SIEED

 project  Final  Evaluation  report    

A. Cover  Sheet  
 
Name  of  document   Final  Evaluation    
Full  title   Social  Inclusion  Economic  Enterprise  Development  
Acronym/PN   SIEED  
Country   Vietnam  
Date  of  report   August  2012  
Dates  of  project   Start:  1  April  2008,start-­‐up  was  delayed  until  15  July  2008    
End:  31  August  2012    
Evaluator(s)   Ingrid  Richardson  
External?   Yes  
Donor(s)   EU  
Scope     Project  
Type  of  report   End  of  Project  evaluation    
Brief  abstract   The   SIEED   project   focussed   on   improving   the   incomes   of   Vietnamese   and  
(description  of   ethnic   minority   farmers   in   remote   North-­‐Western   Vietnam   through   the  
project)   provision   of   technical   training   and   market   linkages   to   groups   of   farmers.    
Farmer   groups   focussed   on   improving   the   quality,   productivity   and   resilience  
of   their   chosen   livelihood   model   in   order   to   improve   incomes.     With   project  
support,   agricultural   and   forestry   products   were   then   linked   to   commercial  
buyers,   improving   the   sustainability   of   income   and   practice   change   and  
introducing   market-­‐based   production   concepts.     Project   services   were  
delivered   in   close   partnership   with   the   Women’s   Union,   Farmers’   Union   and  
with   local   VNGO,   CCD.     CCD   had   a   significant   ownership   stake   in   the   project  
and   has   continued   to   deliver   project   services   including   group   formation,  
technical  training  and  agricultural  marketing  beyond  the  end  of  the  project.    In  
addition,   the   project   supported   improvements   in   the   agricultural   input   and  
marketing   services   sector   with   the   establishment   of   a   new   social   enterprise,  
CCM,   an   organisation   under   the   umbrella   of   CCD,   that   is   committed   to  
improving   the   delivery   of   quality,   price   competitive   technical,   input   and  
marketing  services  to  farmers  across  in  Dien  Bien  Phu.    
Project  Goal  and   Goal:  Poor  rural  producers  participate  in  and  benefit  from  Vietnam’s  economic  
Specific  Objectives   growth  post  World  Trade  Organization  (WTO)  accession.  
Objectives  /   Specific   objective   1:   Poor   farmers   in   10   remote   northern   mountains  
Outcomes/Outputs   communes   benefit   equitably   from   marketing   of   selected   products   regionally  
  and  nationally  and  sustainable  farm/forest  production  systems.      
Specific   objective   2:   Community   Centre   Development   (CCD),   Women’s   Union  
(WU)   and   Farmers’   Union’s   (FU)   capacity   to   support   community   groups   and  
their  access  to  markets  improved.  
Evaluation   1. Review   of   quantitative   and   qualitative   data   collected   by   project   staff  
Methodology   through  interviews  with  individual  households  and  beneficiary  groups.  
2. Review   of   project   documents   including   project   progress   report,   project  
data,  prior  evaluations  and  mission  reports/ROM  mission  reports.    

1  
 
 3. Key  informant  and  focus  group  interviews  with  project  staff,  partners  and  
beneficiaries;    
Summary  of  lessons   1. Form  a  limited  number  of  groups  and  form  groups  early  in  the  project  
learned  (evaluation   cycle  so  that  support  can  be  provided  over  a  longer  period  of  time.    
findings  of  interest  to  
other  audiences)   2. Screen  livelihood  models  for  market  potential  early  in  the  project  and  
select  a  small  number  of  livelihood  models  for  intensive  support.      Market-­‐
link  activities  need  to  occur  simultaneously  with  group  formation.  

3. If  developing  NTFPs  value  chains,  also  consider  value  chains  that  can  
provide  poor  households  with  short  and  long  term  income  streams    

4. Provide  an  introduction  to  the  VSLA  model  alongside  training  on  livelihood  
models.      
5. Consider  partnerships  with  local  civil  society  organisations  or  private  
sector  providers  to  improve  the  likelihood  that  activities  and  services  
continue.    Ensure  partner’s  institutional  and  financial  structures  are  
sustainable.  
Contribution  to  MDGs   1a:Income   3:Women’s  Empowerment    

2  
 
  

Contents  
A.   Cover  Sheet  .......................................................................................................................  1  
Acronyms  ..............................................................................................................................  3  
B.   Executive  Summary  ...........................................................................................................  4  
C.   Introduction  and  background  ...........................................................................................  5  
D.   Evaluation  methodology  ...................................................................................................  6  
E.   Results,  analysis  and  discussion  ........................................................................................  9  
Impact  ...................................................................................................................................  9  
Sustainability  .......................................................................................................................  14  
Results:    Effectiveness  and  delivery  of  project  results  ........................................................  17  
Relevance  ............................................................................................................................  19  
F.   Lessons  learned  ..............................................................................................................  20  
G.   Conclusions  and  recommendations  ................................................................................  24  
H.   Annexes  ..........................................................................................................................  25  
Terms  of  Reference  .................................................................................................................  36  
 

Acronyms  
 
BBC   Black  bone  chicken  
CCD   Centre  for  Community  Development  
CCM   Centre  for  Collaboration  business  and  Market  linkage  
DARD   Department  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  
ECCODE   Thai  Nguyen  Women’s  Economic  Collaboration  for  Development  
FU   Farmer’s  Union  
M&E   Monitoring  and  Evaluation  
MOU   Memorandum  of  understanding  
NGO   Non  Government  Organisation  
NTFP   Non-­‐Timber  Forest  Products  
PSC   Project  Steering  Committee  
SIEED   Social  Inclusion  in  Economic  Enterprise  Development    
VCA   Value  Chain  Analysis  
WU   Women’s  Union  

3  
 
  

B. Executive  Summary    
 
The   project’s   approach   of   improving   economic   conditions   for   poor   farmers   through   group  
formation,   capacity   building   and   market   development   is   unique   and   effective.     Identifying  
and   establishing   market   linkages   was   central   to   the   effectiveness   of   the   project.     At   the  
close   of   the   project,   these   approaches   have   led   to   a   number   of   participating   groups   and  
households   reporting   increases   in   income   from   10   to   40%.   Households   reported   being  
better   able   to   cover   the   cost   of   schooling   for   children,   make   investments   in   agricultural  
production   and   purchase   new   household   goods   and   motorbikes.   The   project’s   proactive  
involvement   of   women   appears   to   have   had   positive   impacts   with   the   source   of  
empowerment  likely  resulting  from  increased  female-­‐generated  household  income.    
 
Inevitably,   some   groups   experienced   greater   changes   in   their   livelihood   within   the  
timeframe   of   the   project   because   of   the   timing   or   nature   of   activities.         The   diversity   of  
results   highlights   a   tension   in   the   project’s   approach:   using   market-­‐based   approaches   to  
generate   long-­‐term   livelihood   change   for   the   most   remote   and   poorest   farmers   is   a  
challenge,  although  not  impossible.    For  some  farmers  the  remoteness  of  their  village  and  
their  limited  capacity  (financial,  physical  or  institutional)  hampers  their  chances  to  make  use  
of   identified   market   linkages.   In   the   case   of   the   black   bone   chicken   value   chain,   sourced  
from  remote  Tua  Chua  district,  the  uniqueness  and  demand  for  the  product  underpinned  its  
success   irrespective   of   distance   to   market.     Given   the   large   number   of   groups   and   the  
diversity  of  livelihood  models  and  differing  market  links,  it  is  not  surprising  that  there  is  also  
diversity   in   income   impacts.       One   of   the   strengths   of   the   project   was   that   a   number   of  
different  models  were  tested,  however,  this  approach  was  also  resource  intensive.    Forming  
fewer   groups   and   supporting   the   implementation   of   fewer   livelihood   models   may   have  
enabled   more   intensive   support   and   potentially   improve   the   sustainability   of   groups,  
livelihood  practices  and  market  links.    
 
CCD  engagement  by  other  donors  is  a  strong  endorsement  of  the  SIEED  approach  and  is  an  
excellent   example   of   the   scaling-­‐up   of   the   project   to   new   people   and   into   new   areas.     In  
addition,   there   are   a   number   of   reports   of   the   spontaneous   adoption   of   techniques   by   non-­‐
project   participants   because   of   the   accessible   and   practical   techniques   and   the   use   of  
indigenous  varieties.  
 
CCD/CCM   has   ambitious   social   and   commercial   goals,   and   could   be   instrumental   in  
connecting   both   farmers   to   markets   and   markets   to   farmers   on   an   ongoing   basis.   But,   at  
present,   the   organisation   has   limited   reach   and   is   financially   very   vulnerable.   CCM   is   relying  
on   business   fee-­‐for-­‐service   contracts   with   several   development   projects   to   provide   steady  
income   while   the   commercial   business   begins   to   scale-­‐up   operations.   Commercially,   CCM  
will  focus  on  serving  markets  close  to  Dien  Bien  City.    There  arises  a  tension  between  the  
‘social’   and   ‘commercial’   elements   of   the   business:   pursuing   customers   near   Dien   Bien   Phu,  
which   is   already   well   served   is   much   lower   risk   than   pursuing   business   with     higher   risk   and  
less   commercially   viable   poor   and   remote   farmers.   In   order   improve   the   accessibility   of  

4  
 
services   to   farmers,   CCM   needs   to   sure-­‐up   funding   sources,   commercial   strategy   and  
staffing.      
 
For  project  implementation,  the  Women’s  Union  and  Farmers’  Union,  were  very  well  placed  
to  provide  the  necessary  network  and  skills  to  be  able  to  reach  remote  sites  and  to  improve  
the   capacity   of   group   members   during   the   project,   unfortunately,   their   role   and   reach   is  
unlikely   to   be   sustained   without   project   funding.   The   experience   with   CCD/CCM   suggests  
that   partnering   with   local   civil   society   organizations   or   private   sector   providers   may  
contribute  to  improving  the  likelihood  that  farmer  support  services  continue  at  the  close  of  
the  project.      
 
In  conclusion,  the  project  can  demonstrate  positive  income  impacts  for  a  selection  of  groups  
and   value   chains   by   enabling   the   development   of   commercial   market   links.     Some   groups  
are  reliant  on  CCM  for  links  to  markets  and  consequently,  the  sustainability  of  the  impacts  
and  outcomes  of  the  project  become  linked  to  the  sustainability  of  the  CCM  business  model.      
 
   

C. Introduction  and  background  

 
The   Social   Inclusion   in   Economic   Enterprise   Development   (SIEED)   Project,   funded   by  
European  Union  (EU)  and  CARE  Denmark,  is  implemented  by  CARE  International  in  Viet  Nam  
in   Dien   Bien   Province,   over   a   53   month   period.   The   project’s   objective   is   that   “Poor   rural  
producers   participate   in   and   benefit   from   Vietnam’s   economic   growth   post   World   Trade  
Organization  (WTO)  accession.”  
 
The   project   acts   through   the   development   of   market-­‐led   approaches   and   interventions   to  
add   value   to   production   and   processing   undertaken   by   the   poor,   while   at   the   same   time  
maintaining   or   enhancing   environmental   quality.   Enabling   poor   women   and   men   to   form  
groups,   and   supporting   these   groups   to   develop   and   adopt   new   production   methods   and  
technologies,   will   lead   to   business   opportunities   and   better   capture   of   revenue   in   lower  
levels   of   the   value   chain.   Equally,   improved   quality   and   business   service   provision   to   the  
processing  and  marketing  sections  of  the  value  chain  will  allow  improved  revenue  capture  
by  other  actors.    
 
This  evaluation  aims  to  assess  and  make  recommendations  on:  
 
• Project   results   and   sustainability,   as   well   as   factors   that   have   promoted   or  
constrained  their  realisation.    
• Further  analysis  of  findings  from  previous  reviews  and  other  project  reports  
on  other  aspects  including  Relevance,  Effectiveness,  and  Efficiency.    
• Monitoring   and   learning:   The   effectiveness   of   project   monitoring   and  
learning   processes   and   its   perceived   result   in   terms   of   supporting   project  
management   (see   Annex   D,   Terms   of   Reference   for   Final   Evaluation).  

5  
 
  

D. Evaluation  methodology    
 
During  the  last  four  years,  the  SIEED  project  has  been  reviewed  on  a  number  of  occasions,  
including:  an  internal  mid-­‐term  review  and  annual  EU  ROM  mission  reviews.  The  four  ROM  
mission   reports   provide   a   comprehensive   and   evolving   view   of   the   project   and   as   a  
consequence,   the   focus   of   the   final   evaluation   is   on   project   results   and   sustainability.   The  
evaluation   has   drawn   on   both   quantitative   and   qualitative   information   from   a   variety   of  
resources  including:    
(a)  Project  staff;  (b)  Project  documents  and  other  records  including  monitoring  data,  ROM  
reports;   and   CCM’s   business   plan;   EU   narrative   reports;   and   presentations   and   data  
prepared  by  project  staff;  (c)  Field  observation  and  interviews  with  beneficiaries;    
(d)  Interviews  with  project  partners  and  other  relevant  stakeholders.  
 
The   choice   of   specific   methods   and   sampling   procedures   was   determined   by   the   team   in  
conjunction  with  the  CARE  Vietnam  and  project  management  team.  
Step  1  –  Survey  of  groups  
The  first  step  in  the  evaluation  was  undertaken  by  project  staff  who,  using  a  series  of  survey  
questions,   conducted   individual   and   group   interviews   with   groups   and   group   leaders.    
Interviews  took  place  from  16-­‐19  July  2012.    
 
Given   time,   budget   and   wet   season   constraints   on   travel,   the   groups   and   households  
selected  for  interview  in  the  project  team’s  survey  were  relatively  few,  however,  all  group  
leaders   were   interviewed   in   order   to   provide   a   broader   understanding   of   change   (See   Table  
1  for  details).      
 
Table  1:  Interviewees  and  reasons  for  selection  
People  interviewed     Reason  for  selection    
Dien  Bien:  Nà Tấu and Thanh Nưa communes   Thanh  Nua  commune  was  selected  to  represent  a  flat  
land   area,   Na   Tau   commune   was   selected   to  
represent  a  mountainous  area  of  Dien  Bien  district    
Group   interviews:   1   interest   group   (17     members);   1   One   animal   husbadry   (duck   raising   group   )   and   one  
cooperative  (22  members)     planting   group   (rice   seed   group)   were   selected   in  
39  group  members  in  total   order  to  provide  diversity  of  group  types  in  Dien  Bien    
Individual  interviews:  4  group  members  (2  from  duck   After   group   interviews,   two   members   of   each   group  
interest  group,  2  from  rice  seedling    cooperative);     were  randomly  selected  for  individual  interviews.  
Group   leaders:   10   group   leaders   drawn   from   10   All  groups  leaders  in  Thanh  Nua  participated  in  group  
groups  in  Thanh  Nua  commune   discussion  in  order  to  gather  general  information  and  
achievement  from  every  group  in  the  commune  
Tua  Chua:  Mường Báng commune      
Group  interviews:  2  interest  groups     Almost   all   groups   in   Tua   Chua   raised   BBC   and   ducks,  
therefore   BBC   and   duck   groups   were   selected  
randomly  to  conduct  group  interviews  
Individual   interviews:   4   groups   members   from   2   Following  the  group  interview,  two  members  of  each  
interest  groups:  duck  and  BBC   group   were   randomly   selected   for   individual  
interviews  
Group   leaders:   30   group   leaders   drawn   from   30   All   groups   leaders   in   Muong   Bang   participated   in  
groups  across  the  commune     group   discussion   in   order   to   gather   general  

6  
 
 information   and   record   the   achievements   of   every  
group  in  the  commune  
Facilitators:  6  representatives   All   commune   facilitators   (3   communes)   from   Tua  
Chua  district  participated  in  group  discussions    
Dien  Bien  Dong:  Pu  Nhi  commune    
Groups   discussion:   2   groups   (goat   raising   group   –   10   There   are   two   significant   ethnic   minority   groups  
members    and  pig  raising  group  -­‐  14  members)   (Hmong   and   Thai)   in   Dien   Bien   Dong.   The   project  
selected   the   H’mong   goat   interest   group   and   the  
Thaai   pig   interest   group   for   interview   to   gather   the  
views  of  these  ethnic  minorities.    
Individual   interviews:   4   group   members   (2   members   Following  the  group  interview,  two  members  of  each  
from  goat  group  and  2  members  from  pig  group)   group   were   randomly   selected   for   individual  
interviews  
Group   leader’s   discussion:   10   group   leaders   from   Pu   All   groups   leaders   in   Pu   Nhi   participated   in   group  
Nhi  commune   discussion  in  order  to  gather  general  information  and  
record   the   achievements   of   every   group   in   the  
commune  
Step  2  –  Review  of  documents  
The   evaluation   has   encompassed   a   thorough   review   of   project   documentation,   including,  
but   not   limited   to:   project   design   documents;   monitoring   and   evaluation   plans;   interim  
narrative  reports;  ROM  mission  reports,  project  indicators;  CCM  business  plan;  and  no-­‐cost  
extension  documentation.  
Step  3  –  Staff  interviews  
On   19   July   2012   a   presentation   on   the   implementation   and   results   of   the   project   by   the  
SIEED  project  manager  was  followed  by  interviews  and  a  group  discussion  with  the  project  
manager  and  seven  project  and  partner  staff.    Individual  interviews  with  CCD/CCM  staff  also  
took  place  on  19  July  2012.  A  full  list  of  interviewees  is  available  at  Annex  A.  
Step  4  –Partner  interviews    
A   series   of   meetings   were   held   in   Dien   Bien   between   19   and   22   July   with   staff   from   the  
Women’s  Union  (three  individuals),  Farmer’s  Union  (two  individuals)  and  WU/FU  Facilitators  
(seven  individuals).  A  full  list  of  interviewees  is  available  at  Annex  A.  
Step  5  -­‐  Group  and  household  discussions  
On  21-­‐22  July  2012,  semi-­‐structured  groups  interviews  were  conducted  with  eight  members  
of  the  Goat  Raising  Group  in  Pu  Nhi  Commune,  Dien  Bien  Dong  District  and  ten  members  of  
the  Sweet  Potato  Group  in  Dien  Bien  District.    

 
I. Limitations  to  evaluation  methodology  
 
The   project   has   been   regularly   reviewed   and   evaluated   during   implementation   and   in  
accordance   with   the   ROM   recommendations;   the   final   evaluation   has   therefore  
concentrated   on   reviewing   existing   documents   and   project   records   from   the   final   year,  
supported  by  a  small  amount  of  primary  data  gathering.      
 
Two  groups  were  interviewed  by  the  evaluator  and  these  interviews  provide  case  study  
insight  into  the  project’s  activities.    The  remoteness  of  project  sites  and  the  difficulty  of  
accessing  remote  locations  during  the  wet  season  meant  that  the  two  groups  chosen  for  
interview  were  located  relatively  close  to  Dien  Bien  Phu  town  and  were  accessible  in  the  
7  
 
short  amount  of  time  available  for  the  evaluation  fieldwork.      Case  studies  such  as  these  
provide  valuable  information  of  the  circumstances  of  a  particular  group,  but  the  findings  
may  not  able  to  be  generalized  to  a  wider  population.      
 

8  
 
  

E. Results,  analysis  and  discussion  

Impact  
 
I. Livelihood  changes  
 
In   line   with   the   project’s   goal1,   interviews   with   groups   indicate   that   the   project   has  
contributed  to  improvements  in  productivity,  quality,  and,  for  a  number  of  groups,  income.      
All   participating   communes   reported   income   increases,   with   the   Province-­‐wide   average  
increase   being   a   17.35%   improvement,   ahead   of   targets.     During   the   final   evaluation  
interviews,   both   groups   and   individuals   reported   increases   in   income.     In   Dien   Bien   Dong  
District   20   out   of   24   of   group   members   reported   income   increases   from   10%   –   25%,   with  
average  increase  in  income  was  about  11%  per  year.    In  Dien  Bien  Dong  district,  interviews  
showed  four  (out  of  four  interviewed)  households  had  income  increased  from  15  –  40%  and  
nine  out  of  ten  groups  reported  that  their  financial  status  improved.    Provincial  government  
statistics  show  that  over  the  period  of  the  project,  incomes  (in  rice  equivalent)  in  Tua  Chua  
district   have   increased   by   26.7%,   In   Dien   Bien   Dong   by   20.1%   and   in   Dien   Bien   by   5.37%.    
The   project’s   participants   show   similar   changes   in   income,   and   with   similarly   large   variation  
across   different   areas.     To   complement   quantitative   data,   interviews   with   participating  
households  and  groups  in  all  three  districts  revealed  income  change  can  be  demonstrated  
with  changing  behaviour  and  new  purchases:  
• Households   reported   that   they   were   better   able   to   cover   the   cost   of   schooling  
for  children,  including  sending  more  children  to  school.      
• Groups   reported   continued   investment   in   the   model,   including   purchase   of  
fertiliser  and  other  inputs  to  maintain  the  model  
• Investment   in   other   agricultural   production   and   processing   activities,   including  
purchase  of  fertiliser  for  rice  production  and  the  purchase  of  a  rice  mill  
• Purchase   of   household   goods   including   televisions,   fans,   rice   cookers,   other  
household  appliances  and  motorbikes  
 
Inevitably,   some   groups   experienced   greater   changes   in   their   livelihood   within   the  
timeframe  of  the  project  because  of  the  timing  or  nature  of  activities.    Differences  in  group  
livelihood/income  performance  stemmed  from    
• some  groups  starting  later  or  the  model  taking  longer  to  deliver  income  (NTFPs)  
• some  value  chains  being  less  profitable  
• some  individual  group  members  are  yet  to  benefit  because  of  the  cyclical  nature  of  
their  model.      
For   example,   within   the   timeframe   of   the   project,   the   non-­‐timber   forest   product   (NTFP)  
value  chains  have  not  been  able  to  generate  benefits  for  farmers.    Benefits  may  accrue  to  
growers  of  both  rattan  and  acacia  within  five  to  seven  years  after  planting,  this  means  that  

                                                                                                           
1
 “Poor  rural  producers  participate  in  and  benefit  from  Vietnam’s  growth  post  WTO  accession”,  measured  by  
the  indicator:  At  least  50%  target  communes  meet  provincial  SEDP  targets  for  raised  incomes  15%  based  on  
improved  use  of  natural  resources  and  access  to  services  (segregated  by  ethnic  minority  and  gender)  
9  
 
some   income   is   expected   in   2013.   The   project   has   assisted   acacia   growers   in   linking   to  
buyers  and  sales  are  secured  for  when  the  timber  becomes  available.    For  rattan  growers,  
CCM  has  been  assessing  rattan  buyers  in  Hanoi  to  develop  market  links.  
 
In  a  second  example,  livestock  models  take  time  to  generate  income  for  all  because  of  the  
time  required  for  an  animal’s  life  cycle.    For  example,  in  the  case  of  the  Pu  Nhi  goat  group,  
five  group  members  could  report  income  improvements  because  they  were  waiting  in  turn  
to  receive  and  raise  a  kid  (juvenile  goat).    This  is  not  a  negative  result,  but  rather  reflects  the  
time  that  it  takes  for  a  model  such  as  this  to  generate  returns  for  each  member.      
 
As   indicated   by   the   examples   above,   the   extent   of   impact   of   the   project   on   very   poor  
farmers’  livelihoods  is  not  consistent  because  of  the  difficulties  of  linking  isolated  groups  to  
markets.     The   diversity   of   results   highlights   a   tension   in   the   project’s   approach   that   was  
described   succinctly   by   the   ROM   Mission   report   (October   2011)   “…during   the   project  
inception  phase,  marginalized  and  remote  villages  received  priority.  Looking  at  these  criteria  
from  a  long  term  project  perspective,  they  are  in  open  contradiction  with  market  potential.”  
 
Using   market-­‐based   approaches   to   generate   long-­‐term   livelihood   change   for   the   most  
remote   and   poorest   farmers   remains   a   challenge   that   the   project   has   gone   some   way   to  
addressing.    For  example,  the  success  of  the  BBC  value  chain  in  Tua  Chua  suggests  that  the  
uniqueness   of   some   products   may   overcome   difficulties   with   distance   to   markets,   but   by  
nature  these  products  are  few  and  not  every  remote  community  will  be  home  to  a  such  an  
opportunity.     The   introduction   of   CCM   into   the   market,   may   also   help   to   overcome   some   of  
the   existing   institutional   challenges   to   linking   remote   farmers   to   markets.   The   efficacy   of  
this   organization   at   bridging   the   gap   between   consumers   and   farmers   will   be   of   great  
interest.      
 
In   conclusion,   the   project   can   demonstrate   positive   income   impacts   for   a   selection   of  
groups  and  value  chains.    Given  the  large  number  of  groups  and  the  diversity  of  livelihood  
models  and  differing  market  links,  it  is  not  surprising  that  there  is  also  diversity  in  income  
impacts.  The  methodology  used  to  select  value  chains  is  important  as  income  changes  were  
dependent   on   the   value   chain.   The   project’s   use   of   a   two-­‐step   approach   to   screening  
models:   initial   rapid   value-­‐chain   analysis   followed   up   with   in-­‐depth   analysis   for   a   smaller  
selection  of  products  seems  both  sensible  and  efficient.    For  future  projects,  the  screening  
of   numerous   models   remains   valid,   as   does   the   rapid   and   in-­‐depth   analysis.     Using   the  
value-­‐chain  analysis  as  a  means  to  whittle  down  the  number  of  supported  models  early-­‐on  
would   enable   more   intensive   support   and   could   potentially   improve   the   sustainability   of  
groups,  livelihood  practices  and  market  links  although  with  the  trade-­‐off  of  increased  per-­‐
person  costs.        
 
Unintended  impacts:  Unique  local  products  
Amongst   the   greatest   strengths   and   innovations   of   the   project   was   the   practical   application  
of  knowledge  generated  by  the  deep  VCAs  to  identify  and  marry  unique  local  varieties  with  
consumer   markets.   The   most   notable   example   being   the   black   bone   chicken   (BBC)   value  
chain,   which   has   had   substantial   impacts   on   the   livelihood   of   the   BBC   producers   because   of  
the   high   and   sustained   demand   from   restaurants.     As   discussed   during   the   ROM   Mission  
(October  2011)  there  is  potential  to  safeguard  the  value  of  unique  products,  such  as  BBC,  by  

10  
 
obtaining   a   ‘Geographical   Indication’   (GI)   for   the   product.     The   advantage   of   GI   is   in  
establishing   and   protecting   a   unique   product   with   its   own   ‘brand’   that   may   have   a   higher  
market   value.     The   downside   of   GI   is   that   the   cost   of   obtaining   and   protecting   such  
certifications  is  usually  very  expensive  and  complex,  and  the  return  on  the  investment  may  
be  low.    Pursuing  GI  certification  could  potentially  be  considered  a  long  term  goal  for  CCM,  
but  should  only  be  pursued  if  the  economic  return  can  be  assured  in  the  Vietnamese  market  
context.        
 
Unintended  impacts:  Identifying  and  managing  value  chain  risks  
There   are   price,   production   and   environmental   risks   associated   with   some   value   chains.    
From   a   market   perspective,   encouraging   the   increased   production   of   a   commodity   may  
result   in   over-­‐supply   and   falling   prices   if   market   demand   is   not   sufficiently   large   and  
growing.   In   the   case   of   the   sweet   potato   group,   prices   have   fallen   in   2012   as   a   result   of  
falling   demand,   impacting   income.     Ensuring   that   value   chain   analysis   is   comprehensive   and  
considers   both   market   growth   and   potential   risks   may   have   provided   some   insurance  
against   negative   impacts.     That   said,   it   must   be   acknowledged   that   both   agricultural   and  
consumer   market   analysis   is   particularly   difficult   and   prone   to   numerous   uncertainties  
associated   with   changing   production   conditions   and   fickle   consumer   demand.     Cautious  
implementation   that   allows   beneficiaries   to   continue   to   access   a   diversity   of   income  
sources,  coupled  with  technical  assistance  to  tackle  production  and  market  risks  can  support  
change  within  tolerable  levels  of  uncertainty.      
 
Scale  and  outreach  
 
Table  2:  Replication  of  agricultural  models,  with  and  without  project  support  
Agricultural  Model   Number  of  households   Number  of  households  
receiving  support  from  the   replicating  the  model,  
project   without  project  support  
1. Goat     75   52  
2. Black  bone  chicken   96   73  
3. Pig  raising   81   23  
4. Duck  raising   220   187  
5. Rice  seed   23   5  
6. Sweet  potato   93   208  
7. Soy  been   205   183  
8. Acacia  planting   105   42  
9. Fish  raising   297   125  
 
With   reference   to   Table   2   above,   there   are   a   number   of   reports   of   the   adoption   of  
techniques  and  methods  by  villagers  outside  the  groups  formed  by  the  project.    Because  the  
project  tended  to  focus  on  improving  practices  for  existing  livelihood  models,  it  is  relatively  
easy   for   new   practice   to   spread   naturally   within   a   community,   particularly   when   the   new  
practice  has  proven  its  effectiveness.      For  example,  the  sweet  potato  group  reported  that  
other  members  of  the  community  have  asked  for  advice  on  how  to  plant  and  grow  sweet  
potatoes  and  how  to  use  fertilizer  properly  to  achieve  better  results.  
 

11  
 
The   likelihood   of   adoption   of   the   group   models   and   the   spontaneous   creation   of   new  
groups,   without   assistance,   is   highly   unlikely.     For   some   livelihood   models,   spontaneous  
sharing   and   adoption   of   practices   will   be   limited   by   the   specific   costs   and   more   complex  
requirements   of   the   model   and/or   the   need   for   a   group   structure   to   make   the   model   work.    
For   example,   the   cost   of   some   livestock   models   (e.g.   goat)   may   be   too   high   for   individual  
farmers.    In  some  cases,  individuals  will  be  able  to  join  an  existing  group,  although  there  is  
likely   to   be   a   natural   limit   to   a   group’s   size   as   the   management   of   large   numbers   of  
members  becomes  increasingly  difficult.      
 
WU   and   FU   representatives   noted   that   they   would   like   to   continue   to   support   groups,  
however,   the   frequency   and   intensity   of   support   would   diminish.     In   addition,   there   were  
not  resources  available  within  the  FU  or  WU  to  support  the  formation  of  new  groups  where  
farmers   were   interested.   There   is   scope   that   new   donors   are   willing   to   fund   the   existing  
groups   and/or   the   roll-­‐out   of   the   same   group-­‐forming   approach   to   new   groups,   offering   the  
potential   for   continued   outreach   of   successful   ideas.     The   uptake   of   SIEED   approaches   by  
new   donors   will   require   advocacy   on   the   part   of   the   WU/FU   to   endorse   and   promote   the  
approaches,  and  openness  of  donors  to  external  ideas.    
 
CCD   has   been   engaged   by   other   development   projects   in   the   region,   on   a   fee-­‐for-­‐service  
basis,   to   implement   the   SIEED   approach   to   group   and   livelihood   models.     This   is   a   strong  
endorsement   of   the   SIEED   approach   and   is   an   excellent   example   of   the   scaling-­‐up   of   the  
project  to  new  people  and  into  new  areas.      
 
 
II. Women’s  empowerment  
The   project’s   proactive   involvement   of   women   appears   to   have   had   a   number   of   positive  
and  unanticipated  impacts  on  women  within  the  groups.    For  example,  WU  staff  reported  
that   women   were   bolder   and   more   confident,   some   were   involved   in   economic   decision  
making  within  their  families  and  beyond  their  family,  both  within  groups  and  at  community  
level.     WU   staff   also   described   that   they   had   noticed   reduced   levels   of   domestic   violence  
amongst   participating   households.     Further   discussion   and   analysis   would   be   required   to  
establish  the  relationship  between  project  activities  and  a  fall  in  domestic  violence.      
 
The  women  of  the  all-­‐female  sweet  potato  group  showed  considerable  ambition  as  a  result  
of   their   involvement   in   the   group.     The   group   had   discussed   plans   to   experiment   with  
growing   other   crops   such   as   tomatoes   and   eggplants.     In   pursuing   this   goal,   they   faced  
limitations  in  availability  of  finance  and  access  to  crop-­‐specific  training  but  intended  to  draw  
on   the   knowledge   of   farmers   outside   the   group   who   had   experience   with   these   crops,   in  
order  to  learn.      This  example  demonstrates  the  willingness  of  women,  empowered  by  the  
project,  to  pursue  new  ideas.      
 
III. Access  to  services  
 
WU  and  FU  
The   project   has   contributed   to   changing   the   capacity   of   WU   and   FU   staff,   however,   internal  
funding   and   human   resource   constraints   will   prevent   the   WU   and   FU   from   continuing   to  
implement   project   activities   independently.     That   said,   the   WU   and   FU   are   partners   in   a  

12  
 
number   of   other   donor-­‐funded   projects   within   the   province   and   there   is   scope   for  
successful  approaches  to  be  shared  from  one  project  to  another  through  the  WU  or  FU.    The  
WU   and   FU   could   be   instrumental   in   communicating   both   what   they   have   learned   and  
successful   approaches   from   previous   projects   and   how   this   can   be   utilised   within   new  
projects  leading  to  continuity  of  services  to  farmers,  albeit  with  a  different  donor.    
 
 
CCD  and  CCM  
 
The  durability  of  livelihood  impacts  is  very  much  dependent  on  CCM  being  able  to  provide  
continued   support   to   sustain   the   market-­‐links   established   during   the   project.     For   several  
livelihood   models,   CCM   is   the   essential   link   between   poor   rural   producers   and   markets.    
Table   3   provides   information   about   the   services   CCM   has   been   able   to   offer   to   producers  
that  go  beyond  those  services  funded  during  the  project.        
 
Table  3:  Services  provided  by  CCM  
 
List   of   services   provided   by   CCM   that   were   Funding  sources  
not  funded  from  project  budget  
Sale   of   black   bone   chickens   to     120   World  Bank    
households   (Muong   Lay   and   Muong   Anh  
districts)  
Sale   of   chickens   to   600   households   (Tuan   World   Vision   project   and   Dien   Bien   Center  
Giao  and  Muong  Cha  districts)   for  Agricultural  Extension  
Sale   of   ducks   to   120   households   (Dien   Bien   World  Vision  and  World  Bank    
Dong,  Tuan  Giao,  Muong  Ang  districts)  
Sale   of   cassava   seedling   to   50   households   Dien  Bien  Extension  Centre  
(Muong  Cha  district)  
Sale   of   Guatemala   grass   seedlings   to   20   Muong  Cha  Extension  Centre  
households  (Muong  Cha  district)    
Provision   of   technical   training   for   chicken   JICA  project  
raising  to  80  households    
Provision   of   veterinary   services   to   500-­‐700   Commercial  market    
households    
Products  purchased  from  households:    
• Black  bone  chicken:  42  households  
• Hmong  native  pig:  28  households  
• Rice:  37  households  
 
CCM’s  marketing  activities  remain  vulnerable  to  a  number  of  risks,  including  the  risk  of  price  
fluctuations   of   purchased   agricultural   and   forestry   products,   difficulties   associated   with  
transport,   housing   and   feeding   animals   and   ensuring   animals   remain   disease-­‐free.     The  
perishability   of   horticultural   crops,   grains   or   animals   also   means   storage   is   expensive   and  
requires  careful  management.      
 
With  regard  to  the  provision  of  inputs  and  services,  CCM  has  a  role  as  the  service-­‐provider  
to  farmers  participating  in  donor-­‐funded  development  project  which  will  link  CCM  to  some  
13  
 
otherwise   un-­‐serviced   poorer   farmers.     In   addition,   through   cooperative   agreements   with  
the   Dien   Bien   government   extension   centre   and   the   World   Bank,   CCM   will   be   contracted   to  
provide   services   to   a   number   of   other   poor   and   remote   farmers   increasing   the   scale   and  
reach  of  CCM  considerably.    As  a  social  enterprise,  poor  and  remote  farmers  are  the  group  
that  should  be  of  most  interest  to  CCM  because  there  is  little  competition  in  this  market  and  
the   most   potential   for   social   good.     Commercially,   CCM’s   focus   on   lowland   areas   around  
Dien  Bien  City  is  low-­‐risk  and  commercially  sensible  as  these  farmers  have  higher  incomes  
and   are   better   able   to   pay   directly   for   services.         However,   in   lowland   areas   CCM   will   be  
operating   in   competition   to   existing   suppliers   in   Dien   Bien   city   which   will   require   CCM   to  
provide  a  differentiated  and  price  competitive  service  in  a  market  where  farmers  may  have  
existing   relationships   and   loyalties   to   suppliers.     In   this   market,   CCM’s   differentiated,   high  
quality  and  cost-­‐competitive  service  will  be  key  to  converting  and  retaining  customers.      
 
Livelihood  impacts  of  the  project  would  be  heightened  if  CCM  is  able  to  continue  to  support  
groups   formed   within   the   project.     CCM   is   improving   access   and   ensuring   continuity   of  
service   by   embedding   farmer   trainers   within   the   CCM   business   model   as   ‘collaborators’.    
Farmer  trainers  will  provide  a  new  means  of  communicating  to  farmers  about  services  that  
are   available   and   communicating   to   CCM   the   needs   of   the   farming   community.   With   a  
number  of  fee-­‐for-­‐service  contracts  already  signed,  CCM  has  secured  funding  for  the  short  
to  medium  term  for  a  portion  of  its  activities.    Commercial  profitability  across  all  business  
services  and/or  the  ability  to  cross-­‐subsidise  less  profitable  activities  with  profits  from  other  
activities  is  essential  for  CCM  to  financially  sustainable  in  the  long  term.    Finding  a  balance  in  
CCM’s  strategy  between  commercial  and  social-­‐enterprise  activities  is  essential  if  CCM  is  to  
be  viable  in  the  long  term  while  also  meeting  its  organization  goals.    

Sustainability  
 
I. Sustainability  of  livelihood  changes  
 
The  relatively  minimal  provision  of  financial  inputs  to  groups  and  the  stepped  reduction  of  
inputs  over  time  has  led  to  the  development  of  financially  self-­‐sustaining  groups  from  a  very  
early   stage   in   the   group’s   life   cycle.     The   considered   use   of   local   varieties   of   plants   and  
animals   contributes   greatly   to   ensuring   the   environmental   and   agro-­‐ecological   resilience  
and   sustainability   of   the   projects   outcomes.     That   said,   some   of   the   project’s   animal  
production  models  may  not  be  environmentally  or  socially  sustainable  without  changes  to  
the  model  to  limit  harm  from  animal  waste.      
 
The  project  has  enabled  the  development  of  commercial  market  links  and  group  members  
report   increased   capacity   to   negotiate   with   other   members   of   the   value   chain   which  
increases  the  likelihood  that  farmers,  traders  and  end-­‐users  will  maintain  relationships  and  
interactions  after  the  project  ends,  contributing  to  financial  sustainability.    Some  groups  are  
reliant   on   CCM   for   links   to   markets   and   consequently,   the   sustainability   of   the   groups  
becomes  linked  to  the  sustainability  of  the  CCM  business  model.      
 
Financial  sustainability  could  have  been  enhanced  if  groups  were  provided  with  an  option  to  
have  training  on  the  establishment  of  a  group  savings  and  loan  fund  alongside  agricultural  

14  
 
training  early  in  a  group’s  development.    Introducing  community  saving  schemes  would  
complement  the  agricultural  activities  and  contribute  to  addressing  the  unavailability  of  
reasonably  priced  credit  for  small  producers.    
 
It  is  clear  from  interviews  with  project  staff  and  partners  that  not  every  group  created  under  
the   project   will   continue.   Groups   that   are   more   informal   and   loosely   connected   are   likely   to  
continue  to  employ  agriculture  production  techniques  taught  through  the  project,  however,  
are  unlikely  to  continue  to  meet  and  the  ability  of  the  group  to  update  knowledge  and  learn  
new  techniques  will  be  limited.    The  sustainability  of  groups  themselves  may  not  be  critical  
for  the  sustainability  of  the  projects  livelihood  impacts.    Group  formation  was  essential  for  
the   project   to   be   able   to   efficiently   and   effectively   deliver   knowledge   and   training.    
However,  with  the  end  of  the  project,  the  individuals  that  make  up  these  groups  will  choose  
to   follow   independent   and   different   paths.     Remaining   in   a   group   may   be   of   diminishing  
relevance.          
 
The  sustainability  of  the  project  has  the  potential  to  be  very  good  among  more  established  
groups  that  are  well  linked  to  both  service  providers  and  buyers.    Sustainability  is  weaker  for  
beneficiaries  who  are  not  well  linked  to  markets  or  are  more  remote.      
 
II. Women’s  empowerment  
 
Interviews   found   evidence   of   changes   in   the   social   position   of   women   within   groups   and  
more   broadly   within   families   and   communities.     Some   of   the   most   successful   groups,  
including  the  BBC  group  and  the  Black  Duck  group  had  very  successful  and  entrepreneurial  
female   leaders.   The   project’s   approach   has   favoured   ‘showing’   rather   than   ‘telling’   meaning  
the   project   provided   relatively   little   in   terms   of   training   or   activities   to   empower   women.  
Instead,   groups   with   strong   female   role   models   and   women   in   management   positions   are  
likely   to   have   provided   positive   and   empowering   images   which   will   be   remembered.     The  
greatest   source   of   direct   female   empowerment   through   the   project   is   likely   a   result   of  
greater   economic   empowerment   from   increased   female-­‐generated   income.     As   discussed  
above,  for  some  groups  and  models,  livelihood  change  looks  likely  to  be  sustained,  however,  
for  others  the  market  links  are  more  tenuous  and  difficult  to  sustain  without  assistance.    
 
III. Access  to  services  
 
Women’s  Union  and  Farmers’  Union  
Institutionally  and  financially  the  WU  does  not  seem  to  be  well-­‐placed  to  ensure  long-­‐term  
continuity  in  access  to  services  for  farmers.      Internal  funding  does  not  appear  available  for  
the   WU   to   provide   project   services,   even   if   there   is   desire   to   continue.   External   donors   may  
support   some   continuation   in   services,   however,   this   depends   on   the   WU   advocating   for  
continuity.    
 
The  Farmers  Union  has  a  large  existing  network  of  members  and  a  mandate  to  work  with  
farmers   and   provide   services   although,   again,   resources   are   limited.   As   suggested   by   the  
ROM   Mission   (October   2011),   CCM   could   employ   FU   staff   on   a   fee-­‐for-­‐service   basis   to  
provide  technical  assistance  to  groups  thereby  contributing  to  the  sustainability  of  services.  
This  approach  would  fit  well  with  CCD/CCM’s  strategy  by  reaching  remote  areas  where  CCM  

15  
 
does  not  (yet)  have  a  physical  presence.    However,  this  strategy  relies  on  CCM  being  able  to  
sustainably   finance   FU   staff.     At   the   close   of   the   project,   CCD/CCM   long   term   financing  
remains  reliant  on  donors  and  the  expected  increase  in  business.      
 
It  is  anticipated  that  continued  support  at  the  same  scale  from  WU  and  FU  to  farmer  groups  
is  unsustainable  because  of  financial  and  human  resource  constraints.      
   
CCD  and  CCM  
 
CCD,  as  a  local  civil  society  organization,  is  integral  to  ensuring  the  sustainability  of  several  
key   approaches   of   the   project.     Institutionally,   CCD   is   well   integrated   and   well   supported   by  
provincial  authorities.    The  intention  is  that  there  will  be  a  provincial  representative  on  the  
board   of   the   organisation   in   future,   ensuring   that   the   good   relationship   that   exists   between  
CCD  and  local  administrators  will  continue.    
 
CCM  is  relying  on  the  fee-­‐for-­‐service  contracts  with  development  projects  to  provide  steady  
demand   for   services   and   finance   while   the   commercial   business   begins   to   scale-­‐up  
operations.   In   spite   of   these   donor-­‐contracts,   CCM   remains   financially   vulnerable.     CCM’s  
status  as  a  social  enterprise,  makes  the  organization  ineligible  to  bank  lines  of  credit  that  are  
available   to   private   business.     CCD/CCM   are   continuing   to   discuss   alternative   shareholder  
and  donor  financing  options  but  these  will  take  time  to  secure.    In  addition,  new  donors  of  
shareholders  will  introduce  reporting  requirements  and  make  demands  on  CCD/CCM  as  an  
institution  that  require  time  and  resources  that  are  in  limited  supply  within  the  organization.      
 
CCM’s  only  option  is  to  be  a  viable  and  price  competitive  business,  quite  a  departure  from  
CCD’s   experience.     As   a   business   strategy,   prioritizing   customers   close   to   Dien   Bien   City  
reduces  risks  and  transport  costs  but  also  exposes  CCM  to  a  degree  of  competition  from  the  
many   existing   input   supply   businesses.     CCM’s   small   number   of   employees   have   minimal  
experience   in   the   private   sector   meaning   that   the   sustainability   of   operations   may   be  
compromised.     In   this   respect,   farmer   trainers   may   have   a   key   role   to   play   in   supporting  
CCD/CCM  in  its  transition  to  a  fully  commercial  operation  by  being  quasi-­‐staff  members  and  
extending  the  reach  for  CCM  into  remote  areas  where  there  is  less  competition  from  other  
market  players.    Like  staff,  farmer  trainers  will  need  to  be  financially  compensated  in  order  
to  make  the  relationship  viable.      
 
Developing   the   institutional   structures   that   create   and   support   CCM   earlier   in   the   project  
cycle   would   have   contributed   to   improved   sustainability   of   the   new   enterprise   as   there  
would  have  been  a  greater  level  of  support  for  appropriate  capacity  building  and  financial  
cushion  through  project  funding.      
 
The   ‘teething’   problems   described   above   for   CCM   highlight   the   complexity   of   setting   up   a  
new   social   enterprise/business   and   the   time   it   takes   for   a   business   to   develop   a   strategy,  
find   customers   and   become   viable.     Another   complementary   or   alternative   approach   to  
establishing  a  new  business  may  be  to  involve  existing  small  businesses  in  the  project  and  
improve   their   capacity   to   provide   input,   processing   and   marketing   services.     The   experience  
of  the  project  shows  that  existing  input  service  providers  often  provide  poor  services  and/or  
charge  high  prices.    Understanding  the  reasons  behind  the  poor  input  service  provision  and  

16  
 
the   inefficiencies   in   the   supply   chain   and   then   supporting   change   could   improve   the  
sustainability  of  the  supply  chain.    In  addition,  encouraging  competition  and  improvements  
in  service  provision  may  help  to  drive  down  costs  for  farmers.  Building  formal  and  informal  
partnerships  with  private  sector  enterprises  may  help  to  improve  the  effectiveness  and  long  
term  sustainability  of  the  intervention.      
 
IV. Project  methodologies:  group  formation  and  training,  value  chain  analysis  
 
Discussions  with  the  WU  and  FU  revealed  that  some  of  the  skills  and  knowledge  obtained  
through  SIEED  training  courses  have  already  been  incorporated  into  non-­‐SIEED  project  
activities,  ensuring  these  skills  live  on  beyond  the  project.    The  FU  stated  that  FU  members  
had  developed  livelihood  models  independent  of  the  project,  suggesting  that  project    
methodologies  have  been  absorbed  with  that  organisation.        
 
The  fact  that  CCD  has  been  contracted  by  other  donors  to  continue  to  implement  the  nine  
step   group   formation   approach   and   to   deliver   services   to   farmers,   bodes   well   for   the  
sustainability  of  these  approaches  within  CCD  and  more  broadly  across  the  province.    With  
reference   to   the   sustainability   of   new   skills,   such   as   Value   Chain   Analysis,   CCD   have  
conducted  analyses  independently,  on  H’mong  Native  Pork  and  Thai  Ducks,  suggesting  that  
CCD  is  embedding  the  new  skills  and  practices.      The  donor  funding  will  allow  CCM/CCD  to  
really  cement  skills  in  the  long  term.    Continuing  to  use  and  train  new  staff  members  in  the  
approaches  will  be  essential  to  sustaining  skills,  individually  and  organisationally.    
 

Results:    Effectiveness  and  delivery  of  project  results    

 
The   logframe,   including   targets   and   achievements   is   available   at   Annex   B.     The   discussion  
below  elaborates  on  achievements  against  indicators  under  each  result  area.  
 
I. Livelihood  changes2  
Eighty-­‐seven  per  cent  of  groups  (ahead  of  a  target  of  75%)  reported  improved  [group]  
financial  performance  during  the  project’s  implementation.    Provincial  government  statistics  
show  that  over  the  period  of  the  project,  incomes  in  Tua  Chua  district  have  increased  by  
26.7%,  In  Dien  Bien  Dong  by  20.1%  and  in  Dien  Bien  by  5.37%.    For  project  participants,  
incomes  have  increased  between  10-­‐40%,  with  variation  between  households,  livelihood  
models  and  regions.      
 
The  project  aimed  to  achieve  improved  incomes  through  the  development  of  both  farm  and  
forest   products,   specifically   non-­‐timber   forest   products   (NTFPs).     However,   within   the  
timeframes  of  the  project,  the  NTFP  value  chains  have  not  been  able  to  generate  benefits  
for   farmers,   impacting   the   extent   to   which   the   project   reaches   its   objectives   of   fair  
distribution   of   benefits.     This   finding   does   not   undermine   the   possibility   of   these   value  
chains   for   generating   benefits   in   the   longer   term,   but   the   success   or   otherwise   cannot   be  
captured  within  the  project’s  results.      
                                                                                                           
2
 Specific  objective  1.  Poor  farmers  in  10  remote  northern  mountains  communes  benefit  equitably  from  marketing  of  
selected  products  regionally  and  nationally  and  sustainable  farm/forest  production  systems.  
 
17  
 
  
II. Women’s  empowerment  
The  proactive  inclusion  of  women  and  ethnic  minorities  has  assisted  in  ensuring  that  when  
benefits  accrue  to  farmers  from  better  market  linkages,  and  that  those  groups  that  are  
usually  excluded  can  benefit:  targets  for  gender  and  ethnic  minority  participation  in  groups  
have  been  exceeded  with  100%  (against  a  target  of  >90%)  of  group  members  being  from  an  
ethnic  minority  and  70.6%  being  women  (target  of  66%).  
 
III. Access  to  services  
 
Women’s  Union  and  Farmers’  Union  
All  provincial  WU  and  FU  staff  have  had  access  to  a  number  of  training  activities  which  were  
uniformly  described  as  being  relevant  and  useful.    The  large  majority  of  targets  relating  to  
the  delivery  of  training  to  the  WU  and  FU  at  the  village,  commune  and  district  have  been  
met.     The   training   of   both   WU   and   FU   management   at   the   commune   and   village   level   is  
ahead   of   target   (26   versus   target   of   20).     Sixty-­‐five   farmers   trainers   have   been   trained,  
ahead  of  a  target  of  60,  and  now  have  the  capability  to  provide  training  to  groups.      
 
CCD  and  CCM  
In   line   with   the   Result   #3,   new   business   services   have   been   established   with   the   creation   of  
Centre   for   Collaboration   Business   and   Market   Linkage   (CCM).     CCM   has   developed   a  
business  plan  and  is  already  contracted  to  work  with  new  donor-­‐funded  projects.  CCD,  as  an  
NGO,  has  continued  to  provide  of  technical  agricultural  information  and  services  to  farmer  
groups.     Client   satisfaction   with   CCD   is   reported   as   being   high,   with   98%   of   clients   saying  
they   are   satisfied   with   services   delivered.     Over   the   course   of   the   project,   CCD   reports   a  
steep  increase  in  demand  for  CCD’s  facilitation  of  project  information  packages  suggesting  
the  project  has  successfully  stimulated  demand  and  better  connected  CCD  with  farmers.      
 
IV. Project  methodologies  
 
Group  formation  and  organizational  strengthening  
In  line  with  targets,  project  activities  covered  100  villages  of  10  communes  in  three  selected  
districts.   Ahead   of   end   of   project   targets,   158   groups   with   2,675   members   were   established  
and   operating   by   July   2012.   The   number   of   group   members   well   and   truly   exceeds   the  
target  of  1700  as  new  groups  have  formed  and  existing  groups  have  added  new  members,  
suggesting  that  the  approach  is  appealing  and  relevant.  
 
Far   fewer   collaboration   groups   have   been   formed   than   expected   and   targeted:   22   groups  
compared   to   an   end   of   project   target   of   50.     Formalisation   of   group   structures   does   not  
appear  to  appeal  to  groups  and  it  may  be  that  group  members  recall  negative  experience  
from   ‘old-­‐style’   cooperatives   and   consequently   have   reticence   to   join   ‘new-­‐style’  
collaboration   groups   promoted   by   the   project.     While   group   structures   enable   a   more  
efficient   delivery   of   training   to   farmers,   farming   and   marketing   on   an   individual   basis  
appears   to   be   the   preference   of   the   majority.     A   lack   of   collaboration   and   cooperative  
groups  does  not  indicate  a  failing  of  the  project  but  rather  suggests  that  the  interest  group  
may  be  a  means  to  an  end  and  not  an  end  in  itself  for  farmers.        
 

18  
 
Value  chain  analysis  
The  project  has  very  effectively  contributed  to  the  identification  and  development  of  a  large  
number  of  value  chains  through  the  practical  introduction  of  new  or  improved  techniques  to  
farmer   groups.     Not   all   value   chain   models   have   performed   equally   well   in   terms   of   their  
ability   to   secure   benefits   for   farmers   (within   the   timeframes   of   the   project)   as   stipulated   by  
Result  #1.      
 
At   the   conclusion   of   the   project,   39   products   have   been   screened   for   productive   and  
commercial   potential,   34   models   have   been   demonstrated   in-­‐field   and   23   products   have  
been  adopted  by  groups.    In  line  with  the  target,  just  under  two-­‐thirds  of  the  value  chains  
that   were   analysed   have   uncovered   opportunities   for   the   development   and   diversification  
of   either   production   of   processing   techniques.     In   Year   4,   CCD   undertook   a   value   chain  
analysis   of   the   H’mong   native   pig   and   Thai   duck   value   chains   to   assess   market   potential.      
The  project  has  identified  the  most  successful  value  chains  as:  chicken;  black  bone  chicken;    
goat;  pig;  bao  thai  rice;  soybeans;  sweet  potato;  duck;  acacia;  garlic    and  fish.  This  finding  
supports   the   underlying   assumption   of   the   project   design   that   there   were   untapped  
opportunities   for   production   improvement   and   market   development   and   supports   the  
validity  of  the  market-­‐based  approach.      
 
Farmer  Field  School  training  and  farmer  trainers  
Groups   have   proved   to   be   an   effective   and   efficient   way   of   delivering   training.   Group  
retention   rates   have   held   at   essentially   100%   over   the   course   of   the   project,   suggesting  
there  is  appeal  in  remaining  in  the  group,  at  least  while  the  project  lasts.    Ongoing  support  
and  replication  of  models  from  existing  to  new  groups  has  been  encouraged  through  visits  
with  18%  of  group  members  participating  in  a  visit,  and,  on  occasion,  uptake  and  replication  
of  techniques  by  non-­‐group  members  has  occurred  spontaneously.    
 
Credit  through  VSLA  
Credit  provision  was  not  incorporated  into  the  original  design  of  SIEED.    However,  demand  
from   participants   has   led   to   the   introduction   of   a   voluntary   savings   and   loan   association  
(VSLA)  model  late  in  the  project  lifecycle  which  has  been  enthusiastically  adopted  by  a  small  
number   of   groups.     Given   the   demand   from   farmers   for   reasonably   priced   credit,   the  
community   savings   and   loan   model   should   be   considered   as   potential   product   for   future  
interventions.  
 

Relevance  
 
The  overall  project  goal  and  two  specific  objectives  are  in  line  with  the  development  policy  
of  Vietnam.    Improving  agricultural  productivity  and  access  to  markets  for  the  rural  poor  is  
very   much   in   line   with   Vietnam’s   increasing   willingness   to   engage   in   international   trade   and  
openness   to   the   world   market.   As   described   in   the   ROM   Mission   2011   “[T]he   project’s  
Overall  Objective    focuses  on  poverty  reduction  and    food  security  and  is  aligned  with  both  
SEDP   and   Vietnam´s   2002   Comprehensive   Poverty   Reduction   and   Growth   Strategy.”     The  
constructive  and  ongoing  relationship  between  CCD,  WU,  FU  and  the  provincial  government  
has   allowed   open   dialogue   between   all   parties   cementing   the   relevance   of   the   project   to  
these   partner-­‐participants.   In   addition,   the   project’s   approach   which   encourages   the  

19  
 
formation   of   cooperative   and   collaborative   groups   also   aligns   well   with   Vietnamese  
government  ideology.      
Needs-­‐based  assessment  ensures  the  relevance  of  capacity  building  activities  for  both  group  
members   and   project   partners.   The   project’s   group-­‐forming   approach,   knowledge   and  
training   in   improved   agriculture   production   is   relevant,   however,   for   the   poorest   and/or  
most   remote   farmers   market   approaches   may   not   be   as   relevant   as   they   may   not   be  
physically   well-­‐connected   to   a   suitable   market.     For   the   poorest   farmers,   forming   a  
connection   to   markets   may   be   a   secondary   priority   to   increasing   their   own   family’s   food  
security.      
For   the   most   remote   communities,   connecting   product   to   market   may   prove   very  
challenging,  particularly  for  (highly)  perishable  agricultural  commodities.    It  is  not  impossible  
to   link   products   to   markets   but   comprehensive   market   analysis   is   essential   to   ensure   the  
right  products/livelihood  models  are  supported.    If  there  are  local  varieties  or  products  then  
these   products   may   provide   a   comparative   advantage   from   both   a   production   and   sales  
perspective.   Indigenous   products   are   adapted   to   local   agro-­‐ecological   zones   and   are  
available  locally,  reducing  the  need  for  input  links.    
If   the   ‘right’   product   is   available,   the   poorest   and   most   remote   communities   are   likely   to  
require  more  time  and  a  greater  level  of  support  to  access  inputs  (agricultural  or  financial),  
make  connections  and  to  meet  market  requirements  on  an  ongoing  basis.    Thus,  a  market  
approach  is  not  irrelevant,  but  requires  analysis,  investment  and  support  to  make  it  work.  

F. Lessons  learned  
 
I. Group  approach  
 
The  interest  group  model  is  relevant,  appealing  and  an  effective  way  of  providing  capacity  
building,   however,   the   sheer   number   of   groups   formed   during   this   project   meant   that  
considerable   time   and   significant   resources   were   spent   on   forming   groups   and   providing  
training.     Fewer   groups   would   have   enabled   more   intensive   support   and   potentially  
improved  impact  and  sustainability.  
 
The  majority  of  farmers  demonstrate  little  interest  in  ‘upgrading’  their  interest  group  to  a  
collaborative   or   cooperative   group   status   suggesting   that   this   formal   group   model   is   less  
relevant   and   appealing   to   isolated   farmers.       Group   interviewees   found   that   individuals  
purchased  services  and  sold  their  products  independently  suggesting  that  the  group  has  a  
defined   and   limited   structure   and   purpose.     For   future   projects,   the   formalization   of   groups  
is   not   necessarily   required   for   groups   to   function   successfully   and   it   may   not   be   relevant   for  
project  participants.  Given  the  experiences  garnered  from  the  SIEED  project,  it  would  not  be  
appropriate  to  set  group  formalization  a  goal  of  the  project.      
 
Recommendation:  Form  fewer  groups  and  form  groups  early  in  the  project  cycle  so  that  
support  can  be  provided  over  a  longer  period  of  time.  This  will  enable  more  intensive  
support  and  potentially  improve  the  sustainability  of  groups,  livelihood  practices  and  market  
links.    

20  
 
  
 
II. Market  based  initiatives  should  be  differentiated    
 
There  is  an  inherent  tension  for  CARE  in  choosing  a  market-­‐based  approach:  for  the  poorest  
of   the   poor,   market   approaches   may   not   be   relevant   or   are   of   secondary   importance   to  
food   security.     The   project’s   group   approach   and   training   in   improved   agriculture  
production  is  relevant,  however,  these  groups  may  not  have  capacity  (financial,  physical  or  
institutional)  to  make  use  of  market  approaches.      
 
Recommendation:   Screen   livelihood   models   for   market   potential   early   in   the   project   and  
select   a   small   number   of   livelihood   models   for   intensive   support.       Market-­‐link   activities  
need  to  occur  simultaneously  with  groups  formation  and  technical  training.  
 
III. Indigenous  products,  product  diversity,  NTFPs  and  geographical  indicators  
 
The   original   objective   of   the   project   emphasized   discovering   new   and   diverse   natural  
resource   products,   with   an   emphasis   on   NTFPs.     Experience   from   the   project’s  
implementation  has  shown  that  opportunities  lie  not  in  uncovering  multiple  new  products  
but   in   improving   the   productivity,   processing   and   marketing   of   pre-­‐existing   (agricultural)  
natural  resource  enterprises.    The  notable  ‘product’  success  stories  from  the  SIEED  project  
are   indigenous   varieties   which   have   both   market   appeal   and   are   best-­‐suited   for   local  
agronomic  conditions,  lending  a  substantial  comparative  advantage.        
 
Recommendation:     If   developing   NTFPs   value   chains,   also   consider   value   chains   that   can  
provide   poor   households   with   short   and   medium   term   income   streams   to   balance   the   long-­‐
time  frames  associated  with  NTFPs  and  to  ensure  relevance  to  beneficiaries.  
 
Recommendation:   Thorough   value   chain   analysis   is   valuable   for   identifying   and   marrying  
unique  local  varieties  with  consumer  markets.    Pursuing  Geographic  Indication  certification  
for   successful   products   could   potentially   be   considered,   but   should   only   be   pursued   if   the  
economic  return  can  be  assured  in  the  Vietnamese  market  context.        
 
 
IV. Financial  sustainability  could  be  aided  by  community  savings  and  loan  association  
The   project’s   strategy   has   been   to   limit   the   input   of   financial   resources   to   groups,   which  
appears  to  be  a  positive  step  to  ensure  participant  engagement  in  the  model.    Introducing  
community   saving   schemes   would   complement   the   activities   above   and   contribute   to  
addressing   the   unavailability   of   reasonably   priced   credit   for   small   producers.   Not     all   groups  
may   choose   to   adopt   a   VSLA   model,   but   the   experience   in   SIEED   and   ECCODE   suggests  
demand  exists.  
 
Recommendation:     Provide   training   on   the   VSLA   model   alongside   training   on   livelihood  
models  from  the  outset.      
 
V. Partnerships  

21  
 
The   SIEED   project   can   provide   a   lesson   in   the   value   of   investing   in   local   NGO/CSOs   as  
partners.     While   mass   organizations   are   appealing   implementation   partners,   they   are  
frequently  under-­‐resourced  and/or  over-­‐committed  and  are  unlikely  to  be  able  to  maintain  
project  activities  at  scale  after  the  project’s  close.    Local  civil  society  organizations  may  have  
local   know-­‐how   like   mass   organisations   but   may   also   be   better   positioned   to   continue   to  
implement  project  approaches.    Although,  CSOs  also  face  funding  constraints  and  need  to  
rely   on   donations   to   continue,   an   inherently   risky   business.     Another   alternative   is  
establishing   private   sector   or   commercially   oriented   partnerships   that   can   align   local  
knowledge  and  sustainable  financing  within  one  organization.      
 
Recommendation:    Partner  with  local  civil  society  organisations  or  private  sector  providers  
to  improve  the  likelihood  that  farmer  support  services  continue  at  the  close  of  the  project.      
 
Recommendation:  Ensure  institutional  and  financial  structures  are  suitable  and  developed  
early   in   the   project   cycle   when   resources   are   available   from   the   project.  

22  
 
  
 
VI. Lessons  for  project  design,  monitoring  and  learning  
 
Better  definition  of  terms  used  in  indicators  
Distinguishing   between   changes   brought   about   by   the   project   and   those   from   economic  
growth  or  other  interventions  in  the  target  area  is  not  possible.    The  income  indicators  do  
not  provide  a  good  understanding  of  the  direct  impact  of  the  project.      
 
Some   indicators   use   unclear   and   undefined   terms   such   as   ‘diversification’   and   ‘improved  
financial   performance’.   Indicators   could   have   been   made   more   robust   and   useful   with  
better  definitions.    Introduce  definitions  and  details  about  how  indicators  will  be  measured  
into  the  M&E  plan.    There  needs  to  be  consistency  in  measurement  from  year  to  year  and  
between   evaluators   in   order   to   be   able   to   make   meaningful   comparisons.     This   would   allow  
consistency  in  interpretation  across  regions  and  over  time.  
 
Better  measures  of  women’s  empowerment    
Staff   from   the   WU   mentioned   change   in   domestic   violence   and   social   changes   that   they  
perceived   to   be   as   a   result   of   the   project.     Formally   capturing   this   data,   with   the   help   of   the  
WU,  could  contribute  to  better  knowledge  about  the  broader  social  changes  resulting  from  
the  project  and  this  could  contribute  to  improved  project  design  in  future.      
When   collecting   data   that   may   be   sensitive   and   relate   to   one   sex   only,   it   is   important   to  
include  a  mix  of  male  and  female  enumerators,  because  contacts  are  often  easier  between  
the  same  sex.    
 
Better  indicators  for  capacity  development  
Result   areas   3   and   4   are   focussed   on   capacity   change   and   improved   delivery   of   services,  
however,   the   associated   indicators   are   chiefly   focussed   on   measuring   outputs   (number   of  
people  trained),  rather  than  measuring  qualitative  evidence  of  genuine  capacity  change.      
 
   

23  
 
  
     
 

G. Conclusions  and  recommendations  

 
The   project   reached   a   large   number   of   groups   across   three   districts   contributing   to  
improvements   in   agricultural   practices   and   with   this,   positive   changes   in   income,   for   a  
number   of   groups.     Women   were   well   represented   as   group   leaders   and   group   members  
leading  to  economic  improvements  and  empowerment  for  some.    
 
The  sustainability  of  the  project  has  the  potential  to  be  high  among  more  established  groups  
that   are   well   linked   to   both   service   providers   and   buyers.     Sustainability   is   weaker   for  
beneficiaries  who  are  not  well  linked  to  markets  or  are  more  remotely  located.    Livelihood  
impacts  would  be  improved  and  sustained  if  CCM  were  able  to  continue  to  support  groups  
formed   within   the   project.     CCM   must   quickly   sure-­‐up   its   funding   sources,   commercial  
strategy   and   staffing   in   order   to   be   able   to   sustain   both   itself   as   an   organization   and   the  
livelihood  changes  that  have  resulted  from  the  groups.    
 
The  following  recommendations  are  drawn  from  evaluation  interviews  and  are  based  upon  
the  lessons  learned:    
1. Limit  the  number  of  groups  formed  to  enable  more  intensive  support.  Form  groups  
early   in   the   project   cycle   so   that   support   can   be   provided   over   a   longer   period   of  
time.    
2. Screen  livelihood  models  for  market  potential  very  early  in  the  project  and  select  a  
small  number  of  livelihood  models  for  intensive  support.      Market-­‐link  activities  need  
to  occur  simultaneously  with  group  formation.  
3. If   developing   Non   Timber   Forest   Product   value   chains,   also   consider   agricultural  
value   chains   that   can   provide   poor   households   with   short   and   long   term   income  
streams    
4. Given  the  strong  demand  for  credit  and  lack  of  supply  for  some  groups,  provide  an  
introduction  to  the  VSLA  model  alongside  training  on  livelihood  models.      
5. Consider  partnerships  with  local  civil  society  organisations  and/or  the  private  sector  
to   improve   the   likelihood   that   activities   and   services   continue.     Ensure   the   chosen  
partner’s   institutional   and   financial   structures   are   sustainable   during   the   term   of   the  
project.  

24  
 
  
 

H.  Annexes  
 
A. References  

 
Documents analysed
ROM Mission Report 2009, 2010, 2011
ROM Conclusion report in excel, 2011
Follow up to ROM Mission reports 2009, 2010, 2011)
Project Interim Narrative Report 2009, 2010, 2011
SIEED presentation
Baseline Survey-SIEED
SIEED Action Plan Year 4
M&E Framework
Achievements against indicators
SIEED Year 4 Revised Budget with no cost extension_October 2011
CCM Business Plan

 
B. List  of  interviewees  
 
Nguyen Van Anh/Programe Manager CARE International
CARE International
Le Xuan Hieu/ SIEED project Manager (SIEED project)
CARE International
Nguyen Danh Tinh/ Agriculture and Natural resource Officer (SIEED project)
CARE International
Mai Van Lanh/ Capacity Building Officer (SIEED project)
CARE International
Do Hoang Liem/ Maketing Linkage Officer (SIEED project)
CARE International
Hung (SIEED project)
Vu Dinh Loi/ CCD Director CCD
Tran Duy Huong/ CCD Officer CCD
Nguyen Tran Toan/ CCD Officer CCD
Ms Phuong Women’s Union
Ms Thinh Women’s Union
Ms Cao Thi Thu Women’s Union
Mr Dai Farmers’ Union
Mr Dung Farmers’ Union
10 members of the Goat Raising Group Pu Nhi, Dien Bien Dong
10 members of the Sweet Potato Group Dien Bien town, Dien Bien

25  
 
  
 

26