Lao People’s Democratic Republic - adaptation …adaptation-undp.org/...support_farmer_organizations_iras_november_2… · Lao People's Democratic Republic ... the technical assistance

Government of Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Executing Entity/Implementing Partner: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, MAF, Vientiane, Lao PDR

Implementing Entity/Responsible Partner: National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, NAFRI

United Nations Development Programme

Farmer Organization / Cooperative Support Measures for Adaptation to Climate Change

Project ID:00076176 / ATLAS Award ID 60492

Improving the Resilience of the Agriculture Sector in Lao PDR to Climate Change Impacts (IRAS Lao Project)

Project Contact : Mr. Khamphone Mounlamai, Project Manager

Email Address : [email protected]

EDITED VERSION - 23/11/2012

ສາທາລະນະລດັ ປະຊາທິປະໄຕ ປະຊາຊນົລາວ

Lao People's Democratic Republic

ອງົການສະຫະປະຊາຊາດເພ ື່ ອການພດັທະນາ

United Nations Development Programme

Disclaimer The views, analysis and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author at the time of the study implementation. They should not be interpreted as representing views or position of IRAS project, UNDP or any other government institution, international organization or project.

IRAS Laos Project Farmer Organization / Cooperative Support Measures for Adaptation to Climate Change

i

Table of Content I. Project Information and Resources .......................................................................................... iii II. Map of Target Areas: Savannakhet and Xayaboury Provinces ................................................. iv

III. Project Purpose ...................................................................................................................... v

Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary (English version) ............................................................................................ viii Executive Summary (Lao version) ..................................................................................................... x Introduction (context of the mission and purpose of the report). ................................................... 1

The support mission on “Effective Management of Farmer Organizations for Agriculture Adaptation to Climate Change” .................................................................................................... 1

Content of the present report ....................................................................................................... 1

1. General approach and principles of the proposed support to FO/Cooperatives for CCA in IRAS project ............................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1. Why working with farmer groups? ........................................................................................ 2

1.2. Ownership: a key to success and sustainability ..................................................................... 4

1.3. Flexible and diversified support mechanisms to adapt to FO/FG choices ............................. 4

1.4. Sequence of support and inputs ............................................................................................ 7

1.5. Time and staffing requirements ........................................................................................... 10

1.6. Respective roles of IRAS, governmental organizations, and NGOs/NPAs ........................... 11

2. Facilitation of the risks and vulnerability assessment and identification of possible strategies and actions ...................................................................................................................................... 12

2.1. Need for a broad and inclusive discussion on the selection of activities ............................ 12

2.2. Guidelines to facilitate the participatory risk assessment ................................................... 13

2.3. Identification of strategic CCA actions ................................................................................. 15

3. Support for the implementation and monitoring of adaptation activities and strengthening of FO/Cooperatives ............................................................................................................................. 19

3.1. The strengthening of Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives able to sustain key services has to be considered as a core objective .......................................................................................... 19

3.2. Farmers contributions: a guarantee for ownership ............................................................. 20

3.3. FO Networking and Exposure to various experiences ......................................................... 22 Annex 1: References of relevant documentation .............................................................................. i Annex 2: Example of tool used to monitor the development of WUA capacities and abilities to undertake required tasks ................................................................................................................. iii


ii

List of boxes

Box 1: The case of fish-farmer cooperative in Vietnam .................................................................... 3

Box 2: An example of an innovative and flexible project mechanisms to promote an on-demand support to FO: the technical assistance credit to existing Farmer Water User Communities in an ADB funded project in Cambodia ...................................................................................................... 5

Box 3: Example of a rough pre-assessment of cost-benefit: case of a flood protection dyke ....... 18

Box 4: How to involve FO in implementation: Example - FO led action-research .......................... 19

Topic for Discussion 1: The question of the level of financial / material support from the project and of the farmers’ contribution: case of on-farm trial .................................................................. 21

Box 5: Example of the Farmer and Nature Network (FNN) in Cambodia ....................................... 23

List of table and figures Figure 1: Four type of supports to FO/FG ......................................................................................... 4

Table 1: Different supports (facilitation, technical, financial, institutional) required at the different phases of the process ......................................................................................................... 9

Table 2: Sessions and steps for the phase 1: Assessment and identification of strategic CCA actions ............................................................................................................................................. 10

Table 3: Respective roles of the different institutions in the process ............................................ 11

Figure 2: Example of cards that can be used to list past significant climate events ...................... 13

Figure 3: Format of flipchart table used to facilitate the analysis of risk ....................................... 14


iii

I. Project Information and Resources

Project number and title: # 76176 “Improving the Resilience of the Agriculture Sector in Lao PDR to Climate Change Impacts” (IRAS Project)

Implementing Partner: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, MAF, Vientiane, Lao PDR, through the National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, NAFRI

Responsible Parties (if applicable):

1. National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (MAF/NAFRI) 2. National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (MAF/NAFES) 3. Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment (MONRE) 4. Department of Land Use and Development / MONRE (DLUD) 5. National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) 6. Private Sector, NGOs, Mass Organizations, other GoL/MAF parties

Donors: GEF, UNDP

Project Starting date Project completion date

Originally planned

Actual Originally planned Current estimate

May 2011 10th of May 2011 April 2015 April 2015

Total Budget Original Budget (US$)

Latest Signed Revision (US$)

12,163,998 (including Co-Finance)

Resources Donor Amount $

GEF (LCDF) 4,445,450

GoL (in-kind CoF) 378,320

GoL (parallel CoF) 4,764,969

UNDP (parallel CoF) 2,575,259


iv

II. Map of Target Areas: Savannakhet and Xayaboury Provinces Agriculture and Forest Coverage in Lao PDR (source NAFRI)

Xayabouly Province


v

III. Project Purpose

Main Objectives of the Project: (as per the approved UNDP Country Programme Document and Country Programme Action Plan and/or Project Document)

This project will contribute to achieving the following Country Programme Outcome as defined in CPAP or CPD: UNDP Laos CPAP 2007-2011

1. Outcome 2: Enhanced ownership and capacity for pro-poor planning, implementation and harmonized aid coordination, and disaster management Output 2.4: Increased capacity within the Government to prepare and respond to natural as well as man-made disasters at all levels

Country Programme Outcome Indicators (UNDP Laos CPAP 2007-2011): Capacities on sustainable land management, drought and flood preparedness enhanced through participatory adaptation and monitoring activities in selected provinces.

Project Objective and Outcomes are aligned with UNDP’s thematic focus on adaptation to climate change and are matching or do correlate to Goal, expected Impact and Indicators of the GEF LDCF/SCCF Result-Based Management Framework Adaptation to Climate Change.

Project Objective Food insecurity resulting from climate change in Lao PDR minimized and vulnerability of farmers to extreme flooding and drought events reduced. Food insecurity resulting from climate change in Lao PDR will be minimized and vulnerability of farmers to extreme flooding and drought events will be reduced as part of an overall approach designed to introduce new adaptative techniques to farmers while encouraging a diversification of livelihood strategies at community level. This will be achieved by overcoming key policy, communication & information, institutional and economic barriers, relating to agriculture and food security as identified in the NAPA as requiring immedaite action. Thus, under Outcome 1 the information base for understanding climate risks and vulnerability will be strengthened and organised in way that it can effectively inform agricultural sector policies and planning. Outcome 2 addresses the need to develop the capacity of planners at different levels of government to use this information in the planning and allocation of resources. Outcome 3 focuses on Lao PDR’s agricultural extension services and demonstrating new techniques to build resilience at the community level including targeted training modules to ensure that these techniques take hold are become widely applied. Under Outcome 4 lessons learned and adaptation knowledge generated through the project will be systematically compiled, analyzed and disseminated nationally and internationally, thereby supporting further up-scaling and replication.


vi

Acronyms

AA2CC

ACIAR

ADB

ADPC

ADS

AFD

AGPC

ANR

APB

AVSF

CA

CBO

CC

CCA

CCTAM

CFA

CGIAR

CMF

CSIRO

DAEC

DAFO

DICO

DLF

DLUD

DM

DMC

DNDMCC

DoA

DoI

DoP

DRR

DS

FAO

FFS

FG

FO

FPG

GEF

GFAR

GoL

GRET

IDS

IFAD

IFAP

IFPRI

IMT

IPCC

IPM

IRAS

IRRI

Agriculture Adaptation to Climate Change

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

Asian Development Bank

Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre

Agriculture Development Strategy

French Agency for Development

Association of Coffee Producer Groups on the Bolaven plateau

Agriculture and Natural Resources

Agricultural Promotion Bank

Agronome and Vétérinaires Sans Frontières

Conservation Agriculture

Community Based Organization

Climate Change

Climate Change Adaptation

Climate Change Training and Adaptation Modules

Climate Forecasts Application

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

Commodity Management Facility (a tool of the LEAP project)

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Department of Agriculture Extension and Cooperatives

District Agriculture and Forestry Office

District Industry and Commerce Office

Department of Livestock and Fisheries

Department of Land Use and Development

Disaster Management

Direct seeding Mulch based Cropping System

Department of National Disaster Management and Climate Change

Department of Agriculture (of MAF)

Department of Irrigation

Department of Planning (of MAF)

Disaster Risk Reduction

Dry Season

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Farmer Field School

Farmer Group

Farmer Organization

Farmer Production Group

Global Environment Facility

Global Forum on Agricultural Research

Government of Laos

Groupe de Recherche et d’Echanges Technologiques

Irrigation Diagnostic Study (2008)

International Fund for Agriculture Development

International Federation of Agricultural Producers

International Food and Policy Research Institute

Irrigation Management Transfer

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Integrated Pest Management

Improving the Resilience of Agriculture Sector to Climate Change Project

International Rice Research Institute


vii

ISF

IUCN

IWMI

IWRM

JCFC

LDCF

LEA

LEAP

LMB

LUP

MAF

MLSW

MONRE

MPI

MRC

NAFES

NAFRI

NAPA

NDMC

NDMO

NGO

NLMA

NORMAI

NPA

NRM

NSEDP

NTFP

PAFO

PDR

PIM

PIS

PLUP

PMO

RIMES

RPIP

SAEDA

SDC

SNC

SWGAB

SWOT

TC

ToR

ToT

UNDP

UN/ISDR

UNOPS

VDF

VSF

WS

WUA

WUG

Irrigation Service Fee

International Union for Conservation of Nature

International Water Management Institute

Integrated Water Resources Management

Jhai Coffee Farmer Cooperative

Least Developed Countries Fund (of GEF)

Lao Extension Approach

Lao Extension Approach Project (Helvetas/DAEC)

Lower Mekong Basin

Land Use Planning

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Ministry of Planning and Investment

Mekong River Commission

National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Services (now replaced by DAEC)

National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute

National Adaptation Programme of Action to Climate Change

Natural Disaster Management Committee

National Disaster Management Office

Non-Governmental Organization

National Land Management Authority

Non Profit Association for Rural Mobilization and Improvement

Non-Profit Association

Natural Resources Management

National Socio-Economic Development Plan

Non-Timber Forest Products

Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office

People Democratic Republic

Participatory Irrigation Management

Provincial Irrigation Section

Participatory Land Use Planning

Prime Minister Office

Regional Integrated Multi-Hazard Early Warning System

Rice Production Improvement Project

Sustainable Agriculture and Environment Development Association

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

Second National Communication

Sub-Working Group on Farmer and Agribusiness

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Technical Coordinator

Terms of Reference

Training of Trainers

United Nations Development Program

United Nations / International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

United Nations Office for Project Services

Village Development Fund

Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (now « AVSF »)

Wet Season

Water User Association

Water User Group


viii

Executive Summary (English version) To improve Climate Change Adaptation of the Agriculture Sector by working with Farmer Organizations (or Farmer Groups) appears as a pertinent strategic orientation for IRAS project. It is expected to improve the relevance of the adaptation activities selected, to increase the efficiency and the sustainability of the project activities. Moreover, collective action is likely to unlock a number of potential adaptation measures which are out of reach for individual farmers. The support to FO/FG/Cooperatives is a long term process which requires flexibility and adaptability. Farmers’ ownership on the process is essential to ensure their commitment and build sustainable organizations. Financial capacities and technical support are not sufficient to succeed in building strong and sustainable FOs. The implementation of such a project also requires the mobilization of additional skills, in particular facilitation skills and institutional and managerial capacity building competences. PAFOs and DAFOs are lacking such skills and need to develop their capacities and know-how in these fields. To do so, it is recommended to IRAS to associate relevant international NGOs or National NPAs. Some of these organizations are probably the most experienced service providers that can be found in Laos for this purpose. In order to ease this process, it is important that the Government of Lao PDR also assign dedicated personnel to PAFOs/DAFOs and proposes simple registration (or recognition) system of farmer groups at local level (while they are not yet up-graded to qualify for a more formal registration, as cooperatives for instance) and provide adequate incentive for Farmer Organizations (assistance in capital, credit, access to land and tax incentives, as stated in Art.5 of the Decree on Cooperatives). In order to ensure the appropriateness of actions and the ownership of farmers on the activities supported by IRAS, the 1st phase of the process will consist in an assessment of the current situation, an analysis of climate risk and the identification of strategic CCA actions. It is recommended to start this phase with a broad and open discussion on household economy and “livelihood strategies”, in order to capture the farmers’ main interests and concerns. Climate change issues and scenarios will be brought progressively in the discussion, and the facilitator will link these topics with the livelihood and agricultural issues which appears as major concerns to farmers. The identification of Climate Change Adaptation activities shall not be narrowed down to a limited number of pre-defined modules. It should also encourage the emergence of innovative ideas, based on other experiences and on the assessment of resources and opportunities. The facilitation of this process requires a significant investment in human resources. It is estimated that one facilitator can manage this for a maximum of 6 to 8 groups within a period of 2 months. It also requires to fine-tune the methodology and to prepare adequate tools for the facilitation process (cards, flip-charts, village maps, communication tools to simply present the main features of climate change scenarios…). Farmers have to be fully involved in the identification of opportunities (including for instance in undertaking quick surveys to identify market opportunities), and in the identification of costs and resources to mobilize (including labor or material). Starting from the phase of implementation of the chosen activities (“phase 2” of the process) IRAS (and its associated implementing partners) has to consider the strengthening of Farmer Organizations as a core objective. This means that the FO (or FG) shall be central actors of the


ix

implementation process. They shall take responsibilities in the implementation and “learn by doing” and develop progressively their capacities and self-confidence. In order to develop ownership of farmers and a sense of accountability in the FO, it is also essential that farmers contribute their own resources (cash and/or labor and/or material…) support the implementation of selected actions. Tools and criteria used in the monitoring and evaluation of the project have to include criteria and methods to measures the progresses of organizations capacity building. More than a monitoring “for the record”, this periodic evaluation of progress shall be done with the FOs themselves and has to be used as a planning tool to set periodic objectives and plan the project supports and farmers’ commitments to reach these objectives. Progressively, when Farmer Groups, Organizations or Cooperatives starts to gain experience and confidence, an effort shall be made to promote networking among the different Farmer Groups, locally in the districts or provinces, and if possible with connection to national initiatives (in relation to the Sub-Working Group on Farmer and Agribusiness, notably). This networking is expected to be productive to share experience and encourage the emergence of new ideas and partnership between FOs.


x

Executive Summary (Lao version)


1

Introduction (context of the mission and purpose of the report).

The support mission on “Effective Management of Farmer Organizations for Agriculture Adaptation to Climate Change” The GEF, the UNDP and the Government of Lao PDR are co-funding the IRAS project (“Improving the Resilience of the Agriculture Sector in Lao PDR to Climate Change Impacts”). The overall objective of IRAS project is to minimize food insecurity resulting from climate change in Lao PDR and to reduce the vulnerability of farmers to extreme flood and drought events. This mission on “effective Management of Farmer Organizations for Agriculture Adaptation to Climate Change” is a contribution to the project implementation, in particular to the Output 3 of the IRAS project (see the 4 outcomes in the “Project Purpose sheet”, page iv). The objective of the mission is to identify relevant roles that could be played by Farmer Organizations regarding, specifically, the Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change and the upgrading of smallholder farmers / rural households resilience to extreme climate events. It also highlights the supports needed to strengthen FO capacities and improve their abilities to efficiently undertake the envisaged roles, and provide recommendations addressed to the project and to relevant support institutions. The implementation of the mission1 is based on a general assessment of the situation of Farmer Organizations in Lao PDR (based on secondary data) and on rapid field assessment of the situation of a few farmer organizations in one of the project target provinces (Savannakhet). It also refers to various experiences and “best practices” from various projects / FOs at the national, regional or international level.

Content of the present report The support mission on “effective Management of Farmer Organizations for Agriculture Adaptation to Climate Change” has produced four reports:

1. “Analysis of conditions for Farmer Organizations and Cooperatives from a viewpoint of Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, and recommendations for improvements”;

2. “Guidelines for Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives for preparation of Climate Change Adaptation Action Plans”;

3. “Farmer Organization / Cooperative Support Measures for Adaptation to Climate Change”; 4. A “Consulting Service Implementation Report”.

The present report is the 3rd of these four. It presents the general approach proposed to support FO/FG toward Climate Change Adaptation and practical recommendation on how to accompany and facilitate the climate risks assessment with farmer groups, select adaptation activities and the support and monitoring their implementation as well as the strengthening of FO/FG capacities. These recommendations are addressed to IRAS project and its implementing partners, but also to a broader audience as we believe the assessment and recommendation can be valid for other projects.

1 The mission is for a total duration of 5 weeks. It is implemented by Mr Jean-Marie Brun ( [email protected] ) between mid-September and end of November 2012.


2

1. General approach and principles of the proposed support to FO/Cooperatives for CCA in IRAS project

1.1. Why working with farmer groups? There numerous reasons to work with farmer groups rather than with individual farmers. We highlight hereafter some of the main interests, from a broad agricultural development perspective or more specific to a CCA project intervention. More specific roles that could be undertaken by the different categories of Farmer Organizations are presented in the first report of this mission2.

Improve the relevance of the intervention

The selection of the actions to implement in a given village or area shall not only be decided by the project team. It has to be discussed and negotiated based on a shared assessment of the situation with farmers, on an identification of their expectations and needs, taking into account the expertise of the project team and the farmers’ knowledge of local conditions. Such preliminary discussions cannot be done with farmers individually but with groups of farmers, for time saving reasons but also for the added value brought by the interaction between farmers in the discussion.

Improve the efficiency of the intervention

Similarly, in order to reduce the cost-efficiency, working with groups of farmers helps to save time for the different field agents mobilized. For instance technical training will be organized with groups of farmers. Group leaders can be identified and used to facilitate the preparation of the interventions of field agents, from a logistic point of view (for instance to inform all group member of the next meeting date and venue), which also helps to save time and resources for the project, and consequently to improve the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Unlock the potential of collective action

The implementation of some CCA activities requires necessarily a collective action and cannot be achieved by individual farmers. This is typically the case for irrigation infrastructure for instance or for some investment in agricultural equipment. Revolving funds credit or safety storage of rice or seeds also makes sense when resources are mutualized within a group. In some cases, resources cannot be exploited by an individual person or household, but at a larger scale, it can be done by a group of people (see the case of a fish-farmer cooperative in Vietnam in Box 1, next page).

2 See the report “Analysis of conditions for Farmer Organizations and Cooperatives from a viewpoint of Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, and recommendations for improvements”, in particular the part 2, “Typology and actual situation of FO in Lao PDR and relevance in relation with climate change adaptation and resilience”, pages 9 to 18.


3

Box 1: The case of fish-farmer cooperative in Vietnam Lakes where fish cages are installed cannot be exploited by individual fish farmers because of their too large surface. The creation of a fish-farmer cooperative has allowed to combine the farmer efforts and to build a flood prevention dyke, to buy a big pumping machine, to buy enough fingerlings to exploit the whole lake surface, to organize the watching of the lake at nighttime, and to market product through direct contracts with restaurants in the town. [Source: Adapted from Lamballe P., Castellanet C., “La recherche-action en milieu paysan : méthodes et outils – Expériences au Vietnam et au Cambodge”, GRET, Paris, 2003, page 94].

Ensure the sustainability of the outcomes and results

Last but not least, Farmer Groups or Organizations can be a solution to take over some services that are needed in order to sustain the outcomes of the project. For instance, farmers may be interested to use hybrid flood-tolerant varieties, but are not ready to face the cost of a long route to go and buy the seeds if there is no retailer who supplies these seeds at a reasonable distance. A FO/Cooperative can play this role of supplier. If this service is not sustained, the use of the hybrid seeds is likely to be abandoned as soon as the project stops to ensure the supply, and the long term effect of the project intervention will be null. Similarly, if investments are made for flood protection or irrigation infrastructures, but these infrastructures are not maintained and operated properly, the long term sustainability will also be jeopardized.

Develop farmer to farmer exchange of experiences, and strengthen social capital and solidarity among farmers

Working with groups of farmers provides more opportunity for farmers to exchange, in a formal or informal context, on their various practices and on difficulties they are facing and the possible ways to address them. This also contribute to strengthen the links and social relationship between farmers and to develop social capital and solidarity in the group3.

Contribute to farmers’ empowerment

Last, Farmer Organizations are an essential tool to contribute to farmers’ empowerment. In the commercial sphere, the gathering of individual farmers in groups or organizations for marketing purpose improves the bargaining power of farmers (with both their suppliers and the buyers of their products). Federated Farmer Organizations also play a role of advocacy defense of smallholder farmer interests.

Improve the quality standards of production for a better market positioning

Farmer organizations, in relation to the improvement of the marketing of their products, can improve the quality of their production (possibly by investing in collective processing unit4), and improve the market recognition of this quality in order to get better prices. Cooperatives, in particular, often prove to be relevant structures for this purpose.

3 Social capital and solidarity among farmers contributes to improve the resilience of smallholder farmers, as illustrated in the “Box 13” of the Report #2 of this mission “Guidelines for Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives for preparation of Climate Change Adaptation Action Plans”, page 31. 4 One good example of this is the development of wet-processing unit by groups of producers in the coffee sector, on the Bolaven plateau in Laos.


4

1.2. Ownership: a key to success and sustainability Farmer ownership on the actions implemented in the frame of IRAS project is a condition to ensure the appropriation and sustainability of the actions. In order to generate a high level of ownership by farmers, it is essential that:

1. The project team considers Farmer Organizations / Farmer Groups as decision makers and not only as beneficiaries or implementers of decisions made by the project. In other words, this means that farmers shall make decision on which measures they want to apply, based on their own assessment of stakes and vulnerabilities. They need to know not only what they are doing but also why they are doing it.

2. Farmers contribute to the investments and/or implementation costs of the proposed actions.

These two items will be addressed with more practical recommendations respectively in the § 2.1. page 12 and in the § 3.2 pages 20-21 of this report.

1.3. Flexible and diversified support mechanisms to adapt to FO/FG choices The support to FO/FG is a long term process which requires flexibility and adaptability, as it has to be driven by the farmers themselves and not imposed by the project own plans or constraints5.

1.3.1. Four types of support required to develop Farmer Organizations

Such an open process that leaves to FO/FG a large range of options and opportunities will require four kind of support and a lot of flexibility to adapt these supports (and subsequent resources) to the orientations decided by the farmers (on-demand support). The project shall be able to mobilize and provide the following supports:

Figure 1: Four type of supports to FO/FG

Farmers own contributions(Time , Capital, ...)

Farmer Group

Institutional and Management

Capacity Building

Facilitation support

Financial supportTechnical support

Facilitation support, in particular to ease the process of situation assessment, risk analysis, consultation and selection of actions to be undertaken (note that facilitation skills shall also be progressively transferred to FO/FG leaders);

5 See § 4.4.1. of the 1

st report of the present mission “Analysis of Conditions for Farmer Organizations and

Cooperatives from a viewpoint of Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, and recommendations for improvements”, page 28.


5

Technical support, to develop the technical capacities of farmers (train pilot farmers, supervise experimentation, implement FFS, implement training and coaching on irrigation O&M, etc.) and adequately implement technical innovations proposed, but also to provide technical information and options to be considered in the decision making process regarding the planning of activities;

Financial/material support to encourage the testing of new practices, reduce the economic risks supported by farmers in adopting new technologies, or overcome the obstacle of cost for the solutions requiring higher level of investment;

Institutional and managerial capacity building: for the FO/FG to develop its management procedures and skills in order to be able to sustain the implementation of services to members (input supply, irrigation O&M, marketing of agricultural products, etc.), and to ensure a transparent and democratic management of the organization.

Box 2: An example of an innovative and flexible project mechanisms to promote an on-demand support to FO: the technical assistance credit to existing Farmer Water User Communities in an ADB

funded project in Cambodia In order to ensure flexible and on-demand mechanisms to support large scale Farmer Water User Communities (FWUC, equivalent to WUA in Laos) as part of a ADB funded project, the following mechanisms has been proposed (and currently starts to be implemented): Instead of deciding on the content of supports of training that will be delivered to the FWUCs, the project has decided to allocate to each of the supported FWUC a budget line for technical assistance. This budget is not given in cash to the FWUC, but the FWUC can identify its need for technical or managerial support and request the corresponding training or support services. The FWUC shall also be entitled to select the service provider which will implement this service (within a list of eligible service providers). The project will pay the service provider after delivery of the service, and deduct the amount paid from the FWUC budget line. This encourages FWUCs to manage their Technical Assistance credit as a limited resource to prioritize their needs, negotiate the prices (i.e. number of working days to be provided by the SP), and thereof to make the most of the available budget [Source: Adapted from: Brun J.-M. (2011), “Mainstreaming of actions in support to Farmer Water User Community under North West Irrigation Sector Project (Cambodia): Statement, lessons learnt and follow-up support”, MOWRAM, Phnom Penh, October 2011. – pages 42-43]

1.3.2. Existing capacities and resources to mobilize… and gaps?

Financial resources

IRAS project has substantial budget at its disposal and the financial constraint does not seem to be the main limiting factor for the implementation of the proposed process approach. It is possible that the issue here is rather on the procedure for the planning of budget mobilization: will the financial management procedures in force allow the necessary flexibility and reactivity that are required to support such a process approach? This is a question that has to be addressed.

Technical skills

Technical field staff will be needed to provide technical advices and extension services, to train “pilot farmers”, but also to accompany on-farm research and development of technical references. At present, IRAS field activities are mainly implemented through DAFOs, where technical staff with a certain experience of agriculture extension are available. For this reason, we believe that the ability to mobilize technical capacities will not be the main constraint. Yet


6

there might be room for improvement of the DAFO capacities, from a technical point of view (possibly a need to get familiar with technical innovations or practices which are not part of the classical extension packages) and from a methodological point of view (ability to accompany on-farm research and to build technical references with farmers and not only to promote turn-key technical models). Another concern is maybe the number of technical staff available in DAFOs which could be a constraint to scale up the project activities. Last, there might be needs for more specialized technical expertise that may not be available in DAFOs, but hopefully can be found through the mobilization of Lao research centers (the localization of IRAS within NAFRI shall ease this connection) or of experienced organizations active in Lao PDR or in the region (for instance CIRAD on conservation agriculture, Agrisud international on agro-ecology, etc…).

Facilitation know-how and skills in organization management

Experienced facilitators and organization capacity-building personnel seem to be much more difficult to find, at least in the local services of agriculture (PAFO/DAFO). The current practices of extension services to support farmer groups looks still relatively “top-down” and are not ambitious regarding the development of farmer capacities to manage their organizations. For instance, a senior officer of the Extension Section of PAFO in Savannakhet explained that farmer group planning was prepared by the staff of the center and not by farmers, and has to be signed by village authorities. Availability of qualified human resources for organizational development is identified as the major constraint for the implementation of the proposed approach. If DAFO and/or PAFO are foreseen to play these roles of facilitation and capacity building of FO/FG, there is a huge effort to be done to reinforce their own capacities in these matters, and even their conception of the support to Farmer Organizations. Experienced NGO or NPA could be a valuable resource to support this capacity building effort. It could be relevant to mobilize organizations (NGOs?) with a stronger experience of facilitation processes and capacity building of organizations to take part in the implementation of the project and build progressively the capacities of local extension services (by working in association with them). Some local NGOs have a quite good experience in this matter6, and could be mobilized (a limit being that they are small organizations with a limited number of experienced staff, and their capacity to “absorb” an important volume of work as a contractor is probably limited). International organizations with a strong expertise in these fields are also present in Laos and could also be mobilized if needed (Helvetas, GRET, AVSF, etc…).

In practice

IRAS shall mobilize (contract) experienced organizations to take part in the implementation in order to fine-tune a practical methodology and to build the capacities of PAFOs and/or DAFOs in the target provinces.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries shall assign relevant personnel to work on the support to organizations in the PAFO/DAFOs.

NGOs and NPAs experienced in the development of FOs shall also contribute to build capacities in organizational support and facilitation within the public services of agriculture at local level.

6 We have mentioned SAEDA and NORMAI, for instance, in the 1

st report of the present mission, Annexes 3-A and 3-

B, pages XV and XVI.


7

1.4. Sequence of support and inputs The proposed approach follows three main phases, which will require different inputs of the four categories of supports described above. The sequence of these phases and the corresponding inputs for each of the four categories are described in broad outline in the Table 1 page 9. We define briefly the purpose of the three phases below, while the following parts of this report will provide more detailed and practical recommendations for the implementation of each of these phases.

1.4.1. Phase 1: Assessment and identification of strategic CCA actions

The first phase consists in the assessment of the current situation of farmers and of climate risks they are facing7, and the identification and selection of strategic actions for the adaptation of agriculture to climate change and the improvement of the farmers’ resilience. This phase may be done with existing farmer organizations as the main actors involved, or with the villager community whenever there is no established farmer groups or organization. Yet, in this second case, it is likely that some of the identified activities8 will require the constitution of farmer groups for their immediate implementation and to ensure their long term sustainability. At this first stage, facilitation skills are the main input required in the process. Technicians (from extension services or possibly research centers) can also participate in some of the consultation meetings in order to highlight possible technical adaptation options that may not be seen spontaneously by farmers. Yet it is important that this input does not “over-influence” the group decision making. Other competences (financial and managerial) can be mobilized to assess the feasibility and the support needed while planning activities.

1.4.2. Phase 2: Pilot actions implementation

The implementation phase will mobilize more technical support, financial support, (depending on the nature of the actions implemented) organizational and managerial support and possibly facilitation (for instance if there is a need to organize consultation and negotiate internal rules for a service that has to be managed by the Farmer Group / Organization). These different inputs are necessary but shall not outshine the expected role for emerging farmer group who have also to be strengthened in their competences and legitimacy during this process.

1.4.3. Phase 3: Replication, scaling up, consolidation and networking

The last phase consist in the dissemination and scaling up of the adaptation practices that have proven to be relevant and efficient, and in the consolidation of the farmer groups / organizations which will have to take over the provision of some services to farmers in the long run. For this last aspect (which concerns more specifically the purpose of this mission) there is a

7 More detailed steps to analyze risks, exposure and vulnerability are proposed in the second report of this mission. See the report “Guidelines for Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives for preparation of Climate Change Adaptation Action Plans”, Part 2 (pages 5 to 12). 8 A broad range of possible actions that can be undertaken by FOs in a perspective of AA2CC is presented in the second report of this mission (“Guidelines for Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives for preparation of Climate Change Adaptation Action Plans”).


8

specific need for the provision of Institutional and Managerial Support in order to strengthen FOs and help them to reach autonomy. This Institutional and Managerial Support requires specific skills (as seen page 6). In the same time, new activities can be defined and implemented. The assessment, planning and implementation process can be continued in an iterative way. Moreover, during this third phase, it can be relevant to develop connections between different farmer groups and to progressively set up a network of FG/FO. A minima, the purpose of this can be the exchange of experiences (exposure to various technical and institutional solution that can be replicated), but it can also be prefigure structural relationships (and possibly a federation or union of FO) which could allow more efficient services and scale economies. The issue of the development of FO networks is more detailed page 22-23 in this report.


9

Table 1: Different supports (facilitation, technical, financial, institutional) required at the different phases of the process

Phase 1: Assessment and identification of strategic CCA actions*

Phase 2: Pilot actions implementation Phase 3: Replication, scaling up, consolidation and networking

Steps

Facilitation

Support

Technical Support

Financial / Material Support

Institutional & Managerial Support

*Note: The second report of this mission proposes 11 steps for the phase 1. See “Guidelines for Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives for preparation of Climate Change Adaptation Action Plans”, Table 4, page 37.

Assessment of situation and risk analysis

Identification of possible options

Ideas from farmers + inputs from TK + exposure visits

Selection of first set of pilot

actions

Def

ine

(an

d c

on

trac

t w

ith

th

e fa

rmer

gro

up

) re

spec

tive

ro

les

and

res

po

nsi

bili

tie

s

for

the

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f p

ilot

acti

on

s

Facilitation of the participatory analysis and consultation with farmers

Explain possible actions + organize

exposure visits

Expose possible support proposed to FO/FG by IRAS

Example: Build a weir and develop dry season vegetable production

Design + delimitate

area

Register farmers and collect contributions

Construction

Define use rules

Provide funds for construction

Funds / Credit for pumping equipment

and inputs supply

Facilitation of the consultation with

users for design and definition of rules

FO capacity building on administration (register

user) and accounting and finances (fee collection…)

Technical support for design and

construction

Training of pilot farmers / Farmer Field Schools

Crop implementation

Assess needs for financial

support

Assess needs for technical

support

Assess needs for

institutional support

Technical follow-up

Facilitate participatory

evaluation

On-the-job support and follow-up

Facilitate planning of next steps and discussion of

FO/FG roles

Participatory evaluation

Plan next steps / New activities or scaling up

of previous actions

Define role of FO/FG to be pursued in the long term in order to sustain the results

Continue the strengthening of capacities of FO/FG to sustain activities

Facilitate networking and linkages with other groups

and institutions

Additional technical support to new activities or to solve problems + Establish institutional linkages /

connection between FO/FG and research and extension services or other service providers.

Possible additional financial or material support for new activities or scaling up, or for operation and running cost

(with a plan for progressive take over by the FO)

Consolidate the FO/FG and develop institutional linkages


10

1.5. Time and staffing requirements It is estimated that the facilitation process to assess the situation and risks and to identify priority actions (i.e. the 1st phase of the process described above) will require at least four sessions of work with farmer groups (each session lasting from half a day to a full day). The eleven steps 9 of this phase can be distributed in the four sessions as shown in the Table2 (opposite).

Table 2: Sessions and steps for the phase 1: Assessment and identification of strategic CCA actions

Sessions Steps

1 1. Analysis of the context and define perspectives and challenges.

2. Identify preliminary (or on-going) actions to reach the overall objective

2 3. Hazard identification

4. Analysis of climate related risks

5. Current coping strategies and impact on livelihood

6. Integration of perspectives and trends

3 7. Identification of strategic orientations and list possible measures for adaptation

8. Selection / Prioritization of Adaptation Measures / Actions together with other development actions

9. Inclusion of disaster management measures

4 10. Planning of implementation process

11. Addressing conditions for long term sustainability

If a facilitator spend 3 working days per week to facilitate these sessions (leaving time for preparation and reporting), and if we leave 1 to 2 weeks between each sessions (2 weeks would be a maximum to ensure a continuity in the discussions), one facilitator can manage the process for 3 (maximum 4) groups in one month (or 6 to 8 groups in two months). For the following phases, it is difficult to assess the time required for technical support as this depend very much of the activities selected, but from a quite general point of view, we can imagine that one group will require the intervention of a technical field staff one time per week or one time every two weeks minimum. The development of institutional and managerial capacities of the Farmer Groups / Organization also needs a steady support, but it also depends on the type of services that the FO will have to manage. The more skills are required for the FO management team, the more time will be needed to build these skills. But in average, we believe that one field agent in charge of strengthening institutional and managerial capacities of FO would not be able to support more than 4 to 5 groups at a time (at least for the first year, then the frequency of inputs can progressively be reduced while the FO leaders gain more skills and confidence). Note that it is possible that the same field agent undertakes both functions of facilitation and capacity building, provided that he/she has the adequate skills.

9 See the Table 4 “Overview of the process of climate risks analysis and definition of a strategy and adaptation actions with farmer groups / communities” in the 2

nd report of the present mission “Guidelines for Farmer

Organizations / Cooperatives for preparation of Climate Change Adaptation Action Plans”, page 37.


11

1.6. Respective roles of IRAS, governmental organizations, and NGOs/NPAs IRAS project’s own team is relatively limited, and the implementation of the proposed process will necessarily mobilize the teams of PAFO and DAFO to support the implementation. Experienced NGOs and/or NPAs could be associated in order to strengthen PAFO and DAFOs’ capacities in facilitation and capacity building of local organizations. The Table 3 below details possible foreseen roles of the different institutions at the different steps (with reference to Table 1) of implementation of the process. Table 3: Respective roles of the different institutions in the process

Phase 1: Assessment and identification of strategic

CCA actions

Phase 2: Pilot actions implementation

Phase 3: Replication, scaling up, consolidation and

networking

IRAS project Take part in the presentation of the process to villagers.

Develop communication tools to present the CC scenarios.

Contribute to the analysis of cost-benefit of proposed actions.

Identify locations for exposure visits.

Mobilize financial support and technical expertise upon needs.

Formalize the sharing of responsibilities between farmers, the project and implementing partners.

Monitor and evaluate results.

PAFOs & DAFOs Facilitate the assessment and discussions with farmer groups.

Facilitate the selection process of pilot actions

Provide technical support the implementation of pilot actions: help FOs to develop the relevant capacities and skills.

Consolidate FO capacities.

Replicate the process in new village, support second round of activities development in villages where phases 1 and 2 were implemented.

NGOs / NPAs Train PAFO and DAFO staff on facilitation skills and participate in the process in some villages (on-the-job capacity building)

Take part in the consolidation of FO capacities.

Facilitate the development of a FO network.

NAFRI and DAEC Supervise the process and take part in the monitoring and evaluation.

Draw lessons and recommendations / guidelines at national level.

Draw lessons and recommendations and take part in an institutional dialog with FO networks representatives.


12

2. Facilitation of the risks and vulnerability assessment and identification of possible strategies and actions The proposed process of risk and vulnerability assessment is presented in the 2nd report of the present mission [See the report “Guidelines for Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives for preparation of Climate Change Adaptation Action Plans”, Section 2]. The present section highlights some practical recommendations for the facilitator of this process (in particular IRAS project staff or associated implementing partners such as PAFO/DAFO or possibly other sub-contractors).

2.1. Need for a broad and inclusive discussion on the selection of activities As mentioned in the 1st report of the mission10, “A condition to establish successful Farmer Organization is to begin with clear and practical objectives that will mobilize farmers and drive their interest. Creating organizations is not an objective in itself but shall be an answer to concrete problems or challenges met by farmers. Adaptation to Climate Change might not be in itself a topic that will strongly mobilize farmers.” For this reason, the facilitation process shall not go straight to the climate risk analysis, but shall start with a relatively open discussion in order to identify the topics or issues which will mobilize farmers’ interest. As already enhanced (§1.2. page 4), ownership is a key to the success and sustainability of IRAS intervention. Farmer Organizations / Groups have to make the decision on the actions they will implement. This decision shall take into consideration farmers core interests, and shall be based on the participatory assessment of the risks and vulnerability. Decision making shall be the outcome of a true reflection and open dialog, with concerned farmers. Different sources of information (including farmers’ own experience and knowledge) shall be mobilized to identify possible actions (see the guidelines for the facilitation of this participatory assessment in the following pages).

In practice

Start with a discussion on household economy and “livelihood strategies” of the village/FO members, to understand the current situation, identify what are the farmers’ concerns but also their mid-term perspectives and “hopes”.

Based on this assessment of household socio-economic perspectives, identify the conditions required for farmers to successfully implement their livelihood strategies, and start a discussion on how climate hazards and climate change can impact on the livelihoods and jeopardize individual farmers / village community / FO efforts to improve their situation (assessment of exposure and vulnerability).

The modalities of intervention of the project shall not consist in the dissemination of “standard technical packages” decided by the project to target communities.

The project shall facilitate a “brainstorming” for farmers to identify and propose possible options, then possibly complete the list with additional options identified by the project, or through the exposure of farmers to other groups’ experiences (field visits, etc…).

10 See the report “Analysis of conditions for Farmer Organizations and Cooperatives from a viewpoint of Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, and recommendations for improvements”, page 30.


13

2.2. Guidelines to facilitate the participatory risk assessment

2.2.1. Facilitation of the Analysis of the history of past events/experiences

Identification of significant past events

Major climate events or related disasters are generally well remembered by local communities. It is likely that the most significant and most recent will be mentioned first. If participants show difficulties to identify major climate events, another way to reformulate the question is to ask them about damages or losses they have faced in the pasts. Most often, the extreme climate events are remembered for their consequences, not for the event itself: for instance, what people are remembering is not the number of millimeters of rainfalls or the speed of the wind, but the losses of crops or livestock, the level of water in the villages, etc.

In practice

At the first stage of the identification of past events, the facilitator can write down all the events mentioned by participants on a flipchart or on cards prepared in advance. (The card option is better because it can ease the classification of these events in the next step).

At this stage we can indicate the type of event, the date and a rough appreciation of the level of damages and losses (to be used for a first ranking, the most significant event can then be developed with a more precise analysis of damages and impacts). – See Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Example of cards that can be used to list past significant climate events

Cards can then be classified according to dates, category of events or level of damages in order to assess the frequency of the different categories of events and to hierarchize the most important ones.

Analysis risks, exposure and of vulnerability

The frame for the risks analysis is presented in the second report of the mission: see in particular the Figure 3: “Simplified example of risk analysis for a given Climate hazard” page 8 of the report “Guidelines for Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives for preparation of Climate Change Adaptation Action Plans”.

In practice

During the facilitation of the participatory risk analysis with farmer group, the facilitator can prepare tables (flipchart) following that format. The different columns are then filled during a plenary discussion with participants. One table is used for each type of climate related hazard. – See Figure 3 next page.


14

Figure 3: Format of flipchart table used to facilitate the analysis of risk

Note: it is important to ask participants to precise the factors that contribute to the vulnerability for each item: for instance the calendar of growing and type of varieties. This will help to identify some possible adjustment to reduce the vulnerability in the following step.

The concept of “exposure” and “vulnerability” are abstract and difficult to understand for farmers, but they can be easily explained based on the description of past events and using these events as examples.

Village map

To complete this assessment of risk, a village map (or sketch) can be drawn with participants to identify the location of the different crops and other natural resources exploited, and identify the areas that are exposed to the different categories of risks (flooded areas, for instance).

2.2.2. Need for simple communication tools to present climate change scenarios

The IRAS project shall prepare simple and illustrated communication tools to illustrate the foreseen climate changes, and how Lao farmers are likely to experience the local appearance of these changes. These tools (leaflets, posters?) can be presented during the meeting in villages. The facilitator shall make the link with the previous analysis based on farmer experiences. Basically, the introduction of climate change scenarios in the analysis is likely to increase the frequency and amplitude of the major climate hazards. In other words, if nothing is changed in the farmers’ practices, the frequency and importance of losses due to climate hazards is likely to increase, and thereof to be more and more difficult to cope with. The purpose shall be here to encourage farmers to pay more attention to risk management and introduce the next steps of the discussion which is about “what can we do to reduce exposure and vulnerability and to increase resilience?”

Write here the type of climate hazard analyzed

List elements highly exposed

List dates of occurrences and

estimate frequency

For each element exposed, indicate the level of losses (percentage of total crops, for instance)


15

2.2.3. Integration of other long term trends in the risk assessment

The participatory assessment of risks has also to take into account other medium or long term trends in the agricultural activities of farmers, and the way these trends affect the risks and vulnerability of smallholder farmers. This may include the following items:

Reduction of agro-biodiversity, Specialization of farms (reduction of diversification), Erosion, Reduction of soil fertility, Reduction of water resources available…

2.3. Identification of strategic CCA actions

2.3.1. Facilitation of the identification of innovative ideas, opportunities and resources

After the risk analysis phase is completed, IRAS project facilitators have to support farmer groups in the identification of innovative ideas, opportunities and resources for agriculture adaptation to climate change. Guidelines for the strategic analysis of risk reduction (reduction of exposure and vulnerability…) are provided in the second report of this mission11.

Identification of innovative ideas

As mentioned in § 1.2. (page 4), it is important for the sustainability of the action to ensure farmers’ ownership on the proposed CCA measures. Therefore, the selection of actions to be supported shall not be limited to a choice among a shortlist of turn-key modules or packages. To propose 6 Climate Change Training and Adaptation Modules (CCTAM) – as indicated in IRAS project document – can be part of the project “offer”, but additional ideas or initiatives from farmers shall be considered (and stimulated) as well, and the project shall adapt itself to support these proposal if they are relevant and feasible.

11 See the report “Guidelines for Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives for preparation of Climate Change Adaptation Action Plans”, § 2.3., pages 11-12.


16

In practice

Discussion on possible actions to implement shall not be narrowed down by the project but shall consider farmers ideas and initiatives (when relevant and feasible, obviously).

The identification of innovative ideas shall mobilize farmer knowledge and experience. But it is also the role of the project to broaden the scope of possible actions. Different methods can be used to introduce new ideas:

Direct presentation by the project facilitator or technical staff of possible adaptation;

Exchange visits and networking with other Farmer Groups;

Study tour on other sites where successful innovations are implemented;

Presentation by research institutions...

Field facilitators shall not work only with FO leaders, but as much as possible with all the members of the FO, in particular while implementing the following steps:

Participatory assessment of risks and vulnerability;

Participatory identification and selection of adaptation/resilience activities;

Participatory evaluation of the results and impacts of activities implemented.

This will be very important to achieve an increased level of awareness of targeted farming households, and is likely to raise the adoption rate of the proposed adaptation practices (Ref. to the indicator 3.2. of IRAS project log frame). One shall keep in mind that people are more likely to do something if they understand why they have to do it!

Identification of opportunities

IRAS facilitators can also assess with Farmer Group the existence of opportunities that could be exploited in relation with their climate change adaptation strategy. For instance, this can include market opportunities which can become a driver for a diversification of productions. Farmer group leaders can be associated in the implementation of rapid market surveys or market assessment. The purpose is obviously not to expect complex market analysis to be done by farmers. But to involve farmers in quick market surveys will increase their understanding of the opportunities and constraints and will develop their ownership on the market assessment. Moreover, it is a good way to strengthen the capacities of the Farmer Groups or Farmer Organizations and to develop a sense of curiosity and innovation, and an interest to make contacts with market actors and to explore opportunities. The more the farmers will be able to explore by themselves new opportunities and ideas, the higher their resilience will be. The identification of opportunities is not limited to market assessment but shall also look at any change in the natural or socio-economic environment that can generate positive effects for farmers. Climate change, in itself, may increase risks on existing agricultural activities but can also offer conditions appropriated to develop new crops. But it has to be admitted that this is more difficult to assess, as, by definition, farmers have no experiences of these potential new crops, whereas they know well the consequence of climate event on what they are already growing. For this particular aspect, the connection with research institution already mentioned above) can be useful.


17

Identification of resources

The use of the village map suggested for the risk analysis (page 14) can also be helpful to identify natural resources available. For instance to locate the existing water resources and question the possibility to make a better use of them, or to localize fallow land or other natural resources available (NTFP, etc…).

2.3.2. Guidelines for cost-efficiency analysis of proposed options

As indicated in the second report of the mission, Farmer group can estimate (with the support of the project) the costs and benefits of proposed options. This exercise can be done step by steps: a very rough estimation can be done first to eliminate ideas that are quickly identified as too expensive for the estimated benefit; then the analysis can be fine-tuned progressively. The analysis of resources to be mobilized and costs has to take into consideration the investments costs (which can be important in particular when there is a need to develop infrastructures) and the recurrent operational costs. Not only monetary costs have to be included, but also in-kind contributions (for instance mobilization of labor from the members of the group). Regarding foreseen benefits, different situations shall be considered. Some actions or adaptations of practices can reduce the vulnerability or exposure to climate hazard, but are also beneficial for farmers even in a mild climate period. Some other actions will be beneficial only in case of extreme climate events, and will bring no added-value in mild climate period (e.g.: flood protection dyke). The assessment of benefits has to consider these two situations, identify the added value that can be generated in any year, and the prevention of losses in case of extreme climate events, which has then to be weighted by the frequency of such event in order to assess an average benefit. An example of frame for pre-assessment of cost-benefit is presented in the Box 3 (next page).

In practice

IRAS socio-economist specialist could be directly involved in the support to the assessment of cost-benefit analysis of the different scenarios envisaged, aside with PAFO/DAFOs staff as facilitators.


18

Box 3: Example of a rough pre-assessment of cost-benefit: case of a flood protection dyke Example: The proposed action is to build a flood protection dyke to protect 100 ha of rice field from the flood. The cost analysis has to take into consideration the cost of the construction, but also the regular maintenance costs of the infrastructure. Note: Benefits are based on an estimation of the value of the avoided losses (based on historical records of losses). The historical frequency of extreme climate events can be revised to take into account climate change scenarios.

Costs Benefits

Investment required for dyke construction 240,000,000 Kips Value of crop (annual, without disaster) 400,000,000 Kips

Volume of earthworks (m3) 12,000 m3 Average yield (t/ha) 2,0 t/ha

Unit cost (Kip/m3) 20,000 Kips/m3 Value of the product (Kip/t) 2,000,000 Kips/t

Total surface of rice field protected 100 ha

Duration of amortization of the investment 25 years

Annual amortization of the investment 9,6000,000 Kips/y Average percentage of harvest lost 18.5%

due to flood for the past 10 years *

Estimated costs for annual maintenance 24,000,000 Kips/y * (Y2002=50%; Y2003=0%; Y2004=0%; Y2005=20%; Y2006=0%;

Volume of earthworks (m3) 1,200 m3Y2007=10%; Y2008=40%; Y2009=15%; Y2010=20%; Y2011=30%)

Unit cost (Kip/m3) 20,000 Kips/m3

Total annual costs 33,600,000 Kips/y Average annual benefits 74,000,000 Kips/y

(investment amortization + maintenance) (average value of "saved" crops)

In the table above, the benefit is calculated based on the value of the production. It might be preferable to estimate the profit made from the crops (instead of the total value). Also, the amortization of the investment is based on a linear calculation. But this can be acceptable in a first approach.

This is a fictive example, for illustration of the principle. Figures are not accurate.


19

3. Support for the implementation and monitoring of adaptation activities and strengthening of FO/Cooperatives

3.1. The strengthening of Farmer Organizations / Cooperatives able to sustain key services has to be considered as a core objective From the moment when the role of a Farmer Group / Organization has been identified as essential for the success and sustainability of a specific action of the project, the strengthening of this FG/FO has to be considered as an objective of the project. Saying this means that:

Farmer Organizations / Groups have to take an active role (and even, if possible, the leadership) in the implementation of the CCA activities they have agreed on.

Adequate means and resources have to be allocated for the strengthening of the organizations (an activity of the project in itself);

Progresses made in term of capacities of the group have to be monitored with specific indicators.

3.1.1. On-the-job capacities development

On-the job training is the most effective way to strengthen the capacities of Farmer Organizations and develop, in the same time, concrete activities and services to their members which help to build the FO legitimacy and to strengthen member trust. This approach shall be given the priority. In practice, it means that the project shall give a sense of responsibilities to FO leaders, and that a number of tasks can be assigned to the FO in the implementation of the action plan, and this number of tasks shall be progressively growing.

Box 4: How to involve FO in implementation: Example - FO led action-research One objective of the project is to test adaptation alternatives at a pilot scale, and based on that “to generate a series of lessons learned and best practices”12. It is important to associate farmers in an action-research process, i.e. that farmers are not just cultivating demonstration plots, but are associated in the discussion of technical options, in the identification of hypothesis, and in the analysis of results, using this process to stimulate an exchange among the farmers participating in the operation. Practically, in the early stages of the process, the technical field officer in charge shall take time to discuss with the farmers involved in the group:

1) The hypothesis of the experimentation: What is the innovation that is tested? What are the improvements we believe it should bring? Are these improvement expected to be visible in any situation, or only in the occurrence of a particular situation (flood or drought, for instance)?

2) The conditions of the implementation of the trials: what has to be changed between the different experimentation plots, and what shall be similar in all the plots so that we are able to compare the results.

3) The indicators to assess results: what will have to be assessed / measured at the end of the experimentation (based on the hypothesis we have made)?

During (and/or at the end) of the implementation of the field tests, farmers have to take part in the monitoring of the implementation (compliance with the conditions defined), in the measurement of indicators and in the interpretation and discussion of results.

12 IRAS project document, p.35.


20

The main job of the project staff is thereof not to implement for the farmers the defined actions for agriculture adaptation, but to help and supervise the FO leaders and members to undertake these tasks by themselves. On the other hand, the importance of this technical support and “coaching” (and the investment of time it requires) shall not be minimized. It is not sufficient to tell farmers “this is what you have to do”. The question that has to be addressed with the farmers (and in particular with the FO leaders) is “how” they can implement the tasks they are responsible for.

3.1.2. Monitoring the development of FO capacities

It is essential to have a regular and participative monitoring of the progresses made by the Farmer Organization. With guidance from the project support team, each FO shall periodically assess its situation and results, acknowledge the progresses made regarding its own capacities, and identify the remaining weaknesses to address. This last point shall be used in order to plan additional support required to pursue the development of the organization: a target situation to be reached within the next 6 or 12 months can be described, enhancing the capacities that shall be strengthened and the inputs (capacity building / supports…) needed to achieve this objective. Then the situation shall be evaluated again after this 6 to 12 months period. This dynamic and iterative use of participatory monitoring of progresses has proven to be very stimulating and efficient in contexts similar to Laos.

In practice Indicators have to be developed (in consultation with FO leaders) to monitor these progresses.

IRAS M&E indicators shall not be only technical, but also organizational (to measure the ability of the local organization supported to take over the services which need to be sustained). For instance, if we take the case of the promotion of flood tolerant varieties, the indicator shall not only be the number of farmers using flood tolerant varieties, but also the capacity to sustain an efficient service of seed supply for these varieties.

Different practical tools can be adapted from other experiences for this purpose, such as the two following examples:

The “criteria method” developed by Agronomes et Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (AVSF) in Cambodia13.

A basic tool more specifically developed for the monitoring of WUA capacities and planning support (Initially developed in Cambodia, on Prey Nup Polders project, then used for other irrigation schemes in Cambodia, and proposed to the DoI in Laos in 2010) – This tool is presented in Annex 2 of this report.

3.2. Farmers contributions: a guarantee for ownership Another important consideration to ensure the ownership of farmers on the proposed action is to require their contribution to the implementation costs. If actions are fully subsidized by the project, it is possible that they are selected by opportunism (“it costs nothing, so we take and

13 See AVSF (2012), “Scoring Criteria: a participative method to evaluate and strengthen Farmer Organizations – Application Guidelines”, AVSF, Methodology document.


21

we’ll see”) rather than because of a true interest of farmers. A reasonable amount of contribution (in cash or in kind) shall be required from the beneficiaries. The level of subsidy can of course be much higher for expensive and collective investments (such as development or upgrading of irrigation infrastructure), and more limited for inputs that goes directly to individual farmers (e.g. seeds distributed to farmers). The cooperative model is particularly relevant to enhance the farmer contribution and sharing of resources as it is based on the principle of shares of capital own by members. According to the Art.37 of the Decree on cooperatives (No: 136/PM14), “each member should have at least one share and no more than 20 per cent of the whole shares” of cooperatives capital.

Topic for Discussion 1: The question of the level of financial / material support from the project and of the farmers’ contribution: case of on-farm trial

Description of the case: A group of farmer (even informal) makes the decision to test a new rice variety (or another technical innovation), but decides that the test shall be made only on 2 or 3 farms among the farmer members of the group. The project can provide the technical support + a certain level of material support (subsidy, for instance the seeds). But the project may also ask the farmers to make a contribution.

Our recommendation would be that even the farmers who are member of the group but who will not implement the trial on their own farm are asked to contribute a symbolic amount (even as small as 1,000 or 2,000 Kip per farmer, and not necessarily corresponding to a direct expenditure: the group, if formalized enough, can keep this money to be used later for other purpose). The reason that could justify such a contribution is that the group as a whole would be considered as the beneficiary of the operation, and not only the farmer who implement the trial. To ask a symbolic contribution from the group members make this understanding readable for all of them. The farmers who have contributed know that the ones who are implementing the trial are doing this for the whole group and are accountable to the group for the good implementation of the trial. And it is very likely that, because they have contributed, the other farmers will pay more attention to the results of the experimentation. Last, this contribution and the fact that the operation is seen as supervised by the group and benefiting to the group as a whole will contribute to shape the farmer group and to make members see and acknowledge concrete services and benefit that they are getting from being part of it.

In practice

Request a contribution of farmers to cover the costs of implementation of the proposed action.

Level of contribution required shall be higher when farmers receive inputs or equipment directly for their individual farm, than when the input or equipment is not individually owned.

… but think about mechanisms to cover the risks taken by farmers when experimenting innovation with no guarantee of results.

14 See Report #1 of this mission “Analysis of conditions for Farmer Organizations and Cooperatives from a viewpoint of Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, and recommendations for improvements”, page 9.


22

3.3. FO Networking and Exposure to various experiences

3.3.1. Networking between FO/FG

At local level

There are a huge number of possible actions for Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change that can be implemented by farmers and Farmer Organizations. The support (by IRAS project and possibly by other programs or agencies) to Farmer/FO led action research will result in a large range of experiences. The efficiency of these efforts will be significantly increased if Farmers and in particular FO leaders have the opportunity to exchange and learn from each other. Networking, exposure visits, or possibly newsletters can play an important role to disseminate these experiences (in particular the most successful ones… but there are also lessons to be learnt from failures).

In practice

Once some AA2CC pilot activities have started to be implemented and to bear fruits, organize exchange visits between the supported FO, in a same district or within a target province (preferably between FOs who are in comparable agro-ecological situations and are exposed to the same kind of risks).

In a longer term (and with a more ambitious vision), networking between farmer groups or organizations can lead to concrete partnerships and solidarities. For instance it could be possible to imagine that reserve funds (or security stocks of rice) are mutualized. It can be particularly relevant if it covers areas exposed to different kind of hazards (i.e. not necessarily affected at the same time).

At national level

A connection of the most advanced FOs supported by IRAS with the embryo of Farmer Organization network that starts to be established (in relation with the Sub-working group on Farmer and Agribusiness and with supports from Helvetas and LEAP project) could be interesting and would also be a way to include climate change adaptation in the agenda of this network and of the sub-working group.

In practice

Get in touch with the embryo of FO network15 supported by Helvetas / LEAP project to assess the possibility to include CCA as a topic for exchange discussion in this network (in particular if this network is expected to be sustained and formalized).

The NGOs and NPAs have an important role to play to facilitate the networking between Farmer Organizations and contribute to the empowerment of networks or possibly federation of FOs, as civil society actors.

The government shall also encourage and formally recognize these emerging networks / federations or unions of farmer organizations and consider them as a relevant interlocutor to be involved in the discussion of strategies, policies and regulation.

15 The Farmer Organization Conference, which has recently (in August 2012) produced a document called « Farmer’s Statement ».


23

In Cambodia, the Farmer and Nature Network is an interesting illustration of networking experience among Farmer Organizations (see Box 5 below).

Box 5: Example of the Farmer and Nature Network (FNN) in Cambodia The Farmer and Nature Network (FNN) is a national network of Farmer Organizations initiated and supported by CEDAC (Center for Agricultural and Development Studies in Cambodia). The FNN was founded in 2003 and gathers nowadays more than 1,100 Farmer Groups or Organizations. The FNN promote environment friendly practices in agriculture, serve as a forum to share experiences among FO and plays a role of advocacy for Farmer Organizations. The FNN has also some activities to increase FO leaders’ awareness about climate change and promote agricultural practices that contribute to the adaptation to climate change and to CC mitigation as well, such as the development of multi-purpose farms for instance.

3.3.2. Linkages with research institutions

IRAS project document stresses that “Agricultural research and development should be better integrated for practical utilization on the ground, opening up a wider range of options for the farmer.”16 The support process to Farmer Organizations and Farmer Groups can contribute to strengthen this linkage. Research Institutions (in particular the different public research centers under NAFRI) can contribute with their inputs in the identification of possible options for agriculture adaptation. Ideally, the feedback from FO/FG shall also be considered in the development of demand-driven research programs. The creation of networks of Farmer Groups and Organization at the district, provincial or national level can strongly contribute to ease this dialog between farmers and researchers.

In practice

Propose to research centers to take part in the discussions with farmers on the possible measures and strategies to adapt agriculture to Climate Change;

Organize forum of discussion within provincial or national networks of FO, to exchange on FO experiences and success and dialog with the research institutions.

16 IRAS Project Document, page14.


Annexes


i

Annex 1: References of relevant documentation Adaptation Knowledge Platform for Asia (2011), “Desktop study on Assessment of Capacity Gaps and Needs of

South East Asia Countries in addressing Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Variability and Climate Change, AIT-UNEP RRC.AP 2011, Bangkok.

Agrisud International (2010), “Agroecology best practices – Guide, 2010 Edition”, Agrisud International, Libourne (France), 188 p. (http://www.agrisud.org/AS_eGuide2010_En/as_eguide2010bis_en.html).

Altieri M.A., Koohafkan P. (2008), “Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities”, Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia, 63 p.

AVSF (2012), “Scoring Criteria: a participative method to evaluate and strengthen Farmer Organizations – Application Guidelines”, AVSF, Methodology document, January 2012.

Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (2008) “Climate Change: Causes, Impacts and Possible Responses in Asian Agriculture”, Issue Paper Volume 1, Number 1, Quezon, October 2008.

Birchall J., Ketilson L.-H. (2009), “Resilience of the Cooperative Business Model in Times of Crisis”, ILO

Birkmann, Joern et al. (2009): “Addressing the Challenge: Recommendations and Quality Criteria for Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change”. In: Birkmann, Joern, Tetzlaff, Gerd, Zentel, Karl-Otto (eds.) DKKV Publication Series 38, Bonn.

Brun J.-M. (2011), “Mainstreaming of actions in support to Farmer Water User Community under North West Irrigation Sector Project (Cambodia): Statement, lessons learnt and follow-up support”, MOWRAM, Phnom Penh, October 2011.

Castella Jean-Christophe, Bounthanom Bouahom, Anousith Keophoxay, Linkham Douangsavanh (2010), “Managing the transition from farmers’ groups to agricultural cooperatives in Lao PDR”.

CES (2008), “Irrigation Diagnostic Study – Final report vol. 1”, MAFF / DoI & PCADR (AFD), Vientiane, January 2008.

CES (2008), “Irrigation Diagnostic Study – Final report vol. 2”, MAFF / DoI & PCADR (AFD), Vientiane, January 2008.

Darnhofer I., Bellon S., Dedieu B., Milestad R. (2008), “Adaptive farming systems – A position paper”, 8th European IFSA Symposium, 6 -10 July 2008, Clermont-Ferrand (France), pp. 339-351.

“Department of Agricultural Extension and Cooperatives”, presentation delivered by Mr Souvanthong Namvong during the meeting of the Sub Working Group on Farmer and Agribusiness, in DAEC, on September 18, 2012.

Farmers’ Conference on Farmers’ Organizations (2012) “Farmers’ Statement”, Vientiane, August 8-10 2012.

“Farmer Organisations: up to the job”, Farming Matters n°28.3, ILEIA, Wageningen ,September 2012.

Foley Sean (2009), “Growing resilience: Adapting for Climate Change in Upland Laos – Main report”, Norwegian Church Aid, November 2009.

Folkard Adam, Bountheing Virvong, Connell John G., Viengxai Photakhoun (2011) “Farmer Organizations: Opportunities, Constraints and Pathways for Development”, Report for the Sub-Working Group on Farmers and Agribusiness (SWGAB), November 2011.

Ghestem E., Berton S., “Cycle d’apprentissage pour la diffusion des pratiques agro-écologiques”, Agrisud International, PANA-ASA (Adaptation du Secteur Agricole au Changement Climatique), Kimpese, Province du Bas Congo, RD Congo, mai 2011.

GRET (Philippe Rousseau, Jean-Marie Brun, Leokham Thammalat) (2010), “Public Management of Irrigated Agriculture Support Services in Lao PDR - Synthesis report”, GRET / MAF/DoI / AFD, Vientiane, September 2010.

IFAP (2010), “Climate Change: Farmers’ Solutions”, The Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change, 31 October – 05 November 2010.


ii

Johnston R.M., Hoanh C.T., Lacombe G., Noble A.N., Smakhtin V., Suhardiman D. Kam S.P., Choo P.S. (2009) “Scoping Study on Natural Resources and Climate Change in Southeast Asia with a Focus on Agriculture – Final report”, prepared by IWMI for SIDA, Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), December 2009, 107 p.

Johnston R.M., Hoanh C.T., Lacombe G., Noble A.N., Smakhtin V., Suhardiman D. Kam S.P., Choo P.S. (2010) “Rethinking agriculture in the Greater Mekong Subregion: how to sustainably meet food needs, enhance ecosystem services and cope with climate change”, Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 26 p. (doi:10.3910/2010.207).

Kemp M. (2012), “Up to their necks: a short and anecdotal study of indebtedness in selected farming villages”, Summary report, LEAP/SWGAB.

Lamballe P., Castellanet C. (2003), “La recherche-action en milieu paysan : méthodes et outils – Expériences au Vietnam et au Cambodge”, GRET, Paris, 2003.

Lasco RD., Habito CMD., Delfino RJP., Pulhin FB, Conception RN (2011), “Climate Change Adaptation for Smallholder Farmers in Southeast Asia”, World Agroforestry Centre, Philippines, 65p.

LEAP (2010), “Farmers’ Voices”, LEAP (SDC/Helvetas/NAFES), Vientiane, June 2010.

MAF (2010) “Agricultural Master Plan 2011 to 2015”, Final Draft, Vientiane, 15 September 2010.

MAF (2010) “Strategy for Agricultural Development 2011-2020”, Final Draft, Vientiane, 15 September 2010.

MAF (2010) “Vision and strategy for developing Farmer Organizations”, Presentation, dated 12 March 2010.

MAF and NLMA, “Manual: Participatory Agriculture and Forest Land use Planning at Village and Village Cluster level”, Vientiane, March 2010.

Meas Chanty, Jean-Marie Brun et al. (2008) “The agricultural development of the Prey Nup polders: an Action-Research and agricultural extension experience”, GRET Cambodia, Phnom Penh, 2008.

MRC (2009) “Adaptation to climate change in the countries of the Lower Mekong Basin: regional synthesis report”. MRC Technical Paper No. 24. Mekong River Commission, Vientiane. 89 pp.

NAFRI (2012), “Handbook on Participatory Land Use Planning: Methods and Tools developed and tested in Viengkham District, Luang Prabang province”, NAFRI-IRD-CIFOR, Vientiane, Lao PDR.

“NAPA -National Adaptation Programme of Action to Climate Change” (2009), Lao PDR, April 2009.

OXFAM (2009), “People-Centred Resilience: working with vulnerable farmers toward climate change adaptation and food security”, Oxfam briefing paper 135, November 2009.

Prime Minister Office (2009) “Decree on Associations No: 115/PM”, Vientiane, 29 April 2009.

Prime Minister Office (2010) “Decree on Cooperative No: 136/PM”, Vientiane, 05 March 2010.

Schipper L., Liu W., Krawanchid D., Chanthy S. (2010), “Review of Climate Change Adaptation Methods and Tools”. MRC Technical Paper No. 34., Mekong River Commission, Vientiane December 2010.

Sherwood S. and Bentley J., “Katalysis: helping farmers adapt to climate change”, in IIED, “Participatory learning and action 60 – Community-based adaptation to climate change”, London 2009 (p.65 to 75).

Somsay Sisanonh (2012), “Support to Farmers Organizations”, Presentation at SWG ANR policy briefing meeting on 4

th July 2012.

Sterrett Charlotte (2011), “Review of Climate Change Adaptation Practices in South Asia”, OXFAM research report, Oxford, November 2011.

“Strategy on Climate Change of the Lao PDR”, March 2010.

The Montpellier Panel (2012), “Growth with Resilience: Opportunities in African Agriculture”, London: Agriculture for Impact.

UNDP, “Improving the Resilience of the Agriculture Sector in Lao PDR to Climate Change Impacts”, IRAS project document.

Wettasinha C., Waters-Bayer A. (2012), “Strengthening local adaptive capacity – the key to sustainability in the face of Climate Change”, GFAR (Global Forum on Agricultural Research), 05/2012.


iii

Annex 2: Example of tool used to monitor the development of WUA capacities and abilities to undertake required tasks

Quoted from: GRET (Philippe Rousseau, Jean-Marie Brun, Leokham Thammalat), “Public Management of Irrigated Agriculture Support Services in Lao PDR - Synthesis report”, GRET / MAF/DoI / AFD, Vientiane, September 2010. Initial source: Jean-Marie Brun, “Support to Stung Chinit FWUC overall management and post-project preparation – Part 1: Assessment of FWUC capacities”, GRET, November 2007. Irrigation Management Transfer, weither full or partial, is a process that requires time. The arrangements regarding the sharing of responsibilities may be considered as ambitious at the time they are negotiated. In the early years of this IMT process, the definition of WUA functions has to be considered as objectives. It is understood that users, on their own, may not be able to undertake and finance all the required tasks alone, and that they need support to develop their capacity over a period of 3 to 5 years. This being agreed, in order to achieve these objectives, it is important to monitor the progress of the Water Users Association (or Group) toward this objective of autonomy. The following tools have been elaborated and used by GRET in Cambodia, first in the case of Prey Nup polders, then in the case of Stung Chinit irrigation and rural infrastructure project. As an example, we present the series of tables below, taken from a mission report for Stung Chinit Irrigation and Rural Infrastructure Project (Jean-Marie Brun, “Support to Stung Chinit FWUC overall management and post-project preparation - Part 1: Assessment of FWUC capacities”, GRET, November 2007). The tables below list the main tasks for each kind of functions required to manage the scheme, assess if the required tools have been developed or not, characterize the level of autonomy of the Water User Association in the implementation of the tasks, and identify, for each of them, who decides, who implements, who finances, who controls the implementation. In the example shown below, what is described is the current situation, at the time the tables were filled (in this case in 2007). What can be done at the same time, at the end of this assessment, is to flag the expected situation one year after: this is a way to benchmark the situation and define precise and verifiable objectives for the capacity building of the WUA for the following year. (It has to be underlined that this exercise has to be done with (or even by) the WUA leaders, in a very participative way). Then, one year after, the same exercise will be done. The progresses will be measured, and compared to the objectives. Whenever objectives are not fully reached, it is important to face that results are below the objective, and to understand why the objective has not been achieved. This process has proven to be very fruitful (in the case of Prey Nup polders, in particular), because it allows to understand the gaps (for instance, a lack of time, or a lack of specific competencies...), and to make the relevant decision to solve this the following year. The following tables, presented as illustrative examples, go through the main functions of the Water Users Organization:

- Operation of the scheme (table A),

- Maintenance of the scheme (table B),

- Collection of Irrigation Service Fees and Enforcement of internal rules (table C). Note that, in the tables below, FWUC stands for “Farmer Water Users Community” which is the official denomination of Water User Organizations in Cambodia. MOWRAM stands for Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (which is the line ministry in charge of irrigation), and PDOWRAM for Provincial Department of Water Resources and Meteorology.


iv

Table A: Statement on the FWUC capacities regarding operation of the scheme

Functions

- Tasks

Procedures / Tools Implementation Situation in 2007

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls h

av

e b

een

dev

elo

pp

ed

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls h

av

e b

een

tes

ted

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls h

av

e b

een

“p

oli

shed

”

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

pro

ject

wit

h p

art

icip

ati

on

of

FW

UC

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

FW

UC

wit

h s

up

po

rt o

f th

e p

ro

ject

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

FW

UC

wit

h m

on

ito

rin

g o

f th

e p

roje

ct

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

FW

UC

wit

ho

ut

pro

ject

inte

rven

tio

n (

as

a

“ro

uti

ne”

)

Dec

isio

n m

ak

ing

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Fin

an

cin

g

Co

ntr

ol

Operation

- Definition of the service Yes Yes F(a)

P+F P

- Preparation of operation

plan

Yes Yes On

going

P+F F P P

- Disseminate plans to

users

Yes Yes No F+P

AL

P

- Coordinate with

PDOWRAM for main PC

operation

Yes Yes On

going

P+F

+M

F+P P

- Operate SC gates Yes Yes On

going

F F P F

- Monitor water in the SC

and TC

Yes Yes No F F P F(b)

- Monitor drains Yes Yes No F F P

- Facilitation of discussion

and decision making on

the adjustment of water

levels in TD and SD

Yes Yes P P+F

- Adjust water level in TD

and SD.

Yes Yes No F+P F+P P

- Mobilize farmers to

build and maintain QC

Yes Yes No P LA P P

P = Project ; F = FWUC ; LA = Local Authorities ; M = MOWRAM or PDOWRAM (a)

The organization of the definition of the service was mainly driven by the project before the irrigation campaign 2007,

but the FWUC has already handled the same process for irrigation campaign 2008: a meeting took place on November 16,

2007, during which decision was taken on the service FWUC will implement in 2008. (b)

FWUC board check records from VR


v

Table B: Statement on the FWUC capacities regarding maintenance of the scheme

Functions

- Tasks


Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls h

av

e b

een

dev

elo

pp

ed

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls h

av

e b

een

tes

ted

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls h

av

e b

een

“p

oli

shed

”

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

pro

ject

wit

h p

art

icip

ati

on

of

FW

UC

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

FW

UC

wit

h s

up

po

rt o

f th

e p

ro

ject

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

FW

UC

wit

h m

on

ito

rin

g o

f th

e p

roje

ct

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

FW

UC

wit

ho

ut

pro

ject

inte

rven

tio

n (

as

a

“ro

uti

ne”

)

Dec

isio

n m

ak

ing

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Fin

an

cin

g

Co

ntr

ol

Maintenance

- Inspection of

infrastructure and

planning of maintenance

Yes Yes F+P F+P P

- Planning of maintenance

and prioritization

Yes Yes F+P F+P P

- Implementation of

routine maintenance on

structures

Yes Yes

F+P F+P P

- Implementation of

labour based maintenance

works on earth works

Yes Yes F+P F+P P P+F

- Implementation of heavy

reparation on earth works

No(a)

No No

- Implementation of heavy

reparation on structures

No No No

- Sub contracting to local

companies

No No No (b)

P F+P P F+P

- Works control No No No (b)

F+P P

P = Project ; F = FWUC ; LA = Local Authorities ; M = MOWRAM or PDOWRAM (a)

A manual for maintenance has been prepared (by D. Haezebrouck), but, according to the WUCO team, the references are

based on the “theoretical” design and not on the actual shaping of the infrastructures. There is a lack of references (such as

canal profiles, topographic normative cotes, etc) for the actual scheme. (b)

This line is based on the experience of sub-contracting for the digging of a trench to drain out the water from Kai Ta

reservoir.


vi

Table C: Statement on the FWUC capacities regarding ISF collection and enforcement of internal rules

Functions

- Tasks


Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls h

av

e b

een

dev

elo

pp

ed

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls h

av

e b

een

tes

ted

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls h

av

e b

een

“p

oli

shed

”

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

pro

ject

wit

h p

art

icip

ati

on

of

FW

UC

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

FW

UC

wit

h s

up

po

rt o

f th

e p

ro

ject

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

FW

UC

wit

h m

on

ito

rin

g o

f th

e p

roje

ct

Pro

ced

ure

s /

too

ls a

re o

per

ate

d b

y t

he

FW

UC

wit

ho

ut

pro

ject

inte

rven

tio

n (

as

a

“ro

uti

ne”

)

Dec

isio

n m

ak

ing

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Fin

an

cin

g

Co

ntr

ol

ISF Collection

- Management and

updating of database

No No No P P P

- Invoicing No No No P P P

- Fee collection On

going

No No F+P F P

- Monitoring of fee

collection progress

On

going

No No F+P P

- Enforcement of fee

collection (when fee is not

paid on time)

On

going

No No (-)

- Application of penalties

for late payment

Principle

only F No

- Control of payments and

money transfer

No No No F P

Enforcement of internal rules

- Definition of internal

rules

Yes No F F P

- Inform users about

internal rules

Yes No P F+P P

- Monitoring the respect of

rules

No No No

- Take action against

infringements

No No No

- Monitor the enforcement

system

No No No

P = Project ; F = FWUC ; LA = Local Authorities ; M = MOWRAM or PDOWRAM

Source: Jean-Marie Brun, “Support to Stung Chinit FWUC overall management and post-project preparation – Part 1: Assessment of FWUC capacities”, GRET, November 2007.

Documents

Lao People’s Democratic Republic - adaptation …adaptation-undp.org/...support_farmer_organizations_iras_november_2… · Lao People's Democratic Republic ... the technical assistance