8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
1/48
Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund
Semi-Annual Report 2011(1 January to 30 June 2011)
A multi-donor trust fund supported by Australia, Denmark,
the European Union, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
2/48
Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund
Fund Manager Office
3rdFloor, Inya Lake Hotel
37 Kaba Aye Pagoda Road, Mayangone Township, Yangon, Myanmar
Phone: +95 1 65 77 04, Fax: +95 1 65 77 02Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.lift-fund.net
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Australia, Denmark, the European Union, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for their kind contribu-
tions to improving the livelihoods and food security of the poorest and most vulner-
able people in Myanmar. Their support to the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust
Fund (LIFT) is gratefully acknowledged.
Disclaimer
This document has been produced with financial assistance from Australia,
Denmark, the European Union, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland
and the United Kingdom. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to re-
flect the official opinion of the European Union or the governments of Australia, Den-
mark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
3/48
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Context 1
1.2 Background on LIFT 3
2 PROGRAMMATIC ACHIEVEMENTS 5
Purpose: To increase food availability and incomes of 1.5 milliontarget beneficiaries 5
2.1 Output 1: Direct agricultural production support provided and
used by target individuals 7
2.2 Output 2: Effective market and employment support mechanisms
provided and used by target individuals (on farm, off farm and
non-farm) 16
2.3 Output 3: Effective social protection measures that increase the
incomes and enhance the livelihood opportunities of chronically
poor households) 22
2.4 Output 4: Capacity of local organisations strengthened to supportlivelihoods and food security initiatives 25
2.5 Output 5: Monitoring and evaluation evidence and commissioned
studies used to inform programme and policy development 27
2.6 Output 6: Funds are allocated in line with Fund Board policies and
are accounted for in a transparent manner 29
2.7 Output 7: Fund flow and partner performance are monitored and
evaluated 31
2.8 Cross-cutting issues 32
3 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 35
3.1 Refinements to the M&E system 35
3.2 Significant issues 35
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
4/48
ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency
CACC Chin Association for Christian Communication
CARD Chin Association for Rural Development
CBO Community-Based Organization
CDA Community Development Association
CDN Consortium of Dutch NGOs
CESVI Cooperazione e Sviluppo (Italian NGO for cooperation and
development)
CLN Community Livelihood Network
CRDP Chin Relief and Development ProgrammeDC Donor Consortium
DPDO Disable People Development Organisation
EC European Commission
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FB Fund Board (LIFT)
FEG Farmer Extension Groups
FFS Farmer Field Schools
FM Fund Manager (LIFT)
FY Fiscal Year/Financial Year
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GOUM Government of the Union of Myanmar
HYV High Yield Variety seeds
IOM International Organ ization for Migration
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
KMSS Karuna Myanmar Social Services
LEAD Linking Emergency Aid and Development
LIFT Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund
LoA Letter of Agreement
LSG livelihood support groups
LWF The Lutheran World Federation
Abbreviations and Acronyms
i
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
5/48
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MAS Myanmar Agriculture Services
MBCA Myanmar Business Coalition on AIDS
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund
MERN Mangrove and Environmental Rehabilitation Network
MK Myanmar Kyat (local currency)
MoAI Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
MoSW Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement
MOU Memorandum of UnderstandingMSE micro and small enterprise groups
MT Metric Tonne
NAG Network Activities Group
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NMTPF National Medium Term Priority Framework
PONREPP Post Nargis Recovery and Preparedness Plan
RPA Rice self-provisioning ability
RSB Rice Seed Banks
SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition
SHGs Self-Help groups
SIM Social Impact Monitoring
SRI System of Rice Intensification
TCG Tripartite Core Group
TGH Triangle Generation Humanitaire
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
VDC Village Development Committee
WCM World Concern Myanmar
WFP World Food Programme
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ii
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
6/48
http://www.lift-fund.net
iii
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
7/48
Executive Summary
In 2011, LIFT was active in the Ayeyarwady Delta, the central Dry Zone as well as Shan,
Chin, Kachin and Rakhine States. During the first half of 2011 LIFT provided assis-
tance to over 1,300 villages, reaching an estimated 18,000 new households or 90,000
people as new direct beneficiaries. Cumulatively, including activities in 2010, LIFT hasprovided assistance to an estimated 172,000 households or 860,000 people as direct
beneficiaries1.
Important cumulative achievements in the Delta include:
Output 1: Agricultural production support:43,542 farmers have been provided with 2,264 MT of paddy seed 1,247 MT of fertil-izer
Training and advice has been given 16,195 to farmers to maximise the benefit ofagricultural inputs
Output 2: Market and employment support:Capital has been provided to 9,579 households for small businessesLivestock has been distributed to 10,846 poor and landless households11,395 fishing households were provided with nets and/or boats
Output 3: Social protection mechanisms:Cash-for-work activities has targeted poor and vulnerable households, creating391,209 person-days of work and constructing or repairing important village infra-
structure including ponds, embankments, jetties, footpaths, bridges and culverts
Output 4: Strengthening the capacity of local organisations:Over 3,449 community-based groups with more than 70,447 members (41% ofwhich were women) have been trained in management, livelihood and vocational
skills
Half of all LIFT funding commitments to date has been for the Ayeyarwady Delta. The 22
LIFT-funded projects in the Delta, which started in early 2010, continued to help people
recover from the destruction of the 2008 Cyclone Nargis. The first round of projects fo-
cused largely on replacing agricultural assets lost to Cyclone Nargis and consequently
nearly half of the project budgets were allocated to kick-starting agricultural produc-
tion, disrupted by the cyclone.
LIFT also began a second round of longer-term projects in the Delta to address underly-
ing problems of food insecurity and poverty. The second round of projects has a greater
focus on the provision of rural credit and more activities that add value to agricultural
and fish products with the aim of creating rural employment opportunities. The Delta
activities are made up of 22 one-year projects (total value of $19.5m) that started in early
2010 and 9 three-year projects (total value of $18m) that have only just begun.
LIFT also expanded significantly its activities in areas of the country outside the Delta,
awarding 11 new grants outside the Delta with a total value of US$ 25 million. In total,
there are now 17 LIFT-funded projects operating outside the Delta with a total budget
of US$ 37 million.
All national and international NGO partners of LIFT (19 in total) were audited in May/
1168,00 households (840,000 people) in the Delta and 4,000 (20,000 people) outside the Delta.
iv
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
8/48
National and international NGO partners of LIFT in the delta (19 in total) were audited in
May/June 2011. Overall results confirmed that LIFT partners have good financial control
mechanisms in place and are generally following them consistently.
LIFT achieved an important milestone in February 2011 when UNOPS (as the Fund Man-
ager) signed a country-wide agreement for LIFT with the Ministry of Agriculture and
Irrigation (MoAI). The agreement has facilitated getting visas and travel permits for in-
ternational staff. The agreement has since been transferred to the Ministry of National
Planning and Economic Development.
The appreciation of the Myanmar Kyat was an implementation challenge for LIFT part-
ners in 2011.Most of the projects LIFT funded were prepared in November/December
2009 when the exchange rate was more than Kyats 1,000 per $US. The exchange rate
in the first six months of 2011 averaged Kyats 840 per $US. Some partners have had to
marginally reduce planned activities. However most of the projects managed to reach
or slightly exceed planned targets and, as detailed in Table 1, in aggregate LIFT-funded
projects to date have exceeded nearly all planned outputs.
v
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
9/48
Table 1: Summary of achievements versus targets for LIFT-funded projects in the Delta
vi
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
10/48
http://www.lift-fund.net
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
11/48
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes activities funded by the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust
Fund during the first six months of 2011 (1 January to 30 June).
1.1 Context
While Myanmar is still one of the poorest countries in South-East Asia (ranked 132
out of 169 countries in the 2010 Human Development Index), and lags behind its
neighbours in most socio-economic indicators, the country is undergoing an im-
portant transition, which may lead to important improvements in food security and
livelihoods in the coming years.
The new government (President Thein Sein was inaugurated in March 2011) has laid
out an ambitious set of reforms that could, if implemented promptly and effectively,
initiate important macro and micro economic changes in the country.
The President has named three well-respected economists as presidential advisors
who helped organise a national workshop on rural development and poverty allevia-
tion, itself a departure from the past when discussions of poverty were absent. The
new focus areas are: a) agriculture; b) livestock and fisheries; c) rural productivity and
cottage industry; d) micro savings and credit enterprises; e) rural cooperatives; f) rural
socio economy; g) rural renewable energy; and, h) environmental conservation.
LIFT is active in all of these eight areas and as a step towards establishing relation-
ships with key ministries leading on aspects of the Rural Development and Poverty
Alleviation Programme, LIFT had meetings during the reporting period with the
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, the Ministry of National Planning and Eco-
nomic Development and the Ministry of Cooperatives.
Agriculture remains the mainstay of the economy with almost 50% of GDP being
derived from agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry. Sixty-three percent of
the labour force is engaged in the agriculture sector. Rice is the staple crop and a
significant export commodity. Other important crops are sugar cane, groundnuts,
sesame, wheat, maize, millet, jute, cotton, beans, pulses and oilseeds, vegetables,
rubber, toddy palm, tobacco and spices. Yields of most crops are low compared to
neighbouring countries.
According to recent 2011 country-wide survey2: 26% of Myanmars population lives
below the poverty line (the proportion is much higher in Chin (73%), Rakhine (44%),Taninthary (33%), Shan (33%) and Ayeyarwady (32%)); the nationwide prevalence of
moderately underweight children is 32%; the proportion of total household budgets
expended on food is 68%; and, landlessness is a significant phenomenon at 24% of
those whose primary economic activity is agriculture. The same survey shows that the
Delta, Mandalay, Rakhine and Shan account for two-thirds of the countrys total food
poverty and half of total poverty. These areas also account for the significant majority
of LIFTs activity and expenditure.
2 Integrated Household Living Conditions Assessment II, United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) 2011.
1
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
12/48
Figure 1: Map of LIFT project areas
2
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
13/48
1.2 Background on LIFT
Discussions began in 2008 amongst a group of donors on ways to help Myanmar
make faster progress towards the achievement of Millennium Development Goal 1
(the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger). After extensive consultations with
key stakeholders from government, embassies, UN and NGOs, in March 2009 LIFTthe Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund - was launched.
In the spirit of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the OECD/DAC guide-
lines on Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery, the donors agreed
on a multi-donor trust fund approach with the conviction that pooling resources
allows for programme coherence and leads to greater impact.
Generous contributions for LIFTs work in 2010 came from Australia, the European
Union (EU), the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. More
recent contributions have been received from Denmark and New Zealand.
The donors contracted the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) as
the fund manager to administer the fundsand provide monitoring and oversight
for LIFT.
The overall objective of LIFT is to make progress towards the achievement of Mil-
lennium Development Goal 1 in Myanmar. 3LIFTs purpose is to increase food avail-
ability and incomes of 1-1.5 million target beneficiaries.
This is to be achieved through delivering the following programme outputs:
1. Direct agricultural production support provided and used by target individuals
2. Effective market and employment support mechanisms provided and used by
target individuals (on farm, off farm and non-farm)3. Effective social protection measures provided for the chronically poor of the
target households
4. Capacity of local partners strengthened to support livelihoods and food security
initiatives
5. Monitoring and evaluation evidence and commissioned studies used to inform
programme and policy development
And the following management outputs:
6. Funds are allocated in line with Fund Board policies and are accounted for in a
transparent manner
7. Fund flow and partner performance are monitored and evaluated
3MDG 1: Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day; achieve full andproductive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people; reduce by halfthe proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
3
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
14/48
4
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
15/48
2 PROGRAMMATIC ACHIEVEMENTS
In 2010, the majority of LIFT field activities were focused on helping people recover
from the destruction of Cyclone Nargis, which swept through the Ayeyarwady Delta
in May 2008. While these activities continued through the first six months of 2011,
LIFT also began the process of narrowing the geographic focus of its activities in theDelta and shifting from Nargis recovery to addressing the underlying problems of
food insecurity and poverty in the Delta. LIFT also expanded significantly its activi-
ties in other parts of the country. LIFT now has activities in the central Dry Zone as
well as Shan, Chin, Kachin, and Rakhine States.
The sections that follow describe LIFTs partnersprogress to date against its stated
purpose and against its planned outputs. Each of these sections has two parts, one
describing progress in Delta and a second describing progress in other areas of
the country, referred to in the text as Outside-Delta activities. This has been done
mainly because the Delta activities were started significantly earlier than in the oth-
er parts of the country, and have therefore made more progress.
The Delta activities are made up of 22 one-year projects (total value of $19.5 m) that
started in early 2010 and seven(out of 9 to be contracted) three-year projects (total
value of $18 m) that have only just begun.
The Outside-Delta activities are made up of 17 three-year projects (total value of
$37 m) that started in the first half of 2011.
Purpose: To increase food availability and incomes of 1.5 million target
beneficiaries
Including support provided in 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011, LIFTs partnershave provided assistance to 172,000 households or 860,000 people as direct ben-
eficiaries4.
In summary the work in the Delta resulted in:
1. An increase in area cultivated with better land preparation due to improved till-
age capacity (20 60%)5for monsoon rice planted in May 2010.
2. Yields increase with better access to farming inputs (40-60%)5in 2010 monsoon
paddy
3. Increased income by reduced input costs and debt
4. Adoption of new/improved farming techniques through farmer field schools,demonstration plots and on-farm trials (e.g., intensified rice production using
nursery management, transplanting, use of drum seeders, pest management
and use of fertiliser)
5. A better supply of pure seeds through seed multiplication (94.5 MT of seeds
produced in Welthungerhilfe project areas)
6. Improved post harvest facilities provided with 93 threshers, 135 silos and
10,000 air tight bags to more than 3,000 farmers and 135 seed growers
7. Sustainability of farming inputs through seed banks, buffalo banks and revolv-
ing funds established by power tiller and thresher user groups of farmers (e.g.,
78 seed banks and 205 buffalo banks)
4168,00 households (840,000 people) in the Delta and 4,000 (20,000 people) outside the Delta.5Based on reports received from only 8 partners as of June 2011
5
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
16/48
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
17/48
LIFT activities in the Delta
The first round of LIFT projects in the Delta (Delta 1) was largely completed in the six
months to June 30, 2011 with only two of the 22 implementing partner projects still
running. As of June 30, LIFT had provided assistance to 1,300 villages in the Delta reach-
ing over 168,000 households and more than 840,000 people as direct beneficiaries.
After the main monsoon rice harvest in late 2010 and early 2011, the majority of
project activities in the delta continued in support of livelihoods for the poor and
vulnerable, many of whom are landless. Credit was provided for livestock rearing,
fish production and non-agricultural small businesses. Community-based groups
received group management and technical training to strengthen village capacity
to sustain project activities and benefits.
2.1 Output 1: Direct agricultural production support provided and used
by target individuals
LIFT activities in the Delta
In 2010, most LIFT-funded projects (16 of 22) in the delta focused on delivering in-
puts for agriculture, which accounted for 37% of total programme expenditure. The
Delta projects were delivered generally in time to support the monsoon paddy cul-
tivation (May 2010).
43,454 farmers were provided with agricultural inputs including 1,373 MT ofpaddy seed to 9,001 farmers in 494 villages, for about 45,000 acres of paddy
1,236 MT of inorganic fertilizer to 11,630 farmers in 585 villages, for about 23,260acres6 of paddy (i.e. 100 kg/farmer, which covered 2 acres on average)
384 MT of organic fertilizers was distributed to 2,371 farmers in 154 villages for7,113 acres7of paddy (150 kg/farmer, which covered 3 acres on average)
2,610 buffaloes were given to 1,195 farming households in 146 villages496 power tillers/hand tractors were distributed to more than 350 farmer groupsfor tilling about 24,800 acres8of monsoon paddy.
93 paddy threshers to more than 3,000 farming households in 91 villages thresh-ing for at least 120,000 baskets9of summer paddy
The majority of LIFTs partners provided services through in-kind distribution di-
rectly to beneficiary households. Action Aid, ADRA, Mercy Corps, Oxfam and Welt-
hungerhilfe provided farmers with cash grants or vouchers to enable farmers to
make their own choice of agricultural inputs needed.
Oxfam and Mercy Corps voucher system enabled farmers to purchase preferred
inputs at a fairer price. Using the voucher system, 2,000 farming families in Dedaye
had an easy access to inputs (i.e. fertilizers, seed and diesel) of their own choice
611,630 farmers received an average of 2 bags of chemical fertilizers (1-1.5 bag of Urea, 0.5-1 bag ofT-super and 0.5 bag of Potash), which can be applied for 2 acres of paddy and thus 23,260 acres were
covered.72,371 famers received an average 3 bags of organic fertilizers, which can be applied for 3 acres of
paddy and thus 7,113 acres were covered8Threshing capacity of a thresher is 50 acres and thus with 496 power tillers, 24,800 acres can becovered.9 At least 50 of 93 paddy threshers were used in 2011 summer paddy season and the capacity ofthreshing is 30 acres/thresher. Based on average yield of summer paddy (i.e. 80 baskets/acre), 120,000baskets have been threshed with LIFT-provided threshers.
7
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
18/48
10All conversions from Kyats are made at Kyats 840 to US$1, the average exchange rate during the
reporting period.
(on the different brands and kinds) from local businesses. Oxfam reported that
due to this activity, farmers were able to reduce their loan size from private money
lenders by more than 50% as they had fewer loans to pay that the previous years.
Most of the outcome results indicate that the monsoon paddy was generally good
and that paddy yields significantly increased partly due to LIFT project interven-
tions and partly due to good weather in 2010.
(i) Increase in cultivated area of land
Due to LIFTs provision of ploughing assistance (buffaloes, power tillers and fuel) in
the Delta, marginal and land-poor farmers were able to increase their tillage capac-
ity, resulting in larger areas being cultivated and contributing to a better harvest of
summer rice 2010 and increased income in the target areas.
In Labutta Township, 3,902 additional acres of monsoon paddy in TGHs project vil-
lages were cultivated due to the provision of buffaloes. TGH reported that 17,300
MT of paddy were harvested with an average yield of 28 baskets per acre.
In the 30 Lutheran World Federation (LWF) supported villages, 364 farming house-
holds had access to power tillers to plough land, almost 20% of all the cultivated
land (i.e. more than 1,083 hectares) for 2010 monsoon resulting in 75% of the land
being cultivated in 2010 up from 60% in 2009.
In the Mercy Corps project area of Labutta Township in the Delta, farmers increased
their ploughing capacity by using buffaloes enabling a 76% increase in the value of
monsoon paddy produced in 2010. Monsoon paddy yields also increased on aver-
age from 21 baskets to 37 baskets per acre, almost reaching pre-Nargis production
levels (40-55 per acre). The average income from monsoon paddy doubled fromUS$900 to US$1,60010.
Farmers from northern parts of Delta, preferred to use power tillers because they of
the short planting interval (3-4 w eeks) between the monsoon paddy and summer
paddy seasons. The ploughing capacity of a power tiller is four times higher than a
buffalo.
Eight partners distributed a total of 496 power tillers/hand tractors to more than
350 farmer groups, resulting in a huge increase in the paddy acreage in 2010. For ex-
ample, Oxfams local partner that provided tractors reported that monsoon paddy
cultivation increased from 206 acres in 2009 to 500 acres in 2010 in their projectvillages. Land preparation for 2011 summer paddy increased by more than 50% (i.e.
from 590 acres in 2010 to 920 acres in 2011).
(ii) Increased yield per acre
Sixteen partners distributed 1,373 MT (65,692 baskets) of seeds to 9,001 farmers in 494 vil-
lages, which was planted on 13,686 hectares (32,846 acres) of land. Relief International re-
ported that the harvest of farmers in their operational areas increased by 37% and paddy
yields by 18%. Furthermore, 10 families leased land and harvested 3,300 baskets of paddy
due to LIFTs support. LWFs farmers were able to increase yields by 60% (25 baskets per
acre in 2009 to 40 baskets per acre in 2010) due to providing inputs and training.
8
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
19/48
The farmer groups supported by World Vision reported that their monsoon paddy
yields had improved by 20 baskets per acre (40-50 baskets per acre in 2009 to 60-80
baskets per acre in 2010) due to the agricultural inputs, assets and trainings provid-
ed by LIFT. In the farmer field schools implemented villages supported by Mingalar
Myanmar, the improved production technologies resulted in an increased yield in
monsoon paddy of 10 to 15 baskets per acre.
(iii) Increased income of farming households
In CDN project villages, 60% of the farmers reduced their monsoon paddy produc-
tion costs between 2009 and 2010. Furthermore, as demand for labour increased,
landless labourers worked for an additional 26 days on farming activities (an aver-
age of 187 days in 2010) US$36 per household. Solidarities assessment also high-
lighted that 95% of surveyed beneficiary households that received inputs, increased
their rice self-provisioning ability (RPA) by an additional month from the 2009 R PA
monsoon crop.
Relief International reported that project beneficiaries reduced their families debtfinancial burden resulting in a reduction of their monthly expenditures by 21%. Ox-
fam ensured farmers sufficient access to inputs (fertilizer, seeds and diesel using
cash grants and voucher-based market interventions) to cultivate paddy without
falling further into debt. According to Oxfams local partners reports, all targeted
farmers fully cultivated their paddy fields in within the planting time. Additionally,
some farmers did not need to borrow money in 2010 while others were able to sig-
nificantly reduce loan size by 50 to 70%.
In the Welthungerhilfes project villages, the farmers who sowed summer paddy
reported that their harvested summer paddy in 2011 was 3.5 times higher than in
2009, resulting in an average of 90 baskets per acre compared to an average yield ofmonsoon paddy of 25 baskets per acre in 2009. According to gross margin analysis
conducted by WHH/GRET, the benefit in yield per acre using SRI methods was three
times higher than those using traditional methods. For SRI and seeders, average net
profits per acre was US$190 and US$185 respectively, while for farmers following
traditional methods the average net profits per acre was US$90.
TGH and Mingalar Myanmar introduced winter crops to farmers living in the fresh
water zone and provided them with variety of seeds (cow peas, green gram, black
gram, sunflower, sesame). TGH selected winter cropping beneficiaries according to
their existing skills and availability of land (owned or borrowed) of households and
encouraged land owning farmers to lend their land to landless households therebyensuring that 598 landless households could crop. Numbers and percentages on
how these crops contributed to household income are not available.
(iv) Adoption of new/improved farming techniques
All partners provided agricultural inputs together with appropriate agricultural
advice and training, Farmer Field Schools11 (FFS), and Farmer Extension Groups12
(FEG) trained farmers on different rice seed varieties and improved agricultural
techniques.
Oxfam, World Vision and Welthungerhilfe established farmer extension groups withsmallholder farmers and seed growers. World Vision organized 191 farmers from
both smallholder (beneficiary) and richer (non-beneficiary) farmers and provided
9
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
20/48
them with weekly sessions at seven field education centres in Bogale and Pyapon.
Farmer field school participants experimented with different rice varieties and dif-
ferent planting techniques through the on-farm paddy trials.
The System of Rice Intensification method produces a high purity of seeds result-
ing in a better selling price; however the method is more costly due to labour and
higher investment. SRI has high labour cost as one needs to transplant seeds by
hand increasing labour costs 5-6 times higher than traditional (i.e. broadcasting)
practice. According to calculations based on average market price of grain paddy
and the quality seeds in 2010, the ratio of gross profit for broadcasting practice is
about 1:1.5 and for SRI 2:1.13 Therefore in order to support the adoption of the SRI
method it is important to ensure access to credit.
Welthungerhilfe trained FEGs from 27 villages on monsoon paddy production and
the modified system of rice intensification through eight modules, including, seed
selection, transplanting and water management, weeding, soil management and
fertility, plant nutrients, reproductive state and management, IPM pest, IPM disease,
and post harvest and management. For the summer paddy, FFS sessions were con-ducted every two weeks in each of the 11 villages, in which five training modules
dealing with IPM pest, IPM disease, soil management, plant nutrition and fertilizer
application, and post harvest and management were provided.
Plots using a system of rice intensification practices increased by 13% due to this
new technology being incorporated into cultivation methods. In the Delta, a high-
er seed rate (3-5 baskets per acre) has been traditionally applied for broadcast-
ing practice, consequently plant population is very high and thus the nutrient
consumption of plants from soil is also high. However, with SRI, fewer seeds were
used (i.e. one basket per acre in average) ensuring that crops absorbed greater
nutrients from the soil resulting in higher yields in SRI plots. Welthungerhilfe re-ported that traditional cultivation system yielded 60 baskets (1,260 kg) per acres
while the SRI demonstration plots yielded 92 baskets (1,932 kg) per acre (more
than 50% increase).
For the monsoon paddy, Welthungerhilfe provided certified High Yield Variety
(HYV) seeds for seed multiplication purpose and about 5,500 acres were planted in
its project villages. A total 49.5 MT (i.e. 2372.5 baskets) of paddy was harvested and
nearly 90% of which (i.e. 2135 baskets) were endorsed as certified seeds. All seed
growers succeeded in selling almost all of their certified seeds US$ 7.1 per basket
while the grain price was US$ 4.1 per basket in average.
11Farmer Field Schools are groups of farmers with a common interest in learning new lessons to im-prove crop production. They are conducted for the purpose of creating an environment suitable for
adult learning. FFS participants get together on a regular basis ( i.e. weekly, bi-weekly) and undertakehands-on learning and practical training either in their own fields or on-farm trials. FFS promotesexploration, discovery and adaptation under local conditions.12Farmer Extension Groups (FEG) are a group of like-minded farmers having a common goal andshared vision to increase production and productivity. FEG encourages a collective learning throughparticipatory on-farm research. Farmers are able to enhance their capacity to experiment and to de-
velop their farming system in a sustainable way.13Labour costs for hand planting range from US$ 29 to 41 (25000 to 35000 kyats) based on the sea-
sonal demand and the skill of the labourers; however broadcasting costs only from US$ 5.8 to 7 (5000-6000 kyats/acre). WHH reported the average yield (i.e. 96 baskets per acre) from the SRI plots were the
highest while broadcasting method yielded 81baskets/acre. In 2010, market price of HYV grain paddyis US$ 4.1/basket (3500 kyat/basket) and that of quality seeds produced by seed growers is US$7.1-8.3(6000-7000 kyats).
10
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
21/48
In the WHH project areas of Bogale and Mawlamyinegyun, FEG farmers conducted
small trials on some HYVs namely Sin Thwe Latt and Thee Htut Yin in 2010 summer
paddy. Initial results demonstrated that that Sin Thwe Latt variety had a significantly
higher yield for SRI planted compared to the drum seeders and broadcasting (SRI
planted- 4.21 ton/ha, drum seeders- 2.86 ton/ha, broadcasting- 2.19 ton/ha) while
Thee Htut Yin variety showed no significant yield between these three planting
methods. In 2010, the farm gate price of Paw San variety was US$ 6-7.1 (5000-6000
kyat) per basket and that of HYVs was US$ 3.6-4.2 (3000-3500 kyats) per basket,
however, both these prices varied according to market demand.
Farmers that attended Oxfams cross-learning visits said that they would continue
their trial plots. The cross learning created linkages between FEGs and MAS en-
abling farmers to continue receiving MASs extension services even after the proj-
ect was phased out. LWF survey showed that the demonstration plots are ranked
in the top three most valuable contributions of the project by the beneficiary
farmers. Neighbouring farmers confirmed that they will try out SRI planting tech-
niques and inputs due to the demonstration plots. A follow up report could be
developed to source evidence on LWFs multiplier effect in neighbouring house-holds and communities.
(v) Better supply of pure seeds
Welthungerhilfe supported 65 farmers to plant 5,500 acres of certified high yield
variety monsoon paddy seeds. In 2010, 49.5 MT of paddy was harvested yielding
90% of certified seeds; the yield of monsoon paddy increased by 70-85% from an
average yield of 2 MT/ha in 2009 to 3.7 MT/ha (ranging from 3.4 MT/ha for mid-term
varieties to 4.6 MT/ha for high yielding short-term varieties). 4.2 MT of good qual-
ity short-term HYV seeds, covering about 95 acres of paddy fields, were sown in
the summer season 2011 and over 340 MT of paddy will be harvested as summerpaddy. All seed growers also sold almost all of their certified seeds at higher prices.
(vi) Reduction of post-harvest losses
Four partners (Phaung Daw Oo, Relief International, Welthungerhilfe and World Vi-
sion) provided 93 paddy threshers to more than 3,000 farming households in 91
villages in 3 townships.
The capacity of paddy thresher is three times higher than that of manual threshing
with buffaloes14. Field visit revealed that farmers who used paddy thresher reduced
cost by an average of US$ 5.9 to 8.33 (5,000 to 7,000 kyat) per 100 baskets of paddy.
Due to the ample rains, farmer groups used threshers provided by the project for
the summer paddy in March-April 2011. Farmers reported that they had better qual-
ity paddy due to the high threshing capacity and on-time drying.
Regarding drying and storage facility, Welthungerhilfe distributed seed drying kits
(6,000 air-tight bags and 6,000 PVC bags, 2,580 super bags, tarpaulins and 41,100
yards of seed nets and 59 metal silos) to 445 farmers including 75 seed growers.
Provision of shared-use post harvest equipment enabled the threshing of 2,380 MT
of monsoon paddy in Bogale. In the final impact assessment, 85% respondents ben-
14 The capacity of a paddy thresher 2400-3000 baskets of 30 acres per season but that of manualthreshing with buffaloes per season is 800-1000 baskets of 10 acres.
11
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
22/48
Many LIFT partners ap-plied revolving repay-ment systems to eitherreplicate or transferthe in-kind or in-cash
assets to beneficiaries.
efited from post-harvest support through increased rice yield reduction of post har-
vest loss, and higher incomes. The air tight bags controlled humidity and protected
seeds from rodents and insects. While storing rice in metal silos and seed banks pre-
vented post-harvest losses and enabled farmers to wait for a better market price.
WHH/GRET provided 135 silos and 10,000 air tight bags to 135 seed growers and
365 farmers. FEG farmers from GRET project villages experimented with different
storage facilities that included locally made small bamboo bins, vinyl bags, and air-
tight hermetic bags. Paddy seeds harvested in 2009 rainy season (Thee Dat Yin va-
riety) were collected and sun dried uniformly to reach 13% moisture. The paddy
seeds were stored in the 3 different facilities. It was found that the airtight bags kept
the paddy seeds with in constant moisture while the other two storage facilities in-
creased moisture content and subsequently reduced the quality of the seeds. Some
of the seed growers and FEG farmers sold their paddy seeds for a higher price an
additional US$ 2.9 to 4.16 (2,500 to 3,500 kyat) per basket.
Overall, 5-10% of post harvest loss was prevented due to the threshing machine and
equipments such as tarpaulin and seed nets that was used in sun drying. It is esti-mated that farmers, who cultivated summer paddy, harvested an additional 4 to 8
baskets more than usual15ensuring farmers had a surplus of 6,000 to 12,000 baskets
(US$ 25,000 50,000) of summer paddy due to using threshers.
(vii) Sustainability of farming inputs
Many LIFT partners applied revolving repayment systems to either replicate or trans-
fer the in-kind or in-cash assets to beneficiaries. Seed and buffalo banks had in-kind
repayments while cash was repaid to purchase fertilizers and seeds. Farmer groups
established revolving funds to repair and maintain threshers and other machines.
(a) seed banks
Three partners (World Vision, Action Aid, Welthungerhilfe) provided seeds and start-
ed up seed banks with small-scale farmers to produce pure seeds. Seventy eight
seed banks were established under LIFTs Delta 1 project. Action Aids local partners
(Searcher Myanmar, Thingaha and MBFC) assisted 638 farming households to es-
tablish 10 paddy seed banks and store 3,791 baskets resulting in a good repayment
with interest.
Searcher Myanmar paid cash to the committee to purchase the paddy and then
committee distributed 3-5 baskets of paddy to individual farmer. After the harvest,farmers repaid the amount in the form of paddy with 25% excess and additional 371
baskets were collected upon 1190 baskets received by 150 farmers. Thingaha also
paid cash US$ 142.85 each to 50 farmers and the farmers repaid 30 baskets of paddy
after the harvest.
In Labutta, Mercy Corps established 6 Rice Seed Banks (RSB) with 563 smallholder
farmers. Project disbursed US$ 71.42 to individual RSB members for purchasing
seed. Project reported that repayment rate was almost 100% after the harvest of
monsoon paddy. In WHH/Cesvi project villages in Dedaye, farmers also repaid the
amount of seeds borrowed together with an interest rate equivalent to the 25% at the
end of the monsoon paddy season. This interest rate was decided by the members15Based on the average increase yield of summer paddy (80 baskets per acre).
12
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
23/48
of the seed bank and agreed with the VDCs. Seed bank committees monitored both the quantity and quality
of the seed borrowed and repaid.
(b) buffalo banks
Three of LIFTs partners (LWF, Metta, Mercy Corps) established buffalo banks in Bogale, Mawlamyin-egyun and Labutta Township. LWF started a buffalo bank with 45 animals that was doubled by 45
buffaloes purchased by the repayments from the first batch beneficiaries on selling their increased
monsoon paddy harvest.
Metta distributed 556 buffaloes in 13
villages of Mawlamyinegyun for land
preparation of 2010 monsoon paddy.
FMO field visit and annual report re-
vealed that the community prefers to
use buffaloes over machines due to its
low maintenance cost, ability to work
in deep water and very muddy areasand ability to destroy weeds. The sys-
tem of revolving buffaloes is in place
in the respective villages with different
repayment schedules ranging from one
to three years. Results will be provided
with the final report due end of 2011.
Mercy Corps was the biggest provider
of buffaloes and supporter of buffalo
banks, distributing 423 buffaloes to 205 buffalo banks with 1,110 members. Mercy Corps also organized
several buffalo markets in Labutta in order to establish a transparent market platform for buffalo producersand buyers.
(c) revolving funds
Power tillers and paddy threshers were provided as a revolving asset to sustain activities after the proj-
ects were phased out. LIFTs partners provided management and technical training to maintain the equip-
ment and sustain the revolving funds. For instance, threshing activities carried out by Welthungerhilfes FEG
groups led to an income of over US$2,800 for 25 thresher operators, averaging US$110 per operator for a
season. Today, over 75% of the thresher groups (19 out of 25) are fully autonomous groups with manage-
ment committees following agreed rules and regulations.
Help Age provided average loans of US$115 over six months at a monthly interest rate of 2% compared to
an average interest rate of 9% provided by commercial lenders, enabling farmers to save US$50 on average.
Many farmers were able to take two loans per year.
Partners reported increased yields due to inputs (seeds, inorganic and organic fertilizers) and land prepa-
ration equipment such as buffaloes and power tillers. For example, Oxfam reported that, testing the dif-
ferent methods of sowing, use of mixed natural and chemical fertilizers and making natural fertilizers
from existing resources through the FEG, resulted in yields of approximately 100 baskets (about 2,090 kg)
per acre, double than the yields attained in the previous year with traditional farming practices. In Delta
1 projects, partners mostly distributed inorganic fertilizers; urea and T-super phosphate; while a few of
LIFTs partners such as Action Aid, WHH and World Vision distributed both of inorganic and organic fertil-izers for monsoon and summer paddy. However, no comparison of costs and benefits of inorganic and
organic fertilizers were provided to LIFT by the partners.
13
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
24/48
Mushroom cultivationis quite appropriate forcasual labour and land-less households as it
provides better returns
without requiring largeamounts of labour ortechnical expertise.
(viii) Support on home gardening and winter cropping
WHH and its implementing partners supported land poor households with home
gardening kits and pulses for winter cropping in their project areas to assist these
poor households to create another source of income and to diversify the diet of
household members. In total, 675 beneficiaries received monsoon vegetable kits(i.e. vegetable seeds, gardening tools and organic fertilizers, while 287 new benefi-
ciaries received winter vegetable kits including a large number of winter vegetable
varieties, gardening tools, organic fertilizer and mushroom cultivation kits in the
2010-2011. Moreover, in the villages, where environmental and soil conditions al-
lowed two crops per year, Cesvi provided 51 beneficiaries with pulses (i.e. green and
black gram seeds) for the winter season and WHH distributed 7,525 cassava cuttings
to 565 mainly landless households in Bogale.
In addition, WHH and GRET trained 78 vegetable promoters to make compost and
EM, grafting and budding techniques, vegetable seed production. Vegetable pro-
moters were also provided with small horticulture tools. The promoters disseminat-
ed innovative and improved cultivation practices at village level and enabled theproject to have a multiplier effect by disseminating new practices.
WHH/GRET reported that more than half of the vegetable production in both monsoon and
winter seasons were consumed by the households, leading to an improvement of their diet.
The household average incomes received from vegetables cultivated in monsoon and win-
ter were US$ 9.5 and $11.90 respectively by the selling of the extra production.
Fruit trees planted will enable households to consume fruits and earn income after one
year. Project monitoring found that after two seasons of regular support from the proj-
ect staff, participating households are interested in home gardening. Three quarters of
home gardeners surveyed were able to increase their income by selling their produce andby reducting money spent on food. This has enabled vulnerable households develop re-
lationships with other villagers and 98% of beneficiary households said that they would
continue home gardening even without the project assistance.
Mushroom production over the winter season 2010-2011 gained an average house-
hold income of about US$ 19.48 (ranging from $3.80 to 47.38) in some project vil-
lages. Mushroom cultivation is quite appropriate for casual labour and landless
households as it provides better returns without requiring large amounts of labour
or technical expertise. However, a major constraint for this activity was that myce-
lium / spores are not available in local.
In the project villages, 15 Integrated Farming System sites were established with
provision of 2 piglets, 150 fish fingerlings (Tilapia), and vegetable seeds. 415 partici-
pants from 66 villages participated in regular monitoring visits and visits to share
knowledge and experiential learning. In general, the integrated farming compo-
nent of the project was well appreciated by farmers and drew a lot of attention
from surrounding households due to an increase in incomes from a combination of
activities. During exposure visits, visitors were very interested in integrating small
livestock and low cost aquaculture. Most of farmers were convinced about the good
demand for fingerlings and identified long term potential of this activity. Farmers
faced difficulties due to the particularly heavy rains as most of the vegetable cultiva-
tion around the ponds was washed away. However, due to integrated farming sys-
tem sites incomes ranged from US$ 26 to 70. It is expected that in the longer term
aquaculture could provide a steady source of income.
14
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
25/48
Sr.No Partner Region/Zone Township No. of villages
1 ADRA Magway/Dry Zone Pakokku, Myaing, Seikphyu (3) 50
2 Cesvi Shan Naung Cho, Kyauk Me (2) 100
3 DPDO Magway/Dry Zone Magway, Natmauk, Myo Thit (3) 22
4 GRET Chin Tedim, Tonzang, Falam, Hakha, 213
Htantalan (5)
5 HelpAge Mandalay, Sagaing/ Dry Zone Mahlaing, Ayartaw (2) 30
6 Metta Shan, Kachin Taunggyi, Kyauktaloongyi, Pinlaung, 200
Hsehseng, Putao, Machanbaw,
SumpraBum, Njang Yang (8)
7 Mercy Corps Mandalay/Dry Zone, Pyawbwe, Tonzang, Mrauk U, (3) 100
Chin, Rakhine
8 Oxfam Mandalay, Magway/ Dry Zone Tharzi, Minbu (2) 47
9 SwissAid Shan, Kachin Taunggyi, Hsehseng, Hopong, 84
Kentuang, Bahmaw, Myitkyinar,
Mogaung, Shweku, Waimaw,
Mansi, Momauk. Naungmon (12)
Total 40 846
LIFT activities outside the Delta (country-wide programme)
Nine implementing partners (ADRA, Cesvi, DPDO, GRET, HelpAge, Metta, Mercy Corps, Oxfam and SwissAid)
are implementing agricultural activities throughout three-year livelihood projects. A total of 87,395 house-
holds of 846 villages are being targeted in 40 townships across the Dry Zone, Kachin, Chin, Shan, and Rakh-
ine States.
LIFT partners primary beneficiaries are marginal/land poor farming households and women-headed farming
households; however older people and people with disabilities are also assisted through LIFTs partner Help
Age. LIFTs FMO monitoring visits concluded that partners used good social mobilization techniques to select
village beneficiaries and to develop transparent governance structures at the community level.
Action Aid, the implementing partner of ADRA in Dry Zone, recruits and trains village youth (called fellows)
and places them in project villages. The fellows work with the community to enhance understanding of the
projects goals and expected outcomes. Action Aid has completed the beneficiary selection process in all
townships except in Seikphyu Township. Seventy percent of target beneficiaries were identified accordingto the criteria agreed by the community. Thirty-five self-help groups (SHGs) will be provided cash grants to
purchase livelihood inputs. Ten out of 25 agricultural and livestock trainings are completed and trainees
have been selected.
In the DPDO project areas in Dry Zone, farmers cultivated groundnut and sesame and the project distributed cash
grants to 186 small holder farmers in June 2011 to purchase agricultural input (i.e. fertilizers) and to pay for weed-
ing and harvesting. Oxfam project is still in the inception phase and no report was received as of end June 2011.
Metta is implementing FFS for upland rice in 201 villages in the southern Shan and Kachin States. The Metta
project held village leader workshops to orientate the community on FFS. From May 2011 onwards, FFSs
have been functioning in 20 villages with 488 farmers (1,464 males and 1,447 females). Study plots weredeveloped in FFS site for regular training sessions and hands-on training was also conducted.
15
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
26/48
GRET formed 28 farmer groups with 1,607 members (918 men and 689 women) in the selected villages. 201
farmers received agricultural training (45% of those trained are women). In addition, 26 collective action
plans were developed for livelihoods activities, including terrace extension, irrigation network and coffee
plantation that will begin in the last quarter of 2011.
In partnership with 6 local implementing partners, SwissAid has been implementing livelihood activities in
Kachin, eastern Shan and southern Shan States, covering 84 villages in 12 townships (3 in southern Shan,
1 in eastern Shan and 8 in Kachin). The project distributed buffaloes and cattle to establish eight buffalo
banks and one cattle bank. Additionally, 106 households from 10 villages received cash grants to purchase
seeds and fertilizers. In Kachin, 87 farmers participated in season-long FFS on upland paddy techniques and
organic farming.
Some of LIFTs partners (i.e. Cesvi, Help Age and Mercy Corps) were not able to complete their work plans for
the first six months of 2011 due to delays in signing agreements with the government. Cesvi and Help Age
formed village development committees and livelihood groups, but did not provide inputs. Mercy Corps
and its local partners began field-level data collection for their food security/vulnerability assessment in 16
villages in three project townships. Findings and results will be used to design community economic resil-
ience plans. By Sept/Oct 2011, 50 farmer facilitators will be trained in time to launch the FFSs in 80 projectvillages.
2.2 Output 2: Effective market and employment support mechanisms provided and used by
target individuals (on farm, off farm and non-farm)
LIFT projects address issues of market development and rural employment support in three ways:
1. Support to market development for rural family businesses through knowledge and skill building, capi-
tal support, and expansion of financial services through initiating group managed funds.
2. Creation of rural employment opportunities through livelihood inputs such as livestock and fishery in-
puts and provision for home gardening.
3. Support to capital requirements with affordable loans (microfinance).
Partner reports and the Fund Managers monitoring visits observed that these activities tend to primarily ca-
sual labourers and small-scale farmers16. All projects in the Delta, except those implemented by Pact, UNDP,
and Metta, were completed by the end of June 2011. Results from outside the Delta will be included in the
next report.
According to UNDP and observations made through several monitoring visits and information collected us-
ing various monitoring tools, revealed that the intended results were achieved in LIFT project villages. The
households receiving assistance from UNDP retained their sustainable food security for at least 8 months.And more than 75% of the 6,203 households who received UNDP assistance have increased their income by
a minimum of 25 %, i.e. from US$1 per day (base line) to $1.25 ~ $2 per day.
ADRAs external evaluation, interviews and group discussion with the project beneficiaries shared that fami-
lies were able to save and overall indebtedness levels were decreasing. Small shops were also seeing an
increase in local demand for their products.
Impact assessment of Relief International highlighted major benefits the project provided in the Delta. 100%
bought rice on credit in Bogale, 56.1% in Pyapon and 94.3% in Dedaye, before the LIFT project provided
16Locally, the term casual labourer covers households that: are not owners of agricultural land, are doing small scale fishing, may
be doing small livestock raising and may be tenant farmers on less than 2 acres. Therefore, the activities in output 2 targeted mostlycasual labourers and small-scale tenant farmers. Out of 22 projects, 16 projects address issues of fishery, livestock, and small busi-
ness. In 2010, 47,295 households received assistance through those activities.
16
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
27/48
inputs. After the LIFT project, Bogales reliance of credit to buy rice had reduced
to 6.8%, 27.3% for Pyapon and 83.0% for Dedaye. Across all villages RI saw a large
decrease, from 88% to 27% of households purchasing food with credit. Similarly,
the percentage of households that borrowed rice consumption had reduced from
99% to 6.1% in Bogale, 54.5% to 15.2% in Pyapon and 90.6 % to 63.5 % in Dedaye.
Across all villages the percentage of households that borrow rice for consumption
decreased dramatically from 86.5% to 19.9%.
According to HelpAges project end assessment, it was found out that 85% of proj-
ect beneficiaries responded that their livelihoods have been restored compared to
pre-Nargis levels.
Other result level information can be found out in the following sections.
2.2.1 LIFT activities in the Delta
9 of the 22 projects provided start-up capital and training to casual labourers and
small-scale farmers.
a. Provision of financial capital
There are two major approaches used by partners:
Cash revolving fund established with savings, andCash revolving fund established with repayments against project inputs.
LIFTs partners with institutional capacity in microfinance such as Save the Children,
UNDP, Pact, World Vision and Welthungerhilfe began cash revolving funds with sav-
ings. HelpAge, ADRA, and Oxfam implemented revolving funds without a member
savings component.
In general, the Fund Manager has found that partners that encouraged members to
contribute to the group were more sustainable. For example, during the FMOs field
visits to the project villages of UNDP, World Vision, and Pact, internal management
of saving groups were found consistent with measures that lead sustainability of
saving groups (cash revolving fund) such as transparency in financial transactions,
group participation in decision making, punctuality in repayment, sufficient book-
keeping training, close monitoring and facilitation by project staff, and linkage with
skill/technical training.
In addition, the projects independent evaluation supported the FMOs finding. Forexample, an independent evaluation World Vision found out that the proliferation
of saving groups shows the advantage of the saving group members easily access-
ing to their collective saved money when in need, to plan for the future of buying
or trading to increase the income. In Save the Childrens independent evaluation
report, the projects saving oriented cash revolving fund strategy allowed the com-
munity to invest in on farm and off farm income generation activities and health
and education. On the other cash base revolving fund without saving, Help Ages
external evaluator suggested that loan structure and repayment schedules should
be redesigned in order to improve the villagers incomes.
According to final project reports, Save the Children formed 63 community liveli-hood networks (CLN) comprising of 7,786 members (62% women). On the proj-
ects completion, the total revolving funds reached US$91,000 (US$29,000 from
Fund Manager has
found that partnersthat encouraged mem-bers to contribute to the
group were more sus-
tainable.
17
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
28/48
member savings and US$62,000 from project contributions). DAWN microfinance,
provided intensive technical support to the CLNs. 3,151 members (67% female)
from 60 villages received loans for income generating activities and social needs.
59% of the CLN members reduced their level of indebtedness during the project
period while 12% increased indebtedness to establish new businesses or extend
their ongoing business.
World Vision formed 175 self-help groups (SHG) comprising of 3,247 members
(99% women) during the project period. Individual SHGs saved between US$6
and US$340 and the loans provided were between US$5 and US$280. All borrow-
ers repaid their loans. Pact provided bookkeeping training and fund management
training to village saving groups. During the project, 43 saving groups comprising
of 2,926 members (71% women) were formed. The total savings reached $83,000
and 4,922 individual loans were issued (total value US$183,000).
Oxfam introduced a different model of village revolving fund through repayments
from project beneficiaries (small-scale farmers, fishermen and casual labourers)
who had received cash grant support. The members of the revolving funds pro-
vided cash grants (from the interest earned) to the most vulnerable households
within the village. This practice appears to be unique. The system was set up in 15
villages in Pyapon and 822 project beneficiaries participated. The groups reached
total revolving funds of US$78,000 including US$5,300 of interest earned. Accord-
ing to FMOs field experience, the projects encouraged the community based
groups to make their own decision through wider participation among group
members.
These interesting models will be captured through the Delta 1 evaluation and
2011 Annual Report.
b. Business development training
As of June 2011, 9,682 people in the Delta received business development train-
ing from LIFTs implementing partners. These trainings introduced new products
and businesses, management skills and bookkeeping. The participants were also
linked with revolving fund groups.
ADRA provided business development training to 275 people (95% women out of
which 11% are household heads). Nearly a third of the people trained are using
new techniques in their livelihood activities. HelpAge facilitated the formation of
livelihood support groups (LSG) and trained 788 LSG households (486 livestock
owners and 302 small businesses). Over 300 of them set up small businesses such
as grocery shops, bamboo mat trading and selling flowers and snacks.
MBCA introduced solar drying system and provided fish cutting, salting, packag-
ing, and solar machine maintenance training to 250 people. The project evalua-
tion confirms that more people are using solar dryers that produce better qual-
ity products resulting in an increase in demand for their products. UN-HABITAT
18
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
29/48
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
30/48
Overall objective of allof livelihood inputs isto create rural employ-ment beyond the project
period, and the benefi-ciary households are ex-
pected to receive regularincome by these inputs.
c. Creation of rural employment opportunities through livelihood inputs
The provisions of livestock inputs (e.g., pigs, ducks, goats, and chickens), fishing
gear (e.g., boats, nets) and support for home gardening were the most common
livelihood inputs provided. In most of the cases, the provision of inputs through
cash grants (as opposed to in-kind) was found to be more effective and sustainablefor the following reasons:
The beneficiaries have more opportunity to participate in the procurement pro-cess, leading to the purchase of items according to local demand
Direct involvement of beneficiaries in procurement avoided many animal healthproblems
In-cash support promoted local marketsExamples of inputs provided:
Livestock was provided to 10,846 households in the Delta11,395 households benefited from the provision of fishing gear such as boatsand nets
13,392 households received home gardening assistance (the most successfulactivity appears to be growing betel leaf plants)17
The overall objective of providing livelihood inputs is to create rural employment
and ensure that the beneficiary households receive regular income.
Save the Children provided cash grants to 5,257 households according to their
business proposal. According to post monitoring results, 92% of them were earn-
ing extra income through investment of cash grants received in buying produc-
tive assets such as fishing nets, small boats, crab traps and livestock (e.g., pigs,
chicken, ducklings and fish fingerlings) and in small retail shops.
ADRAs reported that conditional cash grants were appropriate activities for raisingincome at a time of recovery when beneficiaries could access inputs in the market.
For example, livestock is both an income source and a component of local social
safety nets. The grants required applying investments in a specific sector while cov-
ering all aspects of livelihoods.
Another model provided livestock inputs. However, LEAD, Triangle GH, and FAO
experienced significant cases of animal death during transportation or during one
week after distribution. Replacement animals were negotiated with the suppliers,
however, those beyond these conditions were losses for both the projects and
beneficiaries.
In UNDPs project area, livelihood grants of US$100 to US$150 were provided to
1,573 targeted poor, landless and most vulnerable members of livestock groups to
enhance income and improve nutrition. The majority of beneficiaries raised either
ducks or pigs with the livelihood grants and almost all of them adopted improved
livestock raising practices. Income earning of livestock households who raised
duck increased more than US$1 per day by selling eggs. Most of the beneficiaries
started next livestock breeding cycle by buying more ducks and piglets.
In World Visions project, 212 out of 2,910 targeted beneficiary households were
provided with livestock (pigs and ducks). Trainings on livestock raising, husbandry
17 Welthungerhilfe survey showed that 70% of families in Bogale, Mawlamyinegyun, and Dedayetownships had women in charge of backyard gardening and that they were earning extra income
from the assistance they had received.
20
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
31/48
and veterinary science were provided to all livestock raisers. The project monitor-
ing results showed that almost all the pigs conceived or will give birth in two
months. It was indicated that the beneficiaries incomes increased through this
support.
d. Microfinance
Out of 22 Delta-1 projects, only UNDP was funded for microfinance activ-
ity. In partnership with Pact, the projects microfinance service reached to 1,218
farmer households from 65 villages. In average, each farmer (or client) received
Kyat 250,000 as an agricultural loan for this years monsoon paddy season. The loan
disbursement was mostly concentrated to subsistence farmers. Clients were able to
invest in paddy cultivation covering total acres of 4,872 in three townships: Bogale,
Mawlamyinegyun, and Labutta.
According to the projects monitoring results, clients are regularly repaying the inter-
est instalment (2% monthly flat rate) to the project, and 100% of original loan amount
will be paid back after the harvest (Nov, 2011, beyond the project timeframe). Theproject has planned to accept all the clients as regular clients of UNDP/Pacts long
term microfinance program beyond the project timeframe. This will allow clients to
continue accessing loans for future agricultural seasons.
2.2.2 LIFT activities outside the Delta (country-wide programme)
Projects of ADRA, IDE, EcoDev, MBCA, UNDP, Mercy Corps, and DPDO began small busi-
nesses such as, livestock rearing, jaggery (palm sugar) making from toddy palm trees, and
selling plums, tamarind seeds, and wild plants for medicinal use.
In Shan State, CESVI, SwissAid, Metta, and UNDP projects set up home industries andfood processing units with poor households. In Chin State, GRET, UNDP, and Mercy
Corps started projects in areas of agricultural technology, microfinance and small ru-
ral business. Poor Kachin farmers are also being assisted by LIFT partners to improve
agriculture and livestock.
a. Support to market development for rural businessesADRA have trained 278 beneficiaries (landless labourers, women-headed households,
migrant workers and village youth) on carpentry/masonry, auto mechanic/welding,
sewing, garment making, or food processing and preservation. 60 trainees also re-
ceived training on small enterprise management. DPDO targeted 440 households in
44 villages in the Dry Zone and has established 20 SHGs in 8 villages.
b. Creation of rural employment opportunities through livelihood inputsEcoDev provided onion dehydration training to 150 household members and have
established 30 rural small businesses which produce dehydrated onion. SwissAid
trained 124 landless households on animal husbandry and micro-enterprise manage-
ment and provided them with chickens and piglets. The beneficiaries decided to set
up an animal bank for management of a revolving fund.
c. MicrofinanceA microfinance project was contracted in June 2011. UNDP, in cooperation with Pact,
Save the Children and GRET, plans to cover nearly 2,000 villages in the Dry Zone,Chin State and Shan State. In second half of the year, LIFT-funded microfinance proj-
ects will reach approximately 30,000 households in 2,073 villages of countrywide.
21
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
32/48
a. Support to market development for rural businesses
ADRA trained 278 beneficiaries (landless labourers, women-headed households,
migrant workers and village youth) on carpentry/masonry, auto mechanic/weld-
ing, sewing, garment making and food processing and preservation. 60 trainees
also received small enterprise management training. DPDO targeted 440 house-
holds in 44 villages in the Dry Zone and established 20 SHGs in 8 villages.
b. Creation of rural employment opportunities through livelihood inputs
EcoDev provided onion dehydration training to 150 household members and es-
tablished 30 rural small businesses to produce dehydrated onions. SwissAid trained
124 landless households on animal husbandry and micro-enterprise management
and provided them with chickens and piglets. The beneficiaries set up an animal
bank for management of a revolving fund.
c. Microfinance
UNDP, in cooperation with Pact, Save the Children and GRETs microfinance project
plans to cover nearly 2,000 villages in the Dry Zone, Chin State and Shan State. LIFT-funded microfinance projects will reach approximately 30,000 households in 2,073
villages of countrywide by end 2011.
2.3 Output 3: Effective social protection measures that increase the incomesand enhance the livelihood opportunities of chronically poor households
Many of LIFTs partners employed social protection measures in their projects to
increase income and enhance livelihood opportunities for poor and vulnerable
households. Promotive strategies are transformative social protection measures18
to enhance incomes and capacities of vulnerable people. LIFT provided unskilledmanual workers with short-term employment opportunities such as construction
of roads and foot paths, agricultural related infrastructure and disaster risk reduc-
tion related activities.
Some of LIFTs partners provided social assistance through conditional cash transfers
(CCTs) to improve health and nutritional status of children. Cash transfers also addressed
some of the underlying causes of inequalities in health such as malnutrition. LIFT estab-
lished rice/grain banks to secure food before the harvesting period. LIFT provided liveli-
hood support and mobility aids to older people and persons with disabilities. However,
some problems arose in certain villages when communities were not targeted appropri-
ately. Targeting training should also need to focus on social protection objectives.
Dominant types of social protection under LIFT:
Provision measures: support for persons with disabilities and older peoplePreventive measures: establishment of rice banks establishmentPromotional measures: conditional cash grants to the poor and the vulnerableand public works programmesTransformative measures: inclusive programming training
18Transformative social protection has four main elements: protective measures provide relief from depri-
vation, preventive measures seek to avert deprivation, promotive measures aim to enhance incomes andcapabilities, and transformative measures seek to address vulnerabilities arising from social inequity andexclusion. Devereux and Sabates Wheeler, Institute of Development Studies, 2006.
22
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
33/48
23
Inclusive programming for vulnerable groups
In May 2011, LIFT trained partners on
inclusive programming for vulnerable
groups. According to the evaluation,
the training was appreciated, particular-
ly the umbrella vulnerability model (seeright) and the more nuanced approach
to vulnerability focusing on process,
rather than beneficiary targeting. Train-
ing was most effective for the Country
Directors and Field Co-ordinators, and
less effective for the programme officers
due to differing skill levels.
The training introduced the umbrella model of vulnerability, which participants
felt was best suited to the livelihood approach of LIFT. In order to provide a system
to further evaluate and measure vulnerability, the ten factors in the figure at rightwere selected for field testing. This approach can identify certain characteristics
which render a household more, or less vulnerable to pressures and shocks. These
can be expressed as an umbrella, where higher scores indicate a less vulnerable
position- a larger umbrella.
LIFT activities in the Delta
i. Support for persons with disabilities and older peopleHelpAge integrates persons with disabilities and older people in their programmes.
Social assistance was provided to 21 vulnerable older people and 216 persons with
disabilities. Twenty one PwDs were provided with prosthetic devices to ensure ac-cess and participation in village development committees and livelihood support
groups. Disabled people benefited from public investment in reconstructed foot-
paths.
ii. Establishment of rice/ grain banksLIFT partners such as Mingalar Myanmar, ActionAid and Oxfam established rice/
grain banks. Mingalar Myanmars targeted beneficiaries are small-holder farmers
who usually borrow money at high interest rates (around 20%) from money lend-
ers in order to buy rice. The group size varied from 23 to 125 members. Mingalar
Myanmar reported that initially there were 20 rice banks with 512 beneficiaries that
increased to 642 beneficiaries. Moreover, three village rice banks plan to initiate rice
banks in nearby villages.
iii. Conditional cash grantsLIFT partners provided conditional cash grants to poor and vulnerable households
for asset replacement and income activities. During the entire project period, Save
the Children provided US$ 100 each to 4,233 households and US$ 50 to another
1,024 households in conditional cash transfers (CCT). Monitoring results show that
most beneficiaries used the cash to buy livelihoods assets such as fishing nets, small
boats, crab traps, and livestock (pigs, chicken, ducklings, fish fingerlings for aqua-
culture). Beneficiaries also invested in grocery shops or purchased paddy for con-
sumption. Around one third of beneficiaries supplemented the grants with their
savings as the cash grant was insufficient to cover the full costs.
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
34/48
453 pregnant women and lactating mothers received US$95 as CCT for exclusive
breastfeeding and 48 mothers of children with Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM)
received $126 as CCT for 4 months and plumpy nut for therapeutic treatment of
malnutrition. The end-line survey showed that 95% of mothers were exclusively
breastfeeding infants aged new born to six months compared to 35% in the base-
line. Cure rate for children with SAM was 84%, above the sphere international stan-dard 19. Over a period of nine months malnutrition rates declined from 7.5% to 4.7%
in LIFT-supported villages.
iv. Public Work programs
Cash for work activities were used to enhance income opportunities between cul-
tivation and harvest periods, which assist poor and vulnerable households to buy
food without getting into debt. Receiving US$1.5 to US$2 as daily wages and par-
ticipating for about 20 days in one CfW activity, one household earns enough to buy
rice for one to two months during the season when demand for labour is low. During
field visits to UNHABITAT and Save the Children project sites, it was observed that
households that participated in CfW activities earned an average US$35 to US$45and some of them subsequently purchased tools (fishing tools, farming tools, etc)
to improve their livelihoods.
v. Cash-for-work on construction of communal infrastructure
CfW for community infrastructure included repair/construction of footpaths, roads, jet-
ties and culverts and renovation of ponds. UN-HABITAT implemented the highest num-
ber of CfW activities focussed on communal infrastructure (282 community contracts).
Local communities took primary responsibility for labour management, procurement,
quality control, progress reporting, and timely completion. Community mobilization
processes empowered communities to manage and implement activities.
In the project villages of CDN, for instance, the amount of time spent sourcing water
of poor quality was reduced (traditionally a female or childs task) and renovated
ponds also provided water to (re)establish home gardens helping to improve house-
hold food security. In total, 35 ponds were renovated/ constructed in the Delta.
vi. DRR related cash-for-work programme
DRR related cash for work programs assisted communities to mitigate risks. Dis-
cussions with communities on the choice and design of communal infrastructure
usually took risk reduction into consideration. Re-forestation of natural mangrove
forest, windbreak plantations, river bank plantations, slope stabilisation and estab-lishment of nurseries for community forestry were all included as CfW activities.
vii. Agriculture related cash-for-work
Landless labourers completed CfW activities such as rehabilitation of small dykes,
dams and embankments, grass and bush cutting which had been a refuge for rats,
establishment of demonstration plots and seed banks. CfW activities also ensured
better land preparation and protection against saline water and leaking dykes. TGH
provided 42,000 working days of CfW to protect 24,000 acres of land from intrusion
of salt water. TGH reported that rice yields increased significantly.
1970% to
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
35/48
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
36/48
2.4 Output 4: Capacity of local organisations strengthened to support
livelihoods and food security initiatives
This output focuses on building the capacity of organisations and target beneficia-
ries. Results from the first round of projects in the Delta (all one-year projects) have
been limited because partners often completed trainings in less than six months.However, in the second round of projects in the Delta (three-year projects) and in
projects outside the Delta (also three-year projects), partners will have sufficient
time to build the capacity of staff, local groups and target beneficiaries.
Project orientation and induction workshops are commonly organised by LIFT partners to
ensure that staff understand monitoring frameworks and work plans. Participatory rural ap-
praisal, project cycle management, participatory monitoring and evaluation, report writing,
disaster risk reduction and gender analysis training have also been provided to staff.
Community-based organisations were supported in all projects. The number and
type of CBOs supported varied from partner to partner. To enhance the capacity
of CBOs, LIFT partners organized trainings in: management, financial management,
book keeping, social audits, revolving funds, disaster risk reduction, environment,
livestock banking systems, vulnerability analysis, implementation of cash-for-work
activities and M&E. It was reported that as a result of the trainings, the skills, knowl-
edge and confidence of CBO members have improved significantly. The attitude
of CBO members towards cohesion in the villages and development has also re-
portedly changed. The concept of village-based volunteers also proved effective in
terms of replication and sustainability.
LIFT activities in the Delta
LIFT has worked with 31 local NGO partners either directly as implementing part-ners or as partners of LIFT implementing partners. ActionAid, Oxfam, HelpAge, Save
the Children and Mercy Corps, provided technical and managerial training to local
NGOs. ActionAid invested a lot of time and effort to train its 11 local partners. Some
local partners like NAG, CDA or Loka Ahlin were implementing projects with little
supervision while others needed significant guidance.
Field visits showed that the staff from smaller local organizations benefited from the
training sessions and that their skills were better than the staff from organizations
that did not receive trainings. Networking, coordination and collaboration with oth-
er stakeholders also improved.
To improve the capacity of CBOs, partners conducted a range of trainings on CBO
management, social audit, financial management, revolving fund concept, DRR
and environmental issues. ActionAid coordinated regular consortium meetings to
steer its project implementation successfully. ActionAid also facilitated thematic
coordination with partners and stakeholders such as government departments,
INGOs, NGOs, and beneficiaries. The results were impressive and the reports and
field visits showed that the consortium approach assisted in identifying common
issues that required joint coordination efforts with stakeholders.
Monthly coordination meetings were organized by the Recovery Hub Office at
Labutta and Agriculture Technical Working Group at Bogale. All partners sharedtheir project progress with local authorities and government departments during
meetings. These groups were successful in coordinating with its members and with
26
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
37/48
local authorities by undertaking joint assessments, exchanging technical expertise,
and consulting with the local private sector.
LIFT activities outside the Delta
11 new grants started outside the Delta in the first half of 2011. There are now 16LIFT-funded projects operating outside the Delta and the inception periods for most
projects have been completed. Examples of capacity-building activities include:
Oxfams project staff received training on governance, livelihoods, gender,
womens economic leadership, and logical framework analysis.
SWISSAIDs trained local implementing organizations senior staff on baseline
data collection, GPS, and disability-inclusive programming.
CESVI trained staff on how to develop community action plans
HelpAge held trainings to on gender mainstreaming, financial planning and
management, procurement, inclusive development for persons with disabili-
ties, and economic vulnerability assessments
GRET trained staff from six local partner organizations (CAD, CACC, CARD, CRDP,
KMSS and GRET) on project-cycle management, PLA methods and tools, needs
assessment, proposal writing and report writing.
Agriculture production trainings were carried out by most partners in their respec-
tive project areas. Examples are:
SWISSAID organized sustainable agriculture training (kitchen garden, perennial
plantation and organic fertilizers) and farmer field school training
Metta organized FFS trainings in Pa-O and Kachin communities
Mobile trainings were organized by DPDO on self-help groups and revolving
fund management in 23 villages. Disability awareness trainings were also pro-
vided.
CESVI provided training for 300 nutrition and hygiene promoters.
Food processing training and business and entrepreneurship skill development
training was organized by ECODEV.
2.5 Output 5: Monitoring and evaluation evidence and commissioned
studies used to inform programme and policy development
Lessons learned for programme development
Reports from partners and the FMOs monitoring visits continue to provide a rich
source of learning for LIFT. The following are important lessons learned during the
reporting period.
i. Terminology of systems of rice intensification (SRI)
System of rice intensification (SRI) is a specific, well defined way of growing paddy.
However, SRI uses for more labour for transplanting and needs to regulate the wa-
ter table in paddy fields. Many partners in the Delta have established farmer field
schools that focus on the SRI methodology. FMO monitoring visits revealed that
each partner have different understanding of SRI, and much of what partners call
SRI is not really SRI, even though the methods promoted are useful and well-adapt-
ed to the local environment. Possible future cooperation with International Rice Re-
search Institute (IRRI) will bring more clarity on SRI methods and LIFTs partners will
benefit from IRRI worldwide experience in rice production.
27
8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf
38/48
ii. Use of organic and semi-organic fertiliser
A small group of partners promoted organic and semi-organic fertilizers for farmers.
While possibly effective for small plots of high-value products (e.g., garden vegeta-
bles), it is costly and difficult to use enough organic fertilizer for paddy production.
Organic fertilizer only makes sense when there is a market for organic products withhigher prices and the necessary certification for organic products. Semi-organic
fertilizer is simply organic fertiliser with increased nutrient content (by adding in-
dustrial fertiliser). This is not organic production anymore. Organic fertilizer also re-
quires organic production methods to get certified as organic grower. This method
is labour intensive and the price farmers need to break even is higher.
iii. Use of revolving funds