By taking into account the achievement of its objectives, it seems that OCISP was
partially effective, as the project faced some important constraints concerning the
implementation of the ANRM component, which constitute much of the core focus of
OCISP. In fact, the ANRM component did not meet its outcome and output targets for
extension activities and irrigation schemes development, this representing an
important missed opportunity. In fact, with regard to the transfer of new upland
agriculture cropping practices, if the proportion of hhs that received training is
compared to the proportion that actually adopted an upland technology, is seems that
demonstrations farms and agricultural extensions have only added small additions to
changing upland practices. Moreover, there are some legitimate concerns around
lowland agriculture extension, insofar as the benefits likely accrued more to wealthier
hhs. In addition, the project promoted rehabilitated and new irrigation schemes,
without making much effort to provide farmers with assistance in selecting higher
yielding cash crops and alternative lowland varieties or market oriented varieties.
Finally, management issues still seem to hamper the delivery of services for the
ANRM component, due to weaknesses in the management in PAFO and DAFO. On
the positive side, it is worth noting that the M&E system has been a noteworthy
achievement of the project, with a strong focus on outcome as well outputs level
impacts.
By taking into account the achievement of its objectives, it seems that OCISP waspartially effective, as the project faced some important constraints concerning theimplementation of the ANRM component, which constitute much of the core focus ofOCISP. In fact, the ANRM component did not meet its outcome and output targets forextension activities and irrigation schemes development, this representing animportant missed opportunity. In fact, with regard to the transfer of new uplandagriculture cropping practices, if the proportion of hhs that received training iscompared to the proportion that actually adopted an upland technology, is seems thatdemonstrations farms and agricultural extensions have only added small additions tochanging upland practices. Moreover, there are some legitimate concerns aroundlowland agriculture extension, insofar as the benefits likely accrued more to wealthierhhs. In addition, the project promoted rehabilitated and new irrigation schemes,without making much effort to provide farmers with assistance in selecting higheryielding cash crops and alternative lowland varieties or market oriented varieties.Finally, management issues still seem to hamper the delivery of services for theANRM component, due to weaknesses in the management in PAFO and DAFO. Onthe positive side, it is worth noting that the M&E system has been a noteworthyachievement of the project, with a strong focus on outcome as well outputs levelผลกระทบต่อ
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
