bolivia: food security evaluation

ICCO food security programme Country report BOLIVIA – final version

Country report Bolivia ACE Europe December 2010

ICCO Food Security Programme In Bolivia

Bruno Kervyn

María del Carmen Camacho

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thanks very warmly all the people who made

possible a mission much improvised.

And especially the directors and staff of SARTAWI, PASOS, IFFI

and AIPE. Many thanks also to the comunarios of the communities

we visited in Northern Potosi, Oruro, Chuquisaca and

Cochabamba, who accepted to take part in workshops and answer

to our (sometimes) odd questions with much patience. Thanks also

to the women from the “Ricomida” association who, as well as their

time, offered us a sample of their good cooking.

María del Carmen Camacho and Bruno Kervyn

Table of content

1. Introduction 9

1.1 context of FS in Bolivia 9

1.2 Introduction to the evaluation in Bolivia 14

2. Main Findings 19

2.1. Relevance of the underlying policy and strategy of the program 19

2.2. Coherence of the implementation of the strategy 22

2.3. Improved food availability at the household level 25

2.4. Improved access to food by vulnerable households and individuals 28

2.5. Improved (proper) utilization by food by vulnerable households and individuals 31

2.6. Improved position and capacity of organizations to influence policy making 33

2.7. National and international policy makers demonstrate more interest in the right to

food 38

2.8. Assessment of the contribution of ICCO/KIA 41

3. Findings on the network of partners 44

3.1. The Past 44

3.2. The present 45

3.3. The future 46

3.4. The level integration of collaboration 46

3.5. The Collaborative Process 47

4. Conclusions 48

ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation / Bolivia final country report pag. 6/90

5. Annexes 55

5.1. List of abbreviations 55

5.2. Annex 1 - Comments on the evaluation framework (contextualising) 56

5.3. Annex 2 - List of documents consulted 56

5.4. Annex 3 - Programme of the mission 57

5.5. Annex 4 - List of persons interviewed 60

5.6. ANNEX No. 5 – LIST OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING 61

5.7. Annex 6 - PPT used for debriefing 70

5.8. Annex 7 - Short internal report on the indepth work sessions in the villages 70

1. Introduction

1.1 CONTEXT OF FS IN BOLIVIA

1.1.1 STATUS AND TRENDS IN FOOD INSECURITY

Bolivia is the poorest country of the Andean region and the second poorest in Latin America

with extreme inequality levels of income. Moreover, it has one of the highest indices of income

concentration in Latin America estimated to be 57.2 (Gini coefficient1) in 2007. Approximately

39% of the total population live below the poverty line and do not have enough income to

purchase the basic food basket and at the same time satisfy their basic needs in education,

health and housing. According to the Unsatisfied Basic Needs2 indicator (UBN) this figure is

close to 91% in the rural area. Bolivia is classified as a country of medium level of human

development, occupying the 95th place out of 169 in the HDI (Human Development Index) in

2010.

Of a total of 327 municipalities in Bolivia, 200 are mainly devoted to subsistence production and

148 are considered highly vulnerable (WFP 2005). Current migratory characteristics result in

extension of rural poverty to the major cities, increasing extreme poverty in peri-urban areas.

Chronic malnutrition remains practically unchanged in Bolivia in the last decade, affecting

26.4% of the population under five years of age, with 8% as severely malnourished. The

highest percentage of chronic malnutrition (35.4%) is found in infants between 24 and 35

months of age. 38.6% of children in the rural areas are chronically malnourished compared to

17.2% in the urban areas. Potosí, Chuquisaca and Oruro have the highest rates of chronic

malnutrition with 43.7%, 35.8% and 33.4% respectively (ENDSA 2008).

Table No. 2 Chronic Malnutrition in Bolivia (1989 – 2008)

(In Percentage)

Year National urban Rural Highlands Valleys Plains

1989 38.3 31.5 35.0 44.0 40.7 21.4

1994 28.3 20.9 36.6 33.3 29.9 18.2

1998 25.6 18.3 35.6 31.1 24.2 19.4

2003 26.5 18.0 37.0 32.1 29.3 15.8

2008 26.4 17.2 38.6 34.0 29.7 12.9

Source: National Health and Demographic Survey (ENDSA)

1 The value of the GINI coefficient varies from 0 indicating perfect equality (everyone has the same income) to 100

indicating perfect inequality (one individual concentrates all the country’s wealth). 2 The UBN measures accessibility to basic services (education, electricity, potable water and basic sanitation).


Achievements to improve food access have been insufficient, thus Bolivia continues to present

a deficit in food consumption. The most vulnerable groups are small farming families in the

highlands and valleys without irrigation systems, isolated by distance from the main markets or

without technical assistance to improve their agricultural output or decrease risks in their

productive process. In addition, climate risks such as drought, hail and floods are high in this

region of the country, subjecting the population to increased vulnerability.

Insufficient and weakly diversified agricultural production of poor rural families is not

compensated by other income sources due to the lack of opportunities to obtain other income.

Consequently, lack of capacity to buy food and therefore, poverty, continues to be the main

cause of food insecurity in Bolivia.

1.1.2 CAUSES OF HUNGER AND FOOD INSECURITY

During the 1980s and part of the 90’s the Government of Bolivia identified the greatest problem

of food security as availability. Consequently, national policies were aimed at increasing

agricultural production and productivity. Food production in Bolivia passed from 6 million MT in

1989/90 to 12 million MT in 2005/06 and to 15 million MT in 2008/093, an increase of 150% in

11 years. However this increase was characterized by a more important weight of industrial

production such as rice, cereals, sugar, soya, etc. against traditional product such as potatoes,

and by an increase of the relative importance of medium to large farms production from the

“Oriente” (Eastern part of Bolivia), against the peasant production of the poorer regions of the

“Altiplano” and “Valles”. Globally there is no lack of food in Bolivia but a problem of inequality

and quality. Later strategies (PRSP)4 recognize the problem of accessibility: the major reason

for food insecurity in Bolivia is poverty. An estimated 60% of Bolivian homes suffer food

insecurity resulting in malnutrition, anemia and high rates of mortality, essentially due to current

social and economic conditions. Inefficient use of agricultural land, an inequitable land

distribution, progressive deterioration of soil fertility and very scare access to water for irrigation

are also causes of this precarious situation.

Food imports have also considerably increased during these last ten years. More than half of

these imports are wheat but the tendency is towards a diversification of imports, which reflect

the increasing integration of Bolivia in the international food market. Presently 45% of Bolivia’s

food imports is composed of products the country also produces itself for the national or even

the international market, while this proportion was only 20% in 1992.

3 See Control Ciudadano: “Soberanía alimentaria en Bolivia entre el discurso y la realidad”, CEDLA, Boletín de

Seguimiento a Políticas Públicas, año VII, No 15, La Paz, Noviembre 2010. 4 Bolivian Strategy of Poverty Reduction, which proposed four main investment areas: (i) Employment and income

opportunities; (ii) Development of productive capacities; (iii) Security and protection to the poor; and (iv) Participation and social integration.

1.1.3 ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON FOOD SECURITY

Food imports in Bolivia have also increased; almost 600.000 tons of foods were imported from

2006 to 2009 for approximately 1.2 billion dollars. On the other side, Government policies are

more oriented to protect consumers and are not promoting internal food production.

The food deficit in the country is 21% and the external dependence of daily energy (Kcal.) per

person is estimated to be 18.6%, with 21.1% for proteins (FAO)5. The supply of food per capita

in Bolivia is only 2,240 Kcal., with a consumption of proteins of 59.1 grams. In the poorest and

most vulnerable municipalities, chronic malnutrition can reach 50% of children under five years

of age and the deficit of calorie intake is around 35% of recommended energy.

1.1.4 STEPS TO TAKE

Food security should be carefully studied taking in account aspects that were already

mentioned as sustainable access and use of soils, prices and marketing, responsible

agricultural production (not transgenic), respecting indigenous territories, protected national

areas, etc., the challenge continues to be enormous.

There is still a lot to be done at governmental stages, not only under the productive perspective,

but in the fight against poverty, which is fundamental to allow better conditions for adequate

access and use of food in rural families throughout the country.

Some governmental initiatives and actions in this matter include the approval of laws to enrich

wheat flour with folic acid, iron and complex B vitamins; vegetable oil with vitamin A; and salt

with iodine. The Ministry of Health and Sports with support from the WHO, gives a food

supplement to all children between 6 and 24 months of age called “chispitas nutricionales”

(nutritional sparkles) that contain iron, vitamin C, retinol, folic acid and zinc to prevent anemia.

Also some school feeding programs are being carried out in the most vulnerable municipalities

of the country (WFP 2007).

In terms of the food and nutritional policies institutionalization, during 2003 the Feeding and

Nutritional National Council was created to coordinate inter-institutional and inter-sectorial for

the follow-up and formulation of national policies.

5 Unfortunately these data are national averages and hide the real consumption by socio economic strata. Given the

social and economic inequalities en Bolivia, the majority of the population will have caloric and protein consumption much below the national average.


1.1.5 POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

Public policies are extremely disperse and are not in harmony between the central level and

sub-national to have a significant effect. According to the new autonomous law (“Ley de

Autonomías”), each sub-level (regional governments and local governments or municipalities) is

“autonomous” in relation to superior levels. Therefore a national programme is difficult to

implement because each level has to agree “freely” on how it will be implemented6. Financial

and technical assistance programs that are offered to medium and small scale producers

continue to be insufficient.

Agricultural and farming development policies and/or food security policies at municipal levels

have not been paid much attention, only a few have invested in the School Feeding Program,

purchasing agricultural products to encourage local food security.

Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America that has no serious conditional cash transfer

programme to the poor, in spite of its indigenous and left-wing government. Amongst the few

existing programmes, the most successful, called “Bono Juancito Pinto”, consists in giving US$

29 a year to every child attending regularly a public primary school. According to people

interviewed during the field visits, this programme really reaches the target group and is

successful in keeping children in school until the end of the school year (it reduces the

desertion rate).

1.1.6 ICCO IN BOLIVIA

At a regional level, the main focus of ICCO is on the following:

− Reinforcing small producers through facilitating access to (inter)national markets − Corporate Social Responsibility − Right to land and food − Young people and safety (incl. child labour) − Climate change (retaining the tropical rainforest)

The Bolivian programme of ICCO reflects these priorities. The main programmes, at national

level, are:

− Democratization: land conflicts and territories − Fair and sustainable economic development: access to markets, financial services,

associations of producers 6 There are 9 Departments or Regions in Bolivia and 329 Municipalities.

− Food security: lobbying, studies and grass root activities

− Basic education − Children at risk

In turn, the Food Security programme is important at a regional level and is lead by the

Peruvian NGO KALLPA. At a Bolivian level, the Food Security budget line has three

different components. The first is a very long term support to AIPE which is at the same

time an umbrella organization of around 20 different local NGOs, but also a strong and

experimented NGO by itself, specialized in lobbying and studies related to food security.

The second is the financing of many micro interventions, mostly in very poor rural regions of

Bolivia, of which the sample visited by the evaluation team is probably a good example. To

a certain point, these intervention are undistinguishable from rural development activities

such as irrigation projects, cattle breeding, vegetable production, etc., and there is an

unavoidable overlap with the “fair and sustainable economic development” programme7.

The third is a common programme on food security for the years 2010 to 2013, in which

participate 6 different local NGOs and which is called “Promoting food security by local

economical development”8 . There is one budget, not divided in 6. How much each partner

will receive is a question internal to the group but only partly relevant because most

activities financed are collective (exchange of experience, common training, research, etc.).

In this sense most of the budget is for “exchange and cooperation”

An important institutional characteristics of ICCO in Bolivia is the installation in La Paz of a

decentralized office, ICCO headquarter for the South American region (7 countries where

ICCO focuses its interventions), which exists only since April 2010. It has established a

“Regional Council” (Consejo regional) composed of 14 persons from 7 different countries.

This council meets twice a year and should design the ICCO strategy for South America. It

began working in November 2010. This is the application of the ICCO PROCODE process

(PROgramatic approach, COresponsibility and DEcentralization) which began in 2004.

Decentralization means that the relations between ICCO and its Bolivian partners will be

closer and that there will be more discussions on strategic orientations9. The PROCODE

process also meant a progressive shift toward programmes based on a multilevel (local,

regional, national) and a multiactors (target group, NGO, local (or regional) government,

other actors public or private…) approach.

7 However ICCO has no specific water programme in Bolivia, except for a project on fight against pollution of the

Pilcomayo river. It has no health project either. 8 This point is explained in chapter 3: Findings on the network of partners. 9 Interview with Connie Toornstra on November 18, 2010.


1.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION IN BOLIVIA

1.2.1. PARTNER SELECTION FOR THE FIELD MISSION

During the inception phase, Bolivia was chosen as one of the countries for a field mission. This

choice was based on a number of specific criteria as explained in the inception report. Within

the country, three partners were chosen for a visit: SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI. These partners

were chosen through a set of criteria such as: the budget for the programme and the budget

which was exclusively destined to food security and the budget allocated to objective 1 (direct

poverty alleviation). AIPE, an NGO network on food security was included in the sample for a

visit (not an indepth visit though) given the importance of the ICCO budget and the role of this

network in policy influencing. The focus was on the projects executed between 2007-2010. The

evaluation was not designed to evaluate the individual partners as such. Below, an overview of

the partners included in the indepth visit is provided.

The evaluation was build around 8 evaluation questions .The main findings and conclusions of

this evaluation are presented in this report through an answer to each of the 8 evaluation

questions and this answer is explained by references to judgement criteria attached to each

evaluation question.

It should be noted that in the debriefing meeting in Cochabamba (October 4, 2010) participants

asked to have access to all the results of the ICCO evaluation on Food Security, implying also

the final report.

Name PO Project Name start date end date total MFS FS

component budget for

obj. 1

IFFI

Bolivia Promoción DEL con SSAN y Genero 2009 1/01/2009 31/12/2009 € 50.000 € 50.000 € -

Bolivia Promoción DEL con SSAN y Genero 2010-2012

1/01/2010 31/12/2012 € 50.000 € 37.500 € -

Desarrollo Distrital con Enfoque de Género 2005 - 1/01/2005 31/12/2007 € 96.000 € 19.200 € 57.600

Promoción SAN y DEL con enfoque género 1/01/2008 31/12/2010 € 250.000 € 200.000 € 100.000

PASOS

Sembrando Seguridad Alimentaria 1/11/2007 31/12/2010 € 135.000 € 33.750 € 108.000

SARTAWI SAYARIY

Desarrollo Rural Altiplano 2007 - 2009 1/01/2007 31/12/2009 € 150.000 € 75.000 € 105.000

SARTAWI SAYARI 2010-2012

1/01/2010 31/12/2012 € - € -

Name PO

Project Date target group location objective

IFFI

2009 Consumers, women, local government, migrants, youth and children

Poor districts of Cochabamba

Defending women's rights and promoting good health care. Income generating activities,

2010-2012 Consumers, women, local government, migrants, youth and children

Poor districts of Cochabamba

strengthening local governance, combating children malnutrition and income generating activities for men and women

2005 -2007 Poor people, especially women, youth, and children

Districts 6 and 14 of the Cercado Municipality in the Department of Cochabamba.

The activities of the foreseen program will not include direct interventions at community level, but rather concentrate on institutional and technical development, generating proposals and lobby strategies for local economical development with food security. Improve socio-economic conditions including gender equity.

2008-2010

Producers organizations especially women in the rural areas of the Valleys Highlands. Potential women entrepreneurs and their families. in the metropolitan areas of the Department of Cochabamba

Municipality of Arani (rural), Municipalities ofCercado, Tiquipaya, Quillacollo, Sacaba, Colcapirhua (urban).

The activities of the foreseen program will not include direct interventions at community level, but rather concentrate on institutional and technical development, generating proposals and lobby strategies for local economical development with food security. Strengthening of links between SAN and DEL through the creation of synergies within the rural and urban families to assure food and nutritional security.

PASOS

2007-2010 308 small farmer families in 8 communities (consumers, women, youth and children)

Poor communities of the Municipality of Alcalá, Province Tomina in the Department of Chuquisaca

Contribute to a sustainable and just economic development in Tomina. Improve nutritional and alimentary security through: adequate and sustainable management of water resources; sustainable management of productive bases, improvement of malnutrition status and incidence in nutritional and alimentary security public policies in the Municipality of Alcalá.

SARTAWI SAYARIY

2007 - 2009

2,007 small scale farmers and their families (farmers, women, children) and local government

Poor communities in the Provinces of Calamarca in La Paz, Machacamarca in Oruro and Colquechaca in Potosí

Improvement of food security and income generation through: an increase in agricultural production and diversification of animal husbandry and the introduction of productive chains; strengthening civil society and organizations; and strengthening women’s role in production and socio-organization topics. Including a gender focus.

2010-2012

3,612 families (consumers, women, children and youth) and local government in 80 poor communities

Poor and marginal communities of the Altiplano (Departments of Oruro, La Paz and Potosí) with hard soil and weather conditions.

Improvement of water and soil use, agricultural and animal productivity including productive chains to contribute to alimentary and nutritional security. Income generation activities, defending peasants rights at municipal levels and strengthening local governance. Including a gender focus.


1.2.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE FIELD MISSION

In the framework of the overall evaluation exercise, the objective of field missions is to

contribute evidence-based elements to the overall evaluation process through assessment in

the specific country context. In line with the proposed methodology in the inception report, the

eight evaluacion questions (EQ), judgement criteria and indicators, the country missions worked

through:

− Bilateral workshop with Partners of ICCO, to assess the impact and sustainability of

their activities between 2007 and 2010, the relevance of envisioned results within the local

context and taking into account their capacity, the evolution of their capacity and the role of

ICCO for their capacity development and operations.

− Meetings with stakeholders (other than partners), directly or indirectly involved in the

program as ally or as opponent, but not partner of ICCO.

− In-depth sessions with beneficiaries in villages to assess the type and level of changes

that the population is experiencing regarding food security and their right to food and

whether some of these changes have been influenced by the programs of ICCO’s partners.

These sessions were structured along 5 modules based on the PADEV-methodology.

− Collective meetings with partners as members of the network/coalition on FS, with

the purpose to (i) validate findings from the mission and to (ii) assess the approach of

ICCO, the programmatic approach and practice in the country with all Food Security

partners of ICCO.

− Interviews with ICCO staff, to discuss issues from the evaluation framework as

implementation of the ICCO FS strategy, the input provided to partners to strengthen their

capacity to influence policy making and the input of ICCO and role in the country.

1.2.3. ORGANISATION OF THE MISSION IN BOLIVIA

This report is the result of series of activities that can be divided into the following:

− A preparatory phase, before the country visits, where main documents have been

consulted, see list of documents in annex.

− A field/country phase of 16 days duration undertaken by a team of two consultants. This

evaluation took place in Bolivia between the 20 of September and the 5 of October 2010

(16 days). The programme of the mission, the list of persons interviewed and the list of

participants in workshops are included in the annexes 3, 4 and 5. The power point

presented in the debriefing meeting at the end of the mission is presented in annexe 6.

− A reporting phase with some additional interviews

For each of the three partners selected for an indepth visit, communities/villages have been

visited, see overview below:

Partner Region Municipality Community

SARTAWI Oruro Machacamarca Realenga

SARTAWI Potosí Colquechaca Uluchi Bajo

PASOS Chuquisaca Alcalá Limabamba Bajo

PASOS Chuquisaca Alcalá Garzas Chica

IFFI Cochabamba Arani Serrano

IFFI Cochabamba Cochabamba Ricomida

Table No 1: Location of Communities visited during the Field Visit in Bolivia

1.2.4. DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED AND LIMITATIONS OF THE EXERCISE

Organisation of the mission by ICCO regional office: although the time for the mission was

communicated as early as July (see inception report), it was very difficult for the ICCO regional

office to accommodate the mission in the month of September. The office was heaviliy involved

in the screening of new programmes and the set-up of the regional office. A final agreement on

the timing of the mission was agreed upon in a late stadium which complicated the preparation

by the local consultant of the meetings with the partners. As a consequence the first meetings

were organised with a great deal of improvisation.

Constraints related to the travel conditions in the country (poor road conditions, remote position

of villages where the partners intervene) and the mobilisation of beneficiaries: a lot of time was

needed for travel; further to that it proved very difficult for the partners to mobilise beneficiaries

for joint sessions of two days; therefore the planned session in the villages were organised as

focus groups, structured along the main issues of the 5 modules proposed in the inception

report. The conclusions stemmed from a consensus between participants rather then from a

debate inside small working groups (even between men and women).

Contacting stakeholders in the villages: it was difficult to get appointments with other

stakeholders active in the same intervention area (related to the travel conditions and

disponibility of these actors). As a consequence some of the findings are more hypothetical

(although confirmed by the different partners in the debriefing). This is indicated as such in the

report.


Translation: most of the community meetings were carried out in Quechua, with translation into

Spanish. There may have been some distortion in translation, but on the other hand, the

availability of translation permitted far greater participation at community level.

2. Main Findings

2.1. RELEVANCE OF THE UNDERLYING POLICY AND STRATEGY OF THE PROGRAM

EVALUATION

QUESTION

DESCRIPTION CENTRAL

QUESTION JUDGEMENT CRITERIA

EQ 1: Relevance of

the underlying policy

and strategy of the

program

To what extent have the ICCO policy and strategies offered a specific framework to address the rights and needs related to food security of the most vulnerable?

1.1 ICCO has developed clear and useful strategies and policies.

1.2 The strategies and policies are relevant with view to current context and policies regarding the right to food.

Main Findings and Conclusions:

− The strategy of ICCO does not consist in developing its own policy document on Food

Security in Bolivia, but in supporting on a long term basis a Bolivian network (AIPE)

specialized on FS and in encouraging its Bolivian partners in developing their own

strategies at local level.

− It is an appropriate strategy as far as it guarantees appropriation and permits adaptation to

different contexts. However this strategy is debated because it also implies supporting

many micro interventions which can be well designed, well implemented and efficient, but

which have a very local impact and mitigate the effects of poverty rather than reduce its

causes.

2.1.1. CLARITY OF STRATEGY

There is no contextualised policy (document) on FS for Bolivia, nor at a regional level. ICCO

Utrecht has developed a general policy document in 2008 (see “Por una Alimentación

Suficiente, Segura y Nutritiva para todos”, ICCO & Kerk in Actie, 2008). The food security

programme takes into account the history of development in Bolivia, such as: (i)


decentralisation of responsibilities and means to Bolivian local government and (ii) recently: the

importance of the link with grass roots organisations10. The two programmes are:

1. Cooperation between 6 ICCO partners on FS and the link with local economic

development aiming at ensuring adequate attention for FS in programmes for local economic

development.

2. Regional programme in which AIPE is involved

2.1.2.RELEVANCE OF STRATEGY

The programmes in particular evolved from the longstanding experience of ICCO in working

with Bolivian partners. This experience was build on two tracks (i) allowing interventions at the

level of the target group (FS, production and processing of products, technical interventions in

the field of water) and (ii) supporting local governments in planning (of infrastructure,

development of local markets). Over the years, ICCO has stimulated partners to find ways to

systematize their experience at the level of the target group and to mainstream successful

approaches in the policy of local government. Partners have as such evolved to an approach at

three levels: direct interventions at the level of the target groups, dialogue with local

government and support to the organisation of civil society groups. AIPE is the only ICCO FS

partner who is not active at the level of the target group but is stimulating learning and linking

between NGOs that are active at local and departmental level and reflection on the role of the

NGOs in Bolivian society; thanks to input from ICCO this network strongly developed its work

on FS.

The development of the programmes was mainly based on internal evaluation experiences with

implementation of previous programmes and some input of regional experts (to ensure the link

with the local context). There has been one specific meeting with partners in Bolivia in 2008 to

discuss a common programme with the partners. For the development of the future strategic

plans 2011-2015 the same process is envisaged (now also with the input of the newly

established regional Regional Council or Advisory Board). However ICCO will have to apply the

reduction plan which means a cut of 30% of its public financing11. This cut will also apply to the

FS programme.

10 This importance comes from the present tendency, in the Bolivian Government, to link activities and proposal on rural

development to grass root organizations akin to the Government, such as the indigenous women organization,” The Bartolinas” and CSUTCB (Confederación Sindical Unica de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia - a peasant union. AIPE, for example, must now pass through one of these organizations to present its legal proposals to Parliament.

11 The Financing which comes from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs through DGIS.

ICCO does not execute a contextual analysis: partners are required to pay attention to some

specific indicators related to FS (in their programme proposals and execution). Partners are

explicitly asked to collect and report on information related to relevant international standards

such as the household food security index and the dietary diversity index (and to stimulate local

governments to keep records of these – see for e.g. IFFI). Partners have been instructed to do

so. Complicating factor: all donors have other requirements for baseline studies, which makes it

sometimes difficult to collect comparable information in an efficient and effective way.

ICCO’s partners are applying precise indicators in order to measure the impact of their

intervention on the food security of their target groups. However these measurements are too

recent and it is not yet possible to know whether these interventions have an impact on the

nutrition habits of the target groups. With few exceptions (such as the Ricomida project – see

box in EQ8), all are working with the most vulnerable. In Bolivia, the poor are mostly

concentrated in the rural areas of the Altiplano and Valleys. The poverty map of Bolivia shows

that all the municipalities visited, with the exception of the city of Cochabamba, belong to the

two poorest categories of the map (4 and 5). Inside the rural municipalities, differentiation

between one village and another or inside the villages themselves, is usually limited.

Conclusion on EQ 1:

The strategy of ICCO does not consist in developing its own strategy on Food Security in

Bolivia, but in supporting on a long term basis a Bolivian network (AIPE) specialized on FS and

in encouraging its Bolivian partners in developing their own strategies at local level. At the

network level (AIPE) the first FS strategy was drafted in 1996 and the Bolivian NGOs partners

of ICCO and member of AIPE stated that they develop their strategies in a dialectical process

with ICCO (meaning: learning from each other through dialogue and exchange).

This way ICCO does not “offer a specific framework to address the rights and needs related to

food security of the most vulnerable”, but is probably applying the best possible strategy

because:

− It ensures ownership of strategies by Bolivian partners

− It is adapted to very different local contexts

− It permits a quick adaptation to changes in the context

The twofold strategy (support to small initiatives and support to networking through AIPE) has

the advantage of being well adapted to a country which does not face food availability

problems, and where food insecurity is linked to unequal access to food, poverty and a lack of

public action. By supporting small local initiatives, it develops concrete experiences which can

serve as examples and have a multiplier effect. The disadvantage of this strategy is that,

through these small interventions (often well designed and well implemented), it has only a local


impact reduced to small target groups. These impacts cannot reverse some long term trends

linked to more global phenomenon such as the relative impoverishment of the small peasant

agriculture or the loss of soil fertility due to erosion or pollution.

Partners adapt their operational strategy to the context. All develop similar activities that

complement each other. And all begin with water and further develop activities linked to a better

use of water: organization, cattle breeding, vegetable production, nutrition, etc. according to the

local context. Few linkages exist with other ICCO programmes because FS budget line

encompasses a large variety of activities and does not require to be complemented by other

programmes. Additionally, there are no specific ICCO interventions on water, health or rural

infrastructures.

Complementarities between objectives, partners, and country strategies are being recently

studied and exploited through a common programme developed by the “Group of 6” (see

further under point 3).

2.2. COHERENCE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY

EVALUATION

QUESTION

DESCRIPTION CENTRAL


EQ 2: Coherence of

the implementation

of the strategy

To what extent are the ICCO strategies and policies translated into the cooperation and to what extent have possible synergies in the strategies been used optimally?

2.1. The ambitions and theory of change of the ICCO food security strategies are translated into partner selection and in the budget allocation

2.2. ICCO can guarantee that translation of strategies in the field are adapted to local context

2.3. Complementarities between objectives, partners, country strategies have been optimally used

2.2.1. TRANSLATION IN PARTNER SELECTION AND BUDGET ALLOCATION

The ICCO strategy on Food Security has not been translated automatically to partners (see the

above). Partners know at least some principles of this strategy but this knowledge is unequal

between partners and inside each partner NGOs. Some partners state that ICCO has learned

from its Bolivian partners about FS strategies. They also strongly argue that FS is not a specific

or a medium term objective, but a global (long term) objective which can/should be attained

through many activities in rural development, such as infrastructure, health, education, etc. As

such, they do not understand the separation, in ICCO, between a “food security” programme

and an “economic development” programme because the two belong to a same process.

Each NGO has its own strategy, according to its own reality and proper development. For

example, SARTAWI will develop cattle breeding because the Altiplano (Oruro and Northern

Potosi) has a long cattle tradition and some potential in this sector, PASOS attaches more

importance to water because they are working in a dry region where everything depends on

water, IFFI will work with women groups in villages because they focus more on gender issues.

At the level of AIPE, the first FS strategy was drafted in 1996 as a working document for the

NGOs belonging to the network. This strategy was updated in 2002 and presented as a

proposal for a public policy in this field12.

Objectives are fully shared between ICCO and its partners. No negotiation process is needed

and no imposition from the side of ICCO is felt by the partners. The partners set their priorities

and present proposals to ICCO whose observations are appreciated as relevant, useful and

respectful of partners’ autonomy.

The partner selection by ICCO is not clear. Initial contacts are so old that the origin cannot not

be precisely remembered (for eg. relations between ICCO and AIPE started in 1988!). In one

case information was passed over to ICCO by SNV. A formal selection process was not

organised by ICCO. The same holds for the target group selection: this is rarely the result of an

explicit and rigorous process, but rather the fruit of personal contacts, observation and

experience of the partners.

As far as the evaluation team could observe, the partner mix reflects a wide range of

specialities and experiences. But this was probably not purposely done by ICCO (see interview

with ICCO in EQ1): the criterion to maintain a relation is rather the strength of the organization:

the long term capacity to execute efficiently a programme and to absorb funds.

2.2.2. ADAPTATION TO LOCAL CONTEXT

All partners have a good knowledge of the local context. Their strategy is not always based on

explicit studies, external or internal. Sometimes the strategy is adapted to the municipal

12 “Propuestas de Seguridad Alimentaria Nutricional en Políticas Públicas”, AIPE Marzo 2002.


development plan (PDM). In the AIPE case, a lobbying activity is normally based on information

and studies stemming from the group itself (Unidad de Gestión or network’s partners) and also

from outside experts.

Target group and/or local authorities (and network’s partners in the case of AIPE) participate in

the design of the operational strategies and often in the monitoring and internal evaluation of

the actions, for example through their participation in the NGO’s annual meeting on planning

and evaluation. The evaluation team could appreciate the ownership of the projects during the

focus group meetings with beneficiaries. The projects usually responded directly to

proposals/questions from the population and were often strongly defended by the beneficiaries

and the NGO during the municipal planning process in order to ensure access to the scarce

municipal funds. The level of ownership is confirmed by the ICCO organizational scans of IFFI

and PASOS: the scan noted in relation to accountability and participation, that both partners

have a system that enables beneficiaries to co-decide to some extent, especially about

activities. And that beneficiaries are in a position to enquire about organisation’s performance.”

The local strategies of the NGOs adapt to the priorities identified by the beneficiaries but also

offer a diversified set of complementary actions. For example, SARTAWI bases it strategy on

the complementarities between production, knowledge and organization, and will therefore

develop activities at each of these three levels. PASOS works first on water, and then on

activities which depend on water: vegetable production, cooking, nutrition, etc. In the case of

AIPE, the lobbying themes chosen reflect a consensus amongst the network partners.

Baselines are drawn and used to assess the results of actions (e.g. in IFFI the nutritional

situation of the women entrepreneurs is periodically evaluated). AIPE drafted a complete and

complex information system (recollection and processing) on food security called SISAN13

which seems to be applied by 6 partners NGOs among which IPTK and PROAGRO, but none

of the 3 NGOs visited by the evaluation team.

2.2.3. USE OF COMPLEMENTARITIES

Complementarities between local partners and objectives are being recently exploited through

the formation of the “Group of 6” or “National Group” which is now implementing a common

programme called “Bolivia Promoción DEL con SSAN y Genero 2010-2012” for a total amount

of 240.000 €. This programme is too recent to show already very concrete results, but local 13 SISAN is a complete computerized system to gather and process information on food security, which AIPE is

developing since 10 years. According to an interview (Mónica Rodriguez from EC Delegation in La Paz), this is a very good instrument but which has not been sufficiently promoted and used outside AIPE. However the evaluation team did not evaluate as such the effectiveness of the SISAN system.

partners feel that they are engaged in a common dynamic (see more on this under ‘Findings on

network of partners’).

The final aim of this group and its future relations with ICCO (will it in the long run replace or

complement bilateral relations?) are not completely clear to all partners. Other doubts stem

from the implication of the “multilevel and multiactor” programmes14 and from the consequences

of the ICCO decentralization process which is currently being executed.

2.3. IMPROVED FOOD AVAILABILITY AT THE HOUSEHOLD LEVEL

EVALUATION

QUESTION

DESCRIPTION CENTRAL


EQ 3: Improved food

availability at the

household level

To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence food availability for vulnerable households in a structural and gender sensitive way and why ?

3.1. Availability of food for vulnerable households has changed

3.2. The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households

3.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household level


− Visits to the communities show that there has been a slight improvement in availability of

food, always based on a greater supply of water. This is not surprising given the fact that

problems of food security are concentrated in the highlands and dry valley regions (without

irrigation).

− Most changes observed are sustainable for vulnerable households because there is a

genuine ownership which allows for (slow) changes in attitudes as part of a long term

dynamic, and because people can control the production chain.

− ICCO partner organizations have played an important but not exclusive role in these

changes. Their success is due to strategies well adapted to the local context, but also to

general progress observed in education, health and communication in the areas of

intervention.

14 Multilevel refer to the recommendation that a programme should include at least two levels: a local and a regional one.

Multiactors means that a programme should involve a diversity of different actors such as NGOs, grass root organizations, local governments, etc.


2.3.1. CHANGES

At a national levels, important changes have occurred in food production during the last years,

increasing food production in 150% in 11 years (see 1.1.2 and “Control Ciudadano”, op. cit.).

These changes were confirmed by the meetings with target groups.

Interaction with beneficiaries has brought to the surface following elements:

− Very few families suffer from a hunger period, but when they do ( for e.g. in Alcalá), this is

due to a combination of bad harvest and migration of men who leave behind their families

with little food and little money.

− In most of the communities visited, availability of food has improved on a small scale

through the implementation of some or all of the following elements: (i) water systems for

clean drinking water and irrigation contributing improved and diversified agricultural

production; (ii) recovery and management of soils, seedlings and forestation; (iii) animal

husbandry with improved cattle, balanced animal feeding, construction of cowsheds to

protect animals and animal sanitation. The training and education component reinforced

and strengthened community members in different topics such as irrigation and water use

and management, feeding and nutrition including cooking practices, production, communal

organization and leadership

− Some of these changes such as orchards and vegetable production, and dairy production

have influenced in particular the availability of food for women and children. These changes

are also most commonly mentioned by women during the focus group meetings.

2.3.2. SUSTAINABILITY OF CHANGES

Regarding the sustainability of the changes of food availability, participants of focus group

meetings highlight the following:

− The main changes are based on an increased supply of water, both for irrigation and for

domestic consumption. Water systems are always delicate (especially at organizational and

distribution level) and numerous examples in some of the communities visited show

abandoned past irrigation projects with infrastructure that is not in use any more. Access to

water can rarely be guaranteed in the long run, especially when external factors such as

climate change (droughts) or mine contamination can affect water supply.

− However, in the communities visited irrigation systems are being financed by local NGos

and municipalities.15 They are sometimes constructed with great efforts from the population

and are very much appropriated by the population. Water committees are being organized

in each community for system maintenance and management, which will also influence

water availability and sustainability. The water source protection (ANSAS) project in Alcalá,

with PASOS, also includes tree planting in the surrounding areas to assure better and more

even water supply.

− The important investment at family and community levels in the project implementation thus

has a positive effect on sustainability. This investment is done in terms of providing work

force but also in terms of maintenance and in organization (institutional investment) of water

committees to ensure a distribution of water, the control of its use, etc.

− If water supply is assured, then sustainability of orchards and vegetable cultivation is

ensured since the people (especially women) control the whole production chain: seed,

water, cultivation, harvest, cooking, and marketing.

2.3.3. SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION OF THE PARTNER NGOS

− Partners, through the implementation of their programmes, have played an important

(though not exclusive) role in the above mentioned changes at a family and at a community

level. Yet, their interventions were on a small scale and often confronted with adverse

trends or situations (soil erosion, river contamination, land division, climate change, altitude,

dryness…) which cannot be easily reversed at the micro level where partners are

intervening. In many cases, especially in the Altiplano, the improvements are mitigating the

effects of wider negative changes.

− Partners have applied strategies that are well adapted to local reality, starting by improving

the water supply and then introducing a set of interlinked and complementary interventions

such as: (i) diversification of agricultural production, orchards and vegetables; (ii)

improvement of cattle breeding in pasture, balanced feeding, sanitation, quality

improvement; (iii) introduction of small dairy transformation units at family or community

level; (iv) training in water management, agriculture and vegetable production, livestock

and animal husbandry, nutrition, cooking; (v) training in organisation capacity in order to

15 In the communities visited investments in infrastructures were jointly financed by an NGO and a municipality, usually

with a repartition ranging from 85%-15% to 70%-30% (for the municipality). This was typically the case in the areas of SARTAWI and PASOS who always signed official agreements with the municipalities they work with.


improve capabilities of communities to claim their rights and present projects at the

municipal or regional level.

− For the interventions visited and studies by the evaluation team, the budget and the

partner’s implementation capacity were in line with the intended results. The community

invested high amounts of work, and the municipality contributed with a significant part of

their scarce resources16.

− Participants in the focus group meetings mentioned a large number of changes that

occurred over the last 10 years. In almost all cases they referred to a significant

improvement in access to education, health services, transportation, electricity, tapped

water, etc. These changes mitigate the effects of poverty (but don’t solve the poverty

problem) and explain part of the effectiveness of the partner’s intervention.

In only one case (Mujeres emprendedoras) in Cochabamba the evaluation team observed a

clear lack of sustainability due to the fact that the partner (IFFI) is assuming very important roles

(credit, control and monitoring) which cannot be assumed by the women’s organization. The

high cost of these roles (credit without interest, individual daily financial reporting…) do not

make things easier either. Four years after the beginning of the activities, the consequences of

the end of IFFI’s support have not yet been seriously discussed between the NGO and the

women organization (See box on RICOMIDA after EQ8).

2.4. IMPROVED ACCESS TO FOOD BY VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS AND INDIVIDUALS

EVALUATION

QUESTION

DESCRIPTION CENTRAL


EQ4: Improved

access to food by

vulnerable

households and

individuals

To what extent have the interventions contributed to a changed access to food for households and individuals in a structural and gender sensitive way and why?

4.1. Access to food and food ingredients for vulnerable households and individuals has changed

4.2 The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households and individuals

4.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household and individual level

16 Typically, in Oruro and Northern Potosi, Sartawi will pay 70% of the material cost of an irrigation project, while the

municipality will cover the remaining 30%.


− As poor peasants are more integrated in the labour market, the share of monetary income

in the total family income is increasing and people acquire more diverse food items on the

market. However, this also means that access to food is more influenced by international

food prices.

− This change seems irreversible because it is part of a general trend observable worldwide.

− Partner organizations have contributed to a better access to food through small dairy

projects and vegetable cultivation. These changes are significant in the sense that they give

more access to food to women.

2.4.1. CHANGES

Changes in food access are not well documented at the level of poor communities. Even at a

global level we mostly dispose of consumption surveys which are not comparable through time.

Most participants to the focus group discussions assess the following:

− They now (compared to 5-10 years ago) have access to a greater variety of food products

by complementing their own production with purchases at the market. In the Altiplano, the

normal diet now comprises noodles, rice and sometimes fruits, apart from the traditional

potatoes and green beans. This is mainly due to a greater integration in the labour market17

(more seasonable migrations) and corresponds to a general trend observable nationwide18.

− In some communities (e.g. Machacamarca) agricultural incomes have improved thanks to

diary projects which permit women to sell daily some milk, yogurt or cheese at the market.

In these cases women have a better control on the family monetary income.

− No indication is given that the lean period has changed: in communities in Chuquisaca for

e.g., problems of access to food may still be important when harvest has been poor and

when, after harvest, men migrate. Women may stay at home with children with little food

and even less money.

17 The slow process of modernization of the small peasantry in Bolivia (and worldwide) leads to a greater integration into

the product market (inputs and agricultural product) but also a greater dependence on non farm production: seasonable migration, remittances, etc.

18 See Control Ciudadano: “Soberanía alimentaria en Bolivia entre el discurso y la realidad”, CEDLA, Boletín de Seguimiento a Políticas Públicas, año VII, No 15, La Paz, Noviembre 2010.


− No indication was given that saving behavior has changed or that access to credit has

improved (none of the participants has had access to credit).19


Changes towards food diversification are certainly sustainable since they pertain to a long term

trend: peasants depend less and less on their own production for their food consumption (land

is scarcer and often quality is diminishing) and more and more on purchases at the market.

It must be noted that this evolution means that problems of access to food depend more and

more on price fluctuation, which in turn depends increasingly on international prices rather than

on the seasonable fluctuations of domestic prices. The international food crisis of 2008 strongly

hit Bolivian poor peasants and national prices remain high (in comparison to the pre crisis

period). Access to food has probably not improved during the last 4 to 5 years, in spite of the

high level of economic activity which doesn’t seem to have trickled down to the small peasantry:

the extraordinary boom in commodity prices (almost 60% of Bolivian exports) which fuelled a

strong increase in State revenues and a boom in the construction industry is very little

noticeable in the poor rural regions of Bolivia.

Cases observed of increase in agricultural income (dairy project) seem sustainable since

peasants control the production chain from water, to pastures and animal feeding, and animal

quality. Clearly, the sustainability of water systems will be key in this. This in turn may depend

on long term trends such as climate change or on other exogenous factors such as water

contamination by mines.

2.4.3. SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION OF PARTNER NGOS

The change in food diversification is a long term trend. Partner organizations (and other NGOs)

have supported this change to a limited extend in a number of areas through their support to

diversified food production (mainly through orchards and vegetable production). This was the

case in all the communities where focus group meetings were organized.

19 None of the NGO visited had a rural credit scheme linked to their projects. RICOMIDA (see box after EQ8) has an

urban credit scheme linked to a commercial activity. Although Bolivia was a pioneer country in Latin America in microcredit development (SARTAWI, until about ten years ago, was essentially a microcredit NGO) and although this activity has been largely taken over by commercial institutions, peasants have very little access to credit because small scale agriculture is too risky and because subsidized state (or private) credit schemes to small peasants have ceased to be fashionable.

In the cases of the dairy project, the relevance and coherence of these interventions should be

stressed. They have a strong impact on women autonomy, implementation capacity of partners

is good, and the budget is relatively modest in comparison with the results obtained (good cost-

effectiveness).

2.5. IMPROVED (PROPER) UTILIZATION BY FOOD BY VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS AND

INDIVIDUALS

EVALUATION

QUESTION

DESCRIPTION CENTRAL


EQ 5: Improved

(proper) utilization by

food by vulnerable

households and

individuals

To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence households’ and individuals’ utilization of food in a structural and gender sensitive way and why?

5.1. Proper utilization of food has structurally changed

5.2 The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households and individuals

5.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household and individual level


− At a national level, malnutrition has diminished in Bolivia. In the communities visited

households are improving knowledge, attitudes and practices in feeding and nutrition

habits.

− At a local level these changes seem sustainable because, according to the participants in

the sessions in villages, they stem partially from a change in attitudes and also from a

better access to health services. The changes are also part of a general evolution

observable in Bolivia

− Partner’s interventions contributed to important changes in household feeding and nutrition

habits and to a more balanced nutrition.

2.5.1. CHANGES

In the communities visited by the evaluation team, households are improving knowledge,

attitudes and practices in feeding and nutrition habits; local food is more diversified with

vegetables and fruits production for consumption. Provision of clean water to poor communities

is definitely the most important factor supporting these changes.


According to the National Health and Demographic Survey (ENDSA), the chronic malnutrition

indicator for Bolivia has improved from 32.2% in 2003 to 26.4% in 2008 for children under the

age of five, but, it is not possible to draw a link between this national indicator and the actions of

the NGO partners. At municipality level periodic monitoring and evaluation of children in this

range of age reported that chronic and global malnutrition rates have dropped although

systematic observation of nutritional indicators by the public health centers network is relatively

recent (3 to 4 years in most cases) and do not yet allow for a trend observation. On the other

hand the direct surveys conducted by ICCO’s partners, such as PASOS or IFFI are also too

recent to demonstrate concrete changes.


Most results and effects that partner NGOs achieve through their projects contribute to food

security maintaining self consumption, increasing sustainability and strenghening marketing

negotiation capacity. Important attitude changes in people should be considered structural

given their investment in project implementation. However it should also be noted that in all the

communities visited, participants to the focus group meetings state that they observe a long

term trend towards an improvement of access to health services: more health centers, easier

access to vaccination and to medical services, etc.

This long term trend can be clearly seen, for example, in the evolution of the number of

deliveries in hospitals and health centers, as compared to home deliveries20 (). Although the

evolution is different from one department to another and slower in the poorest departments, all

show a higher increase in deliveries attended in health institutions, than at home.

2.5.3. SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION OF PARTNER NGOS

Partner’s interventions and support to water and irrigation systems along with training in feeding

and nutrition and introduction of vegetable cultivation and consumption contributed to important

changes in household feeding and nutrition habits and to a more balanced nutrition for adults

and especially for children. At individual level, participants (especially women) in the focus

group meetings stressed that attitudes and knowledges are changing and that there is a rising

in consciousness to improve their life conditions and to seek ways for realising this.

20 see Bolivia: deliveries from 1998 to 2008 by department, ORS, 2009.

2.6. IMPROVED POSITION AND CAPACITY OF ORGANIZATIONS TO INFLUENCE POLICY

MAKING

EVALUATION

QUESTION

DESCRIPTION CENTRAL


EQ 6: Improved

position and capacity

of organizations to

influence policy

making

To what extent have partner organizations improved their organizational capacity and accountability, to what extent are they part of structural networks (i) to learn about the right to food and (ii) to represent together the target group towards other local and national stakeholders and (iii) to diversify their resources ?

6.1 Organizational capacity and accountability of partner organizations has changed

6.2 Cooperation of partner organizations with other relevant organizations develops into legitimate networks

6.3 Changed recognition and capabilities of the network and of the partner organizations to claim right to food

6.4 Partner organizations have contributed to improved positions of networks to influence policy making


− All partner NGOs state that their organizational capacity has improved, which is confirmed

by the results of their organizational scan.

− Changes occurred and are occurring in NGOs in Bolivian networks but many organizations

suffer from a legitimacy crisis stemming partially from the government itself who doesn’t

appreciate this form of organization externally financed and difficult to control.

− Huge progress has been made in the constitutional recognition of the right to food

(although the attribution question remains) but little or no progress is observed in claiming

this right and in the implementation of better food security. Bolivia is at the same time the

poorest country of Latin America, and the country where human rights are best recognized

by the Constitution.

− At national level, attribution problems impede an impact assessment of the lobbying

capacity of ICCO’s partners on FS21. At regional level, the influence of NGOs networks is

hardly observable yet. At local level the influence is clear because this is an operational

level where NGOs have a direct influence facilitated by Bolivia’s decentralized

administrative system: SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI had all official agreements with the

municipalities where they were working, which demonstrate their influence on municipal

policies over food security, infrastructure and gender issues.

21 The evaluators did not come across a paper trail of AIPE enabling them to check whether documents of AIPE have

been used to draft policies. However, the non existence of such a paper trail is no proof of no impact.


2.6.1. ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY

According to the four NGOs interviewed, organizational capacity has improved in the following

aspects22:

− Monitoring, control and evaluation

− Internal organization

− Planning system

− Administration

− Human resources (better capacity for analysis and better formation)

− Drafting of a strategic plan

This is confirmed by the organizational scans of IFFI and PASOS23 which offer the following

results on their organizational capacity:

Criteria IFFI

score24

PASOS

score

5 Planning, monitoring and evaluation system C/D C

6 Operating principles and procedures C C

7 Human Resources policy C C/D

8 Staff composition: representation of target group D B

10 Track record (past performances) C D

Source: ICCO Organizational Scans of IFFI (March 2009) and PASOS (February 2009)

This table shows the following:

− According to ICCO’s appreciation, IFFI and PASOS25 have high levels of organizational

capacity ;

− Both organizations show very similar results in the different field (except for staff

composition);

− The “weakest” criteria is the staff composition of PASOS which, according to the definitions

used in this scan, shows that “The target group (in terms of men/women, ethnicity, religion

22 Since the evaluation did not allow an extensive organisational analysis of the NGOs in the sample, the evaluators do

not pronounce themselves on organisational capacity. It should be remarked though that this scan does not take into account evolutions.

23 No organizational scan were available for SARTAWI and AIPE. 24 scores range from A (lowest) to D (highest) 25 The evaluation team thinks that the organizational capacity of SARTAWI and AIPE are no less good than of IFFI and

PASOS.

and disability) is represented in the organisation to some extent”. However the

representation of the target group in the local NGO may be a disadvantage as well as an

advantage, for obvious reasons linked to conflicts of interest, potential “clientelism” etc.

This table says nothing on the evolution of these criteria, but according to the four NGOs

interviewed, they all have improved their organizational capacity.

Additionally, some NGOs can clearly explain what their priority areas for improvement are26.

All are accountable towards their target groups (this is almost obligatory in Bolivia when working

with municipalities – see also EQ2). AIPE is closely monitored by its affiliates.

2.6.2. COOPERATION

ICCO’s partner NGOs belong to two types of networks:

1. Networks directly supported by ICCO

2. Other

Belonging to the first category are the following:

− The “National group” or “Group of 6”: SARTAWI, PASOS, IFFI, Yunta, IICCA, CEPAC. This

is an initiative stemming from these organizations. It is directed towards FS and is presently

united by a common programme called DELSSA (Programa de Desarrollo Económico

Local, Seguridad y Soberanía Alimentaria) with a budget of around 240.000 € for 3 years

starting in 2010, financed by ICCO and administrated by IFFI (see 3. Findings on the

network of partners).

− AIPE (Asociación de Instituciones de Promoción de la Educación) which is an old network

(founded in 1984) directly supported by ICCO since 1988 whose objective it is to strengthen

its affiliates (20 organizations presently) and to lobby on food security matters.

− “Mesa de Administradores” (Administrators Roundtable) created in 2006 who has 25

affiliates (not necessarily specialized in FS) and whose objective is to improve the

adaptability of NGOs to the changing national context.

Some partners belong also to other networks, not supported by ICCO. The main objectives of

these networks are normally to strengthen the organizations (share information) and defend

them against the government (this necessity is presently strongly felt by NGOs who fear that

the GoB wants to control them).

26 For example, PASSOS grew so rapidly that their planning and administrative capacity lagged behind and are now set

as a priority.


Apart from financing AIPE, ICCO started to support collective actions and coordination between

its partners in Bolivia in 2004 through the process of decentralisation and programmatic

approach.

The “National Group” is too recent to show an impact already. AIPE has developed relations

with other networks in Bolivia, such as UNITAS, Coordinadora de la Mujer, and others. It also

co-founded an international network on food security (ASSANA) and it belongs to a worldwide

network and participates regularly to international meetings on this subject. According to the

partner NGOs, it is playing an important role issues related to rural development and food

security. On the one hand it is a very useful source of information, advice and technical

assistance27 for its affiliates. On the other hand it has achieved significant results in its lobbying

activities, e.g. with the mention of the right to food security in the 2009 constitution (this is the

most commonly mentioned impact), although this result was the product of the thinking and

actions of many actors, both public and private, and although the Constitution mentions almost

all possible human rights (more than 20 fundamental rights are guaranteed by the State).

AIPE is also experimenting a new approach by improving the flow of information coming from

its affiliates and by incentivising lobbying at regional level (e.g. by a redistribution of its

budget28). It seems to have gained more legitimacy amongst its members. These state that

relations are now more reciprocal and that regional context is more taken into account because

the importance of regional lobbying is now directly addressed by AIPE.

2.6.3. CHANGED RECOGNITION OF THE NETWORKS AND CONTRIBUTION OF

PARTNER NGOS

In Bolivia the right to food security is recognized by the 2009 Constitution, but no concrete duty

bearer is responsible for ensuring that the right is respected (to whom should one “claim its right

to food”?). Therefore the problem is not yet to “claim the right to food”, but to ensure that the

question of food security is taken seriously (adequate policies) at the national, regional and

local levels.

At the AIPE level there has been an improvement of the network’s capabilities (according to

AIPE and cross checked with members and other social organisations at the national level).

Members are less numerous than before (passed from a maximum of 36 to a present number

of 20), but seem more consolidated (according to AIPE). Respective roles of AIPE and its

affiliates have been clarified. AIPE specialized progressively on its lobbying role and on 27 Technical assistance mentioned by NGOs interviewed cover food security surveys, FS project formulation and

presentation, concepts of food security and food sovereignty, etc. 28 AIPE is organizing regional lobbying activities through its affiliates by financing directly these activities. Therefore part

of AIPE’s budget is spend by its affiliates for regional lobbying.

supplying services to its affiliates. However there has been no diversification of financial

sources and AIPE remains totally dependent on a few external financing, as most Bolivian

NGOs.

According to partners there has been a significant improvement of the NGOs partner capability

to act in favour of the right to food at the local level by influencing the municipal plans and some

specific actions. Many evidence of this exists. SARTAWI and PASOS lobby at a local level in

order to include some specific collective investment (mostly in irrigation and drinking water) in

the municipal plans, and sign official agreements with the municipalities in order to define

precisely the duties and obligations of each party. IFFI does much the same by identifying

collective needs in communities in order to present them to the municipality for co-financing.

IFFI is also very active in lobbying in favour of more gender equality (e.g. through an

“observatory of gender equality” in Cochabamba). PASOS worked in favour of the school

breakfast including only local products. Most of these consist in offering to the municipalities a

leverage (of one to three in some cases until one to eight in others)29 for their own investments.

Partners plan to work on the design and drafting of the “cartas orgánicas” (kind of mini

constitutions at local level) of the municipalities. They can also influence some local policies,

e.g. by demanding that the school breakfasts be prepared with local inputs. This is partially a

result of the changes in AIPE and the strengthening of lobbying capacity of partners (and not

only of the “Unidad de Gestión” of AIPE).

The main missing link is the meso or regional level where something can be done to change

things at a constitutional level, but for which NGOs are ill prepared because it is a more recent

institutional level. Effective action would imply a larger united front and more collective action

between the NGOs. However in most Departments (regions) there are regional organizations

(in Chuquisaca, e.g. there is a regional representation of AIPE composed of 4 organizations).

Evidence also exists of improved capacity of target groups30 (rural communities or womens’

groups) to claim their rights, and present projects and proposals to municipalities (or even to

regions).

External events with negative effects on FS can be mentioned: river contamination by mining

companies is frequent in Bolivia; the 2008 food crisis hit strongly poor people; development of

agro-fuels leave less place for food production; droughts seem stronger and more frequent than

before, but this should be confirmed by long term observations and linked to climate change31.

29 If the municipality invest 1 the NGO will invest 3, and up to 8 depending on circumstances. 30 This is especially true in the communities where SARTAWI is working, one of which, e.g., obtained funding from the

Oruro region (a bulldozer) for the construction of a irrigation canal. 31 Climate change is not addressed as such by ICCO’s partners (no project is entitled “effects of climate change”), but all

the projects promoting irrigation and a better use of water are trying to mitigate the consequences of climate change.


2.7. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS DEMONSTRATE MORE

INTEREST IN THE RIGHT TO FOOD

EVALUATION

QUESTION

DESCRIPTION CENTRAL


EQ 7: National and

international policy

makers demonstrate

more interest in the

right to food

To what extent have partner organizations and/or their networks changed their lobby and advocacy activities and to what extent have they been able to influence the interest of the policy makers to promote the right to food for all?

7.1 The national and international lobby strategies of partner organizations address relevant issues

7.2. Interest of national and international policy makers in the right to adequate food has changed

7.3 Partner organizations have contributed to increased interest of policy makers for the right to food for all


− All issues addressed by AIPE and by partner’s organizations in their lobby strategy are

relevant, which does not mean that all relevant issues are addressed.

− Interest of national and international policy makers in the right to adequate food has

increased but has stayed very much at a declaration level: very little has trickled down to

the poor.

− As far as crosschecking was possible, this mission could assess that AIPE’s activities had

a real impact on the groups and institutions it worked with. The impact on an increased

interest of policy makers (JC 7.3) is difficult to assess because of the attribution problem.

2.7.1. LOBBY STRATEGIES

Some of the recent targeted lobby-actions executed by AIPE with its partners are the following:

− In 2002 AIPE published a document called “Proposal for a Public Policy on Food Security

and Nutrition”. This document contained 13 concrete proposals, including school breakfast,

inclusion of food security in the school curriculum, subsidy to pregnant women, etc.

According to AIPE, 11 of these proposals were adopted by the successive governments.

− Since 2006 AIPE worked on the introduction in the Constitution of the right to food security.

This right was included in the new 2009 Constitution (article 16).

− Through the Commission of Human Rights of the national Assembly, AIPE presented a law

proposal on the right to food in 2008. The proposal was not discussed and was presented

again in 2009 but without success because it was not a priority for the present government.

− Presently AIPE is working with the indigenous women organization (“Las Bartolinas”) on a

law proposal on food sovereignty.

According to AIPE and to other interviewees its lobby activities have been generally successful

and all the issues chosen were relevant, but this does not mean that all relevant issues have

been tackled. Issues on international trade, on agro-fuels and on promotion of traditional crops

are on AIPE’s agenda (they have been given priority) but have not been addressed yet.

AIPE is very much specialized on the legal or legislative level. Inclusion of the right to food

security in the Constitution is considered as a great success and it certainly is. But Bolivia is at

the same time the poorest country of Latin America and the country which recognizes the

highest number of human rights in its laws and Constitution. In Bolivia, as in many other Latin

American countries, the problem does not lie any more at a legislative level but at the

implementation and claiming levels: laws or principles exist but are not applied.

AIPE is adapting its lobby strategy to the present political situation by directing its activities

towards important social actors such as the indigenous women organization (“Las Bartolinas”)

instead of presenting directly proposals to the parliament. This way the political visibility of the

network will diminish (which is viewed as positive), but the technical difficulty of its activities will

considerably increase since these will necessarily include a significant component of training of

social organizations.

At a local level several examples of actions in favour of women rights are given by IFFI and by

other partners: women observatory, micro irrigation, FS roundtable, clean water distribution,

etc… Certainly all these issues are relevant and are especially noticeably at the local level.

2.7.2. CHANGES AT THE LEVEL OF POLICY MAKERS

According to most observers and actors interviewed, there is a significant change in awareness

to FS in the present government (the principle of “Vivir Bien”) but less significant changes are

observed in commitments, public programmes or policies. The present government is not

known for its effectiveness, technical capacity has diminished and bureaucracy has worsened.

According to different sources the main present public policies in favour of food security are:

− A multisector programme “Desnutrición Cero” that is well designed but, according to field

visits and to opinion of experts on FS , does not reach its target Group.


− A conditional cash transfer to children in primary public schools (US$ 29 – Bs 200 - by

child/year) which is effective and has a positive impact on school attendance (“Bono

Juancito Pinto”).

− A national FS programme (PASA) financed by the EC/IDB which has shown some results

in the past but, according to the country evaluation of EC cooperation with Bolivia, became

largely ineffective since it took the form of a budget support because it ceased to be strictly

controlled by an external institution .

− Things are easier at local level where more awareness is, at least in part, attributable to

partner’s activities and is normally followed by actions in favour of FS, often co-financed

with NGOs .

2.7.3. CONTRIBUTION OF PARTNERS

AIPE is very confident about the effectiveness of its lobbying activities, gives many examples of

this effectiveness and may be right. This evaluation mission contrasted these opinions against

three others which totally confirmed the relevance and effectiveness of AIPE (see box next

page). But for some activities such as lobbying for changes in the constitution, the attribution

problem remains: how to distinguish AIPE’s impact from that of other organisations?

AIPE

AIPE (Asociación de Instituciones de Promoción y Educación), as a NGO and/or Social

Development Private Institutions Network, has been working in a proactive manner with

different social organizations that contribute to changing processes in the country within the

new Constitution context. It is actually known as the “Alimentary Sovereignty Network” due to

its action against neoliberal policies, raising its compromise to the Change.

According to the Municipality of La Paz, AIPE has been very supportive to Food Security (FS) in

Bolivia. The elaboration and development of several proposals in Food Security and Nutrition

(such as the School Feeding Program) were presented to different government levels and were

approved for implementation and several became relevant to decrease nutritional national

rates. However, on the legislative field, several important FS policies were included in the

Constitution and are considered as a triumph, but at the moment they are not being applied.

AIPE not only developed the right to food security that was included in the new constitution, but

also worked closely with civil society organizations such as CIOEC (Coordinadora de

Integración de Organizaciones Económicas Campesinas) which in turn represents the different

peasants marketing and productive organizations (OECAS). CIOEC is now recognized in the

Constitution (art. 304) and also support many peasants marketing and productive organizations

(OECAS- Peasant Economic Organizations), but still need support to develop operational plans

and strategies.

The indigenous women organization,” The Bartolinas” and CSUTCB (Confederación Sindical

Unica de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia - a peasant union) are also civil actors that are

working closely with AIPE in its lobby strategy to develop new policies on food security and

sovereignty that will be presented to the National Assembly (Congress) for approval.

2.8. ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF ICCO/KIA

EVALUATION

QUESTION

DESCRIPTION CENTRAL


EQ 8: Assessment of

the contribution of

ICCO/KIA

To what extent has ICCO applied different roles and how have these been appreciated by ICCO’s partners? To what extent have ICCO and its partners developed adequate partnership relations to reach their objectives? To what extent does ICCO add specific value compared to other programs and stakeholders? How efficient have the contribution of ICCO and partners been ?

8.1 Extent to which ICCO has played different roles

8.2 Partners appreciate the role of ICCO and the partnership relation supports the objectives of the partners and ICCO

8.3 Possibility to verify and support the efficiency of the program

Main findings and conclusions:

− The 3 main roles of ICCO are its financial role, capacity development and lobbying. The

two last ones are often highlighted by Bolivian partners because they are more seldom

found amongst aid agencies.

− Partners detail a long list of ICCOs qualities in each of these 3 roles. They stress that ICCO

works with partners with whom it shares the same objectives. Therefore there is no

negotiation (nor need for it) during the funding process. They also stress that ICCO is very

respectful of its partners, practical and flexible. They much appreciated the monitoring from

Utrecht32, which they felt very useful without being a burden.

− Partners feel that ICCO has enough information to verify and support the efficiency of the

program. However this view is not fully shared by the ICCO representatives in Bolivia, who

32 The monitoring consisted essentially in a biannual visit from the ICCO representative of the FS budget line.


stress that one of the objectives of the decentralization process is to have a better access

to information and closer ties with local partners. They feel that the reporting, monitoring

and evaluation system of ICCO is sufficient and do not intent to change it. “Closer ties”

means more visits and exchanges, not different monitoring mechanism. The evaluation

team has no reasons to think that ICCO lacks access to enough and good quality

information.

2.8.1. ROLES PLAYED BY ICCO AND OPINIONS OF LOCAL PARTNERS

− Financial: ICCO is quick, flexible, and respectful. Relation is based on trust. Reports are on

an annual basis, are simple and practical. ICCO’s financial forms are used by the partners

for their own book keeping (no time lost). Audits are general (not specific to a project)

Timely disbursements. Good coordination between staff inside ICCO.

It should be noted that ICCO is not always a very important donor for its partners in Bolivia: it

contributes between 20% (PASOS) and 27% (IFFI) to the 2010 budget of its counterparts.

These, in turn receive funds from between 4 (SARTAWI) and 12 (PASOS) agencies. AIPE is an

exception receiving almost 40% of its funding from ICCO. The number of donors of AIPE is

currently passing from 7 to 5.

− Capacity development: ICCO offers many suggestions for institutional strengthening in

interacting with its partners on the following issues networking, strategic planning, definition

of indicators, training, etc.. Good suggestions to improve project proposals. ICCO finances

institutional strengthening, participation to international events, etc. Very good monitoring

(visits) from ICCO.

− Lobbying: networking and coordination are encouraged (and financed). ICCO is very

proactive on this matter. AIPE is a good example of this. See also the programme

“Promoting Food Security by Local Economical Development” (see 3. Findings on the

Network of Partners).

According to partners, ICCO is better than most broker institutions. Its institutional culture

can be compared to OXFAM GB. No special weakness is mentioned, except the fact that

one partner feels that it could give more importance to the concrete results shown in the

field, meaning that effectiveness and impact should be the main evaluation criteria.

Partners simply want more of the best of ICCO.

2.8.2. APPRECIATION

Partners appreciate the three roles of ICCO. They stress that they share the same objectives,

that ICCO supports an institution more than just a project and that they have been strengthened

by this relation.

Some suggestions are made by ICCO’s partners concerning, e.g. the strong relation between

local economic development and FS (why are they separated in ICCO’s financing?), or the

necessity for clear messages concerning decentralization, and multiactor, multilevel

programmes.

Partners supply examples of mechanisms for replication (but not necessarily supported or

stimulated or facilitated by ICCO): wells, improved cattle, water source protection, “sistema de

mejoramiento y recuperación nutricional ambulatorio de niños y niñas de menos de 5 años”…

The mechanisms for replication are usually very simple: other peasants and/or other

communities come and visit the project and try to do the same. Knowing this, ICCO’s partners

give importance to field visits, peasants networks and exchanges.

2.8.3. POSSIBILITY TO VERIFY EFFICIENCY

According to local partners, objectives, expected results and indicators (in project proposals)

are clear. They think that project design is good and takes into account institutional capacity.

Timing is not always realistic (but errors are often due to local partners) and replication

mechanism are rarely provided in a project/programme proposal. ICCO can verify the efficiency

of programmes through its system of monitoring, reporting and evaluation.

Local partners think that field results influence the ICCO support to particular partners but also

stress that there are non written criteria (on institutional development for e.g.) and that ICCO

accepts that results may only appear after a long time and may be reversible.


“RICOMIDA”

IFFI, as part of its Food Security Program (FSP), has also been supporting an enterprising women’s initiative that consists of a Restaurant chain called “RICOMIDA”

that operates according to a franchised business model, but with a big difference: the franchisee pays nothing and receives many advantages, from loans to free training.

There are actually 38 ladies in this group who run their own food business in the marginal

areas of the city of Cochabamba, (covering the Municipalities of Cercado, Quillacollo,

Colcapirhua, Sacaba and Tiquipaya) with a total of around 20,000 clients per month. The main objective of this project is to change alimentary habits together with improving

feeding, food manipulation and hygiene habits and accessible price for target population.

ICCO’s funding in this project is supporting a rotating fund that provides loans to these

entrepreneurs. The loans are given to women who are willing to join the franchised

business (RICOMIDA). The highest amount of the loan is US$ 250.00, no interest is

charged and they have to reimburse the total amount within a year. Other direct benefits provided by IFFI to these women association are: (a) training in food elaboration

(nutritional, hygienic, tasty and variable); (b) training in the use of good quality provisions

for cooking; (c) education on quality and kindly hostelry; (d) training in management and

administration for a detailed accounting control and (e) continuous follow-up and

monitoring to maintain quality. The chain restaurant is doing well (the large majority of the

women are making a profit) but the project is not sustainable. Four years after it start neither the

women association nor IFFI have an idea on how it could work without the support of IFFI. The

problem stems from the fact that the monitoring (a strict control is indispensable in a franchised

system) and the loan systems are expensive and cannot be covered by the association as

such. It is very probable that the day IFFI stops its support, RICOMIDA ceases to exist.

3. Findings on the network of partners

3.1. THE PAST

During an AIPE meeting in 2007 where each participant was describing what he was doing,

three NGOs (IFFI, CEPAC and IICA) started discussing the possibility of exchanging

experience and information on a regular and more formal basis. PASOS promptly joined the

group and after a few meetings they agreed on the idea of implementing a joint programme.

They presented the idea to ICCO who quickly backed the project. In 2008 a formal proposal

was drafted, discussed, amended and accepted by ICCO who also suggested that two other

partners (SARTAWI and YUNTA) could join the group. This was agreed by the four initial

partners and in 2009 a first one year experimental programme was launched, followed by a

three years joint programme of 240,000 € which is being implemented by the 6 partners since

2010, CEPAC taking the direction of the programme and IFFI covering its administrative part. It

is one contract with one budget. The Spanish title of the programme is “Programa de Desarrollo

Económico Local, Seguridad y Soberanía Alimentaria” or DELSSA, which is equivalent to

“Promoting food security by local economical development”.

3.2. THE PRESENT

The 6 partners (the “Group of Six”) describe themselves as a group of likeminded NGOs

implementing a common programme, and are cautious emphasizing that they are not a network

inside a network (AIPE). They are also clear in that they are following their own dynamic

independently from AIPE, although they do not question their affiliation to AIPE of which they

are active members. According to the project plan (p.2), “the actions to be undertaken during

the present three year program are basically: development and systematization of sustainable

production strategies, participatory studies on local market development and climate change,

exchange of experiences among the technical staff and leaders of civil society organizations,

strengthening of organisations of small producers, actualization of the conceptual framework for

local economic development with food security en gender focus and design and validation of

indicators to measure the impact on food security at household level”.

No concrete results may yet been shown because the programme is too recent. However,

according to ICCO (project plan), the results of the one year experimental programme (2009)

are the following:

− A good working relation with AIPE, with a clear division of areas of work in order to reach

complementarity

− a first draft of the conceptual framework and identification of some main indicators,

− an inventory of interventions and experiences of each participant in the program, as well as

multi-stake holder analysis and an inventory of local demands and potential for

development

− exchange visits to the projects of IICCA, CEPAC, YUNTA and SARTAWI.


3.3. THE FUTURE

This “Group of Six” has no very clear plan or strategy for the future. They want to continue

what they are presently doing: analysing past experiences, and implementing applied research

on technologies of use of soils, water and genetic material (seeds) in order to diffuse them and

become a reference in Bolivia on these matters.

They expect ICCO supporting them on two levels: (1) a financial level in order to gain

experience and legitimacy, until they gain independence and have access to other financial

sources; (2) an intellectual level, in order to continue the conceptual debate on Food Security

and Local Economic Development. At the same time they feel this debate should not be

restricted to the group of directors/leaders of the present partners NGOs. Some also feel they

should open to other actors in Bolivia.

3.4. THE LEVEL INTEGRATION OF COLLABORATION

Participants to the Joint Partners Workshop were asked to assess the maturity of the network

(where is the network situated when looking at membership and type of collaborative actions),

following strictly the methodology proposed. On the same token they were also asked to assess

the collaborative process as a network on food security (how strong is the collaborative process

on a scale of 0 to 4?).

It can be clearly seen that partners know where their network is situated when looking at

membership and collaboration actions. 86% of participants (6 of 7) believe that the network has

moved forward to a stage where programmatic alignment as well as dialogue and knowledge

sharing is being developed. On the other side, 57% or 4 out of 7 participants consider that the

degree of diversity of the committed members has moved on to the stage where initial mixing of

entities but with limited mutual dependency.

0 0 0 0

Meeting

Results

0 14 430

43%

0 0 430

43%

0 00

14%

100%

Increasing Degree of Integration

Dialogue and knowledge sharing

Success for "Inter-connected Development" - Creating Networks of Deepening Integration

Syneergetic membership from all

sectors (civil society,

government, private sectors and

funders)

Initial mixing of entities but with

limited mututal dependancy

Homogenous; often just civil

society membership

Independent Performance

knowledge sharing, exchange

contacts and data, institutional

learning. Members continue to

independently direct their own

activities

Integrated Performance, better cost-

benefit, larger scope of activities, take

successes to scale, improved quality,

increase impact and

influence/advocacy through

integration. Members activities are

jointly designed and undertaken

through colaboration

Programmatic alignment (as well as

dialogue and knowledge sharing)

Programmatic integration (as well as

dialogue and knowledge sharing)

Coordinated Performance, minimize

duplication, align energy to increase

impact, stronger voice in policy.

Memebers direct their own activities

in ways to align with the work of

others.

Incr

ea

sin

g D

eg

ree

of

Div

ers

ity

of

Co

mm

itte

d M

em

be

rs

3.5. THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS

The figure below shows the results of the assessment of the collaborative process. The seven

participants to the workshop have given notes from 0 to 4 to each one of the six criteria used in

the figures. The following steps were carried out for the assessment of collaborative process:

(a) A copy of the scheme was distributed to each of the seven participants, we explained the

purpose of the exercise and went through each of the six elements to be sure they all

understand the exercise; (b) An agreement was reached for each element. Some items came

out from the discussion between participants, only a few were brought up by the consultants to

open discussion; (c) Each participant was asked to score. They all mentioned their names and

entity; (d) Papers were collected, which can be found in the Annex of this document.

It can be seen that there is a great homogeneity in the answers; both between criteria (figure 3)

and between partners (figure 2). In general the notes are high for all criteria. The criteria with

the highest notes are “embrace diversity” and “competent representation”. The first is an

expected result since the participants feel that the diversity of the group is one of its major

qualities and potential. Also and curiously, the two representatives of CEPAC have given very

different answers for “effective collaboration”, which shows that two persons from the same


institution do not share necessarily the same views on the collaborative process of the “Group

of Six”.

Figure No. xx Assessing Collaborative Processes – Total Group

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Collaborative

context

Competent

representation

Embrace diversity

Collaborative

attitude

Effective

communication

Collaborative

structure

Assessing Collaborative Processes

Total Results

Total

4. Conclusions

EQ1: To what extent have the ICCO policy and strategies offered a specific framework to

address the rights and needs related to food security of the most vulnerable?

The ICCO strategy did not consist in developing its own framework to address the questions of

food security in Bolivia, but to encourage its partners developping their proper framework. This

way ICCO ensured a better adaptation to the local context, incentivated a national debate on

topics related to food security such as food sovereignty and the relation between food security

and rural development, and guaranteed the ownership.

The most interesting aspect of ICCO’s strategy in Bolivia, is to rest on two feet: one is the

experimented NGO and network on food security: AIPE. This institution is conducting research,

projects and lobbying on food security (and on other subjects) since more than 25 years,

represents around 20 different NGOs and is a reference on this topic. The second foot is a set

of small local interventions which have only a limited impact but which offer a solid background

of concrete experiences and a direct relation with the problems of food insecurity in some of the

poorest regions of Bolivia.

The participants to the joint final workshop (where assisted representatives from the “Group of

Six”) stressed that a very general lesson learned can be expressed the following way:

“After NGOs and others have worked for years and decades so that the poor in Bolivia would

gain access to power, the indigenous people finally are governing this country. Now we

discover that our yesterday’s allies and beneficiaries are not our friends anymore and that

instead of gaining legitimacy we are losing it. Instead of facilitating our work the government is

making it more difficult. Instead of being more certain, our future is more insecure.”

EQ2: To what extent are the ICCO strategies and policies translated into the cooperation

and to what extent have possible synergies in the strategies been used optimally?

− The ICCO strategy on Food Security has not been translated automatically to partners. At

the network level (AIPE) the first FS strategy was drafted in 1996 and the Bolivian NGOs

partners of ICCO and member of AIPE think that the relation with ICCO on strategies is

more a dialectical process (each learning from the other in a reciprocal way) than a

translation from one to the other.

− At a local level partners adapt their operational strategy to the context. All begin with water

but develop activities complementary to water supply according to the local context:

organization, cattle breeding, vegetable cultivation, food transformation, nutrition, etc.

− Complementarities between objectives, partners, and country strategies are being recently

exploited through a common programme developed by the “Group of 6”. One of the

objectives of this programme is to define “best practices” and lessons learned from the field

experience of its members. In this sense one of the potential synergies of ICCO’s strategy

(support to small local interventions) is finally put into practice.

− Synergies between AIPE and its affiliates are exploited since many years (information

sharing, training, technical assistance…), but seems to have improved since more

responsibilities were attributed to affiliate for lobbying at regional and local levels.

EQ3: To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence food availability for

vulnerable households in a structural and gender sensitive way and why ?

− Visits to the communities show that there has been a slight improvement in availability

of food, on a small scale and always based on a greater supply of water. This is not

surprising given the fact that problems of food security are concentrated in the

highlands and dry valley regions (without irrigation). This improvement takes the form

of a diversification of production mostly towards vegetables because these changes

are often driven by women. No other important technical change has been reported


recently and land productivity does not seem to have improved much during these last

years.

− Most changes observed are sustainable for vulnerable households because there is a

genuine ownership which allows for (very slow) changes in attitudes as part of a long

term dynamic, and because people can control the production chain.

− ICCO partner organizations have played an important but not exclusive role in these

changes. Their success is due to strategies well adapted to the local context, but also

to general progress observed in education, health and communication in the areas of

intervention.

Lesson learned: NGOs interventions are more successful when they accompany a long term

trend in the same direction: changes in consumption habits, evolution of the role of women,

diversification of incomes (see EQ4), better communications, etc.

EQ4: To what extent have the interventions contributed to a changed access to food for

households and individuals in a structural and gender sensitive way and why?

− As poor peasants are more integrated in the labour market, the share of monetary

income in the total family income is increasing and people acquire more diverse food

items on the market. However, this also means that access to food is more influenced

by international food prices. The main items whose weight is increasing in the food

consumption basket are rice, noodles and vegetable oil.

− This change seems irreversible because it is part of a general trend observable

worldwide.

− Partner organizations have contributed to a better access to food through small dairy

projects and vegetable cultivation. These changes are observable on a small scale but

are significant for the beneficiaries in the sense that they give more access to food to

women and permit a better control by women on the family monetary income

EQ5: To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence households’ and

individuals’ utilization of food in a structural and gender sensitive way and why?

− At a national level, malnutrition has diminished in Bolivia. In the communities visited

households are improving knowledge, attitudes and practices in feeding and nutrition

habits. These changes are slow but during the meetings they were clearly expressed by

women who compare there present diet with that of their parents.

− At a local level these changes seem sustainable because they stem partially from a change

in attitudes and also from a better access to health services which is well documented. The

changes are also part of a general evolution observable in Bolivia

− Partner’s interventions contributed to important changes in household feeding and nutrition

habits and to a more balanced nutrition. These results and impacts are observable at a

very small scale: the beneficiaries from the interventions visited seem gaining a few years

on a very slow general evolution towards the same direction.

EQ6: To what extent have partner organizations improved their organizational capacity

and accountability, to what extent are they part of structural networks (i) to learn about

the right to food and (ii) to represent together the target group towards other local and

national stakeholders and (iii) to diversify their resources ?

− All partner NGOs state that their organizational capacity has improved, which is

confirmed by the results of their organizational scan.

− Many Bolivian NGOs suffer from a legitimacy crisis stemming partially from the

government itself who doesn’t appreciate this form of organization externally financed

and difficult to control.


(although the attribution question remains) but little or no progress is observed in

claiming this right and in the implementation of better food security. Bolivia is at the

same time the poorest country of Latin America, and the country where human rights

are best recognized by the Constitution.

− At national level attribution problems makes difficult an impact assessment of the

lobbying capacity of ICCO’s partners on FS, but according to different independent

sources AIPE has played an important role in Bolivia in promoting food security

policies. At regional level, the influence of NGOs networks is hardly observable yet. At

local level the influence is clear because this is an operational level where NGOs have

a direct influence facilitated by Bolivia’s decentralized administrative system:

SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI had all official agreements with the municipalities where

they were working, and influence municipal policies over food security, infrastructure

and gender issues. This influence is greatly facilitated by the leverage capacity which

they offer to the municipalities33.

− All partner NGOs state that their organizational capacity has improved, which is

confirmed by the results of their organizational scan.

− Changes occurred and are occurring in NGOs in Bolivian networks but many

organizations suffer from a legitimacy crisis stemming partially from the government

itself who doesn’t appreciate this form of organization externally financed and difficult

to control.

33 This leverage consists in the following: by paying 15 to 30% of the material cost of a project, a municipality guarantees

that the total cost is covered, the rest of the material cost being paid by the NGO and the labour cost being covered by the community beneficiary.



(although the attribution question remains) but little or no progress is observed in

claiming this right and in the implementation of better food security. Bolivia is at the

same time the poorest country of Latin America, and the country where human rights

are best recognized by the Constitution.

− At national level attribution problems impede an impact assessment of the lobbying

capacity of ICCO’s partners on FS. At regional level, the influence of NGOs networks is

hardly observable yet. At local level the influence is clear because this is an operational

level where NGOs have a direct influence facilitated by Bolivia’s decentralized

administrative system: SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI had all official agreements with the

municipalities where they were working, which demonstrate their influence on municipal

policies over food security, infrastructure and gender issues.

EQ7: To what extent have partner organizations and/or their networks changed their

lobby and advocacy activities and to what extent have they been able to influence the

interest of the policy makers to promote the right to food for all?

− All issues addressed by AIPE and by partner’s organizations in their lobby strategy are

relevant, which does not mean that all relevant issues are addressed. Issues on AIPE’s

agenda (not tackled yet) are: international trade, agro-fuels and promotion of traditional

crops.

− Interest of national and international policy makers in the right to adequate food has

increased but has stayed very much at a declaration level: this interest has given rise to

very little concrete policy measures and even less has trickled down to the poor.

− As far as crosschecking was possible, this mission could assess that AIPE’s activities had

a real impact on the groups and institutions it worked with. The impact on an increased

interest of policy makers (JC 7.3) is difficult to assess because of the attribution problem.

EQ8: To what extent has ICCO applied different roles and how have these been

appreciated by ICCO’s partners? To what extent have ICCO and its partners developed

adequate partnership relations to reach their objectives? To what extent does ICCO add

specific value compared to other programs and stakeholders? How efficient have the

contribution of ICCO and partners been ?

− The 3 main roles of ICCO are its financial role, capacity development and lobbying. The

two last ones are often highlighted by Bolivian partners because they are more seldom

found amongst aid agencies.

− Partners detail a long list of ICCOs qualities in each of these 3 roles. They stress that ICCO

works with partners with whom it shares the same objectives. Therefore there is no

negotiation (nor need for it) during the funding process. They also stress that ICCO is very

respectful of its partners, practical and flexible. They much appreciated the monitoring from

Utrecht, which they felt very useful without being a burden.

− Partners feel that ICCO has enough information to verify and support the efficiency of the

program. However this view is not fully shared by the ICCO representatives in Bolivia, who

stress that one of the objectives of the decentralization process is to have a better access

to information and closer ties with local partners. They feel that the reporting, monitoring

and evaluation system of ICCO is sufficient and do not intent to change it. “Closer ties”

means more visits and exchanges, not different monitoring mechanism. The evaluation

team has no reasons to think that ICCO lacks access to enough and good quality

information.

Overall conclusion

The main characteristic of ICCO’s interventions on Food Security in Bolivia, is that it rests on

three feet:

1. At international, regional and national level, AIPE conducts lobbying activities coupled

with research, publications, technical assistance and the leadership of a network of

around 20 NGOs. At local level its affiliates conduct projects on a very small scale but

mostly well designed and well implemented34.

2. This way they gain experience, they are involved in the local context and they are in a

good position for lobbying at a local level (municipalities), which they do with some

success thanks to their leverage and mobilisation capacity.

3. Six of these affiliates form a group and conduct a collective programme in order to

analyse the best practices in water, seeds and soil, gain influence at a regional level

and improve their lobbying capacity at a local level.

This institutional architecture is a powerful potential tool because it covers the whole chain from

very concrete actions at the local level, to participation in international meetings on food

security. It has potential but this depends on a good coordination and synergies between each

link of the chain. This link is relatively solid between the national and international levels on one

side (AIPE) and the local level on the other side (affiliated NGOs). It is recently developing

between the local NGOs (group of six). But it is important to understand that in this kind of chain

each link is important and is useful to the functioning of the whole process. Without the very

small local activities with limited impact, the national, regional and international level will partly

34 This hypotesis is based on a visit to only 3 of these affiliates : SARTAWI, PASOS and IFFI.


lose their basis, experience, legitimacy and “raison d’être”. Without the higher levels, local

activities will remain what they are: limited improvements with scarce perspectives.

5. Annexes

5.1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIPE Educational and Promotion Institutions Association ACLO Loyola Cultural Action Foundation ANSAS Water Sown Natural Areas ASSANA Food and Nutritional Security and Sovereignty Alliance CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CEPAC Farming and Stockbreeding Promotion Centre DAADE DEL Local Economic Development DELSSA Local Economic Development, Food Security and Sovereignty Program EC European Community ENDSA National Health and Demographic Survey EQ Evaluation Questions FS Food Security FSP Food Security Program HDI Human Development Index I Indicators IDB Inter-American Development Bank IFFI Institute for Integral Feminine Training IICCA Institute for Farmers Training and Research INE Statistics National Institute IPTK I P Tupac Katari JC Judgment Criterion NGO Non Governmental Organization PADEV Evaluation Methodology PASA Food Security Support Program PASOS Foundation Participation and Sustainability PDA Areas Development Program – World Vision PDM Municipal Development Plan POA Operational Annual Plan PPT Power Point Presentation PROAGRO Agricultural Program PROCADE Farmer Alternative Development Program PRODECO Community Development Program PROMENU Program for Nutritional Improvement SAN Food and Nutritional Security SSAN Food and Nutritional Security and Sovereignty SINNSAT National System of Early Warning and Monitoring of Food Security


SISAN Food and Nutrition Security Information System UBN Unsatisfied Basic Needs UNDP United Nations Development Program UNITAS United Nations WFP World Food Program

5.2. ANNEX 1 - COMMENTS ON THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK (CONTEXTUALISING)

Available upon request

5.3. ANNEX 2 - LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

− AIPE: La Paz, et, al, “Situación de la Seguridad Alimentaria Nutricional en Bolivia”, De la

Vega Cecilia

− AIPE: La Red de la Soberanía Alimentaria, “Bodas de Plata de la AIPE, Ensayo Histórico”,

Rafael Puente, Agosto 2009

− Alianza Boliviana de la Sociedad Civil para el Desarrollo Sostenible, “Agricultura y Pobreza

en Bolivia”, Julio Prudencio Bohrt, La Paz – Bolivia, Octubre 2009

− Alianza Boliviana de la Sociedad Civil para el Desarrollo Sostenible, “Modelos y Políticas

Públicas de Desarrollo Sostenible en Bolivia” Memoria, La Paz – Bolivia, 2009.

− Chumacero Juan Pablo, Fundación Tierra “Seguridad Alimentaria y Desarrollo Rural en

Bolivia” , Septiembre 2010

− Espinoza Roberto, “Wheat Grain and Wheat Flour Availability until March 2004”, WFP, La

Paz, Bolivia, May 2004.

− Ministry of Health and Sports, Agencia Canadiense para el Desarrollo Internacional,

“Programa de Apoyo al Sector Salud – PASS”, La Paz - Bolivia, Mayo 2007

− National Institute of Statistics (INE) , “National Demography and Health Survey” La Paz –

Bolivia, May 2008

− National Institute of Statistics (INE), “Poverty Map of Bolivia” La Paz – Bolivia, September

2003.

− PMA, SINNSAT, ”Resultados de la Encuesta de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional en

Municipios Vulnerables de Bolivia”, La Paz – Bolivia, Septiembre de 2006

− Programa Interagencial de Naciones Unidas, “Apoyo a la Implementación del Programa de

Desnutrición Cero (2007 – 2011), La Paz – Bolivia, Octubre 2007

− Different documents :presentations, evaluations, reports, organizational scans (IFFI and

PASOS), Project plans, Project proposals, external evaluations, institutional publications

(AIPE: Quienes somos? La Red de Soberanía Alimentaria; Bodas de Plata de la AIPE –

ensayo histórico), from SARTAWI, PASOS, IFFI and AIPE

5.4. ANNEX 3 - PROGRAMME OF THE MISSION

PROGRAMME OF THE MISSION

(September 15 - October 5, 2010)

Date/Hours International Consultant (BK) Local Consultant (MCC)

Wednesday September

15 To

Friday September 17

International trip Preparation, Organisation and

Consultations)

Saturday September 18 Arrival at La Paz

Sunday September 19

14:30 - 21:30

Briefing with MCC to discuss

methodology, organisation of

mission, logistics, etc. at office.

Briefing with BK to discuss

methodology, organisation of

mission, logistics, etc. at office.

SARTAWI Field Visit to Oruro and Potosí: BK,MCC with P. Morales

Monday September 20

8:00 - 10:30 Sartawi – Briefing and video Sartawi – Briefing and video

10:30 - 12:00 Travel to Calamarca Travel to Calamarca

12:00 - 12:40 Visit Dairy Processing Plant in

Calamarca

Visit Dairy Processing Plant in

Calamarca


12:40 - 14:00 Travel to Machacamarca Travel to Machacamarca

14:00 - 18:30 Work session with target group

- Realenga

Work session with target group -

Realenga

18:30 - 19:30 Visit Realenga Families and

Irrigation System

Visit Realenga Families and

Irrigation System

19:30 - 20:45 Travel to Oruro Travel to Oruro

Tuesday September 21

7:30 - 10:00 Travel to Colquechaca, Potosí Travel to Colquechaca, Potosí

10:00 - 11:00 Visit Uluchi Bajo Irrigation

System Visit Uluchi Bajo Irrigation System

11:00 - 16:30 Work session (focal group) with

target beneficiaries

Work session (focal group) with

target beneficiaries

While travelling Work session with Sartawi staff Work session with Sartawi staff

17:00 - 23:30 Return to La Paz Return to La Paz

PASOS Field Visit to Sucre: BK and MCC

Wednesday September 22

09:40 - 10:30 Travel to Sucre Travel to Sucre

14:30 - 19:30 Work Session with PASOS staff Work Session with PASOS staff

Thursday September 23

06:00 - 9:30 Travel to Alcalá, Limabamba Travel to Alcalá, Limabamba

10:00 - 13:30 Work session with target group Work session with target group

13:30 - 14:30 Lunch Break Lunch Break

14:30 - 18:30

Work Session with PASOS

Director, Visit Alcalá's Mayor

(José Rojas Salazar) BK

Work session with target group

(continue) MCC

Friday September 24

07:30 - 08:00 Breakfast with all Breakfast with all

08:00 - 08:30 Meeting with School Principal Meeting with School Principal

08:30 - 09:00 Meeting with Hospital Director Meeting with Hospital Director

09:00 - 09:30 Travel to Garzas Chica Travel to Garzas Chica

09:30 - 15:30 Focal Group Work Focal Group Work

15:30 - 16:30 Lunch Lunch

16:30 - 17:00 Travel to Alcalá Travel to Alcalá

18:00 - 21:30 Return to Sucre Return to Sucre

Saturday September 25

08:30 - 10:00 Common Work with MCC Common Work with BK

14:30 - 20:00 Desk work Desk work

IFFI Field Visit to Cochabamba: MCC and BK

Monday September 27

07:00 - 07:20 Travel to Cochabamba Travel to Cochabamba

08:30 - 12:30 Work Session with IFFI staff Work Session with IFFI staff

14:30 - 18:30 Work Session with IFFI staff

(continue) BK Desk work

Tuesday September 28

08:30 - 12:30 Desk Work Desk work

12:00 – 14:30 Visit a Ricomida Restaurant Visit a Ricomida Restaurant

15:00 - 18:30 Focal Group Work with

Ricomida Association

Focal Group Work with Ricomida

Association

Wednesday September 29

08:30 - 09:45 Desk Work Travel to Arani - Community of

Serrano MCC

10:00 - 15:00 Desk Work Work session with target group

15:30 - 16:45 Desk Work Return to Cochabamba


Work in La Paz

Thursday September 30

08:30 - 12:30 Common work in La Paz Common work in La Paz


14:30 – 16:30 Desk Work Desk Work

17:00 - 18:30 Meeting with Emma Saavedra –

ICCO, La Paz Desk work

Friday October 1

8:30 - 12:30 Desk work Desk work

15:00 - 16:30

Meeting with other actors

(independent consultants) at

AIPE: Roberto Soriano and

David Haquim

idem

16:30 -21:30 Meeting with AIPE Meeting with AIPE

Saturday October 2

08:30 - 20:00 Preparation of Debriefing Desk work

Monday October 4

07:00 - 07:20 Travel to Cochabamba Travel to Cochabamba

08:30 - 13:30 Meeting with 6 Partners

(National Program)

Meeting with 6 Partners

(National Program)

13:30 - 15:00 Visit a Ricomida Restaurant for

lunch with all

Visit a Ricomida Restaurant for

lunch with all

15:30 - 19:00 Common Work Common Work


Tuesday October 5

08:30 – 13:00 Common work / last visits Common work / last visits

15:00 – 18:30 Bruno returns to Europe Desk Work

5.5. ANNEX 4 - LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Name Organisation and Function Date of

Interview

Antonio Aramayo PASOS, Executive Director 23/09/2010

Celier Rodas PASOS, Social Coordinator, Alcalá Office 23/09/2010

Willy Zegarra PASOS, Water and Irrigation Responsible, Alcalá 23/09/2010

Carolina Gutierrez PASOS, Food and Nutritional Education Coordinator 23/09/2010

Sergio Aparicio PASOS, Territorial Development Coordinator, Alcalá 23/09/2010

Hugo Morales García Alcalá School Director 24/09/2010

Mery Salazar Alcalá Hospital Director 24/09/2010

José Rojas Salazar Alcalde de Alcalá (City Mayor) 24/09/2010

Miriam Gamarra IFFI, Ricomida Program Supervisor 28/09/2010

Virginia Quezada IFFI, SANDEL Program Coordinator 28/09/2010

Lionel Grageda IFFI, Rural Technician SANDEL Program 29/09/2010

Nivia Suarez IFFI, Rural Technician on Rights, SANDEL Program 29/09/2010

Gladys Espejo IFFI, Rural Technician on Nutrition, SAN Program 29/09/2010

David Haquim Extenal FS Consultant 1/10/2010

Rodolfo Soriano Independent Consultant - Rural Economic Development

1/10/2010

Victoria Ginga WFP Representative 4/10/2010

Mónica Rodriguez Comunidad Europea 1/10/2010

José Maguiña Ayuda en Acción Bolivia 8/10/2010

5.6. ANNEX NO. 5 – LIST OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING

(i) Bilateral Workshop with Partners

Bilateral Workshop with SARTAWI on September 20 and 21st, 2010

Name Function

Patricia Morales Executive Director

Melesio Gonzales Coordinator and Animal Husbandry Technician - Oruro


Fernando Guardia Soils and Irrigation Technician, Machacamarca, Oruro

Cristina Cegarra Social Technician, Machacamarca, Oruro

Efraín Gonzales Coordinator and Irrigation Technician - Potosí

Maximiliano Flores Animal Husbandry Technician - Colquechaca, Potosí

Bilateral Workshop with PASOS on September 23, 2010

Name Function

Juan Carlos Beltrán Programmes and Projects Department Chief

Oscar Alvarez Economic Development Department Coordinator

Efraín Peducassé Economic Development Department

Gonzalo Rivera Food Security and Nutition Project Responsible,

Alcalá

Sergio Moscoso General Administrator

Bilateral Workshop with IFFI on September 27, 2010

Name Function

Cecilia Estrada Executive Director

Tatiana Collazos Responsible for Food Security, Nutrition and

Local Economic Development Program

(ii) Joint workshop with ICCO partners

Joint Workshop with ICCO Partners on October 4th

, 2010

Name Organisation Function

Juan Siancas CEPAC DELSSAN Program

Coordinator

Widen Abastoflor CEPAC Executive Director

Daniel Avendaño Romero IICCA Técnico Agroecología

Antonio Aramayo PASOS Executive Director

Juan Medeiros YUNTA Director

Patricia Morales Sartawi Sarariy Executive Director

Tatiana Collazos IFFI Programa DELSAN

(iii) Joint workshop with AIPE

Joint Workshop with AIPE on October 1th

, 2010

Name Organisation Function

Aquiles Dávalos AIPE Director Ejecutivo

Aida Ruegenberg AIPE Executive Director

Claudia Terán AIPE

David AIPE

Rodolfo Soriano Desarrollo Económico Rural Consultor Independiente

David Haquim Consultor Independiente

(iv) Session of Two Days in Village and Focus Group Discussions (See Sheets of Paper)

Partner: Sartawi Village: Realenga

No. Name Sex Age Profession

1. Frilán Yucra M 49 Agricultor

2. Saturnino Flores M 52 Agricultor

3. Gertrudis Choque F 46 Comercio Informal

4. Octavina Taqjuichiri F 48 Comercio Informal


5. Benigna Yujra F 51 Ama de casa

6. Dionisia Cruz F 50 Agricultor

7. Felipa Aguilar F 56 Empleado Público

8. Javier Chambi M 50 Agricultor

9. Nabil Choque M 39 Agrónomo

10. Filiberto Gonzales M 50 Agropecuaria

11. Pedro Taquichiri M 51 Agricultor

12. Antonio Perca M 79 Agricultor

13. Oscar Yucra M 41 Agropecuaria

14. Segundino Quispe M 65 Agricultor

15. Cervando Lima M 46 Agricultor

16. Walter Choque M 45 Agricultor

17. Pio Sena M 43 Agricultor

18. Sandro Choque M 35 Ganadería

19. Serafín Edcobar M 40 Agricultor

20. Juan Cena Cruz M 68 Agricultor

21. Anacleto Mamani M 45 Agricultor

22. Julia Sunko vargas F 61 Empleado public

Partner: Sartawi Village: Uluchi Bajo


1. Claudio Layme M 40 Agricultor

2. Adolfo Choque M 36 Agricultor

3. Cirilo Aguilar M 50 Agricultor

4. Mario Choque M 38 Agricultor

5. Evaristo Mazo M 21 Agricultor

6. Bertha Chambi F 27 Agricultor

7. Jaime Ticona M 36 Agricultor

8. David Totola M 37 Agricultor

9. Hilarión Laime M 35 Agricultor

10. Modesto Cruz M 32 Agricultor

11. Casiano Mazo M 58 Agricultor

12. Zacarías Mazo M 29 Agricultor

13. Rolando Ríos M 29 Agricultor

14. Magdalena Canaviri F 36 Agricultor/Ama de casa

15. Felicia Alvarez F 40 Agricultor/Ama de casa

16. Zaida Rocha F 30 Agricultor/Ama de casa

17. Reynaldo Cabezas M 62 Agricultor

18. Angel Mamani M 25 Agricultor

19. Silvia Rocha F 22 Agricultor/Ama de casa

20. Evaristo Mazo M 27 Agricultor

21. Lidia Mazo F 29 Agricultor/Ama de casa

22. Grifón Humawa M 39 Agricultor

23. Edgar Humaña M 34 Agricultor

24. Máximo Luna M 59 Agricultor

25. Emiliana Cabezas F 49 Agricultor

26. Juan Vargas M 69 Agricultor

27. Ruth Soeta F 46 Agricultor/Ama de casa


28. Hugo Vargas M 49 Agricultor

Partner: PASOS Village: Limabamba Bajo


1. Nazario Rodas M 29 Agricultor

2. Cirilo Carvallo M 38

3. Pedro Rodas M 30 Agricultor

4. Dionisio Vasques M 40 Agricultor

5. José Silvestro M 46 Agricultor

6. Francisco Estrada M 67 Agricultor

7. Gregoria Cerezo F 46 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

8. Marcial Morenpo M 48 Agricultor

9. Corsina Rodas F 62 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

10. Nieves Barrón F 37 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

11. Martha García F 36 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

12. Maria Elena Casso F 35 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

13. Maribel Rodas F 25 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

14. Rómulo García M 46 Agricultor

15. Pedro Gonzales M 52 Agricultor

16. Sebastían Rodas M 60 Agricultor

17. Máximo Carvallo M 37 Agricultor

18. Felix García M 45 Agricultor

19. Candelaria Romero F 44 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

20. Armando Rodas M 26 Agricultor

21. Constantino Jauri M 26 Agricultor

22. Apolinar Carvallo M 75 Agricultor

23. Valentín Barrientos M 70 Agricultor

24. Andrés Jauri M 43 Agricultor

25. Florentino Jauri M 60 Agricultor

26. Natividad Díaz F 32 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

27. Desideria Canaviri F 36 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

28. Marcelina Veliz F 66 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

29. Julia Umaña F 45 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

30. Hilaria Umaña F 48 Agricultora/Ama de Casa

31. Damián Aguilar M 46 Agricultor

Partner: PASOS Village: Garzas Chica


1. Silvia Rodas F 36 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

2. Cristina Pórcel F 55 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

3. Graciela Chinao F 28 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

4. Celia chinao F 18 Estudiante

5. Arminda de Chinao F 27 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

6. Ercilia de Chinao F 32 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

7. Leonor Rosado F 33 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

8. Emilio Cejas M 25 Agricultor


9. Nazario Guzmán M 65 Agricultor

10. Tecla Gonzales F 64 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

11. Nelly López F 34 Agricultor

12. Bernardino Solis M 36 Agricultor

13. Anicelta Sejas F 51 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

14. Victoria Estrada F 35 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

15. Inés Ruiz F Ama de Casa/Agricultora

16. Teolinda Sejas F 41 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

17. Urbano Rosado M 69 Agricultor

18. Sergio Sejas M 63 Agricultor

19. Leocadio Gutierrez M Agricultor

20. Mauro Rodas M 27 Agricultor

21. Faustino Sejas M 27 Agricultor

22. Marino Plata M 34 Agricultor

23. Juana Rosado F 45 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

24. Erdulfo Sejas M 46 Agricultor

Partner: IFFI Village: Serrano


1. Lucía Gallinati F 52 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

2. Hilaria Camacho F 43 Agricultura/venta

3. Rosmeri Guarayo F 40 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

4. Pilaricia Guarayo F 34 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

5. Amalia Cruz F 19 Estudiante

6. Epifania Vázques F 47 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

7. Zulma López F 20 Estudiante

8. Roberto Cano M 40 Albañil/Agricultor

9. Nazaria Vázques F 39 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

10. Guillermina Vidal F 56 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

11. Matilde Cruz F 55 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

12. Pastora Vázques F 38 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

13. Remigia Vásquez F 51 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

14. Flora Cruz F 60 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

15. Feliciano Rosas M 31 Agricultor

16. Hilarión Gallinati M 40 Agricultor

17. Felipa Valderrama F 33 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

18. Francisca Torrico F 17 Comerciante

19. Nicolasa Castro F 37 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

20. Vitalia Rodriguez F 50 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

21. Prudencia Vásquez F 44 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

22. María Rodríguez F 35 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

23. Sabina García F 55 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

24. Teodora Ponce F 59 Ama de Casa/Agricultora

25. Juan Lopez M 45 Agricultur

26. Eloy Quispe M 38 Agricultor

27. Santiago vásquez M 60 Agricultor


5.7. ANNEX 6 - PPT USED FOR DEBRIEFING

Available upon request

5.8. ANNEX 7 - SHORT INTERNAL REPORT ON THE INDEPTH WORK SESSIONS IN THE

VILLAGES

Community Partner Date of

Workshop Men Women

Total Participants

Realenga (Machacamarca - Oruro) Sartawi 20/09/10 16 6 22

Uluchi Bajo Colquechaca (Norte Potosi)

Sartawi 21/09/10 20 8 28

Limabamba Bajo (Alcalá – Chuquisaca) PASOS 23/09/10 19 12 31

Garzas Chica (Alcalá – Chuquisaca) PASOS 24/09/10 10 14 24

Serrano (Arani – Cochabamba) IFFI 29/09/10 6 21 27

Conclusions by Consultantss (Module 1)

1.1 Which events have been very important for their influence on food security? Which has been named more?

Which have been stressed more by men/women or age groups?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Participants identified positive and negative events:

Positive: (a) Animal husbandry: Training in animal health; Balanced animal feeding; introduction of improved cattle, cattle infrastructure; cuyes raising (b) Water and Irrigation: micro irrigation systems construction; training in irrigation and water use and management; installation of water wells; (c) Recovery of soils: soil management and forestation; tree plantation; (d) Production: improved pastures; improved seeds and installation of a seed rotating found; introduction of products in markets and ferias; (e) Training: to promoters, on women leadership, municipal organization strengthening women´s role.

Negative: More river pollution; land losses in river borders; less rain

Changes in water and irrigation, introduction of improved animals and introduction of improved seed were more stressed by participants.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Important events identified by participants that helped community members to increase food production and consumption, to improve soil conditions and animal husbandry for trading, water and irrigation, production and diversification of new vegetables, pastures and seedlings, animal sanitation, construction of barns and improvement of animals (livestock), and training on agriculture and irrigation systems. Water and irrigation, and vegetable production were named more.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Positive: Production of orchards/gardens before PASOS with PRODECO, vegetable production; clean drinking water; training in orchards/gardens management; training in feeding and nutrition including cooking practices; training in community organization; the municipality

Negative, Less rains and forests; less water for irrigation and less clean drinking water for home consumption, fewer pastures to feed animals, less animals (goats, sheep and cattle) and some are sick.

Vegetable production was named more by women.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

On the positive side:

Project of drinkable water with vegetal protection of sources (ANSAS) one year ago with

PASOS but with other institutions before

Introduction of vegetables cultivated in small gardens 3 years ago (PASOS)

Capacitating (training) in nutrition

On the negative side:

Less rain

More damages to crops due to animals

Animals: less of all animals, all are more sick (goats resist better)

More pollution due to use of chemicals

The changes more stressed by women are the drinkable water (one tap per

house/family), and the introduction of vegetables

Older stress the diminution of rain and scarcity of water

IFFI Serrano

Positive: Change in alimentary habits; training and education on Feeding and Nutrition;

strengthening of community organizations; coordination with Municipality of Arani; and a

rotating fund that is functioning very well in this community are contributing to improve

their poor conditions.

Negative: Changes in weather, drought during the dry season and hail and freeze (this

community is almost 3,800 meters over sea level) during the winter season; the pieces

of land they own are smaller in time and it is not enough for production or for animal

husbandry; less rains and forests; less water for consumption and irrigation, less

agricultural production; less pasture to feed animals, less animals (sheep and cattle)

and most of them are sick; lack of money for agricultural production.

Lack of water for consumption and irrigation and drought were named more by

participants.

1.2 What has been the main origin of the events and of the most named events? Have many external

influences been mentioned?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

Most events were introduced by Sartawi, which coordinates with the Municipality of

Machacamarca. Some NGOs also helped to develop some water projects a few years


(Machacamarca) ago; however, they are not working anymore.

They also mentioned that river pollution is a severe problem since water comes

contaminated with mineral disposals from mines.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Most of community members recognized that Sartawi helped them improve their life

conditions and quality through water and irrigation systems constructed in different

communities for most families in the area. They also mentioned that training and

education was an important component of Sartawi´s project.

Drought and soil erosion are a serious problem in this area.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Different Projects were developed in last few years by NOGs: ACLO with a seed

endowment for orchards/gardens and training women in different topics; PRODECO

promoting chicken and egg production for self consumption, training in feeding and

nutrition, and training and education to health promoters; CEDEC, PROSCAN and

CARE also developed housing improvement projects; Departmental government

participated in an irrigation project recently. PASOS in coordination with the

municipality has also developed several projects as water and irrigation system

construction, School construction with its corresponding green house; training in feeding

and nutrition with cooking practices, seedlings and others.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

On the positive side, all events have been introduced by NGOs projects, in recent years in association with the municipality. At least four main institutions have been mentioned as the most important: PASOS, ACLO, CARE, PRODECO.

On the negative side the main negative influence is the lack of rain which conditions everything else

IFFI Serrano

IFFI manages the rotating fund and gives the loans to community families, no interest is

being charged, but they have to completely return the loan within one year. The

amount of the loan is up to Bs 3,000 (around US$ 400).Training and education on

feeding and nutrition and citizenship rights is being implemented by IFFI. Lack of water

and rain and changes on weather have a negative effect on productive chain.

Interpretation by consultant (not in plenary session but afterwards)

1.3 Are ICCO programs/partners mentioned? In what way?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Sartawi was many times addressed by participants for their support in different

components of their program including the installation of water and irrigation systems

and dairy plants to produce cheese and yogurt.

But the evaluators got the impression that the meeting was too much directed towards

SARTAWI and its interventions, so as to sell the idea that SARTAWI is the only actor in

the community or at least the only significant one.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Most of participants mentioned Sartawi and are very thankful of the work they carry out

in the communities. They recognize that efforts to achieve social and self governance

sustainability will take time and are aware that follow up is still needed.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

PASOS was mentioned several times for the different interventions done in the

community and for the way it works coordinating with the municipality. Participants in

these workshop recognized that PASOS has helped them to diversify their crops,

production of vegetables, fish rising and consumption, better use of fresh products and

others.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Yes PASOS is repeatedly mentioned for its support to the drinkable water project, on

nutrition and introduction of vegetable cultivation. Peasants stress the utility of the

interventions, while authorities stress the collaborative spirit of PASOS which looks for

cooperation with public authorities and other NGOs. This is not always common

amongst NGOs in Bolivia

IFFI Serrano

IFFI was mentioned several times for its rotating fund and training and education

component that is helping in their economic situation. Participants also referred to the

fact that IFFI is helping them in the elaboration of a water project profile that will be

presented to the municipality.

1.4 Do you find the strategy of ICCO’s partner and program takes into account these events and trends?

How? Why?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Taking in account these events and trends, Sartawi aims to improve coordination and

relationship between communities and municipalities to better manage natural

resources (water and soil) and in farming and stockbreeding productivity in order to

assure food security and income generation. This is carried out through its Project

components: (a) social, promoting and facilitating organization, community and family

proposals to the municipalities, (b) Implementation of infrastructure to manage water

and soil, and (c) Animal management.

Stockbreeding improvements means that the family’s beneficiaries from this project

have now a small but regular (daily) monetary income, selling milk, yogurt or cheese on

a family basis or in some cases through a small collective milk transformation unit.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Same as before

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

As lack of water is the main problem in project area, PASOS along with community

members, municipality and other authorities and entities developed an integral program

that includes a water and irrigation, production and Food and Nutrition Security training.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Yes! Clearly the water scarcity is by very far the main problem of the people. PASOS is

addressing it in a comprehensive and intelligent way.

IFFI Serrano

IFFI is working in the community to help them address their problems and has (a) a

rotating fund to help peasants buy seeds, animals, etc. to improve their economic

situation and (b) developed a training program that is being implemented. According to

the technicians the community leaders and representatives have already been in touch


with the Municipality representative and will coordinate to construct a water and

irrigation system.


2.1 Has there been a positive influence on food security? Which ? Is this change considered as important? Via

which capabilities has food security been influenced positively, via which capabilities? Es algo redundante

con la pregunta 1 del modulo 1

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

As communities have water, they have developed different activities that lead to food

security: water wells and irrigation systems helped human and animal consumption and

production of different traditional and new crops and pastures for animals. Further, dairy

processing plants have been installed and are producing yogurt and cheese that children

and adults consume and surplus is sold. All this changes are considered very important

because having capabilities like good water resources management, improved food

production and trading; the communities will improve food security. Other changes

mentioned, that are not attributable only to one institution were: (a) More road

construction; (b) better transportation; (c) introduction of electricity and communications

(cell phones) leaded the communities to more product trading (buying and selling) and

more availability of food and people are better informed about markets and prices; (d)

more schools were constructed and children have the opportunity to study more than

before; (e) training and education also changed to benefit communities in organization

and governance (f) women become leaders and youth go to other cities and countries to

study at universities; (g) migration to other countries (Argentina) has also lowered.

This seems very enthusiastic. No doubt things have changed and are changing. But

people in the Altiplano are still very poor and will continue to be poor, in part because of

the very difficult natural conditions (climate and altitude).

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Communities in this municipality have started to work with Sartawi only five months ago

(Sartawi’s second phase) and continue to implement water and irrigation systems. At

this stage, they already have an important change towards food security since some are

using water resources for consumption and irrigation. Capabilities to negotiate with

municipality authorities have been developed and are being strengthened.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Many changes were implemented in terms of food security. Participants identified that

they have new habits for feeding and nutrition. Diversification of products for

consumption (different vegetables) contributes to a more balanced nutrition for adults

and especially for children. Also the following points were mentioned: (a) children are

consuming better food and immediate effect is that they are healthier and study more;

(b) women participate in training sessions on leadership and feeding and nutrition

including cooking practices that replicate in their homes, they are also involved in

vegetable production, generating additional income when selling surplus; (c) Trading

their products in markets and ferias; (d) youth that finish school migrate to other cities,

but return with seeds for production and different types of food. (e) in terms of

relationship within the family, women and husband now decide together what part of

crops are for consumption and which part will be sold: (f) In terms of community

organization they now can negotiate better their projects with municipal authorities as to

improve water and irrigation projects; (g) women organizations trends are to visit other

communities to interchange new projects and cooking practices.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

The main change on food security has been through production and consumption of

vegetables which have diversified diet, especially of children. Also the various public

programs of school alimentation (desayuno y almuerzo escolar) have had a positive

influence on children.

Women knowledge on nutrition has been strengthened. The school in Alcalá (primary

school) is incorporating the food security question (nutrition) in its curriculum, seemingly

with some success.

Other changes mentioned with effects on food security are the following:

� They are more and better roads (dirt roads): institutions (e.g. ambulance) can enter

easier and it is easier to sell products from the farm.

� Electric light: great influence on quality of life; less smoke from candles and

kerosene lamps (effect on health); huge potential for education (at night), use of

electric domestics, etc.

� Cel phones: less time lost in waiting, in coordination and administration, but often ill

used by youngsters

� Education: more schools and better quality: less time lost in transport, better

alimentation (school breakfast and lunch), access to state help (bonos Juanito Pinto

of US$ 30/student/year), and more openness to change. But loss of respect and of

some traditional values

� Health: better access to health services: hospital and visits to the villages. Children

are healthier but adults more delicate

� Hygiene has improved: personal, house, cooking (cleaner)

� Women are more autonomous, participating more in public roles, have a stronger

voice. But their work is the same.

� Politics: people know more of politics, of laws, of their rights and obligations

� Organisation: better organized, more knowledge, more women participation

� More emigration now

� Other changes such as in land tenure, soil quality, forests coverage, use of

machinery or better tools, global incomes, are not clear or there was no consensus

in the group.

With some exceptions (roads, electricity, schools, wealth, etc.) these changes are not


attributable to one event or to one institution.

IFFI Serrano

A positive change in food security that was expressed by participants is that people in

the community are consuming more products than the traditional ones, they like to

diversify their food with vegetables and small children like them a lot. This was possible

for some peasants through the rotating fund that allow them to buy agricultural

productive items or animals and through the training sessions.

Other changes that participants mentioned are: (a) Soil lost its nutrition values due to the

use of chemical fertilizers and now is producing small products, most of which have to

be treated because of generalization of worms (c) Since pieces of land are too small,

production of different commodities has a high rotation and quality of these has lowered;

(d) Land in river side have been lost with floods and have not been restored; (e) The

main road to the community has been improved (from dirt to stone brick) and so did

transportation, products can reach faster to markets and ferias; (f) Electricity has a

positive effect in peasant’s home, householders wake up earlier when still dark and cook

before they go out for work, less expenses in batteries for lighters; (g) Training in basic

sanitation helped to understand the importance of hygiene and waste disposals; (g)

There are two types of migration: the ones that are seeking jobs in Santa Cruz and

northern Cochabamba, who return for scatter time bringing back seeds and food; and

migration to other countries (mainly Spain and Argentina) seeking more permanent jobs,

who send remittances.

2.2 Has there been a negative influence on food security? Is this considered as important? How has food

security been influenced negatively, via which capabilities?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Scarcity of rain and water has a negative influence in production, the result of this

situation is less quantity and low quality of the crops as is the case of the quinua. This

means less income to buy food.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Droughts and soil erosion in the area are hitting strongly these communities and

therefore their food security, to the extent that people need to look for alternative

activities to assure food for the family as seeking for jobs far from their homes.

In some communities presence of other projects with “paternalism” focus left within the

population dependency, low capacity of management and lack of knowledge of their own

potentialities and therefore limited efforts to develop.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Drought and lack of rain is mentioned several times as negative influences for food

security. It has a direct influence in agricultural production, animal husbandry,

consumption of nutritional products and income generation.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Negative influence through the consequences of water scarcity already mentioned.

Impact are less agricultural production, less access to food, less animals, less selling of

animals, less monetary incomes, less natural fertilization, less quality of soils, less

production

IFFI Serrano

Lack of water and weather conditions as mentioned before is main cause of food

insecurity in this community. Less agricultural production, less animal raising and

selling, less income generating and smaller pieces of land.

2.3 What have been major discussion points within the sub groups?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

No major discussion points were raised; there was consensus within the group.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

No major discussion points were raised; there was consensus within the group.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

No discussion points were noticed.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

No, there was a consensus in the group on almost all points

IFFI Serrano No discussion points were raised. People seemed to be a little shy

2.4 Is there a lot of difference in perception regarding the effects and regarding changes in food security

between the subgroups? Why is this so? What can you conclude from the analysis of these differences?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

No differences were identified by participants, they were all in agreement.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)


PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo


PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica


IFFI Serrano No discussion points were raised. People seemed to be a little shy

2.5 Have negative changes been countered by positive effects? Which? How?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

The fact that CARE installed water and irrigation system and it is not working anymore,

probably had a positive influence to implement a new system that should carefully be

constructed to last for a long time and to become sustainable.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Some land on the river side has been lost during floods and they are recovering these

lands to produce vegetables and pastures, however, strong protection or “atajados” are

being built.

PASOS 1. Communal green house was implemented with CARE’s intervention and worked well for


Limabamba Bajo a year or so, the problem was that the land owner decided that he would use his land to

scatter new products. The communal green garden ended its production. The

community now with PASOS interventions are first improving water supply for irrigation

and will improve agricultural production. Orchards/gardens will be implemented in a

different perspective.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Very difficult to say. Positive effects are on a very small scale. Population does not

increase, so pressure on resources does not increase either.

IFFI Serrano Not identified in this community

2.6 Considering the positive, negative changes and stable factors, how sustainable can the overall changes be

? Are some negative changes or stable elements putting the evolution at risk or possibly undermining the

positive changes for food security? Are the changes supported by changes in systems and attitudes, are

the changes sufficiently structural ? Can the changes reduce risks at the household level? Does the

continuation of the changes need reinvestments? And how realistic is this within the total set of changes?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Most results and effects that this project achieves should contribute to food security,

Sartawi aims to (and should) maintain self consumption, systems sustainability and

marketing negotiations. Important attitude changes in people since the beginning might

be considered sufficiently structural because all the efforts they invested in the project

implementation. Household risks can be reduced to very low levels if reinvestment could

assure the continuation of changes. In this way the total set of changes would also

include household sustainability.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Sartawi identifies two different phases working with communities: (a) construction of

irrigation systems, wells, barns, and corresponding training, and (b) the community

slowly takes over responsibilities of their projects to assure capabilities and

sustainability.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Although a PASOS objective is to jointly (with social actors) contribute in generation,

execution and evaluation of integral proposals for rural development with sustainable

effects, lack of water and scarcity could weaken this objective.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

If climatic change makes water definitely scarcer, this will undermine the positive

changes in food security.

On the other hand water management is always delicate and it is too early to evaluate

the sustainability of the changes recently introduced (vegetable cultivation, drinking

water distribution, protection of water sources.)

IFFI Serrano

Some changes in attitudes were identified as alimentary habits and knowledge, but the

most important change is consciousness rising to improve their life conditions and are

finding ways to do it.


3.1 Which are the most vulnerable groups? What are their main characteristics for food security and for the way

they handle food security, for human capabilities and for their social participation? What were major

discussion points within the subgroups?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

According to the group interviewed, only some persons that do not want to work (idlers)

or do not want to participate in project are having hunger and nutritional problems. This

has not been supported by external opinions.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Only a few persons were identified as having food security and nutrition problems, some

elderly and persons that do not have jobs. Apparently, there is much homogeneity inside

the community because it obeys to the traditional land distribution system according to

which the land belongs to the collectively and is equally distributed amongst the families.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Families with small pieces of land for production and/or very small production scale,

widows, and elderly are the most vulnerable groups in the community.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

In Alcalá, families are relatively homogeneous, withount huge differences between rich

and poor. All are small subsistence farmers. Soils and weather conditions are to difficult

to get rich on farming. The richest and the poorest migrate because there is no other

option.

As everywere, the widows are the group most at risk when they still have small children

at home.

IFFI Serrano

All families in the community are very poor, however, children of a few idlers that do not

want to work and drink alcohol are the group most at risk, and they are scarily fed and

clothed.

3.2 Did the opinions differ a lot between the subgroups in the workshop? How? Why ? What do you conclude

from the analysis of these differences/variation?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Opinions were not different; most of them were supported by others.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)


PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo


PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica


IFFI Serrano No discussion points were raised. People seemed to be shy

3.3 Is there a lot of difference in characteristics between the different wealth categories? If yes, between all


categories or mainly between categories at the top or bottom end?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

There are no big differences between families in the community. Families that have a

few more animals and land, started to improve their situation and have installed some

dairy processing plants to sell yogurt and cheese.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Apparently, there is much homogeneity inside the community because it obeys to the

traditional land distribution system according to which the land belongs to the collectivity

and is equally distributed amongst the families.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

No significant changes were mentioned by participants, some people in the community

had worsened their situation due to lack of rain and diseases in animals and crops.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

In Alcalá, families are relatively homogeneous, withount huge differences between rich

and poor. All are small subsistence farmers. Soils and weather conditions are too difficult

to get rich on farming. The richest and the poorest migrate, the first because they want

to progress and the second because there are no other option.

As everywere, the widows are the group most at risk when they still have small children

at home.

IFFI Serrano No significant changes were mentioned by participants, some people in the community had worsened their situation due to water and weather conditions.

3.4 What percentage of the population of the village belongs to the lowest 2 categories?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

There are no big differences between families in the community.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)


PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo


PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

NOT RELEVANT

IFFI Serrano There are no big differences between families in the community.

3.5 Are specific societal groups like orphans, HIV+, unmarried mothers etc. identified under

certain wealth categories?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Not really, participants mentioned that community works are extended to help all.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

Not really, participants mentioned that community works are extended to help all.

(Colquechaca)

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Participants do not make differences nor talk about wealth categories.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

See anwer to 3.3

IFFI Serrano The only difference they made was about the idlers that spend their money drinking

alcohol and are in worst life conditions than the rest of the families.

3.6 Have the participants indicated certain evolutions over time in the attributions or representation of different

wealth categories ? Which evolutions? Why?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

There are no big differences within community families, but we can mention that families

that have cattle increased the amount of milk production and are able to sell surplus.

Some families that installed dairy processing plants also increased their incomes

through the production and sell of yogurt and cheese. Some other families that started to

produce pastures are also selling a part of their crops, which means they are increasing

their incomes.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Los cambios que han mencionado los participantes se deben a mejores condiciones de

vida que han logrado y se manifiestan a través de mayores intercambios (compra y

venta) de productos, pues tienen mayor información sobre mercados y precios; el hecho

de que los jóvenes se van para ser profesionales. Estos efectos son resultado también

de una mejor capacitación y organización. El papel de las mujeres en la toma de

decisiones es otro indicador de cambio en ciertas familias.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

No significant changes have been mentioned.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

No, this has not been discusssed with the participants

IFFI Serrano No significant changes have been mentioned.

Interpretation of consultant (not in plenary session but afterwards)

3.7 Knowing the poverty profile of the village, does the strategy of ICCO’s partners reflect the poorest target

groups explicitly or implicitly? Are the partners’ strategies (i) inclusive (also reaching out to the 2 poorest

categories) or rather, (ii) specifically targeted to these poorest categories or (iii) not mention them at all?

Are strategies adapted to the characteristics of these target groups? How explicit? How? Why? Does the

partner use specific selection mechanisms for the poorest categories (for all activities or for some specific

activities)? How?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Sartawi did not mention if there are differences in poverty families, they are all suffering the water scarcity and weather conditions and project implementation will try to benefit the great majority. Participants said that project implementation works are extended to reach all families even if they are not participating.

SARTAWI 2. Same as before


Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

The entire community has water and irrigation problems and they are trying to solve this problem for all.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Not relevant because of 3.3. The problems lies not between poor and rich, but between

a sector or a community which has access to a drinkable water house tap because it is

near the source of the water, and a group or village who does not have this access

because it is to far from the source. These last people complain strongly of not

benefitting from the water project with its corrolaire of vegetables production and

consumtion etc.

IFFI Serrano This is not relevant for this community since water problems have not started to be

solved.

3.8 Which are the most vulnerable groups? What are their main characteristics for food security and for the

way they handle food security, for human capabilities and for their social participation? What were major

discussion points within the subgroups?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

As mentioned before, there are no big differences between families. They are all small

farmers that subsist in difficult conditions where lack of water sources is the main

problem.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Same as before

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

The problem in this area is also the scarcity of water sources and the weather conditions

that hit the entire community, therefore no differences between rich and poor families

have been mentioned.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Redundant See 3.3

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

No big differences between families were identified. Idlers’ children are part of the school

feeding program. These few persons don’t want to participate in community activities

and marginalize themselves.

3.9 Did the opinions differ a lot between the subgroups in the workshop? How? Why ? What do you conclude

from the analysis of these differences/variation?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

No, there was consensus in most of the points discussed.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)


PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo


PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Redundant. See 3.2 and others

IFFI Serrano No, there was consensus in most of the points discussed.

3.10 Is there a lot of difference in characteristics between the different wealth categories? If yes, between all

categories or mainly between categories at the top or bottom end?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

This point was not discussed because there are no big differences between families;

they are all poor and living in extreme need of water to improve life conditions.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Same as before

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

No big differences were mentioned and they don´t see that this is relevant since they are

all trying to overcome this water scarcity situation.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Redundant. See 3.3

IFFI Serrano This point was not discussed because there are no big differences between families;

they are all poor and living in extreme need to improve life conditions.

3.11 What percentage of the population of the village belongs to the lowest 2 categories?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

IRRELEVANT

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica IRRELEVANT

IFFI Serrano


4.1 Can the group recall many development efforts related to food security or with effects on food security? Are

they concentrated in specific sectors? Have specific sectors received more or less development efforts for

food security? What type of actors are mainly involved?


Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

There are not many efforts that were developed in this community, CARE and Food for

the Hungry were mentioned with water projects, but are not in the area anymore and

systems build by these NGOs are not working anymore. Water and irrigation projects are

being implemented by Sartawi with the help of Municipalities.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Food for the Hungry was the only NGO mentioned that developed a water system (is not

working anymore), but Sartawi is coordinating with the municipality and Caritas in the

new irrigation project that is being constructed.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

They mentioned several projects that were/are developed:

• ACLO Vegetable Seeds Implementation of orchards/gardens

• ACLO Training to women

• PRODECO Health Promoters Training Feeding and Nutrition Component

• PRODECO Chicken and egg Eggs for consumption

• CARE Communal garden Production of some vegetables

• Chuquisaca

Government Water system (just started a week ago)

• PASOS Water Source and training ANSAS (water source protection)

• PASOS Vegetable Seeds Vegetable production

• PASOS Training Feeding and nutrition (cooking practices)

• Municipality Projects Counterpart Participates with PASOS and Community

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

The main actors are:

Central Government: FIS, education, health (hospital)

Local government: municipality

NGOs: 7 different NGOs have been mentioned

The main sectors concerned are:

� Access to water

� Agricultural production

� Rotating credit

� Training in nutrition

� Housing

IFFI Serrano

The only actors they have mentioned are:

• PDA (Programa de Desarollo de Areas) – Visión Mundial that helpes only families

that have children attending school (school materials, clothing and health and

nutritional control)

• IFFI – Rotating fund and training

• Municipality – School feeding Program and starting to coordinate actions

4.2 Which projects have very high or very low scores and why? Are very positive or negative judgements

concentrated in specific sectors? Why?

Sartawi 1. They did not score, they mentioned that these projects were very useful and tried to help

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

to have water for consumption.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Same as above

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Participants did not score, just mentioned the projects developed and that they are

useful.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

People don’t want to score. They say all help is useful.

IFFI Serrano

Participants didn’t score, but complain that a PDA project includes only a few families

that have children attending school. These PDA beneficiaries also complain because

they have to pay a Bs. 6 fee every three months.

4.3 Have there been important discussions within the subgroups? Which and why? Have there been important

differences between subgroups? Which and why?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

There was consensus in most of the points.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)


PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo


PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica


IFFI Serrano No, there was consensus in most of the points discussed.

4.4 Have projects of ICCO’s partner(s) been named? If yes, how have they been judged and perceived? What

have been strong and weak points? How does the judgement compare to other projects in the same and in

other sectors?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

They mention Sartawi a lot of times and are very thankful to the efforts and support.

Water and irrigation along with training will improve their food security situation. They

also recognize that these interventions are assuring productive systems and

sustainability. There are no other entities working in the area

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Most of the participants mentioned the support that Sartawi is introducing through the

implementation of the different components of the Project: water and irrigation, nutrition

and production of vegetables and pastures and animal husbandry. They also mentioned

that Municipality is also participating.

PASOS 1. PASOS was mentioned several times for its work in the community, they mentioned that


Limabamba Bajo the efforts made by PASOS are systems that will be sustainable in the long run.

Participants stressed the training in water systems maintenance and in different topics of

feeding and nutrition. They also raised the fact that municipality and authorities are being

involved in these interventions.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Redundant. See 1.3

Yes PASOS is repeatedly mentioned for its support to the drinkable water project, on

nutrition and introduction of vegetable cultivation. Peasants stress the utility of the

interventions, while authorities stress the collaborative spirit of PASOS which looks for

cooperation with public authorities and other NGOs. This is not always the case amongst

NGOs in Bolivia

IFFI Serrano

IFFI was constantly mentioned for its rotating fund and nutrition and rights training

program. They also raised the fact that municipality will be helping to implement a water

system.

4.5 Have many other projects contributed in the same sector as ICCO’s partner? Are there differences between

these projects in terms of approach, target group etc? In terms of judgement ?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Food for the Hungry´s intervention was mentioned, an irrigation system was

implemented and it is not working anymore.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

PRODECO and ACLO are developing productive projects, however no water for

irrigation components are part of these interventions.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Only one other project contributed to drinkable water but it limited itself to captation and

distribution. It did not include protection of water sources.

IFFI Serrano PDA is the only institution working in the project area and does not include any of IFFI’s

components


5.1 Which wealth categories have mainly been influenced for which type of impact (food security, capabilities)?

Why? Which projects have influenced the poorest categories and why?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Families participating in Project implementation are directly benefitting from improved

production. Children are now improving consumption with more vegetables and milk

production. The yogurt produced is being sold to municipalities for school breakfast.

Animal husbandry is also improving with barns, sanitary control, drinking water spouts

and improved animals, and generating income through trading in ferias.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Some families are being directly benefitting from water and irrigation systems, since crop

production has improved, however not all projects have been implemented yet.

Diversification of products is improving children and women feeding and nutrition.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Protection of water sources are contributing to improve production of vegetables and

diversification, the direct beneficiaries are families participating in the project. Families

are also being benefited through the implementation of orchards/gardens; children are

improving their nutrition and feeding. Training is also an important component that is

recognized by participants especially in feeding and nutrition, women like cooking

practices. Participants also mentioned that production of vegetables; use and

consumption of food are improving their nutritional status.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Women and children are probably the first categories to benefit from crop diversification

and vegetable production because they control vegetable cropping and consumption.

They are also the first benefitting from drinkable water house distribution because before

that they had to fetch water far away and carry it to the house.

IFFI Serrano

Families participating in Project implementation are directly benefitting from rotating

fund. Children are now diversifying their feeding. Apparently PDA is also helping

families with small children that attend school.

5.2 How diversified is the type of impact between the development efforts? Is there a concentration? Clear

gaps? Similar question for wealth categories: concentration of impact? Clear gaps? Have synergies or

complementarities been named between projects ?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

Project efforts aim to Strengthen agricultural and stockbreeding through water and

irrigation systems. Once water supply for consumption and irrigation is consolidated,

peasants will improve their production conditions and impact will probably be more

sustainable. There are no other institutions working in the area, coordination with

municipality is contributing in project implementation.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Same as above

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

The main problem in the community is lack of drinking water and irrigation systems for

agricultural production and most projects and organizations are coordinating activities to

improve this problem. Organizations are working in different components; however,

PASOS interventions are integral and working closely with municipal authorities.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

Development efforts have to begin by addressing the water problem. Without an

improvement in water supply, little else can be done in a sustainable way.

No contradictions or overlapping has been observed between projects and institutions,

but complains have been heard that some institutions are paternalistic (providing

everything) (CARE) or do not coordinate with other public or private institutions. This is


not the case of PASOS who’s coordinating spirit is highlighted.

IFFI Serrano

The community is looking forward to start working closely with the municipality in the

construction of a water system and to improve their life conditions. Both institutions are

working independently with different objectives and components, therefore, no

overlapping of efforts was observed.

5.3 Have there been important discussions within the subgroups? Which and why? Have there been important

differences between subgroups? Which and why?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)


SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)


PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo


PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica


IFFI Serrano There was consensus in most of the points. People was shy.

5.4 Has the project/program of the ICCO partner been treated in this exercise? If not, why not? What

capabilities and food security aspects have been influenced by ICCO’s partner(s)? Which wealth

categories? What other remarks, success, challenges came up in the discussion? Are these findings

coherent with the intended results of the project of ICCO’s partner? Or coherent with evaluations of the

project?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

The Sartawi Program was mentioned several times, since they are still working in the

community and no other institutions are. Agricultural production diversification, animal

improvement, milk and yogurt production were identified as more useful interventions.

Training and education in nutrition and organization and governance also were

mentioned as changes for the community. The water committee seems to be working

very well.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

Almost the same as above.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

PASOS was mentioned several times, since participants stressed the water source

protection project that is useful for production and diversification. The fact that this

program is integral seems to be sustainable. Coordination with other institutions and

municipality were also strengthening. Feeding and Nutrition including cooking practices

were much appreciated.

PASOS 2. Yes, the PASOS program was often mentioned during the workshop. Capabilities on

Garzas Chica nutrition and cooking have been strengthened.

The water systems installed by PASOS seem sustainable: organization is good, water is

paid for, and water sources are protected from cattle damage and planted with trees and

plants.

IFFI Serrano

IFFI’s program was mentioned several times during the workshop, the rotating fund is

working very well, there is almost no default on returning the loans and they are asking

for larger loan amounts.

5.5 How does the impact of the project(s) of ICCO’s partner(s) compare to the other efforts in terms of type of

impact on capabilities, different aspects of food security and wealth category? What have been stronger or

weaker aspects and what do they add specifically to other development efforts?

Sartawi 1.

Realenga

(Machacamarca)

There are no other institutions working in the area, therefore they cannot compare other

efforts. They mentioned FH interventions, but they are no more working in the

community. Efforts are being coordinated with municipality and economical resources

are being assigned as counterpart.

SARTAWI 2.

Uluchi Bajo

(Colquechaca)

No other institutions are working in the area at this time.

PASOS 1.

Limabamba Bajo

Participants recognize that all institutions working in the influence area are very useful

and seem to be complementary actions; they appreciate and learn from them. However,

PASOS is very clear in its interventions, jointly implements the specific components and

follows up activities. The complete community participates and is working for long run

sustainability.

PASOS 2.

Garzas Chica

People do not compare institutions and projects, but for the evaluators PASOS

interventions seem more encompassing (addressing different complementary issues)

and more sustainable than others.

However the housing project was certainly a very visible success: all houses have new

tile (“de tejas”) roofs.

IFFI Serrano

Except for PDA, there are no other institutions working in the community and they are

implementing a different program that cannot be compared. IFFI started with the

rotating fund which is very helpful to the peasants and is developing a training

component that is changing beneficiary’s attitudes towards feeding and nutrition.

OTROS COMENTARIOS GENERALES:

− EN EL CASO DE LAS POLÍTICAS BOLIVIANAS, ES RELEVANTE EL ENFOQUE DE

SOBERANÍA ALIMENTÁRIA. POR ELLO, ES IMPORTANTE QUE SE TRATE DE HACER

UN ANÁLISIS ENTRE LA RELACIÓN O NO SEGURIDAD ALIMENTÁRIA – SOBERANÍA

ALIMENTÁRIA.


− EL HECHO DE TENER UNA PRESENCIA REGIONAL MARCA UN CLARO “ANTES” Y

“DESPUÉS” EN LAS RELACIONES DE ICCO CON SUS SOCIOS. LA VISIÓN REGIONAL

SOBRE NUESTRA APUESTA EN SEGURIDAD ALIMENTÁRIA ESTÁ EN PROCESO DE

CONSTRUCCIÓN A PARTIR DE UNA MIRADA LOCAL, POR ELLO, ALGUNAS DE LAS

CONCLUSIONES QUE LA EVALUACIÓN SEÑALA, SERÁN TRATADAS EN ESTE

ESPACIO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN DE UNA IDENTIDAD LOCAL.

− PARA LA OFICINA REGIONAL ES RECOMENDABLE QUE SE INCLUYA UN ACÁPITE

DE RECOMENDACIONES Y-O SUGERENCIAS EN LAS QUE EL EQUIPO CONSULTOR

MENCIONE PROYECCIONES, PERO TOMANDO MUY EN CUENTA LA PRESENCIA DE

ICCO EN LA REGION A TRAVÉS DE SU OFICINA REGIONAL.

bolivia: food security evaluation

Documents