End of Project Review: Pathways from

Poverty - Building Economic

Empowerment & Resilience for Extreme

Poor Household in Riverine areas of

Bangladesh

Rachel Payne &

Asma Alam

8 December 2015

i

Project Title Pathways from Poverty: Building Economic Empowerment & Resilience for

Extreme Poor Household in Riverine Areas of Bangladesh (PFP Phases I-II)

Project Purpose

31,850 extreme poor households in north-west Bangladesh have sustainably graduated from extreme poverty through increased income and food security by March 2015.

Duration 2009-2012 (Phase 1); 2012 – 2015 (Phase 2) Implementer Practical Action, Bangladesh Partner NGOs

AKOTA, GUK, JSKS, OVA, UDPS

Project Locations

Gaibandha; Rangpur; Nilphamari; Lalmonirhat; Kurigram

Funding Source

The Economic Empowerment of the Poorest Programme (EEP) / SHIREE (Stimulating Household Improvements Resulting in Economic Empowerment). Shiree is supported by a partnership of three governments: the Government of Bangladesh's (GoB) Rural Development and Cooperatives Division (RDCD) of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives (LGRD); the UK Department for International Development (DFID), and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).

Project Budget

Phase 1 Total Budget GBP 3,710,666 Phase 2 Total Budget 3,874,940(funding from Shiree GBP 3,744,629

and from Practical Action GBP 130,311). Acknowledgement: The End Project Review Team acknowledges the organisational and logistical support provided by Faruk-Ul Islam, Nazmul Islam Chowdhury, Mokhlesur Rahman, Abdus Salam Talukder, M. Habibur Rahman, A. Mannan Molla and other staff from Practical Action, Bangladesh, as well as Lizzy Whitehead, Practical Action UK. We are grateful for the input provided by all project stakeholders (Practical Action, Bangladesh and PNGO staff, from AKOTA, GUK, JSKS, OVA, UDPS) project beneficiaries, community members, representative from local governments and line departments as well as representatives from Shiree. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this review are those of the authors only, and do not represent the views of Practical Action nor EEP/Shiree.

ii

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS/GLOSSARY AKOTA Local NGO based in Gaibandha (Practical Action, Bangladesh’s Partner)

BHH Beneficiary Household

Chars Silted islands and land extensions in the rivers of Bangladesh, created and destroyed by floods

and erosion

CMS Change Monitoring System

DAE Department of Agriculture and Extension

DFID UK Department for International Development

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

EP Extreme poverty

EPP Extremely Poor People

GMS Graduation Monitoring System

GoB Government of Bangladesh

GUK Gana Unnayan Kendra – local NGO based in Gaibandha (Practical Action, Bangladesh’s Partner)

HH Household

HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey

HSTU Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University

IGA Income generating Activities

JSKS Jhanjira Samaj Kallyan Sangstha– local NGO based in Nilphamari (Practical Action, Bangladesh’s

Partner)

LGRD Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperative

NGO Non-government Organisations

OVA Own Village Advancement - local NGO based in Lalmonirhat (Practical Action, Bangladesh’s

partner)

PFP Pathways from Poverty

PNGO Partner Non-government Organisations

RDCD Rural Development and Cooperatives Division

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

Shiree Stimulating Household Improvement Resulting in Economic Empowerment

TUP/CFPR Targeting the Ultra Poor / Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction (TUP/CFPR) – under

BRAC

UDPS Uttara development program society - local NGO working in Rangpur (Practical Action,

Bangladesh’s Partner)

VfM Value for Money

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms/Abbreviations/Glossary ...................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ iii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. iv

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

2. Review Methodology and Purpose ................................................................................ 2

3. Findings Against OECD DAC Criteria .............................................................................. 3 3.1 Relevance ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 3.4 Impact and Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... 11

4. Other Key Kindings ...................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Nutrition .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Gender .............................................................................................................................................................................. 13 4.3 Elderly and Disability ............................................................................................................................................... 15 4.4 Local Economic Development .............................................................................................................................. 15 4.5 Advocacy and Influence........................................................................................................................................... 16 4.6 Innovation and Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................................... 17 4.7 Logframe, Monitoring, and Reporting ............................................................................................................. 18 5. Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................. 19

Annex 1: Terms of Reference ............................................................................................. 24

Annex 2: Documents Consulted ......................................................................................... 26

Annex 3: Schedule for Field Visit (PfP- end of Project Review) ........................................... 28

Annex 4: List of People Interviewed ................................................................................... 29

Annex 5: Graduation Criteria and Definitions .................................................................... 33

Annex 6: Comparison of Different Livelihood Programs Operating in Bangladesh ............ 34

Annex 7: Asset Cost, Return on Investment and Graduation Rates Across IGAs (Phase 2) 36

Annex 8: Overall Average Graduation Rate, Cost Per IGA and Return on Investment (Phase 2) ........................................................................................................................................ 37

Annex 9: List of Key Advocacy Events, Pathways from Poverty: Phase 2 ........................... 38

Annex 10: Progress Against Logframe ................................................................................ 40

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report captures key findings from the End of Project Review of “Pathways from Poverty: Building Economic Empowerment & Resilience for Extreme Poor Households in Riverine Areas of Bangladesh" (PfP). PfP commenced in 2009 and is implemented by Practical Action, Bangladesh and its partner NGOS. It is funded through DFID’s Economic Empowerment of the Poorest Programme (EEP)/SHIREE (Stimulating Household Improvements Resulting in Economic Empowerment). PfP operates in 5 districts of Rangpur Division, in flood-prone north-west Bangladesh, and targets vulnerable households living on river embankments. PfP has aimed to graduate 31,850 households from extreme poverty – 16850 in Phase 1 (2009-2012) and 15,000 in Phase 2 (2012-2015). It uses appropriate technologies and low-cost interventions, and provides beneficiary households with income generating assets (IGAs) (on and off-farm), training and support, allowing them to increase their income, improve their food security, and engage more actively in the community. In Phase 2, a large component focusing on nutrition was included. PfP aims for at least 20% of all beneficiary households to be female-headed, for 60% of its interventions to target women. This project has attracted a great deal of positive media attention and recognition, including receiving the Cannes Delphine award in 2011,and the St Andrew’s Award for the Environment in 2013. PfP interventions, in particular sandbar cropping, are being replicated in Bangladesh and abroad. The review incorporated a desk review and field work, and assessed PfP’s performance against the OECD DAC Criteria for evaluating development assistance, as well as on other key issues, including gender, nutrition, local economic development, disability, advocacy and influence, innovation and lessons. Relevance: As outlined above, PfP is a highly relevant project, and aligns well with key strategies and policies of the Government of Bangladesh, DFID, EEP/Shiree and Practical Action. It also contributes to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (and previously the Millennium Development Goals). Effectiveness: PfP has been effective at graduating almost 90% of BHHs from extreme poverty, though some sources of data suggest that graduation rates are even higher. Female-headed households and those headed by people with disabilities or older persons have lower rates of graduation. The range of IGAs available to beneficiaries is extensive and beneficiaries choose which IGA/s they adopt, based on their skills, capacity and interests. PfP has been effective in providing BHHs with a diversified income base and increased income, as well as targeted nutrition support (since Phase 2). PfP does not include a strong focus on social empowerment nor disaster preparedness and response. These are weakness in the project’s design that if addressed, would have strengthened overall effectiveness. Efficiency: The Review Team estimate that the cost of graduating a BHH from extreme poverty under PfP is BDT 27,000-29,000. This is slightly higher than estimated by Shiree, but still low, given the nature of the beneficiaries and the context in which it operates. The time taken for graduation has reduced from more than 4 years in Phase 1 to at least 3 years in Phase 2. In Phase 2, the ratio of field staff to beneficiaries is approximately 1:550. This is very high when compared to other projects and threatens to undermine project effectiveness. PfP works in partnership with local NGOs for implementation. A stronger focus on capacity building for partner NGOs would enhance effectiveness and sustainability. Sustainability and impact: PfP’s interventions make an immediate, positive impact on the lives of beneficiaries, particularly in terms of income and food security. However PfP beneficiaries are highly vulnerable, and even post graduation, they risk being plunged back into extreme poverty by shocks such as natural disasters, significant health events and dowry. In addition to a stronger focus on

v

disaster preparedness and response, and social empowerment (mentioned above), intensified support, based on the level of vulnerability experienced by households may strengthen resilience and increase the sustainability of PfP’s impact. Greater consideration of ways to support sustained graduation from extreme poverty need to be incorporated into PfP’s exit strategy. Other Issues: Gender: PfP (Phase 2) has worked with 6,617 (44%) female-headed households and has engaged all (100%) female household members in different IGAs. Together with increasing women’s income and economic participation, PfP has enabled better joint-decision making in the home, improved women’s mobility in the community, and increased their economic participation. Beneficiaries also report that domestic conflict has reduced substantially. To support improved graduation rates for women, future projects should include interventions aimed at women’s empowerment and more targeted support for women. Gender monitoring and reporting has been weak in PfP (no sex-disaggregated data in the logframe nor gender sensitive indicators, and no targeted gender analyses). Efforts should be made to achieve greater gender balance in project teams going forward. The PFP nutrition component has been effective, resulting in: improved knowledge and dietary habits of BHHs; better health and hygiene practices, enhanced nutritional care, and increased community awareness. The most striking impact reported is increased rates of exclusive breastfeeding. Future projects should consider extending awareness raising activities to the broader community, including boys in adolescent groups, and strengthening the links between the project and community health clinics. PfP’s approach to tackling disability has been successful and should be continued in future projects working with EP households. For households that are unable to effectively manage an IGA (headed by disabled/elderly), PfP’s focus should be on linking them to appropriate services and (re-establishing support networks in the community). The project has had a positive impact on the local economy. Underutilised and barren land is now productively used. The project has generated employment for beneficiary households and other community members who have replicated interventions, especially pumpkin cultivation. The increased agricultural production has bolstered the local economy. PfP has included a strong focus on local, national and international advocacy. Going forward, a more strategic approach to advocacy and communications should be developed, and advocacy efforts monitored in terms of outcomes and impact.

Innovation and learning are key features of PfP. Sandbar cropping of pumpkins is undoubtedly Practical Action, Bangladesh’s flagship innovation but smaller innovations (trials of irrigation systems that aim to be more efficient and sustainable, and cropping of different vegetables and fruit) are being developed and tested continually, including through partnerships with Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University (HSTU), Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute and Rhine-Waal University, Germany. A potential area for future innovation by Practical Action, Bangladesh is the development of low cost, flood-proof housing and sanitation systems.

Logframe, Monitoring and Reporting: The progress made by PfP, as outlined in previous paragraphs, and discussed in more detail in this report, is not reflected in an analysis of progress against the logframe as the logframe does not reflect PfP’s program logic or theory of change, nor incorporate key project elements. Furthermore, many indicators lack specificity. A review of project progress was further complicated by the existence of multiple data sets and weaknesses in project reporting.

1

1. INTRODUCTION Over recent years, Bangladesh has made considerable development progress, achieving most of its MDG targets and growth of 5-6% per year. Bangladesh has considerable potential for further growth, but this will depend on the Government’s capacity to provide stability, reduce inequality, and strengthen democracy. Bangladesh is of the most densely populated countries in the world and is rapidly urbanizing. Two-thirds of Bangladesh is less than five metres above sea level, making it highly prone to seasonal and catastrophic flooding, and vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Despite significant progress in addressing poverty, almost one-third Bangladeshis live in poverty, with 17-20 million people living in extreme poverty, experiencing multiple, interlocking and intergenerational deprivations, including income poverty, food insecurity, and poor access to quality basic services (HIES 2010). An estimated 15% of Bangladesh’s extreme poor live in the north-west, an area that suffers from serious seasonal flooding and river erosion that limits crop production for around five months each year and claims people’s assets, including houses and productive assets, resulting in a cycle of endemic poverty, seasonal hunger, and risk of further impoverishment. In April 2009, Practical Action, Bangladesh commenced implementation of “Pathways from Poverty: Building Economic Empowerment & Resilience for Extreme Poor Households in Riverine areas of Bangladesh" (PfP), as part of the DFID-funded Economic Empowerment of the Poorest Programme (EEP)/Shiree (Stimulating Household Improvements Resulting in Economic Empowerment). Shiree funds a variety of programmes which aim to enable over 1 million people to lift themselves out of extreme poverty and achieve sustainable livelihoods by 2015. PfP is implemented in partnership with five NGOs operating in northwest Bangladesh and builds on Practical Action, Bangladesh’s highly successful Disappearing Lands project1 (2004-2009). PfP is now near the end of its second phase. It has attracted a great deal of positive media attention and recognition, both in Bangladesh and abroad, including being awarded “Runner Up” for the St Andrew’s Award for the Environment in 20132. In Phase 1, PfP aimed to lift 16,850 beneficiary Households (BHHs) living on river embankments in 4 districts in Rangpur Division of north-west Bangladesh (Rangpur, Lalmonirhat, Gaibandha, Nilphamari) out of extreme poverty. PfP provided beneficiary households (BHHs) with income generating assets and training for on-farm livelihood activities, supporting them to increase their income, improve their food security, and engage more actively in the community. In April 2012, PFP entered its second phase, building on the lessons and achievements of Phase 1 and aiming to directly lift an additional 15,000 households (60,000 people) out of extreme poverty. Changes to the project under Phase 2 included the addition of a fifth district – Kurigram; and the inclusion of a large nutrition component, women’s savings groups and the introduction of off-farm IGAs (such as tailoring, food processing, rickshaw van repairing). Phase 2 was due to conclude in December 2015 however Practical Action, Bangladesh and Shiree are currently negotiating the terms of a no-cost extension.

1 The Disappearing Lands Project was awarded the Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development Gold Award in 2007. 2 The St Andrew’s award recognises ‘original, innovative and realistic ideas which can be replicated elsewhere, and take full account of the social and economic implications’.

2

PfP aims for at least 20% of beneficiary households to be female-headed and prioritises women and girls in its interventions.

2. REVIEW METHODOLOGY AND PURPOSE The Terms of Reference (ToRs) for this End of Project Review can be found at Annex 1. The objectives of the review were to:

x “Assess the extent Pathways from Poverty has achieved its outcomes/objective by end of the project, as set out in the logframe with focus on effectiveness and efficiency;

x Review performance of project partners and comment on the extent to which the project has achieved value for money as defined by DFID VFM framework and cost structure and economic graduation; and

x Document strategic programmatic lessons of the Pathways from Poverty to feed into future programming”.

Mixed methods were used to carry out the review. A Desk review was conducted between September and November 2015 that included:

x Review of project documents (including the concept note, project memorandum, reports, advocacy materials; presentations, Shiree website, M&E data, Practical Action, Bangladesh organizational policies etc.). A list of documents consulted in this review is at Annex 2); and

x Meetings with Practical Action, Bangladesh, and EEP/Shiree: conducted in person and via teleconference.

Findings from the desk review were verified during a Field Visit (10-16 November 2015), which included meetings with Practical Action, Bangladesh and Partner - Non Government Organisation (PNGO) staff; beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, community members, representatives from local government and line departments. Overall Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were held with representatives of 2641 BHHs of 5 unions (8.3% of project total 31,850 BHHs). (See Annex 3 for the field visit schedule and Annex 4 for a list of interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) undertaken).

The project unions visited were selected according to remoteness and population density, and included sites for four of the five partner NGOs, as indicated below.

district upazilla Union Total BHH coverage

Remoteness HH pop

NGO

Nilphamari Dimla Purbochatnai 777 Remote Low JSKS

Lalmonirhat Hatibandha Patikapara 1039 most remote Low OVA

Kurigram Sadar Jatrapur 208 most remote Low OVA

Rangpur Gangachhara Gojoghanta 535 Remote High UDPS

Gaibandha Sadar Gidari 82 Not remote High GUK

*NGO AKOTA was met with separately A number of limitations affected the ability of the Review Team (RT) to undertake this review.

x Disruptions due to security issues prevented the lead consultant from travelling to Bangladesh and delayed the review process. As a result, the field visit was undertaken by only one member of the RT.

3

x Communication between the RT and Practical Action, Bangladesh was challenged as a result of having one RT member working remotely an exacerbated by heavy international travel requirements of key Practical Action, Bangladesh personnel during the review period3.

x The time provided for desk review was limited, given the extensive scope of the ToRs. x The RT’s expertise to undertake a proper review of financial management systems and Value for

Money (VfM) and document limitations. As a result, the examination of financial management systems has been limited and the RT has not attempted to assess VfM.

x Limited engagement with PNGOs and insufficient time to review their documents. As a result, the RT is unable to comment on the performance of PNGOs.

x Discrepancies in data across sources and problems with the logframe (discussed later in more detail) that made analysing data and reviewing project progress difficult.

3. FINDINGS AGAINST OECD DAC CRITERIA

3.1 Relevance The extent to which the aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group, recipient and donor.

According to the most recent poverty maps, Rangpur is the poorest division in Bangladesh, with almost 50% of its population living in poverty and one out of every three households experiencing extreme poverty. Within Rangpur Division, Kurigram has the highest poverty levels of anywhere in Bangladesh, with two-thirds of the population living in poverty. Given the high rates of extreme poverty and vulnerability associated with seasonal flooding, PFP is a highly relevant project. It uses appropriate technologies and low-cost interventions to provide income and livelihood opportunities, as well as nutritional support to help lift 31,850 households out of extreme poverty. PfP is well aligned to:

x The Sustainable Development Goals (in particular Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture and Goal 10: reduce inequality) and previously the Millennium Development Goal 1: to end extreme poverty and hunger.

x The objectives of the Bangladesh Government (as outlined in the Sixth Five year Plan and National Sustainable Development Strategy (2010-2021) to reduce extreme poverty and improve food security and nutrition;

x DFID’s operational Plan for Bangladesh, which aims to directly lift 1.5 million people out of extreme poverty by 2015 (with 56% being women and girls) and to strengthen evidence of how the poor can most effectively be linked to markets and economic opportunity;

x Shiree’s objective to lift 1 million people out of extreme poverty by 2015; and x The objective of Practical Action to assist communities to implement practical and sustainable

solutions to local problems, building on their skills and knowledge. PfP builds on the lessons and experiences of Practical Action, Bangladesh’s “Disappearing Lands Project”, and is contextually relevant, emphasising:

3 Several travel commitments of key Practical Action, Bangladesh staff members coincided with this review period, including travel by PfP Project Manager to Europe to present at the Tropentag Conference in Germany and then again for the International Water Week Conference in The Netherlands, and travel by the Manager, M&E and Impact to Zimbabwe. Although Practical Action, Bangladesh always ensured there was a contact point for the RT, that person did not always have access to necessary information, for example, organisational charts and budget information. The flow of communication and information improved considerably once the National Consultant was engaged and the period of heavy international travel concluded.

4

x action learning; x partnership with local NGOs in implementation; and x A strengths-based approach to supporting BHHs to choose to engage in appropriate Income

Generating Activities (IGAs) by providing a broad range of options. PfP contributes to the global knowledge base on extreme poverty. The project has an explicit focus on advocacy at all levels – local, national and international. There is evidence of PfP’s innovations, in particular sandbar cropping, being adopted by other implementers elsewhere in Bangladesh and abroad (including Nepal, India and Ethiopia)4 and informing policies of multilateral organizations (Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and governments (local and national governments in Bangladesh and India). Furthermore, PfP’s partnerships with universities have support research into its’ interventions and global dissemination of lessons.

3.2 Effectiveness The extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives.

Overall PfP has been effective at supporting extreme poor households to engage in the local economy, increase and diversify their income, and improve food security and nutrition. The following discussion considers key program elements that contribute, or in some cases detract, from program effectiveness. PfP beneficiary selection was thorough, and through the 3-step rigorous selection and validation process, there did not seem to be any instance of target drifting. Graduation from extreme poverty PfP applies Shiree’s 13 graduation criteria in determining whether a BHH has achieved graduation. To graduate, BHHs must achieve the indicator for food security (the only essential criteria) and at least six of the 12 supplementary indicators (see Annex 5). Base on these criteria, PfP graduation rates are reportedly high for both phase 1 and 2 BHHs, across various sources. According to PfP (Dec 2014) data5, the Phase 1 graduation rate is 94.5% (77.8% super graduate; 16.7% graduate and 5.6% non graduate based6). The CMS3 (2014) reports that 97.8% of phase 1 BHHs have graduated. For Phase 2, the graduation rate according to PfP data (Dec 2014) is 96.7% (75.4% super-graduate, 21.3% graduate and 3.3% non-graduate). At the time of the review the CMS3 data for Phase 2 BHHs had not been published. Practical Action, Bangladesh also reports an average increase in BHH income of 180% and 146% respectively for Phase 1 (Effectiveness Study 2013) and Phase 2 (Effectiveness Study 2014) BHHs. Of the non-graduated households, 1813 have received supplementary support in the form of micro-plans and additional financial support. Table 1 demonstrates that of the 1813 households that received supplementary support, women, the elderly and people with disabilities are disproportionately represented. Table 1: Basic information on non graduate BHHs receiving supplementary support (Source: Supplementary Monitoring Report, June 30, 2015) Particulars Male Female Total Remarks Total number of failed households selected for supplementary financial supports 1268 545 1813 8% of total female BHHs

5% of total male BHHs No. of disable people selected for supplementary 35 8 43 Direct beneficiary not their

4 Interventions are already operating in Nepal and are in the process of being implemented in India and Ethiopia. 5 These figures are based on analysis of beneficiaries from two PNGOs only. 6 See Annex 5 for definitions of super graduate, graduate and non graduate.

5

supports family members No. of elderly (60+) people selected for supplementary supports 288 210 498 Direct beneficiary not their

family members No. of widows selected for supplementary supports 0 424 424 Direct beneficiary not their

family members The CMS3 2014 graduation also reports that it is more likely for female-headed households and the elderly not to graduate. Based on the field visits, the RT team also found that it was mostly women and elderly HHs that had not graduated (see Box 2 and 6). The reason for non-graduation seems to be mainly the lack of income-earning members in the household. When there is only one earning member, the HH is limited in the extent to which it can reinvest funds to diversify its income. As such, these households are not able to build their resilience and remain vulnerable to devastating shocks caused by ill health or disasters.

Based on the analysis and impressions from the field, the RT feel that the graduation rates mentioned above are high. PfP M&E staff provided the RT with figures on graduation rates for each of the IGAs in Phase 2, gathered from different sources (see Annex 7). Based on an analysis of this data, the overall graduation rate for phase 2 is 89% (Annex 8). The RT feels that this figure better fits with the experience of households from the field visit. A key contributing factor to successful graduation is the number of income generating activities a household engages in. Data indicates that between 80.4% (CMS3, 2014) and 90.7% (socio-economic survey, 2014) of BHHs are engaged in at least two income-generating activities. This is consistent with field observations.

PfP’s model for economically empowering the extreme poor and graduating them offers the BHHs the opportunity to improve and build their existing skills in their choice of IGA. Through the IGA, beneficiaries increase their income. The IGA is complemented with follow-up support and advice on a monthly basis on how to manage their assets, and increase and diversify their income. This approach has been effective in building the assets of BHHs and increasing their income within a short period of time. With one existing income source (usually day labour) and the adoption of at least one project IGA, BHHs diversified and increased their income, and improved their food intake. The Effectiveness Studies (2013, 2014) report that 96% of Phase 1 BHHs and 100% of Phase 2 BHHs eat three times a day. The CMS3 examines the number of coping strategies employed by BHHs to deal with food shortages7. The 2014 report states that 100% of Phase 1 BHHs have less than two food coping strategies. The Socio-economic Survey (2014) also reports this figure for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 BHHs. Food diversity 8 has also improved – 78% for Phase 1 BHHs reported in CMS3 2014 and 77.8% and 78.7% of Phase 1 and Phase 2 BHHs reported in the Socio-economic

7 Food coping strategies: (1) eating smaller portions, (2) eating < 3 times a day, (3) eating food of less quality, (4) eating gathered food, (5) adults eating no food in 24 hours, (6) children eating no food in 24 hours, (7) borrowing money to buy food, (8) buying food on credit, (9) sending family member elsewhere for food and (10) giving more food to earning household members. Indicator threshold: HH must use less than two food coping strategies. (Source: CMS3 2014 report on graduation) 8 Food diversity is defined as the consumption of 6 types of food.

Box 2: Woman-headed household: Sobita Rani , Dakhin Parulia, Lalmonirhat ( Phase 1HH ID 552336643008) Sobita Rani’s (30) husband left 5 years ago. She is the sole earner of her family. She has 4 children aged 6 to 16. She was selected by the project as a pumpkin cultivator. However after one crop where she earned only 3000 BDT, she could not continue because she was not able to spare her time to go to the fields for extended periods because of her young daughters at home. She works as day labour for short periods and barely manages to make enough to feed her family. She had to borrow money for her eldest daughter’s grade 10 exam.

Box 1: Successful story of male-headed household: Shahjahan, Dakkhin Gidari, Gaibandha (HH ID 532244367274 – Phase 1) Shahjahan (about 40) is an ideal case of graduation from extreme poverty. He was a farmer who had lost his land to river erosion and was trading in paddy, but this was not enough to feed his family of mother, wife and four sons. After two rounds of pumpkin cultivation with PfP support, he used the profits to buy a heifer. He also learnt to be a Rural Service Provider and now provides advisory services in pumpkin cultivation and operates a shallow water pump for irrigation. After 5 years he is planting about 350 pits of pumpkins from his own funds and has saved enough to buy some homestead land. He has two sons who work in Dhaka and both his mother and wife are able to help with other work in the field.

6

Survey (2014). FGDs conducted in the field with both male and female beneficiaries confirmed increased and more diversified food intake (3 meals/day). They attributed this to increased income to spend on food and improved nutritional awareness, developed through the nutrition component. In PfP, The transfer of assets provides the foundation for increased income and food security. It enables BHHs to build capital - a key factor allowing them to engage in additional IGAs, reinvest in other IGAs and procure further assets with profits. However, the value of the asset package is not uniform across the IGAs, ranging from BDT 4,000 for Community-Based Fisheries Management (CBFM) to BDT 15,000 for heifer rearing. This variation can, and has caused conflict and angst amongst BHHs and challenges to social cohesion. The RT therefore recommends that the asset package included in future designs incorporates:

x A standardised asset value for all BHHs; and x At least two IGAs per BHH - ideally one that provides year round income and that is less vulnerable

to natural disasters (i.e. off-farm) and a secondary IGA that, if seasonal, offers quick and large profit e.g. sandbar cropping.

The saving groups that were introduced in Phase 2 are a very positive addition to the PfP project. These are self-help groups on the way to creating their own revolving fund. By the end of the project period the savings groups will open bank accounts. The savings groups have fostered more solidarity among the BHHs and provided an enhanced support system - where stronger members support weaker members and women discuss the challenges they face. The groups meet 2-4 times per month and save an average of BDT 40/month per BHH. According to the CMS3 (2014), the percentage of BHHs engaged in savings increased from 39% in March 2010 to 100% in March 2014. There is always a risk associated with savings groups that signatories to the bank account partake in financial misconduct. As PfP’s savings groups are relatively new, they will need explicit and on-going support to build robust governance systems, develop stronger financial management capabilities, build effective accountability mechanisms, and foster confidence of members.

Resilience Firstly, PfP’s focus has been primarily on economic empowerment. According to Shiree, the Theory of Change implied that social empowerment would flow from economic empowerment. Although PfP has included some support around social awareness and empowerment (in particular through the nutrition component), unlike many other livelihood programs for the extreme poor in Bangladesh, it has not incorporated an explicit component on social awareness and empowerment. The RT recommend that a stronger, more integrated approach to social empowerment be adopted in future programs, to

enhance the impact and sustainability of the BHHs’ economic gains. Going forward, groups (either expanded

Box 3: Disaster case study: Huzur Ali, Jatrapur, Kurigram ( Phase 2- HH ID 849524750018) Huzur Ali (60) joined PfP in 2012 and was supported to set up a small trade – pedalling local goods, betel leaf and betel nut. He was quite successful with his trade and within 1.5 years was able to make enough profit to repair his home, establish a small shop in the village market and purchase equipment which cost him BDT 42,000. He planned to set up his shop as a small tea stall. In April 2015 his eldest daughter was married. The marriage cost him approximately BDT 25,000 and his daughter’s dowry was BDT 40,000, obliterating any savings he had. Before he could re- build his savings, flash floods washed away the shop with the goods. He now has no savings, and is struggling to build his capital so that he can rebuild his shop and purchase new stock.

Box 4: Disabled BHH: Jamal Uddin (50), Jatrapur, Kurigram (Phase 2 - HH ID 849524720004) Jamal Uddin is hearing impaired. PfP provided his with hearing aid and gave him a rickshaw van. When he joined the project he and his wife used to make chanachur (Bombay mix) to sell around the schools and markets. The rickshaw van provides him with a daily income, apart from during the flood season. During this time, he relies on the savings generated previously. After marrying off his daughters, he does not have enough capital (needing about 10-15 thousand taka) to restart his chanachur business.

7

savings groups or separate social awareness groups) should be used as a forum for disseminating information and generating discussion on key issues such as women’s empowerment, legal issues and rights, nutrition, health, and DRR. Secondly, PfP does not include interventions aimed at reducing the vulnerability of the extreme poor to natural disasters and regular flooding. Practical Action, Bangladesh staff report that disaster shelters were included in the original project proposal, but were advised by Shiree that they were not approved for inclusion as they did not directly align with the focus of Shiree nor budget scope9. The omission of these two important components – social empowerment and disaster risk reduction (preparedness and response) - is a major weakness in PfP’s design that would have supported more robust and sustainable graduation and may have reduced the time taken to graduation. Income Generating Activities Asset transfers (and accompanying training) to all 31850 beneficiaries was achieved in late 2014. PfP offers a wide range of IGAs that BHHs can choose based on their existing capacities, skills and interests. About 20 on-farm and off-farm IGAs are available under the broad sectors of Agriculture, Fisheries, Livestock, Small Enterprises, Light Engineering and Food Processing. BHHs engaged in agriculture, fisheries, livestock and light engineering, were supported in their IGAs by PfP sector specialists based at the Practical Action, Bangladesh regional office who also supported sector specialists within the PNGOs. Under this model, technical support for these IGAs was intensive and closely monitored. Training and support for other sectors was out-sourced to external trainers with follow-up support provided by the PfP facilitators. As Table 2 demonstrates, the adoption rate across IGAs varies considerably.

Table 2: Adoption rate of different IGAs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 BHHs. Sector IGA Adoption Rate (%)

Phase 1 Phase 2

Partial Full Partial Full

Agriculture Sandbar Cropping 22% 41% 5.1% 76.0%

Livestock Beef Fattening 0% 89% Heifer Rearing 0% 94% 2.0% 96.0% Sheep/Goat Rearing 0% 67% 0.0% 67.5% Duck farming 0% 52%

Fisheries CBFM 0.0% 76.2% Traditional Fishermen 0% 94% 0.0% 63.6% Cage aquaculture 0% 41% 0.0% 49.5%

Light Engineering Lock-Key and Others Repairing

0.0% 100.0%

Mobile Repairing 0.0% 100.0% Van/Rickshaw Assembling

0.0% 100.0%

Electric Wiring 0.0% 66.7% Engine Boat Mechanics

0.0% 85.7%

Small Enterprises Small Trade 0.0% 91.2% Tailoring 0% 100% 0.0% 90.0% Handicraft 0.0% 83.3%

9 It must be noted that the stated aim of Shiree does include reference to disaster preparedness and response. “…At the same time, the programme seeks to reduce the vulnerability of the extreme poor to natural disasters, economic shocks, social exclusion and undernutrition. Shiree is also committed to addressing the needs of extremely poor women, children, the elderly and ethnic minorities and marginalised groups (Shiree.org).

8

Sector IGA Adoption Rate (%) Phase 1 Phase 2

Food Processing Food Processing 2% 93% 14.0% 70.2% Total 5% 68% 2.3% 74.4%

Sources: Effectiveness Study 2013 for Phase 1; Effectiveness Study 2014 for Phase 2 * Adoption of more than >80% is highlighted

Overall, across the two phases of BHHs, the off-farm IGAs classified as light engineering, small enterprises and food processing are preferred by the BHHs. Of the off-farm IGAs, beef fattening/heifer rearing is preferred. Based on discussions with BHHs, the off-farm IGAs provide more regular, year-round income, while cattle deliver large profits, are a sign of prestige in rural areas, and are less labour intensive than other IGAs. Practical Action, Bangladesh’s flagship innovation - sandbar cropping of pumpkins -was also adopted widely. This technology turns the otherwise non-productive sandbars and river basin that emerge during the dry and winter season into productive tracts of horticultural land for growing pumpkins and others crops including squash, beet, water melon, tomatoes, carrots, and even strawberries. Sandbar cropping has demonstrated high returns on investment in a short period of time. Income generated from sandbar cropping has allowed BHHs to invest in and adopt other IGAs. Discussions with beneficiaries reveal that, given the labour intensiveness of this activity (digging one-metre deep pits, carting water for irrigation, fertilising crops and picking and transporting pumpkins) they do not see this IGA as a long term option (most BHHs engaged in two rounds of pumpkin cultivation) but rather as a stepping stone - generating sufficient income to allow then to engage in other IGAs. Based on an analysis of graduation rates, income, and qualitative information about different IGAs provided in annual and sector specific reports, as well as discussions with beneficiaries and project staff, the RT recommend that BHHs engage in a minimum of two IGAs, that take into account the need for year-round income and vulnerability to natural disasters (i.e. at least one year-round income source that is preferably generated off-farm). Market linkages The projects support for building market linkages has made a considerable contribution to the success of sandbar cropping. The project has developed 43 producer associations (15 in Phase 1 and 28 in Phase 2)10 for BHHs engaged in sandbar cultivation of pumpkins and linked these people to buyers. Pumpkin cultivators reported positively on the marketing advice and support provided by the project. The project has also supported pumpkin growers with storage facilities, allowing them to sell some produce later in the year for a higher price, when pumpkins are not in season. The Review Team recommend that, going forward, the focus on market linkages should be broadened to include other on and off farm IGAs, including fish production, vegetable production and handicrafts. BHHs engaged in small trades and light engineering would also benefit from further support is business development.

3.3 Efficiency Efficiency measures the outputs - qualitative and quantitative - in relation to the inputs. It is an economic term, which signifies that the aid uses the least costly resources possible in order to achieve the desired results.

10 This is recorded in the logframe progress and confirmed verbally by project management.

9

Cost of graduation: According to Shiree data, the cost of graduating a household from extreme poverty through PfP is approximately 24,000 BDT (190 GBP), of which 50% are incurred in direct intervention costs. This cost does not however include cost for monitoring, and given the intrinsic relationship between monitoring and implementation under PfP, the RT does not feel that it accurately reflects the true cost of graduation. Based on PfP budget figures and analysis of monitoring costs, the RT estimate that the actual cost of graduation per BHH is between 27,000 BDT (230 GBP) and 29,000 BDT (250 GBP). It is impossible to make any real comparison between PfP and other extreme poverty projects given differences in design, beneficiary selection, definitions of graduation and contextual factors. As requested in the TORs however, the RT has attempted to provide some comparison of PfP with other EP projects. From this analysis, PfP seems to compare well to other projects that employ similar rural livelihood interventions aimed at achieving graduation from extreme poverty (Annex 6). Timeframe for graduation PfP has been designed as a program that takes 3 years to achieve graduation. According to CMS3 data from 2014, it appears that graduation of Phase 1 beneficiary households took at least 4 years. Available data from Practical Action, Bangladesh suggests that time to graduation for Phase 2 graduates may less that Phase 1, but is still likely to be longer than the anticipated 3 years. This analysis is supported by field observations and discussions with key stakeholders. The difference in time to graduate across Phase 1 and 2 can most likely be attributed to differences in BHHs selected for both phases, and a more integrated package of interventions for Phase 2, including the nutrition component, and inclusion of off-farm IGAs. Although this is longer than originally anticipated, the Review Team feel that the timeframe for graduation is reasonable, given the extremely poor and vulnerable nature of beneficiaries. Efficiency of Income Generating Activities Efforts have been made by Practical Action, Bangladesh to analyse different IGAs in terms of their Return on Investment (RoI) (see Annex 7). According to Practical Action, Bangladesh, the approximate RoI for pumpkin cropping over the 6-year period from 2009-2015 is GBP 3.4 million, and strong RoIs are evident for other IGAs. The RT commends Practical Action, Bangladesh’s effort to determine the economic return on its investments but also notes that ROI analysis is a relatively simplistic way of analysing cost effectiveness and efficiency. It does not take into account all costs, including indirect costs (such as HR costs) but that contribute to an intervention's effectiveness. Furthermore, RoI does not consider factors like the time taken to deliver the return and opportunity costs (i.e. the labour intensiveness of an IGA and the impact of this on supporting diversification of income etc.). No cost-benefit analyses of PfP interventions have been undertaken11. The RT recommend that, cost-benefit analyses of IGAs be undertaken that incorporate all costs (such as time, opportunity costs and direct and indirect financial costs) and be used to inform project staff and beneficiary decision making about IGA selection. Ratio of field staff to beneficiaries PfP’s staffing to beneficiary ratio is very high. According to PfP staff, Phase 2 of the project was designed with a ratio of 1:434 (a reduction from a ratio of 1:674 in phase 1), but in reality, given staff withdrawals starting from 2014, the ratio is around 1:55012. Both the planned and actual ratios are very high and call into question the ability of field staff to effectively support such large numbers of extremely poor and vulnerable households. The RT estimate that at this ratio, field staff need to visit, support and gather monitoring data on more than 10 households each and every day of the year - a formidable and most likely impossible task even without considering the remoteness of communities and necessary travel time.

11 Although PfP documents classifies some analyses as cost benefit analyses, these studies more accurately reflect RoI analyses. 12 The BRAC Targeting the Ultra Poor / Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction (TUP/CFPR) project classifies its beneficiaries on the basis of poverty and vulnerability. The staff beneficiary ratio in this project ranges from 1:70 for the most vulnerable BHHs up to a maximum of approximately 1:300 for the least vulnerable BHHs.

10

Related to this, the review team found considerable variation in both the quantity (duration and frequency of visits) and quality (inclusion of social training about early marriage etc.) of support provided to beneficiary households both between and within PNGOs. This may reflect PNGOs adjusting the amount of mentoring and support given to beneficiaries, based on their perception of need and /or their time constraints. Taken together, the high staff to beneficiary ratio and the variation in the support provided to beneficiaries, may mean that, in order to meet monitoring requirements, some beneficiaries are not receiving the support they need in order to achieve timely and sustainable graduation. Furthermore, the withdrawal of staff in 2014 (at the mid-stage of Phase 2 implementation) is likely to have impacted negatively on quality of project implementation for the remainder of Phase 2. The RT notes that although there may have been some overlap in roles of Practical Action, Bangladesh and PNGO technical staff in the field that warranted analysis (see section on Income Generating Activities above), the timing of withdrawals coincided with an intense phase in implementation. In future, the RT recommends that the withdrawal of project staff be carefully considered and phased to ensure that it does not compromise implementation. This necessarily will require close involvement of all implementing partners in discussing and developing a realistic phase-down schedule and understanding the implications of the withdrawals.

Going forward, the review team recommends that future projects incorporate a standardized, minimum set of support and training (including frequency of visits and topics to be included), and determines the ratio of staff: beneficiaries based on a realistic assessment of implementation requirements. Greater standardization of support would also aid further analysis of the effectiveness of PfP’s support and aid replication of PfP field support. Partnership and linkages Practical Action, Bangladesh implements PfP through five local NGO partners. Both the PNGOs and Practical Action, Bangladesh report having an effective partnership. Practical Action, Bangladesh recognizes the value of the local knowledge and experience of its PNGOS and, in turn, the PNGOs appreciate Practical Action, Bangladesh’s technical expertise, strategic guidance, advocacy capacity and support. Practical Action, Bangladesh’s approach to working with PNGOs is commendable, ensuring on-going technical support and close financial monitoring on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. PFP’s support has been primarily directed at project staff, rather than PNGO staff more broadly. As a result the knowledge and skills that have been developed through the PNGO’s engagement with Practical Action, Bangladesh, risks being lost when the project concludes. According to Practical Action, Bangladesh, this was a deliberate decision to focus capacity building efforts at the household/community level (i.e. the development of pumpkin producer associations) rather than investing more in NGO staff capacity building. The RT recommends that going forward, projects like PfP include a more explicit focus on capacity building of PNGOs through more regular and refresher training on technical issues as well as training and support on operational issues including governance, financial management, monitoring and advocacy. Practical Action, Bangladesh has also entered into partnerships with universities to support research and learning. These partnership models have provided returns in terms of both cost-efficiency (compared with the cost of Practical Action, Bangladesh implementing this project or understanding /commissioning its own research) and on the ground efficient and effective practice. A spillover effect is likely to be the development of a cadre of graduates with experience in and interest in working in research associated with extreme poverty. Practical Action, Bangladesh has also established linkages with local governments and line departments. The effectiveness of these linkages varies from place to place, and between PNGOs. Financial management

11

Annual audits have been undertaken of PfP. Audits from 2013 and 2014 have been cited by the RT, along with the most recent quarterly financial report, a summary of phase 2 expenditure against budget allocation, and an exert from Practical Action, Bangladesh’s financial management policy. According to audit reports, PfP’s funds have been expensed in accordance with the annual budget, and no adverse audit findings are reported. Given some significant (greater than 10%) variances however across line items, the Review Team recommends that a targeted review of Practical Action, Bangladesh and PNGO financial policies, procedures and practices be undertaken, and its findings used to strengthen financial capacity and governance if and as indicated.

3.4 Impact and Sustainability Impact - The positive and negative changes produced, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Sustainability measures whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn.

Impact and sustainability of graduation Overall the project has made an immediate impact on the lives of beneficiaries and their families, as indicated by CMS3 graduation. After 3-4 years, the vast majority of beneficiary households have realized increased income, asset value and food security, developed new skills, and graduated from extreme poverty. For many households, the benefits should be sustained if they can establish sufficient savings before experiencing any significant shock. However, PfP is working with the poorest and most vulnerable of people. Even after graduating from extreme poverty, households remain poor and highly vulnerable to devastating shocks, in particular flooding, river erosion and threat of eviction from the embankments13, but also costs associated with ill health and significant events such as marriages and funerals (see Box 3&4). PfP’s activities in disaster preparedness and response are mainly limited to stocking of dry food and safe water. There are very few flood shelters around the target areas and those that do exist are often in poor condition. The RT recommends that, given the extremely high vulnerability of people living on river embankments to flooding and disasters, any future project include thorough consideration of disaster preparedness and response, including:

x Ensuring adequate flood shelters are in place; and x Ensuring that sufficient and timely emergency funding is made available to affected households

based on findings of quick needs assessments.

Related to dowry, the RT recommends this be included in efforts to raise social awareness (above) and as a key advocacy issue (e.g. engaging with local Imams and schools to spread messages about the negative effect and illegality of dowry). Related to health costs, please see the recommendation below in this section under ‘ Education and Health’. Impact and sustainability of specific interventions Some project interventions (in particular the nutrition component) and IGAs (for example, a number of field staff noted the high cost of irrigation and the challenge this posed for the sustainability of pumpkin cropping) may not be sustainable beyond the life of the project when funding ceases, unless low cost innovations are developed or interventions are picked up by other providers. Through its partnerships with universities, Practical Action, Bangladesh is currently undertaking research into sustainable, low cost and labour-efficient irrigation options, in order to ensure that pumpkin cropping continues as a viable intervention in the longer term.

13 The threat of eviction from the embankments was reported to the RT in one field site only – Kurigram.

12

Similarly, the high rates of closure of project-funded health clinics, health camps and schools demonstrate the un-sustainability of this approach. Instead, The RT recommends that future projects focus on linking beneficiaries and their children into existing health services and schools, advocating for service improvements and expansion, and supporting service providers and communities to address locally-identified constraints to delivery (i.e. access during flooding). Exit strategy PfP’s exit strategy as agreed with Shiree is largely focused on the handover of assets and wind down of project activities. Although these is some consideration given to supporting a smooth transition from the project for BHHs and PNGOs, these elements are not well developed, lack details of how and when they will be implemented (i.e. linking BHHs with financial and social services), and in many cases, do not have any budget attached to them. The need for the development of a robust exit strategy, specifically related to the sustained graduation of beneficiaries, was a recommendation coming out of the ‘Review of Existing Scale Fund Projects’ analysis of PfP in 2011. The authors of this report also called for the exit strategy to be implemented for the final 12 months of the project. The RT reiterates these comments and recommends that the existing exit strategy be strengthened to include a greater focus on sustainability of impact for beneficiaries. The exit strategy should be the focus of project implementation for the remaining time of Phase 2. Performance measures for the exit strategy should be developed and it should be fully costed and monitored.

4. OTHER KEY KINDINGS

4.1 Nutrition The PFP nutrition component, delivered by community volunteers and PNGO nutrition officers, has been effective, resulting in: improved dietary habits of BHHs; better health and hygiene practices of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in the community; enhanced care for pregnant and lactating women, newborns, and young children; improved understanding of nutrition, health and hygiene and social concern like early marriage for adolescent girls; and community awareness of nutrition, hygiene and social issues, delivered by community nutrition volunteers. The most striking impact reported by the community health volunteers and the PNGO Nutrition officers is the increased rates of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of a child’s life. The RT recommends that the successes of this component be built upon going forward, including by:

x Extending awareness raising of nutrition health and hygiene to the broader community (not just BHHs) with the support of local community leaders14;

x Expanding adolescent groups to include boys. This is important as a means of developing the life skills and knowledge they will need as future husbands, fathers, community members and leaders. The project has already demonstrated that care of pregnant and lactating mothers has improved when male members of the HH are included in nutrition awareness raising efforts. By including adolescent boys, the impact of the nutrition program would be further increased.

x Establishing/ strengthening linkages between the project and community health clinics, including:

14 When disseminating messages that challenge traditional norms, it is advisable to engage community leaders/elite such as the local religious leaders, teachers and doctors in relaying the message to make it more acceptable.

13

o Improved referral systems for severe cases of malnutrition and at-risk cases of pregnant and lactating mothers;

o Extending capacity building /training opportunities to community clinic staff; o Advocating for improved facilities and capacity at local health clinics to monitor child

nutrition and respond appropriately; x Strengthening monitoring and analysis of the nutrition component’s effectiveness by:

o Including robust, outcome-focused indicators for nutrition in the project logframe, consistent with Shiree’s nutrition indicators; and

o Undertaking more in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of the nutrition component, including through a Knowledge, Attitude and Practice study to define ways to sustainably changing knowledge and practices of the target BHHs.

4.2 Gender PfP emphasizes working with female headed households, in recognition of their socio-cultural and legal disadvantage, and sets a target of including at least 20 percent female headed households and at least 60% of interventions targeted at women. PfP (Phase 2) has worked with 6,617 (44%) female-headed households and has engaged all (100%) female household members in different IGAs. The RT is unable to determine whether the target for interventions directly targeting women has been achieved. Although identified as key program objectives in the Project Memorandum, gender indicators have not been included in the logframe. (See the discussion below on logframe, monitoring and reporting). The project has prioritised grant and asset transfers for extreme poor women. A range of IGAs are available that take into account women’s other responsibilities (i.e. caring for children and the elderly) as well as the challenges they face, including limited mobility and interaction within the community. The most common IGAs that women have engaged in are sandbar cropping (5229), sheep/goat rearing (5092), beef fattening/heifer rearing (2003), cage aquaculture (1756), duck rearing (708), small trades (418) and tailoring (331) (Source: Phase 1 and 2 training list). In contrast to what these figures suggest, FGDs with beneficiaries revealed that many women preferred IGAs that allowed them to work in or near their homes and that provided year round income (e.g. livestock rearing, tailoring and small trades). Even though the majority had engaged in sandbar cropping and cage aquaculture, they noted that these activities required intensive effort, were laborious and seasonal. The development of skin diseases, attributed to engagement in cage aquaculture, was also mentioned. The lower graduation rate for female-headed households is a well-documented issue. The CMS3 (2014) demonstrated statistically significant differences in graduation rates for male and female-headed households in 2012 and 2013, and lower rates of graduation for female-headed households in PfP compared with those of other Shiree projects. This suggests that female-headed households are less responsive to project interventions than male-headed households. The RT note that, because of the known challenges that women face, these households would have benefitted from additional, targeted support. Table 3: Overall graduation rate by head of household for PFP (Phase 1) (% graduation within each gender)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 M F T P M F T p M F T P M T T p M T T p 9.4 7.1 8.7 3.1 3.1 0 2.2 ns 59.5 14.3 45.7 0.005 37.5 7.1 28.3 0.0035 100 92.9 97.8 ns Source: CMS3 2014

14

PfP uses Shiree’s measurement of gender empowerment15, which considers women’s decision-making power, social interaction beyond the HH, security, access to information, and skills in problem solving. According to CMS3 2014, 87% of the female beneficiaries meet the criteria for gender empowerment. Shiree’s Socio-economic Survey (2014) examined two NGOs and reported rates of 94.4% (Phase 1) and 70.5% (Phase 2). Together with increasing women’s income and economic participation, the project has enabled better joint-decision making in the home. Female beneficiaries also reported that domestic conflict has reduced substantially. They said that men value the contribution they make to household income and that less financial strain has resulted in less conflict. Women are also more mobile in the community now, able to go more easily to markets and carry out transactions related to their IGAs. In four out of the five districts, men, women and adolescents all mentioned that early marriage no longer occurs in their village. In the fifth district (Gaibandha), it was noted as rare.

Despite indications that PfP has made a positive contribution to improving the lives of female project beneficiaries and household members (particularly in terms of income and nutrition), the RT note the inadequacy of PfP’s approach to gender. When FGD participants were asked whether they understood why women were given more focus in the project activities, both males and females responded that it was because women take care of the household and have better savings habits than men. They did not mention gender-based disadvantages or issues of equality. Furthermore, dowry - an issue that threatens sustained graduation for EP, and is exacerbated by improved household income - is not being considered or discussed within the project. Furthermore, as discussed later in this report monitoring has not consistently been gender disaggregated nor included gender-sensitive measures. The RT also note that there are no female project staff members within Practical Action, Bangladesh and, among the PNGOs, only a few female frontline staff and one female senior manager (GUK). The RT recommends that:

15 Gender empowerment indicator: Female adult must empowered to 75% of questions on economic, social and political empowerment.

Box 5: Quotes from women’s groups: x We not only choose and buy our own clothes, we also buy our husband’s clothes. (Gangachhara Romokanto Mahila dal,

Gojoghanta Union, Gangachhara Upazilla, Rangpur District)

x Ador barse, dang komse – meaning less beating and more caring attitude from her husband since the woman became an income-earner. (Gangachhara Romokanto Mahila dal, Gojoghanta Union, Gangachhara Upazilla, Rangpur District)

x No-one makes snide comments when we go to the market, community people know that we go for the right reason - to do

business and not for fun – (Masterpara Mahila Samity Dal 5 no block community, Purbochatnai Union, Dimla Upazila, Nilphamari District)

x We now have at least two sets of clothes, previously we had to bathe in the clothes we wore, washed these on ourselves

and then let them dry the same way. (Jaba Dal, Ghonoshampur, Jatrapur Union, Kurigram sadar Upazilla, Kurigram District)

x The project has shown us and taught us how to live a cleaner and healthier life, it has given us the means to be able to eat

3 times a day but we still need more support so that one day we don’t need any more support. (Parulia Jamuna Attynirbahi Dal, Parulia Community, Patikapara Union, Hatibandha Upazilla, Lalmonirhat District)

15

x Future projects include a stronger focus on gender mainstreaming16 and interventions specifically directed at gender empowerment (rather than striving for gender empowerment through economic empowerment) to support improved graduation rates and greater long-term impact.

x Gender monitoring and reporting be strengthened through the inclusion of gender-sensitive indicators in the logframe, sex disaggregated data and regular gender analyses.

x Future project teams strive to achieve gender-balance at all organizational levels. Women should be well represented as field staff and also in more senior technical and operational roles.

4.3 Elderly and Disability PfP’s approach to tackling disability has been successful and should be continued in future projects working with EP households. The notable aspects are the training and capacity building of caregivers and allocation of a productive asset to the disabled person to ensure continued support from family members. Through the capacity building of caregivers, the HHs are better able to cope with the specific needs of the disabled family member, resulting in more sensitive and humane care (see Box 6). For households that are unable to effectively manage an IGA (headed by disabled/elderly), PfP’s focus

should be on linking them to appropriate services (government, non-government) and (re-)establishing support networks in the community. This approach would require monitoring to ensure that support systems were in place.

4.4 Local Economic Development Based on observations from the field and discussions with community people and government officials (from local government and line departments) the project has had a positive impact on the local economy. Underutilised and barren land is now productively used. Through skills development, asset transfer, and sharing of technology, the project has generated employment for both BHHs and other community members who have replicated innovations, especially pumpkin cultivation. The increased agricultural production around the embankments has invigorated local markets. The review team notes that communities looked generally clean and well maintained (e.g. houses made of corrugated iron, rather than scrap materials), and people interviewed said that the project had improved the quality of life for people in the community (Box 7).

16 Gender mainstreaming is: “The process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetrated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality.” (ECOSOC, 1997)

Box 7: Local Transport and Trade: Mizanur Rahman, Local doctor and businessman – Purbochatnai Union, Dimla, upazilla, Nilphamari ‘Because of the project activities, these roads have become more active. Previously we would have to walk at least 2 miles before getting transport to go to the union level market, now there are plenty of rickshaws and motorcycles plying this road and village. Women have opened tailoring shops and small groceries and now we don’t have to go all the way to the main union market to buy essentials.’

Box 6: Elderly case study: Rabeya Bewa, Gangachhara, R. Sadar, Rangpur (Phase 1- HH ID number 585274257039) Rabeya Bewa (60+) lives alone in a very ramshackle single room house, made of mostly hay, scrap materials and some tin. She lives on the side of some fields, which are normally flooded during the rainy season. Her deaf husband lives down the road with her son. She supports herself. In 2012, PfP gave Rabeya three goats. One died and she sold the other two. Later in 2014 she was given further support to make winter snacks (bhapa pita), but this provides only seasonal income. When the Reviewer went to visit her, she was not as home but her husband was visiting. He reported that she was out looking for work as a domestic helper, which she does whenever she can. When she cannot find work, she reverts to begging.

16

4.5 Advocacy and Influence PfP’s advocacy efforts feed into the Advocacy Strategy of Shiree, which aims to “catalyse change in policy and practice to improve the lives of the extreme poor. This strategy is not an end in itself nor is it an ‘add on’.

It is an integral component of the programme itself, increasing the impact, outreach and sustainability of Shiree partner interventions”. In accordance with this strategy PfP has made considerable advocacy efforts at local, national and international level. A list of PfP’s advocacy and efforts can be found at Annex 9. At the local level, and in partnership with its NGO partners, Practical Action, Bangladesh have worked to influence local administration and line departments. Consistent with its reported advocacy objective, Practical Action, Bangladesh’s advocacy efforts have had an impact in gaining access to transitional lands for the purpose of cropping by extreme poor households (both project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries). They have also shared lessons with other implementers in northwest Bangladesh. The impact of this local advocacy is evidenced in particular by the spread of sandbar cropping in this region but varies between field sites and partner NGOs. At the national level, PfP’s has supported Shiree’s efforts to advocate for the needs of the extreme poor. Practical Action, Bangladesh has contributed to the organization of a number of national conferences and seminars with the aim of influencing the 7th 5 Year Plan so that it includes consideration of extreme poverty. PfP staff have also presented in such forums, most often to highlight the sandbar cropping initiative. PfP’s support for these large forums has no doubt contributed to increasing awareness of extreme poverty, and in particular its pervasive presence in the char and embankment areas of north-west Bangladesh. It is difficult however to determine what the impact of PfP’s engagement has been (both for the broader advocacy agenda around extreme poverty and for PfP beneficiaries more specifically) given that there are no specific objectives attached to PfP advocacy efforts nor attempts to measure outcomes. PfP has hosted a number of field demonstrations for key members of government (in particular from the Department of Agricultural Extension), universities and other development partners, including the Head of FAO. The purpose of these field visits was to demonstrate ground level impacts, explore opportunities for scaling up activities beyond northwest Bangladesh, and to influence policies and annual plans of these key organizations’, in particular DAE and FAO. It is the view of the Review Team that these demonstration visits, facilitated through Practical Action, Bangladesh’s close relationship with eminent and influential experts that provide advice to key development agencies and the government of Bangladesh, are a practical example of effective advocacy practices. At the international level, PfP has presented at a number of international seminars and forums, including most recently, the “Pitch and Picture” session at Amsterdam International Water Week (November 2015) and Tropentag Conference at Humboldt University in Berlin (September 2015). As a result of its national and international advocacy efforts, Practical Action, Bangladesh has attracted considerable attention and resulted in the spread of technologies and approaches, as mentioned previously. The Review Team feel that the effectiveness of PfP’s advocacy efforts (and their capacity to report on them) would be enhanced by the development of an advocacy and communications strategy, that builds on and operationalizes Practical Action’s ‘Policy Influencing Framework: How Change Happens’. This strategy should be clearly linked to PfP project objectives and used to inform annual activity planning, implementation and monitoring. The strategy should be impact-focused, grounded in an understanding of local political economy, recognize and build on the comparative advantage of key partners (including Shiree, Practical Action, Bangladesh and PNGOs), costed and measurable in terms of outcomes and impact. It should include advocacy related to technologies and interventions, as well as social advocacy (e.g. the impact of dowry on extreme poverty and access to transitional lands). Finally it should also include an emphasis on capacity

17

building for Practical Action, Bangladesh and its PNGOs on advocacy and communications. Given the importance of this work, the Review Team feels that Practical Action, Bangladesh would benefit from drawing in specialized support with developing the strategy.

4.6 Innovation and Lessons Learned

Risk taking is inherent in innovation. So too are failure, learning, adaptation and evaluation. Innovation and continual learning are key features of PfP. PfP Phase 2 builds upon the lessons of Phase 1 and the precursor to PfP, the Disappearing Lands Project that was awarded the Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development Gold Award in 2007. This is evidenced by the inclusion of off-farm IGAs in Phase 2 and the introduction of savings groups. PfP’s effort to continually look for opportunities to improve existing technologies is commendable. Annual reports highlight the diversity of innovations being implemented in PfP – ranging from its flagship innovations of sandbar cropping and floating gardens, to smaller innovations aimed at enhancing effectiveness of existing components. These include:

x introducing bee-keeping on to the sandbars to support improved pollination and also provide a secondary source of income,

x Innovation: diversifying the crops grown on the sandbars ( pumpkins and squash) to include beetroot, garlic, carrots, tomatoes, broccoli, and very recently ornamental pumpkins in collaboration with Rhine-Waal University, Berlin

x decentralizing fertilizer distribution to the sandbar farmers to reduce management input required; x Piloting drip irrigation systems in the sandbars to reduce time and labour costs and water wastage.

Practical Action, Bangladesh’s research partnerships with Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University (HSTU) and Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute highlight this commitment to innovation and learning. In 2014-15 these collaborations resulted in a number of research projects looking at various ways of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of pumpkin cropping on the sandbars. Although the vast majority of the innovations undertaken in PfP have been technology based (and in particular related to sandbar cropping) there is some evidence of new approaches being introduced and research undertaken to address non-technical constraints to graduation, including the introduction of savings groups for women in Phase 2. There is also evidence of reflective / problem-based learning practices influencing operational aspects of the project. For example, following the retrenchments of a large number of staff in 2014, Practical Action, Bangladesh changed the way it implemented its field operations and deployed field staff at the community level to reduce travel time etc. PfP continues to think about how the project can be improved and has provided suggestions to Shiree and DFID as to how the project or future projects could be strengthened. As emphasised throughout this report, the project and its beneficiaries would have benefited from a stronger focus on sustainability and gender. The RT recommends that:

x pilots and innovations are adequately monitoring and reported against, even when regarded as unsuccessful

x More analysis is undertaken regarding market linkages and opportunities to strengthen off-farm IGAs (e.g. links to markets for handicrafts);

18

x A potential area for future innovation by Practical Action, Bangladesh is in the development of low cost, flood-proof housing and sanitation systems; and

x Ensuring sustainable impact of project investments and gender mainstreaming be included as central features of any future design.

4.7 Logframe, Monitoring, and Reporting Logframe A key component of the ToR for this review was ‘to assess the extent to which PfP has achieved its outcomes and objectives as set out in the logframe’. Logical Frameworks, or ‘logframes’, describes both an approach to project planning, monitoring and evaluation, and a discrete tool. According to DFID (2011), “logframes enable you to present the relevant quantitative and qualitative information underlying your project in a concise and accessible manner”. They provide a distillation of the key information needed by programme managers to ensure that projects are being implemented efficiently and results measured against clear targets. Logframes should be adjusted to reflect changes in the project. The PfP logframe does not provide a strong framework for measuring what the project has actually delivered and does not seem to have been used for meaningful project tracking (see Annex 10). Firstly, the logframe has not been updated throughout the project period. As a result, activities that have been discontinued (for example the health services and schools) appear as though they are off track in terms of achievement of objectives. Furthermore, when the nutrition component was added in phase 2, the logframe was not adapted to include it as a key program element. Secondly, despite the strong emphasis on reaching women in PfP, the logframe does not include sex-disaggregated data (i.e. the number/% of female and male beneficiaries,) or gender sensitive indicators (i.e. at least 20% of all BHHs are female-headed). According to DFID (2011) the logframe is the key document for mainstreaming gender. Thirdly, indicators in the logframe do not reflect the project logic or ‘theory of change’. For example, Practical Action, Bangladesh have explained to the RT that sandbar cropping is intended as a short-term IGA to provide a significant boost to BHH’s financial resources over a short period of time, allowing them to engage in other IGAs. This is not captured by the indicator related to sandbar cropping, which measures whether BHHs ‘continued receiving technical & advisory support and linkages’. As such the expected transition away from pumpkin cropping to other IGAs is not reflected in the logframe, and this indicator appears off track. Fourthly, indicators need to be specific, usable and clearly measurable. The indicators used in the PfP logframe are not well defined and do not provide clarity on what is to be measured. For example, the indicator “Networking at local, district and national level” does not make it clear what ‘networking’ refers to, or how it will be measured. Finally, the logframe should present in summary form the agreed key aspects of the project. The PfP logframe is heavily weighted towards tracking progress of its IGAs and income generation, but does not include outcome, indicators or targets related to other key program components, for example advocacy. For future project designs, the RT recommend that the adequately reflect the project’s theory of change and key project elements, supports gender mainstreaming, is SMART and is updated as need be to ensure on-going relevance of outcomes and indicators.

19

Monitoring PfP includes a heavy focus on monitoring. The review was complicated by the number of different sources of data available that provide different measures of key program elements. As just one example, Practical Action, Bangladesh and Shiree measure food security in different ways – Practical Action, Bangladesh considers the number of meals /day and Shiree look at levels of nutritional diversity17. As a result different sources of data will provide different figures. The RT suggests that, going forward, monitoring be streamlined to reduce duplication and ‘data confusion’ and also to reduce the monitoring burden experienced by field staff. The RT notes the addition of a number of unplanned monitoring tasks during the implementation of the project, in particular the Graduate Monitoring Census and the CMS2. Although it may be necessary and appropriate to amend monitoring throughout the life of a project in order assess performance, The RT recommend that when significant additions to the monitoring schedule are made, their impact on project implementation be considered, including in terms of human resourcing. In 2013, CMS3 data indicated a considerable decline in PfP’s graduation rates. The result was disputed by Practical Action, Bangladesh who had not found a similar decline. No formal re-verification took place and there is nothing documented in reports to clarify how the issue was resolved, and what the final agreed figure for 2013 was. Going forward, where instances of significant anomalies or divergence in data appear between sources or from one year to the next, a process be put in place to formally verify and report on the final accepted figure. Reporting Currently, Practical Action, Bangladesh produces a large number of documents each year, including sectoral reports, effectiveness reports, annual reports, annual reviews and financial reports. The time taken to produce these reports must be considerable. There is considerable duplication and repetition of information across reports. For example, Practical Action, Bangladesh currently produce two reports each year aimed at tracking PfP annual project progress – the lengthy and detailed annual report – a rich sources of qualitative and quantitative data, including overviews of all IGAs, output-based details on all training and advocacy events, and case studies; and the shorter Annual Report that focuses on impact, innovation, and lessons. Neither document provides an adequate indication of overall project progress (including tracking against the logframe or financial reporting), and often do dot report on the same issues (for example key innovations described in the Annual Review are sometimes not mentioned in the Annual Reports). Going forward, the RT recommend reporting be streamlined, and that reports be focused on the audience for which they are intended, have a standardised structure (including an executive summary), be outcomes and impact-focused, use evidence to support claims of progress, and be concise, ideally not more than 20-25 pages, excluding annexes.

5. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for PfP Phase 2 1. Logframe. The current logframe be update to reflect changes that have occurred during the life of the

project. Where available gender disaggregated data should be included. 2. Exit strategy. The exit strategy should be strengthened to include a greater focus on sustainability of

impact for beneficiaries. The exit strategy should be the focus of project implementation for the

17 It should also be noted here that the Indicator on the logframe refers to a reduction in the food deficit period – neither directly related to the no of meals/ day nor food diversity.

20

remaining time of Phase 2. Performance measures for the exit strategy should be developed and it should be fully costed and closely monitored.

3. Analysis a. Cost-Benefit analyses to be undertaken on different IGAs and include consideration of

opportunity costs (labour intensiveness, rate of income growth etc.). b. Monitoring of sustainability of graduation for Phase 1 and Phase 2 beneficiaries should be

incorporated into future projects so that their progress can be continue to be tracked over the next 5+ years.

4. Financial Management a. Practical Action, Bangladesh/Shiree commission a targeted review of Practical Action,

Bangladesh and PNGO financial policies, procedures and practices to be undertaken, and its findings used to strengthen financial capacity and governance if and as indicated.

Recommendations for future projects 1. Sustainability and impact. Future project designs place greater emphasis on sustainability and impact,

in particular by including a stronger focus on disaster preparedness and gender and social empowerment.

2. Support for BHHs, based on their level of vulnerability a. Support for beneficiaries should be tailored, based on their level of vulnerability and known risk

of failure to graduate, in particular single income-earner households, female-headed households, and those that include elderly or disabled people. BHHs categorized as being highly vulnerable should receive more intensive support (smaller ration of field staff:BHHs) than less vulnerable households.

b. The ratio of field staff to beneficiaries should be reduced. The current ratio of 1:550 threatens to undermine project effectiveness. An appropriate ratio should be determined based on a realistic assessment of implementation requirements, and vulnerability and needs of BHHs.

c. Any withdrawal of project staff should be carefully considered by both funding and implementing partners, and phased appropriately to ensure that it does not compromise implementation.

3. Asset package

a. The value of the asset package should be standardised for all BHHs in order to reduce conflict and tension in the community and also support comparative analysis of IGA effectiveness.

b. All BHHs be supported to engage in at least 2 IGAs – ideally one that provides year round income and that is less vulnerable to natural disasters (i.e. off-farm) and a secondary IGA that may or may not be seasonal.

c. Future projects should incorporate a standardized (minimum) package of support and training (including frequency of visits and topics to be included).

4. Savings and other groups a. Groups should be included in future project designs as a forum for disseminating information

and raising awareness of key social and legal issues, for facilitating discussion and joint problem solving, and for building demand and accountability.

b. Savings groups should be provided with targeted and on-going support to build robust governance systems, develop financial management capabilities

5. Market linkages and business development a. The focus on market linkages should be broadened to include other on and off farm IGAs (in

addition to pumpkin cropping) including fish production, vegetable production and handicrafts. b. BHHs engaged in small trades and light engineering would also benefit from further support is

business development

21

c. BHHs can also be engaged in other tasks/trade in the agricultural products value chain e.g., seed seller/trader, mill collector etc. and can be linked to private sector companies who can take charge to train and set up these people.

6. Skills development. The youth can be linked to the skills development project under the Government of Bangladesh, which considers competency based training which considers recognition of prior learning (RPL18) in order to get certified qualifications in specific skills that can help them get better paying jobs in both the national and international labour market.

7. Nutrition a. In order to assess the effectiveness of the nutrition component further, more in-depth analysis is

required through a Knowledge, Attitude and Practice study to define ways to sustainably improve nutrition awareness and behaviour.

b. Extend awareness-raising of nutrition health and hygiene to the broader community (not just BHHs) with the support of local community leaders.

c. Expanding adolescent groups to include boys so that they develop the life skills and knowledge they will need as future husbands, fathers, community members and leaders.

d. Establishing / strengthening linkages between the project and community health clinics, including:

x Improved referral systems for pregnant and lactating mothers at risk of malnutrition and others in the community suffering from severe malnutrition;

x Extending capacity building /training opportunities to community clinic staff; x Advocating for improved facilities and capacity at local health clinics to monitor child

nutrition and respond appropriately; e. Strengthening monitoring and analysis of the nutrition component’s effectiveness by:

x including robust, outcome and indicators for nutrition in the project logframe, consistent with Shiree’s nutrition indicators;

x Undertaking more in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of the nutrition component.

8. Gender a. Future projects should include a stronger focus on interventions specifically directed at gender

empowerment (rather than striving for gender empowerment solely through economic empowerment) to support improved graduation rates and greater long-term impact.

b. Gender monitoring and reporting be strengthened through the inclusion of specific gender indicators in the logframe, sex disaggregated data and regular gender analyses.

c. Future project teams strive to achieve gender-balance at all organizational levels. Women should be well represented as field staff but also in more senior technical and operational roles.

9. Disability and the elderly a. PfP’s approach to tackling disability has been successful and should be continued in future

projects working with EP households. b. For households that are unable to effectively manage an IGA (headed by disabled/elderly), PfP’s

focus should be on linking them to appropriate services (government and non-government) and (re-)establishing support networks in the community. This approach would require monitoring to ensure that support systems were in place.

10. Health and education a. Future projects should focus on linking beneficiary households into existing health services and

schools, advocating for service improvements and expansion, and supporting service providers and communities to address locally-identified constraints to delivery (i.e. access during flooding).

18 Recognition of Prior Learning gives credit for competencies gained through previous learning, other training, work or life experience as part of skill assessment. It formally recognizes the skills and knowledge that a person already possesses against competencies in the National Training and Vocational Qualifications Framework (NTVQF).

22

11. Disaster preparedness and response Any future projects include thorough consideration of disaster preparedness and response, including:

x Ensuring adequate flood /disaster shelters are in place (especially if the project is operating in high-risk areas);

x Ensuring that sufficient and timely emergency funding is made available to affected households; based on findings of quick needs assessments;

12. Social awareness a. Dowry should be included in social awareness training and as a key advocacy issue (e.g. engaging

with local Imams and schools to spread messages about the negative effect and illegality of dowry).

13. Partnerships. Future projects that work in partnership with Local NGOS should include a more explicit focus on capacity strengthening of PNGOS through more regular and refresher training on technical issues, as well as training and support on operational issues including financial management, monitoring and advocacy. Support should be targeted at PNGO both project and core staff.

14. Advocacy a. Practical Action, Bangladesh should develop an advocacy and communications strategy with the

support of appropriately skilled experts, which builds on and operationalizes Practical Action’s ‘Policy Influencing Framework: How Change Happens’. This strategy, should:

x be clearly linked to project objectives and used to inform annual activity planning, implementation and monitoring;

x be impact-focused, costed and measurable; x be grounded in an understanding of local political economy, and recognize and build on

the comparative advantage of key partners (including Shiree, Practical Action, Bangladesh and PNGOs);

x include advocacy related to technologies and interventions as well social and legal rights; and

x Include an emphasis on capacity building for Practical Action, Bangladesh and its PNGOs on advocacy and communications.

15. Analysis and learning a. Pilots of new technologies should be closely monitored and reported against, including in terms

of impact and cost effectiveness of pilots, even when unsuccessful. b. Practical Action, Bangladesh undertake further analysis of market linkages and opportunities to

strengthen off-farm IGAs – e.g. links to markets for handicrafts. 16. Innovation

Practical Action, Bangladesh builds on its strengths in innovation and technology to develop affordable, flood-proof housing and latrines.

17. Logframe a. Future logframes must adequately reflect the project’s theory of change, and gender

mainstreaming. They must be developed based on SMART principles (with indicators that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound), and should be updated as needed to ensure the on-going relevance of outcomes and indicators. The logframe should provide a summary of progress against key project elements.

18. Monitoring a. In future projects, monitoring should be streamlined to reduce duplication and ‘data confusion’

and also to reduce the monitoring burden experienced by field staff. b. When significant anomalies or divergence in data appear between sources or from one year to

the next, a formal process should exist to verify and report on the final accepted figure. c. If significant additions / changes to the monitoring schedule are made, the impact on project

implementation must be considered, including in terms of human resourcing.

23

19. Reporting Reports (including in particular Annual Reports) should be targeted to the intended audience, have a standardised structure including an executive summary, a financial summary and tracking of progress against the logframe. Reports should provide relevant information only, be outcomes and impact-focused, use evidence to support claims of progress, and be concise (ideally not more than 20-25 pages, excluding annexes).

24

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE Work to be carried out by: Rachel Payne and Asma Alam

Contract title: Final evaluation of Pathways from Poverty, Bangladesh

1. Introduction

The Pathways from Poverty: Building economic empowerment and resilience for extreme poor households in riverine areas of Bangladesh (PFP)' began April 2012 and ends in December 2015. The project aim (phase one and phase two) is to help 31850 BHH 114,660 people take enduring steps out of extreme poverty. Phase two is expected to result in 54000 beneficiaries from 15000 families. The Pathways from Poverty (PFP) has been financed by the Government of Bangladesh, the UK Department for International Development and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation through the Economic Empowerment of the Poorest (EEP) programme. EEP is commonly known as “Shiree” which is a Bangla word for ‘steps’, used here as an acronym for Stimulating Household Improvements Resulting in Economic Empowerment.

2. Objectives o To assess the extent Pathways from Poverty has achieved its outcomes/objective by end of the

project, as set out in the Logframe with focus on effectiveness and efficiency. o To review performance of project partners and comment on the extent to which the project has

achieved value for money as defined by DFID VFM framework and cost structure and economic graduation.

o To document strategic programmatic lessons of the Pathways from Poverty to feed into future programming.

3. Recipient: Rachel Payne is the Lead Consultant19 contracted to deliver this Evaluation. Practical Action, Bangladesh is the main recipients of the evaluation. Ms Alam will work with and report directly to Ms Payne according to an agreed work plan to undertake this evaluation. 4. Scope of Work

The consultants will: x Jointly undertake a review of relevant background documents; x Conduct field research in selected locations (decided by Practical Action and the Evaluation Team) in

Rangpur Division; x Participate in meetings and debriefings with relevant stakeholders, including Practical Action Bangladesh

Team meetings, x Draft and finalization of the Evaluation Report.

The end of project review will be guided by, but not limited to, some of the OECD DAC evaluation quality criteria. The evaluation will be primarily informed by secondary data already made available by the project. The field research should be used to verify selected data/ assumptions and provide the opportunity to meet project partners and beneficiaries. The evaluation will serve as the main data source for completing the donors’ end of project report. Specific areas of data collection to be covered include, but are not limited to:- Relevance: Assess the extent to which the project was appropriate and coherent with policies of both the Bangladesh Government and donors. In addition, how necessary and sufficient were the selected interventions in achieving MDG targets within the project period.

Effectiveness: Document the extent to which the activity has achieved its clearly stated project outcomes/objectives; highlighting any unintended outcomes, positive as well as negative.

19 Ms Payne was initially contracted to undertake the review alone, but was unable to visit Bangladesh due to a deteriorating security situation. The national consultant, Rita Alam will work with of Ms Payne to undertake the review.

25

Efficiency: Highlight the extent to which the Pathways from Poverty (PFP) represents value for money and the efficient use of resources (funding, people and other resources) and how effectively it managed risk. Impact: Consider the extent to which the activity has produced positive or negative changes (directly or indirectly, intended or unintended) assessed against Pathways from Poverty (PFP) graduation model and the Logframe indicators.

Sustainability: Provide an opinion on the extent to which the results of Pathways from Poverty (PFP) are likely to be sustainable after the closure of the project in December 2015. Provide recommendations, if appropriate, of how sustainability can be improved. In addition to the above five analytical measures, the end of project review should provide a commentary on the following issues; � Gender Equality: the extent to which the Pathways from Poverty (PFP) has contributed to gender equality and

women’s empowerment. � Analysis & Learning: the extent to which the Pathways from Poverty (PFP) used opportunities for analysis and

learning to improve the project. � Review of Financial Management procedures: This should include review of a) budget spend against planned, b)

commentary on how audit recommendations were taken up. � Cross Cutting Issues: brief commentary on the extent to which activities addressed cross cutting issues such as

disability, disaster risk reduction, climate change/ variability, savings and nutrition. Key Evaluation Questions: These questions should be interpreted as guiding questions. The Consultant may feel it appropriate to break the questions down into sub-questions in order to provide better insights. Question 1: From the data already available - To what extent did the project contribute to local economic development (local economy)? To what extent have there been spill-over effects and benefits to non-participants? This question will look at relevance and effectiveness, and aims to understand the project’s contribution to building a local economy which the project beneficiaries are able to contribute to, and identifying other changes due to the project that benefit others. Answering this question will include examining the overall approach, including:

x The extent to which the project engaged different service providers/ organizations /GoB to provide or facilitate rights, services and resources to project participants;

x Whether the project targeted an appropriate beneficiaries including various social groups such as the disabled, widows and elderly;

x Whether the selected interventions were appropriate for the context, and brought about the desired change as per EEP goals.

Question 2: Using the graduation criteria developed by the project, how many people have been helped to graduate out of extreme poverty and to what extent is this graduation sustainable? This question looks at Sustainability and Impact. Answering this question will involve looking at the number of graduating households, and assessing how this has improved the lives of the beneficiaries in some of the following areas:

x Increased income, expenditure, asset ownership and savings x Improving nutrition practices (breastfeeding, micronutrient consumption, supplementary feeding etc)

among targeted mothers and adolescent girls x Access to services x The effects of market linkages on increasing the profits of business group members x Improving the status and socio-economic empowerment of women and girls x Improving food security of households x Reducing vulnerability and increasing social capital.

Answering this question will aim to comment on the extent to which graduation is attributable to the activities of the project. This question should also seek to identify and produce evidence for some of the major factors driving sustainable graduation, and those that prevent households from graduating sustainably. It would also be beneficial for the reviewer to comment (using existing reports supplied by the Bangladesh team) on how sustainable graduation levels in this project compare with other interventions in Bangladesh.

26

ANNEX 2: DOCUMENTS CONSULTED Barrett, T., Islam K., and Islam, A. 2011. “Review of Existing Scale Fund Projects: Pathways from Poverty: Building Economic Empowerment & Resilience for Extreme Poor Households in Riverine areas of Bangladesh”. Practical Action Bangladesh. Department for International Development, UK Government. 2011. “DFID’s Approach to Value for Money (VfM).” Department for International Development, UK Government .2012. “Operational Plan 2011-2015: DFID Bangladesh.” Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The World Bank, and World Food Program. 2013. “Poverty Maps of Bangladesh 2010: Key findings.” General Economics Division Planning Commission, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 2011. “Sixth Five Year Plan FY2011-FY2015: Accelerating Growth and Reducing Poverty Part‐1 Strategic Directions and Policy Framework.” Practical Action Bangladesh 2010

x Year End Project Completion (April 2009- March 2010):Pathways From Poverty: Building Economic Empowerment & Resilience for Extreme Poor Household in Riverine areas of Bangladesh (PFP--Shiree)

x Effectiveness Study Report: 1st Year. (April 2009 – March 2010). x Details of Phase 1 Training for BHHs

2012

x Baseline Survey Report: Pathways From Poverty Project (Phase-II) August 2012 x Project Memorandum: Pathways from Poverty: Building Economic Empowerment & Resilience for Extreme

Poor Households in Riverine areas of Bangladesh (PFP – Phase 2) x Project logframe- 2012-2015: Pathways from Poverty Project. x Internal M&E System PFP Shiree, Phase 2.

2013

x Programme Annual Impact Review, Extreme Poverty Programme 2012-13. x Effectiveness Study Report (Phase 1): Pathways From Poverty x Year End Project Completion Report (April 2012 - March 2013): Pathways From Poverty: Building Economic

Empowerment & Resilience for Extreme Poor Household in Riverine areas of Bangladesh (PFP Phase-II) x IGA Passbook

2014

x Programme Annual Impact Review, Extreme Poverty Programme 2013-14. x Summary Findings from Shiree Socio-economic Survey 2014 x Year End Project Completion Report PY-2 (April 2013- March 2014):Pathways From Poverty: Building Economic

Empowerment & Resilience for Extreme Poor Household in Riverine areas of Bangladesh (PFP Phase-II) x Strategic Goals Review: Annual Review Extreme Poverty Program: Pathways from Poverty Phase 2:2013-2014. x Effectiveness Study Report (Phase 2): Pathways From Poverty x CMS2/GMS/Migration/death status both phase 1 and 2 (PFP Shiree project- Phase 2. 30 December 2014

2015

x Year End Project Completion (April 2014- March 2015):Pathways From Poverty: Building Economic Empowerment & Resilience for Extreme Poor Household in Riverine areas of Bangladesh (PFP--Shiree)

x Programme Annual Impact Review, Extreme Poverty Programme 2014-15. x Annual Report (Nutrition Component) 2012-2015 x Supplementary Support Monitoring Report x Details of Phase 1 Training for BHHs x Summary of Direct training phase 1 and 2 for PFP-Shiree project

27

x Investment Vs Income by Interventions – Phase 2: PfP-Shiree Project. x Advocacy for Wider Impacts at National Level. x Events Diary: Pathways from Poverty (Phase-II) x Report: Visit for exploring vegetable market - PFP/Shiree Project x PFP Presentation phase-II for external sharing: Pathways from Poverty: Building economic Empowerment and

resilience for EP households in riverine areas of Bangladesh: Challenges and Risks versus opportunities and Hope 2009-2015.

x FINAL DRAFT: Learning by intervention: Pathways from Poverty: Building Economic Empowerment and resilience for Extreme Poor Households in Riverine Areas of Bangladesh Phase 2

x – Presentation for South-Asia Right to Food Conference, 1 June 2015. Transforming Lands Transforming lives: Supporting Communities Affected by River Erosion in North-west Bangladesh.

x Outcome tracking form - April 2012-June2015 x Auditors Report and Audited Financial Statements of Pathways from Poverty: Building Economic

empowerment and Resilience for EP Households in Riverine areas of Bangladesh Phase 2 (for the year ended 31 March 2015)

2012-2015

x n.d Case Study – Agriculture Sector x n.d Case Study – Livestock Sector x n.d Case Study – Fisheries Sector x n.d Case Study – Light Engineering Sector x n.d Case Study – Small Enterprise Sector x n.d Case Study – Food Processing Sector x n.d Case Study – Social & Disability Sector x n.d Case Study – Nutrition Intervention Sector

Practical Action United Kingdom. 2015. Improving Value-for-Money at Practical Action (An Enhanced Offer). Practical Action UK 2014- Gender Policy Practical Action UK n.d - Gender and Disaster Risk Reduction Practical Action UK n.d. - Gender and Agriculture Shiree: Stimulating Household Improvement Resulting in Economic Empowerment

x CMS 2014a. Monitoring the changes in Socio-Economic & Nutritional status of extreme poor households between March 2010 and March 2014; results from the nine panel surveys (by Professor Nicholas Mascie-Taylor and Dr Rie Goto)

x CMS3 2014b. Changes in absolute and multidimensional poverty of extreme poor Bangladeshi households

between March 2010 and March 2014 (by Professor Nicholas Mascie-Taylor and Dr Rie Goto) Shiree. 2014. Shiree EEP Graduation Index. http://practicalaction.org/bangladesh http://www.shiree.org/

28

ANNEX 3: SCHEDULE FOR FIELD VISIT (PFP- END OF PROJECT REVIEW) 10th November – 16th November, 2015

Date Time Events/ activities Day-1

Tuesday 10.11.2015

09.00- 1.00 pm At Practical Action Rangpur Office - Meet the project team - Project presentation and discussion - Field visit planning - Meet the Partner UDPS in Rangpur (after lunch 3-5 pm)

Day-2 Wednesday 11.11.2015

7:30 am Visit JSKS field - Meet the Partner JSKS after FGD

Dimla Upazilla, Purbochatnai Union, 5 no block community - Female group FGD & Adolescent girls meeting - Male Group FGD. - KIIs with community people and LGI people at union level - Government SPs at district/upazilla level

Day-3 Thursday

12.11.2015

7:00 am

Visit OVA field Hatibandha Upazilla, Patikapara Union, Parulia community

- Female group FGD - Male Group FGD & Adolescent girls meeting - KIIs with community people and LGI people at union level - Government SPs at district/upazilla level; - LGI people at union level - Meet the Partner OVA after FGD.

Day-4 13.11.2015

Friday

7.00 am – 1.00 pm Visit Kurigram Sadar Upazilla, Jatrapur Union, Ghonoshampur Community

- Female FGD & Male FGD) - KIIs with community people

Day-5 Saturday

14.11.2015

8.00 am – 3/4pm Visit UDPS field Gangachara Upazilla, Gojoghanta Union, Romakantocommunity

- Female group FGD & Male Group FGD. - KIIs with community people and LGI people at union level

Day-6 Sunday

15.11.2015

6.00 am – 6.00 pm Visit GUK field - Meet the Partner GUK

Gaibandha Sadar Upazilla, Gidari Union, Dakkhin Gidari community Female group FGD & Male Group FGD.

- KIIs with community people and LGI people at union level Meet the Partner AKOTA

- Government SPs at district/upazilla level; Day-7

Monday 16.11.2015

9.30 am – 1.00 pm Practical Action, Bangladesh- Rangpur Office – all day to collect any remaining project information and documents

Day-8 Monday

17.11.2015

Departure to Dhaka from Rangpur.

29

ANNEX 4: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED Practical Action Bangladesh

Name Designation Location

1. AZM Nazmul Islam Chowdhury

Head of Extreme Poverty Programme

Dhaka

2. Faruk-Ul Islam Head of Policy, Practice and Programme Development

Dhaka

3. Mokhlesur Rahman Manager, M&E Dhaka 4. A Mannan Molla Manager -Operations Rangpur 5. Md Abdus Salam Coordinator – M&E Rangpur 6. Nirmal Chandra Bepary Manager – Agriculture Rangpur 7. AJM Shafiqul Islam Coordinator – Fisheries Rangpur 8. SM Atiqur Rahman Sr MIS Officer Rangpur 9. Md Imran Reza Research Associate Rangpur 10. Md Omar Faruque Accounts Coordinator Rangpur 11. Ahsan Habib Senior DPO Rangpur 12. SNM Moniruzzuman PSO Rangpur

Shiree

Name Designation Location

Delwar Hossain Sr Programme Manager Dhaka Abdus Salam Sr Programme Manager Dhaka

PNGOs

x OVA Name Designation Suzit Kumar Ghosh Executive Director Md Shariful Islam Field Coordinator Mst. Samina Khatun Nutrition Officer Md Nurul Hoque Sarker Group Facilitator Rabiul Islam Field Coordinator, DALA project GF support in field- Lalmonirhat: Md Nurul Hoque Sarker Nutrition Officer in the field: Mst. Samina Khatun GF support in the field-Kurigram: Md Nuruzzaman Community Nutrition Volunteer, Ghoshampur, Jatrapur, Sadar, Kurigram: Msmt Moushumi Begum x JSKS Name Designation Md Shakhawat Hossain Field Coordinator Deb Dulal Sarker Accounts and Audit Officer Sharmin Begum Nutrition Officer Falguni Hamid Nutrition Officer Ajay Kumar Rai Group Facilitator Nazrul Islam Group Facilitator GF support in the field: Sarwar Morshed Nutrition Officer in the field: Sharmin Begum

30

x UDPS Name Designation Abul Kalam Azad Field Coordinator Md Asraful Islam Group Facilitator Md Azmol Group Facilitator Md Bazlur Rashid Group Facilitator Hasna Hena Group Facilitator Delowara Khatun Nutrition Officer Mst Rokeya Begum Nutrition Officer GF support in the field: Md Azmol Nutrition Officer in the field: Delowara Khatun Community Nutrition Volunteer, Romakantho, Gojoghonta, Gangachhara: Msmt Moushumi Begum x GUK Name Designation

1. Anjum Nahid Chowdhury Director 2. Sowrendra Narayan Ghose Coordinator – F&A 3. Kishore Kumar Sarker Programme Manager 4. Md Saiful Asad Field Coordinator 5. Md Mohirul Islam Coordinator 6. Mst Fatema Begum Group Facilitator 7. Md Mushfiqur Rahman Group Facilitator 8. Ratna Rani Sarkar Group Facilitator 9. Lata Rani dey Nutrition Officer 10. Mst Ruma Begum Nutrition Officer 11. Md Al-Amin Assistant Accounts Officer 12. Jitendra Natha Halder S M&E Officer

GF support in the field: Mozaharul Islam Nutrition Officer in the field: Mst Ruma Begum Community Nutrition Volunteer, Dakkhin Gidari, Gidari, Sadar, Gaibandha: Msmt Anjuara Begum x AKOTA Name Designation

1. Md Rahamot Ali Field Coordinator 2. Mst Mausumi Aktar Accounts and AO 3. Afroza Parvin Nutrition Officer 4. Mohsina Aktar Nutrition Officer 5. Liton Mia Group Facilitator 6. Moudud Alam Group Facilitator 7. Rafuqun Nabi Group Facilitator 8. Suzon Mia Group Facilitator

Union Parishad and community elite

Name Designation, Location Purbochatnai Union, Dimla Upazilla, Nilphamari

1. Abdul Latif Khan Chairman, UP 2. Msmt Parvin Aktar Woman Member, UP 3. Md Ansaruddin Member, UP 4. Md Mainuddin Member, UP 5. Mizanur Rahman Local doctor and businessman 6. Md Monirul Islam Farmer

Patikapara Union, Hatibandha Upazilla, Lalmonirhat 7. Shafiur Rahman Chairman, UP

31

Name Designation, Location 8. Msmt Anjuara Begum Woman member, UP 9. Md Mozzammel Member, UP 10. Shafiul Alam Babu Businessman, community member 11. Abdus Sobhan Businessman, community member 12. Md Yakub community member 13. Abdus Salam Community member

Jatrapur Union, Kurigram Sadar Upazilla, Kurigram 14. Aleya Khanam Woman member, UP, also lives in the community

Gojoghanta Union, Gangachara Upazilla, Rangpur 15. Md Raju Miah Member, UP

Gidari Union, Gaibandha Sadar Upazilla, Gaibandha 16. Golam Sadeq Lebu Chairman, UP (also a college lecturer) 17. Farid Mia Member, UP 18. Md Bashar Uddin Influential Community member – previously gave land to

Practical Action, Bangladesh shelter Local government service Providers

Name Designation, Location Nilphamari

1. Hamidur Rashid Labu Block Supervisor 2. Abdul Latif Livestock officer 3. Dr Msmt Sarabon Tohura Veterinary Surgeon

Lalmonirhat 4. Dr Md Abdul Hai Veterinary Surgeon/Upazilla Officer 5. Anowar Hossain Agriculture Extension Officer 6. Anguri Begum Upazilla Fisheries Officer

Rangpur 7. Abdullah Al Mamun Agriculture Officer

Gaibandha 8. Md Muzibur Rahman Upazilla Fisheries officer 9. Md Abdul Hai Upazilla Livestock Officer 10. Md Zakir Hossain Agriculture Officer

People attending the debrief of the project review on 29th November 2015, in Dhaka.

Name Designation

1. Hasin Jahan Country Director, Practical Action, Bangladesh 2. AZM Nazmul Islam Chowdhury Head of Extreme Poverty Programme, Practical Action,

Bangladesh 3. Faruk-Ul Islam Head of Policy, Practice and Programme Development 4. Mokhlesur Rahman Manager, M&E, Practical Action, Bangladesh 5. Md Abdus Salam Coordinator – M&E, Practical Action, Bangladesh 6. Habibur Rahman Manager-Nutrition, Practical Action, Bangladesh 7. A Halim Miah Coordinator - Research and Advocacy, Practical Action,

Bangladesh 8. Joynal Abedin Sr. Accounts Manager, Practical Action, Bangladesh 9. Md. Habibur Rahman Finance Coordinator (Projects), Practical Action,

Bangladesh 10. S. M Alauddin Manager-Research &Advocacy, PPPD, Practical Action,

Bangladesh 11. M. A Quaiyum Manager – IT, Practical Action, Bangladesh 12. Eammoinn Taylor CEO, Shiree

32

Description of FGDs and Individual BHH interviews: Location FGD with women FGD with men FGD with

adolescents Individual Interviews

5 no block community, Purbochatnai Union, Dimla Upazilla, Nilphamari District

Masterpara Mahila Samity Dal. 17 women : 6 from Phase 1 HHs and 11 from Phase 2 HHs

12 men: 5 from Phase 1 HHs and 7 from Phase 2 HHs

12 girls from Class 5 to Class 8

Rahima (F)

Parulia Community, Patikapara Union, Hatibandha Upazilla, Lalmonirhat District

Parulia Jamuna Attynirbahi Dal 10 women: 2 from Phase 1 HHs and 8 from Phase 2 HHs

11 men: 4 from Phase 1 HHs and 7 from Phase 2 HHs

8 girls from Class 7 to Class 9

Sobita Rani (F)

Ghonoshampur,Jatrapur Union, Kurigram sadar Upazilla, Kurigram District

Jaba Dal: 12 women from Phase 2

9 men from Phase 2 HHs

3 girls from Class 5 to Class 8

Jalaluddin (M)

Romakantho, Community,Gojoghanta Union, Gangachhara Upazilla, Rangpur District

Romakantho Mahila Dal 9 women: 2 from Phase 1 HHs and 7 from Phase 2 HHs

10 men: 1 from Phase 1 HHs and 9 from Phase 2 HHs

6 girls from Class 3 to Class 5

Suruj (M) Aleya Bewa (F)

Dakkhin Gidari, Gidari Union, Gaibandha Sadar Upazilla, Gaibandha Distirict

Dakkhin Gidari Takurererbhita sanchai Samity and Uttar Gidari Sawalpir Sanchai Samity 15 women: 9 from Phase 1 HHs and 6 from Phase 2 HHs

12 men: 11 from Phase 1 HHs and 1 from Phase 2 HHs

3 girls from Class 5 to Class 8

Shahjahan (M) Kafiroon (F)

Total 64 women: 19 from Phase 1 HHs and 45 from Phase 2 HHs

54 men: 21 from Phase 1 HHs and 33 from Phase 2 HHs

32 girls from Class 3 to Class 9

7 (4F+3M)

33

ANNEX 5: GRADUATION CRITERIA AND DEFINITIONS Essential Criteria (1/1)

Supplementary (6/12)

Graduation Definitions (CMS)

Food Security

1. Income 2. Source of income 3. Cash savings 4. Value of Productive assets 5. No of non-productive assets 6. Food diversity 7. Nutrition status by BMI and

Haemoglobin 8. Morbidity by fever and diarrhoea 9. Women’s empowerment 10. Access to safe drinking water 11. Access to hygienic sanitation 12. Access to cultivable land

Non graduate: When graduation score is less than 5 Partial graduate/Graduate: When score is 6-7 Super graduate: When graduation score is more than 8

34

ANNEX 6: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMS OPERATING IN BANGLADESH

Name of Project

Duration

Location No. of BHHs

Approx. Cost/BHH

Time to graduation

Comments

Pathways from Poverty

2009-2016

Gaibandha, Niphamari, Lalmonirhat, Rangpur,

31,850 24000BDT (Shiree) 29000 BDT (RT)

4 + (phase 1) 3+ years (phase 2)

Refer to report

Chars Livelihoods Programme

2004-16

Kurigram, Rangpur, Bogra, Gaibandah, Sirajgonj, Jamalpur, Lalmonirhat, Nilphamari, Rangpur, Padna, Tangail

133,000 67,000 BDT

2 years 2 phases includes: 17500 in asset transfer; access to clean water and sanitation; homestead raising to above the flood line; stipend for first 18 months; savings/loans groups; social development groups; access to project health clinics

CFPR 2002 - National (40/60 districts in Bangladesh - but not the Chars or embankments of Northwest Bangladesh)

? 24,000-40,000 BDT

2 years Standardised productive asset value (1 cow, goats, chickens); Weekly stipends Savings groups Intensive handholding and training

CARE Bangladesh: Social and Economic Transformation of the Ultra-Poor (SETU)

2009-20016

Gaibandha, Rangpur, Nilphamari and Lalmonirhat

40,000 23,000BDT

“3 years for the minimal level of graduation…Care will continue working with this target group for another 4 years to ensure the sustainability of their graduation”

Also funded by Shiree x Community and voice-led

approach to social and economic empowerment;

x Building diversified skills and involving them in different IGAs (non-farm);

x Value chain development and village industries

x Social development groups • The model will take 3 years

for the minimum level of graduation of BHH;

It is proposed that Care will continue working with this target group for another 4 years to ensure the sustainability of their graduation.

Save the Children in Bangladesh (SCiBD): Ec

2009-2016

Khulna, Bagerhat

37,000 21,000BDT

? 3 years – with an additional 2 years of

Working with marginalised communities of coastal Bangladesh Asset transfer, skills

35

Name of Project

Duration

Location No. of BHHs

Approx. Cost/BHH

Time to graduation

Comments

onomic and Food Security through Asset Transfers and Access to Social Entitlements

non-project funded support to ensure sustainable graduation

development, business counselling; Stipends Microplans Social development support DRR

Uttaran: Integrated Approach to Transferring Khas Land, Skills and Assets

2009-2016

Satkhira and Khulna

27,000 22,000BDT

3 years x Khas land distribution among extreme poor landless people;

x Recipient land owners provided with economic support to make the land and water bodies productive;

x Other support such as WatSan, legal aid and climate change adaptation;

36

ANNEX 7: ASSET COST, RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND GRADUATION RATES ACROSS IGAS (PHASE 2)

SL # Name of intervention

Cost/BHH (BDT)

No of BHHs Return on Investment (BDT) Graduation

%

1 Sandbar cropping 4762.00 5262 Average- 23,334.00

92% Maximum- 35,964.00 Minimum- 13,640.00

2 Livestock

Heifer Rearing 15000.00 1066 Average- 37,739.00

91% Maximum- 45,000.00 Minimum- 10,000.00

Sheep Rearing 7000.00 2600 Average- 2,416.00

90% Maximum- 46,000.00 Minimum- 1,000.00

3 Food Processing 6245.00 649 Average- 25,597.00

90% Maximum- 87,520.00 Minimum- 1,500.00

4 Light-engineering

Rickshaw Van Repairing 6500.00

564

Average- 32,724.00 92% Maximum- 84,000.00

Minimum- 8,000.00

Rickshaw Van Assembling 8500.00

Average- 24,327.00 92% Maximum- 64,200.00

Minimum- 5,000.00

Other - engine boat, electric arc welding, mobile phone, lock-key

NA 271 NA NA

5 Small Enterprise

Tailoring 8781.00 50 Average- 28,800.00

88% Maximum- 47,500.00 Minimum- 6,000.00

Small business 7000.00

2462 Average- 27401.00

93% handicraft

111

Maximum- 1,30,000.00

Minimum- 4,500.00

6 Fisheries

Cage Aquaculture 4300.00 1475 Average 2592.00

92% Maximum- 4800.00 Minimum- 700.00

Traditional Fisheries 7700.00 200 Average- 15114.00

85% Maximum- 25,000.00 Minimum- 5,800.00

CBFM 4000.00 287 Average- 2406.00

87% Maximum- 9000.00 Minimum- 700.00

(Data source: Effectiveness study, Phase 2 , Annual report PY3, Sandbar production report PY3, GMS survey data analysis Phase 2)

37

ANNEX 8: OVERALL AVERAGE GRADUATION RATE, COST PER IGA AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT (PHASE 2)

Overall Graduation Rate (Phase 2)

Equation for overall graduation rate*

Average cost of IGA (BDT)

Equation for average cost /IGA overall

Average Return on Investment (BDT)

Equation for average Return on Investment (RoI)

89% Sum of (IGA graduation rate x no. of IGA BHHs ) / total no. of BHHs (15,000)

6,334 Sum of (IGA specific cost x no. of IGA BBHs) / total no. of BHHs (15, 000)

19,093 Sum of (IGA- specific average RoI x no. of IGA BHHs) / total no. of BHHs (15,000)

*Figures based on Annex 8 : Asset cost, Return on Investment and Graduation Rates for IGAs (Phase 2) **Figures for Light Engineering: Other - engine boat, electric arc welding, mobile phone, lock-key not included as not available. ***These figures do not include cost of training and support associated with IGA or indirect project implementation costs (administration costs, HR, etc.).

38

ANNEX 9: LIST OF KEY ADVOCACY EVENTS, PATHWAYS FROM POVERTY: PHASE 2 Date Location EVENT Level Purpose 2013 UK/Europe

/Doha UK/Europe Advocacy campaign Intern.

l Included London- Tube event, City Hall event with Bangladeshi community, meetings with DFID, an MP and a Lord; discussions with Bangladeshi community in Birmingham, event with EU Parliament and finally attendance at Doha CoP18.

23 May, 2013

Dhamur Field Demonstration: DFID Head of Office and Chief Economist

Nat.l Visited the sandbar cropping and storage facilities and met with BHHs

16-18 Aug, 2013

UPDS and GUK field sites

BBC Media Action Team Nat.l Floating garden technology

9 Oct, 2013

Dakshin Kolkonda (Gangachara)

Dr. Golam Kibria, Environment Specialist, Australia (Consultant, Muslim Aid, UK)

Nat.l/ Intern.l

Floating garden technology

2 Feb, 2014

UDPS field site

Director, Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief: Mr. Anisur Rahman Director, (Mu O Pa)

Nat.l Advocacy re: sandbar cropping

15 March, 2014

Collaborative Research Plot

Vice Chancellor and team of HSTU: A 14-membered team of Professors and students of the Hazi Mohammad Danesh Science & Technology University (HSTU, Dinajpur) headed by Vice Chancellor Professor Md. Ruhul Amin

Nat.l Advocacy re: sandbar cropping

11-12 April, 2014

Collaborative Research Plot, Doldolia and South Kolokondo

Former Vice Chancellor and team of BAU: Honourable Professor A. Sattar Mondol former Vice Chancellor (BAU and Planning Commission Member) and team along with 2 Deans and Professors of Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh

Nat.l Sandbar Cropping spot at with Collaborative Research plot on 11-12 April 2014. The team expressed their satisfaction with some suggestions about sandbar cropping technology and its results and impact.

12 April, 2014

Dhamur Honourable State Minister (Local Govt. LGED and Cooperatives) Mr. Moshur Rahaman Ranga and team

Nat.l Inaugurated sandbar cropping harvest ceremony

25 March 2014

Kanipra (Doldolia and Ulipur)

Mr. Glen Warner Burnet (Practical Action, USA)

Intern.l

Sandbar cropping technology and its result and impacts.

12 April, 2014

Khuniagach, Lalmonirhat

DC Lalmonirhat and Team Local Inaugurated sandbar cropping harvesting ceremony 2014. The team expressed their satisfaction after the visit.

13 April, 2014

Kalirkhamar Deputy Commissioner (DC) Gaibandha and Team

Local Inaugurated sandbar cropping harvesting ceremony

23 Feb, 2014

Modhuram Deputy Director-DAE Lalmonirhat Local Sandbar cropping

23 Jan, 2014

Horipurghat Deputy Director–DAE, Gaibandha Local Sandbar cropping

4 April 2014.

Dolodolia, Ulipur

Dr. Sayed Nurul Alam: (CSO, BARI, Gazipur)

Local Sandbar cropping

10 March 2014

Mahipur (Gnagachara) and Kanipara (Dolodolia,

Dr. Md. Hameem Reza (PSO, BARI, Bururhat, Rangpur)

Local Sandbar cropping

39

Ulipur) 29 May, 2014

Dhaka Eradicate Extreme Poverty Fair (PFP-Shiree)

Nat.l Extreme poverty

24 Sept, 2013

Dinajpur Workshop: Prospect and Scope of Sandbar Cropping (organized by HSTU and Practical Action, Bangladesh). Chief guest - Prof Ruhul Amin (Vice Chancellor of HSTU).

Nat.l A day-long workshop was held on September 4, 2013. Veena Khaleque Country Director of Practical Action, Bangladesh was present as special guest

2-5 Sept, 2014

Gaibandha BBC media Action – National

Documentary about floating gardens as an effective climate change adaption technology for the Amrai Pari program

25 March, 2014

Dhaka media campaign Nat.l / Intern.l

Media campaign and exposure visit for journalists. Which resulted in a number of articles being published, mainly about sandbar cropping

March, 2014

Dhaka Bangla Vision Nat.l Talk show to discuss sandbar cropping. Nazmul Chowdhury participated

8-9 April, 2015

Dhaka Towards Sustained eradication of extreme poverty programme

Nat.l Practical Action, Bangladesh contributed to preparation of this event, led by EEP / Shiree

25 May, 2015

Dhaka Press Conference on Eradicate Extreme Poverty

Nat.l Press conference following the “Towards sustained eradication of extreme poverty programme”. Arranged by EEP / Shiree and participated in by Practical Action, Bangladesh and 13 other of Shiree’s partners

18-20 April, 2015

Kaunia, Rangpur

Field Demonstrations – FAO and Department of Agricultural Extension, Ministry of Agriculture (i) Farmers Field Day Demonstration for Department of Agriculture - Mr. S.M Sirajul Islam, Additional Director, Plant Protection Wing and Mr. Md. Iman Ali Sardar, Additional Director, Crop Wing along with DD, Rangpur and Ag. Officers (ii) Field demonstration to FAO - Mr. Mike Robson, FAO Representative, Bangladesh, Mr. MA Sattar Mandal, FAO advisor and former Vice Chancellor of Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh and Member of Planning Commission, Govt. of Bangladesh; and Dr. Mazharul Aziz, National Project Coordinator

Nat.l To demonstrate impacts of PFP interventions, in particular sandbar cropping to policy makers, with a view to influencing national policy. Field demonstrations were documented by BTV Mati-o-manush national programme and aired May 10 and 19, 2015.

16-18 Sept, 2015

Berlin, Germany

Poster presentation at Tropentag Conference 2015: Management of land use systems for enhanced food security - conflicts, controversies and resolutions Humbold University.

Intern.l

Raise awareness of extreme poverty in Bangladesh and the Practical Action, Bangladesh efforts to address it, in particular through sandbar cropping

3 Nov, 2015

Amsterdam, Netherlands

Securing Water for Food: Pitch & Picture Session at Amsterdam International Water Week

Intern.l

Raise awareness of extreme poverty in Bangladesh and the Practical Action, Bangladesh efforts to address it, in particular through sandbar cropping

40 AN

NEX 10: PRO

GRESS AGAINST LO

GFRAME

In carrying out the review, tracking progress of the project using PfP’s logfram

e was com

plicated. The logframe does not provide a strong fram

ework for m

easuring the project’s actual achievem

ents and therefore does not adequately track the project progress. For example, there are indicators for interventions that have been discontinued but the logfram

e had not been review

ed in that light. There is no sex disaggregated data even though the project has a strong focus on wom

en, and the indicators do not reflect the Theory of Change properly, nor are they w

ell-defined (specific and measurable). The logfram

e should present the project progress in summ

ary form and reflect all related aspects of the PfP project, for exam

ple the nutrition and advocacy. The RT has attem

pted to record the progress against the logframe below

and has also highlight issues against the indicators. Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

Only Purpose: 31,850

extreme poor

households in northw

est Bangladesh have sustainably graduated from

extreme poverty

through increased incom

e, food security by M

arch 2015.

Level of income

(In Phase-I, 16,850 extreme

poor beneficiary HHs are engaged in diversified incom

e generation activities and having at least 80%

increased annual incom

e compared w

ith the baseline

In Phase 1, 16,850 extrem

e poor beneficiary households (BHHs) had m

onthly incom

e below

Tk 2,000/ household.

16,850 12,722

76%

Effectiveness study, July -August 2013

On Track

Average increase to incom

e was

180% com

pare to baseline 90.7%

of BHHs engaged in at least 2 IGAs (Shiree socioeconom

ic survey, 2014).

Significant variations in data across sources (i.e. the CM

S3 2014 reports a figure of 97.3%

This indicator relates to the num

ber of beneficiaries that: x

Are engaged in more

than one IGA; and x

Have experienced an increase to their annual incom

e of at least 80%

compared w

ith baseline. The baseline and the project achievem

ent figures refer only to BHHs w

ith increased annual incom

e and there is nowhere to

capture information related to

the average size of the increase nor the average num

ber of IGAs/ BHH

41 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

Level of income

(BHH income increased 60%

com

pared with the baseline)

In Phase 2 15000 extrem

e poor beneficiary households (BHHs) had per person per day incom

e up to Tk. 30.

15,000

15,000 100%

Effectiveness study report 2014, Pre assessm

ent GM

S report – 2014 ;Shiree’s socioeconom

ic survey findings (Dec 2014)

On Track Average

increase to incom

e was 146%

com

pared to baseline CM

S 2014 reports 80.4%

BHHs engaged in 2 or m

ore IGAs. (82%

indicated by the pre-assessm

ent graduation report)

There is no CMS3 data for Phase

2. Shiree’s socioeconom

ic survey findings only relates to GUK and UDPS households. Issues w

ith the indicator as per Phase 1 (above) Significant variations in data across sources (i.e. Shiree socioeconom

ic survey suggests that 100%

BHHs from Phase 2 are

engaged in more than 2 IGAs).

Level of food & nutritional

security/number of food secure

months

(16,850 BHHs of Phase 1 having at least 75%

reduction of food deficit period com

pared with

the baseline).

In Phase 1, 16,850 BHHs had less than 3 m

eals a day for at least 2 consecutive m

onths.

16,850 16,176

96%

Effectiveness study, July -August 2013; GM

S survey census data

On track

About 96% BHH

eat 3 times a day

experience no food deficit

Variations in data across sources (i.e. Enough food round the year: 98.4%

BHH (GMS data)

100% BHH take 3 m

eals last 7 days( CM

S2 monthly

visualization)- regular survey

42 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

100% BHH take 3 m

eals last 7 days ( CM

S3 report 2014) The indicator does not m

atch the output/purpose. The purpose/output relates to the proportion of households that experience a reduction in the duration of their food deficit period each year, w

hile progress m

easured according to effectiveness study is eating 3 tim

es a day. The baseline refers to tw

o things: the num

ber of meals that a

person has during the food deficit period; and the duration of the food deficit period. This inform

ation cannot be collected in a single figure.

Level of food &

nutritional security/ num

ber of food insure m

onths (15,000 BHHs of Phase 2 w

ill have reduced 60%

food deficit period of the BHH com

pare with

baseline)

In Phase 2, 15000 BHHs had less than 3 m

eals a day for at least 2 consecutive m

onths.

15,000 15,000

100%

CMS2/

GMS/

case study/ Effectiveness report 2014

On track

100% BHH has no food deficit

months

round the

year (Effectiveness report 2014) 100%

BHH has no food deficit m

onth last 7 days( CMS3 pow

er point presentation – Im

ran Reza)

Enough food round the year: Yes 100%

BHH( GMS data)

43 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

100% BHH take 3 m

eals last 7 days (CM

S2 monthly

visualization)- regular survey See com

ments about the

adequacy of the indicator as above.

Income generating physical

assets (In Phase1, 80%

of 16,850 BHHs having at least 70%

increase in the value of productive asset com

pared with

the baseline.

In Phase 1, 16,850 BHHs had productive asset value up to Tk 5,000 BDT per household (in case of cow

up to Tk 8,000).

13,480 11593

86%

Effectiveness study, July -August 2013

On track

The average asset value is 12,063 (an increase of x 23) 86%

BHHs have increase in value of productive assets

The baseline figure is not recorded (this is 17%

and average value w

as BDT 500/BHH) This indicator is confusing as it includes tw

o distinct measures:

1. the proportion of people

2. the increase in the value of productive assets.

The total project achievement

refers only to the proportion (80%

of Phase 1) of people. Incom

e generating physical assets (80%

of total BHH 40%

increased the value of productive assets)

In Phase 2, 15000 BHHs had productive asset value up to Tk 7,000 BDT per household (in case of cow

, goat, sheep up to Tk 10,000).

15,000 14400

96%

Effectiveness study, 2014

On track

The average asset value is Tk. 12,763 (an increase of x 25)

The baseline figure is not recorded w

hich is BDT 501/ BHH for productive assets Com

ments on indicator as above.

The project target should be 12,000 (80%

of 15,000). If the figures for project achievem

ent are correct, this m

eans that more

44 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

than 80% of people experienced

the desired increased in productive asset value and the target w

as exceeded. If the target has been revised, there is no record of this.

Output 1: 12900

extreme HHs

supported in securing operational access to sand bar and underutilised land

Targeted beneficiary households acquired operational access to sandbar and engaged in agricultural activities (7,400 BHHs of Phase 1 continued receiving technical &

advisory support and linkages, as required).

7,400 BHHs of Phase 1 had no access to potentially productive arable land, like sandbar. 7400 BHHs of Phase 1 having no skills and com

petence on sandbar cropping.

7400 4662

63%

Effectiveness study, July -August 2013

Off track

According to PfP, 100%

BHH provided w

ith training and asset. 63%

adoption rate. 37%

BHH changed to other incom

e generating activities m

ostly sm

all business, beef fattening, land lease/m

ortgage /sharecropping/ etc due to easy m

anaged, regular incom

e etc.

This indicator has two parts:

1. BHHs engaged in sandbar cropping (autom

atically im

plies they have operational access)

2. BHHs receive technical and advisory support and linkages as required.

Achievement is only being

tracked in terms of BHHs

engaged in sandbar cropping. The second part of this indicator lacks specificity and cannot be objectively m

easured. The phrasing of the indicator is not according to the project’s expectation w

hich is supposedly that BHHs w

ill undertake at least tw

o rounds of pumpkin

cultivation and use the profits to engage in other IGAs

45 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

Targeted beneficiary households acquired operational access to sandbar and engaged in agricultural activities (5,500 BHHs of Phase 2 continued receiving technical &

advisory support and linkages, as required).

5,500 BHHs of Phase 2 having no access to potentially productive arable land, like sandbar.

5,550 4,180

76%

Pumpkin

Production report, Interview

, effectiveness study report 2014, etc. Shiree’s socio-econom

ic survey 2014

Off track

96% of target

BHH have gained access to arable char land. 74%

adoption rate. 26%

BHH changed to other incom

e generating activities

As per comm

ents related to Phase 1 (above) Rem

arks suggest attrition from

sandbar cropping and likely preference for other incom

e generating activities. Are BHHs that discontinue sandbar cropping supported to adopt another IGA or are they self-funding this activity? This requires further analysis

HH heads (men and w

omen)

are trained on sandbar cropping (5500 BHHs gain new

s skills and know

ledge in sandbar cropping; 5500 BHHs get refresher training)

5,500 BHHs of Phase 2 having no skills and com

petence on sandbar cropping.

5,500 5262

95%

Training report/M

IS training database

Off Track

M-63%

, Fe- 37%

The indicator is not specific (what

constitutes training, how to

measure w

hether people have gained new

skills and knowledge

in sandbar cropping?) The indicator includes reference to m

en and wom

en, but no data in the logfram

e is sex disaggregated. The training and asset transfer records are gender –disaggregated but not recorded in the logfram

e separately According

to the

Effectiveness study report of Phase 1 (2013), the know

ledge and practice of all

46 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

participants has improved – not

reflected in the logframe.

Output 2: 18,950

extreme poor HHs

secure food and incom

e from other

on-farm and off-farm

livelihoods options

HH mem

bers are trained on other on-farm

options ( 7,165 BHHs of Phase 1 continued receiving technical &

advisory support and linkages, as required.

7,165 BHHs of Phase 1 used to practice traditional on-farm

options.

7165 4,872

68%

Interviews

, effectiveness study report 2014, etc.

Off Track

As per comm

ents above re specificity of indicator.

HH mem

bers are trained on other on-farm

options (5,450 BHHs of Phase 2 continued receiving technical &

advisory support and linkages, as required.

5,450 BHHs of Phase 2 practice traditional on-farm

options.

5450 4033

74%

Effectiveness study by sectors 2014

Off Track

As per comm

ents above re specificity of indicator.

HH mem

bers are trained in off-farm

options (2,285 BHHs of Phase 1 continued receiving technical &

advisory support and linkages for off-farm

activities (sm

all enterprise, light engineering, food processing, and BHHs w

ith people with

disability), as required.

2,285 BHHs of Phase 1 had no sufficient know

ledge and skills of off-farm

activities.

2285 2056

90%

Effectiveness study, July -August 2013

On track

As per comm

ents above re specificity of indicator.

47 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

HH mem

bers are trained in off-farm

options ( 4050 BHH of Phase 2 received training in sm

all enterprise, light engineering &

food processing and as rural paravets)

4,050 BHHs of Phase 2 have no sufficient know

ledge and skills of off-farm

activities.

4,050 2997

74%

Effectiveness study by sectors 2014,

Off Track

As per comm

ents above re specificity of indicator.

BHHs supported with assets

(9500 BHHs directly received cow

/sheep, cage material and

other farm and off-farm

inputs as required)

9,500 BHHs of Phase 2 lacking sufficient inputs and assets to practice on-farm

and off-farm

skills

9500 9500

100%

Training and asset database

On Track

The wording of this indicator is

unclear. It refers to all BHHs not involved in sandbar cropping Giving Assets is not an output – it is an input

Output 3: Support

provided to 31,850 BHHs on basic service, asset protection, netw

orking and linkages

Basic services secured though schools, clinics, storage and health cam

paigns Children of project BHHs receive prim

ary education in existing 5 schools supported in one project district

No. of Children of project BHHs continued receiving prim

ary education in existing 5 schools supported in one project district.

4 2

50%

PNGO

annual Report- 2015 ,

Off-track

Initially 4 schools in Gaibandha supported by the project: AKO

TA – 2 schools (181students) GUK – 2 schools (240 students). Total no. of students = 421 Project funding for the schools has been discontinued. As a result AKO

TA schools have closed and GUK is

The indicator is not clearly stated. It seem

s to refer to attendance rates of BHH children at prim

ary schools in Gaibandha, but the project target and achievem

ent are m

easured in terms of the

number of project schools

operating in Gaibandha. Given that all funding for project schools has been discontinued, the project achievem

ent should be 0%

, if it refers to no. of schools funded. A m

ore meaningful indicator

would be to look at the

enrolment and attendance rates

for BHH children at primary

schools in Gaibandha.

48 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

continuing its schools w

ith its ow

n funds. Basic services secured though schools, clinics, storage and health cam

paigns Project BHHs continued receiving health services through existing 3 health clinics supported in one project district

No. of Project BHHs continued receiving health services through existing 3 health clinics supported in one project district.

24 8

33%

Project report,

Off Track

A total 1086 (351) beneficiaries (project and Com

munity)

received free m

edical treatm

ent and m

edicine support through 3 project-funded Com

munity

Clinics in Gaibandha under GUK (2 clinics) and AKO

TA (1 clinic). In M

arch 2015 the clinics w

ere closed when

funding was

stopped.

The indicator is not clearly stated, and it does relate specifically to the project target. The indicator seem

s to refer to the number of

BHHs in Gaibandha that have access to project-funded health clinics. How

ever the target and the m

easure of project achievement

refer to a combination of the

existence of project funded health clinics and health cam

ps (Not m

entioned in the indicator). The project target (24) reflects the planned existence of 8 health ‘events’ for each of the three years of Phase 2 (3 health care clinics and 5 health cam

ps). The unit of m

easurement of

target and baseline or not the sam

e Basic services secured though schools, clinics, storage and health cam

paigns 5,500 Phase 2 sandbar farm

ing BHHs continued benefiting from

im

proved storage.

31,850 BHHs of Phases I &

II w

ith limited

access to education, health and storage services

5500 5262

96%

GMS and

monthly

progress report and case studies

On Track?

96% (5262) sandbar farm

ing households benefited from

im

proved storage. However,

according to the earlier indicator on participation in sandbar cropping, only 4,180 BHHs continued w

ith sandbar cropping. It seem

s from the figures that

more than 1000 people w

ho w

ere not engaged in sandbar

49 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

cropping benefited from

improved storage.

There is a lack of specificity and m

easurability in the wording of

this output – what does “benefit”

mean? W

hat does “improved”

mean?

Basic services secured though schools, clinics, storage and health cam

paigns 7,400 Phase 1 sandbar-farm

ing BHHs continued benefiting from

im

proved storage services.

7400 3034

41%

Effectiveness study ,July -August 2013,

Off Track

Of the 63%

of sandbar farm

ers w

ho continue to be involved in that IGA, 41%

are fully active in the IGA and 22%

are partially involved. O

nly those that are fully active in sandbar cropping receive access to storage.

There is a lack of specificity and m

easurability in the wording of

this output – what does “benefit”

mean? W

hat does “improved”

mean?

Basic services secured through schools, clinics, storage and health cam

paigns Netw

orking at local , district and national levels

Limited

attention/intervention for river erosion affected extrem

e poor by the national and district level decision m

akers and practitioners

92 60

65%

Project report

Off Track

Marketing officer

left in year 2 and w

as not replaced. As a result, year 3 activities w

ere not com

pleted.

A lack of specificity and m

easurability in this indicator. It is unclear w

hat it is trying to m

easure. According to Practical Action, Bangladesh, it refers to netw

orking events.

50 Purpose/Outputs

Indicator Baselines 2009 and 2012

Project target

Total project achievem

ent M

OV

Remarks

Issues

By end of 2015

Actual %

Changes/Impact

Basic services secured though schools, clinics, storage and health cam

paigns Producer associations established

60

43 72%

Project report

Off Track

43 Producer Associations w

ere established

There is no baseline. Not consistent w

ith project report; confirm

ed verbally by project m

anagement.

The indicator does not dem

onstrate whether this is a

successful intervention i.e. are the producer associations running successfully? Are these producer associations only for pum

pkin cultivators?