go content



page info

DB on Aid Activities in Cambodia

> RESEARCH > DB on Aid Activities in Cambodia


News List
[Asian Development Bank] Tonle Sap Sustainable Livelihoods Project 39603
Author Admin Date 2015.04.08 Views 640
Aid View
General Information Project/Program Project
Project Name Tonle Sap Sustainable Livelihoods Project 39603
Duration Approval: 21-Dec-2005 (Actual) Closed: 20-July-2011 / Implementation of 4 years
Donor Asian Development Bank (ADB)
Implementiong Organization Ministry of Interior (MOI), Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve (TSBR), Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), Ministry of Environment (MOE), Steering Committee.
Sector and/or Subsector Classification Agriculture
Region Five provinces: Battambang, Kampong Chhang, Kampong Thom, Pursat, and Siem Reap; these areas cover the buffer zone and core areas- 37 communes/ 316 villages/ population of 287,430 in 54,857 families.
Financing Total: USD$20.3 million- Asian Development Bank Grant USD$15million, Government Of Finland Grant USD$4.7 million, and Royal Government of Cambodia USD$600,000.
Analytical Information Stakeholders Ministry of Interior, Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve Secretariat, Council for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of Environment, Steering Committee, Community Livelihood Fund, Technical Assistance Team, Royal Government of Cambodia, ADB, Government of Finland.
Cross-cutting Issue Environment Government policies (e.g. decentralization, rural development) continue to remain supportive of the wier objectives of the project (poverty reduction) as do the interventions of ADB and other donor projects. Also, reported incidents of livestock disease outbreaks and major flood damage to social infrastructure and income generating subprojects.
Gender According to the Project Data Sheet, at least 13,500 households are likely to be headed by women. No further explanation regarding gender issues.
Impact Analysis This project complies with the Country Strategy and Program (2005-2009) and 2004 Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity, and Efficiency in Cambodia. In addition, the areas were all adjoined with the Tonle Sap, complied with the Tonle Sap initiative, Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project (TSEMP) and the Commune Council Development Project (CCDP).
Effectiveness Ownership/Partnership Evaluation Implementation at national level was with the consultants not with the working MOI group which leads to a mixed evaluation of ownership. Participation of stakeholders were relatively high in nature with a few complication such as lack of coordination of CARD in its role as chair of the project steering committee. In addition, an executing agency (not mentioned), did not implement ADB supported and Tonle Sap Initiative related projects.
Rating 3/5
Policy Coherence/Harmonization Evaluation Within the borrowing agencies, there was little coordination between the TSBR Secretariat, Fisheries Administration (FIA), MOE. Overall, ADB performance was satisfactory, and prompt with frequent review missions; however, staff changes of the ADB undermined MOI's familiarity with project objectives. Lack of government ownership of the concept prevented the establishment of a basin-wide planning during project implementation, the project's relevance in this regard was eroded.
Rating 2/5
Evaluation Framework Evaluation Implementation plans were delayed; project schedule had significant start up delays- especially in management consultant recruitment. No full time evaluation experts; data collection was done by people who did not have experience; and as staff/ individuals are directly linked with the project, responses may give a biased response.
Rating 2/5
Alignment/Composition of Finance Evaluation Implementation delays led to delays in disbursement. In 2006, there was no disbursement at all for outputs 2 and 3. For the first two years, disbursments were only 5% and total disbursment would only be 69% when project closed. Hence, the project closing date was extended by six months.
Rating 2/5
Other Remarks According to the Completion Report, the project faced the following the issues: the absence of line agency to support the Community Livelihoods Fund income generating livestock activities, problems with the CARD role and mandate due both to a lack of enthusiasm among CARD staff and some wariness of other agencies, and difficulty in making the steering committee. In addition, absence of a central basin wide management institution was the main problem of the project. The project was not implemented as planned largely due to late selection of executing agencies and late delivery. The implementation delays, and the use of multiple implementing agencies diluted the temporal and geographic phasing of interventions envisaged in the original Tonle Sap Initiative. The project was extended an additional six months from July to December 2010.

 

LIST



go top