General Information |
Project/Program |
Program |
Project Name |
Community-Based Avian Influenza Risk Reduction Program (CBAIRRP) for the Mekong Region Phase Two |
Duration |
March 2007- December 2010 |
Donor |
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) |
Implementiong Organization |
N.I. |
Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Emergency |
Region |
Mekong Region in four countries: Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam and Cambodia |
Financing |
US dollar of 4.5 million in Australia for International funds |
Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
Australian Agency for International Development AusAID, NGO CARE, Royal Government of Cambodia, targeted households & affected people (farmers, market people), Non-governmental organizations NGOs, Villagers, District Veterinary Officers, Local Authorities, Community Animal Health Workers, Cambodian Village-Based Surveillance Team members, civil society. |
Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
|
Gender |
|
Impact Analysis |
The nature of the program was an emergency; the program decided to take in action as to prepare the civilians from further stock loss and loss of human population due to avian influenza. The program was to be aligned with relevant national Infectious Disease Plans; however, the report notes this was not sufficient and further alignments are needed. |
Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
The avian influenza program was adopted by non-program partners. The report also notes in 'lessons for future plans' that programs and pilot models should be designed in partnership with national stakeholders, and must respond to the needs reflected in the national Infectious Disease Plans. |
Rating |
3/5 |
Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
The report mentions how non-partner agencies and the government had coordinated aligned with the national strategies of Laos; however the report did not have any information regarding Cambodia. |
Rating |
N.A. |
Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
One of the two main approaches was to evaluate the pilot program; the report however did not have any in depth analysis of the evaluations incorporated nor did it have any further explanations of evaluation of the program it self. However, as part of 'lessons for future project' note that, the evaluation notes the resources needed for monitoring and evaluation during the testing period are greater than the monitoring and evaluation needs during future adoption and implementation; the report states the resource differences should be adequately communicated to local communities and authorities to encourage future uptake. |
Rating |
N.A. |
Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
According to the report, the program achieved beyond immediate results, the program had enough evidence to conclude the activities of the pilot program were on going, in addition to taking replication of models in other locations with funding from government and other agencies. The program is expected to be successful in forging ongoing commitments and partnerships. |
Rating |
4/5 |
Other Remarks |
As the evaluation report dealt with all four countries, the report did not have specific information about a particular country. The report mentions the programs do not need a large scale implementation to prove effectiveness, therefore an adequate time allocated to define the approach and quality monitoring and evaluation is more effective. |