Food Security of One Thousand Tribal Families in Chakai, Jamui District, Bihar

FOOD SECURITY OF ONE THOUSAND TRIBAL FAMILIES IN CHAKAI, JAMUI DISTRICT, BIHAR

Contract NO.PD:IND-3-001-10

EVALUATIONREPORT

Manab Chakraborty

in.linkedin.com/in/manabchakraborty

Date:19 July 2013

Map of Bihar to be inserted

Acknowledgements

Theevaluatorthanksallthepeoplewhosupportedthisevaluationbycontributingtheirtime andinsights.Inparticular,theyexpresstheirgratitudeto Mr. Kashinath Metya and Mr. Samim Molla at Action for Social Advancement (ASA) and Mr. Subhashis Roy of Lutheran World Relief (LWR), who wereinstrumentalinhelpingorganizetheevaluators’visitto Jamui.Allerrors and omissionsremain the responsibilityoftheauthor.

Disclaimer:Theviewsexpressedinthisreportarethoseoftheevaluator.Theydonot represent thoseof ASA, LWR orofanyoftheinstitutions referredto inthereport.

Author:Manab Chakraborty wrotethisreport.

TableofContents

I.ExecutiveSummary

II.Introduction andDevelopmentContext

(a)Project Objectives

(b)Project Evaluation Objectives

(d)DevelopmentContext of Project Area

(e)Theoretical Underpinnings of the Project

III.Project Approach and Strategy

(a)Project Approach

(b)Implementation Strategies

IV.Evaluation Findings

(a)Relevance

(b)Effectiveness

(c)Efficiency

(d)Impact

(e)Sustainability

V.Conclusions

VI.Recommendations

VII.Overall Assessmentand Closing Thoughts

VIII.ANNEXES

Annex 1: Project Area Demographics, Chakai Block

Annex 2: Evaluation Questions

Annex 3: Documents Reviewed

Annex 4 Status Report on Achievement of Project Objectives

Annex5: Itinerary of Evaluator

Annex 6: Chronology of the Project

Annex 7: Photos of Project Area

I.ExecutiveSummary

This report is the evaluation of the project “ Food Security of One Thousand Tribal Families in Chakai, Jamui District, Bihar” implemented from July 2010 to July 2013 by Action for Social Advancement (ASA) with support from Lutheran World Relief (LWR). The LWR grant amount was US$203,224. The project goal was to “enhance agricultural production to attain food security among 1,000 tribal farmers in 20 villages of Chakai block in Jamui District by June 2013”. LWR and ASA commissioned Mr. Manab Chakraborty, an external evaluator to carry out terminal evaluation of the project to assess the success of the project in achieving the goal and objectives of the project and the overall effectiveness of the interventions, distill major learning on what worked well and what didn’t which would help ASA to have internal reflection on the project design, approaches, processes, organizational procedures to improve future action to maximize effectiveness as a development agency.

The evaluator developed a plan to conduct the evaluation study using a participatory methodology that included desk review of secondary material, interview of key informants, FGDs with farmers, SHG leaders, and local NGOs. A list of evaluation questions related to Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Impact, and Sustainability guided much of the study.

Relevance

The project proposal was based on a sound analysis of the 2009 drought situation, which highlighted the need to develop a more skilled agricultural extension service and build irrigation assets. The project was also relevant in that it addressed genuine needs of tribals on the basis of an appropriate analysis of the prevailing agrarian situation.

The project proposed a realistic set of activities, clearly linked to achievable objectives of increasing farm production and diversifying crop range.

Efficiency

The project activities took place within budget, and a no cost of one month was granted by LWR. The project budget was reasonable in the sense that none of the planned costs were excessive or irrelevant to the objectives

Effectiveness

There is ample evidence of the effective implementation of the planned activities, particularly those related to training and monitoring. If one area of weakness may be identified, it concerns the dissemination of monitoring information.

Impact

The project essential delivered on the planned medium term impacts, at least in relation to training and monitoring. However, the picture in relation to household food security though positive, is more nuanced. Interviews with SHGs and individual farmers revealed that pre-project household food supply came from own production (5 months), collection from forests (2 months), purchase from market (6 months). Post-project, food supply come from own production (8 months), collection from forests (1 month), purchase from market (3 months). The increase in yield of paddy by 50%- 200% on pre-project cultivated land and barren land brought under cultivation due to irrigation and growing vegetables throughout the year has boosted food availability from own sources. Some visible impacts of higher food production are visible: a) there is more disposable cash income from sale of vegetables; b) Migration of women has almost stopped. Able but unskilled men still migrate for menial jobs that support their families for six months, while literate youth prefer going to garment factories in Karnataka. c) there is very keen interest to adopt new farming methods and crops.

Sustainability

The project has built solid institutions in the form of women SHGs and water user groups. Both these institutions have their own dynamics to survive well beyond the life of the project. The creation of trained village resource persons as frontline agriculture extension agents is a lasting contribution to the area.

Conclusions

-The project improved food security in 1013 households.

-The project execution was of high quality and responsive to the needs of ASA and the drought situation in Chakai.

-The relevance of the project to LWR would have been enhanced if an assessment of ASA’s management capacity had been carried out –ASA was capable of delivering more than envisaged in the project!

-The project was effective, in that most of the planned activities took place and were implemented to a high standard.

-The project’s efficiency was satisfactory, it produced value for money and resources allocation was appropriate.

-The project delivered on most of the expected short-term impacts. However the communication loop was incomplete, in that SHGs in the field were not systematically made aware of the use of the data they collected.

-The project contributed to the sustainability of ASA, both in financial terms and because it enhanced the organization’s skills and knowledge base.

Recommendationto LWR

Be explicit about expected added value of partnership. LWR is encouragedtodevelopfurtherpartnershipsonthemodeloftheoneitengagedintowith ASA.ItisrecommendedthatLWRshouldbeasexplicitaspossible,whendealingwith potentialpartners,abouttheaddedvalueitexpectstobringtothepartnershipandabout thebenefits itexpectstodrawfromit.

Makearealisticassessmentofthelevelofsupporttobeprovided. Thepartnershipbetween LWR and ASA wasfruitful; ASA exceeded on almost all community mobilization and physical construction targets. The project could have done more if greater amount of financial resources were provided by LWR from sources within or through co-funding arrangements.

Considerhavinganexplicit“inceptionstage”atthebeginningof projects.This project commenced without any time to mobilize men, material, and money before jumping into action. Good projects allow for breathing space to make significantadjustmentstotheprojectdesign, and also take into consideration of changed circumstances since the project was originally designed.

Recommendationsto ASA

Consider seeking new partnerships. The project with LWR was beneficial in enhancing ASA’s credibility, and special skills in building capacity of farmer institutions. ASA shoulddevelop further similar partnerships with multiple donors, provided they are based on a sound capacity building strategy and focus on satisfying clearlydefined needs.

Include all poor households rather than only tribal households. The project reached out to 1013 households of the 1811 households in the project villages.An inclusive approach would have covered all poor households willing and able to participate in the project.

Reviewtheprocessof dissemination of project impact. Social media network, and multi-media modes should be used to disseminate success, and draw funding support.

Have more locally recruited staff with vernacular skills:Only one of the ASA Jamui staff speaks Santhali dialect, this causes a communication gap between beneficiaries and ASA superviso

Overall assessmentand closing thoughts

Thisevaluationhasshownthatprojectsbasedonapartnershipbetweenorganizations with different comparative advantage mayberelevantandeffective.Thiswas thecasehere,anditisclearthat ASA drewsignificantbenefitsfromthepartnershipin termsof capacitybuildingand expertiseon introduction of new agricultural practices.

Such partnerships, however, should be based on explicit and shared strategic outlooks on the part of both partners, and should be predicated on sustained communication both at operational and strategic level. Participation of senior ASA management in at project start up meeting had unintended negative impact on staff morale. The lapses in communications at strategic level were an issue in this project, which would have added value to implementation.

A mid-term strategic review of the project would have made the project more effective and relevant. For example, LWRby focusing only on scheduled tribes (17% of the population) in this project missed out an opportunity to reach out to Dalits (another 17% of the population), its’ other mandated target group. A strategic review might have reflected on this miss. It is agood practice to hold strategic reviews that should be encouraged.

II.Introduction andDevelopmentContext

(a)Project Objectives

The Project objectives were

a. To establish irrigation facilities in 60 acres of land benefiting 100 tribal farmers through construction of water harvesting structures by 2012.

b. To improve the capacity of 1000 tribal farmers on improved agriculture practices through training, exposure visit, demonstration and hand on practice by June 2013

c. To organize 1000 village women into 60 self help groups (SHGs) and develop their capacity to access capital, fair price agricultural inputs and marketing services by 2013.

The women beneficiaries were organized into SHGs, imparted training on participatory, and facilitated by ASA, implemented multiple project activities, viz. land water development (farm ponds, lift irrigation, and check dams), enhancement of agricultural productivity through introduction of SRI, SWI, commercial vegetable cultivation, introduction of biological compost etc.

(b)Project Evaluation Objectives

LWR and ASA commissioned Mr. Manab Chakraborty, an external evaluator to carry out an end evaluation of the project to assess the success of the project in achieving the overall goal and objectives of the project and the overall effectiveness of the interventions, distill major learning on what worked well and what didn’t which would help ASA to have internal reflection on the project design, approaches, processes, organizational procedures to improve future action to maximize effectiveness as a development agency.

Specific areas of assessment are:

The achievement of project outcomes against each of the set indicators/

targets during the project this period,

The overall extent of project performance considering the Relevancy,

Efficiency and Effectiveness, Outcome/ Impact and Sustainability of the interventions made or outcomes achieved, and,

Analyze the strengths and weaknesses; issue and challenges of major

components of this project and provide recommendation for future.

(c)Evaluation Methodology

The methodology of the evaluation is set out in the TOR of the evaluation issued on June 2013, and LWRs Evaluation Report Guidance. A list of evaluation questions related to Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Impact, and Sustainability guided much of the study (see Annex 2).

In accordance with the agreed process, the evaluator developed a plan to conduct this evaluation using a participatory methodology that included, but not limited to:

Desk review of project documents (as per Annex3)
Key informant interviews
Meeting with 5 Village Resource Persons (VRPs)
Meeting/FGD with SHG and WUG members in 7 villages
Meet representativesof UCO Bank, PRADAN, and World Vision[1].

Thefull listofpeople met is in Annex4.

Each ofthe Evaluation Questions listed in Annex 1was discussed with relevant stakeholders: issues of project design, activities, management, humanandfinancial resourcesandcapacitybuildingwerediscussedwith LWRand ASA managers;issues of general impact of increased agricultural production with NGO managers in Jamui.

This evaluation did not present any particular methodological challenge and the evaluatorswereabletofollowthestandardmethodologywithoutproblems.Projectdocumentation, internal reports and financial statements were made available to the evaluator.Publicdocumentsgivingcontextualinformationabout Jamuiwere also used.

Thevisitto Chakai tookplacefrom 12to 18 July inclusive.

(d)DevelopmentContext of Project Area

Chakai is a Block in Jamui District of Bihar State, India. It is located 51 KM towards South from District headquarters Jamui and 203 KM from State capital Patna towards west. Chakaiis one of the 10 blocks in Jamui district. The total population of the block in 2011 was 2,34,932 (2001 187,034). There are 522 villages grouped in 23 Panchayats, and 0 towns in this block. Between 2001 and 2011, Chakai has recorded rapid increase in literacy; overall literacy rate was 49.12% in 2011 up from 36.11% in 2001. Increase in female literacy was even more impressive: from a mere 19.02% in 2001 to 36.95% in 2011. Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe constitute 17.63% and 17.68% of the total population. The total area of Chakai is 72659.83 hectares, 43% of which is under cultivation.As far as the land use pattern is concerned Rice and Wheat are the prominent crops. Small quantity of Maize, Jack fruit (Hindi Katahal, botanic nameArtocarpus heterophyllus)and Mahua (Botanic nameMadhuca longifolia) are also grown by small land holders.

The project target population is Santhal tribal households living below poverty line. They have limited arable lands on which low yield rainfed crops are grown. Significant amount of barren or wastelands exist, in the absence of land development measures these are used for open grazing. Supplementary subsistence is provided by minor forest produce, hunting, and fishing. Growing state control over forest resources and deforestation by organized by mafia is a matter of great conflict between Santhals and forest department. Of late, Naxalites have been able to feed on the general discontentment about mis-governance fuelling sense of injustice and alienation among tribals. The lack of health care, education, and gender discrimination hit women hard. Hence, livelihood generation and increase of income of these tribal farmers by various means is a basic imperative in the area.

(e)Theoretical Underpinnings of the Project

The project may be usefully viewed using Theory of Change. The Project seeks to achieve long term goal of food security using a set of building blocks – using activities, interchangeably referred to as outcomes, results, accomplishments or preconditions. Each change is tied to specific interventions that bring about intended and unintended outcomes. A Theory of Change would not be complete without an articulation of the assumptions that stakeholders use to explain the change process, and the preconditions that is required to effect social change. Assumptions elaborate both the connections between outcomes and the expectations about how and why proposed activities will bring them about.

ASA team has noticed strong, direct relationships between agricultural productivity, hunger, poverty, and sustainability. 100% of Chakai’s population live in rural areas and make their living from agriculture. Hunger and child malnutrition is rampant. Since, the tribals primarily obtain their income solely from subsistence farming (without the benefit of pro-poor technologies and access to markets), the incidence of malnutrition is high. Therefore, improvements in agricultural productivity aimed at small-scale farmers can benefit the rural tribal first and enhance food security.

In a major study, theInternational Water Management Institute argues that managing rainwater and soil moisture more effectively, and using supplemental and small-scale irrigation, hold the key to helping the greatest number of poor people (Molden 2007). Water investments and policies for upgrading rainfed agriculture that go beyond controlling field-level soil and water to bring new freshwater sources through better local management of rainfall and runoffIncreased agricultural productivity enables farmers to grow more food, which translates into better nutrition and, under market conditions that offer a level playing field, into higher farm incomes. With more disposable income, farmers are more likely to diversify production and grow higher-value crops. LWR and ASA adopted a three-pronged agriculture intensification strategy tapping rivulets and ponds for irrigation, raising cropping intensification, and transfer of farm production know-how.

LWR and ASA have not defined food security. Food security has three components, namely availability, accessibility and utilization. Both for ASA and LWR, greater availability of food through own production was the principal concern under this project[2].

III.Project Approach and Strategy

(a)Project Approach

ASA and LWR designed the project strategy, with interviewees suggesting that ASA took a lead role in the initial design phase while LWR assumed a greater role in the first few months of implementation. LWR-India office jointly worked with ASA during the project formulation stages that includes problem analysis, project conceptualization and proposal development. Written in the months following crop failures in 2009, the proposal was focused on rebuilding capacity of marginal farmers by introducing new knowledge, technology, and inputs. This was justified by the situation prevailing at the time: dependence on monsoon when 90% of the crops are grown, high run off due undulating terrain, traditional methods of cultivation, and negligible crop diversification.

According to ASA and LWR staff, there were three main reasons for this for targeting tribal households engaged in smallholder agriculture:

Santhal tribals form a distinct socio-cultural group, hence needed particular attention. Government and other NGO have had a general thrust on economically disadvantaged farmers, but did not have any particular focus on tribal households.
Smallholder farms are suitable for labor-intensive crops such as vegetable cultivation. Crop diversification offered a good means to impart new knowledge, technology, and inputs.
ASA and LWR both have an ideological preference for tribal women in agriculture. They reckon narrowing their focus on tribal women maximizes the social impact of their investment.

(b)Implementation Strategies

ASA and LWR had markedly different strategicoutlooksontheproject. ASA representativesindicatedthattheyviewedtheprojectasanopportunitytocontribute their expertisetotribal welfare andtoreinforceitson-farm activities.For LWR theproject’saddedvaluewasingenerating right advocacy messages as well asinthedevelopmentofpolicypapersandin-housetrainingskills. Bothvisionsoverlappedwhenitcametocommunity centered livelihood development.