evaluation report landmine and erw clearance · pdf fileevaluation report landmine and erw...
TRANSCRIPT
Frédéric FESSARD MaDePro 2012
Evaluation Report
LANDMINE AND ERW CLEARANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT
1 January 2010 – 31 December 2011
2 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................................................ 2
ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................................. 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 5
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Presentation ................................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Objectives of the Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Structure of the Report ................................................................................................................ 6
2. CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Country context ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Landmine situation ....................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Project Partners ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.4 The Project ................................................................................................................................. 10
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Methodologies and Approach .................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Challenges and Restrictions of the Study ................................................................................... 13
4. EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................ 14
4.1 Impact ........................................................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Efficiency .................................................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................. 16
4.4 Relevance ................................................................................................................................... 17
5. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PROJECT .............................................................. 20
6. PERSONAL CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 21
3 | P a g e
ACRONYMS
APM - Anti-Personnel mines
BB- Battambang Province
CEF – Community Empowerment Facilitator
CL – Community Liaison
CMAA - Cambodian Mine Action and Victim Assistance Authority
CMAC – Cambodian Mine Action Center
ERW – Explosive Remnant of War
FCA – Finn Church Aid
HMA - Humanitarian Mine Action
IRDEPs - Integrated Rural Development through Empowerment projects
LWD – Life with Dignity
MAG – Mines Advisory Group
MAT – Mine Action Team
MFA – Ministry for Foreign Affaires
NMAS – National Mine Action Strategy
NSDP – National Social Development Plan
PHs – Partner Households
RRE – Risk Reduction Education
UXO – Unexploded ordnances
4 | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Finn Church Aid for the opportunity to conduct this evaluation. I would also like to thank both Life with Dignity and MAG Cambodia for their cooperation during all the phases of this evaluation. I am especially grateful to Anu Riikonen and Mari Laaksonen for allowing me to collect the data needed during my internship in the Asia Regional Office. My thanks go also to Lauren Cobham for allowing me to access all MAG reports related to the project.
I deeply appreciated the efforts of the LWD team, especially the Battambang Office and San Vinnich who organized the field visit, as well as the participation of both Mom Mao and Chan Vannal without whom the interviews wouldn’t have been possible.
I hope that the findings of the report will be useful to the respective partners, stakeholders and beneficiaries in developing the activities further.
For comments or queries please mail to: [email protected]
Helsinki, Finland
May 2012
5 | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the draft report of the evaluation of the Landmine and ERW clearance for development
project in Battambang, Cambodia. This evaluation focuses on the years 2010-2011. At the time of
redaction of this evaluation, the project is still ongoing. This project has been implemented by Life
with Dignity in partnership with MAG Cambodia. This evaluation focuses on the beneficiaries of this
project, as well as the collaboration between the two implementing organizations, LWD and MAG.
Findings and recommendation are based on review of project reports and interviews with the
Implementing Partners and some of the beneficiaries of this project.
Main Findings
The activities have been implemented as planned and in a timely manner. The project has achieved
the planned results, having a good impact on the target groups. The demining activities have been
well implemented, and the risk reduction education should allow for a sustainable improvement in
the life of the beneficiaries. The development activities seem to have been relevant to the needs of
the target groups; however, assessing the impact of it is rendered difficult because of the lack of
specific reporting on this project from LWD side, as well as issues related to the log frame (out-dated
and hard to locate). The project has been effectively and efficiently implemented, as well as relevant
to the area of implementation.
The collaboration between the implementing agencies is seen as well established and efficient, with
minor issues (delays in funding and coordination cost) which could be solved by a tri-partite
agreement between FCA, LWD and MAG.
Recommendations
The recommendations expressed below are addressed both to LWD, MAG as well as FCA. For the
following phases of this project, it is recommended that:
1. FCA and the implementing partners LWD and MAG continue to work in the area, and
strengthen their activities to insure sustainability of change.
2. After completion of the current extension lasting until the end of May 2012, the new phase
of the project strengthens the co-operation between LWD and MAG in the first place, as well
as a direct partnership between MAG and FCA to allow for better communication. This new
tri-partite partnership will allow MAG to call for finance to FCA without delaying the process
going through LWD.
3. LWD receiving administrative costs for handling the project, a specific description of the
inputs required from them should be included in the next proposal, to allow for a better
monitoring and evaluation.
4. The reporting takes place on a more regular basis. Data collection being done at the field
level through CEF and CL, the information should progress up to the head office. It is highly
recommended that LWD makes a separate report on this project, making it distinct from
IRDEPs Battambang report.
5. The project proposal, making reference to a log frame, didn’t contain one. The log frame
wasn’t up to date, still based on the original budget of EUR 500,000. In order to have an
efficient monitoring and evaluation system, the log frame should be kept with the proposal,
and updated whenever changes are made. A copy of the emails justifying changes in the plan
should be kept in the same file.
6. LWD’s CEF being present at all time in the village, they could be trained in RRE by MAG to
provide Mine Awareness Education in the areas where LWD is active, but where the
demining is done by another agency (CMAC, HALO) and no RRE is provided to the population.
6 | P a g e
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Presentation
This is the draft report of the evaluation of the Landmine and ERW clearance for development
project in Battambang, Cambodia. It is a project of Finn Church Aid (FCA) implemented by Life with
Dignity (LWD) and MAG since 2010. The initial completion date for this project being December 2011,
this evaluation won’t cover the recent extension of the project, lasting until May 2012.
This evaluation was conducted in two phases: The first one, based on data collection and field visit,
was conducted in December 2011, and the second phase, based on data analysis and redaction of
this report, was conducted in March-April 2012.
1.2 Objectives of the Evaluation
The objectives of this evaluation were to assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability
and impact of the project. Being at the center of this project, the collaboration between the different
stakeholders during the implementing phase is also briefly analyzed. Due to the lack of specific
reporting for this project from LWD, the results of this project being reported at the provincial level
in the annual report1, most of the evaluation will focus on MAG reports. To a great extend, this
orientation will focus the evaluation on the demining part, allowing some insight on the development
part when the data is available (interviews for example).
More specifically, this evaluation aims at
analyzing the results achieved during the project years; and
analyzing strengths, good practices, challenges and weakness of the project
1.3 Structure of the Report
In the first chapter, the objectives of this evaluation have been discussed. The second chapter
focuses on the context of the project, underlining also the country context as well as briefly
presenting the partners involved. The third chapter explains the methodology used during this
assignment, and the challenges and limitations of it. The fourth chapter presents the evaluation
findings, while the fifth chapter provides recommendations. Finally, the last chapter explains the
personal conclusions related to this assignment.
1 LWD reporting is done by provinces, focusing in the results of all the activities implemented in the area. The results achieved by the landmine
project are not distinct from the other results achieved by the IRDEP Battambang, making it difficult to know what project achieved which results.
7 | P a g e
2. CONTEXT
2.1 Country context
Cambodia gained full independence from France in 1953. In April 1975, after a five-year struggle,
Communist Khmer Rouge forces captured Phnom Penh and evacuated all cities and towns. At least
1.5 million people or 1/5th of the country’s total population died from execution, forced hardships, or
starvation during the Khmer Rouge regime under Pol Pot. A December 1978 Vietnamese invasion
drove the Khmer Rouge into the countryside, began a 10-year Vietnamese occupation, and touched
off almost 13 years of civil war. The 1991 Paris Peace Accords mandated democratic elections and a
ceasefire, which was not fully respected by the Khmer Rouge. UN-sponsored elections in 1993 helped
restore some semblance of normalcy under a coalition government. Factional fighting in 1997 ended
the first coalition government, but a second round of national elections in 1998 led to the formation
of another coalition government and renewed political stability. The remaining elements of the
Khmer Rouge surrendered in early 1999. Some of the surviving Khmer Rouge leaders have been tried
or are awaiting trial for crimes against humanity by a hybrid UN-Cambodian tribunal supported by
international assistance. Elections in July 2003 were relatively peaceful, but it took one year of
negotiations between contending political parties before a coalition government was formed. In
October 2004, King Norodom Sihanouk abdicated the throne and his son, Prince Norodom Sihamoni,
was selected to succeed him. Local elections were held in Cambodia in April 2007, with little of the
pre-election violence that preceded prior elections. National elections in July 2008 were relatively
peaceful2.
Table 1: Country Indicators
Nowadays, Cambodia
remains one of the
poorest countries in
South-East Asia. Poverty
is overwhelmingly rural
with 40-45% of
Cambodia’s population
residing in rural areas under the poverty line3. The vast majority live hand-to-mouth on a day to day
basis, relying on subsistence agriculture, supplemented by their dependence on natural resources
(such as timber and non-timber forest products) and the selling of their own labor to feed their
families. Widespread poverty can be attributed, in large part, to Cambodia’s prolonged period of
conflict and the threat and predominance of remnants of conflict that remain on available land is a
barrier to longer term development. Livelihoods are negatively affected and access to land and
valuable resources; that could otherwise be used for agriculture, schools, resettlement, and
infrastructure development, is restricted thus limiting opportunities for development and increasing
vulnerability4.
2 CIA World Factbook
3 Royal Government of Cambodia (2006) National Strategic Development Plan: 2006-2010, p8 4 MAG Concept note
Population in millions
HDI Rank
Pop. Below
Poverty Line (% -1,25$)
Nat. Poverty
Line (%)
Life Expectancy
at birth
Adult Litt. Rate (% ages
+15)
Pop. Under-
nourished (%)
Infant Mort. Rate (per 1000 live birth)
2011 2011 2009 2009 2011 2010 2007 2012
14,3 139 28,3 30,1 63,1 77,6 22 54
8 | P a g e
2.2 Landmine situation
Cambodia’s landmine/ERW problem is the result of a protracted sequence of internal and regional
conflicts that affected the country from the mid 1960s until late 1998. The nature of landmine/ERW
contamination in Cambodia is highly complex. The north-western regions bordering Thailand are
heavily affected, while other parts of the country (mainly the East) are considered moderate to low
impact, affected mainly by ERW.
Figure 1: Mine/ERW accident location in year 20115
Mines/ERW have caused an unacceptable number of casualties, both military and civilian and have
hindered national development. Mines/ERW still have a substantial negative humanitarian, social
and economic impact on Cambodia. Although the number of mine/ERW casualties has been brought
down from 4,320 in 1996 to 244 in 2009, this number is still among the highest in the world. In the
Article 5 Extension Request6, Cambodia estimated that some 648.8 square kilometers require
clearance for the next ten years and some 1,097.8 square kilometers need to be released through
baseline survey and technical survey7.
A National Mine Action Strategy 2010−2019 (NMAS), drawn up by the CMAA in consultation with
UNDP and stakeholders, received government approval in November 2010. The strategy sets four
main goals:
reduce mine/ERW casualties and other negative impacts, by allocating demining assets to
the most impacted communities and promoting RE;
contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction, by supporting local, sub-national,
and national development priorities, supporting access to care for survivors and securing the
land rights of intended beneficiaries of clearance;
5 CMVIS 6 In December 2009, Cambodia as a signatory to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention since 2000 was granted a ten-year extension of
its mine clearance dealing by States Parties to the APMBC. 7 NMAS
9 | P a g e
promote international and regional disarmament and stability, by supporting the Mine Ban
Treaty, and adhering to the Convention on Conventional Weapons Protocol V on explosive
remnants of war;
ensure sustainable national capacities to adequately address the residual mine/ERW
contamination; by reviewing the institutional framework to address the residual problem,
plug gaps, and maintaining sustainable capacity.
2.3 Project Partners
Finn Church Aid is a faith-based and ecumenical, non-missionary organization that was established in
1947. It is Finland’s major NGO in development co-operation and the second biggest in humanitarian
aid. FCA carries out development co-operation, humanitarian aid and advocacy work in around 30
countries. FCA aims to change the world through action for human dignity. Finn Church Aid works
with the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA), the European Commission and various UN
organizations. FCA has a Partnership Agreement with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA). MFA
requires that the Partnership organizations monitor, assess, evaluate and develop the effectiveness,
impact and quality of their program. According to the actual strategy 2009-2012, the ultimate goal is
to promote justice and reduce poverty. The work is based on three closely interlinked themes:
sustainable livelihoods, stable societies, and rights and participation. Promoting gender equality is a
cross-cutting theme. FCA is the only Finnish organization involved in Humanitarian Mine Action,
financed by the MFA and its own funds. FCA has been actively involved in Cambodia since 1998,
through its partners, LWD and MAG. FCA has also been implementing HMA projects in Angola since
2002 through, as well as DRC during the years 2008-2010.
Life With Dignity (LWD) is an autonomous Cambodian NGO localized from the Lutheran World
Federation (LWF) Cambodia in January 2011. The headquarter based in Phnom Penh, LWD also has
field offices in Battambang, Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Speu and Pursat provinces, accounting for
a total of 250 staff. LWD works in rural Cambodia with the poorest people using an integrated
approach. LWD focuses on empowering the people to be self-reliant. Six Integrated Rural
Development through Empowerment projects (IRDEPs) are carried out in project areas in three
different provinces. LWD staff facilitates and trains the people in rights advocacy, income generation,
gender equity, household planning, and more. LWD's six IRDEPs—operating in the provinces of
Kampong Speu, Kampong Chhnang, and Battambang—apply four approaches in their day-to-day
work with Cambodians:
The empowerment approach builds capacity and competence, in both individuals and
communities, to achieve results for themselves.
The integrated approach considers that various lines of action interlink with and affect other
areas. Environmental issues, HIV and AIDS, gender and many other thematic areas are
integral parts of all lines of action taken in any given sector.
The right-based approach primarily involves building up rights awareness on all levels, both
among the powerless and the powerful.
The community-based approach: Undertakes development work for the good of the
community as a whole.
10 | P a g e
Mines Advisory Group (MAG) is an NGO who takes a humanitarian approach to landmine action. It
has been a world leader in the clearance of landmines and other explosive debris of conflict for more
than 20 years, identifying these as deadly threats to both physical safety and development. MAG’s
pioneering approach to working with communities on the clearance of their land, for its safe release
back into food production, human settlement or infrastructure, is essential to sustainable
development after conflict. MAG Cambodia is at the forefront of integrating mine action with
development in Cambodia. The headquarters are based in Phnom Penh, with a regional office in
Battambang. Of a total of 405 Cambodian staff, 32 per cent are female and nine per cent are
amputees. The program is supported by five international personnel. MAG Cambodia has built a
strong and long standing partnership with Lutheran World Federation (LWF) in Battambang over the
last decade. MAG has been partnering with LWD in the region since 1999; clearing land to facilitate
LWD development interventions8. MAG implements integrated Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) and
development activities in collaboration with LWD in the most landmine/UXO affected areas of
Battambang where blockages from Remnants of Conflict impact on community development and
socioeconomic advancement.
2.4 The Project
The Landmine and UXO Clearance for Development Project is implemented by LWD and MAG, with
support from FCA. This project is the continuation phase from a series of projects started in 2003
focusing on HMA in Cambodia, funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (MFA).
The project development goal aims at
“improving socio-economic recovery
and physical access for vulnerable
rural Cambodians”. The project
specific objective is “to reduce the
threat of Remnant of Conflict and
facilitate community access to land in
Battambang Province, Cambodia”.
The project was designed to achieve
the following results:
- Reduced vulnerability to remnants
of conflict contamination and
increased access to safe land for
agricultural and livelihood
opportunities
- Knowledge on Risk Reduction
associated with remnants of
conflict is enhanced
Figure 2: Working area of the project9
8 MAG Annual Report 2010 9 Map from MAG
11 | P a g e
The initial length for the project is 2 years, from January 2010 to December 2011. An extension of 5
months was agreed at the end of this period, in order to prepare the following project, lasting 4
years. The total budget for the two year project was EUR 500,000, reduced to EUR 445,56010.
The project’s target group is mine affected populations of approximately 10 target villages who will
directly benefit from land cleared and development opportunities to enable vulnerable households
to build livelihoods in their own and safe surrounding. In addition, high risk households within 4111
selected villages will benefit from Risk Reduction Education (RRE) in Kamrieng, Bavel and Phnom
Preuk Districts, Battambang Province. The RRE provides knowledge on the risks of landmines and
UXO, how to work safely in contaminated land, as well as suitable alternatives sources of living. The
people are warned of the next RRE through loudspeakers announcing the place and time. All age
groups are targeted, with information adapted to the needs of the target audience.
The clearance of the land is done by the Mine Action Teams (MATs), trained by MAG at the beginning
of the project, each one clearing an amount of 160,000m2 during the 2 years of implementation .
The initial number of 3 MATs was reduced to 2 following the budget modification. Initially amounting
for 480,000m2, the total area to be cleared from landmine for development intervention was
reduced to 320,000m2, following the reduction of one MAT. The clearance is done primarily to allow
agricultural development interventions as well as road, school construction, and the resettlement of
displaced households.
The implementing partner of the project is LWD, who is responsible for the development part of the
project. As part of the IRDEPs in Battambang, this project follows the same selection criteria
concerning the development activities to be implemented following the clearance. In order to insure
the full participation of the poorest, LWD has developed a policy focusing on Partner Households
(PHs), selected through a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). Tools of wealth ranking, case study and
semi-structured interview are used by the project to categorize the community members into
poorest, poor and not so poor people. The most vulnerable and marginalized people such as
handicapped people, landless, households headed by women, are seen as the poorest households
and will become the project’s “partner households”. LWD facilitates partner household
empowerment through capacity building for improved and sustainable livelihood and confidence
building for enhanced participation in household and community development providing expanded
opportunities to control and manage their lives and to obtain their rights12. Some of those PHs are
acting as “demonstrators”, receiving tools and specific trainings on alternative sources of incomes.
The other villagers are benefiting from trainings on Human Rights, Domestic Violence or sexual
education. They are also encouraged to visit the PHs working as demonstrators for alternative
sources of livelihoods (such as poultry or pig raising, fish ponds, and vegetable growing).
In Battambang, landmines and UXO are slowing down the empowerment process implemented by
LWD. As a technical partner, MAG provides the technical knowledge and equipment required for
demining, allowing for the implementation of IRDEP project in the areas contaminated by landmines
and UXO in Battambang. MAG’s education on the risk of landmines (RRE) in the target areas is
complementing the empowerment trainings provided by LWD, creating a holistic approach.
10 The original project budget total was revised in May 2010 to reflect the administrative costs budgeted for FCA. 11 LWD have revised their target village number from 42 to 41 in 2011. 12 LWD – Partner Households Graduation Guidelines
12 | P a g e
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Methodologies and Approach
This evaluation was conducted in two phases; one in the field, based on interviews in Cambodia in
December 2011, the second phase being conducted in Finland, based on literature review, during the
first quarter of this year, 2012. At the end of this second phase, a draft of this evaluation was sent to
LWD, MAG and FCA for comments. A week was allowed to provide feedbacks, and another week was
used to produce the final version of this evaluation.
The data collection during the assessment aimed at being participatory; however, the limited time
and resources available restricted it to be more of an extractive process. Nevertheless, mostly
qualitative methods were carried out during the collection of data. The collection of primary data
was achieved through a series of interviews, first with the project staff (LWD, MAG and FCA); and
then in one targeted village, with some beneficiaries of the project. This village was selected by the
project manager based in Battambang province, who chose it for its proximity to the field office, due
the limited time allowed in the field. The beneficiaries were selected by LWD’s Community
Empowerment Facilitator (CEF), living in the village at that time.
Two checklists were developed prior to the interview, one designed for both the Implementing
organizations with minor changes, and one for the primary beneficiaries. One focus group was also
conducted during the field trip. The second phase, focusing on literature review, consisted of
analyzing the project proposal, as well as the monitoring and annual reports from MAG13. Additional
researches were conducted on the landmine situation.
The initial step taken during this evaluation, in the end of November 2011, consisted of a desk
review, based on the project proposal and the annual report of 2010, and the three first quarterly
reports, available at that time. The checklists for the interviews were draft following this research.
The interviews started soon after with the previous and current LWD Project Manager for
13 The monitoring and annual reports of LWD, reporting this project results under the IRDEP Battambang, didn’t provide data specific to this project
Target groups PHs and other
villagers
LWD: Training on Human Rights,
Domestic Violence, etc. Focus on PHs
MAG: Land
clearing, Risk Reduction Education
13 | P a g e
Battambang Province, where the project is implemented. A two days trip to a targeted village took
place on the 13th-14th of December. During the first day, a demonstration of landmine clearing was
observed, with discussion with MAG deminer’s team. The following day, interviews were conducted
with three beneficiaries and one LWD CEF. Further information was collected from MAG and FCA
back in Phnom Penh the following day. During the primary data collection phase, 10 interviews were
conducted, covering a total of 3 primary beneficiaries (one of them being a focus group); 4 LWD field
Staff (including the two project managers for this project) and the program manager from the
Headquarter; one with MAG Program Manager as well as some informal discussion with FCA’s Asia
Regional Representative and Field Officer in Phnom Penh. The literature review and report writing
took place in March-April 2012, during which a first draft was sent to the three organizations for
comment.
The field visit program is attached as Annex 1, Interview Checklists as Annex 2, Documents Reviewed
as Annex 3 and Persons Interviewed as Annex 4, and a case study collected during the field visit is
included in Annex 5. Annex 6 present the database for Battambang. The logical framework is
included in Annex 7.
3.2 Challenges and Restrictions of the Study
This evaluation benefited from the full cooperation from all the project partners and the
stakeholders involved in the project. Nevertheless, some limitations are to be described and kept in
mind when analyzing the results of this evaluation.
The log frame was sent to the evaluator quite late, after many emails exchange. When the log frame
was received, it wasn’t up to date, still based on the original proposal and not taking into account the
numerous changes related to the reduction in the budget, or its impact on the activities (reduction of
the number of beneficiaries or the area of land cleared). The changes that occur were decided
through emails, but no copy of those conversations was attached to the proposal, making the
tracking of change, and its justification, difficult. In the absence of an up-to-date log frame, it has
been difficult to compare the progress toward one objective, or the achievement of a target.
Moreover, the indicators, making reference to villages rather than individuals, make it difficult to
assess the completion of a result.
Due to the presence of the evaluator in Phnom Penh for three months during the data collection,
enough time could be devoted to interviewing the staff from the implementing partners in the head
offices. However, because of the distance between Phnom Penh and Battambang, limited time could
be allowed to collect the data in the field. Only two days were available to conduct interviews with
the beneficiaries, focusing on only one village out of the 41 targeted by the project. This limitation
resulted from the other tasks devoted to the evaluator at that time, based in Phnom Penh, allowing
for limited time in Battambang, situated at 300km. The same restriction applies with interviewing the
field staff from both LWD and MAG. If time was allocated to discuss with one Community
Empowerment Facilitator from LWD, it would have been valuable to interview at least one
Community Liaison from MAG. As a result, this evaluation had to rely heavily on the monitoring and
annual reports, limiting the triangulation of information to few beneficiaries and project workers,
and restricting the information related to the process, providing mainly on the results.
14 | P a g e
Notwithstanding the major contribution of the Community Empowerment Facilitator during the field
visit who acted as interpret during the interviews, challenges arose from it. The major issue came
from the influence of the CEF presence in the response given by the interviewees. It also happened
that the CEF answered the question asked to the beneficiary, even if asked not to. The answers were
then focusing heavily on the results of the project, allowing little information related to the process,
once again. Ultimately, this impacted on the freedom of speech of the interviewees, who might not
have dared raising negative aspects of the project in the presence of two of the project workers.
Another restriction comes from the reporting system of LWD. The incorporation of this project
reporting into the IRDEP Battambang monitoring and annual reports limited the access to the specific
achievements of this project.
4. EVALUATION
The findings of this evaluation are based on the analysis of the project proposal, the logical
framework and the quarterly and annual reports from MAG. Interviews were used for triangulation.
This evaluation focuses on four out of the five common issues analyzed, namely Impact, Efficiency,
Effectiveness and Relevance. The Sustainability issue related to a HMA project being evident, it has
not been addressed.
4.1 Impact
The project had a good impact on the target groups of the project. By the end of December, the
MATs had cleared 361,081m² of suspect land, with removal of 591 APMs, 21 anti-vehicle mines and
232 items of UXO between January 2010 and December 2011. Once cleared, the land has been used
for agricultural purposes, roads and school buildings and resettlement activities with support from
LWD development activities and trainings. Furthermore the 167 RRE sessions conducted during the
24 month period by CL teams have benefitted 2,241 people, thereby supporting the enhancement in
knowledge of the risks associated with Remnants of Conflict14.
14 MAG Annual Report 2011
District Commune Village Land Use
Beneficiaries
Family People
2010
Kamrieng Ta Krei Sras Kampauk Resettlement/Road/ School 33 130
Phnom Proek Chak Kry Bour Agriculture 11 66
Kamrieng Ou Da Mnoas Kal Reset/Agriculture 3 16
Kamrieng Ou Da Ou Kokir Agriculture 6 45
Phnom Proek Chak Kry Bour Agriculture 4 15
Kamrieng Ou Da Mnoas Kal Reset/ Agriculture 6 32
2011
Kamrieng Ta Krei Sras Kampauk Agriculture /Road/School 33 130
Phnom Proek Chak Kry Bour Agriculture 11 66
Phnom Proek Chak Kry Bour Agriculture 4 15
Kamrieng Takrey Kampongchamlong Leu Road 448 2167
Kamrieng Oda Manas Kal Resettlement/ Agriculture 6 32
Kamrieng Ta Krei Plov Pram Muoy Road 337 1516
Kamrieng Ou da Mnoas Kal Resettlement/School 3 13
Kamrieng Ou da Tang Yuor Resettlement 220 995
Table 2: Cleared land use and beneficiaries number by location
15 | P a g e
The interviews conducted during the field visit underlined the good impact of the project on the daily
life of every interviewee and their families. For them, among the main improvements brought by the
project, increased livelihood and safety ranked first. LWD’s trainings on alternatives sources of
income (chicken poultry, fish ponds, vegetable growing) clearly benefited the Partner Households
selected in the target area, as well as the other villages through the opening of local shops.
Access to services (schools, market places, doctors) remains a major issue in the area, justifying the
importance of road rehabilitation/construction during the second year of the project. Allowing for a
faster and safer way to school, also built under the project, the clearance had a good impact on the
children living in the selected villages. The interviews highlighted the difficult access to school for
their children, especially in rainy seasons, when the pathways they used to use were flooded. The
children were then either forced to cross possibly contaminated fields, or to stay at home. Many
parents preferred their children to skip school rather than to take the risk of crossing contaminated
land.
4.2 Efficiency
The project has been implemented in a timely manner, with more
land cleared than planned. The original project budget was revised
in May 2010 to reflect the administrative costs budgeted for FCA, for
a total of 222,780 for each year. Due to a delay in the approval of
the proposal and contract signature at the beginning of 2010 (Q1 in
2010), the first quarter expenditure were decreased, and balanced
the next quarter (Q2 in 2010). Aside from the first two quarters, the
initial budget plan was followed and delivered the expected outputs
in a timely manner. Nevertheless, MAG expressed some difficulties related to delays in the payments
of funds arranged by LWD, which however didn’t impact the implementation of the activities.
In the initial budget, included in the proposal, LWD (LWF at that time) was allocated EUR 14 812 each
year (EUR 29 624 for the two years of implementation) to cover the costs of ‘coordination and
implementation’. After revision of the budget in May 2010, this amount was reduced to EUR 14 574
each year (EUR 29 148 for both years), named under ‘organizational support charges’15. This support
refers mainly to LWD’s role in coordinating the project between MAG and FCA. This evaluation didn’t
find justification for such a high allocation, the report received by LWD from MAG being forwarded to
FCA without modification or addition. Unfortunately, time constraint didn’t allow for further
discussion with LWD on this issue.
The two MATs and CL deployed by MAG as well as the CEF from LWD implemented the project
successfully. The interviewees highlighted their visibility and efficiency in the field, as well as their
flexibility and quickness to act when a landmine was discovered on an unsuspected field.
15 See Annex 9 - Budget
Quarter 2010 2011
1Q 23,048 29,352
2Q 62,212 63,216
3Q 61,575 41,528
4Q 75,945 88,684
Total 222,78 222,78
Table 3 : Financial summary
16 | P a g e
4.3 Effectiveness
This section focuses on the effectiveness of the project results. The log frame being out of date, it has
been difficult to assess the efficiency of the development part, aside from the area cleared from
landmine and the RRE session held in the target area (MAG activities).
The project effectiveness has been exceeding the expected results in terms of land cleared for each
year. With a planned area of 320,000m² in the Result 116, the project achieved the clearance of
361,081m² of suspect land (10 fields), which equates to 113% of the estimated target figure. In total,
4995 people from 1072 families benefitted from clearance activities and the removal of 844
dangerous and potentially lethal explosive items.
The field visit clearly showed the improvement in the livelihood of the target families who benefitted
from the clearance of their fields. After the two years of implementation, the PHs interviewed had
successfully profited from the skills and tools given to them. They were growing vegetables and
raising pigs, selling their products on the market, while two years ago they were all selling labor in
the rice field, highly vulnerable to seasonal rain. The most successful even open small shops, and
become more active in the village meetings. Focusing on the poorest households, LWD’s integrated
approach is seen as fruitful and successful in providing the necessary skills and equipments to benefit
fully from the newly demined land (see Annex 5 for case study).
The different tasks conducted by MAG two CL teams, including: data collection, mapping, monitoring
and assessment activities, were conducted throughout the two years. The absence of indicator for
this result in the project proposal and in the log frame makes it impossible to confirm the
achievement of the result. Nevertheless, the interviews highlighted the regular visits of the CL team
(every month) and their efficacy in providing assistance to the local community, as well as informing
the community based networks and MATs of the latest landmine issues.
The second result focused on enhancing the knowledge on risk reduction associated with remnant of
conflicts. During the two years of the project, a total of 167 RRE sessions (60 in 2010 and 107 in 2011)
benefitted 2,241 people living in high risk areas. Accounting for 100% in the MAG annual monitoring
reports (2010-2011), the planned number of session could nevertheless not be included in the log
frame, because based on village assessment findings and urgent need. In that sense it is difficult to
confirm that the target has been achieved. The reduction of target villages from 42 to 41 makes
confirmation even more difficult.
Concerning the implementation of the development activities by LWF, the log frame provides a very
limited indicator, allowing for little comparison. Defined as: LWF implement development
interventions on 100% of cleared land by month 24, the indicator isn’t specific enough to confirm the
effectiveness of the objective. Nevertheless, based on the available data and the interviews, the
evaluation finds that, once the land cleared from landmine, the development activities have been
answering to the needs of the population. With a special emphasis on improving livelihood through
alternative sources of income, such as more sustainable use of the land, less dependent on rain (e.g.
vegetable growing), the main purpose of land clearing has been for agricultural purposes. School
building represented only a small percentage, as well as resettlement, since those were the emphasis
16 Initially 480,000m2, reduced to 320,000m2 due to only 2 MATs instead of 3.
17 | P a g e
of the previous phases of the project (from 2003). Road rehabilitation and construction has been an
important focus in 2011. The interviews underlined the importance of roads and other
infrastructures for the villagers, without which they can’t access markets or schools.
Figure 3: Land use
The persons interviewed during the field visit all agreed on the effectiveness of the project as well as
the strong presence of the Community Liaison (CL) and Community Empowerment Facilitator (CEF) in
the villages, in order to respond to their needs.
The two CL teams deployed by MAG are seen as efficient and quick to respond to landmine issues.
Composed of one male and one female, each CL is better able to communicate with the people, both
men and women, and respond to the specific issues in the villages.
The CEFs from LWD, being base full time in the villages in order to assess and respond to the needs of
the community, are well perceived, especially among the poorest households. The interviews also
underlined the good interaction with MAG’s CL team. However, further discussion with LWD staff
highlighted a weakness in the communication between the field and the head quarter, the CEF
having information that the project manager didn’t have. The activities being implemented at the
field level are not always transmitted to the head quarter; making reporting difficult or incomplete.
This was felt when, for the purpose of this evaluation, the list of activities being implemented on
LWD side in the project area was asked, but not readily available.
4.4 Relevance
The integrated mine action is relevant to the previous Cambodian National Social Development Plan
2006-2009 and current National Mine Action Strategy 2010-2019, both highlighting the importance
of making land safe to alleviate poverty. As explained in the context, the relevance of a development
project targeting the landmine/ERW issue doesn’t need further justification, landmine being more
than a threat to life, but also slowing down development and deepening poverty.
Agriculture 93 %
Road 3%
School 2 %
Resettlement 2%
2010
Agriculture 71 %
Road 26 %
School 3 %
Resettlement 0.23%
2011
18 | P a g e
The location of the project,
nevertheless, remains of prime
interest to us. The project is
implemented in Battambang,
which ranks amongst the 5
provinces most affected by
landmine/ERW
contamination17. Because of its
high population density (as
described in the figure 4, or in
more details in Annex 8),
Battambang remains the
province affected by the most
casualties, as described in the
table 2.
Figure 4: Density Map of Cambodia
The project is relevant to the
strategies of both the
implementing agencies as well as
FCA. LWD aiming at alleviating
poverty in rural Cambodia
through empowerment of
vulnerable people, this project is a
necessary step toward this goal,
landmine issues slowing down
development. Based on three
interlinked themes (Sustainable
livelihoods, Stable societies and Rights and participation) FCA’s strategy can benefit from this HMA
project, focusing on safer society and improved livelihood. MAG demining approach is based on a
concrete contribution toward poverty reduction and long term development, through its positive
impact on sustainable livelihoods, justifying this close collaboration with LWD.
The project is also in line with the Cambodian Government policies. At first, part of the development
strategy, the landmine issues became a central point of action, and a necessary step toward the
development of the country, as stated in the National Strategic Development Plan 2006–2010, as
well as in the more recent National Mine Action Strategy 2010−2019 (see figure 5).
17 The most landmine-affected provinces are those located along the Thai–Cambodian border: Battambang, Bantey Meanchey, Pailin, Otdar Mean Chey and Preah Vihear. The border area is reportedly heavily mined (known as the 'K5 mine belt'), with an estimate of 2,400 landmines per kilometre along the 1,000 km borderline between the countries, making it of the most heavily contaminated areas in the world.
18 CMVIS
Table 2: 5 Most Affected Provinces for Mine / ERW Casualties18 Ranked by Total Casualties Jan2010 - Dec2011
Rank Province Mine
Casualties ERW
Casualties Total
Casualties
1 Battambang 87 54 141
2 Banteay Mean Chey 43 15 58
3 Preah Vihear 22 25 47
4 Krong Pailin 39 7 46
5 Otdar Mean Chey 37 6 43
19 | P a g e
Large tracts of arable land are infested by dangerous land mines planted, and unexploded ordnance (UXO) dropped, during past conflicts, which routinely claim lives and limbs of both humans and animals. Mine Clearance is therefore very important for making arable land safe for cultivation and to prevent death and lifelong handicaps caused by severe injuries.
National Strategic Development Plan 2006–2010
The Royal Government of Cambodia recognizes that partnerships have enabled important achievements over the last 18 years in the mine action sector. Active participation from all development partners and especially demining operators will be essential in achieving the goals of the strategy.
National Mine Action Strategy 2010−2019
Figure 5: Extract from NSDP 2006-2010 and NMAS 2010-2019
20 | P a g e
5. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PROJECT
As a conclusion, the Demining for Development Project has achieved, and in some cases, exceeded
its objectives. The project has provided a significant support to the target villages, making the land
safer and providing improved sources of livelihood. After analyzing the log frame, the quarterly and
annual reports, as well as the interviews conducted in the field, the evaluation concludes that the
project had a good impact on the target area. The project efficacy and efficiency have been made
possible through a strong presence of the CEF and CL in the field at all time. The relevance of the
project is confirmed both in the previous National Social Development Plan as well as the recent
National Mine Action Plan.
The recommendations expressed below are addressed both to LWD, MAG as well as FCA. For the
following phases of this project, it is recommended that:
1. FCA and the implementing partners LWD and MAG continue to work in the area, and strengthen
their activities to insure sustainability of change.
2. After completion of the current extension lasting until the end of May 2012, the new phase of the
project strengthens the co-operation between LWD and MAG in the first place, as well as a direct
partnership between MAG and FCA to allow for better communication. This new partnership will
allow MAG to call for finance to FCA without delaying the process going through LWD.
3. LWD receiving administrative costs for handling the project, a specific description of the inputs
required from them should be included in the next proposal, to allow for a better monitoring and
evaluation.
4. The reporting takes place on a more regular basis. Data collection being done at the field level
through CEF and CL, the information should progress up to the head office. It is highly recommended
that LWD makes a separate report on this project, making it distinct from IRDEPs Battambang report.
5. The project proposal, making reference to a log frame, didn’t contain one. The log frame wasn’t up
to date, still based on the original budget of EUR 500,000. In order to have an efficient monitoring
and evaluation system, the log frame should be kept with the proposal, and updated whenever
changes are made. A copy of the emails justifying changes in the plan should be kept in the same file.
6. LWD’s CEF being present at all time in the village, they could be trained in RRE by MAG to provide
Mine Awareness Education in the areas where LWD is active, but where the demining is done by
another agency (CMAC, HALO) and no RRE is provided to the population.
Annexes: Annex 1 – Field visit program
Annex 2 – Interview checklist
Annex 3 – Document reviewed
Annex 4 – Person interviewed
Annex 5 – Case Study
Annex 6 – Database BB IRDEP
Annex 7 – Logical Framework
Annex 8 – Density Map of Cambodia
Annex 9 – Budget
21 | P a g e
6. PERSONAL CONCLUSION
This evaluation has been an excellent opportunity for me to put into practice the lesson learned
throughout the online course. This has been a very interesting, yet really challenging task, more than
I thought it would be. As a personal conclusion, I would like to sum up those challenges, how I tried,
and sometimes failed to overcome them, and how they have helped me to better understand the
management of development project.
Due to my presence in Cambodia at the beginning of the course, I decided to pick up a project
implemented there, knowing however that I would have to collect the field data before lessons
related to PCM, as well as the directives related to this exercise. I decided to collect the data
following my anthropological background, focusing on qualitative information and personal
experience of the beneficiaries. This was my first mistake. Not that I shouldn’t have focus on it, but
rather that I should have also collected more quantitative data, allowing for comparison with the log
frame. Of course, at that time I didn’t had the log frame, and I received it only two weeks before the
deadline (third week of April).
I was also confronted by my working status (intern) in Cambodia, which didn’t allow much freedom
in time, as well as making it uneasy to ask for 2 project workers and a car to drive me to the field for
a personal project. This limited my field visit to two days, when I enjoyed the opportunity of a
workshop in Battambang, and relied on the availability of the LWD project manager in the field
office, who organized my trip. This, of course, was too short, and I wasn’t prepared to collect the
data, having not yet received the project proposal, nor the log frame, but only the Quarterly
Monitoring Report from MAG. Again, based on my assumption of an anthropological fieldwork, I
decided to focus on the beneficiaries, allowing little time to discuss with the project workers, which
would have been really valuable for the sake of this evaluation.
Aside from my field work experience, this evaluation also allowed me to better understand how
dependent you are on the availability of the project workers, while working remotely. Even though
willing to provide assistance in my research, the project workers were often really busy, unable to
answer the numerous questions that arose. The time constraint, even though long enough for the
purpose of this exercise, happened to be limited if badly planned. This helped me to better
understand how planning your time is central to the success of an evaluation, and allowing enough
time for the writing is essential, in order to give enough time for answers to be given when questions
arose.
At last but not least, I would like to really highlight the difficulty of writing a critical evaluation when
the implementing agencies are people who helped you, and might do so in the future. In an attempt
to be neutral, some of the critiques are necessary, but might pose a problem impacting your working
relationships.
Annex 1. Field Visit Program 13-14/12/2011
Date Time Purpose and Destination of the visit Remark
13-Dec-11 12:00 AM Travel to Bour village Chakrey commune Phnum Pruek district Battambang provine.
The visit hosted Sarim, Loth, Vinich
13:40 PM Arrive to Tomnum Tamao MF Bour village
1 hour Visit MAT-13 undertaking mineclearance, CL brief on CL guideline and step. How the
involment of communities or authorities.
Lead by the CL team
1 hour Visit post clearance development has taken place under LWD support.
Lead by LWD
15:40 PM Leaving the village for Batttambang
14-Dec-11 8:00 AM Travel to LWD Field Office in Battambang Lead by Chan Vannal
10:00 AM First Interview with Chin Ron Meeting with Mom Mao
12:00 AM Second Interview with Mutu Sabun
14:00 PM Third Interview with Sun Kea
16:00 PM Leaving the village for Batttambang
Annex 2. Interview Checklist
Check list LWD/MAG Staff:
Background information:
o When did the project started and why?
o Global objective/ Specific objectives?
o How long was the initial timeline for the project?
o Who initiated it (MAG or LWD)?
o Can the project scale up/ extended to other areas?
Efficiency:
o Has the project been fulfilling the previous work plans and budget?
o What about the current one?
o What are the current problems being faced?
o Are there gaps in organizational capacity? If yes, are they addressed?
o How could we improve the efficiency of the project in the coming years?
Effectiveness and Impact:
o What were the major achievements of this project?
Relevance and Sustainability:
o How are the villages selected?
o Does it create tension with the other villages?
Overall Programme Management:
o How are the authorities involved?
o What is the nature of the cooperation with MAG?
o Has the funding been constant?
o Gender/HRBA issue being addressed?
Check List Beneficiaries:
Efficiency:
o How did you get to know about MAT?
o How were you approached to be part of the project?
o What are the major activities so far? (Are the awareness, sensitizing right holders to rights
useful)
o Timeliness and quality of the activities? o How were you involved in the planning process? o Attendance of other members in meetings/ Decision Making procedure/ frequency of
meetings/ what kinds of issues are discussed? Do they keep minutes? o How many households / people in this group are involved with activities (try to give an
estimate by result)?
Effectiveness and Impact:
o What has changed since the beginning of the project? How effective has the programme been in terms of livelihood, education?
Relevance and Sustainability:
o Have the activities been relevant, i.e. met the needs of your household / your group?
o What is missing still?
Overall Programme Management:
o Whom do you contact when you have an issue/question related to the project (MAG/LWD)? o What capacity building inputs have been provided by LWD/MAG for organizing the groups,
livelihood, education and health and sanitation? Who has been responsible for providing each type of support?
o Plan for scaling up?
Annex 3. Document reviewed
FCA
1. Strategy 2009-2012
2. Partner Project Monitoring Guide 2010
LWD
1. PMEU Assessment tool
2. Partner Household Guidelines 2006
3. (LWF Cambodia) Annual Report 2010
MAG/Project Documents
1. Landmine and ERW Clearance for Development Funding Proposal 2010
2. Funding Proposal to FCA/MFA “Landmine clearance for development” 2012-2014
3. Quarterly Reports 2010 (Quarter 1-4)
4. Quarterly Reports 2011 (Quarter 1-4)
5. Annual Narrative Report 2010
6. Annual Narrative Report 2011
Other Documents
1. Cambodia Mine/ERW Victim Information System Monthly Report for December 2011
2. Review of the Finnish support to Humanitarian Mine Action in Cambodia January 2010
3. Landmine Monitor, Cambodia 2011
4. National Mine Action Strategy 2010-2019
5. National Social Development Plan 2006-2010
6. UNDP Cambodia Annual Report
Annex 4. Person interviewed
FCA
1. Anu Riikonen, Asia Regional Representative
2. Mari Laaksonen, Field Officer
LWD
1. Chan Vibol, Program Manager
2. Mey Sarun, Project Manager in Battambang from 2005-2011
3. San Vinich, Project Manager in Battambang
4. Chan Vannal, Community Empowerment Officer, Battambang
MAG
1. Lauren Cobham, Program Officer
Beneficiaries
1. Chin Ron (with family and neighbors – Focus group)
2. Mutu Sabun
3. Sun Kea
Annex 5 Case Study
Mutu SABUN
When Mutu Sabun and her family were expelled
from her village in Pailin, they had nowhere to
go. Her brother, living in Battambang, told her
about some land being available here. A recent
road construction needed some land to be
cleared by MAG, allowing resettlement. She then
came in the village, and became member of the
Village Development Committee. One year later,
being among the poorest in the village, she was
selected by LWD to become Partner Household.
She received skill trainings at first, and took a
loan from the Village Bank to establish her small
business. She then became ‘Chicken raising
Demonstrator’. She received three chickens and
skills from LWD, and started the raise chickens,
allowing her neighbors to benefit from her
experience. She now has over 80 chickens, her
husband started to grow vegetables and her
business is flourishing. Her next plan, raising
fishes.
Mutu Sabun showing her ‘Dream Map’
Database of IRDEP-BB Landmine (2011)
Village/Commune/District
Capacity of
village
Population
Poorest
Poor Medium
Total FHH Disabled
Landless
families
Rice (Ha.)
Rice Y.T/Ha
Deep weel
Shallow
Pond Class room
Bavel District
21 416 1 542 1 964 2 342 5 848 504 200 617 21 180 37 122 73 648 80
Ampil Pramdoeum
commune 11 844 891 1 125 503 2 519 287 100 459 15 676 22 67 16 301 49
1 Ampil
924 59 108 75 242 55 12 59 960 2,5 21 0 100 16
2 Sthapor 1
664 54 50 38 142 14 5 49 252,2 3 4 6 42 0
3 Ta kheiv
1637 156 126 48 330 32 8 45 899 2 6 4 48 5
4 Buo Run
1327 43 175 71 289 72 39 70 3719 3 16 2 25 4
5 Doung
347 27 24 35 86 10 3 31 175 3 4 4 21 0
6 Sthapor 2
2085 67 250 100 417 24 11 51 3400 2,5 5
14 9
7 Seiam(New)
864 54 76 45 175 30 3 44 806 2,5 8 0 1 4
8 Dankokromang(New)
1 101 158 59 15 232 25 0 25 850 1,5 3
3 4
9 Buo Chum
817 133 36 10 179 5 9 36 996 0,7 0 0 5 2
10 Boeung Sangker
2 078 140 221 66 427 20 10 49 3619 1,5 0 0 42 5
Kdol Tahen commune
9 572 651 839 1 839 3 329 217 100 158 5 504 14 55 57 347 31
11 Anlong Reang
1124 90 69 13 172 16 8 0 745 1 8 0 57 2
12 Boeng Anlok
385 31 39 27 97 8 6 7 1853 1,8 5 0 10 0
13 Buor SangKreach
633 88 42 5 135 12 27 10 410 1,8 7 0 43 4
14 Chrang Bak
507 89 0 95 184 20 4 20 700 1,5 8 0 53 4
15 Khleang
520 38 0 60 98 14 14 26 114 1 6 0 44 4
16 Kampong Mkak
429 10 60 33 103 10 2 26 243,87 0,8 5 0 47 0
17 Ou Doun Pov
692 47 79 22 148 4 7 17 381 1,5 9 0 35 3
18 Trapeang Kbal Sva
730 40 105 15 160 14 8 2 650 1 0 0 52 6
19 Prey Preil
1558 57 161 1340 1 558 45 11 25 176 1,5 1 17 0 4
20 Prey Thom
2397 151 175 209 535 66 8 15 36 1 0 40 0 4
21 Damnak Dangkor
597 10 109 20 139 8 5 10 195 1,5 6 0 6 0
Kamreang District
7 613 660 549 283 1 412 94 42 350 3 536 19 44 0 35 33
Oda Commune
4456 407 319 157 803 52 19 10 756 13 28 0 34 17
22 Tang You b 953 90 96 13 119 5 0 0 5 2 9 0 3 5
23 Lom Phat b 1124 123 47 37 207 9 2 0 73 3 7 0 0 5
24 Kampong Ley b 533 20 70 17 107 10 5 0 293 2 0 0 0 2
25 Okaki b 771 58 36 59 153 7 6 10 0 2 8 0 31 0
26 Mnaos Kal b 461 26 46 26 98 7 2 0 65 2 2 0 0 3
27 Sam Rorng b 614 90 24 5 119 14 4 0 320 2 2 0 0 2
Trang commune
3 157 253 230 126 609 42 23 340 2 780 6 16 0 1 16
28 Kandal new 716 40 17 111 168 19 17 10 150 1,5 8 0 1 10
29 Okorki new 767 70 66 10 146 8 2 30 630 1,5 3 0 0 0
30 Ou Chambok new 963 50 142 5 197 7 3 50 400 1,5 5 0 0 4
31 Phnom Mouy Roy new 711 93 5 0 98 8 1 250 1600 1,5 0 0 0 2
Phnom Prek District
20 926 1 490 1 844 598 3 932 594 91 940 36 535 17 950 412 27 100 58
Chackrey Commune
16 933 1 130 1 544 438 3 112 334 88 643 36 516 14 378 389 18 89 58
32 Speantumneap C 2223 47 277 80 404 26 13 30 2017 251 58,4 2 8 0
33 Damnakbeng C 1517 115 236 17 368 53 7 19 450 1050 19,89 3 8 0
34 Anlong Sdey C 1752 99 210 50 359 29 6 50 371 1450 250 2,5 9 0
35 Anlong Krouch C 836 60 80 30 170 26 5 25 800 500 15 2,5 7 0
36 Bour C 2127 166 182 62 410 65 7 102 0 160 15 2 11 2
37 Phnom Prampil C 4194 309 210 67 586 75 10 209 0 2644 5 1,5 6 25
38 Oda C 2406 207 169 47 423 41 16 122 15 1483 16 2,5 16 16
39 Damnaksan C 1878 127 180 85 392 19 24 86 32863 6840 10 1,5 24 15
Pichenda commune
3 993 360 300 160 820 260 3 297 19 3 572 23 10 11 0
40 Ortasok (new) A 515 88 59 13 160 80 1 31 6 1409 20 2 6 0
41 Ortapon (new) A 775 86 90 17 193 70 0 100 0 1351 0 2,5 2 0
42 Snuol (new) A 786 109 43 21 173 50 0 41 3 0 0 2,5 2 0
43 Samaki (new) A 1917 77 108 109 294 60 2 125 10 812 3 2,5 1 0
Total
49 955 3 692 4 357 3 223 11 192 1 192 333 1 907 61 251 18 006 578 100 783 171
Intervention Objectively verifiable Sources and means of Assumptions
logic indicators of achievement verification
Overall
objectives
To improve socio-economic recovery and
physical access for vulnerable rural
Cambodians
Reduced poverty and food insecurity of the poorest and most
vulnerable households and their rural livelihoods achieved by
2015 in the context of the CMDGs 1 and 9.
National, Provincial and District poverty reduction targets.
Achievements against Ottawa Treaty obligations
Specific
objective
To reduce the threat of remnants of conflict
and facilitate community access to land in
Battambang Province
• LWF implement development inteventions on 100%of cleared
land by month 24.
• 42 high risk households aware of the risks posed by remnants
of conflict by month 24.
• Post-Clearance Impact data
• LWF reports and data
• MAPU workplans
• CMVIS accident data
• Questionnaires and SWOT analysis completed by target
groups
• Pre/Post project assessment reports
• MAG internal monthly reports
• Interim and final reports
• Political and security situation in the country remains
stable
• Conducive working environment for NGOs where
government continues to support project work
Result 1
Reduced vulnerability to remnants of conflict
contamination and increased access to safe
land for agricultural and livelihood
opportunities
• Clearance of 480,000m² of land for agricultural use and
production by month 24
• CL activities completed in a minimum of 10 prioritised villages
by month 24.
• No major sudden change in district and provincial
development plan
• MAG and project partner continue to receive the
assistance and cooperation of local authorities on the
ground
Result 2Knowledge on Risk Reduction associated with
remnants of conflict is enhanced.
• Risk Reduction Education (RRE) and Mine Awareness
provided to high risk groups in 42 LWF target villages by month
24.
• Adequate social cohesion in target communities to
manage common activities
Activities Means Costs (USD): Precondition
1.1 Recruit, train and deploy 3 MATs to clear
480,000m2 of priority land for development
intervention.
1.2 Deploy 2 Community Liaison (CL) teams
to conduct mapping, data collection,
pre/mid/post clearance and ongoing
monitoring.
1.3 Update community maps in conjunction
with CBMRR networks and district focal
points.
Personnel
International: Country Programme Manger (10%),
Programme Officer (10%),Technical Operations Manager
(10%), Technical Field Manager (10%), Regional Community
Liaison Manager (3%)
National: Option 1: 52 implementation staff (100%), 42
support staff (10%), Option 2: 36 implementation staff (100%),
42 support staff (10%)
Capital Equipment: 1 x Toyota Landcruiser
Equipment: Option 1: includes 4 GPS, 3 Exploders, 6
deminer/minefield toolkits, 3 generators, 1 detector spare, 3
paramedic training kits, 47 fragmentation jackets, 94 visors.
(Option 2: 3 GPS, 2 Exploders, 4 minefield/deminer toolkits, 2
generators, 2 paramedic training kits, 32 fragmentation
jackets, 64 visors).
Personnel
International: 59,256
National : 237,578 / Option 2: 175,066
Capital Equipment: 26,305
Equipment: 67,223 / 50,706
2.1 Coordinate closely with Community based
networks, village heads and project partner to
identify vulnerable households.
2.2 Conduct RRE with at risk households.
Activities linked to all results:
Deployment of project staff
• Procurement of project equipment
• Visibility
• Monitoring and Evaluation
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROJECT
• Post clearance impact data
• Monthly clearance data
• Pre and Post clearance assessment data
• Internal monthly reports and evaluation reports
• Clearance certificates
• Stable district and provincial development plan
• Project sites are accessible
• Stakeholders committed to project action and activities
• Project partners maintain good working relationship
throughout the project period
• Adherence to MAG SOPs and internal QA procedures
Gridded Population of the WorldPersons per km2
01 - 45 - 2425 - 249250 - 9991,000 +
: Population Density, 2000 GPW [v3]Cambodia
LAO, PEOPLE'S DEM. REP. OF
THAILAND
Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area ProjectionBased on 2.5 arc-minute resolution data
0 200km
VIETNAM
Copyright 2005. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York.Source: Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN),Columbia University; and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Gridded Population of the World (GPW), Version 3. Palisades, NY: CIESIN, Columbia University. Available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw.NOTE: National boundaries are derived from the population grids and thus may appear coarse.
Initial Budget
HMA Cambodia 1.1.2010 – 31.12.2011 2010 12 months
2011 12 months
2010-2011 24 months
International Staff costs 27 968 27 968 55 936
Training 2 040 2 040 4 080
National Staff costs 105 216 105 216 210 431
HMA Equipment 27 002 27 002 54 004
HMA Expendable Stores 4 494 4 494 8 988
Travel 24 064 24 064 48 128
Running costs 11 077 11 077 22 154
Insurance 4 573 4 573 9 146
Visibility 5 016 5 016 10 032
Monitoring & Evaluation 6 663 6 663 13 326
MAG Planning, monitoring & Evaluation 14 536 14 536 29 072
LWF coordination & implementation 14 812 14 812 29 624
HMA Cambodia TOTAL 247 461 247 461 494 921
Revised Budget
HMA Cambodia 1.1.2010 – 31.12.2011 2010 12 months
2011 12 months
2010-2011 24 months
International Staff costs 21 069 21 069 42 138
Training 2 369 2 369 4 738
National Staff costs 112 552 112 552 225 104
HMA Equipment 15 494 15 494 30 988
HMA Expendable Stores 5 827 5 827 11 654
Travel 16 612 16 612 33 224
Running costs 19 767 19 767 39 534
Insurance 6 324 6 324 12 648
Visibility 3 735 3 735 7 470
Monitoring & Evaluation 4 457 4 457 8 914
Organizational Support Charges 14 574 14 574 29 148
HMA Cambodia TOTAL 222 780 222 780 455 560