Met Village(s) 70 Beneficiary 3 PDMC, 3 DDMCs, 60 VDMCs target Villages, households Total budget AUD2 million Current % spent Approx 55% (AUD) Life of project Will require extension Current % past (months) History of Project aligned under LANGOCA DR objective engagement Significant disruption (staff reassigned for 6 mo) but also benefits of Ketsana Oxfam engaged in Ta Oy before LANGOCA; other locations new Evaluation Relative Strengths Relative Weaknesses Criteria Relevance Strong engagement with District Limited donor consciousness partners among communities (and to a lesser extent district staff) PRAs used to develop comprehensive picture of SRI only relevant for paddy community needs farmers (tend to be wealthier) Project addressing range of felt Beneficiaries essentially defined needs prioritised by target at village level (although useful communities wealth-ranking process in PRA) Target villages in poorest 47/142 districts prioritised by GoL Inclusion of mine education in relevant areas Effectiveness Broadly expected to achieve Weak causal linkages between objectives (DM capacity, food some activities and security, health/wellbeing) objective (DM); although Livelihood/resilience approach broadly relevant to rural livelihoods to DM relevant Ambitious design: target villages Possible synergies between some activities (SRI, rice banks, & thematic foci irrigation, root crops, kitchen Wide array of activities gardens) fragments design coherence Appropriately working through High number of target villages GoL partners (a function of (70) reduces project focus staffing limitations); training, No linkages with similar work by coordination, GoL reporting CARE, SCA & WV Design balances need for Variable integration of activities project impact (service delivery) Narrow focus on training rather and longer-term strengthening than more elaborate capacity of enabling environment building (capacity building) PRA process constructive but Objective hazard mapping to still grounded in problem-based identify UXO priorities analysis; strengths-based approach shown to be more empowering Efficiency From broad perspective: Wide array of activities significant outputs from increases management relatively little inputs complexity Decentralising operations to High staff turnover has affected field offices progress and performance Staff with relevant qualifications Difficulty engaging staff in
Met Village(s) 70 Beneficiary target 3 PDMC, 3 DDMCs, 60 VDMCs Villages, households Total budget (AUD) AUD2 million Current % spent Approx 55% Life of project (months) Will require extension Current % past History of engagement Project aligned under LANGOCA DR objective Significant disruption (staff reassigned for 6 mo) but also benefits of Ketsana Oxfam engaged in Ta Oy before LANGOCA; other locations new Evaluation Criteria Relative Strengths Relative Weaknesses Relevance Strong engagement with District partners PRAs used to develop comprehensive picture of community needs Project addressing range of felt needs prioritised by target communities Target villages in poorest 47/142 districts prioritised by GoL Inclusion of mine education in relevant areas Limited donor consciousness among communities (and to a lesser extent district staff) SRI only relevant for paddy farmers (tend to be wealthier) Beneficiaries essentially defined at village level (although useful wealth-ranking process in PRA) Effectiveness Broadly expected to achieve objectives (DM capacity, food security, health/wellbeing) Livelihood/resilience approach to DM relevant Possible synergies between some activities (SRI, rice banks, irrigation, root crops, kitchen gardens) Appropriately working through GoL partners (a function of staffing limitations); training, coordination, GoL reporting Design balances need for project impact (service delivery) and longer-term strengthening of enabling environment (capacity building) Objective hazard mapping to identify UXO priorities Weak causal linkages between some activities and objective (DM); although broadly relevant to rural livelihoods Ambitious design: target villages & thematic foci Wide array of activities fragments design coherence High number of target villages (70) reduces project focus No linkages with similar work by CARE, SCA & WV Variable integration of activities Narrow focus on training rather than more elaborate capacity building PRA process constructive but still grounded in problem-based analysis; strengths-based approach shown to be more empowering Efficiency From broad perspective: significant outputs from relatively little inputs Decentralising operations to field offices Staff with relevant qualifications Wide array of activities increases management complexity High staff turnover has affected progress and performance Difficulty engaging staff in