Bangladesh Inception Review of the Agricultural Growth and ... · The Inception Review of the Agricultural Growth and Employment Programme (AGEP) was undertaken in Bangladesh during

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Danida

Bangladesh

Inception Review of the Agricultural Growth and Employment Programme

2013 - 2018

(AGEP)

REVIEW AIDE MEMOIRE

Final 6 January 2015 Danida Ref. no. 104.Bangladesh.805-300 TAS

Review Aide Memoire 2014 Inception Review of AGEP

ii

TABLE OF CONTENT Abbreviations iii Executive Summary iv

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................ 1

2 OVERALL PROGRAMME STATUS ..................................................................... 2 2.1 Developments in programme context .............................................................................. 2 2.2 Implementation progress ................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Synergies between components ........................................................................................ 2 2.4 Expenditures, budget and audits ....................................................................................... 2 2.5 Gender considerations ........................................................................................................ 3 2.6 Climate and environment considerations ........................................................................ 4 2.7 Risks and Assumptions....................................................................................................... 4

3 IFMC - MAJOR ISSUES ......................................................................................... 5 3.1 Implementation Progress ................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Quality of FFS ..................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Farmers’ Organisations ....................................................................................................... 7 3.4 National Dialogue and DAE Coordination ..................................................................... 7 3.5 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting ............................................................................... 8

4 AFSP II – MAJOR ISSUES ...................................................................................... 8 4.1 Implementation Progress ................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Quality of FFS ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Marketing strategy ............................................................................................................. 10 4.4 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting ............................................................................. 11 4.5 Expiry of CHTDF agreement ......................................................................................... 11

5 PROCESS ACTION PLAN ................................................................................... 12 Annex 1 Terms of Reference Annex 2 Meeting Schedule Annex 3 IFMC and AFSP II financial tables Annex 4 Debriefing presentation


iii

ABBREVIATIONS ABDC Agri-business Development Component (ABDC) AEC Agricultural Extension Component, ASPS II AESA Agro Ecosystems Analysis AFSP II Second phase of the Agriculture and Food Security Project, CHT AGEP Agricultural Growth and Employment Programme AEO Agricultural Extension Officer ASPS II Agricultural Sector Support Programme, Phase II (financed by Danida/GoB) AWD Alternate wetting and drying BDT Bangladesh Taka CHT Chittagong Hill Tracts CHTDF Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Facility DAE Department of Agricultural Extension Danida Danish International Development Cooperation DKK Danish Kroner DLS Department of Livestock Services DoF Department of Fisheries DPP Development Project Proforma EC European Commission EOD Embassy of Denmark, Bangladesh FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations) FBS Farmer Business School FF Farmer Facilitator FFS Farmer Field School FO Farmers’ Organisation GDP Gross Domestic Product GoB Government of Bangladesh HDC Hill District Council IFM Integrated Farm Management IFMC Integrated Farm Management Component LoA Letter of Agreement M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MF Master Facilitator MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoCHTA Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs MT Master Trainer NGO Non-Government Organisation PDC Para Development Committee QA Quality assurance RFLDC Regional Fisheries & Livestock Development Component, ASPS II RT Review Team SAPPO Sub Assistant Plant Protection Officer SLL Season Long Learning (training of farm school facilitators, normally called ToF) SMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable/available, Relevant, Time-bound TAPP Technical Assistance Project Proforma TAS Technical Advisory Services, a section within the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs/Danida TOF Training of field school facilitators (farmers) TOT Training of Trainers (training of Master Trainers) UNDP United Nations Development Programme UP Union Parishad/Union


iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Inception Review of the Agricultural Growth and Employment Programme (AGEP) was undertaken in Bangladesh during 30 November – 14 December 2014, and included a five-day field trip to Rangamati, Khagrachari, Feni and Comilla. The Inception Review did not cover the Agri-Business Development Component (support for Katalyst III), which is subject to a joint donor review in 2015. Despite substantial delays observed in the Integrated Farm Management Component (IFMC), due to the national context and administrative framework in which the component operates, progress has been good towards setting up systems and structures, but implementation in the field has been much less than originally planned for. In effect, the IFMC is one year behind schedule after less than 1½ years of operation, and it is unlikely that the original targets can be met during the existing programme period. Although also delayed on a number of output deliverables, the Agriculture and Food Security Project (AFSP II) is less behind schedule and may be able to meet its targets within the existing programme period. Both components have benefitted from hard working and dedicated staff. This Review Aide Memoire provides a number of recommendations and suggestions that are found to be of importance for achieving the programme’s objectives and results. The recommendations are focused on ensuring a high quality of the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) during a logistically and managerially demanding scaling up of activities. Programme Level Gender considerations Much is done in the two components to balance gender. The result is a good gender balance at FFS level and less so at Master Facilitators/Master Trainer/Farmer Facilitator (MF/MT/FF) level. Recommendation 1. i) Adjust the job descriptions for future MF/MTs in order to expand the

professional skill mix in the group of MF/MTs that include facilitation, socio-economy, nutrition and similar, because such skills are needed and since the number of qualified women possessing these skills traditionally is higher; ii) Address, in the gender strategies, barriers to overcome mobility/social conditions e.g. develop trust among reluctant husbands; introduce team of two female FFs; introduce mature women as FF (i.e. post child care) in recruitment of female FFs and apply accordingly, and; iii) Report against the gender action plans in the annual reports.

Risks and assumptions A limited level of risk analysis was included in the AGEP programme document. No risks or assumptions were included in IFMC DPP (component description) of the IFMC, but the annual report contains some risk assessments. The AFSP II project document includes a reasonably detailed risk assessment, but no risk assessments are included in annual report. In combination, this is found to be unfortunate since most of the reasons for observed delays originates in either unrealistic assumptions or materialising risks (e.g. regarding bureaucracy, inflexible coordination mechanisms, and timely provision of staff). Also, new risks are developing, especially in the CHT context. Recommendation 2. Future annual progress reports should include an assessment of

developments in risk.


v

IFMC Decentralisation and quality of FFS The building of required capacity to implement high quality FFS, including reaching empowerment objectives, appears to be well under way. It is crucial that experiential learning, in contrast to top-down technology transfer, be maintained throughout implementation. Recommendation 3. i) Careful management (Dhaka) attention to regional level quality assurance

(QA) of the Upazilas’ monitoring and backstopping of FFS/FF is required, especially during the fast roll-out of decentralisation and up-scaling of implementation at a time when new staff are coming in. ii) For quality control of FFS implementation, monitoring arrangements should be reviewed, and any necessary changes made at the various levels – Upazila, District and Regional. iii) Thorough orientation and introduction should be carried out for all IFMC officers to ensure correct understanding of the FFS approach, not only in terms of technical issues but also in terms of the empowerment of female and male farmers. iv) Review of job descriptions of newly recruited staff, particularly those involved in FOs may be required as the approach for support to FOs is further piloted and developed.

Farmers’ Organisations A strategy for Farmers’ Organisation (FO) has not been developed due to unavailability of staff, although a concept of Farmer Business Schools (FBS) has been developed and tested in a number of FBS. Critical learning from that piloting is needed (mixed results appear, based on observations during the Review Team’s field trip). Recommendation 4. Final FO strategy and implementation plan must be prepared and should

consider to: i) develop more support modalities (and do pilots) than only that of running FBS; this could include engaging with informal farmer groups that are not intended or resourced to operate as a business unit, but who share common interests and possess some basic levels of organisation. It could also include identifying more systematically those FFSs that are found to show potential for market linkage. ii) identify and train networks of existing and potential change agents/emerging networks/individuals with innovative ideas (at Upazila or potentially district level) and with qualifications and interest in facilitating market linkages iii) focus on the sustainability of interventions based on a continued analysis of earlier experience (RFLDC; Katalyst; Blue Gold).

National Dialogue Forum Initial brainstorming and strategy development is undertaken, but no action has been tkane so far. The purpose of the output should be re-instated and expected results should be realistic and well understood. Recommendation 5. Final strategy and implementation plan should be prepared. Monitoring, evaluation and reporting Much energy has been spent to carry out a timely baseline study, and final result appears to be of


vi

high quality and also reflects the results framework (indicators). Draft monitoring manual has been prepared but needs to be finalised when staffing is in place. Recommendation 6. Future annual reporting should include progress against logframe targets as

well as expenditure per output (actual figures). AFSP II Quality of FFS The Review Team takes note of an impressive dedication to implementing the recommendations of the appraisal, and proper systems now appear to be in place to ensure quality of FFSs. However, the Master Trainers (MTs) did not complete their own training before being tasked to run Training of Facilitators (TOFs). Therefore, the process runs in parallel, which may not be ideal. Furthermore, the staggered order of TOF batches effectively means that the majority of MTs do not have time for anything but delivering TOFs during two six-month phases (first half of 2015 and 2016) and this will undermine quality assurance (QA) in the field. Recommendation 7. i) The current number of Master Trainers must be increased. Not all MTs

candidates need to have an agricultural background, but could be specialists in non-formal education, group facilitation, or nutrition. ii) A pool of MTs should be established, for example consisting of experienced MTs from other programmes and departments. When called in, they could cover both ToF and backstopping field visits as necessary.

Marketing strategy A “Marketing strategy and intervention areas” has been undertaken and digested internally. A number of the recommendations do not appear to follow best practises and some suggested interventions are clearly outside the scope of the AFSP II. Recommendation 8. A short strategy should be prepared and vetted (IFMC, Katalyst, and

others), summarizing approach, interventions and expected results. Special considerations should be given to how the FFSs are going to be linked to the market without necessarily having to establish formalised groups and/or responsibility for operating marketing centres.

Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring system are reportedly in place and involved persons have been trained. No baseline survey has yet been undertaken due to lack of qualified tenderers/price during first procurement. The second tendering is almost completed. A number of the logframe indicators in project document are not considered suitable or SMART. Recommendation 9. i) A monitoring manual be prepared; potentially inspired by that of the

IFMC but following UNDP guidelines ii) Logframe should be revised in line with those indicators of the IFMC that are considered relevant in the CHT/AFSP II context, and targets be set. Ideally, such revision of logframe should have subject to this Inception Review but since timing did not allow, the UNDP and the embassy must approve. iii) The baseline survey should reflect such revision of indicators and also the methodology used by the IFMC baseline survey.


vii

Expiry of CHTDF agreement The CHTDF agreement, which provides the foundation for the Danish/UNDP delegated cooperation, expires by September 2015. A new programmatic framework has been drafted, but the RT finds that a number of risks makes it unclear whether a new agreement will be in place in due time. Recommendation 10. The Embassy should follow the negotiation process closely . UNDP should

prepare a contingency plan and agree with embassy on a way forward in March 2015.


1

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this Inception Review1 is “to make an assessment of the programme implementation strategy and suggest any adjustment, if necessary. The Inception Review will focus on a number of issues to be singled out by the Embassy as having strategic importance for the future implementation, taking into considerations the (1) delays encountered and (2) various forward looking options to address the challenges observed.” The review mission was undertaken during 30 November - 14 December 2014, and included a well-arranged five-day field trip to Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) and to Feni and Comilla (IFMC). The RT’s meeting schedule is provided in Annex 2. The Agricultural Growth and Employment Programme (AGEP) started July 2013 and is planned to be completed on 30 June 2018. The AGEP supports agricultural production as well as agro-processing and agro-business development. The development objective of AGEP is to contribute to an increased pro-poor and inclusive growth and sustainable employment creation.

The AGEP consists of three components:

A. Integrated Farm Management Component (IFMC) implemented by the Department of Agricultural Extension,

B. Agriculture and Food Security Project (AFSP II) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts implemented by UNDP

C. Agri-Business Development Component (ABDC) implemented by Swiss Contact as Katalyst Phase III and funded jointly by DFID, SDC and Denmark.

The immediate objectives of AGEP are: IFMC and AFSP II: Agricultural production of female and male marginal and small farm households increased and diversified through Integrated Farm Management (IFM) Farmer Field Schools (FFS); and ABDC: Strengthening of the competitiveness of the agricultural and agro-business sectors. The total budget of AGEP is DKK 405 million with Danish contribution of DKK 330 million and GOB contribution of DKK 75 million (for the IFMC only). The Review Team (RT)2 would like to express its thanks to everyone met during the assignment, including officials of the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) and Hill District Councils (HDC), for allocating their time for and sharing their knowledge and experience with the team. This Review Aide Memoire (RAM) presents the major findings and recommendations of the inception review of IFMC and AFSP II, based on the institutions and persons consulted during the visit and on the documents consulted prior to and during the visit. The proposals and recommendations provided in the report reflect the position of the RT alone. The views expressed may not necessarily be shared by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Danida or the Government of Bangladesh (GoB).

1 The Inception Review takes its departure in a draft set of Terms of Reference (TOR) dated 8 October 2014. 2 The RT consisted of Henrik Kjærsig, external consultant, Lars Mikkel Johannesen, TAS/Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)/Danida and Jesper Ravn Hansen, TAS/Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)/Danida (Team Leader).


2

2 OVERALL PROGRAMME STATUS

2.1 Developments in programme context The AGEP programme started up in a period characterized by pre-election events, including numerous hartals (general strikes and blockades), which influenced programme implementation negatively. After the general election held in January 2014, relative stability has been experienced. A number of fires and collapses of garment industry buildings, including the infamous Tazreen Fashion factory fire and Rana Plaza collapse, spurred public discontent and posed a threat to Bangladesh’s international export business mainly dominated by readymade garments. No major floods or cyclones have hit Bangladesh the past years which has been a contributor to a steady – although declining - growth in agricultural production standing at 3%-5% p.a. since 2010. Increasing land productivity in a sustainable way is needed more than ever given the population growth rate of 1.6% p.a.

2.2 Implementation progress Despite substantial delays observed in the Integrated Farm Management Component (IFMC), due to the national context and administrative framework in which the component operates, progress has been good towards setting up systems and structures, but implementation in the field has been much less than originally planned for. In effect, the IFMC is one year behind schedule after less than 1½ years of operation, and it is unlikely that the original targets can be met during the existing programme period. Although also delayed on a number of output deliverables, the Agriculture and Food Security Project (AFSP II) is less behind schedule and may be able to meet its targets within the existing programme period. Both components have benefitted from hard working and dedicated staff. More details on implementation progress at component level are provided in later sections.

2.3 Synergies between components The cooperation between components was reportedly good during start-up (e.g. exchange of trainers and sharing of training materials between IFMC and AFSP II) but has been somewhat strained the past 6-8 months due to the severe understaffing at IFMC (see Section 3.1). There is a scope for continued exploration of synergies when it comes to establishing market linkages and working with farmers’ organisations (FOs) and in the capacity building of project staff, and also a growing need to cooperate on quality assurance methodology, lessons learnt and best practises. When full staffing is reached in IFMC, joint meetings will be held, and there might be a scope for specific cross-component and more technical (net)working groups on for example (a) quality of FFS, (b) market linkages/FOs and (c) M&E.

2.4 Expenditures, budget and audits By end-November 2014, total disbursements from the embassy amounted to DKK 39.0 million for the IFMC (18.3% of total Danish appropriation for the IFMC)3 and DKK 22.0 million (48.9%), totalling DKK 61.0 million or 23.6% of the combined total appropriation for the IFMC and AFSP II. However, actual expenditures of the IFMC by end-November 2014 was reportedly only DKK 10.4 million of which the Danish part was DKK 9.0 million (see Annex 3 for financial

3 Not including advisor, contingencies and GoB contribution.


3

tables). Advances made to the Upazilas and for training/workshops (not yet accounted for) equalled DKK 8.4 million which would make the total expenditures DKK 17.4 million or 8.2% of total Danish appropriation. Such a low level of actual expenditure reflects the delay in implementation. Total GoB expenditures for the IFMC amounted to another DKK 1.4 million or 13.4% of total expenditures. This is lower than the 25.4% target for the whole programme period, but the reason is that many of the GoB expenditures are related to field implementation of FFS which will gradually increase. For the AFSP II, the total expenditures end-November 2014 were DKK 8.5 million or 18.7% of the total appropriation (see Annex 3). No audit has yet been carried out for the IFMC, but is scheduled for early 2015. The AFSP II has been audited as a part of the CHTDF standard audits (NIM and FAPAD), reportedly without any remarks (“qualifications”). The financial management of the IFMC is based on Danida’s guidelines for decentralized accounting, in which the component is well versed. The new regional offices have not yet established their accounting sections, and some training of new regional accounting officers is foreseen. Training of Upazila level accountant/officer responsible for maintaining FFS accounts should be considered to ensure quality and timely reporting.

2.5 Gender considerations Much has been done in the two programmes to balance gender, especially at the level of Farmer Field Schools (FFS). This has resulted in a good gender balance at FFS level and less so at Master Trainers/Master Facilitators (MT/MF) level. The gender balance situation is similar at the various levels in IFMC and AFSP II. Only few females are recruited as MT/MF. In AFSP II 3 out of 15 are female. According to the programme, the underlying reason for the relative few female MT/MF is that few qualified female candidates apply for the positions. This may be explained partly by the requirements, in terms of educational background and experience, in job announcements which is focused on agriculture and related fields. With the view to increase the number of female applicants in possible future job announcements it could be considered to open up for candidates with experience and expertise in non-formal education, facilitation etc. – areas from which it may be easier to attract qualified female candidates. This could also improve the skills mix in the group of MT/MF. About 22% of FFs are female. The slightly higher share of women FFs as compared to the MTs may be explained by the rare opportunity for astute village women to use their skills in the vicinity of her home. The number of female FF could be higher, but young women remain in the villages to take care of children and household matters. In particularly on the plains it is culturally less acceptable for women to travel outside their own village. At FFS level some 52-54% of the participants are female. This may largely be explained by a curricula focusing on homestead activities (e.g. poultry and livestock; homestead gardening etc.). To attract a larger number of female in the plains the IFMC has developed a comprehensive gender strategy that for example stipulates that each household should send two participants to the FFS where at least one should be female and that female headed households should be encouraged to participate. AFSP II has also a gender action plan annexed to the project document.


4

Results management includes monitoring of disaggregated gender data. Targets are currently only met at FFS level. The RT recommends to:

i. Adjust the job descriptions for future MF/MTs in order to expand the professional skill mix in the group of MF/MTs that include facilitation, socio-economy, nutrition and similar, because such skills are needed and since the number of qualified women possessing these skills traditionally is higher;

ii. Address, in the gender strategies/action plans, barriers to overcome mobility/social conditions e.g. develop trust among reluctant husbands; introduce team of two female FFs (for IFMC); introduce mature women as FF (i.e. post child care) in recruitment of female FFs and apply accordingly, and;

iii. Report against the gender action plans in the annual reports.

2.6 Climate and environment considerations Climate resilience is per default an integrated part of the FFS concept in both IFMC and AFSPII. While climate smart agriculture is not as such an integrated part of the FFS curricula, the FFS concept is meant to empower farmers with analytical skills to act and react on changes in seasonal weather patterns (regardless of climate change). In addition the FFS comprise knowledge about crop diversification and introduction of new (e.g. climate resilient) seed varieties. It is suggested, however, to pay more attention to climate resilience (e.g. climate smart agriculture) during any update of the curricula, especially at the level of MTs/MFs, who in particular would need to have an understanding of the implications of more frequent extreme events (e.g. long drought periods and more intense rain periods). It the context of climate smart agriculture, it is noted that irrigated rice is a major emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG). While GHG emissions can be reduced significantly by applying the practise of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) in irrigation management the necessary irrigation infrastructure may not be in place to do so. Investing in in major changes in the irrigation infrastructure is outside the scope of IFMC and AFSP II. However, if the practise of AWD (or any other climate smart practise) in a specific location is considered to be feasible it could be reflected in the FFS. It may also be useful to integrate into the FFS curricula emergency procedures/evacuation in response to extreme climate events (e.g. cyclones, flash flooding etc.). This should include protection of crops and household assets. Aquaculture (carps, shrimps etc.) has over the past many years expanded as an additional income generating activity for farmers on the plains. The possible environmental impacts of pond aquaculture are well known. The ponds have a high nutrient content and may include residual anti-biotic. Pollution risks may be posed to surface water bodies and shallow drinking water wells, when emptying ponds for water if this is done by release to nearby surroundings. It should therefore be considered how to include environmental awareness on aquaculture pond management in the FFS curricula.

2.7 Risks and Assumptions The AGEP programme document contained a number of assumptions and also risks, but since the programme was prepared prior to the new Danida risk management guidelines, no


5

risk management framework was included. The IFMC annual report contains a section on risk mitigation, but does not link the original assumptions and risks to the delays observed and is silent as to the real reasons for the delays in staffing. The AFSP II annual report contains no assessment on risk developments. In combination, this is found to be unfortunate since most of the reasons for observed delays originate in either unrealistic assumptions or materialising risks (e.g. regarding bureaucracy, inflexible coordination mechanisms, and timely provision of staff). Also, new risks are developing, especially in the CHT context. The RT recommends that future annual reporting should include an assessment of risk developments. 3 IFMC - MAJOR ISSUES

3.1 Implementation Progress There has been a considerable delay in the start-up of activities, mainly because the component has been working with less than anticipated staff since the very beginning. Only by end-June 2014, after almost one year of operation, were almost all GoB positions deputed/recruited to the component (27 of 29 staff). Recruitment of technical assistance staff has been even further delayed, being implemented in two phases of which only the first has been completed (27 staff) recently. Second batch (57 staff) is ongoing and is likely to be completed within two months. The RT understands that the main reason for delays have been a late approval of the DPP (more than six months, not unusual in Bangladesh) combined with bureaucratic delays in the staffing procedures within Ministry of Agriculture. The international Institutional Development Advisor will take up her position early 2015. As a consequence of the staffing delays, the establishment of regional offices have also been postponed, but are now operational in rented premises. The regional offices will only be fully staffed (with institutional development and M&E officers) when the second phase of recruitment has been finalised in early 2015. Taking into consideration the severe under-staffing, progress has been impressive due to effective bridging from the earlier Agricultural Extension Component (AEC) of the ASPS II, including:

Curricula developed and tested (partly under AEC) 103 new FFs have been training 1,397 FFS started in May 2014 have been completed 1,557 FFS initiated by November 2014 (out of a total target of 20,000) Refresher course for the FFS ongoing (1,557 participants) Two batches of crash courses for district back-stoppers and monitors.

The delays effectively means that the component is one year behind schedule after only 1½ years of operation, and it is unlikely that the original – and ambitious - targets can be achieved within the existing programme period.

3.2 Quality of FFS Experience accumulated with Danida assistance over the years, through IPM and ICM FFS, has shown that if the principles of experiential learning embedded in FFS approach is applied correctly, the training or the educational process (“learning to learn”) will lead to


6

empowerment of farmers by improving their analytical skills and self-confidence. As a result of this, the approach contributes to not only giving the farmers a voice but also improving their capacity to deal, on their own, with problems and challenges as they emerge. It is widely recognized that the delivery of expected outcomes and impact from FFS in terms of empowerment hinges on the ability of implementers to ensure the quality of its facilitation. Maintaining the quality of FFS during scaling-up is known to be a challenge. There is always a risk of FFS implementation becoming too mechanistic and top-down, putting too much emphasis on technology transfer rather than the principles of experiential learning. Safeguarding the educational process in the FFS is considered key for reaching the empowerment objectives i.e. improving farmers’ analytical skills and self-confidence. Needless to say, sufficient number of facilitators with the right skills and a relevant FFS curriculum which underpins empowerment are fundamental for ensuring the quality of FFS. The building of capacity required for scaling-up appears to be well underway. Training of Farmer Facilitators (FF) who eventual will be facilitating FFS in ‘new’ Upazilas has been initiated and refresher courses for existing FFs with the view to expand FFS implementation in ‘old’ Upazilas are on-going and will continue to take place twice per year for all FFs. The trainings are seen as one element in the efforts to maintain the quality of the FFS. Experiential learning is reportedly embedded in the IFM FFS curriculum that is being followed. All modules in the curriculum include “trials” or group discussions aiming at analyzing and comparing introduced technologies/practices with farmer practice. The concept of Agro Ecosystems Analysis (AESA) developed over the years for rice FFS has been adapted to vegetable production. Furthermore, a new concept of Farm Management Analysis (piloted by RFLDC) has been introduced. The FMA concept is a method for systematic observation and decision making about farm activities, especially livestock and fisheries. Also within the compulsory sessions on homestead vegetable gardening are included homestead visits and participatory discussion and planning on maximising income from space and resources available. IFMC management seems to be fully aware of the need to reduce the risk of FFS implementation becoming too mechanistic with an overly focus on technology transfer as well as the need to maintain the quality in the process of scaling-up. A mechanism for monitoring the quality of FFS appears to be in place. This comprises continuous adjustments based on experience – planned to be done twice per year within the framework of Upazila-and District level coordination meetings with Regional-level participation and twice annual review and planning workshops at regional level. In addition, the monitoring arrangements comprise monitoring/backstopping visits by Upazila-level DAE staff 8 times and Livestock and fisheries officers 3 times during FFS implementation. It is noted that monitoring in the 1st season mainly has been on technical issues as full monitoring is yet to be rolled out. To ensure quality monitoring from DAE side it is important to consider the hierarchical issues of the organisation. Building the capacity of departmental staff at Upazila level to monitor and backstop FFS implementation and support FFs is being undertaken or planned for. Crash courses for departmental staff has been conducted and training of selected DAE staff at Upazila-level (AAO/AEO/SAPPO) within the framework of season-long TOTs is being implemented The RT concludes and recognizes that a lot of activities aiming at ensuring the quality of FFS have been undertaken. However, the RT would like to reiterate that it consider it is crucial that experiential learning as opposed to top-down technology transfer is maintained


7

throughout implementation with the view to ensure the expected outcomes of FFS implementation. The RT recommends that:

Careful management (Component Management Unit, Dhaka) attention to be given to regional level QA of the Upazilas’ monitoring and backstopping of FFS/FF, especially during the fast roll-out and up-scaling of implementation at a time when new staff are coming in.

For quality control of FFS implementation monitoring arrangements should be reviewed based on experience, and any necessary changes made at the various levels – Upazila, District and Regional, also considering the DAE chain of command.

Thorough orientation and introduction to be carried out for all IFMC officers to ensure correct understand of the FFS approach, not only in terms of technical issues but also in terms of the empowerment of female and male farmers.

Review of job descriptions of recently/future recruited staff, particularly those involved in FOs may be required as the approach for support to FOs is further piloted and developed.

3.3 Farmers’ Organisations Output 2 on Farmers’ Organisations is only slowly progressing, awaiting the recruitment and joining of the team (including of the international advisor). Recently, a national institutional /FO advisor has joined the programme. A concept of Farmer Business Schools (FBS) was developed (including two curricula) and discussed with Katalyst and Blue Gold and 11 pilot FBSs were tested. The RT visited one FBS during the field trip, and the visit raised a number of concerns as to the suitability of the organisation selected for piloting and to the approach of FBS. Critical learning from the piloting process is needed. When the final strategy and implementation plan is prepared, specifying how the component will identify and work with exiting or potential ‘drivers’ of market linkages, the RT recommends to:

i. develop more support modalities (and do pilots) than only that of running FBS; this could include engaging with informal farmer groups that are not intended or resourced to operate as a business unit, but who share common interests and possess some basic levels of organisation. It could also include identifying more systematically those FFSs that are found to show potential for market linkage

ii. identify and train networks of existing and potential change agents/emerging networks/individuals with innovative ideas (at Upazila or potentially district level) and with qualifications and interest in facilitating market linkages

iii. focus on the sustainability of interventions based on a continued analysis of earlier experience (RFLDC; Katalyst; Blue Gold).

The DPP may need revisions based on the final strategy, approach and implementation plan and job descriptions of involved staff likewise.

3.4 National Dialogue and DAE Coordination The original purpose of the output was to strengthen the national dialogue on farmer centred extension approaches, including exchange of information, ideas, best practises and ultimately joint cooperation between different players, especially existing and future DAE projects but also DoF, DLS, larger NGOs and private sector companies. Limited action has been taken so far, but some initial brainstorming and strategy development has been done. The output has in the DPP been renamed to “national


8

meeting/seminar”. The RT finds it of high importance that a common understanding of expected results is reached within the leadership of DAE before the output is initiated: what can be achieved, how and to be driven by whom? What can realistically be done to improve planning, coordination and communication on various extension approaches? Without a clear way forward, there is a risk of hosting seminars and meetings with unclear purposes and with limited or no real impact. The RT therefore recommends that a final strategy and implementation plan should be prepared. The DPP may need revision based on the final implementation plan.

3.5 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting Much energy and resources have been spent on planning for, carrying out and quality assuring internally the external baseline survey. The RT finds the final result to be of high quality and also to logically reflect well the indicators of the results framework. A mid-term evaluation is planned for, but it could be limited to a selection of a lesser number of those indicators surveyed; those indicators selected being considered most relevant to capturing developments in outcomes and key outputs. The mid-term evaluation should be prepared to allow for timely preparation of a mid-term report subject to a mid-term review, i.e. a final mid-term evaluation 3 months prior to a mid-term review. A draft monitoring manual has also been prepared but not revised or finalised due to staffing shortage. It should reflect the final logframe, which needs to be revised with set targets following the findings of the baseline survey. The RT recommends that future progress reporting should include progress against the logframe output targets, as well as expenditure per output. The mid-term report (potentially in the form of an expanded third annual report) should also include progress against logframe outcome and impact targets. Given the importance of monitoring the quality assurance of the FFS, future progress reporting should also pay special attention to assessing the monitoring system itself (does it capture QA performance well?) as well as assessing the actual quality of FFSs carried out. Finally, future progress reporting should contain tables with actual expenditures per output (in line with Annex 3). 4 AFSP II – MAJOR ISSUES

4.1 Implementation Progress Progress has been satisfactory in establishing systems and initiating the FFS, including for example

Developing curricula, Ongoing training 18 Master Trainers and 215 Farmer Facilitators, Selection of all 1,550 Para Development Committees (PDCs) going to be involved in

FFS in the 20 ‘old’ Upazilas and initiation of the establishment of PDCs in the 5 ‘new’ Upazilas,

Ongoing 215 FFS with a total of 4,422 participating farmers in 20 Upazilas, Training of PDC Committee members and Hill District Councils/GoB officials.


9

The actual training plan is about three months late in comparison with original plans, main reasons being difficulties in recruitment of the technical FFS-coordinator. Yet, the AFSP II expects to be able to catch up during the coming years so that the total target of 1,800 FFS can be met within the existing project period. Three outputs are late or not yet initiated: on-farm research, policy and advocacy support, and support for the CHT Agricultural Strategy and investment plan. All three are entirely or partly delegated to FAO, but it has until recently not been possibly to reach and sign an agreement with FAO, although some FAO-led activities have been carried out using other financing sources. Furthermore, as described in Section 4.4 below, no baseline survey has yet been undertaken. Disbursements from embassy to UNDP by end-August 2014 amounted to DKK 22 million (48.9% of total appropriation) and actual expenditures (in interim financial report) to USD 1.3 million or DKK 7.2 million, equivalent to some 16% of total budget.

4.2 Quality of FFS Applying the principles of experiential learning embedded in the FFS approach is equally important for delivering the expected outcomes of AFSP as it is for IFMC (see introductory paragraphs in the section on QA in IFMC). In this context it is noted that the institutions in CHT are years behind DAE in terms of experience with FFS implementation. Building up a programme based on the FFS approach requires substantial efforts in building capacity, knowledge and skills to support implementation. Amongst others, the appraisal pointed to the need for right sequencing of capacity development activities at all levels. The Review Team takes note of an impressive dedication to implementing the recommendations of the appraisal, and proper systems now appear to be in place to ensure quality of FFSs. It is welcomed that IFMC has facilitated backstopping support and supervision from experienced Master Facilitators from DAE engaged in the government funded IPM FFS programme to the running of TOT for CHT MTs. This is likely to have contributed to improving the quality of the TOT. However, the MTs in CHT did not complete their own training before being tasked to run Training of Farmer Facilitators (TOFs). Therefore, the two processes (TOT and TOF) runs in parallel, which is as such not ideal but nonetheless appear sensible given the need to start activities in the field and reach the ambitious targets. Already after completing the first out of four spells in the Training of Trainers (TOT), the MTs are tasked to run TOFs. To what extent this may have comprised the skills development of FF and as consequence thereof the quality of FFS is not entirely clear to the RT. It is however noted, that while the MTs appear confident in terms of technical skills, many expressed the need to improve their facilitation skills before starting the TOF. The RT considers it to be important that the process applied until now is reviewed internally and possible adjustment made based on experience and lessons learned – this with the view to address possible needs for improving the skills of both MTs and FFs, if deemed necessary. Such an internal review should also comprise possible adjustments to the curricula for TOF and FFS. Furthermore and possibly more important, it is a concern that the staggered order of TOF batches effectively means that the majority of MTs do not have time for anything but delivering TOFs during two six-month phases (first half of 2015 and 2016). This is bound to undermine quality assurance (QA) in the field. While QA ultimately is the responsibility of CHTDF, the RT sees a need for learning from experience soon and based on this to revise the strategy for providing qualified backstopping and support for FFs.


10

In addition to the need for improving their facilitation skills, it is the impression of the RT that the MTs may need additional professional backstopping on top of what their own group + AFSP II staff can offer internally. Only 15 MTs are in place at the moment and not all are working full-time as MT. Especially Rangamati District appears to have too few MTs given the FFS target. It is noted that it apparently has been a challenge to identify, engage and retain a sufficient number of qualified MTs. Three out of the original 18 MT have already left. With the view to ensure that the quality of FFSs is maintained throughout implementation the RT recommends:

The current number of Master Trainers must be increased. Not all MTs candidates need to have an agricultural background, but could be specialists in non-formal education, group facilitation or nutrition.

A pool of MTs should be established, for example consisting of experienced MTs from other programmes and departments. When called in, they could cover both ToF and backstopping field visits as necessary.

4.3 Marketing strategy A “Marketing Strategy and Intervention Areas” was undertaken by a regional consultant early 2014, based on which the AFSP II has internally discussed the way forward for the market linkages output. The strategy itself contains useful information and appears to be well aligned to the draft agricultural strategy for the CHT prepared by FAO. However, the RT finds that some of the recommendations for action do not follow internationally best practises for market development (e.g. collection and storage centres to be run by farmer groups) and some of the recommendations are also outside the scope of the AFSP II (e.g. trade promotion offices). Finally, it suggests interventions into a number of niche products (or enterprises) not considered suitable for the AFSP II beneficiaries (e.g. coffee and strawberries). The RT understands that AFSP II is now considering a limited number of those interventions suggested in the strategy, especially by expanding the concept of “Rural Sales and Service Centres” already being implemented by other projects under the CHTDF umbrella. While it may be sensible to continue support to those rural collection points and establish market linkages through farmer groups (based on the FFS carried out), the RT recommends that a short 3-5 page market linkage strategy should be prepared, summarizing approach, interventions and expected results. The following should be taken into consideration:

Establishment or support for physical structures alone are rarely sustainable and are eventually often used for other purposes.

Farmer groups rarely possess sufficient marketing knowledge and business management skills to run such centres, and it takes years of coaching to build such capacities and practical experience. Furthermore, trading margins are reportedly fairly low and the urban markets in Chittagong and Dhaka to a large degree set the end-prices. If this is not clearly understood, the farmer groups may therefore have false expectations to what their joint efforts may achieve, and their later disappointment will leave them with little incentive to further explore market opportunities.

It is crucial is to identify and work with existing and potential new agents (or ‘drivers’) that could work within the given value chain realities and thus seek to further develop


11

vertical value chain integration. The identified agents should ideally be from within the FFS groups or nearby communities in order to build necessary trust.

Informal marketing groups for bulking produce, negotiating prices and potentially also arranging transport, and supported by one or two agents, should also be allowed to be involved in the interventions.

When the strategy is developed, important experience has been accumulated at Katalyst and they should thus be involved to the extent possible. There is also an obvious linkage to IFMC’s FO outputs, and it is therefore suggested to consider gathering a networking group (also suggested in Section 2.3).

4.4 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting A monitoring system has been built and staff have been trained in its use. Its usefulness will partly depend on the staff’s entering of data in the Upazilas. This may constitute a challenge in line with the up-scaling of activities. Future progress reporting should pay special attention to assessing the monitoring system itself (does it capture QA performance well?) as well as assessing the actual quality of FFSs carried out. No monitoring manual has yet been prepared. The logframe included in the final project proposal is not considered ideal; containing a number of indicators that do not suit their purpose (not being ‘SMART’). The RT went through the main indicators during its meetings with AFSP II staff and gave some indications as to needed improvements. It is of utmost importance that the logframe be revised so that indicators are included at impact and outcome levels, reflecting to the highest possible degree those used in the IFMC logframe and baseline survey. During the first tendering of the baseline survey, only one proposal met the technical quality requirements but the price was reportedly totally unacceptable (more than twice the cost of the IFMC baseline). A second tendering is presently being finalised and hopefully, the survey can soon be carried out. The RT recommends that

i. A monitoring manual be prepared; potentially inspired by that of the IFMC but following UNDP guidelines

ii. Logframe be revised in line with those indicators of the IFMC that are considered relevant in the CHT/AFSP II context, and targets be set. Ideally, such revision of logframe should have subject to this Inception Review but since timing did not allow, the UNDP and the embassy must approve.

iii. The baseline survey should reflect such revision of indicators and also the methodology used by the IFMC baseline survey.

4.5 Expiry of CHTDF agreement The present CHTDF agreement, which provides the foundation for the UNDP/Denmark delegated cooperation, is set to expire in September 2015. A new programmatic framework has been drafted and is presently being negotiated with both the GoB and expected financing partners. The RT finds that a number of risks makes it unclear whether a new agreement will be in place in due time and therefore recommends that the embassy should follow the negotiation process closely. UNDP should prepare a contingency plan and agree with embassy on a way forward in March 2015, potentially running the AFSP II under a Technical Assistance Project Proforma (TAPP).

12

5 PROCESS ACTION PLAN Recommendation / action Deadline Embassy IFMC/

DAE AFSP II /

UNDP 1 i) Adjust the job descriptions for future MF/MTs in order to expand the professional

skill mix in the group of MF/MTs that include facilitation, socio-economy, nutrition and similar, because such skills are needed and since the number of qualified women possessing these skills traditionally is higher; ii) Address, in the gender strategies, barriers to overcome mobility/social conditions e.g. develop trust among reluctant husbands; introduce team of two female FFs (for IFMC only); introduce mature women as FF (i.e. post child care) in recruitment of female FFs and apply accordingly, and; iii) Report against the gender action plans in the annual reports.

When relevant As soon as possible July 2015

x x x

x x x

2 Future annual progress reports should include an assessment of developments in risk. July 2015 x x 3 i) Careful management (Dhaka) attention to regional level quality assurance (QA) of

the Upazilas’ monitoring and backstopping of FFS/FF is required, especially during the fast roll-out of decentralisation and up-scaling of implementation at a time when new staff are coming in. ii) For quality control of FFS implementation, monitoring arrangements should be reviewed, and any necessary changes made at the various levels iii) Thorough orientation and introduction should be carried out for all IFMC officers to ensure correct understanding of the FFS approach, not only in terms of technical issues but also in terms of the empowerment of female and male farmers. iv) Review of job descriptions of newly recruited staff, particularly those involved in FOs may be required as the approach for support to FOs is further piloted and developed.

Ongoing attention June 2015 ASAP When relevant

x x x x

4 Final FO strategy and implementation plan must be prepared and should consider to: i. develop more support modalities (and do pilot/test) than only that of running FBS; this could include engaging with informal farmer groups that are not intended or resourced to operate as a business unit, but who share common interests and possess some basic levels of organisation. It could also include identifying more systematically those FFSs that are found to show potential for market linkage ii. identify and train networks of existing and potential change agents/emerging networks/individuals with innovative ideas (at Upazila or potentially district level) and with qualifications and interest in facilitating market linkages iii. focus on the sustainability of interventions based on a continued analysis of earlier experience (RFLDC; Katalyst; Blue Gold).

May 2015 Continuous Continuous Continuous

x x x x

13

Recommendation / action Deadline Embassy IFMC/ DAE

AFSP II / UNDP

5 National Dialogue strategy and implementation plan should be prepared February 2015 x 6 Future annual reporting should include progress against logframe targets as well as

expenditure per output (actual figures). July 2015 x x

7 i) The current number of Master Trainers must be increased. Not all MTs candidates need to have an agricultural background, but could be specialists in non-formal education, group facilitation, or nutrition. ii) A pool of MTs should be established, for example consisting of experienced MTs from other programmes and departments. When called in, they could cover both ToF and backstopping field visits as necessary.

ASAP ASAP

(x)

x x

8 A short market linkages strategy should be prepared and vetted (IFMC, Katalyst, and others), summarizing approach, interventions and expected results.

(x) x

9 i) A monitoring manual be prepared; potentially inspired by that of the IFMC but following UNDP guidelines ii) Logframe should be revised in line with those indicators of the IFMC that are considered relevant in the CHT/AFSP II context, and targets be set. Ideally, such revision of logframe should have subject to this Inception Review but since timing did not allow, the UNDP and the embassy must approve. iii) The baseline survey should reflect such revision of indicators and also the methodology used by the IFMC baseline survey.

February 2015 February 2015 February 2015

x x x

10 The Embassy should follow the CHTDF negotiation process closely. UNDP should prepare a contingency plan and agree with embassy on a way forward in March 2015

Ongoing attention March 2015

x (x)

x

Review Aide Memoire ANNEXES 2014 Inception Review of AGEP

A-1

ANNEX 1 Terms of Reference (embedded document)

�� ANNEX 2 Meeting Schedule (embedded document)

�� ! ! ��

A-2

ANNEX 3 IFMC AND AFSPS II FINANCIAL TABLES Source: Component’s administration, not subjected to verification by Review Team

Financial Progress Report from July 2013 to November 2014 DKK in million

GOB DPA Total Cost GOB DPATotal Cost

GOB DPATotal Cost

GOB DPATotal Cost

GOB DPATotal Cost

REVENUEManpower 6.37 48.26 54.63 0.09 1.37 1.47 0.43 0.73 1.16 0.52 2.11 2.63 5.85 46.16 52.00 Output - 1.1 - 1.44 1.44 - - - - - - - - - - 1.44 1.44 Output - 1.2 4.54 5.78 10.32 0.35 0.78 1.14 0.19 0.63 0.81 0.54 1.41 1.95 4.00 4.37 8.37 Output - 1.3 45.30 126.78 172.08 - 0.46 0.46 - 3.93 3.93 - 4.39 4.39 45.30 122.39 167.69 Output - 2.1,2,3 - 14.55 14.55 - 0.03 0.03 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.03 0.03 - 14.51 14.51 Output - 3.1,2,3 - 0.42 0.42 - - - - - - - - - - 0.42 0.42 Project Operational cot 9.21 12.39 21.60 0.24 0.42 0.67 0.10 0.22 0.31 0.34 0.64 0.98 8.87 11.75 20.62 Total Revenue 65.42 209.62 275.04 0.69 3.07 3.76 0.71 5.51 6.22 1.40 8.58 9.98 64.02 201.04 265.06 CAPITAL ITEMS - Vehicle - 0.69 0.69 - - - - - - - - - - 0.69 0.69 Motorcycle - 0.95 0.95 - 0.32 0.32 - - - - 0.32 0.32 - 0.63 0.63 Other Equipments and Furnishers 0.49 0.95 1.44 - 0.13 0.13 - 0.06 0.06 - 0.19 0.19 0.49 0.76 1.24 CD VAT 2.26 - 2.26 - - - - - - - - - 2.26 - 2.26 Total Capital 2.75 2.59 5.33 - 0.45 0.45 - 0.01 0.06 - 0.45 0.45 2.75 2.13 4.88 Total Revenue + Capital 68.16 212.21 280.37 0.69 3.52 4.21 0.71 5.52 6.29 1.40 9.04 10.44 66.76 203.17 269.94 Total contingency 6.84 12.79 19.63 - - - - - - - - - 6.84 12.79 19.63 Grand Total 75.00 225.00 300.00 0.69 3.52 4.21 0.71 5.52 6.29 1.40 9.04 10.44 73.60 215.97 289.56

Note: Funds disbursed but not booked as of 30/11/2014 (but expected booking by end of December 2014)1. Advance to Upazilas for implementation of FFS BDT in lac 1068.87 DKK in Million 7.42 2. Other advances for training / workshops BDT in lac 150.26 DKK in Million 1.04

Actual Expenditure Jul 2013 - November 2014

Remaining Balance as of 30 November 2014Code Descripton

Total DPP BudgetActual Expenditure Jul 2013

- June 2014Actual Expenditure Jul -

November 2014

A-3

Financial Status of Agriculture and Food Security Project in the Chittagong Hil Tracts ‐ Phase IIStarting Date : 1th July 2014

Expiry Date: : 30th June 2018

Total Project Budget: USD 7,898,894 as per agreement

A: Contributions received to dateIncome Description Amount (USD) Amount (DKK) Received Date1st Installment 2,488,531 14,042,553 13.09.2013

2nd Installment 1,342,845 7,926,815 17.11.2014

Total Income/recieved by UNDP 3,831,377 21,969,368

B: ExpendituresDescription cumulativeProgramme delivery 364,627

Operations 258,266

Human Resources 760,132

Administrative (GMS) 96,812

Total Expenditure 1,479,837 Commitments 521,261

Expenditure + commitments 2,001,098

C: Net fund balanceDescription Amount ( USD)A: Contribution received 3,831,377

B: Total expenditure 1,479,837

C: Net Fund Balance (C=A‐B) 2,351,539 D: Delivery rate as of 14 December 2014 (excluding commitment) 39%

A-4

ANNEX 4 DEBRIEFING PRESENTATION (embedded document)

�"��#��$ ��% �&'��(�)�*

Documents

Bangladesh Inception Review of the Agricultural Growth and ... · The Inception Review of the Agricultural Growth and Employment Programme (AGEP) was undertaken in Bangladesh during