran’s affaires PDE Provincial Department for Education PDH Provincial Department of Health RAD Rural Aid Development SCALE Sao Cambodia Aquaculture Low Expenditure VAP Village Action Plan VDC Village Development Committee VLA Village Livestock Agent VRC Veterinaires Ruraux du Cambodge WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organisation


1. Summary Action Against Hunger (AAH) project DG Dev – GPR/AIDCOP/2000/2015/1/0 was a European Union funded integrated household food security and agricultural improvement project targeting vulnerable families within 23 villages in Preah Vihear Province.

The project was implemented over the course of 26 months, from February 1, 2002 to March 31, 2004. The villages selected were located in the districts of Chom Ksan and Koulen, with a total of 2,821 beneficiary households in 23 villages. Additional water and sanitation activities occurred in Chhep district. AAH expanded this project through co-funding to include related activities in Rovieng, Tbaeng Meanchey, and Chhep districts. These co-funded projects were not covered by this evaluation.

The primary goal of the project was to improve food security with the objectives of 1) diversification and increase in food production, 2) reduction of dependence on outside entitlements during the lean season through year-round agriculture, 3) facilitation of the transition to a period of stable food security.

The project was composed of components for food production and income generation (piglet raising, vegetable gardening, fish farming, cash crop planting, draught animal groups), water and sanitation (wells, water jars, latrines, hygiene training), and capacity building (nutrition training, ministry training). The project intervention activities were relevant and appropriate to the target area location and culture. Moreover, the project was supported by an accurate and informative pre-intervention survey. The project had mixed results. Short term food security was not significantly improved due to a lack of human resources in implementation, and a widespread drought. The project target areas were spread over a vast area within Preah Vihear. The villages targeted were linked with extremely poor roads, requiring AAH staff to, at times, to spend an entire day to reach a single village. As such, project staff were unable to provide as much observation and support of beneficiaries as they would have liked. In regards to the drought, the drought had a serious negative affect on the agricultural components. Because of this drought, nearly every household in the target area was worse off in terms of food security than before. Amidst the difficulties, there were key long term benefits such as increased access to clean water, the introduction of gardening new varieties of vegetables, increased capacity of some village development committees, and the presence and use of village livestock agents to treat livestock illnesses. Importantly, the lessons learned from this project may be applied to future projects to insure their success.


2. Background 2.1 Target Area Preah Vihear is a province in Northern Cambodia, bordering Thailand and Laos. The province is one of the least developed in Cambodia. Poor road conditions reduce access to social services and markets (see annex 1,2,3). As a province with a border with Thailand, Preah Vihear was the location of extended civil war fighting throughout the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. Many residents, especially those in the project target communes, spent those years in regular migration to escape fighting.

After the of the defection of the Khmer Rouge leadership in 1996, Preah Vihear began to stabilize. By 1999, most local refugees had returned to their home villages to construct thatch houses and plant rice fields / farms.

At the time of the current DG Dev project commencement, AAH was one of nine organizations operating in Preah Vihear, and one of three organizations working towards health/food security in the province. WFP, which was to be an AAH partner providing food for work in support of the fish cultivation component and the Dyke/road rehabilitation component, operated in Preah Vihear from 1994-2001, ending its activities before this AAH project.

Table 1. Other Organizations Active in Preah Vihear

No Organization Activity Commencement Date in PV

1 UNOPS: Seila Capacity building of local institutions as part of the decentralization of governance

May 2002

2 Health Unlimited Improving area health and hygiene

Unknown

(prior to 2001) in 1993

3 Handicap International Monitoring land ownership of de-mined land

May 2002

4 World Education Raise awareness of mines and HIV

August 2001

5 Mines Advisory Group De-mining July 2000

6 CMAC De-mining 2002

7 Halo Trust De-mining Unknown

8 Rural Aid for Development Pre-school education, jar and seed distribution, school construction

Unknown

9 World Vision Food security, water & sanitation, child sponsorship

October 2002

10 Save the Children Norway School construction 2003

Source: Final Evaluation village chief interviews and 2002 pre-intervention survey; it is possible that more NGOs are active in Preah Vihear without having established a formal presence


Districts

Five communes within the districts of Koulen and Chom Khsan are the target areas for the Action Against Hunger (AAH) Food Security intervention (table 2) under the original project target area. This evaluation looked only at the original target area. However, the project expanded to additional communes with co-funded project; this certainly created a strain on AAH staff which were already spread thin on the existing target area (see annex 2). The target area includes areas that experienced fighting up to the mid 1990s and so families are suffering from greater effects of war relative to those in other areas of the province.

Many household participants in this final evaluation had had their villages burnt and destroyed completely during fighting in 1994. During this time, they fled to the larger district and provincial capitals, living as refugees, mainly the towns of Koulen and Tbeng Meanchey.

Table 2: Target Villages

No. District Commune Villages House-holds

Popu- lation

Sample for evaluation

1 Chom Ksan Kantout Anlong Veng 36 146 2 Chom Ksan Kantout Char 84 400 3 Chom Ksan Kantout Kantout 151 767 chosen 4 Chom Ksan Kantout Sra Em 130 581 chosen 5 Chom Ksan Yeang Antil 149 636 6 Chom Ksan Yeang Chom Sre 155 695 chosen 7 Chom Ksan Yeang Kom Penh 47 206 8 Chom Ksan Yeang Kong Yong 136 663 chosen 9 Chom Ksan Yeang Rasmey 83 423 10 Chom Ksan Yeang Yeang 75 314 11 Koulen Phnom Penh Bos 248 1,379 12 Koulen Phnom Penh Phnouv 137 721 chosen 13 Koulen Phnom Penh Srabal 204 1,062 chosen 14 Koulen Phnom Tbeng II Boribo 123 637 chosen 15 Koulen Phnom Tbeng II Chouk 132 646 chosen 16 Koulen Phnom Tbeng II Kdak 213 1,044 17 Koulen Phnom Tbeng II Sralay 74 395 18 Koulen Srayong Kok Ke 49 199 chosen 19 Koulen Srayong Mrech 103 425 20 Koulen Srayong Rumchek 80 395 21 Koulen Srayong Sambo 60 260 22 Koulen Srayong Srayong

Cheung 196 746 chosen

23 Koulen Srayong Srayong Tbong 156 612 chosen Total 5 communes 23 villages 2,821 13,352 12 villages

Source: AAH pre-intervention survey, 2002

Villages

In the original target area (not counting the co-funded target areas), there are 23 villages in the project (see table 2 and annexes 1, 2, 3), many of which are remote, and war


ravaged relative to other villages in the country and province. The villages are connected to provincial roads with poorly made cart tracks. Originally, the project targeted 24 villages, but one of the villages (Kam Penh in Yeang Commune) was vacated by the time of the project. Many of these villages were destroyed or heavily mined and the native population started to return only during the dry seasons in 1999 and 2000 when they could prepare rice plots and when road accessibility improved.

A pre-intervention survey was conducted by AAH in May 2002 of the original 24 villages. This pre-intervention survey (attached as annex to the AAH final report) provided a comprehensive assessment of area history, wealth rankings, income generation, water access, markets, infrastructure, agriculture, and organization. It provided a basis for the project design and targeting of beneficiaries.

Across the target area, the pre-intervention study showed that 31.5% of the households had a hunger gap of 3 or more months and that 18.6% of the households had a hunger gap of 1-2 months. So, 50% of the target area population was found to have one or more months when they would not have rice (note: this finding was collected from village chiefs, not a household assessment).

The pre-intervention study also noted a broad range of factors that contribute towards food insecurity. This included remoteness, history of conflict, landmines, community fragmentation, non-irrigated agriculture, variable food production, narrow food entitlements, cycles of indebtedness, absence of veterinary skills, and limited hygiene knowledge.

Of the 23 villages in the original project target area, five villages were studied for the external mid term evaluation in May & June 2003. For the external final evaluation, there were 11 villages selected for study (see table 2 above). The evaluation did not evaluate villages outside of the original target area.


2.2 Main Objectives of the Program Primary Goal: To improve the Food Security of approximately 2821 families residing in 23 villages in Preah Vihear Province General Objective 1: Diversification and Increase in food production, ultimately used for household consumption and income generation, through the provision of start-up agricultural inputs followed by longer-term capacitation General Objective 2: Decrease the dependence during the lean season on outside food entitlements for the most vulnerable families, through the establishment of a more complete year-round agricultural production system General Objective 3: Facilitate the agricultural transition from a period of food insecurity to one of stability Program Component Objectives:

1. To increase household income generation through the re-introduction of backyard, pig raising amongst 750 beneficiary families.

1. To increase rice production among 400 families through the distribution of 80 bulls as draught animals.

2. To increase local veterinary knowledge through 23 Village Livestock Agents and expanding the Village Livestock Agent association.

3. To improve household food entitlements and income generation through small-scale fish raising in ponds, year round vegetable growing and through the re-introduction of protein/cash crops and local fruit trees amongst 900 families.

4. To establish and build the capacity of local ministries to conduct food security and development initiatives through training and education of 7 Ministry staff members.

5. To increase the economic and nutritional benefits of local meals through training in nutrition and household economics.

6. To establish and build the capacity of 23 Village Development Committees.

7. The construction of 70 community waterpoints (boreholes and ring wells) for the provision of potable water.

8. The construction of 16 two-stance latrines in school.

9. The improvement of 40 traditional wells.

10. The distribution of 1000 water storage jars (220 liters).

11. Construction of an anticipated 4 stream-crossings (road improvements).

12. The program aims also include the testing of 11 improved rice varieties from the Cambodian Agriculture Research and Development Institute (CARDI) and 3 local ones, support to the Ministry of Agriculture in conducting two spearheaded vaccination campaigns and food security assessments in other districts within the Province. As well as the selection and training of farmer promoters for vegetable growing and fish raising in he 23 villages.

13. A comprehensive training program that is designed to generate demand and sustainability for the program, through participation and local capacity building supports all activities.


2.3 Project Achievements The AAH project in Preah Vihear can be divided into 13 project components. In numerical terms, all of the project components had made progress towards their objectives. The table below summarizes the planned activities and achievement as reported by AAH in its final report.

No Activities Target goal

Achieve- ment

Comment or Issue Reported by AAH

1 Households participating in small-scale pig raising

750 1,021 Completed

2 Farmer’s groups organized 40 40 Completed

3 Households growing vegetables

900 900 Completed

4 Households raising fish in ponds

300 118 Fish ponds is difficult as the most needy people do not have the time or labor to dig them without external support.

5 Latrines constructed 16 16 Completed

6 Households participating in Proteins/cash crops promotion

900 900 Completed

7 Households participating in Fruit-tree growing activity

900 903 Completed

8 Traditional wells improvement

40 40 Completed

9 New water points constructed (shallow wells or drilled boreholes)

70 70 Completed

10 Road improvement (oxcart bridges constructed)

4 4 Completed

11 Households participating in jar distribution of water storage

1,000 1,130 Completed

12 Number of cattle vaccinated against Hemorrhagic Septicaemia

N/A 6,486 Many animal diseases exist in the target area

13 Training workshops in nutrition

288 288 Completed

Final Report Draft, AAH 2004


3. Objectives of Evaluation This evaluation took place shortly after the end of the second year of operation. This evaluation mainly considers the food security aspects; for water and sanitation activities, the evaluator focuses on the inter-relations between food security and water and sanitation components. This evaluation approached the program from the following perspectives:

Impact: The evaluation team assessed the impact that project components have had on household access to food, entitlements and income generation.

Appropriateness: The evaluation team assessed whether the actions undertaken were appropriate and timely in the context of the needs and customs of the affected population and to what extent potential and actual beneficiaries were consulted as to their perceived needs and priorities as well as project design, implementation and monitoring.

Efficiency: Were resources used efficiently?

Coverage: Were the worst affected groups covered within the limitations of the resources with beneficiaries correctly identified? Was the geographical coverage appropriate?

Strategy: Was the assistance provided in a way that took account of the longer-term context and sustainability. Did the assistance strengthen local organizations / agencies?

Coherence: What adaptations were made to take into account recommendations of the mid-term evaluation? What steps were taken by AAH to ensure that its responses were co-ordinated with other agencies? Were other actions, such as advocacy work, undertaken by AAH to complement the ongoing program?

Gender: Was gender considered in the AAH’s assessment of the situation, and in the implementation of the program with special components for women?


4. Methodology This final evaluation sampled 12 of the 23 beneficiary villages (see table 1 above). This sample was drawn to include villages from each of the communes in the target area and to be economically and geographically representative of the target area as a whole.

The evaluation was carried out by local research and training firm CamEd. The following consultants were involved:

• Casey Barnett, Director: Research coordination, review, and supervision

• Michael Clifford, Technical Supervisor: Research technical supervision

• Cheam Pe A, Team Leader: Led research team in conducting field work

• Puth Kan, Research Assistant: Assisted in conducting field work

• Eay Usos, Research Assistant: Assisted in conducting field work

• Chin Channa, Research Assistant: Assisted in conducting field work

A participatory approach was employed to evaluate the impact of the many activities. Group discussions were made in each of the sampled villages as well as semi-structured interviews at household level. As the evaluation was conducted the day when many adult males were working in the fields, most of the discussions consisted of mainly female participants (60-80%). In five target villages (Sra Em, Kantout, Srabal, Pnouv, Chouk) and two control villages (Veal Thom and Krabao) visited by the evaluation team, a sample of 10 beneficiary households was selected at random for the household level interviews. In three villages (Srayong Cheung Chom Sre, and Chouk), the evaluation team increased the sample to 15, 16, and 10 households per village, respectively, drawn at random from beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike. In Koh Ker, Srayong Tbong and Kong Yong, the evaluation team selected only 5, 3, and 3 households respectively, in addition to village chief, village livestock agent, and student interviews. In Baribo, no households were selected and only the village chief, village livestock agent, traditional well owners and students were interviewed. The first five villages were visited by the evaluation team from March 22 – April 4, 2004 and the final six villages were visited by the evaluation team from April 20 – May 3, 2004. The team composition varied slightly for each period. Puth Kan and Eay Usos worked as research assistants only during the first period (March 22 – April 4) while Chin Channa worked as a research assistant only during the second period (April 20 – May 3). During the household interviews, the evaluation team made a visual inspection of the vegetable gardens, fruit trees, water jars, water sources (including wells), training handouts, pig pens, seed stocks, and farming equipment (e.g., rakes, hoes, picks) of each household.

Cheam Pe A facilitating a problem analysis session with the Kantuout village development committee.


After the household interviews, the same households were invited to join together in larger group discussions. During the group discussions, the evaluation team worked with participants to draw social maps, resource maps, conduct problem ranking and analysis, prepare seasonal calendars, and produce Venn diagrams. After the first two villages (Phnov and Sra Em), the evaluation team chose to stop drawing Venn diagrams, seasonal calendars and resource maps, finding the other evaluation tools sufficient to measure the impact of the project. After interviews, discussions, and the participatory assessment, the evaluation team interviewed the village chief, VLA, and VDC of each village within the sample. After these final interviews, the evaluation team made a visual inspection of the new wells, bridges, and latrines that AAH had established over the course of the program. Constraints & Limitations 1. The evaluation team did not review current socio-economic and demographic data of

other provinces and districts to objectively determine whether the target area was in fact the most vulnerable in the province. Instead, the evaluation team used a mix of reference to the pre-intervention survey, discussion with stakeholders, observation, historical references, and geographical comparison to infer whether area selection was appropriate.

2. Part of the evaluation was designed to assess the impact of the rice trials on local

farmers’ knowledge, assuming that there was a broad awareness of the rice trials; however, the evaluation did not find a broad awareness of the trials.

3. This evaluation did not formally assess the knowledge of seconded ministry

employees; seconded ministry employees were only interviewed about their role in the AAH program, their perception of the AAH program, and their future role with their respective provincial departments.

4. The evaluation discussions and interviews were unable to produce estimates of

cultivated land that can be used confidently. Land area estimations were made by villagers who had varying conceptions of common land area measurements, such as hectare and rye (a local field measurement).

5. This evaluation did not include Chhep district as instructed by the AAH Preah Vihear

Head of Base who was the AAH contact with the evaluators during their selection and contract by AAH. The rationale was that there were only watsan activities in Chhep.

6. The evaluation was unable to accurately identify the specific causes of deaths for

bovines across the target area, making it difficult to assess the success of the vaccination campaign in quantitative terms.

7. This final evaluation was conducted towards the end of the dry season. While this is an

ideal time to assess achievement of establishing year-round sources of food, it is not a good time to assess the establishment of wet season sources of food.

8. This evaluation did not conduct a formal financial analysis or cost analysis of project

inputs. The evaluation only reviewed the end of project financial report provided by AAH.

9. AAH provided the evaluator with a draft Final Report, February 1, 2002 – March 31, 2004. Throughout this report, all references to an AAH Final Report refer to this draft. AAH has informed the evaluator that this is not the final draft of that report.


5. Component Findings 5.1 Establish Village Development Committees The Integrated Food Security project aimed to organize village development committees (VDCs), building their capacity to identify development needs, formulate proposals and implement development initiatives on their own.

VDCs were organized with the support of AAH between July and October 2002. There had already been VDCs in each village, but they were inactive due lack of skills and financial means. During the reorganization, this evaluation confirmed that villagers selected VDC members through a secret vote. Approximate voter turnout was less than 50%. VDC size varies according to the size of the village, ranging from 3-9. VDC members are primarily the affluent members of the community. During the 1990s the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) alongside with International Organisations and the Donor Community set up a strategy for the decentralisation process and general development of the country based on the Village Development Committee model (VDC). This consists of the organisation of village-based committees that were meant to be the focal point for the implementation of development activities and the participation of beneficiary communities. As time goes by, VDCs keep lacking any financial or material support from the RGC nor have they any legal authority or executive power within their communities where the village chief remains as the only legal representative recognised and authorised by the RGC.

Furthermore, the establishment of the democratically elected Commune Councils (CC) in 2001 fully recognised by the RGC, all relevant institutions and development actors further weakens the VDC model and raises serious concern as to the role, aim and sustainability of VDCs other than having a “facilitating/advisory” role within their communities so long as they remain operational considering the lack of financial support from the RGC which certainly undermines the interest of VDC members to continue (unlike the village chiefs and CCs).

VDCs were successfully selected and trained in 23 of the target villages. However, only VDCs in Kantout, Phnom Penh, and Phnom Tbeng II communes (including 11 of the target villages) were found by the final evaluation to have had a substantial role in this AAH project. VDCs in Srayong and Yeang (including 12 of the target villages) were found to have been displaced by village chiefs, especially in regards to the targeting of beneficiaries and distribution of aid. A similar finding was reported in the mid-term evaluation. VDC Training All VDCs were found to have participated in a variety of training modules up to April 2003, with topics including rural development, participation, gender mainstreaming, village information, and social analysis. Attendance in the training modules varied, with VDC members attributing absences to farm work or family matters. VDCs reported having received handouts on at least some of the

Social mapping with evaluators and target village VDC in Phnom Penh commune.


training modules, which was a recommendation of the mid-term evaluation. All VDC members interviewed have shown a rudimentary understanding of development issues and the role of the VDC. VDC Activities VDC chiefs in Kantout, Phnom Penh, and Phnom Tbeng II communes were found to have been largely responsible for the selection, organization, and distribution for the various components under this AAH project. These three communes account for 11 of the 23 beneficiary villages. In these communes, approximately half of the beneficiaries were found to be from families meeting AAH vulnerability criteria. All beneficiaries in these communes reported meeting with VDC members, the first contact being with the chief of the VDC.

However, VDCs in Srayong and Yeang communes were found to have had no role in the selection of the beneficiaries; however, they did attend distributions and training. These two communes account for 12 of the 23 beneficiary villages. In these villages, selection and distribution was the sole responsibility of the village chief. No households reported being contacted by VDC members. There is a corresponding break down along commune lines in responses from villagers when asked what the role of VDCs is (see table 3 below). Table 3: Perceived Role of VDC by Villagers Village Commune Is VDC

active? VDC is responsible for village development.

VDC helps the poor.

VDC helps distribute aid from NGOs.

Srayong Cheung

Srayong No 2 0 13

Srayong Tbong

Srayong No 1 2 12

Koh Ker Srayong No 0 0 5 Srayong No 3 2 30 Chom Sre Yeang No 1 0 12 Kong Yong Yeang No 0 0 3 Yeang No 1 0 15 Kantout Kantout Yes 4 1 5 Sra Em Kantout Yes 7 0 3 Kantout Yes 11 1 8 Pnov P. Penh Yes 7 0 3 Srabal P. Penh Yes 6 2 2 P. Penh Yes 13 2 5 Sralai P. Tbeng II Yes 4 0 0 Baribos P. Tbeng II Yes 6 1 2 Chouk P. Tbeng II Yes 9 4 2 P. Tbeng II Yes 15 5 4 It is possible that the reason for the lack of activity and organization of the VDCs in Srayong and Yeang are the poor roads connecting them to the main provincial roads. These two communes are the most inaccessible from the provincial capital. AAH officials may have had difficulty spending adequate time monitoring project implementation and VDC activities in these villages. In this case, using the village chief would have been an unfortunate convenience. The mid-term evaluation made the same conclusion.

VDCs were not found to have implemented projects on their own, mainly acting to organize the distribution of outside aid and to make development requests to outside


actors. During problem analysis sessions with the evaluation team, the VDCs agreed upon requesting aid from external actors as the solution for nearly every problem. Impact There has been a significant long term impact on the 11 villages in Phnom Penh, Phnom Tbeng II, and Kantout communes. These VDCs have operated largely independently to more or less select vulnerable families to participate in the various AAH components. As the village receives additional funds and aid from the government and NGOs, the VDCs in these three communes can be relied on to efficiently distribute aid. Moreover, the VDCs in these communes have improved their understanding of development issues, community participation, and planning. These villages are well equipped to support development spurred by outside actors. However, it is unlikely that the VDCs will initiate development projects without outside support. In contrast, there will be negligible long term impact on the 12 villages in Srayong and Yeang communes. These VDCs, while undergoing multiple training programs with AAH, have not actively supported or participated in the selection of beneficiaries. They have been displaced by the village chiefs. These VDCs have not developed any substantial experience that would assist them in the future delivery of aid or planning.


5.2 Household Income Generation (Piglet Distribution) The AAH intervention set forth household income generation as its first component. The output for this component is the reintroduction of backyard pig raising among 750 beneficiary families; however, by the end of the project AAH was able to distribute piglets to 1,021 families. At the end of the project, mother pigs were distributed to each of the villages to be used as a pig bank. A further 10 sows were given to World Vision along with the handover of the AAH production farm.

The objective of the activity was to improve household food security throughout the year following three axes of intervention: provision of veterinary health services, training for improved husbandry practices, and the subsidized distribution of piglets. Among vulnerable families, the near term impact of this component was small with sustainability via sow distribution as of yet immeasurable.

Selection Piglet beneficiary selection criteria was not uniformly applied. The AAH selection criteria for piglet distribution is “vulnerable households including… families without access to land, women headed households, disabled headed households, unaccompanied elders…, and extra-large families”(AAH Final Report). Further, the AAH final report states that the “households were selected together with the Village Development Committee”. For this final evaluation, all VDC chiefs, village chiefs, and VLAs interviewed were asked “How were the piglet beneficiaries selected?” In response to this question, all of them responded with varying descriptions of selecting vulnerable households, all emphasizing “poor”. However, selection and invitation of beneficiary households did not directly involve any AAH staff. Selection and invitation of beneficiaries was conducted by either the VDC Chief or the Village Chief. In Phnom Penh, Phnom Tbeng II, and Kantout communes, the VDC chief contacted the potential beneficiary, with approximately 50% of the beneficiaries meeting the vulnerability criteria. However, in Srayong and Yeang communes, the selection of the beneficiaries was made solely by the Village Chief, sometimes with the agreement of the Village Livestock Agent. In Srayong and Yeang communes, the accuracy of the selection of “vulnerable” households varies greatly from village to village and is related to the diligence of the Village Chief. Sometimes beneficiaries were from vulnerable families, sometimes not. There was no consistency. In Srayong and Yeang communes, it was found that vulnerable families on the outskirts of villages were regularly left out of the piglet distribution.

The process described is that the Village Chief (in Srayong and Yeang communes) or the Village Development Committee Chief (in Phnom Penh, Phnom Tbeng II, and Kantout communes) went directly to the house of a prospective beneficiary and invited them to a meeting. At the meeting, including at times VDC members, the VLA and AAH officials, the family was asked to swear that they indeed were poor. Then, they were asked to sign and thumbprint a list. Most beneficiaries were instructed to build a pig pen, and the majority constructed that pen before receiving the piglet.

Yorkshire/Landrace piglets being raised on the production farm in Tbeng Meanchey.


The practice of selection not meeting stated criteria was also noted by the mid-term evaluation. Also, among the households sampled in the final evaluation, there were no vulnerable beneficiaries among Srayong Tboeung, Srayong Cheung, and Chom Sre villages for the last piglet distribution. A significant number of landless women headed households and other vulnerable households fitting the AAH selection criteria were found to not have been invited, instead replaced by better off neighbors.

The final evaluation corroborates the mid-term evaluation which also noted “house to house visits revealed that some of those who received a piglet had already got one or more but there were many other poor households who had none and still got none.” Since the mid-term evaluation, this selection practice has apparently continued.

In many cases, the discrepancy was particularly egregious. In six of the villages visited for this final report, there were found landless vulnerable families in poorly built grass homes living next to relatively wealthy families in large wood houses with motorcycles and livestock. The non-vulnerable families were invited to receive a piglet while the vulnerable family was not.

When Village Development Committee Chiefs and Village Chiefs were approached with the observed discrepancies in applying selection criteria, the common response was that the vulnerable family “isn’t able to take care of the pig” and “they can’t afford pig feed”.

This is a legitimate reason to adjust selection criteria; ability, interest, and willingness are important. Lack of willingness and ability may have significantly contributed to the high piglet mortality (described below). As the response above was given by Village Chiefs and VDC Chiefs only after being confronted with evidence of discrepancies the evaluation team has concluded that they (the Village Chiefs and VDC Chiefs) revised the criteria on their own accord. Nevertheless, since they did not even meet with the excluded vulnerable households, the evaluation team feels that the Village Chiefs and VDC Chiefs could not have been able to accurately gauge interest, willingness or ability of those excluded households.

It was also found that the final distribution of piglets to Raksmey village (in December 2003) occurred in Chom Sre. Considering the distance of 10 km of bad road between the villages, with vulnerable families having no means of transportation other than walking, the number of vulnerable families participating may have been affected, especially if those households consisted of elderly or disabled headed households. Besides the general difficulty of the journey, it may have been burdensome for beneficiaries to sacrifice an entire day of foraging and income generation to make the trip.

Mr. Bun Both of Chom Sre was one of the few recipients to still have his AAH piglet. He is not a typical beneficiary in that he successfully constructed a pig pen and, when the pig was ill, received successful treatment from the VLA. He is a typical recipient in that he already had many animals; at the time of distribution (approximately January), he already owned 5 pigs, 10 chickens and 1 cow.


Beneficiary Pig Raising According to the AAH final report, 1,021 piglets were distributed in the target area. Beneficiaries were required to participate in a two step training program and construct a pig pen. This final evaluation determined that approximately all of the beneficiaries participated in the training program and 90% of the beneficiaries in Kantout, Phnom Penh, Phnom Tbeng II, and Yeang communes successfully constructed pig pens. However, in Srayong Cheung and Srayong Tbong, no pig pens were found among beneficiaries in the latest distribution. Also, several households in each commune noted that they had built a pig pen at the time of distribution, but had broken it down during the dry season to allow the piglets to forage independently. Some beneficiaries also broke down the pig pen after the death of their piglet. At the time of distribution, beneficiaries confirmed that they all paid 10,000 ($2.5 USD) riel for the piglet. Normally, a local piglet of a similar size and age would cost 30,000 riel ($7.5 USD). The original AAH proposal set piglet cost $30 per piglet. However, by raising the piglets on the inefficient AAH production farm, the cost per piglet was $106 (mid-term evaluation). Most of the piglets died. This final evaluation has found that 73.3% of all piglets distributed (local and production farm) have died, based on a randomly selected sample of 40 (this statistic deducts the margin of error +/- 9.7% at a 90% confidence interval). When referring to this statistic, the reliability of a small sample must be kept in mind. However, Village Chiefs and VDC Chiefs reported death rates of 30-60%; it may be possible that AAH relied on reporting from the Village Chief or the VDC Chief, rather than direct discussion with beneficiaries. When we confronted Village Chiefs and VDC Chiefs with the higher death rate that we had observed in their respective villages, they admitted their number was only an estimate. While the AAH statistic was determined 3 months before the final evaluation, any deaths in the interim will not have affected the statistic as the piglet distribution was over a period of months; also, the final distribution included local piglets, which actually lifts the survival rate. The mortality statistic counted sold pigs as alive. Except for the distributed sows, only a handful of Yorkshire or Landrace pigs were found among the households; households whose Yorkshire and Landrace piglets had survived quickly sold the piglet for fear that the piglet would soon meet the fate of the others in the village. Villagers regularly reported that other piglet recipients not interviewed for this evaluation did the same. These deaths were also reported in the mid-term evaluation. AAH continued to distribute a number of production farm piglets after the mid-term evaluation, but, in the final piglet distribution at the end of 2003, AAH purchased and distributed local piglets. It is likely that the mid-term evaluation was conducted too late in the project for AAH to make practical use of the findings in such a short period of time. There were several reported reasons for the deaths. First, the main complaint reported by villagers was that the piglet would not eat and then died of illness (18 of 33 respondents). AAH distributed 10-12 week old piglets, all of which had been fed a relatively high standard of feed (hygro and rice bran) at the production farm. In the target area (and elsewhere in Cambodia) it is not unusual to see local farmers raising the same kind of exotic breeds and surviving until maturity. Although exotic breeds are more sensitive to diseases, parasites and heat, it is difficult to believe that absolutely


all the piglets distributed died straightaway when the same breed can be easily found in same villages being raised successfully. It is probable that beneficiaries provided inappropriate food. At this young age of rapid growth, the piglets have a high daily protein requirement, so absence of food is very debilitating. Overlapping the first complaint, the second most common complaint was that the villagers “had nothing to feed the pig” (8 of 33 respondents). The third complaint was that the pig quickly got sick and died with no reference to diet (7 of 33 respondents). A majority of the piglet beneficiaries did contact the VLA, but the VLA was unable to save the pig. In contrast, the last distribution of piglets used local pigs. These pigs were bought locally in the villages for 30,000 riel ($7.5 USD) and then sold at a subsidized price for 10,000 riel ($2.5 USD). At the time of this final evaluation, 80% of those piglets had survived. As there was a distinct increase in non-vulnerable families receiving piglets for this final distribution, it is not clear to what degree the decreased mortality rate is due to either the breed or to the enhanced material support for the piglet. At the end of the project, production farm sows (Yorkshire and Landrace) were distributed to villages. Thus far, the survival rate of the piglets from these mother pigs has been 55%, based on the villages visited in this evaluation. Each of the surviving sows have already given birth to an average of 5 piglets. These piglets will soon be available for sale to villagers. Impact There has been and will be a sustained improvement in the income of small number of beneficiaries whose pigs survived (mostly non-vulnerable families). There is also expected to be a long term impact (as of yet immeasurable) from the addition of pig banks to each village. However, this component has not realized substantial long term impact for vulnerable families in the target areas. First, selection of vulnerable families was not consistent. Many of the families receiving piglets already had sufficient forms of income; in addition to the general observations of the evaluation team, the evaluation recorded 7 of 40 piglet recipients owning motorcycles, 9 of 40 piglet recipients owning a cow or buffalo, 3 of 40 piglet recipients being vendors, and 2 of 40 piglet recipients owning a rice milling machine. Moreover, many extremely vulnerable families were not invited to join the program. Second, most of the piglets died. This high mortality is largely due to a lack of appropriate food for the piglets. In fact, there may have been a largely negative impact on the income of the families since most of them lost their initial investment of 10,000 riel ($2.5 USD), plus additional expenses for feed and veterinary services.


5.3 Rice Production (Draught Animals) AAH target area intervention included increased rice production, with distribution of draught animals being the means of increasing the production. The rationale is that with access to draught animals, the beneficiary families would be able to prepare more land for planting. AAH estimated “this additional team of two animals will increase rice production by 200-300 kg per family”. AAH organized 40 groups of 10 households to share in the raising and use of a pair of bulls. However, as AAH has reported, families began to drop out of this activity earlier, so on average, group size was 7 to 8 families. At the end of the year, one family of each group would become the sole owner of the pair of bulls.

However, the mid-term evaluation recommended discontinuance of the groups because there were too many families in each group to make effective use of the bulls. Likewise, there was dissatisfaction with the plan to transfer ownership to a single family. The mid-term evaluation recommended the sale of bulls and the introduction of cow banks, where a smaller group of families would distribute the calves among themselves until each family had one cow.

The comments regarding the performance of the draft groups are from the mid-term evaluation. This evaluation does not provide any information regarding the area of land cultivated by beneficiary families with the draught animals distributed nor provides information regarding the impact of the draught animals distributed on the rice/cash-crop production of the beneficiary families. CamEd did not assess the short term impact of this activity on the beneficiary families, and instead focused on assessing the organization and sustainability of the new activity, the cow banks.

AAH followed this recommendation and, in January 2004, AAH organized the sale of these bulls. With these funds, cows were purchased and distributed to smaller groups of 5 families. The cow banks have been organized successfully and are expected to make a significant long term impact in the livelihoods of beneficiaries.

Selection Draught animal distribution selection criteria was for vulnerable families that had no cow or buffalo. This evaluation has found that all beneficiaries were indeed families without a cow or buffalo. These families were successfully selected by village meetings with the VDC, VLA, and Village Chief.

While all participating families did not previously own a cow or buffalo, the degree of vulnerability varied greatly. Some households were vulnerable while others were not. When this discrepancy was noted to VDCs, Village Chiefs, and VLAs, the common response was that the omitted vulnerable families had no need for the animals since they had either no or little land.

The same groups of families were subsequently used to participate in the cow bank scheme. Overall, this has been successful, however, one quarter of the families that had participated in the initial scheme were not participating in the cow bank scheme. The final evaluation found that most groups included 3-4 families. The families who had participated in the original group, but were omitted from the cow bank scheme did not know why they were not invited to participate in the cow bank. When this observation was put before VDCs and village chiefs, the common response was that those families had relatives with cown. AAH further informed the evaluator that some families were omitted because they had already dropped out of the original group in the initial phase of this component. Beneficiary Use of Draft Animals The distribution and use of draught animals has been described in the mid-term evaluation. The mid-term evaluation reported difficulties of organizing 10 families per


group. The mid-term evaluation also reported difficulties in sustaining the participation of beneficiaries due to 1) difficulty paying the monthly 1,500 riel group fee. 2) disputes regarding access to the use of the animals, and 3) disillusionment with the plan to give ownership of the animals to a single family after one year. In addition, the final evaluation has found a number of beneficiary households that said the bulls provided were inappropriate. They said that the bulls were too large and unruly and that a smaller local breed would have been more appropriate. Following the recommendation of the mid-term evaluation, AAH discontinued the draught animal scheme at the end of January, instead setting up the cow banks. The final evaluation has found that all of the cows in the cow banks have been vaccinated by the VLAs and all are in good health. Some groups have reported subsequent illness among their cows, but by securing the assistance of the VLA were able to restore the health of the animal. Families participating in the cow banks are satisfied and expect the cow bank to greatly improve their livelihoods. It was found that eight draught animal groups (80 households) were cheated by Mr. Samath Panha, a seconded staff member from the PDAFF. At least five months after the bulls had been distributed, Mr. Samath went to each of the groups and informed them that AAH was taking the bulls back and were going to be replaced with pigs. He took them, sold them and kept the proceeds. Then, pigs were distributed by AAH to these families at the price of 10,000 riel. Most of these families still do not understand that they have been cheated and that the piglet distribution was actually a separate program. While the AAH final report says “it was decided that these 49 families would receive a local piglet in compensation for the bull loss” it should be noted that the families still had to pay 10,000 riel for their “compensation”; AAH mentions that this was an oversight. After the theft, AAH contacted the local police, and filed a report. Mr. Samath Panha is still at large, though his family still lives in the center of Preah Vihear and he is, according to his former colleagues at the PDAFF, working in Phnom Penh. Impact The sale of the pairs of bulls and the purchase of cows for cow banks means that the impact of this component has little short-term impact. However, there is expected to be a strong long-term impact as the cow banks begin producing calves for distribution. This component has successfully targeted families without draught animals. In the absence of AAH, the cow bank groups have been successfully sustaining the program.

As the cows in the cow banks are still quite young, it is expected that the first calves will be produced after 1-2 more years. While the AAH final report expects three calves within three years, this final evaluation expects three calves within 4-5 years. The future impact of the cow banks will be on both rice cultivation and transportation to/from highland farms and forests. It is expected to greatly support the food security for each of those families participating, but currently there are no identifiable impacts other than the addition of a cow to family assets.

At present, it is uncertain whether this component will impact future rice production, which was the main objective of this component. The objective was to enable families to expand the rice planting area. However, target families reported a lack of additional land appropriate for rice planting.

It should be noted that only 86% of the households in the target area (including beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) own land on which rice planting is feasible, while 74%


of the households in the target area own forest farmland on which they plant cash crops. There is a negative correlation between the degree of vulnerability and ownership of rice fields.

Even though AAH has filed a police report, the local police have not arrested Mr. Panha. If Mr. Panha is not prosecuted, his action may have a long term negative impact on aid organizations working in the province. Future aid workers and village chiefs may feel that they are free to use aid projects and aid distributions for their own enrichment.


5.4 Increased Veterinary Knowledge (Village Livestock Agent) In order to decrease livestock disease and mortality, the AAH program included a component to select and train a Village Livestock Agent from each of the 23 villages. In addition, AAH was to build the organizational capacity of the VLA network, specifically to ensure a supply of medicines available for purchase.

By the end of the program, all 23 VLAs had been selected and had undergone a 7-month training program. Also, pharmacies had been successfully established at the district capitals of Koulen District and Chom Ksan District.

The mid-term evaluation reported that there was reluctance among villagers to use the VLAs. The mid-term evaluation determined the cause to be a lack of trust. By the time of the final evaluation, nearly every household with livestock had made use of the VLA in every village. Moreover, all of the villagers ranked the performance of VLAs positively.

This success is currently threatened by a lack of medicine despite the presence of an AAH supported pharmacy having been established in Koulen and Chom Ksan district capitals.

Selection & Training VLAs were elected at village meetings. Villagers were encouraged to elect someone with a high level of education, commitment to the village, ability to participate in the time consuming training, and experience raising animals. The final evaluation confirmed that the VLAs were fairly elected by villagers at a meeting. Most of the VLAs were younger (mid twenties), and had attended school. Only one of the VLAs interviewed in the final evaluation had had any prior experience treating animals.

The VLAs completed a 7-month training program conducted through Veterinaires Ruraux du Cambodge. For 1 to 2 weeks each month, training was supplied in a classroom by VRC and then the remaining weeks were spent in the field with monitoring by VRC and AAH. A two week refresher course for the VLAs took place in December 2003 – January 2004.

For placement of pharmacies, AAH selected existing pharmacies in Chom Ksan and Koulen since these pharmacies already maintain a supply of medicines into the area. It should be noted that previous pharmacies had been set up by the DG8 Food Security project in 2000, but closed down and were no longer operational by 2001.

VLA Activities VLAs in each of the villages visited have been very active in treating animals. Moreover, nearly every household with livestock has made use of the VLA. In choosing to engage the services of the VLA, households weigh the cost-benefit. Because of this, ill cows and buffalos nearly always receive treatment, while only some pigs receive treatment. Older, larger pigs are treated more often than smaller pigs. Chickens and ducks were inspected by VLAs in cases of epidemic. In 2003, chicken and ducks were decimated by illness (most likely a regional bird flu), with households losing on average 80% of their chickens and ducks. Trust and use of VLAs has increased greatly since the time of the mid-term evaluation. Even households who sought treatment of an animal that subsequently died still indicated that they would continue to seek the services of VLAs. Over the target area, VLAs were rated positively (see table 4 below).


Table 4 Villager ranking of treatment by VLA

Village Not Good Fair Good Srayong 2 3 5 Sra Barle 0 3 3 Phnouv 0 2 3 Chom Sre 1 4 3 Sra Em 0 2 1 Kantuot 0 3 1 Frequency 3 17 16

Cows and Buffalos were treated most successfully, with 80% of all treated cows and buffalos recovering. Only 10% of treated pigs successfully recovered. Treatment costs varied from village to village, ranging from 1000 – 2000 riel for the treatment of a bovine and 600-1500 for the treatment of a pig.

In the instances that an animal was treated, but later died, households did not express anger at or distrust of the VLA. Although frustrated at losing money on a failed treatment, livestock owners expressed an understanding of the limits of the VLA. Most households continued to seek the services of VLAs despite having experienced a death after previous treatment.

Unfortunately, at the time of the final evaluation, many VLAs had already depleted their supply of medicines. None of the VLAs in Srayong Commune (Srayong Cheung, Srayong Tbong, Koh Ker, Mrek, Rumchek, and Sambo) had any medicine at all. In addition, VLAs in the other villages had depleted their supplies of key medicines (see table 5 below).

Table 5. VLA Lack of Medicine

No. Medicine Depleted from most VLA kits (>50%)

1 Oxy (unsure whether oxyteracycline or oxytocine)

2. Albipen 3. Penicillin 4. Sulfa 33 5. Multi-vitamin

VLAs in Phnom Penh, Phnom Tbeng II, and Kantout communes had bought medicine at the pharmacies established with the support of AAH. Though they were lacking in the medicines described above, they felt confident that they could go to the pharmacy and purchase those medicines were they required. The VLAs in Phnom Penh and Phnom Tbeng II noted a growing trend of villagers going to the pharmacy, buying medicine, and treating their animals by themselves.

In contrast, VLAs in Srayong and Yeang communes were found to have made no purchases. One exception was the VLA for Kong Yong, who had purchased medicine at the Chom Ksan pharmacy. The VLAs in Srayong commune did not even know where to purchase medicine, only saying that medicine was probably available in the provincial capital.

When asked whether or not profit from treating animals was sufficient motivation to find and purchase more medicine, most VLAs indicated that it was not. They said that they needed to devote their time to more reliable means of income generation, mainly tending to their farms.


Impact The training and placement of VLAs in target villages is expected to help reduce short term animal mortality in all of the target villages. Currently, the VLA rate of success in treating animals is only 28% because of the widespread deaths of the AAH piglets. When the imported AAH piglets are removed from the statistic, the VLA rate of success climbs to 80%. Also, the VLA component has developed household use and trust of VLA services. The long term impact varies according to commune. Success and VLA use is highest in Kantuout, Phnom Tbeng II and Phnom Penh communes, where purchase of medicines and VLA activity is highest. VLA activity is expected to be successful, but to a lesser extent, in Phnom Tbeng II Commune. For Srayong and Yeang communes, the long-term impact of the VLAs is in doubt. VLAs have neither purchased additional medicines or set aside funds to do so. Moreover, they do not know where to purchase medicines. If this problem is not rectified, animal mortality in these two communes will soon return to pre-intervention levels.


5.5 Vaccination Campaign To reduce animal mortality, and thereby helping to secure income generation and food security, AAH supported 2 MAFF spearheaded vaccination campaign in Preah Vihear using the Village Livestock Agents. AAH supplied equipment, transportation and daily expenses for the duration of the campaign. In November 2002 and 2003, the VLAs collaborated with the PDAFF and AAH to conduct vaccination campaigns against hemorrhagic septicemia, which AAH identifies as the main cause of mortality among bovines within the province (AAH final report). The campaigns were organized in four districts: Koulen, Chom Ksan, Tbeng Meanchey and Chhep. For the two campaigns, AAH reports that a total of 6,486 cattle and buffalo were vaccinated. Villagers throughout the target area widely reported having their bovines vaccinated. During the vaccination campaign, villages VDCs and village chiefs were notified one day in advance that subsidized vaccinations would be available. The following day, a vaccination team spent one full day in the village. Villagers, PDMAFF staff, and AAH together confirm that the cost of each vaccination was 500 riel ($0.12); of this, 200 riel was paid to the VLA and 300 riel was retained by the PDMAFF to offset the cost of their materials and participation. Impact This final evaluation has found inconclusive evidence that livestock deaths have been reduced due to the vaccination campaign. Regardless, the vaccinations will undoubtedly reduce livestock deaths over the long term. This will help secure income for families by preserving their asset, reduce the financial input needed to maintain that asset, and increase the practical use of the asset. Moreover, the process of conducting the vaccination program has created greater awareness of livestock healthcare and of the benefits of vaccines across the target area.


5.6 Fish Raising Fish raising, year-round vegetable growing, cash crop promotion, and fruit tree distribution are actually part of a single component: Improve Food Entitlements. Because this single component was so central to the integrated food security, this evaluation breaks down the findings for this component according to its separate parts. The Improve Food Entitlement component was central to the AAH objective of increasing household food entitlements for sale, consumption, and income generation. The first part of this component was to include digging of 900 fish ponds, training, and distribution of fingerling tools, and pond treatment packs. The second part was to include distribution of wet and dry season vegetable seed packs and tools and training for 900 families. The third part was to include distribution of cash/protein crop seeds and training for 900 families. The fourth part was to include distribution of fruit tree saplings and training for 900 families. All of the parts of this component were to be strengthened by the other components. Fish ponds and wells were to provide water for gardening. The evaluation team assumed that water convolvulus was to be grown along the fish pond since convolvulus (Ipmoea aguatica) planted along the shores of the pond would trail into the pond, providing increased algae growth area and fish food. However, AAH informed the evaluator that the water convolvulus distributed to beneficiaries was for home gardens only. Each of the parts of this component met their quantitative targets except for the fish pond growing. Unfortunately, the rainy season of 2003 provided less rain than usual, followed by a severe 2003-2004 dry season. This prevented the successful growth of most vegetables. Moreover, only a small minority of beneficiaries set aside seeds for future planting. Also, only a third of the intended fish ponds were dug. The fish ponds too suffered from the dry year, killing all fingerlings in many villages. In the program plan, 900 fish ponds were to be dug by beneficiary households. The labor provided by the households was to be compensated by the World Food Program in a food for work scheme. However, the WFP withdrew from Preah Vihear province, leaving beneficiary households to invest their own labor with the sole expectation that the fish harvest would be sufficient compensation. This reduced the number and type of beneficiaries. AAH scaled down the target number to 300 households. Only 118 households dug fish ponds. The evaluation found that none of these households fit the vulnerability criteria set by AAH. Even so, only a small fraction of these ponds successfully yielded fish. Most villages lost all of their fish and will not have more to wage a second attempt, though they may be able to purchase fingerlings from other villages. Selection Targeted households for the fish raising was to be vulnerable households including internally displaced families without access to land, widow headed households, disabled headed households, elder independent households, and extra large families. 49% of all households (vulnerable and non-vulnerable) in the target area state that they were either informed or aware through others that there was an opportunity through AAH to dig a fish pond and receive fingerlings and technical support. No vulnerable households were found to have participated in the activity.


The mid-term report stated that the vulnerable households had no time, instead using their time to engage in farming and other forms of income generation. The AAH final report also stated that vulnerable households needed to allocate their time to activities with more immediate benefit. Compounded with many vulnerable households not being informed of the activity, the observation of the mid-term evaluation are likely accurate. However, only 5% of all of the household discussion groups conducted during this evaluation identified lack of time as the reason for not participating. Instead non-participating vulnerable households identified lack of land to dig a pond (60%), earth is too hard / stone under soil (20%), lack of water for the pond (5%), lack of male household member (5%), and laziness (5%) as the reasons why they chose not to participate in the scheme. These comments were further supported by village chiefs, who indicated that lack of appropriate land was the primary obstacle. Despite the responses of the villagers, the evaluation team feels that both the mid-term evaluation and the AAH report still may be correct and that at least some of the household responses were only justification of a decision made between a short term benefit and an indefinite long term benefit. AHH reported that 213 households participated, received training and were given a kit including a basket and a pick to dig the pond. AAH further reported that families completed the pond (many insufficiently). Upon completion of the pond, families received 10kg of lime and 100 Tilapia fingerlings at the beginning of the wet season of 2003. Beneficiary Fish Raising Implementation Of the families participating in fish raising, only approximately 50% of the families dug the pond on their residential land. Residential plot sizes were not selected and cordoned with any expectation that the family would need any space for something like a fish pond. This forced half of the beneficiaries to select an alternative location for the fish pond. Often, fish ponds were dug on the outskirts of the village. This may also explain why most of the participating beneficiaries lived on the outskirts of the village where the residential plot sizes are larger.

Only 113 of the households completed their fish pond. These households received 100 fingerlings from AAH at the beginning of the 2003 wet season. By the time of this final evaluation, only 8% of these fish ponds still had fish, with some villages having no surviving fish at all (e.g., Kong Yong). The explanation by the participating families is that the 2003 rainy season was not sufficient and that the 2003-2004 dry season was excessively dry.

In some villages (e.g., Srayong Tbong and Srayong Cheung), fish farmers were found to have cooperated to save fish by taking the remaining fish from dry ponds and adding them to the remaining pond(s) that had water.

While many families said their land was unsuitable for a fish pond, Mrs. Ma Chrok, who lives with her married daughters, had a more simple answer “They told us about the fish pond, but we were too lazy to dig it.”


Impact

The fish is expected to have a substantial long term impact for those households whose fish have survived this first year; however, this final evaluation estimates that only 9 beneficiary households still have surviving fish. Only one of twelve fish ponds visited by the evaluation team still had fish.

Fish farming success may have been greater in the short term period before the final evaluation: According to AAH, the 118 families that raised fish harvested an average of 23kg of fish with a market value of $21, since the beginning of the activity. AAH reported that successful fish farmers have said that they will continue to raise fish. This will provide their families with an additional source of income and protein. Likewise, it will provide neighbors with a convenient source of fish for purchase. However, as noted in the mid-term evaluation, such local fish farming will not affect the price as fish prices are determined by larger regional market forces.

Clearly, the success is small, particularly compared with the target of 900 households set forth in the original project proposal and plan. In the end, only 118 households dug ponds, and the final evaluation has determined that none of these participants were from vulnerable households.

This final evaluation also estimates that there are only 9 beneficiary fish ponds currently in use, with the other fish ponds dry or containing no fish. Therefore, the long term year round benefit is going to be enjoyed among only 9 households, a tiny impact considering the initial objective. However, the impact is expected to increase during the rainy season as fishpond owners with dry ponds may be able to recommence fish cultivation by purchasing fingerlings, or by raising wild fish from paddy fields.


5.7 Year Round Vegetable Growing The project aimed to encourage year round vegetable gardening to diversify household food, lessening dependence on the principal crop of rice, increase nutritional standards, and provide a source of income. To do this, the project aimed to distribute vegetable seeds, tools and training to 900 households. Technical support was to come from a Crop Production Agent, one to be selected and trained in each village.

By the end of the project, AAH had met its target of providing seeds and training to 900 households. By the time of the final evaluation (at the end of the dry season), 90% of beneficiaries’ gardens had died, indicating that year round gardening was largely not achieved. The main reason for this is that beneficiaries did not have a source of water for irrigation/watering.

Selection

Targeted households for the vegetable growing was to be vulnerable households including internally displaced families without access to land, widow headed households, disabled headed households, elder independent households, and extra large families.

The selection of beneficiaries for each seed distribution was a process of the VDC chief (Phnom Penh, Phnom Tbeng II, Kanout communes) or village chief (Srayong and Yeang communes) directly inviting potential beneficiaries to come to a meeting. In some cases, especially in smaller villages like Koh Ker, the main means of inviting beneficiaries was merely to ring a bell and then discuss with whichever villages came to the meeting.

For both processes, some of the beneficiaries were vulnerable households, some were not. In the villages in which the VDC chief invited participants, the percentage of vulnerable beneficiaries was much higher. Overall, there was no consistency. Many relatively wealthy families participated. At the meeting, beneficiaries were asked to sign and thumbprint a sign up sheet. No beneficiaries recall any training during this first meeting, though AAH reports it.

When VDC Chiefs and Village Chiefs were asked why non-vulnerable families were included and many vulnerable families excluded, the common response was that vulnerable families have insufficient land on which to grow a garden.

A second meeting was called to train the beneficiaries and distribute seeds and tools. Most beneficiaries reported receiving the seeds and tools. Some families, 5%, reported receiving no tools. By the time of the final evaluation, 50% of the families still had either a rake or hoe and 80% still had the watering can and basket.

Some of the beneficiaries reported receiving informational handouts (recommended in the mid-term evaluation); they appreciated receiving the handout, but all had lost / used them by the time of the final evaluation.

Table 6 Number of vegetable gardening beneficiaries No Commune Number of

Families Number of Beneficiary

Families

Percentage of Total Families

1 Srayong 644 159 25% 2 Kantout 401 237 59% 3 Yeang 645 203 31% 4 Phnom Penh 589 152 26% 5 Phnom Tbeng 542 101 19% Target Area 2821 852 30%


The total number of beneficiaries in each village (table 6) showed that AAH distribution targets were met in terms of numbers.

Beneficiary Gardening

All of the beneficiaries in group discussions during the final evaluation planted their vegetable seeds. However, house to house interviews revealed that many non-beneficiaries had received or bought seeds from beneficiaries, suggesting that approximately 10% of the beneficiaries either sold or gave their seeds away.

Only 30% of the beneficiaries planted the vegetables on their residential land. Most, 70% of the families chose to plant the vegetables on their forest farm land, which is a 2-10 km walk from their house. Only the residential gardens had practical access to water (though only during the rainy season due to dry wells).

During the rainy season through the end of November, nearly all of the gardens produced vegetables. This output was used primarily for household consumption. 61% of the households were able to use the vegetables for both consumption and sales (table 7).

Table 7. Vegetable Use

Use Village Consumption

Only Consumption

& Selling Srobal 33% 66% Phnouv 60% 40% Sre Em 80% 20% Kantuot 50% 50% Average 52% 48%

However, during the dry season, vegetable gardening was unsuccessful, showing no families gardening the vegetables distributed. A majority of the families claimed that they could only grow vegetables for a 3-6 month period (table 8).

Table 8. Vegetable Growing Period

Period (months) <3 3 to 6 6 to 9 9 to 12 Frequency 1 21 18 0

The primary cause is the lack of water source. Most families planted the vegetables on their farmland which is totally dependent on rainwater. For the families that planted gardens on their residential land, there was still a lack of water. At the time of the evaluation, the few shallow fish ponds that had been dug were dry. And, all of the wells in each village were dry, except for the hand pump wells.

Disappointingly, none of the families participating in discussions had saved any seeds. However, they all indicated that they could buy the seeds in the market or they could borrow from neighbors.

None of the vegetable growing beneficiaries had heard of a Crop Production Agent and none of them knew who the crop production agent was. In some villages, even the village chiefs and VDC members had a difficult time identifying the CPA, saying “Everyone in the village is a crop production agent”. Furthermore, none of the beneficiaries had heard of


the skills taught to the CPAs; questions regarding composting and pest management showed that they had no exposure to these concepts.

Impact 900 beneficiaries have been exposed to vegetable gardening, especially gardening a broader range of vegetables. However, this project has failed to develop year round gardening, the objective of the project. The main reason for the failure is the unavailability of water. It should be noted that the wet season of 2003 was insufficiently wet and the 2003-2004 dry season was particularly dry, destroying all of the gardens. The original plan of the project was for each family to have a fishpond near their residence which could be used as a source of water. However, the reduction of the fish raising and the insufficient depth of the fish ponds that were dug meant that there was no water source as intended by the design of the project. However, even if the beneficiaries’ had had a fish pond, many of them had insufficient residential land for gardening and were using their chamkar for planting vegetables. To make matters worse, all of the ring wells in each village had gone dry. Even still, if the ring wells had had water, they were at too great a distance from the beneficiaries’ resident to be a practical source of water. With a source of reliable labor, the greatest practical distance would be 50 meters. Compounding the lack of water, none of the villagers had saved any seeds and there was no identifiable CPA to whom villagers could turn to for advice. Thus, the impact of the seed distribution was primarily a short-term impact that lasted through the 2003 wet season.


5.8 Protein / Cash Crops The project aimed to improve household diets and create a form of income through the re-establishment of protein and cash crops. By the end of the project, AAH had met its target of providing cash crop seeds (maize, corn, and mungbean) and training to 900 households.

By the time of the final evaluation (at the end of the dry season), most beneficiaries had successfully planted and harvested crops, giving positive feedback regarding the quality of the seeds. While there was occasional death of crops, overall, the planting and harvest was successful. A small minority of beneficiaries ate the seeds. Unfortunately, as with the vegetable growing, no beneficiaries were found to have saved seeds for the following season.

Selection Targeted households for the cash crop planting was the same as the vegetable growing: was to be vulnerable households including internally displaced families without access to land, widow headed households, disabled headed households, elder independent households, and extra large families.

However, the targeting of vulnerable families was inconsistent. The explanation of the inconsistency from Village Chiefs was the same as the explanation for vegetable growing: they said vulnerable families did not have sufficient land or ability to plant the cash crops.

Table 9. Number of vegetable gardening beneficiaries No Commune Number of


Families


1 Srayong 644 274 42% 2 Kantout 401 196 49% 3 Yeang 645 196 30% 4 Phnom Penh 589 123 21% 5 Phnom Tbeng II 542 111 20% Target Area 2821 900 32%

AAH Final Report, 2004 As with the other components, participating families were directly invited by the Village Chief. They attended two meetings. The first meeting required families to swear that they were indeed poor and to sign a sign up sheet. In contrast to the AAH final report, no beneficiaries reported training at this meeting. The second meeting was for the distribution of the seeds. At this second meeting, all beneficiaries reported receiving training and handouts. Cash Crop Planting

80% of the beneficiaries planted the cash crops, with 10% using the seeds for food and 10% giving the seeds to others. All of the beneficiaries planted the cash crops on non-irrigated farmland at a distance of 2-10km from their residences. Crops were successfully planted and cultivated during the 2003 wet season. For the wet season harvest, beneficiaries reported positive results. This final evaluation was unable to quantify the 2003 wet season harvest, but the AAH final report shows an average beneficiary harvest of 28 kg of mungbean, 18.3 kg of maize, and 16.4 kg of peanuts. In the areas where cash crop growing was familiar, beneficiaries noted that the


mungbean plants grown with the AAH seed were superior to the species they traditionally planted. Beneficiaries planted cash crops using AAH seeds in November 2003. However, this final evaluation has found that a majority of these crops have perished due to lack of rain. Impact The cash crop planting was successful in introducing cash crop seeds and training to 900 beneficiary families, though, based on the sample in this evaluation, only 720 of these families actually planted the crops. Planting beneficiaries were able to successfully harvest at least one crop. This successful harvest was dependent on rain water. There will be a long term impact among participating families in Kantuout and Yeang communes if beneficiaries continue with the planting. There will be less influence in the other communes since those communes already farm cash crops to a greater degree. In Kantout and Yeang, the beneficiaries will enjoy a long term supplementation of cash crop products to their diets and will enjoy an annual increase in income if they choose to continue this activity. While the output of this part of the project was successful, the success is lessened by the lack of targeting vulnerable families. Less than half of the families participating were vulnerable, requiring intervention to improve food security. Numerous vulnerable families in each village were not invited or consulted. Also, none of the vulnerable beneficiaries had saved seeds for future planting. This contrasts with the mid-term evaluation which reported beneficiaries saving 10% of the seeds for future planting.


5.9 Fruit Trees Villages in the target area were thought to have few or no fruit trees due to fruit trees being uprooted and burnt during the civil strife that ended in 1996. This was true for Kantout, Char, and Anlong Veng villages, but, as noted by the AAH final report, the situation was not so drastic in other villages which still had a number of fruit trees.

The AAH project intended to re-establish fruit trees to pre-war numbers, thereby achieving greater food security and income generation for local families. The project provided 5 seedlings to 903 households (out of a target of 900 households). A first distribution in 2002 included coconut, mango, jackfruit, longan and tangerine. A second distribution in 2003 included mango, orange, rose apple, sapodilla, and guava. However, beneficiaries throughout the area reported receiving varying numbers of seedlings ranging from 2-5 seedlings.

Since these trees were only small saplings at the time of distribution, there is no short term impact. However, there will be great long term impact, even with the low survival rate. The AAH final report showed survival rates for different species to range between 37-95%. However, at the time of this final evaluation, the overall survival rate for all species to be only 25%, which was probably greatly affected by the dry season.

Selection of fruit tree beneficiaries was much better than for other AAH distributions. Nearly all fruit tree beneficiaries reported having an AAH employee directly visit the family residence and invite them to participate (as opposed to the other distributions in which the VDC chief or village chief was the only person to invite households).

Selection AAH targeted households for the fruit tree distribution that fit two criteria: 1) suitable soil; and 2) vulnerable households including internally displaced families without access to land, widow headed households, disabled headed households, elder independent households, and extra large families.

The selection of fruit tree beneficiaries was much better than the selection of participants for other distributions; an AAH employee met with each family individually and looked at the soil of the beneficiary residence.

Beneficiaries were trained at the time of the fruit tree distribution and were all given paper handouts with pictures showing proper fruit tree care. Approximately ¼ of the beneficiaries still had the handouts, some keeping the handout as a form of art on the walls of their home.

Fruit Tree Cultivation Beneficiaries planted the seedlings on the grounds of their residence. 10% of the surviving fruit trees that the evaluation team observed were surrounded with a small protective fence. Most of the trees have perished.

Table 10. Number of vegetable gardening beneficiaries No Commune Number of


Families


1 Srayong 644 212 33% 2 Kantout 401 167 42% 3 Yeang 645 218 30% 4 Phnom Penh 589 162 28% 5 Phnom Tbeng II 542 144 27% Target Area 2821 903 32%

AAH Final Report, 2004


Most of the beneficiaries attribute the death of the fruit tree to a lack of rain water. Most beneficiaries reported irregular watering of the fruit trees. Impact Long term impact over the target area will be significant as the surviving fruit trees mature and bear fruit over the next 10 years. A single mature fruit tree has the ability to increase annual household income by 5-30%. Importantly, the fruit tree distribution beneficiaries were primarily vulnerable families (though not all), bringing potential food and income for the poorest of the poor.

However, the impact will be less than the project originally intended. Most of the trees have died. Fruit tree recipients now have an average of 1.5 surviving fruit trees. If the AAH distribution of 5 saplings per beneficiary is accepted, then 75% of the fruit trees have died. This contrasts with the AAH final report showing a 37-95% survival rate according to the species. A large part of the difference is likely due to the effects of the dry season between the AAH reporting and this final evaluation.

While the vast majority of beneficiaries blamed the tree deaths on lack of water, a significant amount (16%) claimed that they regularly watered and cared for the trees, but some of the trees died anyway.

The AAH project intended to be “integrated”, with components supporting one another. The presence of more water sources (e.g. wells or fish ponds) is likely to have resulted in greater fruit tree survival. Also, productive ring wells would have improved success (most of the ring wells were dry from December 2003 to May 2004). Unfortunately, there was no integration of these different components.


5.10 Increase Benefits of Local Meals (Nutrition & Household Econ.)

Training was organized for women’s groups in each of the 23 target villages in order to increase the benefits of local meals, particularly for children and infants. There was also household economics training to assist women in short and long-term economic planning. The women’s groups were kept to a maximum of 26-27 for fear that a group too large would be unable to properly absorb the training material. In January 2004, AAH conducted a Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) survey which showed that participants in the training were more knowledgeable than non-participants in basic household nutrition. This final evaluation confirmed that the women’s groups participants were more knowledgeable than non-participants, but, in contrast to the AAH KAP, the difference between the two groups was small (with non-participants showing greater knowledge than had been indicated in the AAH KAP). Selection Training was provided to existing village women’s groups and those women socially connected to VDC members. This group of women does not fall within the scope of the AAH targeting of vulnerable women. However, by chance, a few of these women were from vulnerable families Women’s Group Activities The women’s groups participated in a series of ten training modules. The ten modules were designed by Helen Keller for Cambodia. The training modules directly targeted household nutrition and economics (see table 11 below).

Table 11. Women’s Group Training Modules

Training Modules

Content

1 Introduction to nutrition and food groups 2 Protein-energy malnutrition 3 Vitamin A deficiency 4 Breastfeeding 5 Iron deficiency anaemia 6 Complementary feeding of children age 6 mo.+ 7 Feeding children age 3-5; nutrition of sick children and female adolescents 8 Nutrition during pregnancy 9 Nutrition during lactation

10 Food preparation and storage AAH final report, 2004

Evaluation discussions with women’s group member included the simple question “Have you followed what you learnt in the training sessions?” and a majority (63%) responded that had not. When followed with the question “Why not?”, respondents were in consensus that what they learned was different from their normal habits; other added that they “don’t remember”. The final evaluation continued to ask women about proper breast feeding practices and there were mixed results (see tables 12, 13). The first question was at what


age may infants be fed something other than mother’s milk; the correct answer according to the training modules was 6 months.

Table 12. Age to introduce infants to a food other than mother’s milk, N:28

Respondent 1 mo. or less 2-3 mo. 4-5 mo. 6-7 mo. 8 mo. + Women’s Group 29% 14% 14% 29% 14% Non Women’s Group 8% 15% 15% 8% 31%

The results to this question show a great variety of answers between the two groups. Additional responses not tabulated here include “don’t know” (one response), “according to availability of milk” (one response) and “according to the desire of the infant” (one response), all from non-women’s group respondents. This question was repeated from the AAH KAP. The AAH KAP showed 70% of women’s group members saying 6 months or more, a much higher percentage than was found by the final evaluation. Again, there were mixed results with a second question asking “Until what age should an infant be breastfed (see table 13 below). The correct answer according to the training is at least two years.

Table 13. Age for babies to stop being breastfed, N: 28

Respondent 6 mo. or less 7-12 mo.

13-18 mo.

19-24 mo.

25 mo. +

Women’s Group 0 0 0 50% 50% Non Women’s Group 0 0 0 27% 73% While there are mixed results among the two groups, it is good to see that a majority of mothers have chosen 25 months or more. This question was repeated from the AAH KAP; the AAH KAP showed similar results.

Table 14. Do you wash vegetables before cutting and peeling?, N:28

Respondent Yes No Women’s Group 90% 10% Non Women’s Group 92% 8%

This question suggests that target area women are conscious of food preparation hygiene. This question was repeated from the AAH KAP; the AAH KAP showed that 32% of non-women’s group respondents said no while 6% of women’s group members said no. In the final evaluation, the question was changed to “Do vegetables need to be washed before they are cooked?” all of the participants responded positively. This shows that nearly all of the women in the target villages wash vegetables before cooking, but that some wash the vegetables after they have cut them. Women’s group members reported that the only time they met was for the AAH organized training sessions. None of the women’s groups have met since the end of the AAH project.


Impact There will be a long term impact on the health of the families of participating women were the women to remember and apply the knowledge in the training. Since few, and in some cases none, of the women’s group members are from vulnerable families, the impact on the practices of vulnerable families will only be indirect, through change of habits following women’s group members as examples. This final evaluation has found an overall improvement of hygiene awareness and breast feeding practices of target area households. However, there was no distinction between women’s group and non-women’s group participants. Breast feeding practices seemed to be based on tradition, not having changed over the years. While the current responses are promising, the evaluation team does not attribute this to AAH activities, particularly since there was no distinction between women who had and had not joined the training. Also, it is possible that improvement of washing vegetables may have occurred from convenience, now that nearly all the families have water jars, provided by AAH. Overall, because of the similarity of responses, it is inconclusive whether or not the women’s group training has directly impacted the practices of those participants.


5.11 Water Points & Improvement of Traditional Wells The community water points and improvement of traditional wells aimed to improve family health by providing hygiene training and access to safe drinking water. Also, the wells were to support the food security components by providing an additional source of water for year round vegetable growing. 50 ring wells and 20 boreholes were to be established. This was later amended to 52 ring wells and 18 boreholes because the drilling team had limited success in aquifers at the beginning of their work (AAH Final Report). 62 of the wells were for community use and 8 of the wells were for schools to support the latrine and hygiene education program (AAH Final Report). The community water points have dramatically improved the lives of the target village populations by providing access to safe drinking water. Villagers are unanimous in identifying the water points as the most important part of the AAH project (Mid-term Evaluation). All villagers with 100 of the boreholes said that the AAH borehole wells were their main source of drinking water. However, the water points have failed to provide water for year round vegetable growing and a year round source of water for animals and washing. Of 52 ring wells completed during the project (AAH Final Report, 2nd Draft), 19 ring wells were visually inspected by the evaluation team and 15 were found to have 0-20 cm of water. And, even among these ring wells, those with small amounts of water were reported by villagers to only have had water due to recent rains (during the last phase of the evaluation, it rained on most days). Of the four remaining wells holding substantial water throughout the dry season, two were located in the same village, Kantout, and were more than one meter deeper than average. This may have been due to what target area villagers described as a “drought”. As such, this lack of water may not be an annual occurrence and the overall lack of water cannot be attributed to the AAH team or the contractor. AAH has not been able to address this concern since the absence of water has occurred during the 2003-2004 dry season, the same time that the AAH program is ending. Continued monitoring of the wells and comparison of rainfall levels may help to determine the usefulness of the wells and whether additional digging is necessary. Placement, Construction, Usage The 2003 midterm evaluation of the water and sanitation program provides an accurate summary of the establishment of wells in the target area:

A total of 30 drilling attempts were made in a target area of 5 districts. Eighteen boreholes proved successful (60%) while a further 12 were either dry or producing yields (40%). The dry holes were located in 5 villages in two districts; Pnoev (2) and Kdak (4) in Koulen district and Raksmey (2), Atil (1) and Chom Sre (3) in Chom Ksan. Successful boreholes were drilled in two of these villages Pnoev (2) and Kdak (3). However, without success in the other three villages in Chom Ksan,

Borehole wells: Popular, practical, heavily used.


eight ring wells were constructed instead… Fifty-two DG Dev Ring Wells were constructed in the target area, bringing the total number of new water points in the DG Dev program to 70.

These wells were placed to include a maximum number of households within a sphere standard of living within 250 m of a water point. This sphere standard was determined by AAH by creating radius maps using GIS mapping. A sample of 24 of these wells were evaluated by the mid-term evaluation team which found the water quality to be suitable for consumption, though with high levels of iron concentrations. However, the midterm evaluation noted concern about the low level of water:

the evaluation team defined the critical capacity of ring wells to those wells with a peak dry season depth of 1.5 m or greater. From data… only 50% currently reach this criterion… Of most concern, are 4 ring wells which have a peak dry season depth of less than one meter and 3 which were dry during the 2003 (2002-2003) dry season.

While the mid-term evaluation team identified 7 wells of concern, this is an extremely high number since the mid-term evaluation team only inspected 19 of the new wells; the inspections were during the rainy season. In general, there was a correlation between month of completing the well and the depth of the well (see chart below). Ring wells dug at the height of the dry season in April have an average depth of 6.4 meters and ring wells dug at the beginning of the rainy season in June average 5.4 meters (with the omission of outlier No. 1303/007).

Well Depth According to Month of Completion

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

No. 13

03/004

Apri

l

No. 13

03/005

Apri

l

No. 13

03/006

Apri

l

No. 13

03/001

May

No. 13

03/002

May

No. 13

03/008

May

No. 13

03/009

May

No. 13

03/010

May

No. 13

03/011

May

No. 13

03/012

May

No. 13

04/004

May

No. 13

03/007

June

No. 13

03/008

June

No. 13

04/005

June

No. 13

04/007

June

No. 13

04/009

June

No. 13

04/010

June

No. 13

04/011

June

No. 13

04/012

June

No.130

4/013

June

No. 13

04/006

July

Well Reference Number and Month of Completion

Wel

l Dep

th in

Met

ers

Depth

This is important for future well digging, as digging in May-June may risk the loss of an additional meter of well depth. However, there was no correlation between


month of digging and the dry wells observed during the evaluation. For example, all of the Kong Yong ring wells had no water during the final evaluation, but they were all dug at the height of the dry season in April. This suggests that the lack of water was due to a drought rather than decisions made by the well construction contractor or AAH. The final evaluation, during the dry season, found that 15 of 19 of the ring wells contained 0-20 cm of water. Observed during the final evaluation, the ring wells are clearly not deep enough, most likely due to the reported drought. In Kong Yong, villagers indicated that their traditional well of 8m was still producing sufficient water for use while the AAH well of 6.2m was dry. Beneficiaries indicated that a majority of wells produced water for only 6-9 months. Wells indicated as year-round wells are mostly borehole wells or deeply dug traditional wells. Nearly all of the families living within the sphere of a borehole, identified borehole wells as their sole source of drinking water. 95% of all respondents said that they drank well water without boiling it and another 5% said that they boiled well water. Families across the target area have replaced ponds and streams with wells as their primary source of non-drinking water for general household usage (see table 15 below).

Table 15. Primary source of water for household use (other than drinking)

Village Ring Well Pumping

Well Ponds Stream River Percentage 31% 41% 14% 10% 3%

In general, borehole water was used as drinking water and household usage for families living near the borehole well. Families living far from the borehole well used the borehole well water for drinking and washing food for preparation, but used nearer ring wells as their source of bathing and cleaning water. However, due to the drought at the time of the final evaluation, many families were retrieving bathing and cleaning water from streams and ponds.

Villagers indicated that during the wet season, the wells were a source of water for vegetable gardening, but, during the dry season, the lack of water made use of well water for vegetable gardening dangerous and wasteful. This had combined with other factors to make year round vegetable growing impossible.

At all ring wells villagers were observed using only nylon ropes attached to a bucket. Families supplied their own nylon rope and bucket; there were no communal means of drawing water. 87% of the inspected wells still had their wooden covers.

Aside from the absence of water and the occasional absence of wooden covers, all of the wells inspected were in good condition.

Impact The new wells will have an enormous long term impact on the target villagers. Most of the villagers in discussion with the evaluation team have identified the borehole wells as their sole source of drinking water and water for food preparation. With improved hygiene and increased access to clean water, illness will be greatly reduced. The reduction of illness means reduced child mortality, higher standards of living, greater expendable income from reduced expenses on medicine, and more time for income generating activities from reduced time spent on recovering from illnesses. As such, beneficiary


households are expected to have more time to spend on agricultural activities and are expected to have more income with which to purchase food. The impact of the ring wells is not clear at the moment. There is an expected impact during the rainy season as beneficiaries can use the ring wells as a convenient source of water for household use. Time is saved as lengthy trips to streams and ponds are eliminated, giving beneficiaries additional time for agricultural activities and income generation. The impact on gardening is low. The ring wells are regarded as too distant for watering vegetables. Also, the ring wells are useful during the wet season, when rainwater is abundant during this time; ring wells do not enable year round gardening. At the time of this evaluation, most of the wells were dry. Continued monitoring is necessary to determine whether this is an annual occurrence or not.

Ring well in Chom Sre: Well made, but without water during the dry season


5.12 School Latrines In order to improve hygiene knowledge and practice in the target area, 16 two-stance pour-flush latrines were to be built for rural schools in the area. Further analysis brought AAH to provide two of the larger schools two latrine blocks with the 14 other schools one latrine block. The final evaluation inspected 5 latrines (the same latrines as the mid-term evaluation). All 16 latrines were successfully constructed at the target schools. Teachers and students were provided training in latrine usage and maintenance. Of the five latrines inspected by the evaluation team, four were in good condition. One of the four, the latrine at Kong Yong, was found in the same state of disuse and disrepair that had been reported a year earlier in the mid-term evaluation. None of the latrines were in use by students at the time of the evaluation. Discussions with students indicated that they had only used the latrines during the wet season. Since December, school yard wells had been dry and there was not adequate water to continue using the latrines. The new school latrines in the target area can only be used during the wet season. Cambodian schools are open for only three full months of the wet season (June, September, October), meaning that the latrines will only be used for 3-4 months a year. Condition & Usage All students interviewed by the evaluation team said that they regularly used the latrine and participated in its upkeep during the wet season. None of the students had used the latrine during the dry season. During the past wet season, the latrines were popular and students only reverted to their traditional use of scrub for defecation and urination when the latrines were occupied. However, the Kong Yong latrine had never been in use, students saying that “The teachers haven’t opened the latrine yet.” The teachers in turn say that “Students here don’t know how to use the latrine. They like to use the forest.” The students reply “We know how to use it. We want to use it. The teachers don’t let us.” The latrine at Kong Yong is in the same state of disrepair and disuse as described and shown with photographs in the mid-term evaluation. The water basin and bathrooms were dirty and unused. Small diameter pipes still had not been replaced by 1” diameter pipe as recommended by the mid-term evaluation. A pipe unnaturally bent at 90 degrees still had not been replaced with a joint as recommended by the mid-term evaluation. By the time of final evaluation, the deterioration was worse, with significant erosion of soil away from the sides of the septic tanks (see photograph this page).

Kong Yong latrine septic tank: Unused and deteriorating.


Impact The school latrines are an ideal way to create a long term impact on awareness of hygienic practices. Students in the habit of properly using the latrine will hopefully adopt these practices at home, or, at least, be sensitive to the importance and practice of hygiene. All students are able to describe proper use of the latrine. Three of the five latrines inspected had been regularly cleaned and maintained by the students during the wet season. Unfortunately, the latrines can only be used during the wet season from June – November since the school yard wells are dry during the dry season. This will adversely affect the intended impact on hygiene practice, especially since the Cambodian school is in session during the whole of the dry season and takes a vacation for two months during the wet season. The students at Kong Yong (one of four latrines visited by the evaluation team) will not experience any long term benefit at all. The problem with the Kong Yong latrine was also addressed by the mid-term evaluation of the water and sanitation component on September 1, 2003. Any other schools with latrines and usage in a similar state will experience little or no long term impact.

Chouk latrines: In good condition, but unused from December - May


5.13 Water Jars AAH was to distribute 1,000 220 liter reinforced concrete jars to a thousand families in the project area. The jars were to improve water storage and safe water use at the household as well as reducing the amount of time families spend on water collection. By the end of the project, AAH had successfully distributed 1,065 jars to as many families in the project area. With only a handful of exceptions, every family participating in discussion during the evaluation had a water jar, most of which were AAH water jars. Some of the AAH water jars were found to be from the present project and some were found to be from AAH water jar distributions from previous years. All the water jars except one were in good condition and use. All of the beneficiaries reported having made a water jar lid and paying 3,000 riel before receiving the water jar. Beneficiary selection appears to be broad, with the current water jar distribution and those from previous distributions reaching nearly all vulnerable families in the project area. Many families had two water jars. Some beneficiaries were found to engage in rainwater harvesting, mainly by placing the water jar under a corner of the roof. None of these house had any pipes or gutters. The rainwater was simply harvested from the corner of a thatch roof. 90% of the beneficiaries still had the wooden lids they had prepared in order to receive the jar. However, only 40% of the beneficiaries’ water jars were actually covered with the lids when evaluators made inspections. Impact More convenient access to water will improve the health of beneficiaries through improved hygiene. Improved water access will increase washing of hands, reducing transmission of communicable illness. Likewise, it is expected that there will be greater cleaning of cooking utensils and dinnerware. Time will also be saved; all of the women in the target area report washing vegetables before cooking, so quick access to water will be a convenience. Together with previous AAH water jar distributions across the target area, this project has insured that nearly all vulnerable families now have water jars. The final evaluation found regular use of the AAH water jars. This component of the project has succeeded in making an immediate practical improvement of the health and lives of beneficiaries.

Harvesting rainwater in Baribos village.


5.14 Dykes & Stream Crossings The project was to rehabilitate 6 dykes done by village workers using WFP food for work. However, with the withdrawal of the WFP, together with further analysis by AAH showing the target area dykes unsuitable for rehabilitation, AAH abandoned this component of the project. The evaluator did not review the dyke component.

Another project component was road repair for market accessibility. Under this component, AAH aimed to rehabilitate and construct several bridges, culverts and drainage systems. This was later reduced to the construction of four bridges in Yeang commune, where villages are virtually cut off from the outside world during the wet season.

All of the four bridges have been successfully built (see figure 5.12 for locations) and were observed to be of good construction. Two bridges are 15m in span (Kong Yong Bridge and Rasmey Bridge). Two bridges are in excess of 40m (Yeang Bridge and Chom Sre Bridge). Each bridge, except the Rasmey bridge was inspected by the evaluation team.

Location of bridges (AAH final report)

The bridges are timber bridges, the timber coming from trees felled and planed in situ. While convenient, this may have a negative impact on the long term stability of the bridges. Since the timber has not gone through kilning and drying, it will dry out over the course of the next 12 months, changing shape. Already the cross beams of all of the bridges were seen to be warping, each bending 5-10 cm. This will increase greatly after experiencing a full wet season followed by a full dry season. The bridges have a weight limit of 2 tons and are wide enough to accommodate ox-carts and small cars. The bridges rest on main columns which are in turn connected to four additional shorter columns using cross beams for additional support. The ends of the bridges rest on concrete ramps with a raised center to prevent use by cars. The riverbank beneath the Kong Yong bridge was protected from erosion using 1m3 gabions. The evaluation team observed that without the bridges, the villages would have no access to the outside world during the wet season when the streams swell and deepen. Villagers in Yeang reported that they previously had to swim across the streams. Likewise, oxen had to swim across the stream and any cart or produce had to be floated. Therefore, the presence of the bridges is expected to make a serious improvement in wet


season contact with district markets, ensuring sale of local produce and access to goods and services. Despite this, villagers were reluctant to say anything positive about the bridges. Most villagers had not yet used the bridge and had no comment. It was found that, even during the dry season when access to the outside world is easiest, few villagers have reason to leave. The main purpose for coming and going was for the sale of rice and cash crop harvests. Village Chiefs complained that they could not use cars on the bridge saying that they preferred to transport rice and cash crop harvests via automobile. They said that ease using an automobile offset the additional cost; use of ox carts wasted time and energy when the oxen might be more gainfully employed. Impact Despite the misgivings of the village chiefs and some of the beneficiaries, the four bridges are certain to have a large long term impact on the overall well being of the area villages. Villagers will have access to the Chom Ksan district capital and its markets, increasing the exchange of goods to and from the villages, especially crop harvests. In the event of medical emergencies, villagers will be able to access medicine and medical services. Finally, local authorities and aid organizations will be able to keep in regular contact. Aid workers were already seen using the bridges (see photograph above).

The bridges were of good construction and are expected to last beyond 5 years. However, there was considerable warping of cross beams. Further warping may affect the stability of the bridges in the short term. Also, there is a risk of erosion washing away the approach to the two longer bridges. The exact effect of these factors is currently unknown and will need to be monitored.

International NGO workers making use of the bridge between Kong Yong and Yeang.

Bridge between Kong Yong and National Road 64: In good condition and regularly used.

Bridge between Kong Yong and National Road 64: In good condition and regularly used.


5.15 Production Farm & Testing of Rice Varieties According to the original proposal, AAH was to make a training and production farm “the focus of the program… This epicenter will serve as the focal point for demonstration plots, ponds and activities such as composting, and will be where training activities are undertaken”. It was at this production farm where the piglets for distribution were bred and raised. A separate component was for AAH to work with CARDI to test and reproduce improved rice seed varieties at the training and production farm and in two locations of the project area. The production farm was only used by AAH for production of piglets. At the end of the project the farm was handed over to international Christian NGO World Vision. The rice trials were successfully conducted over the course of the project and, while being generally unknown to vulnerable families in the target area, have given AAH and CARDI some insight to the growth and yield of several rice varieties. Production Farm The farm consisted of an area for raising pigs, a demonstration fish pond, a demonstration vegetable garden, and an area for the rice trials (see sketch below). It was established by AAH in 1999 with support of the European Commission (IAIP under DGVIII).It was located two kilometers from the center of the provincial capital. The previous EU funded food security project targeted villages in Tbeng Meanchey district itself or along the road to Koulen district. Hence, at that time it was possible for families participating in the project to visit this facility and attend the training sessions. However, AAH planned to continue using the Training and Production Farm for the same purpose in this second project but during the designing stages it was not considered that the target villages where very far away from the Training and Production Farm and that it would be highly unlikely that beneficiary families would be able to visit the farm.

Production Farm (mid-term evaluation)

The mid-term evaluation reported that no training activities had been held at the farm and stated:

SKETCH MAP OF FARM

Exercise yard Water

for pigs Jars

Well

Pig raising stalls Office

Latrine

Demonstration

Vegetable fish pond

garden

Road to Provincial town

Are

a fo

r ri

ce tr

ials


Taking into consideration these high running costs and the low usage of the farm in terms of training of villagers (most villages are far from the provincial town), and the artificial nature of the site in comparison to the reality of most villagers’ farms, we would recommend to discontinue the use of this facility. Purchasing piglets from other villages is possible and those piglets will adapt better to village conditions than those raised on the farm.

The final evaluation has found this recommendation and characterization of the farm to have been accurate. The main reason for the persistent disuse of the facilities was its distance from the target villages. During the dry season, Yeang, Kantout, and Srayong communes require 3-5 hours of motorized transport to reach the production farm. During the wet season, the journey takes even longer. Therefore it was impractical to effectively use the production farm as a demonstration site. The mid-term evaluation was conducted at 18 months when the AAH project had only 6 months to completion. This gave AAH little time to salvage the time and expenses spent on the production farm. Finally, on January 22, 2004, AAH held an agricultural exposition at which the production farm was formally handed over to World Vision, an international Christian NGO working towards rural development in the area. The evaluation team inspected the farm and met with World Vision Operation Coordinator Som Sophorn and World Vision Farm Manager Kem Channy. The 2.6 hectare farm was successfully handed over to World Vision along with 10 mother pigs, 2 water pumps, and one mower. World Vision intends to use the farm as a location to raise piglets for distribution to vulnerable families in Preah Vihear. World Vision will not be using the farm as a training or demonstration farm; they note that the farm is too far from the target area and that their approach is to conduct training in the target villages. The demonstration gardens and fields are now being used by World Vision for growing feed for the pigs. World Vision has not yet identified a use for the fishpond. While aware of the low survival of piglets in the AAH distribution, World Vision is undeterred. They believe a combination of raising the piglets with local foods (potatoes and vegetables) and weaning the piglets at an older age will correct the low survival rate of the piglets. This strategy has yet to be tested. Rice Trials CARDI was consulted for the set up of the rice trials, providing the seeds and technical guidance. Eleven CARDI rice varieties were compared against three local checks (local rice varieties), tested in the 2002 and 2003 June-December growing seasons. Tests were performed at three locations: the production farm at the provincial capital, a local farm in Koulen, and a local farm in Chom Ksan. In Chom Ksan, there were three farmers from the village of Char involved in the tests. In Koulen, there were two farmers from village Phnouv, and one farmer from the village of Bos, both in the same commune.

Kem Channy, the World Vision Farm Manager explains the current use of the farm.


According to the AAH final report, the local varieties are best adapted to the local environment and can have the highest yields (see table 16 below). Table 16. Comparison of CARDI rice varieties and local rice varieties Improved CARDI Varieties Local Rice Varieties Average yield (kg/ha) 2002 2832 3550 Average yield (kg/ha) 2003 3344 3509 No farmers in the target area were found to be aware of the trials except those directly involved or neighboring the farmers participating in the trial. The mid-term evaluation noted this lack of exposure to the other villages, recommending that rice trials be conducted in each of the 23 target area villages. However, this recommendation came at the beginning of the 2003 planting year, too late to arrange additional tests. While the rice trials do not appear conclusive, AAH has reported that a farmer in Chom Ksan plans to continue farming three of the CARDI rice varieties that had performed well. Also, AAH has reported that farmers in Koulen are exchanging their local rice for an aromatic variety that has a higher sale price. Impact The production farm has not helped reach any of the objectives of this project. However, by employing new strategies, the new owner of the production farm, World Vision, may yet make efficient use of the farm, but this remains unknown. For AAH, the production farm was simply too far from the target areas to be used as a training and demonstration center. While the farm was used to produce piglets for distribution, the total cost per piglet was $106 (mid-term evaluation). Not only that, but most of the piglets produced on the farm died after reaching beneficiaries. Since the local rice varieties have, overall, consistently yielded more than the “improved” CARDI varieties, the CARDI variety may not be attractive to local farmers. While the tests could have had an impact on the awareness of target area farmers to the performance and growth of different rice varieties, the tests were conducted in only three villages, limiting target area exposure to the tests. During the final evaluation, target area farmers reported that they were not aware of the tests, though this may due to sampling error.. Overall, there will be no impact on target area food security from this component. However, the tests have provided CARDI and AAH with valuable data which may be used for future study and project development.


5.16 Ministry Capacity Building The AAH project aimed to develop sustainability by building capacity among the provincial departments of relevant ministries. In June 2002, AAH signed agreements with four line ministries. AAH then seconded one employee of the rural development (PDRD), four employees of the Provincial Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (PDAFF), and two employees from the provincial department of women’s and veteran’s affairs (PDWVA). During the course of the project, AAH also seconded an employee from the provincial department of health. Over the course of two years, a number of training courses were made available to the seconded government employees (non seconded government staff and staff from other NGOs in Preah Vihear also joined the courses). Seconded government employees attended 11 different training programs in development related topics. These are documented in the AAH final report. Seconded government employees received a monthly salary from AAH. They worked in each of the project components together with AAH staff. However, the chief and deputy chief of the PDAFF were not pleased with the cooperation with AAH. They expressed disappointment and frustration that they were not invited to monthly meetings nor informed of difficulties encountered by AAH. AAH responded that the chief and deputy chief were habitually unresponsive and inaccessible, but this evaluation found no difficulty in arranging a meeting with only one days notice. The chief and deputy chief also claimed not to have received any reports on AAH activities; however, AAH responded that the PDAFF requested reports in Khmer language, which AAH lacked resources (translation and Khmer language typing) to provide. In general, they said that they were not informed of any of AAH activities, but only learned of the AAH activities second or third hand through PDAFF staff (the exception being AAH requesting the seconded staff). Further, he said that they felt frustrated to hear second hand that AAH had gone to the governor, then to the provincial capital city hall, then to the PDWVA in order to find someone to work on a fish farming project without coming to his department which was the relevant department. It was the opinion of AAH that these negative comments from the PDAFF leadership were due to resentment regarding the AAH decision to hand over the production farm to World Vision and not the PDAFF. With regard to the seconded staff, this component was successful. This evaluation has found that all of the seconded government employees returned to work for their respective provincial departments and all have indicated that they will continue to work for those departments indefinitely. The single exception is PDMAFF employee Panha Samath, who stole 16 bulls from impoverished aid recipients under this program. He is now living in Phnom Penh according to his former PDAFF colleagues. Impact AAH cooperation with the provincial line agencies has strengthened an ongoing actor of development. From the training, the seconded staff now have a broadened understanding of development issues. They have also developed greater familiarity with the region and its needs by traveling to the various districts and working directly with the villages. It is expected that these improved human resources will make future government participation more efficient and effective.


6. Conclusion Beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries across the target area were nearly unanimous in reporting that they were worse off in terms of food security and income generation than before the commencement of the AAH project. This is primarily due to the effects of a drought. The drought caused widespread death of crops and caused the fish ponds and ring wells to be without water. A key secondary reason was that AAH had too few staff to accurately implement the project. Still, lessons have been learned that can strengthen future projects. Food Security & Income Generation Overall, the project was unable to increase food security for vulnerable families in the target area. Four main factors caused this failure. First, vulnerable households were not targeted in Srayong and Yeang communes and were not uniformly applied in the other communes. In these communes, Village Chiefs were solely responsible for the beneficiary selection and did not apply AAH criteria. Selection of beneficiaries in other communes was better, but not consistent. Second, most of the piglets died after distribution, causing beneficiaries to lose both a potential source of income and their initial investment. Third, a widespread drought meant that there were no convenient water sources with which to continue the vegetable gardening or fruit trees (in addition to a lack of water sources in non-drought conditions). Fourth, the draught animal component failed to increase land cultivation since only a fraction of the participating households had access to the bulls; however, these animals were sold in exchange for cows to be put in cow banks, which will greatly improve the lives of beneficiaries. Due to the withdrawal of WFP from the target area and the subsequent lack of food for work, a number of activities that were meant to provide water for irrigation had to be reviewed or even cancelled (e.g. dyke rehabilitation and ditch remodelling, household ponds). Thus, the availability of water for irrigation purposes was decreased and subsequently the impact of agricultural activities on the food security of beneficiaries (e.g. lack of water for irrigation of home gardens and fruit-trees during the hot dry season). Although the withdrawal of WFP was beyond the control of the implementing organisation, AAH had the opportunity to partially redesign the project and adjust the activities to the new situation. However, AAH failed to redesign the project in a way that would still address the availability of water for agricultural purposes which was essential for improving food security in the target area. In addition, AAH wanted to target vulnerable families to participate in the activities, particularly in the food security activities. However, experience has shown again and again that an intervention by an external organisation has an effect on the community as a whole. By targeting only vulnerable families the project is systematically excluding a part of the community (usually the most active and influent) and therefore the chances of success are severely reduced because of the tensions and jealousy created. This is also a source of stress for the local staff who has to spend long periods of time in the target area. The local staff are meant to provide inputs and attention to vulnerable families that usually have a very low level of education and do not have the time and/or interest to participate in the project, whereas the better off families that can understand the training quickly because of their higher education, and are more active/interested have to be excluded. Besides, these better off families are usually the ones that provide the local staff with food, shelter and help them if they have any problem.


Water & Sanitation Overall, the project was able to greatly enhance access to clean water and hygiene practices. Nearly all of the households in the target area now have water jars, thanks to AAH. Also, AAH borehole wells and ring wells have made use of water for cleaning practical. However, most of the ring wells are without water during the dry season bringing benefit only during the rainy season. This absence of water has also made school latrine usage impossible. Despite these setbacks, the water jars and AAH wells have transformed the lives of target area beneficiaries, both improving hygiene practices and reducing time and effort spent on water collection. Capacity Building Overall, human resource and institutional capacity building has had mixed results. The organization and training of VDCs was a task beyond the scope of time and resources than that provided by this project. Realistically, a longer period, such as five years, is necessary for successful VDC development; even still, such an activity would not be immediately relevant to the experience and objectives of this project. VDCs in Phnom Penh, Phnom Tbeng II, and Kantout communes have shown an increased awareness of development issues and their VDC chiefs have helped identify beneficiaries; this will better prepare them for future development spurred by outside actors, but the VDCs are unlikely to carry out development projects independently. VDCs in the other two communes, Srayong and Yeang, have not had any activities. In regards to seconded staff from the provincial departments, there is a positive impact with these staff greatly improving their technical knowledge as wells as understanding the needs of the target area. It is promising that these seconded staff have chosen to stay in Preah Vihear in the employ of their department. As for VLAs, VLAs have been successfully trained and established in each of the target villages. This has had an immediate effect, with widespread use of VLA services; there is a danger that the use of these services will wane as VLAs are unable or unwilling to purchase additional medicine. In contrast, CPAs, FPAs, and women’s groups appear to have had few activities and are not expected to continue. Coverage, Appropriateness & Strategy Geographic coverage and village selection was appropriate. Across the target area, the pre-intervention study showed that 31.5% of the households had a hunger gap of 3 or more months and that 18.6% of the households had a hunger gap of 1-2 months. These findings were consistent with the final evaluation. A broad range of factors makes this area particularly vulnerable: remoteness, history of conflict, landmines, community fragmentation, non-irrigated agriculture, variable food production, narrow food entitlements, cycles of indebtedness, absence of veterinary skills, and limited hygiene knowledge. Unfortunately, selection of households within the target area did not focus on vulnerable families; this inaccurate selection of households was caused by the absence of AAH staff during the selection and invitation of beneficiaries. Efficiency The selection criteria and wealth rankings determined by the pre-intervention survey would have allowed the AAH project to have been extremely efficient, targeting the most vulnerable. Moreover, the components of the project were designed to provide the most efficient means of assistance leading to long term sustainability. However, AAH was unable to capitalize on this (with the exception of the water and sanitation components),


and most resources were expended on non-vulnerable families or on ineffective project implementation. In terms of water and sanitation, AAH was able to capitalize on this and efficiently determine well locations and distribution of water jars. However, this has been seriously undercut by the fact that the ring wells are dry throughout the dry season. Please provide facts that the ring wells are dry throughout the dry season, e.g. from December to May, making the ring wells and latrines useless for the better part of the year. Coherence AAH was able to successfully cooperate with other development organizations in Preah Vihear and elsewhere in Cambodia. Organizations CEDAC, CARDI, VRC, and HKI were involved in implementing this project, sharing knowledge and resources. Also, AAH was able to successfully involve the seconded provincial department staff from the ministries of agriculture, health, and women’s affairs. However, provincial department said that while their lower level staff were aware of AAH activities, they themselves did not receive any substantial contact or reports from AAH. Gender Gender received special attention and consideration of AAH throughout most of its components. In fact, many of the project components traditionally involve the participation of women (piglet raising, water & sanitation, gardening, fruit tree crops, women’s nutrition groups). The final evaluation found that women throughout the target area were involved in the project components in a substantial, meaningful way.


7. Recommendations While the project was beset by several challenges (drought, lack of component integration, improper application of selection criteria), this evaluation does not feel that the project design was not wholly inadequate. More proactive and diligent project management should have been able to resolve many of the difficulties. Planning up-front for all possible developments is impossible in the turbulent environment in which the project took place. Lack of formal planning to resolve such issues does not mean that there is an absence of rationality in the design. Future projects can benefit from the experience of this one. The lessons learned can be applied to increase the success of future activities. The main categories are beneficiary selection, evaluation and monitoring, technical considerations, and future planning. Beneficiary Selection

1. In order to build community support for a project as described above in the conclusion, selection of beneficiaries should not specifically exclude families that are not the most vulnerable. When a sample of better off families participate in a project, especially in an isolated rural setting, there is greater community support for the project. Not only that, but the better off families, by successfully implementing certain agricultural techniques taught by the project, can act as model beneficiaries for others. These ‘better off’ families could be selected in an initial phase of the project and act as crop production agents (described below in farming/gardening technical considerations).

2. Beneficiary selection should be made under the direct supervision of an

AAH employee. While selection may be delegated to the village development committee, AAH should be physically present at the time of beneficiary invitation, explanation, and selection. AAH staff should visit the homes of potential beneficiaries together with VDC representatives.

The pre-intervention survey of AAH was quite informative and provided an accurate criteria for selecting the most vulnerable families. By directly supervising and participating in selection of beneficiaries, AAH can capitalize on the high quality of its pre-intervention survey.

3.Suitable planting area, irrigation sources, motivation and willingness of beneficiaries to participate in a project should be given greater consideration during selection. The measurement of motivation and willingness to participate in the project should include past performance. For example, piglets would be distributed to those households whose gardens were successfully prepared and were achieving a reasonable output.

Evaluation and Monitoring

1. Mid-level management (component supervisors) and upper level management (head of base) need to increase the number of visits to the field. Component managers were reported to have visited the field only once every 3 months and one AAH employee said “They (AAH management) do not know what we do. This is the big problem.”


AAH management should conduct scheduled and unscheduled meetings with stakeholders and beneficiaries at the household level. With proper supervision, many of the failures in implementing this project would not have occurred.

2. For a project that intends to create sustainable gardening and livestock raising, the beneficiary/AAH staff ratio should be such that AAH staff can make a 30-60 minute personal visit to each beneficiary household at least twice a month. This visit should occur for the duration of at least the first two plantings of vegetables (2-3 months). After this time, a monthly visit is recommended until the completion of the project.

During this time, the AAH staff can have a discussion with the beneficiary regarding the usefulness and success of the activity, physically inspect the activity, and provide solutions, technical advice and encouragement.

3. Mid-term evaluations for projects should allow sufficient time for the recommendations to be considered and implemented.

4. Projects that aim to increase land area under cultivation for rice should, for a sample of beneficiaries, measure the land area that plant with rice during a pre-intervention study or during the initial stages of the project. This will make it easier to objectively measure the impact. of projects that aim to increase cultivation.

5. AAH should regularly meet with and provide reports to the chief(s) of provincial departments of ministries that are relevant (e.g., PDAFF). The heads of the departments would appreciate this cooperation and this would increase the knowledge and capacity of the department.

Farming/Gardening Technical Considerations

1. Model farming should be set up in the villages using the crop production agents. Model farms should not be in a distant location sustained in artificial conditions. Early in the project, AAH can work with crop production agents in each village to implement the farming/gardening techniques taught by AAH.

Then, these crop production agents will be an example to beneficiaries and can more practically assist and help train beneficiaries. Their farms can be used to give hands on training to beneficiaries.

2. Year round agricultural output should not be expected. The constraints of

the dry season, especially in distant rural villages seriously lacking basic material support and convenient sources of water, are too great to achieve year round agricultural output on a broad basis. Instead, diversification and intensification of agricultural activities during the wet season should be emphasized.

Livestock Technical Considerations

1. Regarding beneficiary selection, it seems questionable that this activity is suitable for the most vulnerable families as pigs eat the same kind of food than humans and are thus direct competitors of the beneficiary family for the scarce food available, particularly in the lean season. Therefore, vulnerable families participating in the activity can find themselves with their vulnerability increased if they want to follow AAH’ advise when raising the piglet.


Furthermore, vulnerable families usually have to spend most of their time as hired labour working in rice fields far from their household and/or foraging for food in the forest. Therefore, they lack the time to attend the training and properly care for the piglet because they have other priorities.

2. Piglet distributions should be timed with seed distributions. Part of the

reason for the high mortality of piglets was lack of food. Piglets should be distributed after 1-2 months into a cycle of successful vegetable growing (e.g., water convulvulvus, a traditional pig feed that can be harvested 30 days after planting) so that the beneficiary household is assured of having some leaves and eventually vegetables to provide the piglet.

3. Raising of goats should be piloted as a replacement pig raising for very vulnerable families. Pigs require high feed expenses which the most vulnerable families cannot afford. Goats graze. The project area has many areas of forested scrubland which would be suitable for raising goats. AAH can learn from the experience of ZOA in Poipet which has introduced goats with some success.

4. AAH should test alternatives to selecting VLAs by village vote. The democratic election of VLAs in the project often resulted in a young disinterested VLA with little long term commitment or entrepreneurial ambition. Merit based selection would be ideal. Basic business skills should be taught to VLAs.

Village Development Committee Development

1. The organisation and training of VDCs seems to be and activity more related to rural development rather than for post-emergency/rehabilitation projects aimed to fill the gap in the beneficiaries’ livelihoods caused by the crisis. For these VDCs to be operational and sustainable a longer timeframe (5 years) would seem to be more appropriate.

Considering Action Against Hunger’s charter and the aims/objectives of the project it is questionable that the objectives of this activity can be achieved within the short timeframe of the project and assuming that AAH will phase out of the target area once the post-emergency/rehabilitation period is over and a more developmental approach is required.

Water/Sanitation and Other Technical Considerations

1. Wells should be dug in the dry season, between January and April. Ring wells dug in May/June for this project were on average one meter less deep than the January-April dug wells.

2. Borehole wells, not ring wells, should be placed at the schools. The latrines and hand washing stations are not practical or sustainable without a dependable supply of water.

3. Wood for bridges should be dried in the sun as long in advance of construction as possible. In the case that kilned wood is available, kilned wood should be used. This will reduce warping and increase the lifespan of the bridge.

4. If food for work is not an option, beneficiary fish ponds should be dug with a back hoe tractor, not with the labor of beneficiaries. A back hoe tractor can dig 2-3 fish ponds in a single day. For the most vulnerable households,


digging with a back hoe tractor should replace food for work if the household lacks an appropriate source of labor or if the food for work is going to interfere with traditional cycles of income generation. From previous experiences in Cambodia, it seems that communal projects to provide irrigation water have had little success because of the complicated operations and maintenance (O&M) involved in such an activity. Increase water storage at household level could be a more appropriate solution and it would be more sustainable.

Project Follow Up

1. Partner organizations, including the head of provincial ministry departments, should be identified to assist in the monitoring of the project area. Such monitoring of food security of the project target area should continue on a quarterly basis, with increased monitoring during the dry season.

2. Funds should be sought to monitor the depth of water in the ring wells during the 2004-2005 dry season, and, if necessary, dig the ring wells a further 1-4 meters. At the time of this evaluation, most of the ring wells were without water during the dry season. Also, the school latrines that depend on those ring wells were useless.

3. A legal advocate should be sought to press charges against former AAH seconded staff Mr. Samath Panha for the theft and sale of 16 bulls. His action is widely known in Preah Vihear and, were he to go unpunished, it may contribute to a culture of self-enrichment among aid workers.

4. AAH should increase its advocacy for vulnerable households. Ideally, advocacy can take the place of proper application of vulnerability criteria for beneficiary selection. However, additional advocacy is necessary.

The most vulnerable households are most often households that are outside of the village social network. Other villagers do not want to engage them due to fear that the vulnerable family will become their dependent. Also, vulnerable families are often seen by other villagers as unable to participate in project components, believed to be incompetent or lacking resources. Because of this, they are often discouraged to participate in village activities by both subtle and overt means.

Advocacy should focus on equitable access to village resources (e.g., water), inclusion in VDC and AAH assistance, and provision of land for planting.


Annex 1: Map of Cambodia

Preah Vihear

Phnom Penh

Preah Vihear


Annex 2: Map of Preah Vihear

Target communes


Annex 3: Map of Chom Khsan and Koulen Districts

(target areas in red)


Annex 4: Evaluation Household Participants & Profiles

No. Household Village Commune District Rice Field (ha)

Residence (ha)

Orchard / Chamkar

(ha)

Gadening Period (mo.)

Fruit Trees

Bovines & Pigs

1 Chao Sok Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 1.5 Unknown 0.35 3-6 0 0

2 Chi Saroum Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 1.3 Unknown 0.3 3-6 0 6

3 Eang Chhoun Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 1.8 Unknown 0.2 6-9 1 0

4 Eng Oun Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 1 Unknown 0.2 6-9 0 5

5 Keo Mean Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 2 Unknown 0.15 3-6 0 5

6 Khi Khem Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 1.2 Unknown 0.12 3-6 2 8

7 San Thach Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 1 0.15 0 3-6 2 0

8 Sao Saroth Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 1.5 Unknown 0.25 3-6 0 0

9 Som San Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 2 Unknown 0.4 6-9 0 0

10 Srey Sota Veal Thom (control) Cham Khsan C. Ksan 1 Unknown 0.25 6-9 0 7

11 Chan Son Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 1.2 Unknown 0.18 3-6 0 11

12 Chet Choet Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 1 0.12 0.15 3-6 2 0

13 Chim Sophat Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 1 Unknown 0.2 3-6 0 7

14 Hun Sarot Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 1 Unknown 0.12 6-9 1 0

15 Kann Meng Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 1.5 0.2 0 6-9 0 0

16 Khim Chin Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 3 Unknown 0.12 6-9 0 10

17 La Bonan Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 1 0.1 0.12 3-6 3 4

18 Ot Out Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 1.2 Unknown 0.15 6-9 0 0

19 Sap Tham Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 1.5 Unknown 0.19 6-9 3 0

20 Sok Sambo Krabao (control) Goulan Tbeng C. Ksan 1 Unknown 0.15 6-9 0 7

21 Mao Moeut Kon Tourt Kan Tourt C. Ksan 0.9 Unknown 0.21 3-6 1 0

22 Lem ourn Kon Tourt Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1.5 0.12 0 6-9 3 0

23 Mao Yuy Kon Tourt Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1 0.12 0 N/A 2 3

24 Moa Viet Kon Tourt Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1 0.20 0 N/A 0 0



Residence (ha)

Orchard / Chamkar

(ha)


Fruit Trees

Bovines & Pigs

25 Ros Lom Kon Tourt Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1.3 Unknown 0 N/A 0 0

26 Som At Ret Kon Tourt Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1.2 0.2 0 6-9 0 0

27 Sot Roeun Kon Tourt Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1.5 Unknown 0.3 6-9 2 0

28 Soy Som oon Kon Tourt Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1.7 0.4 0 N/A 0 1

29 Tha Théng Kon Tourt Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1.6 Unknown 0.20 N/A 0 0

30 Thoun Kheang Kon Tourt Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1.3 Unknown 0.2 3-6 0 1

31 Chres Khourt Sra Em Kon Tourt C. Ksan 0.60 Unknown 0 3-6 3 0

32 Heng Sineoun Sra Em Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1.2 Unknown 0 3-6 0 0

33 Jin Reuon Sra Em Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1.5 0.2 1.5 6-9 0 10

34 Khan Ron Sra Em Kon Tourt C. Ksan 2.5 0.3 0 3-6 0 0

35 Khan Vanno Sra Em Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1 0.15 0 3-6 0 0

36 Mao Moeun Sra Em Kon Tourt C. Ksan 0.5 0.12 0 N/A 0 2

37 Phon Chanteuon Sra Em Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1 0.1 0 N/A 0 1

38 Sok Someang Sra Em Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1 0.2 0 3-6 1 0

39 Sor Mab Sra Em Kon Tourt C. Ksan 1 0.08 0 N/A 3 0

40 Bon Cluster Hosehold 1 Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

41 Bun Both Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 2 0.045 3 Unknown 4 5

42 Chay Chun Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 0.5 0.045 0 N/A 0 18

43 Chun Pan Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 1 0.06 0.5 Unknown 0 0

44 Chut Chou Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 0 0.1 0 Unknown 0 0

45 Chut Cluster Household 1 Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

46 Et Chem Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 0 0.01 0 Unknown 0 0

47 Groich Srum Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 0 0.06 0 Unknown 0 0

48 Hong Sokha Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 1 0.15 1 Unknown 1 6

49 Nuong (family) Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 1 0.0625 0.5 Unknown 0 8

50 Nuong Cluster Household 1 Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

51 Puk Veth Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 1 0.08 1 Unknown 0 0



Residence (ha)

Orchard / Chamkar

(ha)


Fruit Trees

Bovines & Pigs

52 Rin Savon Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 1 0.0936 0 Unknown 0 5

53 Sambo Seoung Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 0 0.015 0.5 Unknown 0 0

54 Sing Tee Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 0.5 0.06 0 Unknown N/A 2

55 To Toich Chom Sre Yeong C. Ksan 1 0.004 70 Unknown 3 24

56 Vender Cluster Household 1 Kong Yong Yeong C. Ksan Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown



59 Chham Samat Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 1.2 0.2 0 Unknown 1 0

60 Chhean Chhout Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 1.6 Unknown 0.15 6-9 0 0

61 Et Tham Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 0.75 Unknown 0.17 6-9 0 0

62 King Khan Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 1.5 0.17 0 N/A 0 1

63 Lav Sarat Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 0.97 Unknown 0.12 3-6 0 0

64 Loun Dean Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 1.2 Unknown 0.15 N/A 0 0

65 Oun Rann Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 0.95 Unknown 0.20 N/A 2 0

66 Prum Yeout Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 1.3 0.15 0 3-6 0 11

67 Sem Lorn Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 1.7 0.15 0 6-9 0 5

68 Tret Trong Phnov Phnom Penh Koulen 1.3 0.12 0 3-6 0 0

69 Khorn Bin Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 1 0.15 0 3-6 0 0

70 Kong Ram Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 1 0.17 0 3-6 0 0

71 Lem Sok Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 1 Unknown 0 6-9 0 0

72 Meas Chham Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 1.4 0.20 0 N/A 0 1

73 Nean Ty Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 1.25 0.19 0 3-6 0 0

74 Roeung Roeu Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 1 0 0.15 N/A 0 0

75 Sean Reth Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 1.5 0.12 0 N/A 0 0

76 So Sang Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 1.5 0 0.25 N/A 0 0

77 Té Kourn Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 2 0.17 0.17 Less than

3 1 3



Residence (ha)

Orchard / Chamkar

(ha)


Fruit Trees

Bovines & Pigs

78 Vann Souy Srobal Phnom Penh Koulen 1.2 0.20 0 3-6 1 0

79 Peng Pung Chouk Phnom Tbeng Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

80 Peung Cluster Household 1 Chouk Phnom Tbeng Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown






86 Peung Sokny Chouk Phnom Tbeng Koulen 1 0.075 0 Unknown 2 2

87 Tet Cluster Household 1 Chouk Phnom Tbeng Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

88 Tet Ut Chouk Phnom Tbeng Koulen 0.5 0.04 1 Unknown 0 3

89 Kun Chon Koh Ker Srayong Koulen 0 0.06 0.09 Unknown 0 0

90 Kun Cluster Household 1 Koh Ker Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

91 Kun Cluster Household 2 Koh Ker Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

92 Sun Ly Koh Ker Srayong Koulen 1 0.5 0 Unknown 0 1

93 Yen Yuon Koh Ker Srayong Koulen 2 0.15 1 Unknown 0 3

94 Chong Meas Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen 0 0.1 1 Unknown 0 3

95 En Sath Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen 1 0.27 1 Unknown 3 5

96 Grog Han Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen 1 0.125 1 Unknown 0 0

97 Groich Cluster Household 1 Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

98 Groich Déap Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen 0 0.12 1 Unknown 0 0

99 Gruich Hay Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen 1 0.1 1 Unknown 0 3

100 Kut Cluster Household 1 Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

101 Kut Cluster Household 2 Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

102 Kut Koun Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen 1.5 0.50 2 Unknown 1 0

103 Men Mao Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen 0 0.09 2 Unknown 0 0

104 Prum Choey Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown



Residence (ha)

Orchard / Chamkar

(ha)


Fruit Trees

Bovines & Pigs

105 Prum Cluster Household 1 Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

106 Tun Toeun Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen 0 0.04 1 Unknown 0 0

107 Yan Cluster Household 1 Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

108 Yan Koong Srayong Cheung Srayong Koulen 0 0.1 1 Unknown 0 2

109 Kdep Cluster Household 1 Srayong Tbong Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

110 Kdep Cluster Household 2 Srayong Tbong Srayong Koulen Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

111 Kdep Lun Srayong Tbong Srayong Koulen 0 0.06 1 Unknown 0 7

Unknown: There are three main causes of a field being "unknown". 1) In the case of land, land owners have never measured their property and refuse to give an estimation; 2.) In the case of length of gardening period, only half of the households were asked; 3) In some cases, households participated in discussions/interviews with other households and the format did not allow for evaluators to go through each of the questions with each of the households.

N/A: Not applicable. This signifies that the question/field is not relevant (e.g., A family which does not garden would show "N/A" in the field for gardening period.).

Chamkar/Orchard: This is actually two sets of data. Families in Kantout, Krabau, Sra Em, Veal Thom, Pnov, and Srobal were asked about land area for "Orchards" while all other villages were asked about land area for Chamkar (farmland).

Land Estimations: Land area is based on household estimation. The estimation in hectares is felt to be wildly inaccurate as a precise measurement since each villager has a different concept of the exact size of a hectare and none of the land has been measured. It is, however, a general indicator.

Cluster Households: Households in neighborhood units came together for interviews/discussions. The name of the cluster household is the name for the household at which the discussion took place. Because of the format, most of the cluster households offered qualitative input only.


Annex 5: Initial Interview Questionnaire

Food Security Program Evaluation

Interview Questionnaire

I- Demographics 1. Household Head Name(s):………………………………….Sex:……….Age:………Years Village:………………………… Commune:…………………………… District:…………………………, Province:………………........... 2. Number of Family members: ….. (Men: … ,Women: ..., Disabled: …) 3. Occupation a. Main occupation:………………………………………… b. Minor occupation:……………………………………….. 4. Land Use a. Rice fields:………………..hectares, Yield:……………… b. Orchards:…………………………...hectares, Yield:…………….... c. Residential land:…………………..hectares 5. How long time could you grow vegetables in one year’s time? Less than 3 months 3-6 months 6-9 months 9-12 months 6. What are the sources of your family income? II- Food Security Home Gardening 7. Do you grow any vegetables? When did you start?.................................? 8. Have you organized the garden for you vegetable? Yes No 9. If yes, support by who?......................................................................................... 10. What kind of vegetable do/did you grow?

Kinds of Vegetable Period Yield Use Cultivated Harvest Consumption Selling Cabbage Morning glories Radish Bottle Gourds Ridge Gourds Cucumber Pumpkin Egg Plant Long Bean Other: Other: Other:


Cash Crops 11. Have you grown maize, bean, and peanut? When did you start growing?.................................... 12. Who supported you to grow the crops?....................................................................... 13. How much yield did you get from your cultivation?

Crops Period Yield Use Cultivate Harvest Consumption Selling Maize Bean Peanut Other

Rice Trials 14. Have you participated in the rice trials? Yes No 15. If yes, what kind of rice?...........................................Who support?........................................... 16. What is the yield of the experiment?

Kinds of Rice Period Yield Use Cultivate Harvest Consumption Selling

Fruit Trees 17. Have your family planted any fruit trees? Yes No 18. If yes, what kinds of fruit trees?....................................................................... 19. Where did you get the seedling?....................................................... 20. How many seedlings of each kind of fruit trees did you receive?.................................................. 21. Did anyone provide you training on how to plant the fruit trees?............................................... 22. Has your fruit tree plantation improved? Died Not so good Fair Fairly good Good Livestock 23. Did you raise any animals? When did you start raising?........................................................... 24. What kinds of animals have you raised?

Kind of Animals Quantity Death/Year Use Cows/bulls Buffalos Pigs Chickens Ducks Other: Other:

25- Have you ever received any vaccination for your animals? Yes No 26- If yes, how many times in a year have you sought vaccinations?................................................


27. What kind of vaccination for each animal?

Kind of Animals Frequency/Year Kind of Vaccination Who provides Cows/bulls Buffalos Pigs Chickens Ducks Other:

28. How many Veterinarians / Village Livestock Agents are there in your village?.............................. 29. How and by whom were the Veterinarians / Village Livestock Agents selected and trained? 30. How good is the animal treatment by the Village Livestock Agents? Not Good (animals died) Fair (some success) Good (lived) 31. How much is the treatment?

Kind of Animals Price/once Per animal

Cows/bulls Buffalos Pigs Chickens Ducks

32. The number of the animals killed by diseases? Has decreased Stayed the Same Has increased Fish Raising 33. Have you ever practiced the fish raising? When did you do it ?......................................... 34. What kind of fish did you raise?..........................................How many fish? 35. How often do you feed your fish? How many kilograms per day? And kind of feedings? 36. What is the output from fish raising?

Kind of Fish Period Yield Use Start Harvest Consumption Selling

37. Who supports the fish pond digging?.......................................................... 38. Who provides you the technical training of fish raising?......................................................... How many courses?......................................How many days per course? 39. How much fish does your family eat? Less than before The same More than before Nutrition 40. Have you ever received any training on nutrition? When was it?............................................... How many times/ courses………………………………..Who provides it? 41. What are the methods of training? Posters Theory (in class/group) Cooking Demonstration


42. After the training, did your family follow the ideas in the training? 43. If no, why not?........................................................................................................................ 44. How can you compare the illness condition in your family? Worse Normal Better III Water Sanitation 45. What sources of water do you use? Ring well Pump well Ponds Streams Rivulet 46. Do you have water source for a year round consumption? Yes No 47. If yes to Q46, who supported its digging/construction?........................................................... 48. If no to Q46, why?........................................................................... 49. How many beneficiaries for one well?...................................................................... 50. What containers are used for storing water?.............................................................. 51. Who provided you the water jars? AAH Buying Government Other Organizations 52. Do you drink the boiled or unboiled water (from non-pump sources of water)?............................. Boiled Unboiled Boiled and Unboiled 53. When did you start drinking the boiled water(from non-pump sources of water)?.................... 54. What are the impacts from drinking unboiled water(from non-pump sources of water)?............. 55. What are the impacts from drinking boiled water(from non-pump sources of water)?................ 56. Is the clean water consumption in your family better than before? Worse Normal Better 57. How long was well water available to support your vegetable garden? Less than 3 months 3-6 months 6-9 months 9-12 months


Annex 6: Revised Interview Questionnaire

Food Security Program Evaluation

Interview Questionnaire

I- Demographics 1. Village:……………………………………….

Female Household Head:…………………………………. Male Household Head: …………………………………….

Number of Household Members: … (Adult Males: … ,Adult Females: ..., Boys: …, Girls: …, Disabled: …)

2. Land Use a. Rice fields:………………..hectares b. Farmland:………………………….. hectares c. Residential land:………………….. hectares 3. How is your food security now compared to 2 years ago? Why? 4. Do you have rice now? Will you have rice every month this year? If not, for how many months

will you be without rice? Will you borrow rice? From whom? Please describe the arrangement. 5. Sources of income a. Main source of income:………………………………………… b. Minor source of income:……………………………………….. II- Food Security Home Gardening 6. Do you grow any vegetables? When did you start?.................................? 7. What kind of vegetable do/did you grow?

Kinds of Vegetable Harvest (kg) Use Consumption Selling

8. Did you receive some seeds, tools from AAH/VDC (show)? How did it go? Why? 9. What was the training like? What handouts/booklets did you receive (show)? Is there a crop

production agent in your village? 10. How were beneficiaries selected?


11. Have you set aside seeds for the next planting? Can you show them to me? 12. When and what vegetables are you going to plant next time? Why? Cash Crops 13. Do you plant on a farm? What do you plant, how is it going?

Kinds of Vegetable Harvest (kg) Use Consumption Selling

14. Did you receive some seeds, tools from AAH/VDC (show)? How did it go? Why? 15. What was the training like? What handouts/booklets did you receive (show)? Is there a crop

production agent in your village? 16. How were beneficiaries selected? 17. Have you set aside seeds for the next planting? Can you show them to me? 18. When and what crops are you going to plant next time? Why? Rice Trials 19. Have you heard about or participated in any rice trials? Yes No 20. What have your heard or experienced in regards to the rice trials? Fruit Trees 21. How many and what kind of fruit trees do you have? How are they? Why? 22. Did you receive any fruit trees from AAH? How many? How are they now? Why? 23. Did you receive any training for growing the fruit trees? What handouts/booklets did you

receive (show)? Is there a crop production agent in your village? 24. How were beneficiaries selected? Livestock 25. What animals are you raising at the moment? Please describe how you acquired them and

raised them. Kind of Animals Quantity Death/Year Comment

Cows/bulls Buffalos


Pigs Chickens Ducks Other:

26. Have you received a piglet from AAH? Why/how were you selected? How did it go? Why? 27. Did you receive any training? How was it? 28. Did you prepare a pig pen? Please describe. 29. Is there a village veterinarian? Have you ever used his/her/their services, at what cost? Please

describe. 30. Have you vaccinated your animals? How many times, by whom, for what, at what cost? Fish Raising 31. Have you ever practiced fish raising? Please describe. 32. (if no to No. 30) Were you informed that AAH was supporting people in your village to develop

fish ponds, including the provision of fingerlings? Why didn’t you participate? Nutrition (for female respondents only) 33. Is there a women’s group in this village? Have you joined it? Who is in the group? What do

they do? 34. Should vegetables be washed before being cut/peeled and cooked? 35. At what age is it safe to feed an infant something other than mother’s milk? 36. At what age should babies stop being breast fed? III Water Sanitation 37. What is your primary source of water for household consumption and use? Secondary?

Please describe, including changes in season, location, and activity. 38. (if using a ring well) Can you/have you used the water for your garden? For how long? 39. (for non-pump water sources) Do you boil the water? 40. (if house has a water jar(s)) Where, how, and at what cost did you get the water jar(s)? IV Other 41. What organizations are active in your village? Describe.

42. What difficulties do people in this village face? Why?

43. How could people in this village improve their living conditions?

44. (for Yeang Commune only) Is there a bridge on the way here? How is it? Why/When/How did you cross the river before there was a bridge? And after? What effect will this have?

AA

H P

reah Vihear

A

pril 2004 D

G D

ev Final Evaluation

- 75 -

Annex 7: H

ousehold Resources

Pump

Cabbage

Fresh Vegetable

Medicine

Fish

Rice Milling Machine

Zinc

Water Jar

Knife, Ax, Spade, hoe

Dishes, Rice Pot

Bucket

Salt, Seasoning

Ripe Tamarind

Cashew

Milk-fruit

Cows, bulls

Poultry

Rice

Vegetables

Mangoes

Coconuts

Buffalos

Pnov V

illage, Koulen D

istrict, 2004 Evaluation P

RA

AA

H P

reah Vihear

A

pril 2004 D

G D

ev Final Evaluation

- 76 -

Kantout V

illage, Chom

Ghsan D

istrict, 2004 Evaluation P

RA

Water Melon

Cabbage

Oranges

Pineapple

Longan

Petroleum (diesel, gasoline)

Rice milling machine

Rice

Motorbike, TV, Plowing motor

Mosquito net, blanket, clothes

Hoe, spade, ax, knife, hammer, nail

Tortoise

Longan

Rice

Cow/bulls

Resin

Little Fish


Annex 8: Seasonal Calendars

Pnov Seasonal Calendar Month 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 Rice Vegetable Animal Illnesses Cattle Animal Illnesses Poultry Festivals Rice farming Human illnesses

[Source: PRA, 2004]

- There is a rice supply for 10 months of the year. There is a shortage of rice supply for 2 months (between September and October).

- People in this village have vegetables for family consumption for only 6 months due to lack of water supply for vegetation. They usually have no vegetable for their own family consumption for another half year period, which lasts from January to June.

- Pigs, chickens, and ducks are usually threatened by illnesses between March and June whereas cows, bulls and buffaloes are threatened between June and September.

- June to September and from November to January are the busiest times of the year for all villagers. From June to September, their labor is put into rice cultivation and from November to January, labor is put into rice harvest.

Kantuot Seasonal Calendar Month 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 Rice Supply Vegetable Animal Illnesses (cattle) Animal Illnesses (poultry) Rice farming Festival Water Consumption Human illnesses

[Source: PRA, 2004]

- Kantuot villagers have a rice shortage for 3 months' time, which lasts from August and October.

- Villagers do not have vegetable supply for one year round. They usually have a shortage of vegetables for four months from March to June.

- Villagers’ animals are always threatened by illnesses. Illnesses threaten cows, bulls, and buffaloes during September and October (2 months), and pigs, chickens, and ducks during March and April (2 months).

- In May, young children usually have fever and diarrhea. And during the period from July to September (3 months), people catch fever, flu, and malaria.

- Villagers are typically busy with their rice farming practice from August to September (planting & cultivation) and from November to January (harvest).

- The village has a water shortage for 3 months (from March to May).


Annex 9: Problem Ranking

Pnov Village Problem Ranking

No Problem

Lack

of S

choo

l

Lack

of W

ell

Lack

of p

ath

Lack

of H

ealth

C

ente

r La

ck o

f ve

geta

ble

Typh

oid

Mal

aria

Den

gue

Ani

mal

illn

esse

s

Sco

re

Pri

ority

1 Lack of School 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 9 5 IV

2 Lack of Well 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 I

3 Lack of path 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 III

4 Lack of Health Center 4 4 4 4 9 5

V

5 Lack of vegetables 5 5 5 9 3

VI

6 Typhoid 7 7 9 0 IX

7 Malaria 8 9 2 VII

8 Dengue 9 1 VIII

9 Animal illnesses 6 II

Kantuot Village Problem Ranking

No Problem

Lack

of d

raug

ht

anim

als

Lack

of r

oad

Lack

of w

ell

Ani

mal

Ill

ness

es

Lack

of d

yke

Lack

of

vege

tabl

e se

eds

Lack

of f

ruit

tree

seed

lings

La

ck o

f pig

sp

ecie

s

Mal

aria

Sco

re

Pri

ority

1

Lack of draught animals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 I

2 Lack of road 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 6 II

3 Lack of well 4 3 3 3 8 9 3 VI

4 Animal Illnesses 4 4 4 8 9 4 V

5 Lack of dyke 5 5 8 9 2 VII

6 Lack of vegetable seeds 6 7 9 1 VIII

7 Lack of fruit trees 8 9 0 IX

8 Lack of pigs 8 6 III

9 Malaria 6 IV


Srayong Cheung Village Problem Ranking

No Problem

Lack

of

Food

/Ric

e La

ck o

f Dra

ft A

nim

als

Lack

of C

arts

Lack

of W

ells

Lack

of R

ain

Hum

an Il

lnes

s

Poo

r Hom

e La

ck o

f M

otor

cycl

e La

ck o

f Far

min

g E

quip

. Sco

re

Pri

ority

1 Lack of Food/Rice 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

I

2 Lack of Draft Animals 2 4 5 2 2 2 2 5

IV

3 Lack of Carts 4 5 6 3 3 3 3 VI

4 Lack of Wells 5 4 4 4 4 6 III

5 Lack of Rain 5 5 5 5 7 II

6 Human Illness 6 6 6 4 V

7 Poor Home 7 7 2 VII

8 Lack of Motorcycle 9 0

IX

9 Lack of Farming Equip. 1

VIII

Chom Sre Village Problem Ranking

No Problem

Lack

of F

ood/

Ric

e

Lack

of R

ain

Lack

of W

ell

Lack

of T

rans

port

Lack

of D

yke

Lack

of D

raug

ht

Ani

mal

s

Hum

an Il

lnes

s La

ck o

f Lar

ge

Brid

ge S

core

Pri

ority

1 Lack of Food/Rice 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 I

2 Lack of Rain 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 II

3 Lack of Functioning Wells 3 3 3 3 3 5

III

4 Lack of Transport 5 6 7 4 1 VII

5 Lack of Dyke 6 7 5 2 VI

6 Lack of Draught Animals 6 6 4 IV

7 Human Illness 7 3 V

8 Lack of Large Bridge 0 VIII


Annex 10: Venn Diagrams

Final Evaluation PRA, 2004

Final Evaluation PRA, 2004

Documents

Food Security and Water Sanitation Program Evaluation Preah Vihear