Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A MULTI –LEVEL PARTICIPATORY
EVALUATION IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY:
The ACDI / VOCA Philippines ExperienceOrlen C. Ocleasa
Presented at the European Evaluation Society (EES) 2010 International Conference , Clarion Congress Hotel,
Prague, Czech Republic
Participatory Process
• Stakeholders –share influence, control , decisions
and resources.
• Includes planning, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation.
• Participatory M&E- beneficiaries identify their own
sets of success indicators, monitors the progress
and assess impacts.
Participatory M&E in the Philippines
• Implemented usually by NGOs project implementers.
• Not practiced by the local government units (LGUs) &
government agencies.
• Not mandated and required by many donors.
• Although project management and implementing
contractors made their own initiatives to implement
An experience with IFAD project
• Western Mindanao Community Initiative Projects (WMCIP), a 6 year
IFAD & Philippine government project.
• PM&E was installed after mission recommendation.
• It started with capacity building training of staff.
• Deployment of trained staff to villages.
• Gathered data on outcomes and emerging impacts.
• Demonstrated to the village development councils for adoption.
• It was not sustained , not enough time to build up capacitation since
the project was about to end.
The
ACDI / VOCA
Approach
SUCCESS Alliance
Philippines Project Phase II
• A three year project for 15,000 small holders cocoa farmers
• Funded by USDA to a sum of $2.6million
• Co-implemented in the Philippines by the Cocoa Foundation of the
Philippines , MARS, Word Cocoa Foundation and local partners
• Targeting 19 Provinces in 6 regions including the poorest and
conflict-affected areas
• The SA II aimed to :
- improve the quantity and quality of smallholder grown cocoa in
the Philippines
- to establish a regular source of income for cocoa farmers
- promote prosperity amongst smallholder farmers
- enhance the cocoa value chain in the Philippines
•
SUCCESS Alliance
Philippines Project Phase II
After the three years, the project :
- trained and supported 14,405 farmers.
- developed and deployed 179 Trainers and Extension
Agents.
- formed 200 Cacao Clubs.
- established 138 Nurseries & Clone Gardens.
- distributed 858,070 seedlings.
- established 29 demo farms with farmers study tours , installed 20 Post Harvest Facilities.
- developed and advocated the Philippines Bean Standards.
- conducted a series of market development fora, workshops and exhibitions.
- installed a participatory monitoring and evaluation supported by geographic information system.
SUCCESS Alliance
Philippines Project Phase II
Figure 1: Showing the Structure of SUCCESS Alliance
Philippines Project Phase II Implementation
FIELD FRONT LINERS (Farmers’ Training Facilitators & Extension Workers
FARMERS
(In cooperatives or individuals)
LOCAL PARTNERS (L ex. GUs , NGOs & Coops.)
MAIN IMPLEMENTING PARTNER: CocoaPhil
ACDI/VOCASUPPORTING PARTNERS: WCF,
MARS
Donor: USDA
Participatory Evaluation
1.Traditional - different types of stakeholders are gathered in one setting to
evaluate the project status and results.
2. Multi-level Approach- .”Multi-level” means that each group or type of
stakeholders was gathered separately to assess the quality of the project
and its interventions.
The different groups of stakeholders assess the project in a separate
setting and time
Feedback and other data gathered are consolidated and brought up to the
next level.
Process: PAR FARM
Participants: FarmersLEVEL 1
Process: Joint Field Assessment
Participants: Field Front liners (Farmers Trainers and Extension workers)
Process: Stakeholders’ Participatory Assessment (SPA)
Participants: Local Partners (NGOs, LGUs, Coops), Suppliers, Cooperators
Process: Participatory Project Review & Planning
Participants: Main project partners implementers such as the ACDI/VOCA & CocoaPhil
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
Figure 2: Showing the Participatory Evaluation Level, Processes
and Participants
Level 1: Participatory Farmers’ Adoption &
Results Monitoring (PAR FARM)
1. Get feedback/assessment direct from the beneficiaries.
2. Determine the reception and adoption activities of the farmers
3. Enable the farmers to reflect on the changes that have occurred in their
daily activities, households and farms.
4. Capture recommendations from the farmers to enhance the project
interventions
5. Encourage farmers to participate in assessing /evaluating development
interventions and services
Circle of Change Value Chain Players
Venn Diagrammming
Farm Mapping
FFS Assessment
Typical
PAR FARM session
setting
Farmers' Evaluation on the TFs' Teaching Effectiveness
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
North Luzon South
Luzon
Palawan Panay Western
Mindanao
Davao Over All
Areas
Percen
tag
e o
f F
arm
ers
Effective Moderate Needs Improvement
Farmers' Over All Ratings on the Conduct of FFS
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
North
Luzon
South
Luzon
Palawan Panay Western
Mindanao
Davao Over All
Areas
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
of F
arm
ers
Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Moderate Needs Improvement Useless
Farmers' Views on Length of FFS Training (one year)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
North Luzon South Luzon Palawan Panay Western
Mindanao
Davao Over All
Areas
Percen
tag
e o
f F
arm
ers
Too Long Just Enough Lacking
Figure 3: Flow of information in a standard monitoring system
Donor
Lead Implementer
Local implementing partner
Extension agent
Farmer
Data Filtering &
Leakage
Data Filtering &
Leakage
Data Filtering &
Leakage
Figure 4: Flow of information in PAR FARM / Farmers Voice
Donor
Lead Implementer
Local implementing partner
Extension agent
Farmer
Level 2: Joint Field Assessment of Front liners
1.Quarterly gathering of field front liners (Trainers & Extension agents)
2. The field front liners presented the progress in the areas.
3. Discussion of problems, issues and concerns (PICs) and possible
solutions
4. Unresolved PICs were recorded and were be brought up to the higher
management level by their supervisors.
5. Front liners learned from each other
Reporting Consolidation and Trend
Assessment
Discussion of Problems ,
Issues and ConcernsPlan Reviews &
Adjustments
Level 3: Stakeholders Participatory Assessment (SPA)
The conduct of these series of SPA enabled the stakeholders to:
1. Confirm/validate the progress of the different components of the project
implemented by different local partners
2. Review & update the compliance of commitments in MOU and contracts
3. Bring forward problems, issues and concerns of different stakeholders and discuss
possible solutions and identify those which needs to be raised to higher project
management level for decisions or policy formulation
4. Obtain the views and feedback of stakeholders implementation strategies and
activities
5. Evaluate important implementation aspect.
6. Gather stakeholders and enabled them to get to know each other more.
7. Enable them to participate and raise their voice
Interactive
ReportingProblems ,
Issues &
Concerns
Commitment Review Performance Evaluation
Graph 4: Stakeholders' Ratings on
Fund Releases
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Dav
ao
WesM
in
Palaw
an
Nor
th L
uzon
OVERALL
Areas
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Re
sp
on
de
nts
Good Moderate but Needs Improvement Poor
Graph 5: Stakeholders' Ratings on
Administration of Logistics Support
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Dav
ao
WesM
in
Palawan
Nor
th L
uzon
OVERALL
Areas
Per
cen
tag
e o
f
Res
po
nd
ents
Good Moderate but Needs Improvement Poor
Graph 2: Comparison SA II Stakeholders Satisfaction
during Midterm & End of project
74%
48% 49%
16%
30%
45%
60%72%
60%
47%
23%32%
46%
66%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
1. Over All
Conduct &
facilitation of
Activities
2. Communication
Efficiency
3. Field
Coordination
4. Fund Release 5. Provision of
Logistics
6. Compliance to
Commitment,
MOUs &
Contracts
7. Relationship as
Partner
Implementation Aspects
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
Sa
tis
fie
d
Midterm End of project
Level 4: Participatory Project Planning & Review
Workshop (PPRW)1. An annual assessment of the project progress, constraints and
bottlenecks at the higher management level.
2. This activity is a workshop process which reviewed the inter–
personal relationships, cooperation, coordination and progress in
program and project implementation and management.
3. Issues raised and achievements were considered in light of project
progress and constraints.
4. Planning for the next year: what, where, how, cost and special
projects’ role.
5. Methodology included workshops, group discussions, plenary
presentations & sharing and use of survey instruments.
COP Nic Richards Presents some Analysis Progress Reports & PICS presented by partner
External Facilitator facilitated the workshop
Same external Facilitator facilitated the workshop
the following year for continuity
Advantages of MLPE1. Participants are more open to express their problems and
concerns because they feel they are at the same status
2. Feeling of superiority and inferiority are minimized
3. Can easily level off and view the issues at the same angle.
4. Lesser debates and more focus on the particular sector
5. Problems and Issues can easily be addressed
6. Can help in decision making and improvements of projects
Challenges
1. It entails cost
2. Requires more time and effort
3. More work for staff
4. Good facilitators are needed
5. Location / Venue
6. Participants- silent & meek, the loud, copy
cats
Figure 6: Showing how the Multi-Level Participatory Evaluation was
applied or its inputs used in the different major evaluations and
next/future project development
Multi-Level Participatory (MLP) Evaluation
MIDTERM REVIEW using MLPE
END OF PROJECT EVALUATION using MLPE
EXTERNAL EVALUATION (Independent Body)
NEXT or FUTURE PROJECTS
Lessons Learned
1. People are more open and expressive if they are in
company of people whom they consider as of the same
level or same status
2. Feedbacks and assessments made by different
stakeholders at different levels can still be consolidated
, linked and analyzes into one project evaluation
3. Homogenous groups are less prone to domination and
time consuming debates
ConclusionsStakeholders can:
1. Evaluate the other groups of stakeholders
2. Assess the performance of the project implementers at different
level
3. Express their satisfaction on the delivery of the interventions
/services provided
4. Identify problems and issues and
5. Respond to the problems and issues raised
6. Realize emerging outcomes and impacts
At the end of the day , our
main concerns are……
not just RESULTS
but also
the Stakeholders’
SATISFACTION
especially
the farmers….
http://www.aline.org.uk
Or see Johanna Lindstrom here at EES
A MULTI –LEVEL PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION
IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY:
THE ACDI / VOCA PHILIPPINES EXPERIENCE
By Orlen C. Ocleasa
A paper presented at the 9th European Evaluation Society International Conference, October 6 - 8, 2010, Prague, Czech Republic
List of Acronyms
AC Area Coordinator
CocoaPhil Cocoa Foundation of the Philippines
COP Chief of Party
DA Department of Agriculture
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
EA Extension Agent
FFS Farmer Field School
FT Field Technician
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
LGU Local Government Unit
MCDC Mars Cacao Development Center
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NO Nursery Operator
PA Provincial Agriculturist
Par FARM Participatory Farmers’ Adoption and Results Monitoring
PIC Problem, Issues & Concern
PO People’s Organization
PP Project Partner
PPRW Participatory Project Planning & Review Workshop
SA2 SUCCESS Alliance-Philippines 2 Project
SPA Stakeholders’ Participatory Assessment
SUCCESS Sustainable Cocoa Extension Services for Smallholders
TF Training Facilitator
TOT Training of Trainers
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USM University of Southern Mindanao
WCF World Cocoa Foundation
ABSTRACT
This paper presents an experience in Participatory Evaluation in the Philippines with the ACDI/VOCA
SUCCESS Alliance Philippines Project Phase II.
Participatory Evaluation has been practiced by several development organizations and some donors now
require the application of this method in the project evaluation.
In the Philippines, donors like the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and others have programs
and projects adopting such methodology. The International Fund for Agricultural development (IFAD) is a
strong advocate for participatory monitoring and evaluation, thus IFAD projects in the Philippines have
applied participatory evaluation by stakeholders.
A Multi-Level Participatory Evaluation was implemented by ACDI/VOCA in the Philippines.”Multi-level”
means that each group or type of stakeholders was gathered separately to assess the quality of the
project and its interventions. This is an innovation from the traditional stakeholder participatory
evaluation model where all the different types of stakeholders are gathered in one setting to assess the
project status. Instead, the different groups of stakeholders assess the project in a separate setting and
time.
The homogeneity of the groups enabled the participants to be more open and expressive of their
sentiments, feelings, perceptions, viewpoint, opinions and thoughts, most especially among the farmers
(who are the principal beneficiary of the project). Farmers generally have difficulty expressing themselves
openly when in a mixed audience with other stakeholders that are more educated, with higher social
status and with authority. This process enabled the stakeholders to openly:
1. Evaluate the other groups of stakeholders;
2. Assess the performance of the project implementers;
3. Express their level of satisfaction for the delivery of the interventions or services provided;
4. Identify problems and issues;
5. Respond to the problems and issues raised by other stakeholder groups;
6. Realize emerging outcomes and impacts.
This process led to the improvement of the implementation of the project, better policies and more
effective planning.
I. INTRODUCTION
Stakeholder participation in the development process has been given importance for some
time already by donors and development practitioners and in fact created a specialization
called participatory development.
“Participatory development is a process through which stakeholders can influence and share
control over development initiatives and over the decisions and resources that affect
themselves” – Framework for Mainstreaming Participatory Development processes into
Bank Operations, ADB,1996 as cited by Richard Ondrik in his paper on Participatory
Approaches to National Development Planning.
The concept of the participatory process is to involve beneficiaries and stakeholders in all
aspects of project operations including the planning, implementation, monitoring and
evaluations of the project. Various institutions and organizations around the world have
mobilized beneficiaries to plan and implement their own development process and have
developed various tools to facilitate this that have since evolved. For example: Goal Oriented
Project Planning, ZOPP, Social Gender Analysis (SGA), Participatory Rural Appraisal,
Participatory Action Research (PAR), Participatory Learning & Action (PLA) and many more.
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) involves stakeholders’ beneficiaries
identifying their own success indicators, monitoring the progress of the project and assessing
results and impacts.
In the Philippines, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) has been practiced by
NGO project implementers of funding agencies such as the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) and Asian Development Bank (ADB). These funding
institutions are strong advocates of this practice. There have also been projects funded by
USAID, CIDA, AusAID, European Union, World Bank and others where their implementers
introduced and adopted PM&E.
The IFAD Experience
The Western Mindanao Community Initiative Projects (WMCIP) was a six-year (2000-2006)
project managed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of the Government of the
Philippines and funded by IFAD. The said project aims to uplift the socio economic status of
16,000 farmers in Western Mindanao. It is an integrated project which included community &
institutional development, natural resource management, agricultural productivity
enhancement, infrastructure development, microenterprise development and credit services.
WMCIP implemented a Participatory Impact Monitoring & Evaluation (PIME) system as a
result of recommendations by the UNOPS supervision mission. UNOPS is the oversight
body for IFAD project implementation since IFAD belongs to the UN system.
The PIME was started with a capacity building training event for project staff and field
workers of the partner NGOs and Local Government Units. A two-week staggered training
was conducted with village-based practicum.
Then these staff where deployed to target villages in four provinces and conducted the
PIME. The PIME tools used were established and tested tools designed by various authors
and experts. These included the wealth ranking, participation matrix, Venn diagram, poverty
mapping and others. However, the introduction of the PIME in the project was implemented
towards the end of the project because the UNOPs recommendations arrived after the Mid
Term review.
Hence, aside from gathering data for a subsequent impact assessment, it also aimed to
demonstrate the use of PIME tools to the local village development councils formed by the
WMCIP project so they could adopt the tools and the PIME and install this system to assess
the impact of community projects after the IFAD-WMCIP project completion.
However, it was not sustained because time is not enough to build up appreciation and
capacitation of the beneficiaries since the project is about to end. Thus, the important lesson
learned by the WMCIP project team was that, any participatory M&E should be introduced at
the start of the project.
As a result of this WMCIP experience, this writer introduced an enhanced approached for
participatory M&E for ACDI/VOCA’s USDA-funded SUCCESS Alliance project. .
II. THE ACDI /VOCA APPROACH
A. Background of the Project- SUCCESS Alliance Phase II
The SUCCESS (Sustainable Cocoa Enterprise Solutions for Smallholders) Alliance is a
multi-country program of ACDI/VOCA, whose mission is to improve the livelihoods of
smallholder farmers by promoting cocoa production and marketing in a way that is
economically, environmentally, socially and culturally sustainable. It is or has been
implemented in Vietnam, Indonesia, Ecuador and Liberia. In 2002, the SUCCESS
Alliance was brought into the Philippines in partnership with the Cocoa Foundation of the
Philippines (CocoaPhil) which was Phase I and funded by USAID. ACDI/VOCA
launched the second phase in the Philippines in October 2006, a 3-year, $2.6 million
USDA-funded project. Dubbed as SUCCESS Alliance Philippines Project Phase II or SA
II, it is a partnership of ACDI/VOCA, USDA, MARS Inc, World Cocoa Foundation (WCF)
and CocoaPhil. It ended in October 2009.
1. The SA II overarching goal was to increase income of cocoa small holder farmers,
through promoting a cocoa industry that is socially, economically, environmentally
sustainable
2. improving the quantity and quality of smallholder cocoa production in the Philippines
3. enhancing the adoption of environmentally safe farming and post harvest techniques
and practices. It also sought to enhance the cocoa value chain in the Philippines
The program had three major strategies namely: 1) development and implementation of
a Farmer Training Program; 2) development of effective production and marketing
systems to improve quantity and quality of cocoa in the Philippines; and 3) installation of
an effective project management and administration systems and practices.
SA II covered six geographical areas, namely: Davao Region; Western Mindanao;
Palawan; North Luzon; South Luzon; and, Provinces in the Panay islands. Within these
regions, a total of 19 provinces, 77 municipalities and 460 barangays (villages) were
assisted. . ACDI/VOCA engaged the Cocoa Foundation of the Philippines to be co-
implementer and more local partners were involved such as the national agencies, local
government units, NGOs, Cooperatives and others.
At the end of the After the three years , the project reached 14,405 beneficiaries trained
and deployed 179 Trainers and Extension Agents; formed 200 Cacao Clubs; established
138 Nurseries & Clone Gardens; distributed 858,070 seedlings; rehabilitated more than
400,000 trees, established 29 demo farms with farmers study tours, installed 20 Post
Harvest Facilities;, developed and advocated for the national Philippines Bean Standards
and conducted a series of market development fora, workshops and exhibitions to
promote cocoa industry development .
The SUCCESS Alliance II monitoring and evaluation system consisted of a database,
geographic information systems, under a participatory monitoring and evaluation
approach
Figure 1: Structure of Implementation of SUCCESS Alliance II
FIELD FRONT LINERS (Farmers’ Training
Facilitators & Extension Workers
FARMERS (In cooperatives or
individuals)
LOCAL PARTNERS (Partners based in
the target areas such as the LGUs,
NGOs, line agencies & Coops.)
MAIN IMPLEMENTING PARTNER:
CocoaPhil
ACDI/VOCA SUPPORTING PARTNERS:
WCF, MARS
Donor:
USDA
B. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
ACDI/VOCA believes in the vital role of beneficiaries as partners in development. Under
this principle, all stakeholders should be involved in the planning, implementation and
monitoring and evaluation of the project. At the start of the project, there were six area
consultations conducted where stakeholders participated in project planning particularly
in the identification of project sites. Stakeholders’ participation should not be limited to
planning and implementing but also to monitoring and evaluation.
Multi-Level Participatory Evaluation
A multi-level participatory evaluation was adopted during the midterm evaluation and end
of project evaluation since this writer was on board with the project only near the midterm
period. But it was not the same as the usual stakeholders’ assessment practice where
different stakeholders are gathered in one setting to evaluate the project. In this
approach, the different stakeholder sectors met at different venues and times, and their
outputs, issues and concerns were brought up to the next stakeholder sector. These
sectors by level were: farmers, field workers, cooperatives, NGOs, LGUs, Project Staff,
Project management and others. Sectors such as the farmer beneficiaries are generally
more reluctant to voice out or express their feelings and views in the presence of other
sectors they feel to be superior to them or who have authority over them, such as the
field staff of the NGOs or local government units (LGUs) and other project cooperators.
Even if the tools used will draw out answers discreetly from the participants, the mere
presence or heterogeneity of the assembly will prevent them from being more open.
Likewise field staff of local partners such as NGOs and local government units will not
voice out when their supervisors or managers are around. This is due to the fact that
usually stakeholder consultations and assessments are dominated by those “with bigger
voices”, those in leadership positions and those who feel they have some authority. No
matter how good the facilitator is, many of those “silent voices” cannot express
themselves in presence of others whom they feel are superior to them.
It should be noted that this may not be true across the board and may vary depending on
the culture, traditions, practices and the situations. The conditions mentioned above are
the context of the Philippine culture where those with more education, more experience,
with authority, more articulate or those in higher social strata dominate group
discussions.
Figure 2: SA II Participatory Evaluation Levels
Process: PAR FARM
Participants: Farmers
LEVEL 1
Process: Joint Field Assessment
Participants: Field Front liners (Farmers
Trainers and Extension workers)
Process: Stakeholders Participatory
Assessment (SPA)
Participants: Local Partners (NGOs, LGUs,
Coops), Suppliers, Cooperators
Process: Participatory Project Review &
Planning
Participants: Main project partners
implementers such as the ACDI/VOCA &
CocoaPhil
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
Progress, problems, issues and
concerns of LOCAL PARTNERS,
SUPPLIERS, COOPERATORS +
UNRESOLVED ON
FRONTLINERS +FARMERS &
COMMUNITY
Progress, problems, issues and
concerns of FIELD
FRONTLINERS + UNRESOLVED
ON FARMERS & COMMUNITY
Progress, problems, issues and
concerns of FARMERS &
COMMUNITY
Solutions,
Recommended
Actions, Policies,
Directions, Budget
/Resource Re-
allocations
Solutions,
Recommended
Actions,
Guidelines, Re
Directions, New
Strategies,
Budget /Resource
Re- allocations
Solutions,
Actions,
Behavioral
Changes,
Interventions
strategies
shift/change,
Resource re
allocations,
Activities
The Multi Level Processes
Level 1: Par FARM– The Farmers’ Voice
The Participatory Farmers Adoption Results Monitoring (Par FARM) is a farmers' feedback system
installed by ACDI/VOCA with the SA II farmers.
This is an innovative Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation tool. The objectives of the introduction of
Par FARM were:
1. Get feedback/assessment direct from the beneficiaries on the interventions delivered by SA II
such as Farmers Field School (FFS), seedling distributions and others;
2. Determine the adoption rate of the farmers of the cocoa technology introduced in the FFS;
3. Enable the farmers to reflect on the changes that have occurred in their daily activities,
households and farms which can be attributed to their participation in SA II activities;
4. Capture recommendations from the farmers to enhance the SA II interventions effectiveness as
well as lessons learned;
5. Encourage farmers to participate in assessing /evaluating interventions in the field.
The tools used and activity sessions of Par FARM were pre-tested in pilot sessions.
In the Par FARM sessions, the farmers who enrolled in the FFS rated the delivery of the training courses,
performance of their trainers, the quality of the visual aids and training kits given to them by the project.
They also gave feedback on the quality of seedlings distributed to them by the nursery operators
contracted by ACDI/VOCA. Outcomes and emerging impacts were can also be captured by Par FARM,
farmers expressed what changes in their lives and the community they felt were attributed to the project
interventions such as more crops & trees grown in their farms, more farm activities , more family
members participate in farm works, change of outlook on cacao as a crop and others. During the end of
project Par FARM, most farmers did not report any increase in production and income yet (except for a
few) since the newly planted or rehabilitated cocoa trees had yet to bear fruit. However, most farmers felt
they benefited from the project’s training and extension activities and developed a positive outlook about
themselves, their family and their community as result of their participation in the project.
Par FARM tools include group discussions/sharing, farm mapping & visioning, individual rating tools and
direct consensus survey such as voting using colored sticks/stones for groups with participants who
cannot read and/or write due to illiteracy or old age or eye defects. Instead of writing their answers, they
placed colored sticks to the bags which also represent different answers. These procedures were
explained thoroughly by the facilitator at the very start of the sessions
The first Par FARM was conducted during the mid-term review (between July and August 2008), a total
of 226 farmers in x groups partook in Par FARM sessions. The overall objective of this Par FARM was to
monitor emerging trends on project implementation to allow SA2 to re-strategize and redirect efforts and
resources to achieve expected outcomes. The Par FARM mid-term review report included assessment of
FFS delivery, the learnings and adoption, emerging outcomes and impacts and the value chain players’
linkage.
The second Par Farm was at the end of project evaluation conducted in July 2009, discusses emerging
impacts, since cocoa trees take some time to grow, harvests time is seasonal or impact occurred
unexpectedly. Some groups visited at the mid-term were revisited during the end of project Par FARM
with additional sessions conducted and new groups were also involved. A total of 173 farmers
participated in this round. About 30 percent of the participants were women. The difference in
participation was mainly due to some of the clusters having finished their FFS sessions several months
before and there had not been any project meetings after that. Some groups had also not received
seedlings which caused interest in the project to wane.
Below are some PAR FARM Outputs which show farmers satisfaction of the Farmers Field School (FFS)
given to them. These tables were extracted from the Par FARM reports
Farmers' Evaluation on the TFs' Teaching Effectiveness
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
North Luzon South
Luzon
Palawan Panay Western
Mindanao
Davao Over All
Areas
Perc
en
tag
e o
f F
arm
ers
Effective Moderate Needs Improvement
Farmers' Over All Ratings on the Conduct of FFS
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
North
Luzon
South
Luzon
Palawan Panay Western
Mindanao
Davao Over All
Areas
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Fa
rme
rs
Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Moderate Needs Improvement Useless
Graph B:
Graph A
This practice won the 2010 ALINE Farmers Voice Award given by the Agricultural Learning & Impact
Networking (ALINE) of the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) and Keystone Accountability funded
by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Johanna Lindstrom of ALINE and the Institute for Development Studies in UK, conducted a case study
on ACDI/VOCA’s Par FARM. Her findings concluded that PAR FARM provided:
1. SA II management with powerful additional data on project implementation and supported the
objective of improved project delivery. Particularly as it presented comparisons between
quantitative data on progress in different districts.
2. Data which enabled ACDI/VOCA to refine strategies for future projects. As a result of Par FARM
data, ACDI/VOCA changed the way in which they designed CoCoPal (the follow on project) and
the overall management and M&E of the SA 2.
3. SA II with additional data on outcomes.
4. Farmers with the opportunity to understand and negotiate with stakeholders.
5. Farmers and ACDI/VOCA with a mechanism for addressing multiple accountabilities. Focusing
on impacts and service delivery, ACDI/VOCA was able to be more accountable to their donor.
Farmers were able to give feedback to ACDI/VOCA, as a mechanism for holding implementing
partners to account. Par FARM could also be used as a mechanism for ACDI/VOCA to check
whether farmers are attending FFS sessions
6. A mechanism for self-assessment and farmer-to-farmer learning. This has the potential to
support group strengthening, which may lead to development of social capital and empowerment
Through this case study, ALINE hopes to generate global public goods and wider learning about Par
FARM and its benefits. ALINE will also conduct an evaluation study on Par FARM.
Farmers' Views on Length of FFS Training (one year)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
North Luzon South Luzon Palawan Panay Western
Mindanao
Davao Over All
Areas
Perc
en
tag
e o
f F
arm
ers
Too Long Just Enough Lacking
Graph C
PAR FARM session tools photos
Venn diagramming of Value Chain
Actors
FFS Assessment Discussion
Circle of Change
Farm Mapping
Table 1: Tools used in Par FARM sessions
Tools Aspect assessed Description
Farm mapping
and planning
Farm transformation and attitude and behaviour change
Farmers draw a map of their farm including the crops, trees, animals and their location, position, number including landmarks and natural resources in the area. Farmers then draw the vision of their farm after one year with the cocoa plants, especially their location, spacing, shade management and others.
FFS evaluation The quality of services delivered by SA II to the farmers
Aspects of quality include assessment of amount of time spent on FFS, scheduling, training materials, capacity of TF, numbers of visits by TFs and other SAII staff, number of visits to other farms, quality of seedlings and assistance with tree rehabilitation and overall conduct of FFS. This is either done through: Rated K game – particularly used where literacy is a problem and ensure that more quiet farmers are heard. The facilitator asks questions and farmers answers by putting a bean/stick in one of three containers labelled for the following rating:
Kayramirami (Much/Good)
Katamtaman (Enough/Moderate)
Kulang (Lacking/None) The numbers are presented and discussed in the group. FFS evaluation questionnaire – where literacy is not a problem a standard paper questionnaire was used
Learning reflections
Assist the extent of learning gained from FFS and application made
Using the rated K games (as above), the participants rate the different topics of the FFS according to what whether it was useful, what they have learned, and whether they have applied/or will the learning in their farm.
PArticipatory Change Evaluation (PACE)
Farmers identify and establish success indicators (impact & outcome) of the project interventions given to them. These indicators were re-visited again at the last year of the project
Divided into 2-3 groups, participants identify changes that they expect to occur due to SA II intervention. These answers become the change indicators and are consolidated during a plenary session. The facilitator reads out each indicator and those who have experienced it casts their votes in the same manner as the rated K game. For the first meeting, only the indicators are identified.
Circle of change
Draw out changes participants felt or observed in their lives brought about by the SA II interventions such as FFS , rehab, seedling distribution
Divided into 2-3 groups, participants are asked to reflect on changes noticed as a result of new cocoa plants or rehabilitated cocoa trees in a circle of change. Changes within themselves (write in innermost circle), within the family (2nd circle) and the neighbourhood or other farmers (3rd circle)
Venn diagram Awareness of farmers of the value chain players in the cocoa industry and assess their relationship with them
Divided into 2-3 groups, participants make a Venn diagram of the stakeholders or players in the cocoa industry that can influence them and how accessible those players are. Stakeholder names are written of pieces of paper. The sizes of paper indicate the magnitude of influence/assistance to them and the location where they place them determines their accessibility.
Figure 1: Flow of information in a standard monitoring system
Above is a standard project monitoring system, whereby monitoring data is passed up the chain. The risk
is that there is leakage or filtering of information or feedback through this process.
Figure 2: Flow of information in Par FARM
Donor
Lead Implementer
Local implementing partner
Extension agent
Farmer
Data Filtering & Leakage
Data Filtering & Leakage
Data Filtering & Leakage
Donor
Lead Implementer
Extension Agent
Local implementing partner
Farmers
ALINE and ACDI/VOCA share the same vision of bringing up the real sentiments and feedback of the
beneficiaries directly to the donor regarding the project interventions especially , the quality of services,
outputs, outcomes and emerging impacts through some sort of mechanism. The above Par FARM model
will be implemented in the new project CoCoPal Farming System Project.
Level 2: Joint Field Assessment of Front liners
The joint field assessment is a quarterly gathering of field project implementers from ACDI/VOCA (area
coordinators and M&E Coordinators), CocoaPhil (field technicians, field data coordinator & training
extension coordinator) and the Field Front liners (Training Facilitators/Extension Agents).They jointly
assess progress, problems, issues and concerns in their areas on a quarterly basis.
This was a regular project review which is also usually done by various agencies /organizations. The field
staff presented the progress in the areas. A discussion of the progress, the hindering and facilitating
factors, problems, issues and concerns will be the session agenda of this level of assessment. At the
same time the field front liners also learn from each other.
Some issues and problems brought up were given solutions immediately. ACDI/VOCA and CocoaPhil,
facilitating the sessions can answer or help them at that moment. The field front liners also learned and
received recommendations from other colleagues who experienced similar issues and had found
solutions. Others were recorded and were later brought up to higher management level by their
supervisors.
Level 3: Stakeholders Participatory Assessment (SPA)
This is a participatory process where project stakeholders will jointly assess the performance of the SA II
project using various methodologies. Various stakeholders were involved in such as the local
government units, the government line agencies, NGOs, farmer’ trainers, nursery operators, budwood
garden cooperators, demo farmers, cooperatives, cocoa clubs and the farmers themselves.
The SPA series was conducted in six areas of SA 2 namely North Luzon, South Luzon, Palawan, Panay,
Davao and Western Mindanao during start-up and midterm.
During the last year of SA II, another round of SPA series was conducted for the stakeholders to evaluate
the program implementation and gather lessons learned and plan of action for sustainability. A total of 12
SPAs were held in May-June 2008 and July-August 2009 in all the six target areas of the project.
Table 2. The SPA agenda/sessions and methodology are:
Session Methodology
Interactive Presentation of Progress and Accomplishments
Accomplishments of the different local partners were presented using power point presentation/ board presentations. It is interactive in the sense that the other stakeholders can react or comment or rectify whatever data are presented. Data can be validated immediately by the concerned sectors.
Review of the Compliance of MOU and Contracts
The stakeholders, particularly the local partners who signed Memoranda of Understanding and/or Contracts jointly reviewed and checked the provisions in which they have complied and not complied with and presented the reasons. They also presented those provisions in which partners have not complied with yet. Actions to ensure compliance were jointly made by the main partner and the local implementing partners.
Problems, Issues, and Concerns
Metacards were given to the stakeholders to write their problems, issues and concerns. One idea per card. These were collected and placed in the write board. Similar ones were grouped and key words were identified. Then the cards were segregated to problems or issues or concerns. The facilitator then took up each card and opened up discussion in the plenary and solicited possible actions to be taken or solutions.
Liked and Needs to be Changed
Again the stakeholders were given metacards and were asked to write what they LIKED in the implementation of SA II and what they think should be CHANGED. These were collected and consolidated on board and discussed in the plenary.
SA II Implementation Evaluation by Stakeholders
The stakeholders were given questionnaires to evaluate the overall SA II implementation by rating some aspects as Good/Satisfactory or Moderate But needs to be Improved or Bad/Poor. The identified aspects were Conduct of activities, Communication Efficiency, Field Coordination, Fund releases, Administration of Logistics Support, Compliance to MOU and Contracts and Partnership relationships. The questionnaires were then collected, tallied /consolidated and analyzed.
Next Move The SPA session ended with agreements, some resolutions and plans for next activities.
SPA Evaluation The stakeholders were then asked to evaluate the conduct of SPA, particularly what is good in SPA, what is not working / not good and what is to be done to improve it.
The conduct of SPA in the SA II areas aims to enable the stakeholders to:
1. Confirm/validate the progress of the different components of the project implemented by
different local partners;
2. Review & update the compliance of commitments in the Memoranda of Understanding or
Contracts by parties involved particularly the Main Partner (Cocoaphil) and the local partners and
suppliers;
3. Bring forward problems, issues and concerns of different stakeholders and discuss possible
solutions and identify those which needs to be raised to higher project management level for
decisions or policy formulation;
4. Obtain the views and feedback of stakeholders on SA II implementation strategies and activities;
5. Evaluate important implementation aspects of SA II for the project management to reflect and
consider for reorientation or redirection of implementation strategies ;
6. Gather together the SA II implementers and stakeholders and enabled them to get to know more
each other.
The highlights of the SPA is the satisfaction rating of the stakeholders on the performance of the main
partner in the implementation of the project based on seven major management aspects.
The stakeholders who attended the SPA in all areas were asked to provide their assessment on the
following (through written surveys):
1. Communication efficiency;
2. Field Coordination;
3. Fund Release;
4. Provision of Logistics support;
5. Compliance with commitments (MOU, Contracts);
6. Relationship with local partners, TFs, farmers.
The scoring system was: 3- Good/Satisfactory, 2 –Moderate but Needs Improvement 1- Bad/ Poor.
These were also elaborated.
This tool enabled the ACDI/VOCA to evaluate the performance of their main partner in delivering their
services for the implementation of the SA II project since ACDI/VOCA is also accountable to their donor.
Here are some results of local partner stakeholders’ satisfaction ratings obtained from the SPA reports
during Midterm review and End of Project review.
Graph 3: Stakeholders' Rating on
Field Coordination
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Davao
WesM
in
Palawan
North
Luzo
n
OVERALL
Areas
Per
cen
tag
e o
f
Res
po
nd
ents
Good Moderate but Needs Improvement Poor
Graph 2: Stakeholders' Rating on
Communication Efficiency
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Davao
WesM
in
Palawan
North
Luzo
n
OVERALL
Areas
Per
cen
tag
e o
f
Res
po
nd
ents
Good Moderate but Needs Improvement Poor
Graph 1 : Stakeholders Ratings on the
Over All Conduct of All SA2 Activities
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Davao
WesM
in
Palawan
North
Luzo
n
OVERALL
Areas
Per
cen
tag
e o
f
Res
po
nd
ents
Good Moderate but Needs Improvement Poor
Graph 4: Stakeholders' Ratings on
Fund Releases
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Davao
WesM
in
Palawan
North
Luzo
n
OVERALL
Areas
Per
cent
age
of
Res
pond
ents
Good Moderate but Needs Improvement Poor
Graph 5: Stakeholders' Ratings on
Administration of Logistics Support
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Davao
WesM
in
Palawan
North Lu
zon
OVERALL
Areas
Per
cent
age
of
Res
pond
ents
Good Moderate but Needs Improvement Poor
Graph 2: Comparison SA II Stakeholders Satisfaction
during Midterm & End of project
74%
48% 49%
16%
30%
45%
60%72%
60%
47%
23%32%
46%
66%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
1. Over All
Conduct &
facilitation of
Activities
2. Communication
Efficiency
3. Field
Coordination
4. Fund Release 5. Provision of
Logistics
6. Compliance to
Commitment,
MOUs &
Contracts
7. Relationship as
Partner
Implementation Aspects
Pe
rc
en
tag
e
Sa
tis
fie
d
Midterm End of project
Photos of Joint Quarterly Assessment of Front liners (Training Facilitators/ Extension Agents)
Frontliners (Training Facilitators &
Extension agents in a Joint
Assessment session
Frontliners present accomplishment
reports/ field status
Reports o all the TFs will be
consolidated and trends were
determined
Problems, Issues and concerns in field
implementation were discussed and
solutions were identified
Photos of Stakeholders Participatory
Assessment (SPA)
Interactive Progress Assessment
MOU/Contract Compliance Updates
Review and Assessment
PICs (problems, issues and concerns)
Implementation Satisfaction
Evaluation
Level 4: Participatory Project Planning & Review Workshop (PPRW)
This is an annual assessment of the project progress, constraints and bottlenecks at the higher
management level. This activity is conducted as a workshop format which reviewed the interpersonal
relationships, cooperation, coordination and progress between CocoaPhil and ACDI/VOCA in program
and project implementation and management. Issues were raised and achievements were considered in
light of project progress and constraints. Planning for the next year was also included, meaning: what,
where, how, cost and special projects role. The methodology included workshops, group discussions,
plenary presentations & sharing and use of survey instruments.
Top level management issues and concerns were
discussed at the PPRW
C. Focused on Sectoral Problems and Issues
Through multi-level participatory evaluation, the stakeholders at different levels are more open to express
their problems and concerns because of the homogeneity of the group assessing the projects. The
feelings of superiority and inferiority are therefore minimized. Participants can easily level off and view
the issues at the same angle. It is more focused on the particular sector of all the stakeholders.
Table 3. Problems captured in multi-level participatory evaluation & action taken
Level & Process Sample of Problems identified Action taken by ACDI/VOCA (AV)
1.Par FARM Training Facilitator (TF) did not complete the
training modules and lumped together two
sessions into one
CocoaPhil attention was called as well as the
training facilitator. Stipend withheld until
the issues with farmers will be solved by the
TF.
1.ParFARM Inferior quality seedlings were distributed to the
farmers; only 50% of the allocated 100 seedlings
per farmers were distributed
The nursery contractor was asked to replace
some of the seedlings. TF & Local partners
were required to come up with distribution
plan.
2.Joint Field
Frontliners'
Assessment
Delay in the release of stipend and FFS funds Assisted CocoaPhil in improving their
processing and releasing of funds flow for
stipend and FFS funds.
2.Joint Field
Frontliners’
Assessment
Slow liquidation of fund release and some FFS
budget were not used
A policy /guideline on the proper use of FFS
funds was formulated and disseminated
3. SPA Slow production of grafted seedlings by nursery
operators due to lack of skills on grafting
A special team composed of skilled grafters
was formed and deployed to areas where
nursery operators have problems on grafting
3.SPA Lack of local supplies of cocoa seeds for seedling
productions and scions for budwood gardens
Facilitated the transport of seedlings from
Davao where there are abundant seeds and
scions for grafting. The ACDI/VOCA and
CocoaPhil came up with planting material
distribution policies.
4.PPRW Slow fund liquidation by CocoaPhil Sent ACDI/VOCA finance team to assist
CocoaPhil
C. Implementation improvement
The Multi-Level participatory evaluation helped ACDI/VOCA improved the implementation of SUCCESS
Alliance Phase II project in the Philippines.
This form of evaluation provided an avenue for the stakeholders to express their sentiments and
feedback on the project implementation as well as other accomplishments and project effects which were
not captured in the regular reports of the field staff and in resurveys.
Stakeholders at different levels identified the stumbling blocks in the implementation of the interventions.
They themselves found solutions or raised them up to the next level of management for their decisions or
policy direction.
This type of participatory evaluation is geared towards improving the implementation of the projects not
only to achieve the project goals and objectives but also to satisfy the stakeholders most importantly, the
beneficiaries. With the feedbacks of the stakeholders during the SPA, the SA 2management
(ACDI/VOCA and CocoaPhil), revisit their plans and strategies and replan to solve implementation
bottlenecks. Since stakeholders also give feedbacks to the SA 2 management on their performance of
the delivery of services, this gives the SA 2 management to reflect and change their attitudes and the
manners of delivering the services
D. Objective / Indicator Hierarchy Parallelism
The levels in the multi-level participatory evaluation are also parallel to the hierarchical levels of
objectives and indicators – inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts.
At the upper most level, the PPRW, the evaluation is more concern on inputs, the activities and
resources. The next level down, level 3, the SPA, the evaluation focused on outputs, counting the
number of expected products and services and evaluating its quality.
At Level 2, the evaluation is not only on the outputs but the expected outcomes. Thus the field front liners
evaluation is not only concerned with the outputs but the outcomes of these outputs. For instance, what
will be the results of conducting several sessions of farmers’ field school on the farmers’ production, will
they adopt the technology?
Then at the lowest level, at the farmers’ level, impacts are the primary concern.
However, it does not mean that project implementers at the higher level are not concerned with
outcomes and impacts; they too are concerned with these. In Diagram 3, the indicator level at the side of
the Participatory Evaluation level means this is the type of indicator which will be assessed first by the
stakeholders at this level.
Figure 5. Parallels of Multi-Level Participatory Evaluation and the Indicator Hierarchy
Process: PAR FARM
Participants: Farmers
LEVEL 1
Process: Joint Field Assessment
Participants: Field Front liners (Farmers
Trainers and Extension workers)
Process: Stakeholders Participatory
Assessment (SPA)
Participants: Local Partners (NGOs, LGUs,
Coops), Suppliers, Cooperators
Process: Participatory Project Review &
Planning) PPRW)
Participants: Main project partners
implementers such as the ACDI/VOCA &
CocoaPhil
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
IMPACTS
OUTCOMES
OUTPUTS
INPUTS
LEVEL 4
COMMUNITY
E. Integration of the Multi- Level Evaluation
The results of the participatory evaluation at each level made by the particular stakeholders sector are
also brought up and presented at the next level for action, solutions, and inputs to planning, policy
formulation and integration.
The evaluation results at each level were consolidated by ACDI/VOCA and integrated into the Midterm
Review and End of Project Evaluation.
All these reports were also used as inputs and as a reference for the independent evaluator who
conducted an external evaluation of the project. Example of these is presented in the Annex. However in
the External Evaluation Report of the independent evaluator, many of the Par FARM findings were used
in his discussion.
Most of all, the results especially the lessons learned can be used in future projects.
Figure 6: The Multi-Level Participatory Evaluation was applied or its inputs used in the different major evaluations
and next/future project development
Legend:
Applied
Inputs
Multi-Level Participatory
(MLP) Evaluation
MIDTERM REVIEW using
MLPE
END OF PROJECT
EVALUATION using MLPE
EXTERNAL EVALUATION
(Independent Body)
NEXT or FUTURE PROJECTS
LESSONS LEARNED, CONCLUSION, & RECOMMENDATIONS
Lessons Learned
In the implementation of this Multi-Level Participatory Evaluation by different project stakeholders,
several lessons learned were realized by the implementers, to mention a few:
1. People are more open and expressive if they are in company of people whom they consider as of
the same level or same status;
2. Feedback and assessments made by different stakeholders at different levels can still be
consolidated, linked and analyzed into one project evaluation;
3. It is better not to gather a heterogeneous groups of stakeholders at the same setting and time
since only those in the higher level or a few will dominate the discussions and assessment.
Conclusion
The Multi-Level Participatory Evaluation was effective in drawing out the feedback and assessment of the
project. It involved separating the different stakeholders and gather information from each group
separately. The homogeneity of the groups enabled the participants to be more open and expressive of
their sentiments, feelings, perceptions, viewpoint, opinions and thoughts. This process enables the
stakeholders to:
1. evaluate the other stakeholders;
2. assess the performance of the project implementers;
3. express their satisfaction of the delivery of the interventions /services provided;
4. identify problems and issues;
5. respond to the problems and issues raised at the lower levels;
6. realize unexpected outcomes and impacts.
These will lead to improve the implementation of the project and future projects, better policies and
effective planning.
Recommendations
A further evaluation study on this process particularly comparing it with the traditional stakeholders’
evaluation forum will help enhance the tool. Other organizations are also encouraged to adopt this multi-
level participatory evaluation to compare our results with their experience. The ACDI/VOCA will be
implementing this approach in their next project the Coco Pal with enhance methodology. It will also
capacitate its partners on the approach and tools of this Participatory Evaluation so they can also use
these in their organizations and in their other projects.
REFERENCES
Baoy, N. (2009). External Evaluation of SUCCESS Alliance Philippines Phase II Project, August 2009, Cebu City
Philippines
Lindstrom, J. (2010) Farmer Voice Award Case Study: ACDI/VOCA PAR FARM, ALINE case study on Farmers Voice
Award Winners, September 2010
Ocleasa, O. (2008) Participatory Farmers’ Adoption and Results Monitoring (PAR FARM) Midterm report, internal
ACDI/VOCA report
Ocleasa, O. (2009a) Participatory Farmers’ Adoption and Results Monitoring (PAR FARM) End of Project Report,
internal ACDI/VOCA report
Ocleasa, O. (2009b) Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: PARticipatory Farmers’ Adoption and Results
Monitoring (PAR FARM), presentation at Cairo Conference on Impact Evaluation, March-April, 2009
Ondrik ,R. (1996) Participatory Approaches to National Development Planning “Framework for Mainstreaming
Participatory Development processes into Bank Operations” , Asian Development Bank Manila,1996
Richards, Nic and Orlen Ocleasa (2008), Participatory Midterm Evaluation of SUCCESS Alliance Philippines Phase II,
July 2008, Cebu City Philippines
Richards, Nic and Orlen Ocleasa (2009), Close Out Report of SUCCESS Alliance Philippines Phase II, October 2009,
Cebu City Philippines
WEBSITES
ACDI/VOCA www.acdivoca.org
ALINE http://www.aline.org.uk/
Success Alliance, Philippines website: http://www.thesuccessalliance.org/philippines.html
Success Alliance Phase II Summit Report:
http://www.acdivoca.org/852571DC00681414/Lookup/ACDIVOCA_SUCCESSAlliance2009PhilippineCacaoSummitR
eport/$file/ACDIVOCA_SUCCESSAlliance2009PhilippineCacaoSummitReport.pdf
Success Alliance Phase II Google Map of outputs:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&source=embed&msa=0&msid=111046931110977915749.
000474242b38915f679bc
World Cocoa Foundation SA2 information: http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/what-we-do/current-
programs/SUCCESS-Philippines_summary.asp
www.pinoyfarmersvoice.multiply.com
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and thanks to the following to:
-1. The European Evaluation Society and their donors for giving me the opportunity to participate in the
EES 2010 International Conference held in Prague, Czech Republic held last October 4-8, 2010. Also to
the EES secretariat for all the assistance given to me for my Visa and travel & accommodation
arrangements.
2. My Chief of Party Nic Richards for his untiring support, guidance and advice as well as to my
colleagues in the ACDI/VOCA CoCo Pal projects
3. Elizabeth Adams, Ann Gloria and Maby Palmisano of ACDI/VOCA Headquarters for their editing
assistance and inputs to my paper. To TJ Ryan, Sandra Bunch and the whole ACDI/VOCA Family for their
moral support and encouragement.
4. ALINE Team - Johanna Lindstrom, Edoardo Masset, Andri Ling and whole ALINE for their inspirational
and motivational support.
5. IFAD and DAR for the experiences and learnings I gained when I was working with them
6. My family and friends for always being there with me
7. God Almighty, Holy Infant Jesus of Prague (Sto. Nino) and Mother Mary for all the blessing bestowed
upon me..
DAGHANG SALAMAT……THANK YOU VERY MUCH….
ANNEX
- PAR FARM OUTCOME & EMERGING IMPACTS IDENTIFIED
- SUCCESS ALLIANCE II PROJECT PROFILE
Project Area
Perceived effects
On self/family On the farm On the community
North Luzon
- Better relationship among family members - Encouraged family to work - Vices minimized/stopped - More industrious - More knowledgeable - Forced to exercise since have to work in the farm - Additional income from shade plants
- Empty space now utilized - Generated jobs from neighborhood - Additional expenses for cocoa plants
- Became close to each other - Formation of organization from the FFS - Encouraged other farmers
South Luzon
- More knowledge on cocoa production - More encouraged to plant cocoa - Family members help in the farm
- Additional plants - Neighbors want to plant too
Palawan - Idle time reduced - Busy in taking care of cocoa - Learned more about cocoa - Additional activities in the farm - Got more interested in cocoa - Learned grafting/can now do grafting - Learned how to take care of cocoa plants
- More knowledge on cocoa for other family members - Family working together in the farm - Additional income after being hired as grafter in some nurseries
- Increased market value of the farm due to additional crops - Cleaner farm - Increase in number of crops/plants - More crops grown due to intercropping
Panay - Additional work - Became more industrious - Goes to the farm earlier than usual - Happy attitude - More knowledgeable on cocoa - Gained more friends - Shared learnings with others - Family bonding - Family cooperation - Family help in the farm - Family became inspired
- Cleaner farm - More plants/crops grown - Farm more developed - Maximized use of space in the farm
- Closer relationship with other FFS participants - Other farmers got interested in planting cocoa - Other farmers still have negative perception on cocoa - Neighbors became envious - Farmers became united - Farmers helped each other
Davao Region
- More knowledge on cocoa - Became busier due to more plants in the farm - Maximized use of farm area - Happy to go to the farm - Additional workload - Learned to ferment beans - Learned how to market beans - Knew more about other members of the coop - Better understanding about the organization - High hope for additional income
- Additional plants - Pruned old trees - Able to dry continuously with the drier
- Help other farmers earn income - Got closer with other farmers
Western Mindanao
- More knowledge on cocoa - Got busy in the farm - Additional workload - Family members help in the farm - Developed skills on grafting - Knew how to classify cocoa
- Cleaner farm - Maximized use of land - Additional crops planted - More varieties of cocoa
- Formation of cocoa club - Village officials became more active in promoting cocoa production
Par FARMS Result on Outcome/Emerging Impacts Felt by the Beneficiaries present in this Table
used by the SA 2 External Evaluator
PROFILE Philippines SUCCESS Alliance Phase II
Under SUCCESS Alliance Phase II, ACDI/VOCA and CocoaPhil are working with approximately 15,000 cocoa farmers and 150 farmer trainers, using a Value Chain Approach to grow the cocoa sector
Cocoa is an important source of income for hundreds of thousands of smallholder farmers in East Asia. In the Philippines, ACDI/VOCA is helping to create community-based diversified and agro-forestry cropping systems, to promote cocoa as a sustainable, environmentally friendly income source for farmers.
Under a three-year, $750,000 USAID-funded program which ended in September 2005, ACDI/VOCA and partners, trained 5,268 smallholder Filipino farmers in methodologies for increasing their cocoa yield while encouraging the diversification of income sources. ACDI/VOCA partnered with MARS Inc., the Cocoa Foundation of the Philippines (CocoaPhil), the Philippines Department of Agriculture, USAID and the World Cocoa Foundation, which was founded by the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, to form the SUCCESS Alliance.
ACDI/VOCA will continue and expand its work training smallholder Filipino farmers under August 2006, $2.6 million USDA Food for Progress award for a SUCCESS Alliance Phase II. The goal of the phase II program is to:
To improve the quantity and quality of small-holder grown cocoa in the Philippines,
through the adoption of farmer and environment safe farming and post harvest systems
and practices, to establish a regular source of income for cocoa farmers.
ACDIVOCA has launched Phase II, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture. This program will continue to expand upon achievements of Phase I, by focusing on improved cocoa production and strengthening the value chain for cocoa stakeholders. This will be achieved through activities that will deliver farmer training and extension, establish post harvest processing sites, build capacity in nursery plant production, rehabilitate old cocoa trees and establish internationally acceptable cocoa bean quality standards for the Philippines. A major thrust will be to promote the opportunities and participation of smallholder farmers and SME’s in the cocoa value chain, as a means of poverty reduction and economic growth.
Training and extension activities are in progress in six areas: North and South Luzon, Panay, Palawan, Western Mindanao and Davao. The training component will include a training-of-trainers activity for 150 participants and farmer training at the provincial level for approximately 15,000 farmers. Approximately 3,000 of these farmers have already received training under Phase I and will be receiving follow-on assistance. Training topics will include crop husbandry, integrated pest and disease management, side-grafting, soil health, farm management, post-harvest handling and marketing. The focus will be on growing high-quality cocoa and avoiding
pest infestation, especially by the cocoa pod borer, which has severely affected cocoa producing countries in SE Asia. Some farmers will also participate in domestic and international study tours to improve their technical knowledge and skills and exchange problem solving mechanisms for overcoming local constraints, such as climatic conditions or the high cost of materials.
ACDI/VOCA and CocoaPhil will establish 30 fermentation and drying centers. Local farmer groups will be required to provide labor and land as in-kind contributions. Centers will be placed in central locations where a minimum of 100 farmers will regularly bring their beans. Farmers will pay a fee for use of the facility, thus creating a new source of income and stimulating business activity for farmer groups. Once several centers are built, the project will provide a consultant to work with farmer groups on developing business plans and maintaining sound administrative and financial systems. Both farmers and center operators will be trained by ACDI/VOCA field technicians on quality selection to ensure that all beans meet the quality standards that will be established. New technologies will also be examined.
During Phase II, approximately 1.2 million plants will be distributed to farmers, who receive the training package. Up to 100 nurseries and bud wood gardens will be supported to facilitate plant production, and to enhance the capacity for expansion following the program. Nursery space will be provided by private entrepreneurs, city agriculture offices and the Philippine Co-conut Authority, and every new farmer trained will receive 100 free cocoa seedlings. Because the SUCCESS project has already identified the best cocoa varieties and distributed them throughout many islands of the Philippines, scaling-up nursery capacity, grafting operations and plant distribution will be the priority.
ACDI/VOCA and CocoaPhil is delivering an extension package of cocoa rehabilitation, to improve the productivity and quality of 400,000 cocoa trees owned by 800 farmers, primarily in the regions of southern and western Mindanao. These farmers will take part in regular farmer training and receive extra assistance with side-grafting and pest management from Cocoa Phil trainers and ACDI/VOCA field technicians.
ACDI/VOCA and CocoaPhil is working with the Philippine Department of Agriculture, to review and revise the cocoa bean quality standards established in the mid-1980s. Additionally, ACDI/VOCA and CocoaPhil will work with the Philippine Department of Agriculture’s Sub-Committee on Cocoa Industry Development to review and update quality standards for cocoa-based products. Participating farmers and fermentation center staff will be taught and encouraged to meet these new criteria. These standards will also be marketed to both local and international buyers to raise awareness of the quality and availability of cocoa from the Philippines.
For more information, please visit www.acdivoca.org and www.thesuccessalliance.org or contact: ACDIVOCA CEBU Office on (6332) 231 3951, Nic Richards at [email protected] , Lisa Miller (202) 879-00607 Or CocoaPhil at 632 952 6397
