2. COSOP results review mtr 2016

Document date: Insert date
Report no: [Insert report number]
Click here and select division
Programme Management Department
Cambodia
COSOP results review
Main report and appendices
(DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION)

Cambodia
i
Contents
Contents
Currency equivalents iii
Weights and measurements iii
Abbreviations and acronyms iv
Map of IFAD Operations in Cambodia vi
I. Have there been major changes in the country? 1
II. Have any of the risks materialized or have new risks appeared? 1
III. Are the country development goals supported by the COSOP still relevant? 1
IV. Are the COSOP objectives still relevant and likely to contribute to the country
development goals confirmed above? 2
V. Has the combination of lending and non-lending activities presented at COSOP
approval been updated and is it likely to deliver the expected outcomes? 2
VI. Is implementation on track? 2
VII. What progress has been made in achieving the results described in the results
management framework? 4
VIII. What changes should be made to the results management framework, if any? Are
the targets still relevant? 4
IX. Which lessons from COSOP implementation could be valuable for other countries or
regions? 5
X. Does the COSOP period need to be extended or a new COSOP developed? 5
XI. Summary of Recommendations 5
List of figures
[click here and insert List of Figures]
List of tables
[click here and insert List of Tables]

Cambodia
ii
Appendices
Appendix 1: Results Framework at Time of DesignError! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 2: Results Management Framwork Updated With Progress Error! Bookmark
not defined.
Appendix 3: Proposed Changes to Results Management FrameworkError! Bookmark
not defined.
Appendix 4: Implementation Progress Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 5: Progress to Strategic Objectives Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 6: Programme Management and Coordination Error! Bookmark not
defined.

Cambodia
iii
Currency equivalents
Currency unit = Cambodian Riel (CR)
US$1.0 = 4,100 CR
Weights and measurements
1 kilogram (kg) = 2.204 pounds (lb)
1 000 kg = 1 metric tonne (t)
1 kilometre (km) = 0.62 miles (mi)
1 metre (m) = 1.09 yards (yd)
1 square metre (m2) = 10.76 square feet (ft2)
1 acre (ac) = 0.405 hectares (ha)
1 hectare = 2.47 acres

Cambodia
iv
Abbreviations and acronyms
ADMAC Agriculture Development in Mined Areas of Cambodia (CIDA financed
project)
AIMS Accelerated Integrated Markets for Smallholders
APIP Agriculture Productivity Improvement Project
ASPIRE Agriculture Services Programme for Innovation, Resilience and Extension
ASSDP Agriculture Sector Strategic Development Plan
CARD Council for Agriculture and Rural Development
CBRDP Community Based Rural Development Project
CCTT Climate Change Technical Team (inter-Ministerial team )
COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities Programme
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations)
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEF Global Environment Fund
iDE International Development Enterprises (NGO)
IGRF Improved Group Revolving Fund (PADEE)
LIG Livelihood Improvement Group (of beneficiary farmers)
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MoE Ministry of Environment
MoWRAM Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology
MRD Ministry of Rural Development
NCDD-S National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development Secretariat
NSDP National Strategic development Plan
PADEE Project for Agriculture Development and Economic Empowerment
PDA Provincial Department of Agriculture
RGC Royal Government of Cambodia
RMF Results Management Framework
RPRP Rural Poverty Reduction Project
RULIP Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
SNEC Supreme National Economic Council
SNV Netherlands development agency

Cambodia
v
SO Strategic Objective
SP Service Provider (e.g. firms contracted to provide services under TSSD)
S-RET Building Adaptive Capacity through the Scaling-up of Renewable Energy
Technologies in Rural Cambodia (S-RET)
TA Technical Assistance
TSSD Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and Smallholder Development Project
UNDP United Nations Development Programme

Cambodia
vi
Map of IFAD Operations in Cambodia

Cambodia
1
I.Have there been major changes in the country?
1. COSOP was designed to respond to profound changes in Cambodian rural economy
and society including (1) rapid GDP growth accompanied by poverty reduction from over
50% to around 20% in 15 years1; (2) increasingly market driven agriculture; (3) demand
for labour driving migration and mechanisation; and (4) a rapid expansion of rural credit.
Poverty was replaced by vulnerability: many former poor are marginally above the poverty
line. Farms are small and rural landlessness is increasing. Agriculture processing is under-
developed. Long-term threats include rapid deforestation and degradation of natural
resources, declining soil fertility and climate change.
2. These trends have broadly continued in 2013-16. Overall growth remains strong but
the agriculture sector appears to have stalled2. The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC)
regards strong agriculture growth and employment as a key plank of its strategy to raise
Cambodia to sustainable middle-income country status.
II. Have any of the risks materialized or have new
risks appeared?
3. Risk: Ineffective targeting of poorer smallholders in trying to develop
inclusive value chains. This has two dimensions: (1) failing to reach the poor; and (2)
reaching the poor with activities that are inappropriate to their needs. Targeting
performance is satisfactory but strategy may need to evolve to meet the needs of poor
households without land and resources for market agriculture.
4. Risk: Ineffectiveness of capacity development activities due to weaknesses
in the civil service and public financial management systems. Despite ongoing
reforms, these weaknesses persist. ASPIRE is designed to enhance service delivery
capacity through core government systems but this is a challenging task.
5. Risk: Inability to develop sufficient consensus on policy reform. There is not
yet full consensus within RGC and with IFAD on the purpose, scope and expected results
of the policy component of ASPIRE. Policy is an essential dimension of the COSOP and
there is a need for work to establish a renewed understanding.
6. Risk related to implementation arrangements. The mitigation measures
proposed in the COSOP have been only partially implemented. Priority needs include timely
recruitment and effective deployment of TA and strengthening project leadership focus on
achievement of strategic results.
7. Emerging risk: Outreach will be substantially below COSOP targets by 2018.
III. Are the country development goals supported by
the COSOP still relevant?
8. COSOP aligns with the RGC’s Rectangular Strategy for and the NSDP (2009-13)
which target (1) Increasing agricultural productivity and diversification; (2) Promotion of
agro-industries; (3) Expanding system of technical and agricultural extension services;
and (4) Further strive toward linking farmers to the regional and global agricultural
markets. COSOP also supports the Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export
of Milled Rice and Strategy for Agriculture and Water (SAW, 2010-13).
1
World Bank 2012 Where Have All the Poor Gone? Poverty estimates are based on per capitalconsumption w ith the
“total poverty line” set at a per capita consumption of KHR 5,326.26 ($1.32) for Phnom Penh, KHR 4,272.85 ($1.06) for
other urban areas and KHR 3,913.79 ($0.97) for ruralareas.
2
World Bank 2015: Cambodian Agriculture in Transition

Cambodia
2
9. RGC rural development strategy remains essentially unchanged. Policy developments
since 2013 include (1) formation of the National Council for Sustainable Development to
coordinate climate change response and green growth; (2) the adoption of the Policy For
Agriculture Extension (2015) ; (3) the move to 100% Programme Budget modality in MAFF,
including establishing the PDA as Budget Entities; (4) a review of responsibilities for
forestry, fisheries and protected areas; and (5) a review of Economic Land Concessions
resulting in the announcement that a substantial area of concession land will be re-
assigned to the Social Land Concessions programme.
10. The development goals supported by the COSOP remain relevant and remain as
priorities of RGC. However the SAW is no longer regarded as an active policy document
and is likely to be replaced.
IV. Are the COSOP objectives still relevant and likely
to contribute to the country development goals
confirmed above?
11. The RB-COSOP 2013-18 has the following Strategic Objectives:
(a) SO1 Poor smallholders enabled to take advantage of market opportunities;
(b) SO2 Poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate and other
shocks;
(c) SO3 Poor rural households improve access to strengthened rural service delivery by
Government, civil society and private sector agencies.
12. From the analysis of trends in the country context and RGC policy discussed above,
it is concluded that the Strategic Objectives remain relevant, responsive to the needs of
poor rural Cambodians and consistent with policy.
V. Has the combination of lending and non-lending
activities presented at COSOP approval been updated
and is it likely to deliver the expected outcomes?
13. COSOP attributes results to PADEE, ASPIRE and AIMS. PADEE has now passed mid -
term, while ASPIRE is active and AIMS is in preparation. These projects closely match the
SO and are likely to deliver the anticipated results. However, the ASPIRE outreach targets
foreseen in the COSOP will not be achieved by 2018, while AIMS will only start to deliver
results in that year.
14. TSSD results were omitted because of doubts over IFAD’s continued support. These
doubts are now resolved and TSSD is contributing to the COSOP strategic objectives.
15. One additional project, S-RET, will start in 2016 and will contribute to SO1 and SO2
by assisting PADEE beneficiaries to access renewable energy technologies.
VI. Is implementation on track?
16. Implementation progress of the ongoing COSOP projects is reviewed in Appendix 4.
PADEE has disbursed at a faster rate than planned and it is now intended to close the
project in 2017 rather than 2018. TSSD disbursement in TSSD has accelerated after a slow
start and the project is expected to complete on schedule. ASPIRE has started slowly but
the programme design allows for a preparatory phase before the major roll-out of
extension activities.

Cambodia
3
17. Project supervision report ratings of TSSD and PADEE have improved during 2012-
15, as illustrated in Figure 1. Performance of TSSD remains slightly below satisfactory
overall while PADEE has consistently been rated satisfactory or better.
Figure 1: Project Supervision Report Ratings: Trend
18. Mid-Term Reviews (MTR) of both PADEE and TSSD took place in 2015. The TSSD MTR
found improved performance in formation of Livelihood Improvement Groups (LIG),
transfer of Group Revolving Funds and capacity development. Service providers have
improved performance but further strengthening is necessary, while demonstration and
training activities continue to face delays. Sustainability of the LIG continues to be a
concern and the MTR recommended further study of pathways to sustainability for these
groups.
19. The PADEE MTR found good implementation progress in most components. The Rural
Stimulus Fund was found not to be cost-effective. The biodigester activities are also
dropped but support will continue under S-RET. The use of a service provider to maintain
the IGRF accounts considered a success but sustainability depends on the groups
themselves paying the costs; achieving this is a challenge. Other findings included (1)
ongoing perceived weakness in targeting; (2) need to further strengthen market
orientation; (3) need to introduce a complementary farmer-to-farmer learning strategy;
and (4) recommendation to introduce a social marketing strategy for nutrition activities.
PADEE faces financial shortfalls partly as a result of the declining SDR exchange rate and
the MTR designed additional financing to offset this.
20. No ASPIRE supervision has been conducted as yet but there are indications that some
activities are delayed. The programme design assumes a preparatory period before roll-
out of the extension activities. There is a risk that some sub-components, which are
essential to the success of the overall design, could be overlooked.
21. IFAD funds a number of regional grants supporting activities in Cambodia. A brief
review of these activities is reported in Appendix 4. Coordination between projects and
grants activities is limited and important opportunities for synergies are missed.

Cambodia
4
VII. What progress has been made in achieving the
results described in the results management
framework?
22. The Updated Results Framework is presented as Appendix 2 and is analysed in
Appendix 4.
23. Of the seven Outcome Indicators for SO1, three are considered likely to be achieved
by 2018, two will require a longer time; one has no related activities and one cannot be
measured using the current set of M&E tools.
24. ASPIRE and AIMS will not achieve the results assumed in the RMF by 2018. No
activities are planned relevant to the result for “farmers with new land.”
25. Household assets and decline in childhood malnutrition are measured as proxy
indicators for resilience (SO2). The PADEE household survey indicates the asset target is
conservative. The survey also found modestly encouraging results on malnutrition, though
attribution is problematic.
26. Milestone indicators associated with PADEE are mainly on track. One indicator relates
to the bio-digesters dropped from PADEE but to be supported under S-RET. Climate
resilient planning and infrastructure development milestone targets (ASPIRE) are
achievable by 2018. However the outreach target of 100,000 farmers (ASPIRE) cannot be
achieved by 2018.
27. Outcome indicators for SO3 (Poor rural households improve access to strengthened
rural service delivery by Government, civil society and private sector agencies) appear to
be on track, mainly due to inclusion of the related activities in the ASPIRE programme.
VIII. What changes should be made to the results
management framework, if any? Are the targets still
relevant?
28. Appendix 3 presents recommended changes to the RMF, with the purpose of:
(a) Removing results that are not achievable;
(b) Improve definition and measurability of indicators;
(c) Improve the congruence between indicators and Strategic Objectives;
(d) Identify any additional indicators that are needed.
29. The RMF indicators are tied to specific projects and are somewhat inconsistent. TSSD
results are omitted. Proposed revised indicators aggregate results from all projects on a
common basis. Project-based milestone indicators are retained.
30. It is recommended to drop two indicators relating to “Non-rice agriculture
production” and “households with new land”.
31. One additional indicator is proposed for SO2: % of investments in vulnerable
communities. This indicator links the RMF to the M&E framework of the Cambodia Climate
Change Strategic Plan.
32. Revised targets are proposed but the level of these depends on the COSOP
timeframe. The proposed general form of the outcome indicators is “[75% of outreach
target] with [impact] after 3 years’ participation in programme activities.” By 2018, 85,000
households will have completed three years’ participation; by 2021 the aggregate outreach
of TSSD, PADEE, ASPIRE and AIMS should reach 256,000.

Cambodia
5
IX. Which lessons from COSOP implementation could
be valuable for other countries or regions?
33. COSOP implementation has resulted in valuable insights in the following areas:
(a) Ensuring that extension training subject matter and format is responsive to farmers’
needs (PADEE);
(b) Careful design of revolving fund groups to foster sustainability (PADEE);
(c) Need for project managers, including those at provincial level, to be accountable for
delivery of strategic results and to have flexibility to allocate resources accordingly
(ASPIRE);
(d) Need for programme and project strategy to be backed by robust, strategically oriented
M&E capacity including the ability to understand and measure economic impacts at
household, community and macro levels (all).
X. Does the COSOP period need to be extended or a
new COSOP developed?
34. For the reasons discussed above, the targets of the COSOP RMF will not be fully
achieved by 2018. Three options are identified:
(a) End the current COSOP and design a new one to begin from 2018;
(b) Extend the COSOP period to 2021; or
(c) Design a new COSOP from 2018, incorporating targets carried over from the current
COSOP.
35. The third option is considered attractive as there is likely t o be considerable
continuity of strategy in the next COSOP.
XI. Summary of Recommendations
36. The key recommendation emerging from this review of the COSOP are:
(a) Revisions to the COSOP results framework and time frame, as discussed above.
(b) Consider strategies to better address child nutrition. The positive experience with RULIP
(cooking competitions, "Champion Mothers" and mother-to-mother social marketing
activities) should be considered for replication;
(c) Strengthening of arrangements for M&E and knowledge management, with the following
elements:
(d) Introduction of improved indicators with particular emphasis on measuring economic
impacts of IFAD interventions, at farm level and at local area level, together with capacity
development to assist MAFF to integrate these indicators into the Programme Budget
M&E framework;
(e) Standardisation of M&E tools across the IFAD country projects, i.e. a consistent
approach to survey design, sampling, MIS etc;
(f) Develop a programme-level database of key outputs, milestones and results contributing
to achievement of the COSOP Strategic Objectives;
(g) Sharing of resources, particularly technical assistance, for M&E, between projects;
(h) A shared approach and resources for knowledge management. This could include one or
more knowledge management specialists funded from the projects but working on a
COSOP-wide brief.

Cambodia
6
37. Looking beyond the current COSOP, the major evolution of strategy that should be
considered is a more explicit dual targeting strategy (productive smallholders and rural
poor with subsistence agriculture activities) embracing different sets of activities
appropriate to each group and (potentially) different implementing partners.

1
[Clickhereandinsertcountryname]AppendixI
Appendix 1: COSOP results management framework at design
Country Strategy Alignment COSOP Strategic
Objectives
COSOP Outcome Indicators
(by end 2018)
COSOP Milestone Indicators COSOP
Institutional/Policy
Objectives (in
partnership mode)
IFAD investments would be
aligned to:
(i) Rectangular Strategy for
Growth, Employment,Equity and
Efficiency and the National
Strategic DevelopmentPlan
(2009-13):
 Increasing agricultural
productivity and
diversification
 Promotion ofagro-industries
 Expanding system of
technical and agricultural
extension services
 Further strive toward linking
farmers to the regional and
global agricultural markets
(ii) Policy on Promotion ofPaddy
Rice Production and Export of
Milled Rice and in particular with
the following objectives:
 Paddy surplus reaches 4
million tons
 Milled rice exports of at least
1 million ton
 Develop arrangements for
information sharing with
SO1: Poor smallholders
enabled to take
advantage of market
opportunities
 Average labour productivity of
49,000 targeted households
increases by 25%3
(PADEE)
(a)
 Average household non-rice
agricultural production of
increased by 20% (PADEE)
(b)
 80% of IGRFs increase the size
of their fund by 30% after three
years (not including Group
Conditional Capital Transfers)
(PADEE)
(c)
 Average household agricultural
production value of 100,000
targeted households increased
by 15% (ASPIRE)
(d)
 Net farming income of 1,500
poor farm households with
access to new land above
poverty line level (ASPIRE)
(e)
 15 innovation sub-projects at
different development stages
approved for financing under
iRAD (ASPIRE)
(f)
By end 2015:
 Around 200 Farmer Business
Advisors providing extension
services and supplyof farm
inputs to beneficiaries in a
sustainable way(PADEE)
By end 2016:
 490 CEWs trained and working, of
which 50% are women (PADEE)
 49,000 HHs beneficiaries of
conditional group capital transfers
and trained in financial literacy (of
which at least 50% are women)
(PADEE)
 500 existing GRFs supported to
improve performance (PADEE)
 For each IGRF at leastone woman
elected as one of the three group
leaders (PADEE)
By end 2017:
 49,000 beneficiaries trained in
first and second year extension
packages (PADEE)
 6,000 outstanding farmers
trained in firstand second year
packages;(PADEE)
non-land based income
generating activities,of which at
least70% are women (PADEE)
By end 2018:
 Extension materials
and technical
protocols used by
MAFF decentralized
staff based on market
demand and farming
as business
 Improvement in
knowledge and
methodologies on
conditional capital
transfers to poor
households
 Contribute to
improved training
packages on financial
literacy for poor rural
households
 Contribute to the
development of a
tailored agriculture
support package for
poor farm households
with access to new
land
 Develop efficient
mechanisms for RGC
to enter in public-
private partnerships
for extension service
provision
3
Accounts forboth onfarmandnon-landbasedincome generatingactivities.

2
Objectives
(by end 2018)
Objectives (in
partnership mode)
stakeholders in domestic
market
(iii) Strategy for Agriculture and
Water (2010-13):
 Agriculture and agri-business
that make effective use of
inputs and market
opportunities,are steadily
intensifying and diversifying
production,and deliver full
benefits to farmers,rural
communities,and other
stakeholders (outputF)
 Minimum of 20% increase in
average net farming income of
80,000 HH participating in 8
value chains (AIMS)
extension packages thatfully
incorporate farming as business
considerations (ASPIRE)
 1,800 poor farm households
receive Agricultural support
package for farmers with access
to new land

3
Objectives
(by end 2018)
Objectives (in
partnership mode)
aligned to:
(2009-13)
 Finding resources,support
and financing for solving
climate change issues
 Strengthen natural resources
management
 Educate and propagate on
climate change
 Accelerate implementation of
programme activities on
National climate change
adaptation
Milled Rice:
 Focus on constructing and
maintaining rural roads
connecting rice production
areas to markets
Water (2010-13):
 A comprehensive and
coordinated capacityto
assemble and utilize
agricultural and water-related
knowledge,information and
SO2:Poor rural
households and
communities increase
resilience to climate and
other shocks
 Value of household assets
owned by participating
households increased on
average by 25% (PADEE)
(g)
 Percentage of children under 5
suffering from chronic
malnutrition disaggregated by
gender is reduced by 10% in
targeted communes
(Mainstreaming Nutrition
Activities)
(h)
(i) By end 2016:
 4,000 pro-poor bio-digesters
constructed and operating
(PADEE)
(j)
(k) By end 2018:
 Minimum of 120 climate-resilient
productive infrastructure sub-
projects, complying with eligibility
and selection criteria, identified
through local planning process and
executed with quality (AIMS)
 Minimum 80% of completed sub-
project infrastructures are
adequately operated and
maintained (AIMS)
 100 commune climate resilience
plans completed (AIMS)
extension packages that fully
incorporate climate resilient
considerations; (ASPIRE)
 Pro-poor climate
change adaption
extension materials
used by extension
service providers
 Targeted communes
integrate climate
resilience measures in
their development
plans
 Contribute to
development of an
efficient delivery
mechanism for
climate-resilient
productive
infrastructure that can
be up-scaled

4
Objectives
(by end 2018)
Objectives (in
partnership mode)
technologytransfer (output
C)
 Agricultural systems and
communityarrangements
that enable poor and food
insecure Cambodians to
have substantiallyimproved
physical and economic
access to sufficient,safe and
nutritious food at all times to
meettheir dietary needs and
food preferences for an
active and healthy life (output
D)

5
Objectives
(by end 2018)
Objectives (in
partnership mode)
aligned to:
(2009-13):
 Creating an enabling
environmentto attract private
investors,domestic and
foreign
 Welcoming the contribution
from NGOs and other to
ensure the transfer of know-
how and new technologyto
farmers in regard to crop
farming and animal rearing.
 Continue partnership
between the owners ofsmall
farming land and plantation
and other agricultural
production corporation and
between economic land
concession and social land
concession to create job
opportunity and marketfor
local people
Milled Rice:
 Expand agriculture extensive
services to commune level
 Improve the legal framework
for investmentand other
SO3: Poor rural
households improve
access to strengthened
rural service delivery by
Government, civil
society and private
sector agencies
 A policy for climate sensitive
Agricultural Extension Services
integrating public sector,private
sector and civil society roles is
developed and adopted
(ASPIRE)
 40% increase in the number of
agriculture education and
extension service providers that
are using good quality
extension materials reviewed
and disseminated by MAFF
(ASPIRE)
 At least three major policy
studies and associated
publications will be produced by
SNEC, discussed with
stakeholders and disseminated
(Small grants)
 Ex-post economic rate of return
of directly supervised projects
financed under COSOP is at
least 15%
(l)
By end 2016
 At leastthree training workshops
on analytical methods for policy-
making in ARD implemented
successfully(Small grants)
By end 2017
 Draft policy for Agricultural
Extension Services integrating
public sector,private sector and
civil society roles is finalized for
discussion (ASPIRE)
By end 2018:
 Land and non-land based
training packages developed
(minimum 10 and 4
respectively), updated and
endorsed byMAFF and MOWA
(PADEE)
 75% of extension materials
endorsed byMAFF
incorporating farming as
business and resilience
 1,000 trainers and extension
agents from Government,civil
society and private sector
trained in farming as business
and climate resilientproduction
techniques (ASPIRE)
 Agricultural supportpackage for
poor farmers with access to new
land developed and endorsed by
MAFF (ASPIRE)
(m)
 Policy for Agricultural
Extension Services is
developed and
adopted
 Increased number of
diversified extension
service providers
delivering advice
sustainably in rural
areas
 Contribute to
formulate new
proposals on how to
improve incentive
structure of public
service delivery in
rural area including
the possibility of
programme budgeting
(n)

6
Objectives
(by end 2018)
Objectives (in
partnership mode)
related regulations if
necessary
Water (2010-13):
 A sound policyand legal
framework to enable
developmentofthe
Agriculture and Water
sectors (outputA)
 A sound institutional,
administrative,research and
education basis for effective
work performance in
agricultural and water
resource developmentand
management(outputB)
1.

7
Appendix 2: Progress to Strategic Objectives and Updated Results
Mangement Framework
I. Strategic Objectives
1. The Results-BasedCOSOP(2013-18) respondsto IFAD’sglobal Goal whichis to “Enable poor rural
people toimprove theirfoodsecurityand nutrition,raise theirincomesandstrengthentheirresilience”
4and to the policies of the Royal Government of Cambodia as expressed in its Rectangular Strategy for
Growth,Employment,EquityandEfficiency,the National StrategicDevelopmentPlanandagriculture and
rural development sector policies.
2. Accordingly, the COSOP identifies three strategic objectives (SO):
 SO1: Poor smallholders enabled to take advantage of market opportunities
 SO2: Poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate change and
other shocks
 SO3: Poor rural households improve access to strengthened rural service delivery by
Government, civil society and private sector agencies.
3. The followingsectionsreviewprogresstothe StrategicObjectivesachievedbythe timeof the MTR
in early 2016.
SO1 Poor smallholders enabledto take advantageof market
opportunities
4. Progress to Strategic Objective 1 is measured by outcome indicators and by milestone indicators,
as well as by progress towards associated policy and institutional results. Table A2.1 summarises the
status of the outcome level indicators for SO1.
Table A2.1: Status of SO1 Outcome Indicators
Outcome Indicator Contributing Activities Measured
Results
Likelihood of
Achievement
Average labour productivity of 49,000
targeted households increases by 25%
(PADEE)
PADEE on target to reach
49,000 HH by 2015
MTR survey
indicates decline
in labour
productivity but
calculation
requires many
assumptions
Likely to be achieved
but this is an area that
would merit further
study as it is key to
demonstrating
agriculture can be a
pathway out of poverty
Average household non-rice agricultural
production of 49,000 targeted households
PADEE on target to reach
49,000 HH by 2015
22% increase by
MTR (PADEE
survey)
On track
80% of IGRFs increase the size of their fund
by 30% after three years (not including
Group Conditional Capital Transfers)
(PADEE)
772 IGRF’s operating According to
MBWIn, IGRF
groups retained
profits equal to
11% of equity in
2015
On track
4
IFAD Strategic Framew ork2011-15

8
Average household agricultural production
value of 100,000 targeted households
increased by 15% (ASPIRE)
ASPIRE will start
extension activities in
2016 but will not reach
100,000 HH by 2018
Will not be fully
achieved by 2018
Net farming income of 1,500 poor farm
households with access to new land above
ASPIRE final design does
not include specific
activities for this group
Low. Review relevance
of indicator
15 innovation sub-projects at different
development stages approved for financing
under iRAD (ASPIRE)
IRAD concept modified in
final version of ASPIRE
(focus on testing CR-
agriculture)
Indicators needs re-
definition. However,
ASPIRE and S-RET will
support innovation
grants
Minimum of 20% increase in average net
farming income of 80,000 HH participating in
8 Value Chains (AIMS)
AIMS design scheduled
for 2016
Low chance of
achievement by 2018
Table A2.2 shows the status of SO1 milestone indicators.
Table A2.2: Status of SO1 Milestone Indicators
Milestone Indicator Progress (to end 2015) Likelihood of
achievement
By end 2015:
Around 200 Farmer Business Advisors
providing extension services and supply of
farm inputs to beneficiaries in a sustainable
way (PADEE)
175 FBA in place at time of MTR [246 shown in
tracking matrix]
On track / achieved
By end 2016:
490 CEWs trained and working, of which
50% are women (PADEE)
496 CEW trained and working, 50% women n
PADEE
392 CEW and CAA trained and working in
TSSD (50% women)
ASPIRE to recruit
On track
49,000 HHs beneficiaries of conditional
group capital transfers and trained in
financial literacy (of which at least 50% are
women) (PADEE)
38.600 HH trained in financial literacy (PADEE)
XXX HH trained in financial literacy (TSSD)
On track
500 existing GRFs supported to improve
performance (PADEE)
500 existing GRFs assessed for support needs Only limited support to
120 GRF planned
For each IGRF at least one woman elected
as one of the three group leaders (PADEE)
All 772 IGRF (PADEE) and 1,239 LIG (TSSD)
have at least one woman officer
On track
By end 2017:
49,000 beneficiaries trained in first and
second year extension packages (PADEE)
38,600 beneficiaries trained in first year
package
18,604 beneficiaries trained in second year
package
On track
6,000 outstanding farmers trained in first
and second year packages; (PADEE)
Not done Dropped from PADEE
results framework
3,800 beneficiaries trained in non-land
based income generating activities, of which
at least 70% are women (PADEE)
1,362 beneficiaries trained On track
By end 2018:
100,000 beneficiaries trained in extension
packages that fully incorporate farming as
business considerations
May not reach 100,000
HH by 2018
(ASPIRE)

9
1,800 poor farm households receive
Agricultural support package for farmers
with access to new land.
No specific activity in
ASPIRE
Table A2.3 summarises the progress towards institutional and policy objectives associated with SO1.
Table A2.3: Status of SO1 Institutional and Policy Objectives
COSOP Institutional / Policy Objectives (in
Partnership mode)
Achievements Future
Extension materials and technical protocols
used by MAFF decentralized staff based on
market demand and farming as business
11 extension packages (topics)
developed under PADEE in
partnership with GDA and SNV
Further development of extension
packages planned under ASPIRE
Improvement in knowledge and
methodologies on conditional capital transfers
to poor households
Innovative arrangements in place
for PADEE IGRF (partnership with
FAO)
Need to conduct studies identified
in PADEE ISM report
Contribute to improved training packages on
financial literacy for poor rural households
Financial literacy training
packages developed by MAFF with
FAO support (PADEE) and by
NCDD-S/SP2 (TSSD)
Contribute to the development of a tailored
agriculture support package for poor farm
households with access to new land
No action Not in plan
Develop efficient mechanisms for RGC to
enter in public-private partnerships for
extension service provision
iDE FBA model supported by
PADEE considered a successful
demonstration of PPP
Further PPP activities under
ASPIRE to begin in 2016
To be addressed under ASPIRE
5. Most indicatorsforSO1 are ontrack althoughit isnotyetpossible tomeasure significantresultsat
the outcome level.
6. It isexpectedthatsome resultsof the currentCOSOPwill notbe reachedbythe targetdate,mainly
because these have not been prioritized in project and programme design, including:
 The ASPIRE outreach targets 100,000 household and associated results will not be fully achieved
by the target date of 2015, based on the ASPIRE implementation plan. These targets may be
reached by 2019 or 2020;
 Similarly, results related to the pipeline value chain project, AIMS, are unlikely to be achieved by
2018 as design of this project is now provisionally scheduled to begin in 2016;
 Farmers with new land (e.g. on social land concessions) are not specifically targeted by ASPIRE,
as had been envisaged, and related indicators should be reviewed;
 The concept of an “Innovation Research and Development” (IRAD) fund in ASPIRE was modified
in the final design to a fund specifically financing field research for climate resilient agriculture. The
COSOP indicator should be modified accordingly;
 Some secondary targets were modified or abandoned in the PADEE MTR. These include scaling
back of the proposed support to existing GRFs and dropping the target of training 6,000 outstanding
farmers (though a modified version of this approach is introduced through the new emphasis on
farmer-to-farmer learning).
7. Some milestone targets associated with PADEE indicators may not be achieved based on current
performance.Activitiesexperiencingdelaysincludethe roll-outof the FarmBusinessAdviserprogramme,
training of outstanding farmers in association with the IGRFs, and non-land-based livelihood activity
training.

10
SO2 Poor ruralhouseholds and communities increase resilienceto
climate and other shocks
8. The key indicators of increased resilience associated with SO2 are proxy indicators: value of
household assets and incidence of malnutrition, as show in Table 5.
Table A2.4: Status of SO2 Outcome Indicators.
Outcome Indicator Contributing
Activities
Measured Results Likelihood of
Achievement
Value of household assets owned by
participating households increased on average
by 25% (PADEE)
55% increase in hh
assets measured by
PADEE MTR
On track
Percentage of children under 5 suffering from
chronic malnutrition disaggregated by gender
is reduced by 10% in targeted communes
(Mainstreaming Nutrition Activities)
Social market approach
to nutrition training
introduced by PADEE
MTR
Severely
malnourished
(height for age)
reduced from 40.1%
at baseline to 31.9%
at MTR (PADEE)
On track
9. The results of the PADEE MTR survey indicate that the household asset target is conservative.
However,directattributiontothe projectimpacts is problematicas(onaverage) assetsin control group
households increased by an equal amount).
10. The PADEE MTR produced encouraging results on child malnutrition using the key height-for-age
indicator of chronic malnutrition. The decrease was slightly larger in the treatment group compared to
the control group, though not significantly so.
11. Other indicators of malnutrition have shown less improvement and in fact there was a small but
significant increase in number of acutelymalnourishedchildren (wasting) between the baseline and the
MTR. It should be noted that the acute malnourishment indicator may be sensitive to the time of year I
which the survey is undertaken.
12. Findings of the PADEE baseline survey are broadly in line with national data (box).
13. The PADEE MTR recommended a new social market approach to child nutrition education.
Implementationof thisapproachshouldbemonitoredcarefullyandifitissuccessful,itcouldbe replicated
elsewhere in the country programme.
14. The status of milestone indicators is show in Table 6.
Box: Child Nutrition Indicators in PADEE Baseline Survey Compared with National Data
Stunting Wasting Underweight
CDHS 2005 43% 8% 28%
CDHS 2005 40% 11% 28%
PADEE Baseline (IGRF members) 40.1% 12.6% 28.7%
PADEE Baseline (control group) 41.3% 13.4% 32.3%
PADEE MTR (IGRF members) 31.9% 15.8% 26.1%
PADEE MTR (control group) 33.6% 16.2% 28.4%

11
Milestone Indicator Progress (to end 2015) Likelihood of achievement
By end 2016:
4,000 pro-poor bio-digesters constructed and
operating (PADEE)
Bio-digester designs prepared Roll-out dropped from
PADEE but will be supported
by S-RET
By end 2018:
Minimum of 120 climate resilient productive
infrastructure sub-projects, complying with
eligibility and selection criteria, identified
through local planning process and executed
with quality (AIMS)
Performance Based CR Grants
included in ASPIRE
On track
Minimum 80% of completed sub-project
infrastructures are adequately operated and
maintained (AIMS)
On track
100 commune climate resilience plans
completed (AIMS)
Supported under ASPIRE On track
packages that fully incorporate climate resilient
considerations; (ASPIRE)
May not reach 100,000 HH by 2018
15. The developmentof apro-poorbiodigestermodel PADEEisnearingcompletion.Howeverfollowing
the MTR is was decided not to proceed with roll-out of the bio-digesters under direct PADEE funding.
Instead,the newS-RETproject,closelyintegratedwithPADEE,willsupportroll outof bio-digestersaswell
as other smallholder agriculture applications of renewable energy technology. The climate resilient
infrastructure programme, foreseen to be under AIMS, is now included in ASPIRE, meaning that the
COSOP targets should be achieved. As noted above, the 100,000 household outreach target for ASPIRE
may not be achieved by 2018.
Table A2.6: Status of SO2 Institutional Objectives
COSOP Institutional / Policy Objectives (in
Partnership mode)
Achievements Future
Pro-poor climate change adaption extension
materials used by extension service providers
Testing of climate resilient
agriculture technologies under
ASPIRE
Targeted communes integrate climate resilience
measures in their development plans
Included in ASPIRE design
Contribute to development of an efficient
delivery mechanism for climate-resilien t
productive infrastructure that can be up-scaled
ASPIRE PBCR Grants share
basic design with UNDP-GEF
and UNCDF-LoCAL
16. The climate resilientinfrastructure componentof ASPIREsharesdesignfeatureswithother donor
projectsincludingUNDP’sGEF-ResilientLivelihoodsProjectwhichwill beginimplantationin2016. There
is considerable scope for inter-agency cooperation leading to a sustainable mechanismfor sub-national
climate change adaptation financing. There is also scope for cooperation with the UNDP project and
potentially other projects on development of climate resilient agriculture technologies and extension
packages.

12
SO3 Poor ruralhouseholds improve accessto strengthened rural
service deliveryby Government,civil society and private sector
agencies
17. Outcome indicatorsforSO3 appearto be on track, mainlydue to inclusionof the relatedactivities
in the ASPIRE programme.
Table A2.7: Status of SO3 Outcome Indicators
Outcome Indicator Contributing
Activities
Measured Results Likelihood of
Achievement
A policy for climate sensitive Agricultural
Extension Services integrating public sector,
private sector and civil society roles is developed
and adopted (ASPIRE)
ASPIRE Component
1
Policy for Agriculture
Extension approved
in 2015 influenced
by ASPIRE design
On track: review of
policy will take place
after MTR of ASPIRE
40% increase in the number of agriculture
education and extension service providersthat are
using good quality extension materials reviewed
and disseminated by MAFF (ASPIRE)
Baseline will be
measured by
Extension
Practioner Survey
(ASPIRE)
On track
At least three major policy studies and associated
publications will be produced by SNEC, discussed
with stakeholders and disseminated (Small
grants)
Supported under
ASPIRE Component
1
On track
Ex-post economic rate of return of directly
supervised projects financed under COSOP is at
least 15%
Major Impact
Surveys (PADEE,
ASPIRE)
On track
18. The policy development activities foreseen at the time of the COSOP preparation to be financed
through a Small Grants programme with SNEC, are now included in ASPIRE.
Milestone Indicator Progress (to end 2015)
Measured Results
Likelihood of
achievement
By end 2016
At least three training workshops on
analytical methods for policy-making
in ARD implemented successfully
(Small grants)
Will be achieved under ASPIRE Comp. 1 On track
By end 2017
Draft policy for Agricultural Extension
Services integrating public sector,
private sector and civil society roles is
finalized for discussion (ASPIRE)
Policy on Agriculture Extension adopted by MAFF in
2015 is influenced by ASPIRE design.
On track
By end 2018:
-land based training
packages developed (minimum 10
and 4 respectively), updated and
endorsed by MAFF and MOWA
(PADEE)
10 land-based training packages developed
4 non-land-based training packages developed
On track
On track
75% of extension materials endorsed
by MAFF incorporating farming as
business and resilience
On track

13
1,000 trainers and extension agents
from Government, civil society and
private sector trained in farming as
business and climate resilient
production techniques (ASPIRE)
On track
Agricultural support package for poor
farmers with access to new land
developed and endorsed by MAFF
(ASPIRE)
Not in plan
19. Accordingly, the institutional objectives associated with SO3 remain achievable (Table 10)
Table A2.9: Status of SO3 Institutional Objectives
COSOP Institutional / Policy Objectives
(in Partnership mode)
Achievements Future
Policy for Agricultural Extension Services is
Policy on Agriculture Extension
adopted by MAFF in 2015 is
influenced by ASPIRE design.
ASPIRE will support
implementation and measure
effectiveness, followed by policy
review after ASPIRE MTR
Increased number of diversified extension
service providers delivering advice
sustainably in rural areas
Supported by ASPIRE
Contribute to formulate new proposals on
how to improve incentive structure of public
service delivery in rural area including the
possibility of programme budgeting
Provincial sub-programmes
integrated into MAFF Programme
Budget structure
Development of performance
assessment and introducing results
based financing within Programme
Budget framework

14
[Clickhereandinsertcountryname]AppendixII
UPDATED RESULTS MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Objectives
(by end 2018)
Objectives (in partnership
mode)
IFAD investments would be aligned to:
(i) Rectangular Strategy for Growth,
Employment, Equity and Efficiency and
the National Strategic Development
Plan (2009-13):
Increasing agricultural productivity and
diversification
Promotion of agro-industries
Expanding system of technical and
agricultural extension services
Further strive toward linking farmers to
the regional and global agricultural
markets
(ii) Policy on Promotion of Paddy Rice
Production and Export of Milled Rice
and in particular with the following
objectives:
Paddy surplus reaches 4 million tons
Milled rice exports of at least 1 million
ton
Develop arrangements for information
sharing with stakeholders in domestic
market
(iii) Strategy for Agriculture and Water
(2010-13):
enabled to take advantage of
market opportunities
Average labour productivity of 49,000
targeted households increases by
25%5 (PADEE)
Not reliably measured
Average household non-rice
agricultural production of 49,000
targeted households increased by 20%
(PADEE)
Achieved: 22% increase in MTR
80% of IGRFs increase the size of their
fund by 30% after three years (not
including Group Conditional Capital
Transfers) (PADEE)
On Target: IGRF groups retained
profits equal to 11% of equity in 2015
Average household agricultural
production value of 100,000 targeted
households increased by 15%
(ASPIRE)
Delayed: ASPIRE will not reach
100,000 hh by 2018
Net farming income of 1,500 poor farm
households with access to new land
above poverty line level (ASPIRE)
No relevant activities in ASPIRE
By end 2015:
way (PADEE)
274 FBA by end 2015
By end 2016:
496 CEW trained by PADEE, 50%
women. 392 CEW and CAA trained by
TSSD (50% women)
women) (PADEE)
PADEE: 49,000 beneficiaries achieved
and 38,600 trained in financial literacy
performance (PADEE)
Only limited support to 120 GRF is
planned
Achieved in PADEE and TSSD
By end 2017:
38,600 trained in first year package,
18,604 trained in second year package
Extension materials and
technical protocols used by
MAFF decentralized staff
based on market demand
and farming as business
Improvement in knowledge
and methodologies on
conditional capital transfers
to poor households
Contribute to improved
training packages on
financial literacy for poor
rural households
Contribute to the
development of a tailored
agriculture support package
for poor farm households
with access to new land
Develop efficient
mechanisms for RGC to
enter in public-private
partnerships for extension
service provision
5
Accounts forboth on farmand non-land based income generating activities.

15
Objectives
(by end 2018)
mode)
Agriculture and agri-business that
make effective use of inputs and
market opportunities, are steadily
production, and deliver full benefits to
farmers, rural communities, and other
stakeholders (output F)
15 innovation sub-projects at different
development stages approved for
financing under iRAD (ASPIRE)
Consistent with ASPIRE and S-RET
work plans
Minimum of 20% increase in average
net farming income of 80,000 HH
participating in 8 value chains (AIMS)
Will not be achieved by 2018
and second year packages; (PADEE) Not
done
based income generating activities, of
which at least 70% are women (PADEE)
1,362 beneficiaries trained
By end 2018:
business considerations (ASPIRE)
Not started yet
1,800 poor farm households receive
Agricultural support package for farmers
Not in plan
Plan (2009-13)
SO2:Poor rural households
and communities increase
resilience to climate and other
shocks
Value of household assets owned by
participating households increased on
55% increase measured in MTR
Percentage of children under 5
suffering from chronic malnutrition
disaggregated by gender is reduced by
By end 2016:
4,000 pro-poor bio-digesters constructed
and operating (PADEE)
Biodigester roll-out dropped from
PADEE but to be done by S-RET
By end 2018:
Minimum of 120 climate-resilien t
productive infrastructure sub-projects,
complying with eligibility and selection
Pro-poor climate change
adaption extension materials
used by extension service
providers
Targeted communes
integrate climate resilience
measures in their
development plans

16
Objectives
(by end 2018)
mode)
Finding resources, support and
financing for solving climate change
issues
Strengthen natural resources
management
Educate and propagate on climate
change
Accelerate implementation of
programme activities on National
climate change adaptation
Production and Export of Milled Rice:
Focus on constructing and maintaining
rural roads connecting rice production
areas to markets
(2010-13):
A comprehensive and coordinated
capacity to assemble and utilize
knowledge, information and
technology transfer (output C)
Agricultural systems and community
arrangements that enable poor and
food insecure Cambodians to have
substantially improved physical and
economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food at all times to meet their
dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life (output D)
10% in targeted communes
(Mainstreaming Nutrition Activities)
PADEE: Severely malnourished
(height for age) reduced from 40.1%
at baseline to 31.9% at MTR
[NB MTR REPORT HEADLINES
SEVERE CHRONIC MALNUTRITION
FIGURE ONLY: 11.9%]
criteria, identified through local planning
process and executed with quality (AIMS)
Starting 2016 (ASPIRE Comp 4)
infrastructures are adequately operated
and maintained (AIMS)
Not yet
completed (AIMS)
Starting 2016 (ASPIRE Comp 4)
packages that fully incorporate climate
resilient considerations; (ASPIRE)
Delayed: ASPIRE will not reach 100,000
hh by 2018
Contribute to development of
an efficient delivery
mechanism for climate-
resilient productive
infrastructure that can be up-
scaled

17
Objectives
(by end 2018)
mode)
Plan (2009-13):
Creating an enabling environment to
attract private investors, domestic and
foreign
Welcoming the contribution from
NGOs and other to ensure the transfer
of know-how and new technology to
farmers in regard to crop farming and
animal rearing.
Continue partnership between the
owners of small farming land and
plantation and other agricultural
production corporation and between
economic land concession and social
land concession to create job
opportunity and market for local people
Expand agriculture extensive services
to commune level
Improve the legal framework for
investment and other related
regulations if necessary
(2010-13):
SO3: Poor rural households
improve access to
strengthened rural service
delivery by Government, civil
society and private sector
agencies
A policy for climate sensitive
integrating public sector, private sector
and civil society roles is developed and
adopted (ASPIRE)
Achieved: Extension Policy adopted
in 2015
40% increase in the number of
agriculture education and extension
service providers that are using good
quality extension materials reviewed
Not yet (baseline to be measured by
Extension Practitioner Survey in
2016)
At least three major policy studies and
associated publications will be
produced by SNEC, discussed with
stakeholders and disseminated (Small
grants)
Consistent with ASPIRE and S-RET
work plans
Ex-post economic rate of return of
directly supervised projects financed
under COSOP is at least 15%
No ex-post analysis conducted to
date
By end 2016
analytical methods for policy-making in
ARD implemented successfully (Small
grants)
Starting 2016 (ASPIRE and S-RET)
By end 2017
Services integrating public sector, private
sector and civil society roles is finalized for
discussion (ASPIRE)
Policy adopted in 2015
By end 2018:
Land and non-land based training
packages developed (minimum 10 and 4
respectively), updated and endorsed by
MAFF and MOWA (PADEE)
Achieved by 2015
75% of extension materials endorsed by
MAFF incorporating farming as business
and resilience considerations (ASPIRE)
Starting 2016
1,000 trainers and extension agents from
Government, civil society and private
sector trained in farming as business and
climate resilient production techniques
(ASPIRE)
Starting 2016
farmers with access to new land developed
and endorsed by MAFF (ASPIRE)
Not in plan
Policy for Agricultural
Increased number of
diversified extension service
providers delivering advice
Contribute to formulate new
proposals on how to improve
incentive structure of public
service delivery in rural area
including the possibility of
programme budgeting

18
Objectives
(by end 2018)
mode)
A sound policy and legal framework to
enable development of the Agriculture
and Water sectors (output A)
A sound institutional, administrative,
research and education basis for
effective work performance in
agricultural and water resource
development and management (output
B)
1.

19
Appendix 3: Proposed changes to results management
framework
I. Purpose of Review
1. As part of the Mid-Term Review of the Results Based COSOP2013-18, the Results Management
Framework has been analysed with the purposes of identifying any changes that may be needed. It is
importantthatthe changestothe RMS do notrepresentanyfundamentalchange tothe objectivesof the
RB-COSOP;anddo notdegrade the compatibilitybetweenthe RMSindicatorsandthe M&E toolsalready
in place.
2. The objectives of the review of the RMS are considered to be:
 To identify planned results that are no longer achievable, or that do not correspond to
any actual or planned programme activities;
 To check that all indicators are clearly defined and measurable;
 To identify any improvements that can be made in the match between the Strategic
Objectives and the indicators;
 To identify any additional indicators that may be needed, for example because of an
evolution in IFAD country programme strategy.
Unified Set of Indicators
3. The Outcome indicatorsinthe COSOPresultsframeworkare in almostall casestiedcloselyto the
results expected of individual projects, primarily PADEE, ASPIRE and AIMS. This approach is found to be
unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
4. One important project, TSSD, is entirelyomitted from the COSOP results framework. This arose
because of uncertaintyoverthe future of the projectat the time of COSOPpreparation.Thatuncertainty
is now resolved and this successful project should be properly included in the measured results of the
country programme;
5. Project-level indicators merelyduplicate project level reporting, rather than seeking to aggregate
results to measure programme-level impacts;
6. Within the COSOP results framework, there are a number of indicators taken from project
logframes that measure very similar things in slightly different ways.
7. Therefore,itisproposedtorevisethe COSOPoutcome indicatorstoaggregateresultsacrossall the
active projects (TSSD, PADEE, ASPIRE, S-RET and AIMS). It is proposed that a common basis for
measurementof householdlevelindicatorsshouldbe “[impact] measuredafterthree years’participation
in COSOP programme activities.” Examination of the COSOP RMF shows that most household-level
indicatorscanbe convertedtothiscommonbasiswithrelativelylittle adjustment,andwithoutanyimpact
on the validity of data already collected through household surveys and project monitoring.

20
8. It is proposed that the common basis of measurement should be impact achievedfor 75% of the
core target groupof each project.The numbersof core beneficiaryhouseholdsperprojectare setout in
Table A4.1 below.
Table A4.1: Core Beneficiaries of COSOP Projects
Project Type of households targeted Total number
planned (hh)
Number to be
counted in
COSOP targets
TSSD LIG members 27,314 20,485
PADEE IGRF members 49,000 36,750
ASPIRE / S-
RET
Smallholder Learning Group 100,000 75,000
AIMS Smallholder participants in value chain 80,000 60,000
256,314 192,235
9. However, many of these beneficiary households will not be reached, or will not have completed
three years’ participation, by 2018. Therefore, if the COSOP timeframe is maintained as 2013-18, the
number of beneficiary households should be modified as shown in Table A4.2
Table A4.2: Core Beneficiaries of COSOP Projects (3 years participation by 2018)
Project Type of households targeted Total number
planned
Number to be counted in
COSOP targets
TSSD LIG members 27,314 20,485
PADEE IGRF members 49,000 36,750
ASPIRE / S-
RET
Smallholder Learning Group 9,000 6,750
AIMS Smallholder participants in
value chain
- -
85,314 63,985
10. The RMS containsmilestone indicatorswhichare alsotiedcloselytoindividual projectactivities.It
is proposed to retain the project-specific milestones, subject to adjustment of targets to what can
realistically be achieved within the COSOP timeframe.
II. Strategic Objective1
11. The RMS contains seven indicators for Strategic Objective 1 (Poor smallholders enabled to take
advantage of market opportunities). It is noted that:
12. Two indicators relate to gross agricultural production, which in itself is a poor indicator of
achievement in increasing market linkages;
13. One indicator “non-rice agriculture production” is not compatible with a market led approach. A
market-orientatedfarmershouldbe encouragedtoswitchbetweenrice andnon-rice cropsaccording to
marketsignals.If farmersswitchfromcorntorice inresponse tomarketsignals,the indicatorwilldecline
but the underlying intentionof the SO will be enhanced.Therefore,this indicator should be dropped as
having no relevance to the SO.

21
14. The indicatorof labourproductivityisof keyimportanceinassessingthe effectivenessof extension
activities(because if productivityof on-farmlabouris below available returnstowage labour,increased
effortinfarmingcannotimprove the farmer’slivelihood.However,thisindicatorhasprovedverydifficult
to measure.Itis proposedtoretainthe indicatorinmodifiedform, subjecttoa specificeffortto develop
a viable method of measurement
15. It is proposed that ideally the following set of indicators would be measured for all farmers
participating in extension and market-linked smallholder agriculture support activities:
16. Production value, as this is the basis of other more meaningful indicators;
17. Value added,whichmeasuresthe farmer’sgrossreturnsfromfarmingandalsothe contributionto
agriculture GDP. NB that value added includes both own consumption and marketed surplus;
18. Net cash income from farming, considered as the best indication of market linkages;
19. Productivity of own-farm agricultural labour (see above).
20. Table A4.3 shows proposed revisions to the SO1 outcome indicators.
Table A4.3: Proposed Revisions to SO1 Outcome Indicators
Outcome Indicator Comment Proposed action Revised indicator
Average labour productivity of
increases by 25% (PADEE)
Key indicator but hard to
measure
Cannot be adequately
measured by HH survey
approach at present.
At least 3 major extension
packages shown to
increase productivity of
own-farm labour by 25%.
Average household non-rice
agricultural production of
Not an appropriate indicator.
Market-linked approach
should be neutral between
rice and non-rice production
Drop this indicator. It has
no strategic significance
Drop
80% of IGRFs increase the
size of their fund by 30% after
three years (not including
Group Conditional Capital
Transfers) (PADEE)
 Measures
sustainability of GRFs.
Can equally well apply
to TSSD groups
 Wording is not very
clear.
Generalise At least 1,7806 GRFs shown
to have retained surplus
averaging 10% of capital
value at the start of the
year, each year for three
years (excluding additional
transfers received)
Average household
agricultural production value
of 100,000 targeted
households increased by 15%
(ASPIRE)
Production value is a crude
indicator but has to be
measured in order to
measure economic
indicators. Re-define as
general indicator
Average household
agriculture production
value of 64,0007
smallholder households
has risen by 15% afterthree
years participation in
programme activities
Net farming income of 1,500
poor farm households with
access to new land above
No relevant activities
planned
Drop Drop
15 innovation sub-projects at
different development stages
approved for financing under
iRAD (ASPIRE)
Innovation sub-projects to
be funded by ASPIRE and
iRAD
Keep but re-define
slightly
15 innovation sub-projects
at different development
stages approved for
financing
6
i.e. 80% of PADEE and TSSD GRFs
7
Or 190,000 if the COSOP timeframe is extended to 2021

22
Minimum of 20% increase in
average net farming income of
80,000 HH participating in 8
Value Chains (AIMS)
Key indicator of market-
linked agriculture – not only
applicable to AIMS
Re-defined and
measure for all projects
Net cash income from
farming of 64,0000
smallholder households
increased by 20% after 3
years’ participation in
21. In order to effectively plan, implement and monitor interventions in support of market-driven
smallholderagriculture,animprovedunderstandingof agricultural economicindicatorsisneeded.Thisis
true at the project level and within the planning, budgeting and M&E systems of MAFF which remain
dominated by a production focused approach. Accordingly, it is proposed to add one indicator to the
COSOP Institutional / Policy Objectives (Partnership mode) column, as follows:
 Improved capacity to measure and analyse the economic impacts (micro- and macro-) of a
range of interventions to support market-driven smallholder agriculture.
III. Strategic Objective2
22. The RMS containstwoindicatorsforStrategicObjective 2(Poorrural householdsandcommunities
increase resilience toclimate andothershocks).The indicatorfor householdassetvalue wasselectedas
a simple proxy indicator for household resilience to shocks. It is proposedto retain this indicator but to
re-define the targetusingthe commonbasisadoptedforthe StrategicObjective1indicators(see above).
23. The secondindicator(childhoodmalnutrition) shouldalsobe retainedbutthe indicatorshouldbe
slightly re-defined in line with actual M&E practice (see Table A4.4).
24. Neither of the indicators measures either vulnerability or resilience directly. Recently, Ministryof
EnvironmenthasintroducedaClimateVulnerabilityIndex(CVI),basedonCommuneDatabase (CDB)data,
measuring the level of climate vulnerability of local communities. It is not realistic to expect COSOP
interventionstoresultinanattributablechangeinthevalueof thisindicator overashortperiod.However,
the CVI couldbe adoptedas an indicatorof targetingquality,therebyalsoprovidingalinkto RGC’s M&E
framework for climate change adaptation. It is proposed to introduce this indicator for monitoring
purposes without a specific target defined at this stage.
25. The proposed changes are summarised in Table A4.4.
Value of household assets
owned by participating
households increased on
Should be generalised to all
projects (not just PADEE)
Should state a time period
Revise indicator Value of household assets
owned by 64,000 smallholder
households increase by
average of 25% after three
years participation in
Percentage of children under
5 suffering from chronic
malnutrition disaggregated by
gender is reduced by 10% in
targeted communes
(Mainstreaming Nutrition
Activities)
Project Major Impact
surveys do not attempt to
measure population-level
prevalence as sampling
frame is project
beneficiaries
 Re-define
sampling
frame to
XXX target
households
 Retain
target
Percentage of children under
5 in 64,000 target households
suffering from chronic
malnutrition (stunting) is
reduced by 10% after 3 years
participation in programme
activities

23
(New indicator) Ministry of Environment
have recently introduced a
Climate Vulnerability Index
capable of identifying most
vulnerable communities
Add indicator tracking
COSOP expenditures
in vulnerable
communities (no
specific target)
% of COSOP local level
investments targeted to most
vulnerable 40% of
Communes measured by CVI
IV.Strategic Objective3
26. The RMS contains four indicators for Strategic Objective 3 (Poor rural households improve access
to strengthened rural service delivery by Government, civil society and private sector agencies).
27. It is noted that the SO3 indicators do not directly measure farmers’access to or use of extension
services. Giventhe increasing diversity of service providers (public sector / civil society / private sector)
and delivery mechanisms (traditional trainings / demonstrations / farmer-to-farmer learning / IT based)
this might be a better methodological approach in the long run. This point should be considered in
formulation of the next COSOP.
28. It is proposed to retain the RMS indicators essentially unchanged. However, consideration to
measuringfarmer’saccessto anduse of servicesshouldbe consideredasthe central indicatorof service
delivery effectiveness in a future COSOP.
Agricultural Extension
Services integrating public
sector, private sector and civil
society roles is developed and
adopted (ASPIRE)
OK OK n/a
agriculture education and
extension service providers
that are using good quality
extension materials reviewed
and disseminated by MAFF
(ASPIRE)
OK, but important that
ASPIRE extension
practitioner baseline is
properly conducted to
enable measurement.
Implement ASPIRE
extension practitioner
baseline
n/a
At least three major policy
publications will be produced
by SNEC, discussed with
stakeholders and
disseminated (Small grants)
OK, though not clear that
SNEC will be the
implementing agency for the
studies. Studies will be
conducted under ASPIRE
Component 1 and under S-
RET (also AIMS?)
Remove reference to
SNEC
At least three major policy
publications will be produced
by discussed with
stakeholders and
disseminated
Ex-post economic rate of
return of directly supervised
projects financed under
COSOP is at least 15%
OK, though an adequate
methodology for
measurement is needed.
IFAD to develop
methodology
n/a

[Click here and insert country name] Appendix III
24
PROPOSED REVISED COSOP RESULTS MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Objectives
(by end 2018)
mode)
Plan (2009-13):
Increasing agricultural productivity and
diversification
Promotion of agro-industries
Expanding system of technical and
agricultural extension services
Further strive toward linking farmers to
the regional and global agricultural
markets
Production and Export of Milled Rice
and in particular with the following
objectives:
Paddy surplus reaches 4 million tons
Milled rice exports of at least 1 million
ton
Develop arrangements for information
sharing with stakeholders in domestic
market
enabled to take advantage
of market opportunities
MODIFIED: At least 3 major
extension packages shown to
increase productivity of own-farm
labour by 25%.
MODIFIED: 80% of Group Revolving
Funds (at least 1,780 GRFs) shown
to have retained surplus averaging
10% of capital value at the start of
the year, each year for three years
(excluding additional transfers
received)
MODIFIED: Average household
agriculture production value of
64,000 smallholder households has
risen by 15% after three years’
participation in programme
activities
MODIFIED: 15 innovation sub-
projects at different development
stages approved for financing
MODIFIED: Net cash income from
farming of 64,0000 smallholder
households increased by 20%after 3
By end 2015:
way (PADEE)
By end 2016:
women) (PADEE)
performance (PADEE)
By end 2017:
and second year packages; (PADEE)
based income generating activities, of
which at least 70% are women (PADEE)
By end 2018:
business considerations (ASPIRE)
Extension materials and
technical protocols used by
MAFF decentralized staff
based on market demand
and farming as business
Improvement in knowledge
and methodologies on
conditional capital transfers
to poor households
Contribute to improved
training packages on
financial literacy for poor
rural households
Contribute to the
development of a tailored
agriculture support package
for poor farm households
Develop efficient
mechanisms for RGC to
enter in public-private
partnerships for extension
service provision
Improved capacity to
measure and analyse the
economic impacts (micro-

25
Objectives
(by end 2018)
mode)
(2010-13):
Agriculture and agri-business that
make effective use of inputs and
market opportunities, are steadily
production, and deliver full benefits to
farmers, rural communities, and other
stakeholders (output F)
years’ participation in programme
activities
and macro-) of a range of
interventions to support
market-driven smallholder
agriculture.
Plan (2009-13)
Finding resources, support and
financing for solving climate change
issues
Strengthen natural resources
management
Educate and propagate on climate
change
Accelerate implementation of
programme activities on National
climate change adaptation
Focus on constructing and maintaining
rural roads connecting rice production
areas to markets
SO2: Poor rural
households and
communities increase
resilience to climate and
other shocks
MODIFIED: Value of household
assets owned by 64,000 smallholder
households increase by average of
25% after three years participation in
MODIFIED: Percentage of children
under 5 in 64,000 target households
suffering from chronic malnutrition
(stunting) is reduced by 10% after 3
years participation in programme
activities
NEW: % of COSOP local level
investments targeted to most
vulnerable 40% of Communes
measured by CVI
By end 2016:
4,000 pro-poor bio-digesters constructed
and operating (PADEE)
By end 2018:
Minimum of 120 climate-resilien t
productive infrastructure sub-projects,
complying with eligibility and selection
criteria, identified through local planning
process and executed with quality (AIMS)
infrastructures are adequately operated
and maintained (AIMS)
completed (AIMS)
packages that fully incorporate climate
resilient considerations; (ASPIRE)
Pro-poor climate change
adaption extension materials
used by extension service
providers
Targeted communes
integrate climate resilience
measures in their
development plans
Contribute to development of
an efficient delivery
mechanism for climate-
resilient productive
infrastructure that can be up-
scaled

26
Objectives
(by end 2018)
mode)
(2010-13):
A comprehensive and coordinated
capacity to assemble and utilize
knowledge, information and
technology transfer (output C)
Agricultural systems and community
arrangements that enable poor and
food insecure Cambodians to have
substantially improved physical and
economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food at all times to meet their
dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life (output D)

27
Objectives
(by end 2018)
mode)
Plan (2009-13):
Creating an enabling environment to
attract private investors, domestic and
foreign
Welcoming the contribution from
NGOs and other to ensure the transfer
of know-how and new technology to
farmers in regard to crop farming and
animal rearing.
Continue partnership between the
owners of small farming land and
plantation and other agricultural
production corporation and between
economic land concession and social
land concession to create job
opportunity and market for local people
Expand agriculture extensive services
to commune level
Improve the legal framework for
investment and other related
regulations if necessary
(2010-13):
SO3: Poor rural
households improve
access to strengthened
rural service delivery by
Government, civil society
and private sector agencies
integrating public sector, private sector
and civil society roles is developed and
adopted (ASPIRE)
agriculture education and extension
service providers that are using good
quality extension materials reviewed
MODIFIED: At least three major
policy studies and associated
publications will be produced by
discussed with stakeholders and
disseminated
Ex-post economic rate of return of
directly supervised projects financed
under COSOP is at least 15%
By end 2016
analytical methods for policy-making in
ARD implemented successfully (Small
grants)
By end 2017
Services integrating public sector, private
sector and civil society roles is finalized for
discussion (ASPIRE)
By end 2018:
Land and non-land based training
packages developed (minimum 10 and 4
respectively), updated and endorsed by
MAFF and MOWA (PADEE)
75% of extension materials endorsed by
MAFF incorporating farming as business
and resilience considerations (ASPIRE)
1,000 trainers and extension agents from
Government, civil society and private
sector trained in farming as business and
climate resilient production techniques
(ASPIRE)
farmers with access to new land developed
and endorsed by MAFF (ASPIRE)
Policy for Agricultural
Increased number of
diversified extension service
providers delivering advice
Contribute to formulate new
proposals on how to improve
incentive structure of public
service delivery in rural area
including the possibility of
programme budgeting

28
Objectives
(by end 2018)
mode)
A sound policy and legal framework to
enable development of the Agriculture
and Water sectors (output A)
A sound institutional, administrative,
research and education basis for
effective work performance in
agricultural and water resource
development and management (output
B)
1.

2. COSOP results review mtr 2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 2. COSOP results review mtr 2016

Similar to 2. COSOP results review mtr 2016 (20)

More from ifadseahub

More from ifadseahub (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2. COSOP results review mtr 2016