MID‐TERM EVALUATION FOR THE FY 2007‐2011 GUATEMALA TITLE II DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROMASA II PROJECT Proyecto Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria Prepared for USAID/Guatemala and Save the Children/Guatemala 1 September 2010 By Peter Heffron – Management Consultant – Best Practice Planning – USA/Norway Sandra Saenz de Tejada – Health & Governance Consultant – Independent, Guatemala Kristi Tabaj – Senior Specialist, Child Hunger and Agriculture – Save the Children USA PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 Contents 1 Acronyms .............................................................................................................................. i 2 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... iv 3 MTE Report Navigation Options .......................................................................................... v 4 Quick Links ........................................................................................................................... v 5 Forward ............................................................................................................................... vi 6 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 1 6.1 PROMASA II Project Background.................................................................................. 1 6.2 Evaluation Background ................................................................................................. 2 6.3 Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................................. 2 6.4 Major Findings .............................................................................................................. 3 6.5 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 10 6.6 Recommendations...................................................................................................... 10 7 Top 3 Recommendations for Save the Children and Partner Organizations..................... 15 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 15 7.2 Cross‐Cutting Elements............................................................................................... 15 7.3 SO‐1: MCHN and Governance .................................................................................... 17 7.4 SO‐2: Food Production and SO‐3: NRM & Disaster Planning ..................................... 21 8 Top Recommendation for USAID/Guatemala.................................................................... 22 9 MTE Action Plan (Proposed) .............................................................................................. 22 10 Guatemala Profile........................................................................................................... 23 11 MTE Purpose .................................................................................................................. 24 11.1 MTE Audience............................................................................................................. 25 12 PROMASA II Background ................................................................................................ 25 12.1 Snapshot of the Guatemala MCHN Situation............................................................. 25 12.2 Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 25 12.3 Project Design............................................................................................................. 28 13 MTE Inputs...................................................................................................................... 33 14 MTE Outputs................................................................................................................... 33 15 MTE Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 34 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 16 MTE Results by Cross‐Cutting Element ..........................................................................35 16.1 Project Performance and Project Management.........................................................35 16.2 Monitoring and Evaluation System.............................................................................39 16.3 Partnerships ................................................................................................................43 16.4 Gender ........................................................................................................................ 49 16.5 Capacity‐Building ........................................................................................................51 16.6 USAID Regulation 216 Compliance .............................................................................54 17 MTE Results by Strategic Objective................................................................................57 17.1 SO 1: Mother‐Child Health and Nutrition Practices and Services; and Governance..57 17.2 SO‐2: Food Production, Marketing, and Services.......................................................81 17.3 SO‐3: Natural Resources Management and Natural Disaster Planning .....................98 17.4 SO‐1, SO‐2, and SO‐3 Cross‐Cutting Elements..........................................................103 18 Conclusions...................................................................................................................103 18.1 PROMASA II Organization Chart (Spanish) ...............................................................109 18.2 Terms of Reference...................................................................................................110 18.3 Consultant CVs ..........................................................................................................139 18.4 MTE Methodology (Spanish).....................................................................................153 18.5 MTE Schedule: Field Visits, Persons Interviewed, Etc. (Spanish) .............................157 18.6 MTE Survey Instruments...........................................................................................164 18.7 Better Practice Community‐Based Monitoring Example..........................................186 18.8 Better Practice Family/Community Gardening Example (Spanish) ..........................191 18.9 MTE Workshops Results ...........................................................................................202 18.10 MTE Photos Link....................................................................................................216 18.11 PROMASA II Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Reporting.................................217 18.12 FY‐2009 Annual Results Report: DIP Status ..........................................................226 18.13 FY‐2009 IPTT Report..............................................................................................230 18.14 MTE Sustainability Assessment.............................................................................234 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 i 1 Acronyms PROMASA II MTE Report Acronyms AIEPI Atención Integrada a las Enfermedades Prevalentes de la Infancia AINM‐C Atención Integral de la Niñez y la Mujer a Nivel Comunitario ARI Acute Respiratory Illness BCC Behavior Change Communication CBO Community Based Organization CGMP Community‐based Growth Monitoring and Promotion CHW Community Health Worker CHV Community Health Volunteer C‐IMCI Community Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses   COCODE Community Development Committee   COMUDE Municipal Development Committee   COSAN Community Food Security and Nutrition Committee   COTONEB   Cooperativa Agrícola Integral para Todos los Nebajenses CS Cooperating Sponsor DHS Demographic and Health Surveys ENSMI   Maternal and Child Health Survey FFP Food for Peace FFW Food‐for‐Work FONAPAZ Fondo Nacional para la Paz Genesis Genesis Empresarial (micro‐credit) GOG Government of Guatemala   HH Household INAB Instituto Nacional de Bosques Kiej Kiej de los Bosques (micro‐empresas) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 ii PROMASA II MTE Report Acronyms LAs Lideres Agropecuarios/Farmer Leaders MGs Madres Guias/Mother Guides MLs Madres Lideres/Mother Leaders MAGA Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food MOH Ministry of Health IEC Information, Education and Communication   IR Intermediate Result   LAC Latin America and the Caribbean Region   LNGO Local Non‐governmental Organization LOP   Life of Project MALF Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food (English) MAGA Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganaderia, y Alimentos (Spanish) MG Madre Guía (Mother Guides) ML Madres Lideres (Mother Leaders) M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCHN Maternal Child Health and Nutrition   MSPAS Ministerio de Salud Pública y Asistencia Social MTE Mid‐Term Evaluation NGO Non‐Governmental Organization OMP Office of Municipal Planning PDI Positive Deviance Inquiry PDGL Program of Decentralization and Local Governance (USAID) PROMASA II Proyecto Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria II PROSAN Programa de Seguridad Alimentaria Nutricional del Ministerio de Salud RFSA Rapid Food Security Assessment SEGEPLAN Guatemalan General Secretariat of Planning SESAN Secretaría de Seguridad Alimentaria Nutricional SIAS Sistema Integral de Atención en Salud SC Save the Children Federation/USA/Guatemala Country Office PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 iii PROMASA II MTE Report Acronyms SO Strategic Objetive UPS‐1 Unidad de Provisión de Servicios de Salud Nivel‐1 USAID United States Agency for International Development   WFP World Food Program   WHO World Health Organization Internet • Save the Children USA in Guatemala: www.savethechildren.org.gt • Save the Children USA: www.savethechildren.org • Save the Children Global Alliance: www.savethechildren.net PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 iv 2 Acknowledgments Evaluating a development project is equally challenging for those involved in the project and for those charged with reviewing the project’s performance. This mid‐term evaluation is no exception.   Representatives of the Government of Guatemala and USAID; participant families and Mother Leader and Farmer Leader volunteers; and staff from COTONEB, Genesis Empresarial, Kiej de los Bosques, and of course Save the Children—all sacrificed significant time and energy ensuring that the MTE team was able to see and experience as much of the PROMASA II Project as possible in the time available. For example it was common for Farmer and Mother Leaders to have to walk one to two hours each way from their communities to the community where we were conducting focus groups. We hope that our five weeks in Guatemala, including two weeks in the campo in the Quiche and Ixil regions, three workshops to exchange impressions, plus our weeks of writing and re‐writing—have resulted in a MTE Report that is accurate, useful, and worth the tremendous effort that the PROMASA II stakeholders put into it. Muchas gracias a todos. Sandra Saenz de Tejada Health & Governance Consultant Guatemala Peter Heffron Team Leader & Project Management Consultant Best Practice Planning Kristi Tabaj Senior Specialist, Child Hunger and Agriculture Consultant Save the Children USA Guatemala              1 September 2010 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 v 3 MTE Report Navigation Options This report is designed to serve a wide range of PROMASA II stakeholders, to be a resource during the final year of the PROMASA II Project and to provide input to the design of a follow‐on MYAP. The electronic version of this report is meant to be easily navigable from one section to another using links embedded in the document. For example, “See the Action Plan (Proposed) on page 22.” Ctrl‐ clicking on “22” will take you there. 4 Quick Links # Topic Page/Link 1 Executive Summary 1 2 Top 3 Recommendations for SC/PROMASA II Team 15 3 Top 3 Recommendations for USAID/Guatemala 15 4 MTE Action Plan (Proposed) 22 5 MTE Results by Cross‐Cutting Element 35 6 MTE Results by Strategic Objective 1:   Mother‐Child Health and Nutrition Practices and Services 57 7 MTE Results by Strategic Objective 2:   Food Production, Marketing and Services 81 8 MTE Results by Strategic Objective 3:   Natural Resource Management and Natural Disaster Planning 98 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 vi 5 Forward The field phase of the PROMASA II mid‐term evaluation (MTE) was conducted in 8 of 123 project communities. The 8 chosen communities were identified by the PROMASA II staff to be representative of many of the communities served by COTONEB and Save the Children; however the MTE team was cautioned by the PROMASA II staff that there was nevertheless significant variability in the 123 communities that could not be captured in 8 communities. (The MTE team encountered not insignificant variability even between the 8 communities.)   The PROMASA II MTE design did consider the option of employing a random sample of communities and randomly selected beneficiary households within the selected communities; however the requisite statistically significant sample size would have required a significantly lengthier and more costly assessment. In addition, because per the Save the Children/Guatemala terms‐of‐reference the primary focus of the MTE was to be on processes and lessons learned rather than impacts (the purview of the final evaluation), the number of communities visited—while less than ideal—was not considered by PROMASA II management nor the MTE team to be a critical factor in the MTE. Finally, the MTE team recognizes that:   • The evaluation occurred when the project had completed nearly 70 percent of its life‐cycle (as opposed to 50 percent) • A one‐year project start‐up delay occurred that was beyond the control of the project team • In recent years the Government of Guatemala (GOG) has unfortunately become less effective institutionally, thus adversely affecting delivery and quality of services, including in areas related to public health/MCH, agriculture, food security, disaster prevention and mitigation, and sustainability (e.g., community‐level strategic plans).   The ‘proof’ of this observation is (a) the paucity of basic GOG services and/or the quality of same as experienced by the PROMASA II beneficiary families, Mother and Farmer Leaders, and project staff in the the fore‐mentioned areas; and (b) the generally declining trends especially among the low‐income majority with respect to basic nutrition/health, food security, sustainability, and so on. Thus PROMASA II strategies, financial and human resources, and activities dedicated to strengthening and/or collaborating with some key GOG institutions (MOH, MAGA, INAB, SESAN, etc.), were unable to bear fruit. • The 2008—2009 financial crisis and 2009 drought resulted in sizeable spikes in poverty and malnutrition throughout Central America, including Guatemala • The PROMASA II target area and beneficiary population (especially given their recent history of violent repression) have posed a significant challenge These constraints undoubtedly acted as a brake on project performance. Considering the preceding, the reader is asked to interpret the MTE findings and recommendations presented in this report with caution. The MTE team did attempt to incorporate PROMASA II staff observations and recommendations (please see the Santa Cruz Workshop results in the Annexes, on page 202) and vet erroneous and overly subjective findings and recommendations to the extent possible by presenting tentative findings to USAID/Guatemala, partner organizations, and PROMASA II staff in workshops and through the sharing of several drafts of this report; however we acknowledge that 100 percent accuracy and objectivity is difficult to attain. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 1 6 Executive Summary 6.1 PROMASA II Project Background The PROMASA II Project final goal is to reduce food insecurity in vulnerable populations living in six municipalities in the Department of Quiché Guatemala and is supported by three sub‐goals and accompanying strategic objectives. Impact will be measured primarily by a reduction in chronic malnutrition in children aged less than 3 years.*1 PROMASA II Impact Indicator: Chronic Malnutrition in children aged 0 through 36* months reduced Sub‐Goal 1 Improve Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition Sub‐Goal 2 Strengthen Livelihoods Management Sub‐Goal 3 Build community resilience SO‐1 Increased adoption of key MCHN practices and use of services SO‐2 Increased adoption of key food production and marketing practices and use of services SO‐3 Increased adoption of key natural resource management practices that strengthen community and household preparedness for natural disaster PROMASA II is a follow‐on to the 2000—2006 PROMASA I project. With funding from USAID and with its Guatemalan partner, Cooperativa Agricola Integral Todos Nebajenes (COTONEB), and in close association with service providers Genesis Empresarial (micro‐finance) and Kiej de los Bosques (market linkages between rural communities and the private sector), SC has implemented the PROMASA II Project since October 2006 in 123 communities in Quiche, Guatemala, assisting over 100 thousand indigenous people improve their health and nutrition. The PROMASA II Project mid‐term evaluation (MTE) identifies ways that the project can improve its performance, systems, and processes in order to improve its efficiency and project outcomes during its remaining year‐plus of operations. (The PROMASA II Project is due to conclude in September 2011.) In addition, we are confident that the MTE will enable a greater understanding of what has worked and what could be improved in the project, and thus what better practice design elements a follow‐on project would need to incorporate to manifest even greater cost‐effectiveness than PROMASA II has.   Given the challenges facing Guatemala and Guatemalans—as witnessed in the unusually harsh 2009 drought and economic crisis, and the May 2010 (post‐evaluation) eruption of the Pacaya volcano, and flooding, landslides, and crop losses due to tropical depression Agatha—in the long run, the evaluation is meant to contribute to GOG’s, USAID’s, SC’s, and SC’s partners’ desire to identify better practice, more innovative, more effective means of addressing Guatemala’s declining food security situation.                                                             1 Quote from PROMASA II MYAP, SC USA/Guatemala, 2006. Impact indicator recommended change from <5 years to <3 years. Guatemala Showing PROMASA II Project Area PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 2 6.2 Evaluation Background Save the Children USA in Guatemala (SC) commissioned the mid‐term evaluation (MTE) of the Proyecto Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria (PROMASA II) project. The PROMASA II MTE evaluation team consisted of three experienced consultants: Peter Heffron, who served as team leader and the Cross‐Cutting Factors consultant; Sandra Saenz de Tejada, who served as the Health and Governance consultant; and Kristi Tabaj, Senior Specialist, Child Hunger and Agriculture–Save the Children USA— who served as the Livelihoods consultant. The field component of the evaluation took place from 9 April 2010 through 14 May 2010, and the final evaluation report was prepared in several drafts from May through August 2010. 6.3 Evaluation Methodology The MTE methodology was developed by the MTE consultants with the involvement of SC/PROMASA II staff from 9 to 12 April, taking into account the time available for the evaluation, availability of the consultants and project field staff, and the need to ensure representation by as many segments of the target population and agro‐ecological regions as possible. A rapid appraisal approach was agreed, criteria for who should be interviewed and which project interventions should be visited were established, focus group question guides were developed, and logistics were organized. Save and COTONEB field staff (‘Supervisores’), segregated by their respective assignments to the project’s three strategic objectives, were given a one‐day training by the Health and Livelihoods consultants in applying the focus group instruments. Following the training, a one‐day ‘live’ exercise was conducted in one PROMASA II community to validate the instruments and give the enumerators a bit of experience before doing the real thing several days later. Eight communities, four in the Quiche‐speaking area and four in the Ixil‐speaking region, were visited during the MTE team’s two weeks in the field.2 There was a degree of variability between communities visited and evaluation findings, thus the observations and recommendations contained in this report will not apply uniformly to the project as a whole. Nevertheless, based on triangulation exercises, including a workshop in Santa Cruz de Quiche on 28 April (see Annexes, page 202 … ctrl+click page number to follow page link), and interviews with partner organizations and with municipal authorities, the initial findings and recommendations have been generally validated and—if not—have evolved to represent most of the PROMASA II Project reality—strengths as well as areas for improvement. Due to the independent nature of the MTE, there are inevitably some findings and recommendations that the MTE team has made that, even after modifications/explanations, project stakeholders differ with. We believe that the evaluation approach of suggesting that the PROMASA II team decide for itself which of our recommendations to implement and the most appropriate manner for doing so—permits at least consideration of even potentially controversial findings and recommendations. The team leader participated in both specialist focus groups and household visits, conducted SO‐2 and SO‐3 focus groups with Farmer Leaders, and met with the specialists and project staff daily and, when necessary, virtually, to agree on lessons learned and fine‐tune approaches as necessary, as well as to assist in adjusting logistics. The team leader, in consultation with fellow team members and PROMASA II staff, was also engaged in planning especially the Santa Cruz de Quiche workshop which was conducted on 28 April.                                                             2 For more information on the communities visited, as well as interviews at the partner organization, Municipal and Department levels, please see the MTE Schedule on page 157 in the Appendices. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 3 6.4 Major Findings Project Management and Cross­Cutting Elements We are convinced that with its integration of child health and nutrition, governance, expansion of agriculture and micro‐enterprise opportunities, and environmental protection and emergency preparedness components (SOs 1, 2, and 3), the PROMASA II Project is a conceptually solid venture. We observed that project staff, representing COTONEB, Genesis Empresarial, Kiej de los Bosques, and SC—work relentlessly to make the project a success. The community‐level Mother Leaders and Farmer Leaders are also generally gung‐ho about their work in the project. PROMASA II’s primary ‘clients’—the approximately 10,250 households in 123 communities targeted by the project—per the MTE focus groups and observations—are grateful to be a part of PROMASA II. This was especially so in 2009 when the combined effect of the international financial crisis—which significantly reduced remesas (remittances) from the USA to Guatemala’s thousands of villages; and to the worst drought in 30 years—pushed chronic malnutrition to high rates (see graph below), representing a setback to PROMASA II’s expected reduction in the chronic malnutrition rate.   Although these twin crises occurred all over Guatemala, PROMASA II Mother and Farmer Leaders and beneficiaries consistently reported to the MTE team that the project’s Title II resources (including Food‐for‐Work road maintenance mini‐projects), as well as the goat, home garden, and other activities—had a significant mitigating effect. In other words, the situation in 2009 was unusually difficult, but would have been much worse without PROMASA II. Overall, per performance data provided to the MTE team by the SC/PROMASA II M&E unit and management, it appears that the project will achieve most of its objectives by September 2011. (For an overview of PROMASA II performance indicator status as of December 2009, please see the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Reporting, FY‐2009 ARR, and IPTT reports beginning on page 217 in the Appendices.) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 4 There is a reasonable probability that by September 2011 the project will also achieve its primary impact goal of reducing chronic malnutrition in children aged 0 through 36 months (see graph above).3 PROMASA II has contributed to a significant recovery in the chronic malnutrition rate from September 2009, when chronic malnutrition climbed to 78%, to March 2010 when it declined to 76%. If that trend can be maintained, the September 2011 target will be achieved.   In other cross‐cutting areas, particularly counterpart relations and, to some extent, gender, PROMASA II is also doing quite well. Project partners COTONEB, Genesis, and Kiej de los Bosques report that they have appreciated the relationship with SC and feel that SC has been a good lead partner, although they would appreciate more participation in higher‐level project‐related monitoring and decision‐making. With respect to gender, although PROMASA II does not have a great deal of female‐male mix in its project activities (i.e., SO‐1’s beneficiaries consist of mostly women and under three year olds, and SO‐2 and SO‐3 participants are mostly male), female beneficiaries and female Mother Leaders far outnumber male beneficiaries and male Farmer Leaders.   As one might expect in a mid‐term evaluation, as a result of the document reviews, focus group discussions, interviews, physical observations, and workshops—opportunities for improvements in the PROMASA II Project and future food security projects have also been identified. For example, an important core theme in the PROMASA II MYAP is contributing to improved access by project participants to better MCHN services, food production and marketing services, and natural resource management and emergency preparedness services4 —however it was observed by the MTE team that few project activities at 70% of the project implementation period have actually resulted in improved access to services. The apparent major contributing factors to the above are:   1. The PROMASA II project design (2006 MYAP) attempted to do significantly more than PROMASA I, and with less resources.   The PROMASA II MYAP was designed to increase the project impact and cost‐effectiveness of PROMASA II relative to PROMASA I. This would be accomplished by decreasing the cost per beneficiary by roughly doubling the number of PROMASA I project beneficiaries, while halving the number of SC and COTONEB supervisors, and operating within a budget similar to the PROMASA I budget.   The logic was that in place of SC and COTONEB supervisors, there would be Mother Leaders (SO‐1) and Farmer Leaders (SO‐2, SO‐3) who, after receiving basic training‐of‐trainers in PROMASA II activities, and for a monthly stipend of Q 500 (approximately US$ 60), would work in several communities for the duration of the project.5                                                                3 Recommended goal indicator modification per “through 49 months.” Please see SO‐1 recommendations beginning on page 55. 4 From the PROMASA II MYAP Results Framework 5 Note: The following factors were considered by PROMASA II in establishing the stipend amount for Mother Leaders: (1) Although it may be less than the mínimum wage, it is greater than the GOG’s conditional transfer payments of Q 200/month to the neediest families; and (2) The Mother Leader stipend is competitive with the opportunity cost of other work, which for Mother Leaders, is close to nil. Information provided by PROMASA II project management, 6‐2010. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 5 An additional benefit meant to accrue from the preceding approach was greater sustainability, in that the 120+ communities would have access to trained, experienced—and trusted‐by‐their‐peers—Mother Leaders and Farmer Leaders. These Leaders would then continue, in an‐as‐yet undefined manner, the core project activities (health/nutrition, improved governance, agriculture/micro‐enterprise extension, environmental protection and disaster mitigation, respectively) after PROMASA II had concluded.   2. With the important exception of MOH health posts and clinics, the paucity of GOG‐managed agriculture and natural resources extension and other basic services to link to in the first place.   The fundamental PROMASA II project design assumptions, including the above, were agreed upon during the project design phase, and were embodied in the 2006 MYAP. The challenge has been operationalizing such an ambitious strategy in a timely and quality manner.   The result of the preceding has been an inability to date of PROMASA II to strengthen—much less create—access to health and agriculture extension services. The key causes of the design issue apparently were: (a) the project design principle of balancing scope‐resources‐time—was not adequately adhered to; (b) piloting the new strategy on a smaller scale was not considered; and (c) a risk analysis of the proposed new strategy (from PROMASA I to PROMASA II)—was apparently not conducted. This situation alone would have put PROMASA II in difficulty; however a nine‐month startup delay put further pressure on the project. The project implementation plan, including targets, etc., was established from 1 October 2006, however the project only began signing up communities and implementing food distributions in July 2007. SO operations were initiated in September 2007.   The project startup delay was caused by a tardy receipt of the first food shipment for monetization (June 2007). Thus, although the project did engage in community organizing activities, per the FY‐07 ARR/DIP, there were no project outputs that first year. Other findings with respect to PROMASA II cross‐cutting factors relate primarily to project management, the M&E system, and sustainability. In brief: • Although improvements can be made with respect to PROMASA II’s programmatic and organizational integration (project vision, ‘customers,’ finances, internal growth, etc.),6 the PROMASA II Project appears to be managed at all levels within standard project management norms. • The PROMASA II M&E system, while adequate for fundamental reporting purposes, needs upgrading in order to meet generally accepted project M&E norms.   • PROMASA II sustainability, both in terms of critical project activities continuing once the project has completed and in terms of potential external opportunities and constraints affecting the target population—is uncertain/unarticulated by the project as of the MTE (May 2010). Detailed findings and recommendations regarding the preceding are included in this report (see MTE                                                             6 For example, see the Balanced Scorecard approach discussed in the Management and Project Performance section beginning on page 35. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 6 Results by Cross‐Cutting Factor beginning on page 35). In conclusion, the PROMASA II cross‐cutting factors—particularly counterpart relations, gender, project management, M&E, and sustainability—are proving important to achieving the project’s programmatic objectives… So important that they—in a follow‐on project—should be monitored and reported on in their own right. SO­1: Increased Adoption of Key MCHN Practices and Use of Services The focus of SO‐1 has been the implementation of a strategy to promote the adoption of preventive key MCHN practices and the use of MOH health services in order to improve feeding practices and diminish rates of childhood illnesses and malnutrition. This strategy includes recruitment and training of community health workers (CHW), who implement activities of the strategy in the community. While the SO‐1 has four intermediate results, on the ground it has been divided into two main components: (a) health and nutrition and (b) the strengthening of community organization. There has been substantial revision (sometimes including discontinuation) of strategies originally proposed in the MYAP, particularly those that involved close collaboration with the MOH.   CHWs (locally known as Madres Líderes or Mother Leaders) serve in the critical role of extending coverage of program strategies and disseminating health and nutrition‐related messages. They are currently selected by the communities and PROMASA II has spent considerable effort in their training in health and nutrition. Currently there are too few CHWs to adequately cover participating households (each CHW covers, on average, 140 households), and not enough PROMASA II project personnel to supervise their work. In this estimation, with 15 months remaining in the five‐year project, the frequency of contact between CHWs and project participants—combined with other important factors beyond the project’s control (discussed further below)—will probably not prove sufficient enough to translate into the planned level of end‐of‐project impact. The other main component in this SO, which actually affects all three of the project’s SOs, is the strengthening of community organization (Democracy and Governance). It targets three main groups: (a) local food and nutrition security committees (COSAN, Comisión de Seguridad Alimentaria), (b) the official community organization (COCODE, Consejos Comunitarios de Desarrollo), and (c) officials and organizations at the municipal level, such as municipal planning departments. Community organizations have received a series of trainings in leadership, organization, and the food security framework. In several municipalities the project has promoted COSAN networks, some participating in monthly the municipal‐level committees, COMUDEs (Consejos Municipales de Desarrollo). The success of strengthening both COSANs and COCODEs has varied, as well as the degree of interaction between both. At the municipal level, project efforts have included regular meetings with planning officials and active participation at the COMUDE, where the project’s technical expertise in food and nutrition security is widely appreciated. The preceding findings (as well as recommendations) are presented in greater detail in the MTE Results by Strategic Objective section, beginning on page 57. SO­2: Increased Adoption of Key Food Production and Marketing Practices and Use of Services Beneficiaries seem to be satisfied with especially the following SO‐2 activities: improved seed/material and planting advice for maize and beans, the goat module (and the use of goat droppings and urine for fertilizer and pest management), poultry rearing, family gardens, and tree PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 7 nursery activities. Technical guides and trainings provided to PROMASA II staff and agriculture leaders seem comprehensive, professional and well‐organized. Team members witnessed demonstration plots at the Farmer Leader level which promoted practices taught through PROMASA II.   Initially, PROMASA II had two sets of local participants involved in disseminating SO‐2 and SO‐3 practices among beneficiaries: Farmer Leaders and Farmer Guides. The Farmer Guides received food rations as an incentive and reported to the Farmer Leaders. However, there were some issues between Health Guides (SO‐1) and Farmer Guides. It was in the best interest of the project to eliminate the Farmer Guide positions and allow Farmer Leaders to take on additional duties. Farmer Leaders were provided input incentives used towards the creation of their demonstration plots. Demonstration plots are limited to the community in which the Farmer Leader lives, but various family gardens and small livestock modules are implemented in the other one to two communities where the leader serves. Each leader is provided training in a number of different topics. The leaders then provide selected trainings to beneficiaries in up to three communities.   Farmer Leaders serve as an example and resource to the communities they serve. Demonstration plots including family gardens, small livestock (goat and poultry) modules, and compost piles provide both beneficiaries and community members not enrolled in the project, the opportunity to see live examples of promoted activities on a daily basis. Leaders also serve as a constant resource for advice and information in the communities where they live. They coordinate closely with SO‐1 Mother Leaders in providing health, nutrition, and hygiene guidance as well as monitoring underweight children within their communities. Improving the nutritional status of children under 3 is one of the major components of PROMASA II and therefore the goat module is of great importance. As of September 2009, PROMASA II had reached 602 HHs or 55% of the target (LOP target: 1100 HHs). In comparison, poultry modules (composed of five trainings) reached 2249 of the targeted 1900 HHs or 118% as of September 2009. This activity is also significant with respect to achieving targets related to improving the nutritional status of children under 3.   Small livestock health and hygiene practices have been heavily promoted in PROMASA II. The emphasis has been on keeping small livestock in pens and keeping the pens clean to prevent the spread of disease. This practice was clearly adhered to by Farmer Leaders in their demonstration plots as well as other households observed over the course of the mid‐term evaluation site visits.   There has also been a focus in PROMASA II on small livestock vaccination and the availability of vaccines and other medicines through Farmer Leaders. However some Farmer Leaders and PROMASA II staff expressed concern that reliability of the cold‐chain for vaccines is affecting the adoption of regular vaccination of small livestock by households.   There has also been an emphasis on making sure the products derived from the small livestock are as hygienic as possible (for example, cleaning the udder/teats and the surrounding area of the goat when milking). Mother Leaders and Farmer Leaders have both reinforced the importance of hand‐ washing before and after handling small livestock or small livestock by‐products.   The activities around the goat module are holistic. Goats produce milk to be consumed by initially undernourished children under 3 in the household. Waste products from the goat are then used for pest management (urine) and fertilizer (droppings). Goats also serve as a household asset. The activity provides yet another illustration of the integrated nature of Title II programming. There was some variation (to be expected) in terms of the "quality" of the Farmer Leader PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 8 demonstration plots, and even more variability in terms of "quality" with respect to beneficiary household attempts to replicate the demonstration plots, or some of the components (e.g., vegetable gardens) and operationalize the training they had received from the FLs. Specifically it was observed that demonstration plots are not as "efficient" as they could be, generally taking up more space than necessary, especially considering that up to half of beneficiary households in the communities visited do not have enough land to replicate the demonstration plots, or even some of the component options such as vegetable gardens. The main observation is that possible future permutations of the PROMASA II home gardens component could and ‐‐given the high stakes with respect to malnourished children, land and water scarcity, etc.‐‐perhaps should employ better practices. For home gardens, a proven better practice is the Biointensive method. (A better practice family/community gardening example is provided in Spanish in the Appendices, page 191.) The training manuals developed for the PROMASA II Project provide enough information to Farmer Leaders to help guide the selection of beneficiaries for particular activities, provide key points on engaging participants and give technical information on the targeted topic.   One of the recommendations from the baseline survey was to promote agriculture‐based income generating activities directed at women. Kiej de Los Bosques is working with six women’s groups on opportunities to increase income through product development. While not all groups are working on agriculture‐based projects, the purpose of each group is to develop a product or products for commercialization. Kiej has developed a model to guide groups through a process by which they develop into an independent group such as a cooperative or business. A number of additional benefits were discovered through focus groups conducted during the mid‐term evaluation.   Within IR 2.3, access has increased as most inputs are provided to beneficiaries. Generally though, this IR aims to improve food availability and does not address long‐term access issues. Scarcity of some inputs and limited uptake of recommended practices have limited the success of certain activities, such as the use of improved bean seed varieties. SC planned to purchase improved bean seeds for activities around improved production practices. However, due to the lack of commercial availability of the improved seeds in the market, not all targeted beneficiaries have been able to participate in this activity. Limited commercial availability was due to drought conditions which lowered the production and therefore availability of the improved bean seed variety. In addition to this, beneficiaries are not following the recommended practice of independently multiplying seeds on their own.   Food‐for‐Work projects in PROMASA I focused not only on community projects, but also on home/land improvement.7 The emphasis shifted within PROMASA II to community‐based projects. Food‐for‐Work projects can be limited to small projects within the communities. SO­3: Natural Resources Management and Natural Disaster Planning Natural resource management activities are positively viewed by project participants, even though there are issues with inputs and community participation. Project activities should continue as scheduled, focusing on exit strategies. In general, all future programming within the Guatemala CO should include a disaster risk reduction component focusing on preparedness, mitigation and                                                             7 Soil conservation, household repair, environmental clean‐up.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 9 adaptation activities. Relevant to this program, the CO can identify existing DRR activities within PROMASA II for inclusion in future programs. Attention should be paid to the integration of health/nutrition, agriculture and natural resource management as it relates to risk reduction. Nursery, reforestation and recycling/sanitation activities are viewed positively by participants and seen as important to future generations within their communities. This was stressed by participants at many of the beneficiary focus groups. Some issues related to the tree nurseries were raised. There have been problems in several areas visited with respect to seedling germination rates, pests, and a fungal disease in the soil. These issues have adversely affected tree seedling production. Although this is a concern, it is important to mention that the observation applies only to the limited number of communities visited; that PROMASA II management has affirmed that the majority of the PROMASA II promoted nurseries have not experienced these issues; and that project staff are working with experts and the affected farmers to identify solutions. Disaster preparedness is anticipated for approximately 40% of PROMASA II communities. Only communities at high risk for disasters are targeted for training by the project in preparing disaster preparedness plans, etc. However, we found that some of the Farmer Leaders were not sure if their communities were supposed to have disaster management plans or not. In general they feel having a community disaster management plan is a good idea. Farmer Leaders are unanimous in their sense that environmental sustainability trends are worsening and will end in catastrophe for their communities over the next 20 years‐or‐so (no trees, no water, no topsoil, not enough land per family) if current trends continue. We noted, simply observing the landscape on our way to remote PROMASA II communities, and then around the communities themselves ‐‐ that, with some exceptions, there is widespread deforestation with no visible re‐forestation; and that most farmers are not practicing soil conservation techniques. Soil erosion is also readily apparent on the steep slopes in the project area.   PROMASA II management have rightly pointed out that the project is not and cannot be responsible for the general population and environment beyond its target beneficiaries and the land that they work. However it can also be argued that there is a solid ‐and documented‐  expectation in Title II programming (i.e., from the USAID/FFP perspective) that ideally there should be spillover effects from Title II programming to the wider community and environment. As mentioned under SO‐2, SO‐3 is designed to contribute in a synergistic way to SO‐2 and SO‐1, and thus to the overall sustainability and impact of PROMASA II. Thus if SO‐2 is the engine, SO‐3 is largely the fuel for the engine. If there are no trees, soil has been washed away, and there's no water for domestic use and irrigation  ‐‐ there will be no agricultural production, linking markets with farmers, and so on, resulting in numbers of food insecure families increasing. It is interesting that a number of PROMASA II personnel and Farmer Leaders, tend to speak of soil conservation and related activities as if the challenge is a limited and fixed beginning point of deforested lands, rather than a widespread and rapidly growing 'deficit' of forested areas and consequent increases in lands susceptible to soil erosion. In other words the concept of a moving target and intervening not "from zero," but "from minus 30 and declining" is largely missing. Also missing, with few exceptions, is any sense of urgency regarding tackling directly—or coordinating with communities and other organizations to address the declining environmental trends mentioned above. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 10 The preceding findings (as well as recommendations) are presented in greater detail in the MTE Results by Strategic Objective section, beginning on page 57. 6.5 Conclusions The PROMASA II MTE’s main conclusions are as follows: 1. Particularly when considering the significant constraints it has faced since inception, overall, the PROMASA II Project is a successful endeavor, set to achieve most of its objectives, and perhaps its impact goal of reducing chronic malnutrition in the target population—by September 2011.   2. Although PROMASA II management is confident that most of PROMASA II’s quantitative objectives can be achieved by September 2011, the project will need to explore, ideally in time for the final project evaluation, how it is measuring ‐or proposes to measure‐ (a) the quality of health, agriculture, and natural resources services (ref: MYAP); (b) the extent of improved linkages between beneficiaries and those services; and (c) the quality of project outputs. Quality is a relative term; nevertheless it is a long‐standing component in the fundamental project management design optimization triangle of time‐cost‐quality, with each term—including “quality”—needing to be defined down to the project output level.8, 9, 10 3. Because the PROMASA II project has only one more year to run, SC/PROMASA II management will have to focus somewhat urgently on developing and initiating a comprehensive, inclusive (i.e., involving representatives of all of the project stakeholders) exit strategy. 6.6 Recommendations Short‐Term Recommendations In order of highest to lowest priority, we recommend that SC/PROMASA II consider carrying out the following tasks in the near term: a) MTE Follow‐up Action Plan SC/PROMASA management should first review the proposed action plan included in this report (page 22) and modify it as necessary in consultation with representatives of the key stakeholders (PROMASA II staff, USAID, SC Headquarters, partner organizations, volunteers, etc.) to ensure that primarily tasks that relate to realizing PROMASA II’s core results/outcomes at the community level— and that can be achieved before the project ends in September 2011—are part of the final action plan.                                                             8 A purpose of the time‐cost‐quality triangle is to demonstrate, for example, as product/output specifications require increasing quality, more time and/or financial resources will be required to achieve the increasing quality specifications. Thus lower ‐but acceptable‐ quality might be satisfactory given budget and time constraints. SC and partners are encouraged to use existing better practice quality specifications or create their own—where the quality term is used in the MYAP with respect to GOG services and PROMASA II project outputs. 9 Examples from the PROMASA II MYAP Results Framework: IR 1.2 Improved quality of key MCHN services; IR 2.2: Improved quality of key food production and marketing services; IR 3.1 Improved access to quality natural resource management and emergency preparedness services and supplies. 10 Examples include InterAction’s PVO Standards and the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge, FAO’s Farmer Field Schools Better Practices, etc. Also see sustainability strategy documents from CSHGP and FANTA. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 11 b) Complete PROMASA II Outputs by September 2011 Re‐prioritize pending activities/outputs with partners and complete PROMASA II activities and their outputs per the PROMASA II MYAP DIP as modified by the 2008—2009 ARR and the 2010—2011 (to be prepared) ARR. c) Develop a PROMASA II Exit Strategy One of the initial items in the proposed action plan is Develop a PROMASA II Exit Strategy. The exit strategy should, in our view, be prepared in a participatory manner, as if it were a project in its own right. Thus an option for the CO’s consideration is that there would be an Exit Strategy vision, objective(s), strategy(ies), outcomes, measurable outputs, and activities. In addition, rather than implementing an exit strategy all at once in all the project communities, one or several exit strategy approaches could be initiated first in one or several communities on a pilot basis, with lessons learned being applied to the remaining communities.11 d) Begin Developing a Follow‐on MYAP In consultation with SC headquarters, USAID/Guatemala, partner organizations, and the Guatemala Monetization consortium members, explore options for completing PROMASA II and developing a follow‐on MYAP. e) Plan the Final Evaluation In the midst of updating the MTE action plan and developing and implementing an exit strategy, planning for the final project evaluation could easily be postponed until it too becomes a task that is rushed at the end and that distracts stakeholders from their already full agendas as the project phases out. Thus we recommend that SC/PROMASA management, in consultation with USAID and SC headquarters, and PROMASA II staff and partners, complete planning for the final evaluation, if possible, within the first quarter of USG FY‐2011. Long‐Term Recommendations a) Management Structure and Management Systems Based on our field observations and the current PROMASA II organization chart (see Appendices, page 109), it is recommended that a more decentralized project management structure and management system be explored in a follow‐on project design. Lines of authority/accountability should relate as unambiguously as possible to management support (HR, Finance, M&E, etc.) as well as to each of the strategic objectives, including Cross‐Cutting Factors. In addition, in the case of SO‐1, the MCHN component and, separately, the Democracy & Governance component, as they are so distinct, in our opinion need different overseers, under the Coordinator level.   b) Monitoring and Reporting System We recommend that the SC/PROMASA II monitoring and reporting system be fine‐tuned for any follow‐on project. An element to consider within the improved monitoring and reporting system is Earned Value Analysis (EVA), which links the project scheduled plan, actual progress, budget, and spending on a cumulative basis over the life of the project. EVA should be looked at as a potential core monitoring and reporting tool that can be adapted to SC’s requirements. In addition, the CO’s                                                             11 The piloting suggestion was by one of PROMASA II’s partners, 13 May 2010. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 12 Ashok Khosla, co‐chair of the International Panel  for Sustainable Resource Management and  President of the World Conservation Union  (IUCN), said: "Incremental efficiency gains… have provided some improvements but, faced with the scale of the challenge, far more transformational measures need to be taken. Currently we are fiddling—fiddling around the edges—while Rome burns." Brussels 2 June 2010  Source: International Panel for Sustainable  Resource Management. www.unep.org  future M&E system could perhaps be better integrated at a basic level with a SC‐wide information system, developed to meet the basic information requirements of all key stakeholders, including donors, SC headquarters, partners, and—importantly—community participants,12 Mother Leaders and Farmer Leaders or equivalents in a future project, local government representatives (alcaldes, COCODES, COSANs, etc.). Note that SC reports that its 2010 Annual Operating Plan includes twice‐yearly meetings with community groups (ASISANES) to review project progress. These meetings will be managed by the PROMASA II M&E Unit.13 c) Future Food Security Program and Project Design Considerations The following long‐term recommendations apply primarily to the GOG, multilateral donors, and USAID‐level of program planning and design based on country strategies. However, it is suggested that Save and partner organizations lobby for frameworks, programs, and funding that take into account the key points in this section—primarily related to improving the connection between environmental sustainability and food security—a connection already explicitly emphasized in the PROMASA II MYAP—even though Save and partners will likely continue to focus on fulfilling specific sub‐objectives within such frameworks. In addition, Save and partner organizations are encouraged to ensure that they and their constituents are also represented at the table during ‘Guatemala‐level’ food security problem analyses and design processes. To begin with, for possible future programs and projects to more effectively address food security and sustainability trends in Guatemala, considerably more innovative and better practice programmatic strategies should be considered, from the GOG, USAID, SC headquarters, SC USA/Guatemala, and partner organization level— to the municipal and community level. For example, rather than a primarily household or target‐population‐within‐a‐community focus, it is suggested that there needs to be more of a whole community and bio‐sub‐regional and/or watershed focus, with emphasis on the communities within the bio‐sub‐region/watershed developing shared visions and strategic plans, with non‐political, professional facilitation assistance and the involvement of proven experts. We were astonished that none of the PROMASA II project communities possess long‐range strategic plans; and none were contemplating developing such plans—although when asked, most respondents felt such plans, if prepared in a participatory, professional manner, would be very useful. This observation is not related to PROMASA II performance, unless the D&G component in a future food security project includes strategic planning activities (worth considering in future project designs, in our opinion). Expertise would be necessary in participatory strategic planning, gender, environmental sustainability (e.g., footprint analysis), income‐generating and micro‐enterprise models that work with the very poor and landless, better practice mini‐farming strategies, including for populations without land, community‐based monitoring systems, policy/governance, transparency mechanisms, systems                                                             12 For additional information/examples, please see Community‐Based Monitoring on page 186 in the Appendices. 13 Ref: RA 28‐6‐2010. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 13 dynamics, and project management experts, and so on.14 Ideally as many of these experts as possible should come from Guatemala, with representation from the target population, with as much gender balance as possible. GOG, especially at the municipal and community levels, donors, INGOs and international NGOs—and of course the communities themselves—would need to cooperate in some form from the conceptual stage. The approach would ideally be done first on a pilot basis (e.g., in one or several watersheds), however a pilot on this scale could easily be a large MYAP separated among various NGOs, or individual MYAPs developed in a coordinated/cooperative manner, following common guidelines through a process led and funded, for example, by a GOG‐USAID‐other donors team, based on an agreed framework. Part of the above proposed process should include Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) techniques, adapted to include greater emphasis on negative environmental sustainability trends affecting and likely to affect in the future—the target region. A RRA approach will help ensure full participation by the primary stakeholders—the communities, local government, INGOs, etc.—and greater buy‐in to agreed interventions, roles, responsibilities, performance indicators, risk analysis, and so on. Standard project management principles and practices (e.g., per the Project Management Institute) should be employed from the conceptual phase through the execution phase of future USAID‐funded programs and projects. In other words, in addition to creating logical frameworks, which are also necessary, existing better practice project design procedures that result in balancing program/project scope, resources (people, money, etc.), and time, and that include risk analyses—should be employed. We acknowledge that the preceding long‐term suggestion presents significant challenges to program designers or implementers. There are sufficient mega‐development program failures around the world in general and in Central America specifically to make one pause before proposing another such program. However many smaller projects also fail to achieve their objectives, and even many of these projects are related to larger development policies and initiatives of governments and donors. Thus lessons learned from project failures and successes, both ‘mega’ and smaller, should be taken into account in the design of new programs in Guatemala. One example of a lesson learned in mega and smaller projects is that lack of buy‐in by the target population, due usually to lack of participation beginning with the problem‐solving/design process, contributes significantly to program failure. Another example is that risk analyses were not conducted, or were not sufficiently comprehensive, again contributing to program/project failures. Given Guatemala’s precarious environmental sustainability trends and their close association with food and nutrition security trends, we are suggesting that USAID, SC, and partner organizations question or explore ‘business‐as‐usual’ approaches to addressing the long‐term food security challenge. As an example, would it make a difference in our mindsets (and programming) if individual program and project performance over time were routinely related with environmental sustainability and food security trends in the bio‐sub‐region or watershed where the SC programs/projects are operating?                                                               14 Different sorts of expertise could be embodied in particular individuals. The list is long, however given that the challenges are complex and interrelated, and that the aggregate ‘success rate’ of food security and other projects over the years is what it is, it would seem counterintuitive to not engage such experts from the outset in this proposed initiative. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 14 If among their activities, GOG, donors, and NGOs continue designing and implementing individual ‘projects’ without connecting these with the wider generally declining framework of social (including food and nutrition security)‐economic‐environmental trends, particularly in the Indigenous areas of Guatemala, then the overall effect of such interventions over decades is likely to be quite limited relative to what needs to be done or could be done. It is notable that even the project communities— all, as mentioned above, without long‐term plans—conduct activities, including food security‐related activities, to a great extent in a vacuum, without reference to local social‐economic‐environmental trends nor a shared vision for addressing them over time. One of the ways SC can become more of a learning organization (a better practice in itself), will be for SC to continuously explore more innovative and better practice approaches for all of the strategies it employs in its core management functions and in future food security, emergency, and development projects. This concludes the PROMASA II MTE Executive Summary. For links (electronic version) to other MTE Report sections, please see the Table of Contents. It has been a pleasure and an honor for us to work with the PROMASA II team on this mid‐term assessment, including with GOG, USAID, COTONEB, Genesis Empresarial, and Kiej de los Bosques representatives—and of course with the Madres Lideres, Lideres Agropecuarios, COCODEs, municipal planning departments, and community participants. We trust that this report, as imperfect as it may be, will provide a useful reference point from which PROMASA II stakeholders can proceed with re‐ prioritized project operations over the final year of the project and begin the planning process for even more effective food security interventions in future projects. Sandra Saenz de Tejada Health & Governance Consultant Guatemala Peter Heffron Team Leader & Project Management Consultant Best Practice Planning Kristi Tabaj Livelihoods & Emergency Preparedness  Consultant Save the Children USA Guatemala                  1 September 2010 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 15 7 Top 3 Recommendations for Save the Children and Partner Organizations   7.1 Introduction Guided by the extensive PROMASA II MTE Terms of Reference (see Appendices, page 110), the PROMASA II MTE has generated numerous findings and recommendations. Many of the initial/draft findings and recommendations have been fine‐tuned and re‐prioritized based on feedback from SC/PROMASA II staff and partner organization representatives.   The MTE team recognizes that the PROMASA II project is under pressure to complete its basic objectives per the MYAP by September 2011 and that some MTE‐related activities would place an unacceptable additional burden on staff and other stakeholders in the remaining year‐plus of the project.   The primary reason for this situation (lack of time/resources to implement MTE recommendations) is that the mid‐term evaluation was conducted at 70% of the project lifecycle, leaving little time for substantive course corrections. A project startup delay and resource and other constraints discussed elsewhere in this report have also contributed to this ‘lack‐of‐time’ state of affairs. The MTE team’s proposed solution to the preceding constraints is to present what we believe are the “top three” priority recommendations for the Cross‐Cutting Factors and for each SO, with attempted balance between short‐term (present to end of project) and longer‐term (applicable to a possible future project design) recommendations.   Finally, the CO and PROMASA II management are encouraged to explore alternatives and/or adapt the MTE recommendations as necessary. The MTE Action Plan (Proposed) on page 22 also provides a means of adapting and operationalizing the short‐term and long‐term MTE recommendations in a scheduled, monitorable manner. 7.2 Cross­Cutting Elements Recommendation 1 (Short‐Term) Particularly in the final year of the project, management at all levels is encouraged to find ways to provide more consistent guidance and feedback (seguimiento) to staff and, at the supervisor level, provide additional guidance and feedback to Farmer and Mother Leaders. Steps: Management meets to agree on areas of PROMASA II that may warrant additional attention in terms of support/supervision with respect to completing the project objectives by September 2011 and per this MTE, the MTE action plan after it has been updated by staff, the exit strategy, and other routine problem‐solving and performance monitoring. Outputs: a) A table/plan re: important areas of PROMASA II that may warrant additional attention in terms of support/supervision per priority project activities/outputs, this MTE, the MTE action plan after it has been updated by staff, the exit strategy, and other routine problem‐solving and performance PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 16 monitoring, showing which operational or technical areas each manager will provide guidance/supervision in, how (e.g., ‘visits to randomly selected health posts, COCODEs, households’), how issues will be addressed and reported (e.g., post‐visit debriefing with staff; one‐page summary of key findings, recommendations, actions taken to immediate supervisor and file); and with what frequency (e.g., ‘one week in the campo every two months’). b) A self‐monitoring checklist for each manager/supervisor to help ensure that the preceding plan is implemented. Recommendation 2 (Long‐Term) Explore ways to improve cohesion within and between the different components of a new food security project. Although this recommendation applies primarily to a future food security project, it could also be implemented at a CO and partner organization level regardless of the projects it supports. Steps   a) Assign the work of identifying several proven integrating management approaches to an appropriate taskforce of approximately three staff. The staff would be oriented and given basic guidelines, target dates would be agreed, and so on. The taskforce would identify several proven integrating management approaches, including the Balanced Scorecard, the pros and cons of each, examples of NGOs and other organizations using the different approaches, and so on.   b) In consultation with SC management the taskforce would then arrange a presentation by an expert in the approach it favors, whether the Balanced Scorecard or another—to SC and partner organization management. Outputs a) Workshop design/plan that takes into account the MTE findings and the preceding steps, prepared with input from representatives of the PROMASA II key stakeholders. b) Workshop with/for representatives of all of the PROMASA II key stakeholders based on the workshop design (preceding). c) Workshop report and detailed action plan. d) If/as possible, incorporate very limited (for example in 5 percent of the target communities, and 5 percent of the target families in the selected communities) in better practice activities during the remainder of PROMASA II (e.g., ensuring that soil conservation techniques are applied to Farmer Leader demonstration plots, etc.). The primary purpose is to give PROMASA II partner organizations and other stakeholders a head‐start in identifying and feeling comfortable with better practices that can then be included in a new MYAP. Recommendation 3 (Long‐Term) Consider fine‐tuning the monitoring and reporting system as part of—or congruent with—a follow‐ on food security project design. As with the previous recommendation, this suggestion applies primarily to a future food security project, however it could also be implemented at a CO and partner organization level regardless of the projects it supports. Steps PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 17 a) Request SC Headquarters to provide TA/guidance in assessing the strengths and areas for potential improvement in the CO’s current M&E and reporting system based on established better practices for monitoring and reporting systems. Preferably include consideration of suggestions related to the CO/PROMASA II monitoring and reporting system mentioned elsewhere in this report (e.g., the Balanced Scorecard, community‐based monitoring, addressing partner organization information requirements, etc.). b) As a function of the preceding, develop a plan (including budget) to phase in agreed changes—if any—to the current monitoring and reporting system over time. c) Orient staff and other stakeholders to the monitoring and reporting system changes, if any, and pilot new approaches (e.g., community‐based monitoring) before adapting them on a larger scale. d) If/as applicable, incorporate elements of the improved monitoring and reporting system in future MYAPs (e.g., a community‐based monitoring initiative). Outputs a) Scope‐of‐work for technical assistance developed between SC/Guatemala and Save Headquarters. b) Report of the current CO/PROMASA II monitoring and reporting system’s strengths and potential areas for improvement, and recommended alternative better practices that the CO could consider. c) Plan, including budget, for fine‐tuning the current monitoring and reporting system over time. d) Future MYAPs incorporating elements of the revised monitoring and reporting system if/as applicable. 7.3 SO­1: MCHN and Governance Nutrition and Health Due to their urgency, the following are short‐term recommendations only. Given the very high rates of malnutrition, it is crucial to take a preventive approach and provide counseling in child feeding to all children, independent of their nutritional status. While this is already being done in the Ixil area, it is not an attainable goal in the K’ich’e area, at least with the available resources. An alternative approach would be to provide counseling in small groups, relying on the age‐specific groups already organized for food preparation demonstrations. This group counseling would be in addition to the individual counseling already being provided to malnourished children. Recommendation IR 1b: Food preparation demonstrations.   Steps: a) During the usual recipe demonstrations, CHWs would explain the generic child feeding recommendations. For example, for children aged 9‐11 months, this would include four meals per day, four full tablespoons of food per meal, etc.   b) After food preparation and while children are eating, CHWs would stress again the recommended volume, energy density, and the use of vegetables and animal protein.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 18 c) Mothers would be encouraged to practice active, responsive feeding while in the premises and to continue to put them in practice at home.   d) After children have eaten, mothers would be asked to choose one behavioral change (i.e., increase energy density, frequency of feeding, volume of food eaten), in addition to responsive feeding, which should be recommended to all.   e) One month later, during the next food preparation demonstration, CHWs would invite mothers to comment on what difficulties they found when implementing the recommended changes and for mothers to share progress in adopting them. Outputs:   Flowcharts for food demonstrations for age‐specific groups, including key behavioral change. The observed decline in the duration of exclusive breastfeeding needs immediate attention, as well as the increased prevalence of diarrhea. Project staff needs to ascertain why their interventions are not making the expected impact. The acquisition of knowledge has been disparate and most gains have concentrated in a few municipalities. In addition, improved knowledge does not easily translate into timely health seeking, as the baseline survey clearly showed. For its own learning, staff needs to conduct rapid, qualitative studies of 1) exclusive breastfeeding, 2) prevalence of diarrhea and 3) health‐care seeking when faced with danged signs. Steps: a) Conduct a doer/non doer, behave framework analysis to understand the current rates of exclusive breast‐feeding, including possible differences in implementation.   b) Conduct data analysis to document rates of diarrhea, disaggregating by community and by water and sanitation systems. If needed, conduct another doer/not doer analysis, to understand the factors that facilitate and hinder the prevention of diarrhea.   c) Assess, in the September 2010 survey, if increased knowledge of danger signs have led to timely health care seeking, using the same questions used in the baseline survey. Outputs: Once the factors underlying these behaviors are understood, plan appropriate action, involving, as much as possible feedback from project’s participants, such as CHWs and COSANs. Técnicos need to devote adequate time to assure higher quality service delivery. There needs to be a shift from the acquisition of knowledge to the acquisition of skills. Supervision of CHW must include more field visits. Técnicos need to critically assess their time use and focus on prioritized activities, taking into account that a major goal of the project is to leave well‐trained local CHWs. Steps: a) To achieve the desired impact there needs to be a shift in emphasis: Técnicos need to allocate less training in new topics (or topics not directly related to improved nutritional status) and more emphasis on supervision. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 19 b) There also needs to be a shift from the acquisition of knowledge to the acquisition of skills, particularly in terms of counseling. This could be attained by successive practice and timely feedback.   c) Each Técnico should assess the supervision needs of the heterogeneous CHW group under her responsibility and allocate her time accordingly. Such assessment could include both a theoretical and practical exam to ascertain CHWs’ strengths and weaknesses. Outputs:   Técnicos’ monthly plans include more time for supervision and timely feedback. Governance and Democracy The following recommendations should be prioritized as short‐term or long‐term by the CO/PROMASA II management. The COSAN networks are key to the sustainability of the COSANs and are fundamental to assure that food security issues are implemented at the local level. In several municipalities, the PROMASA II project has promoted COSAN networks, some participating in monthly COMUDE meetings (grassroots advocacy at the municipal level). COSAN members see this as a key to sustainability and the chance to include food security concerns at the local and municipal levels. The sustainability and effectiveness of COSANs would be enhanced by the strengthening horizontal linkages to other COSANs in the regional networks already in place. Vertical linkages would involve establishing (or strengthening) relationships with the COMUDEs or COMUSANs through the regional networks. In the long‐term, the following steps are recommended: Steps: a) Identifying and strengthening key individuals in promising COSANs who might serve as point persons within communities.   b) Develop the skills and commitment of these COSAN members, strengthening their effectiveness in their communities. These actions increase the likelihood of their long‐term functioning. c) Include as much as possible at least one COCODE member in these actions, in order the secure the functioning of the COSAN, given that they are the officially sanctioned community organization. d) Strengthen the leadership position of individual COSAN networks leaders, supporting their involvement in the COMUDES. e) In addition to training and participation in the broader networks mentioned above, most COSANs would like to see themselves as viable, effective community‐level organizations that can advocate for the inclusion of food security projects in their communities as well as be a group with the skills necessary to obtain the financial and other resources needed to establish food security activities at the local level. Their promoting, initiating, and involvement of everyone in the community in these projects bring credibility and respect from the COCODE and the community as a whole. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 20 Linked to a to‐be‐developed exit strategy and/or possible follow‐on project design, the project could provide additional training to the most promising COSANs. Additional training would include participatory strategic planning, development of project profiles and resource generation, and project general management. Steps: a) Sort COSANs according to their level of organization and potential to carry on food security activities—without Title II resources—once the project ends.   b) Training efforts would be concentrated on those most promising ‐‐ those more likely to take over some food security activities at the local level. This approach would allow over‐burdened PROMASA II staff to concentrate on other SO‐1 priorities.   c) Some criteria for selecting these COSANs could be the following: d) Interest in furthering their role and proven interest in past training: ownership and commitment to continue their advocacy for food security   e) Recognition by community members of the COSAN’s value and potential once PROMASA II phases out of the community f) Ability to work with the local COCODEs g) Participation in the COSAN network h) Ability to conduct participatory, community‐based strategic (or long‐term) and sustainable planning i) Ideally, School for Leaders would be offered to all promising COSANs, as yet the schools have been implemented in only a fraction of communities. The Schools have generated significant enthusiasm among some participants and are seen as an effective way to strengthen their community work. These Schools would include only COSAN members (currently they include all community leaders) and might even be offered in an abbreviated form, to avoid over‐ burdening Técnicos.   j) Currently, Técnicos share basic malnutrition data with the COSANs, but community groups are not being taught how to analyze health data and rarely do they conduct case‐by‐case analysis of growth‐faltering children. The ASISAN methodology has been postponed because of the time it entails for Técnicos, but an opportunity has been lost to strengthen community goal‐setting and monitoring. In future project, both could be enhanced by well‐programmed ASISANs, with timely follow‐ups.   Outputs: a) List of selected COSANs; b) training plan; c) Técnicos’ monthly plan reflects appropriate time for additional training and follow‐up activities. For future projects, it is important to allocate more human resources to the Democracy and Governance component. The project is to be commended for the significant results obtained with such a small work‐force, but the component is clearly understaffed and underfunded. Working with COCODEs tends to be arduous, as much conflict still remains in the communities. Working at the PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 21 municipal level can be even more challenging. Notwithstanding the incorporation of the COSANs into the COCODEs is crucial, as is the work with the municipalities. Steps:   Project Staff a) Recruit experienced staff to deal only with municipal level entities (COMUDE, COMUSANs, municipal planning staff) b) Train all staff (those working at the municipal level and those at the local level) in leadership, negotiation skills and conflict resolution c) Provide brief, written periodic reports to municipal authorities d) Establish links and strategic alliances with other institutions working in municipal strengthening, democracy, and governance   Steps:   Community Organizations a) Include conflict resolution in training at all levels b) Given the strong participation of women in the COSANs, but the limited tolerance for women’s involvement in the public sphere, include gender and self‐esteem. Include the most promising COSAN female members in the gender workshops currently offered by some feminist organizations. Experience in other projects has proved that once women become empowered they take true ownership of their community participation work.   c) In most communities, local organization is incipient and they lack the skills and schooling to keep adequate records. This situation is even more pronounced among the COSANs, given women’s more limited education and that their participation is still incipient. The project could establish strategic alliances with other organizations, particularly with the newly established Oficinas Municipales de la Mujer (Municipal Office for Women) to provide COCODE and COSAN members with additional training. In addition, in several municipalities there are NGOs that also address women’s education and the strengthening of democracy and local organization.   7.4 SO­2: Food Production and SO­3: NRM & Disaster Planning 1. Identify and prioritize key activities to reach indicator targets Steps: Recommended half day meeting of key SO‐2 and SO‐3 staff (including partners) to identify and prioritize activities needed to be completed to achieve indicator targets. At the same meeting, develop an implementation plan towards accomplishing those activities. Communicate priorities and changes with other SO‐2 and SO‐3 staff, sharing the implementation plan.   Output: Implementation plan. 2. Internally document the successful adoption of agricultural practices, the lack of adoption and the reasons behind both. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 22 Steps: Solicit ideas from all SO‐2 and SO‐3 staff about successful and unsuccessful adoption of practices promoted in PROMASA II. Identify the top five successful and top five unsuccessful practices from the collective group. During a short session (2‐3 hours) conducted in each field office, outline the primary reasons behind successful/unsuccessful adoption. Outputs: A collective document for internal use on promoted agricultural and natural resource management practices in PROMASA II and the reasons behind their successful or unsuccessful adoption by beneficiaries within the program. 3. Improve natural disaster risk reduction mechanisms in communities. Steps: For managers/key personnel within the program, identify disasters over the past two Title II programs that have affected implementation in the program area. Solicit feedback from all field staff on other potential risks to communities. During short sessions (2‐3 hours) conducted at each field office, outline the key activities needed to help communities prepare, mitigate and adapt to potential risks resulting from natural disasters in communities. Outputs: A collective document for internal use on reducing risk from natural disasters.   8 Top Recommendation for USAID/Guatemala Encourage/facilitate future food security programming that: (a) is holistic/integrated; (b) has a watershed‐based or similar geographic focus; (c) uses a system dynamics approach15 in linking planned program interventions to sustainability and equity trends; (d) identifies and addresses all social, political, economic, and environmental risk factors that are critical to food security program success; (e) engages diverse representatives of as many of the stakeholders, partners, and potential partners at different levels as possible (including through coordination and cooperation with GOG, other donors, etc.)—in food security trends analysis, strategic and program planning and implementation. 9 MTE Action Plan (Proposed) The following proposed action plan is meant to assist SC and its PROMASA II partners prioritize project activities for the final year of the project. The first suggested step is for the CO to decide in a participatory manner what changes and/or additions are needed in the following action plan; and to then share the action plan with key stakeholders as appropriate.                                                             15 For an example, please see Sustainability Assessment on page 234 in the Appendices. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 23 Proposed Action Plan # Action Responsible 1 Meet with Title II Monetization PVO Coalition members and USAID/Guatemala to agree on best options for concluding the project and developing a follow‐on MYAP. (Note that this activity is underway as of August 2010.‐RA) SC Management 2 Assess where the PROMASA II MYAP and ARR‐approved activities are with respect to being completed per scope and schedule; then prioritize especially activities that may be both behind schedule and that are important to project success. SC/PROMASA II Management 3 Review the PROMASA II MTE Report and agree which of the short‐term recommendations to implement, how, and by when, etc. SC/PROMASA II Management 4 Establish a means of recalling the PROMASA II MTE Report long‐term recommendations when the time comes to prepare a new MYAP and/or other development proposals. SC/PROMASA II Management 5 Agree on when to establish a PROMASA II exit strategy; then prepare and implement the exit strategy in consultation with partners and other key stakeholders. SC/PROMASA II Management 10 Guatemala Profile The following information is from several sources, including the USAID/Guatemala website.16 People • Guatemala is Central America’s largest country in terms of economy and population.   • It is the third most unequal country in the world in terms of income distribution • An estimated 58% of its people live in poverty • Most of the poor are rural indigenous people, most often women of Mayan descent • Chronic malnutrition is the worst in the hemisphere (49 percent of all children under age five) • More than two million children do not attend school, and most of these are indigenous girls in rural areas • Only three of ten children graduate from sixth grade and only one of 20 enter high school • Less than half of rural residents have access to running water, only 25% have electricity, and less than 10% have modern sanitary facilities                                                             16 Ref: www.usaid.gov/gt/history.htm PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 24 • Infant and maternal mortality are unacceptably high (39 per 1,000 live births and 153 per 100,000 live births, respectively) • The fertility rate is the highest in the hemisphere (3.9 per woman) • The country’s current population of approximately 12.5 million is doubling every 19 years • At current rates of deforestation, Guatemala will be essentially treeless—like Haiti is now—in less than 20 years. 11 MTE Purpose From the MTE Terms of Reference: The purpose of the mid‐term evaluation is to:   • Evaluate to what extent SC has met the objectives of the Food Security Program in Guatemala, in accordance with that established in the MYAP; and   • Identify existing opportunities to improve the implementation of Save the Children’s MYAP activities in Guatemala.   • Establish what the MYAP has achieved to date and to compare those achievements with the original expected results.   • Identify problems and obstacles to project implementation. • Establish recommendations that can be put into practice in order to improve the implementation of the program.   • Analyze the design, structure and implementation strategies of the PROMASA project in regards to the proposed activities and goals proposed. • Identify opportunities and alternatives for producing results that will have a significant, long‐ term impact on food security for project coverage families. • Recommend feasible adjustments to project design, structure and implementation mechanisms that could be incorporated into the project during the remainder of its lifetime. • Review actions established in the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), especially in terms of the table containing information related to the status of mitigation measures and monitoring efforts. • Establish which of the conditions anticipated by PROMASA continue to be valid, in accordance with the different social, economic and climatic changes that took place during 2009, in order to evaluate the key assumptions and risks covered in the program proposal and their impact on program implementation. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 25 11.1 MTE Audience   The PROMASA II MTE audience includes:   • USAID/Guatemala • USAID/FFP Washington, DC • Save the Children/USA/Guatemala Country Office • Save the Children/USA Headquarters, Washington, DC • Save the Children/USA/Guatemala Partner Organizations: COTONEB, Genesis Empresarial, and Kiej de los Bosques • Other PROMASA II Project stakeholders, including GOG/MOH/MOA, and community volunteers and participants, who will be presented with the MTE results as applicable in meetings and workshops. 12 PROMASA II Background 12.1 Snapshot of the Guatemala MCHN Situation   The following is quoted from the USAID/Guatemala webpage (2010):17 • Infant mortality rate of 39 per 1,000 live births is the highest in Central America and the third highest in the hemisphere • Half of Guatemalan women have a child before the age of 19 and 20% have two or more children by their 18th birthday. By their early 30's, many women have given birth to seven or eight children. • Total fertility rate is 4.4, the highest in Latin America • Contraceptive prevalence is 43% among women in union, ages 15 – 49, and is second lowest in the hemisphere after Haiti • Highest stunting rates in the Americas with 49% of Guatemalan children under five years of age chronically malnourished • Maternal mortality is high at 153 per 100,000 live births • Only 41% of births are attended by a nurse or doctor ‐ also the lowest for the hemisphere 12.2 Stakeholders Community Participants The primary stakeholders in the PROMASA II Project are the approximately 104 thousand community participants in 10,250 households in 6 municipalities served by the project, including children,                                                             17 Ref: www.usaid.gov/gt/health_education.htm PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 26 particularly malnourished under‐three year‐olds, and female and male household members. Other participants include community‐level volunteers: Mother Leaders who are the heart of the MCHN strategy (SO‐1), and Farmer Leaders who are essential to the Livelihoods, Natural Resources, and Natural Disaster Prevention/Mitigation strategies (SO‐2 and SO‐3). The Deputy Project Manager and his four‐person technical team implement the SO‐1 Governance strategy. Government of Guatemala Representatives of the Guatemala Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food; and departmental, municipal, and community‐level government authorities are the primary GOG agencies responsible for providing MCHN and food security‐related basic services in the PROMASA II project area. Relative to the scope of the health and poverty challenges in the project area, the results and overall effectiveness of these GOG agencies in providing such services to those who most needed access to them were generally found to be in need improvement. It may be noted that members of the MTE team encountered MOH, MALF, departmental, and municipal representatives in the field who were conscientious and doing their best with limited resources and support. USAID/Guatemala USAID has been active in Guatemala for over 40 years. Currently, USAID/Guatemala works with partners to identify and implement policy reforms and programs that will improve the lives of Guatemalan women, men, youth and children. Specifically, USAID assistance in Guatemala promotes democracy, justice, and human rights; fosters economic growth, sound environmental practices and improved food security; and increase people’s access to quality health and education services. USAID/Guatemala’s priorities are: Food Security, Anti‐Corruption, Transparency and Accountability, Youth and Indigenous Leadership, and Gender.18 Save the Children From SCF sources Save the Children USA SC provides development and humanitarian assistance in 45 countries worldwide where it manages an operating budget of $463 million from public and private sources. In FY‐10, as Lead Agency or consortia partner, SC/US had ongoing PL‐480 Title II monetization supported programs in nine countries. Save the Children USA/Guatemala SC’s Guatemala Country Office’s (SC) geographic target area reaches Quiché, Huehuetenango and Sololá. SC currently has 98 staff engaged in implementing donor resources, providing technical assistance and directly benefiting the lives of children and communities. In addition to the PROMASA II food security project, SC’s health sector activities in Guatemala cover MCH, newborn care, adolescent and reproductive health, and capacity building to local health NGOs. The education program, in coordination with the Ministry of Education is developing early child stimulation programs, and strengthening public school pre‐primary/early childhood development and primary schools in over 40 communities. Save the Children is also actively engaged in the preparation,                                                             18 Ref: USAID/Guatemala website: www.usaid.gov/gt/history.htm PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 27 training, and response to disasters and emergencies in Guatemala. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 28 Partner Organizations To extend coverage of PROMASA II to the 6 additional municipalities, SC is working with partner COTONEB to carry out MYAP strategies and activities together. COTONEB is implementing activities and support services in the Ixil Triangle area, in the municipalities of Chajul, Cotzal and Nebaj, and is reaching approximately half of the target population. Save the Children is implementing directly in the municipalities of Sacapulas, Cunén and Uspantán, also reaching approximately half of the target population.   Cooperativa Todos Nebajenses (COTONEB) COTONEB is a non‐profit organization whose primary objective is to improve access to savings and credit for families living in the Ixil area. Founded in 1989 and having more than 3,500 members, COTONEB has extensive experience in health and nutrition interventions and implements the MOH program SIAS within the Ixil triangle (Chajul, Cotzal, Nebaj) and other municipalities in Quiché, including Sacapulas and Cunén. They are the main health providers and administrators of health services for the MOH in 8 jurisdictions (4 in Nebaj, 3 in Chajul and 1 in Cotzal), where they assist a population of over 58,000, working in over 160 communities and in over 85 health sites. COTONEB also implements projects in micro‐credit/savings and financial services.   Fundación Génesis Empresarial (Génesis) Génesis Empresarial is a private Guatemalan non‐profit development organization founded in 1988 to strengthen the socio‐economic development of small/micro‐entrepreneurs in urban, rural and underserved areas. Génesis is now the leading microfinance institution in Guatemala, providing loans to more than 55,000 clients through its 48 branch offices in 20 of the 22 departments of the country. Génesis has achieved a quality portfolio that has enabled it to obtain the financial support of the Guatemalan private banking system, Central American Integration Bank, Inter‐American Development Bank, USAID, and the Swedish Cooperation Agency. Kiej de los Bosques (Kiej) Kiej is a private consulting company founded in 2003 that provides technical assistance in administrative, productive processes, market linkages and commercialization to rural development initiatives. Kiej has been successful in facilitating innovative market opportunities for textile weavers affected by the famine in Jocotán, and carpentry producers of Chimaltenango. The processes facilitated by Kiej have led to the establishment of market linkages between these rural producing communities and the Guatemalan private sector (La Licorera Nacional, Cemaco, Kalea, Panadería San Martín and Pan Europa). 12.3 Project Design Following is derived from the PROMASA II MYAP and web sources The USAID Food for Peace 2006‐2010 strategic objective is to reduce food insecurity among vulnerable populations, including populations affected by emergencies and disasters. The PROMASA II Project design is closely aligned with the 2004‐2008 Food for Peace (FFP/USAID) program strategy and the 2006‐2010 USAID/Guatemala Country Plan. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 29 Target Population Save the Children (SC) is working in six chronically food insecure municipalities located in the Department of Quiché, Guatemala, with special emphasis on the remote and isolated areas of the Ixil Triangle. The project, PROMASA II (Proyecto Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria), is a follow‐on project to the 2001—2006 MYAP, or PROMASA I. PROMASA II’s target area is the center of where Guatemala’s 36 year civil war occurred, an area that remains one of the area’s most affected by the war and repression. Information from different sources confirms that levels of malnutrition, food insecurity, and vulnerability vary across Guatemala, but are particularly high in Quiché and the rest of the Guatemalan Highlands.   Based upon PROMASA II's experience, a review of secondary data, recommendations from the PROMASA I final evaluation, results from the SC RFSA, and conclusions from a detailed analysis to select the most appropriate target area, SC identified 123 communities in 6 municipalities of Quiché Department for the 5‐year MYAP, i.e., from October 2006—September 2011. Of these 123 communities, 39% (48 communities) are follow‐on communities from PROMASA I, and 61% are new communities (75 communities).   The PROMASA II geographic area covers a total population of approximately 104,000 people. PROMASA II reaches approximately 19,300 households that include approximately 9,500 children under‐36 months in any given year (approximately 16,100 children have benefitted from the project as of the MTE), and approximately 3,200 pregnant and lactating women.19 SC’s analysis to identify the target area took into account a range of factors, including localized rates of chronic malnutrition, indices of extreme poverty, and classifications of vulnerability. Geographic Coverage by Municipality (PROMASA II)   Municipality # of communities   in target area Total Population Children less than   36 months Chajul 12 12,592 1159   Cunén 16 16,568 1525   Cotzal 14 12, 327 1133   Nebaj 32 26,420 2427   Sacapulas 21 20,727 1904 Uspantán 28 15,446 1424 Totals (rounded) 123 104,000 9,500 PROMASA II is complementing and building upon the limited food security actions that have been taking place in Quiché. To address the food insecurity challenges within the above target area, SC established the following results framework.                                                             19 Figures as of December 2009 provided by PROMASA II M&E Unit (RA 28‐6‐2010). PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 30 Results Framework Results Framework for PROMASA II PROMASA II GOAL: Reduce food insecurity in vulnerable populations   living in 6 Municipalities in the Department of Quiché Guatemala Impact Indicator: Chronic Malnutrition in children aged 0 through 36 months reduced20 Sub‐Goal 1 Improve Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition Sub‐Goal 2 Strengthen Livelihoods Management Sub‐Goal 3 Build Community Resilience SO‐1 Increased adoption of key MCHN practices and use of services SO‐2 Increased adoption of key food production and marketing practices and use of services SO‐3 Increased adoption of key natural resource management practices that strengthen community and household preparedness for natural disaster IR1.1 Improved access to MCHN services IR 2.1 Improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to key food production and marketing practices IR 3.1 Improved access to quality natural resource management and emergency preparedness services and supplies IR 1.2 Improved quality of key MCHN services IR 2.2 Improved quality of key food production and marketing services IR 3.2 Improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills to manage natural resources and respond to natural disasters IR 1.3 Improved knowledge, attitudes and skills related to key MCHN practices IR 2.3 Improved access to key food production and marketing services and supplies IR 1.4 Strengthened municipal and community capacities and policy environment for sustainable MCHN services IR 2.4 Strengthened enabling environment for management of livelihood systems Under each of the above sub‐goals, associated Strategic Objectives are found, each with its own targeting strategy to reach vulnerable populations. Food utilization is addressed under SO‐1, which will be accomplished through a set of integrated activities aimed at increasing adoption of key MCHN practices and use of services in coordination with the MOH system. SO‐2 will focuses on key determinants of food availability and access, by increasing food production and diversity through HH level food production, and increasing earnings capacity through access to credit and promotion of improved marketing practices. SO‐3 is designed to build community resilience and reduce vulnerabilities by improving the management of natural resources within target communities and strengthening natural disaster preparedness and response capacity at the HH, community and municipal level.                                                               20 The MYAP states 0 – 59 months, however the MTE team recommends changing this to the more standard 0 – 35 months. This is included in the SO‐1 Recommendations section. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 31 Health and Nutrition The following is from the PROMASA II MYAP, updated as required. Indicators for health in Guatemala fall behind nearly every other country in Central America. Even though improvements have been noted, Guatemala’s infant mortality rate remains the highest in Central America and the third highest in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region.   Guatemala’s maternal mortality ratio is among the highest in the LAC region. The unmet demand for family planning is growing. The percentage of births attended by a skilled attendant (a proxy indicator for access to health care) is only 41% ‐‐ the lowest in LAC. Guatemala has the highest rate of chronic malnutrition (low height for age) in LAC, and one of the highest in the world. At the national level, 49% of children under the age of five years are chronically malnourished (stunted) and nearly one quarter are underweight (low weight for age).   The long term effects of these statistics are well documented: malnourished children develop more slowly, are sick more often, enter school later, and perform less well. While many indicators of health have improved in recent years, stunting trends from 1995 vary little from the more recent 2008 measures. There is not a reliable measure of gender bias, however stunting is found far more often in indigenous populations (58%) than in ladino populations (31%), and the annual decline in stunting is considerably slower in indigenous groups. Hunger is intolerably high in Guatemala and trends indicate that it is worsening. According to FAO figures, about 2.8 million Guatemalans are undernourished. This is twice the number of undernourished (1.4 million) in 1990‐92. The prevalence of chronic malnutrition has diminished slowly, and has remained basically unchanged for the past 20 years. It has gone from 57.9% in 1987, to 49.7% in 1995, to 49.3% in 2002 and to 43.3% in 2008 (ENSMI 2002, 2008). It should be noted that the rates are significantly higher in the indigenous population: In 2008, chronic malnutrition was 58.6%, while among the Ladinos (non‐Indigenous) it was 30.6%. The national average energy intake (kcal/person/day) is only 2,187 calories, a number that barely meets the recognized minimum standard of 2,100 calories per day for an adult and represents a decrease of nearly 200 calories (per person/per day) from 1990‐92.   It is clear in 2010 that Guatemala’s 2015 Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved. Governance Guatemala has long experienced a fractured, paternalistic, and less‐than‐professional political system at all levels, particularly during the 36‐year civil war. However with the 1996 peace agreement (although never ratified by the Guatemala Congress), there has been some effort to ‘professionalize’ especially local government, with emphasis on increasing participation, coordination, planning, and accountability.   Natural Resources Management Guatemala faces several serious natural resource challenges, especially deforestation and deterioration of productive soil. In addition, irregular rainfall, dry periods, flooding, deforestation, and overgrazing, have led to a rapid decline in access to ‐and quality of‐  water. Poor protection of watersheds and waterpoints, and the resultant lack of water, contribute to malnutrition and food insecurity, particularly in regions where people depend on agriculture for both food and income.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 32 At current rates, in approximately 15 years Guatemala will not have sufficient water available to meet minimum needs for its projected population of over 20 million., neither for agriculture/irrigation, nor industry, because of contamination of surface and groundwater sources, and pumping of aquifers faster than their recharge rates.   Restoration, conservation, improved household and agricultural water use, and natural resource management policies and practices should be urgently promoted and applied to slow these trends, and eventually reverse them before it is too late. As of 2010, it can be said that Guatemala’s environmental sustainability situation is dire. One indicator is that at current deforestation rates, Guatemala’s remaining forest cover will be no more in just 15 to 20 years. Disaster Preparedness While public awareness and preparation for disasters have improved in recent years, Guatemalans are being exposed to an ever‐increasing risk of natural disasters, both because of an increase in the unpredictability and severity of weather events, and because of growing population and population density. The 2009 drought and economic crisis, and the May 2010 eruption of the Pacaya volcano, and flooding, landslides, and crop losses due to tropical depression Agatha are proof positive that Guatemalans are still very vulnerable to natural disasters.   In addition there are stronger links between natural disasters and man’s effects on the natural environment, including global warming. Strengthening emergency preparedness and response at the community level is needed.   The potential for rural and peri‐urban Guatemalans to experience severe flooding and mudslides, or dry spells and forest fires is increasing and it is the poorest, most rural, and food insecure HHs that take the disproportionate share of the impact.   Strategy The PROMASA II overall strategy in response to the preceding is straightforward: Facilitate improvements in the target population’s food availability, access, and utilization on a more sustainable basis through an integrated project that simultaneously improves: (a) ability to prevent or mitigate the effects of natural disasters (e.g., community disaster management plans; soil erosion controls, etc.); (b) environmental sustainability (e.g., reforestation, soil conservation, protection of water sources, etc.); (c) increased food production (e.g., use of improved frijol seed, home gardens, goats, chickens, etc.); (d) increased income (e.g., credit to start income‐generating activities, etc.); (e) improved government response to –and participation in‐  community needs and especially food security initiatives (e.g., local government capacity‐building); and (f) improved nutritional status (e.g., visits to households, strengthening linkages with local health posts, training for mothers in better meal preparation, goat’s milk, chicken eggs, home gardens, etc.). The use of Title II food commodities is a central element of the strategy, providing food both to improve nutritional status and to pay volunteers (Mother and Farmer Leaders) as an incentive for contributing their time. Increased coverage, lower program cost per beneficiary, greater activity effectiveness, and higher levels of sustainability once the PROMASA II Project concludes—are assumed in the project design as a result of successfully implementing the above strategies, using other organizations/partners with expertise in income‐generating activities, and using community‐level volunteers (Madres Lideres and Farmer Leaders) who are trained by PROMASA II supervisors in the basics of food security and PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 33 nutrition interventions, agricultural production, natural resources management, disaster prevention/mitigation, and better governance promotion. The PROMASA II MTE largely supports the overall logic and assumptions above. The primary challenges to the assumptions are due to a design flaw—a large project scope beyond the capacity of staff to manage—and external factors beyond the control of the project: a late start‐up of nearly one year, and a drought and international financial crisis in 2009. 13 MTE Inputs The PROMASA II Project MTE was participatory, involving SC/PROMASA II management and staff at all levels in the final MTE design, in focus groups, in workshops to validate preliminary results, and in reviewing drafts of this report. As a result of this MTE process, most errors or misinterpretations by the MTE team have been corrected and there is a high degree—100% would be unusual!—of buy‐in by the CO and PROMASA II management to the MTE findings and recommendations. Following are the major inputs to the MTE: 1. MTE Terms of Reference: General, Team Leader (and Cross‐Cutting Factors), MCHN and Governance (SO‐1), Livelihoods, Natural Resources, and Emergency Preparedness (SO‐2 and SO‐3) 2. MTE Implementation Proposal 3. MTE Implementation Schedule 4. MTE Team, PROMASA II Management and Field Staff 5. All Interviewed Stakeholders, Including Partner Organization Representatives, Mother and Farmer Leaders, GOG representatives, etc. 6. MTE Focus Group and Key Informant Interview Instruments 7. Results of Focus Groups, Key Informant Interviews, Household Visits 8. Coordination Meetings with SC and PROMASA II Management   9. Document Reviews: PROMASA I Lessons Learned, PROMASA II MYAP, ARRs 10. Information Per Requests to the PROMASA II M&E Department 11. Partner Organization Observations 12. Workshop (Santa Cruz de Quiche) 13. Workshop (SC HQs Guatemala City) 14 MTE Outputs MTE outputs follow: 1. Draft MTE Report#1 (to SC/Guatemala) 2. Draft MTE Report#2 (to SC/Washington, DC) 3. Draft MTE Report#3 (to USAID/Guatemala) 4. Final MTE Report in English (to SC/Guatemala, SC/DC, USAID/Guatemala) 5. Final MTE Report in Spanish (to SC/Guatemala) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 34 15 MTE Next Steps The SC CO has emphasized the need for the MTE to be as realistic as possible in presenting recommendations that are prioritized and doable, segregated into actions in the short term (i.e., until the project end date of 30 September 2011) and long term (design considerations for potential future projects). The MTE Report attempts to fulfill the preceding requirement by providing the reader with the option of referring to the MTE team’s top three recommendations for each SO, the Governance component, and the Cross‐Cutting Factors (beginning on page 15); as well as the proposed Action Plan (page 22). However we have also given the reader the option of seeing an overview of the MTE results (see the Executive Summary, Findings, on page 3), as well as additional observations and recommendations, and resources which can easily be located via the Table of Contents. The suggested MTE next steps follow: 1. Taking into account the MTE long‐term recommendations, meet with USAID/Guatemala and, in consultation with SC headquarters and partner organizations (including potential partner organizations)—to identify an optimal strategy to conclude the PROMASA II project and develop a follow‐on MYAP.   • Output: Agreement on a course for concluding the PROMASA II project and pursuing a possible follow‐on project. 2. Conduct a one‐day workshop with/for key PROMASA II stakeholders, including partner organizations, to present the MTE’s major findings and recommendations and to review and update the proposed MTE Action Plan. • Outputs: (a) Understanding of the major MTE findings and recommendations, including those that apply to or could affect the partner organizations and other stakeholders; and (b) an updated MTE Action Plan that will facilitate planning and fine‐tuning some activities for the remainder of the project, and for the design of a follow‐on project. 3. Conduct a one‐day workshop with/for key PROMASA II stakeholders, including partner organizations, to develop a PROMASA II Exit Strategy. The exit strategy should be developed as a mini‐project in its own right, with a schedule, measurable milestones and indicators, monthly reporting, and so on. • Output: A draft PROMASA II Exit Strategy, which should then be validated with input from the field (community and municipal levels), USAID/Guatemala, SC headquarters. A final Exit Strategy will then result, which will need to be presented to PROMASA II staff and other stakeholders, with all being made aware of their respective roles in implementing the Exit Strategy. 4. SC/PROMASA II should begin planning for the PROMASA II final evaluation, including preparing terms of reference for the evaluation. • Outputs: Terms of reference for the PROMASA II final evaluation, a time‐frame for the evaluation; and a short‐list of possible consultants to conduct the evaluation. Please see the proposed Action Plan for additional details (page 22). PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 35 16 MTE Results by Cross­Cutting Element 16.1 Project Performance and Project Management Summary The MTE team found overall PROMASA II Project performance and project management to be satisfactory. The PROMASA II team has performed well and made adjustments as necessary to accommodate the viscitudes of a complex project starting nearly a year behind schedule, operating in a post civil war environment, and enduring financial, drought, and other manner of crises that would tax any project management team. Priority areas that we observed through the MTE process where some improvement could be useful to the CO, PROMASA II, partner organizations, and other stakeholders—are listed below under Findings, followed by Short‐Term Recommendations for actions that can be considered for the remaining year‐plus of the project. Long‐Term Recommendations are then provided which can be considered by the CO for a new project design/MYAP. Note that it is of course up to the discretion of the CO whether or not each recommendation— particularly short‐term recommendations—is a priority and/or is feasible. In some cases, for example, the CO may decide to move short‐term recommendations to the long‐term recommendations list. Findings 1. An important core theme in the PROMASA II MYAP is contributing to improved access by project participants to better MCHN services, food production and marketing services, and natural resource management and emergency preparedness services21—however it was observed by the MTE team that few project activities at 70% of the project implementation period have actually resulted in improved access to services. The apparent major contributing factors to the above are:   a) The PROMASA II project design (2006 MYAP) attempted to do significantly more than PROMASA I, and with less resources.   b) The PROMASA II MYAP was designed to increase the project impact and cost‐effectiveness of PROMASA II relative to PROMASA I. This would be accomplished by decreasing the cost per beneficiary by roughly doubling the number of PROMASA I project beneficiaries, while halving the number of SC and COTONEB supervisors, and operating within a budget similar to the PROMASA I budget.                                                               21 From the PROMASA II MYAP Results Framework PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 36 The logic was that in place of SC and COTONEB supervisors, there would be Mother Leaders (SO‐1) and Farmer Leaders (SO‐2, SO‐3) who, after receiving basic training‐of‐trainers in PROMASA II activities, and for a monthly stipend of Q 500 (approximately US$ 60), would work in several communities for the duration of the project.22   An additional benefit meant to accrue from the preceding approach was greater sustainability, in that the 120+ communities would have access to trained, experienced—and trusted‐by‐their‐peers—Mother Leaders and Farmer Leaders. These Leaders would then continue, in an‐as‐yet undefined manner, the core project activities (health/nutrition, improved governance, agriculture/micro‐enterprise extension, environmental protection and disaster mitigation, respectively) after PROMASA II had concluded.   c) With the important exception of MOH health posts and clinics, the paucity of GOG‐managed agriculture and natural resources extension and other basic services to link to in the first place.   The fundamental PROMASA II project design assumptions, including the above, were agreed upon during the project design phase, and were embodied in the 2006 MYAP. The challenge has been operationalizing such an ambitious strategy in a timely and quality manner.                                                               22 Note: The following factors were considered by PROMASA II in establishing the stipend amount for Mother Leaders: (1) Although it may be less than the mínimum wage, it is greater than the GOG’s conditional transfer payments of Q 200/month to the neediest families; and (2) The Mother Leader stipend is competitive with the opportunity cost of other work, which for Mother Leaders, is close to nil. Information provided by PROMASA II project management, 6‐2010. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 37 The result of the preceding has been an inability to date of PROMASA II to strengthen—much less create—access to health and agriculture extension services. The key causes of the design issue apparently were: (a) the project design principle of balancing scope‐resources‐time—was not adequately adhered to; (b) piloting the new strategy on a smaller scale was not considered; and (c) a risk analysis of the proposed new strategy (from PROMASA I to PROMASA II)—was, to the best of our knowledge, not conducted. This situation alone would have put PROMASA II in difficulty; however a nine‐month startup delay put further pressure on the project. The project implementation plan, including targets, etc., was established from 1 October 2006, however the project only began signing up communities and implementing food distributions in July 2007. SO operations were initiated in September 2007.   The project startup delay was caused by a tardy receipt of the first food shipment for monetization (June 2007). Thus, although the project did engage in community organizing activities, per the FY‐07 ARR/DIP, there were no project outputs that first year. Other findings with respect to PROMASA II cross‐cutting factors relate primarily to project management, the M&E system, and sustainability. In brief: 2. Although improvements can be made with respect to PROMASA II’s programmatic and organizational integration (project vision, ‘customers,’ finances, internal growth, etc.),23 the PROMASA II Project appears to be managed at all levels within standard project management norms. 3. The PROMASA II M&E system, while adequate for fundamental reporting purposes, needs upgrading in order to meet generally accepted project M&E norms.   4. PROMASA II sustainability, both in terms of critical project activities continuing once the project has completed and in terms of potential external opportunities and constraints affecting the target population—is uncertain/unarticulated by the project as of the MTE (May 2010). 5. Less than optimal focus on identifying and adapting better practices to some of the technical components of project interventions (e.g., not ensuring that soil conservation techniques are applied in Farmer Leader demonstration plots, not using more efficient home garden techniques, etc.)   6. Perhaps less than optimal presence in the field providing feedback to staff and, at the supervisor level, providing feedback to Farmer and Mother Leaders. In conclusion, the PROMASA II cross‐cutting factors—particularly counterpart relations, gender, project management, M&E, and sustainability—are proving important to achieving the project’s programmatic objectives… So important that they—in a follow‐on project—should be monitored and reported on in their own right. Short­Term Recommendations 1. Management is encouraged to review the PROMASA II logical hierarchy (objectives, intermediate results, outputs, etc.) and the project management hierarchy (Deputy Country Director, Project Manager, Assistant Project Manager, etc.) to help ensure that the two organizational structures are in sync.                                                             23 For example, see the Balanced Scorecard approach (page 38). PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 38 Steps: Management meeting to review the PROMASA II logical hierarchy and organizational structure to ensure all project elements, including M&E, Finance, HR, etc., are explicitly covered by positions/persons with appropriate levels of responsibility and authority. Outputs: (a) Revised organization chart; (b) plan to explain/request input from staff re: changes, if any; and to address redundancies and/or gaps in coverage, if any. 2. Management at all levels is encouraged to provide more guidance and feedback (seguimiento) to staff and, at the supervisor level, provide additional guidance and feedback (seguimiento) to Farmer and Mother Leaders. Steps: Management meets to agree on areas of PROMASA II that may warrant additional attention in terms of support/supervision with respect to completing the project objectives by September 2011 and per this MTE, the MTE action plan after it has been updated by staff, the exit strategy, and other routine problem‐solving and performance monitoring. Outputs: a) A table/plan re: important areas of PROMASA II that may warrant additional attention in terms of support/supervision per priority project activities/outputs, this MTE, the MTE action plan after it has been updated by staff, the exit strategy, and other routine problem‐solving and performance monitoring, showing which operational or technical areas each manager will provide guidance/supervision in, how (e.g., ‘visits to randomly selected health posts, COCODEs, households’), how issues will be addressed and reported (e.g., post‐visit debriefing with staff; one‐page summary of key findings, recommendations, actions taken to immediate supervisor and file); and with what frequency (e.g., ‘one week in the campo every two months’). b) A self‐monitoring checklist for each manager/supervisor to help ensure that the preceding plan is implemented. Long­Term Recommendations Areas that we observed where improvements could be explored for incorporation in a follow‐on project relate to: 1. Improve cohesion within and between the different components of a follow‐on project. Steps: Conduct a workshop with/for representatives of all the PROMASA II Project stakeholders to review the key MTE findings and recommendation (including adapting a Balanced Scorecard or similar unifying approach), update the MTE action plan, help identify elements for the exit strategy and/or new project design, and so on. Use the workshop to also –in a participatory manner—update or renew the PROMASA II vision, re‐clarify who the project’s primary customers are and how they should be treated (including better practice knowledge transfer techniques), review the time‐versus‐coverage constraints and re‐prioritize/re‐strategize as necessary at all levels, in a coordinated fashion.   This workshop should include awareness‐raising activities, including, for example, role‐playing different stakeholder interactions. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 39 Outputs: a) Workshop design/plan that takes into account the MTE findings and the preceding Step, prepared with input from all of the PROMASA II key stakeholders. b) Workshop with/for representatives of all of the PROMASA II key stakeholders based on the workshop design (preceding). c) Workshop report and detailed action plan. d) If/as possible, incorporate very limited (for example in 5 percent of the target communities, and 5 percent of the target families in the selected communities) in better practice activities during the remainder of PROMASA II (e.g., ensuring that soil conservation techniques are applied to Farmer Leader demonstration plots, etc.). The primary purpose is to give PROMASA II partner organizations and other stakeholders a head‐start in identifying and feeling comfortable with better practices that can then be expanded in a new MYAP. Steps: a) prioritize project strategies and activities that can—or should—be employing better practices for the remainder of PROMASA II (e.g., on a selective or pilot basis to gain experience for a follow‐on project), and for consideration in a future project design.   b) Then identify and adapt the prioritized better practices to the technical activities within the project interventions   Outputs: a) A list of prioritized strategies and activities, segregated into short‐term and long‐term, that can or should be updated/changed to incorporate better practices, along with a list of one or more candidate better practices for each prioritized strategy and activity. b) A plan for which PROMASA II activities will be updated and how – during the remaining year of the project.   16.2 Monitoring and Evaluation System Summary A primary finding regarding the PROMASA II M&E system is that—for a follow‐on project—the project apply more consistently what it planned to do per the PROMASA II MYAP, quoted further below. It is recognized by the MTE team that conditions faced by the project were not the same as when the MYAP was prepared—for example reduced GOG data collection and analysis capabilities. In addition, the MTE acknowledges that the PROMASA II M&E Unit has recently begun implementing a series of improvements in the M&E system, including tabulating vaccination data, using checklists to assess quality‐of‐services provided to PROMASA II beneficiaries and checklists related to SO‐1, SO‐2, and SO‐3 activities. In addition, the PROMASA II management points out that some of the M&E processes detailed in the MYAP (also see below) apply only to impact and thus the final evaluation rather than ongoing monitoring and reporting. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 40 Per the PROMASA II MYAP: An important lesson learned during PROMASA I is that too much data were collected, leaving less time to analyze and respond to trends warranting more thoughtful attention. In PROMASA II, SC will streamline data collection and avoid collecting data that does not have a clearly specified purpose for the project.   Program Monitoring: Overall the monitoring plan will be designed around a log frame matrix that tracks the progression of project inputs, outputs, anticipated outcomes, and expected impacts. This framework constitutes a map of the information needed to answer such fundamental questions as: • Are project services being delivered to target population(s) in a timely fashion? • Are project services being delivered with high quality? • Are the services being used appropriately? • Are they resulting in desired changes in practices and/or production (depending on the activity)? • Is the use of services and/or changes in practices resulting in achievement of impacts consistent with project objectives? • What can we learn from this project (especially in terms of the effect of project inputs on health and nutritional status and household food security)? Which are the most important?   During the design process, SC will work with partners and stakeholders to identify the information necessary to assess and refine project implementation in a timely fashion. SC will coordinate closely with partners and sub‐grantees, USAID/G, other Cooperating Sponsors, MOH (Section C) and other stakeholders (notably CONRED, MFEWS, USAID and FANTA) to ensure that the monitoring system supports the needs of multiple stakeholders at a range of levels and for a range of information needs.   During PROMASA, SC expects that there will be a GOG process to review and potentially adopt the new WHO growth standards in Guatemala and SC will be an active participant in the discussion. SC will work with its partners during the first quarters of project implementation to finalize a monitoring and evaluation system that allows for regular data sharing and reporting. SC will work with these partners and other stakeholders to build capacity in M&E, to ensure that project components can be monitored and evaluated with reliability. Moreover, PROMASA II will conduct periodic collection of qualitative data as a means to clarify and/or illuminate program design and implementation issues.   Frequently monitoring data are moved through successive stages of aggregation to a central level where they are further aggregated (sometimes), analyzed and interpreted (less often), and then, they may be sent back through the system back to the community. SC, by contrast will emphasize rapid interpretation and use of monitoring data. To accomplish this, data will be collected using carefully designed forms and clear PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 41 indicator definitions. Data will be fed into a computerized management information system (MIS) that will enable M&E managers to track inputs and outputs, generate reports and assess progress and performance. Monitoring data will be analyzed on a quarterly basis and returned to the field for rapid communication and decision making. Key program decision makers will hold quarterly meetings to discuss results achieved against targets, assess trends, and refine work plans if necessary. Select indicators will first be analyzed at the community level, some of them monthly, before entering the MIS system.   Ref: PROMASA II MYAP Note that PROMASA II management states that the M&E Unit is: (a) providing pre‐analysis of Tecnico reports to then give these back to the Tecnicos in a manner that will facilitate their sharing relevant project performance information with their communities; and (b) data is also being pre‐analyzed and provided to the SO Coordinators by the M&E Unit. Note that the MTE team did not assess the above‐ referred pre‐analyzed reports and how they are perceived and used by the Coordinators, Tecnicos, and other project stakeholders. Findings 1. Although generally adequate for monitoring and reporting purposes, the PROMASA II M&E system was found to be wanting in several respects, particularly: (a) ensuring that PROMASA II stakeholders, as applicable ‐but including the community‐level‐ submit only information that is required, and, in turn, receive regular feedback on project or component performance, as applicable; (b) greater involvement of the stakeholders, including community level (example on page 186 in the Appendices), in the design, management, and monitoring of the M&E system. The PROMASA II management has stated that the M&E system was designed to conform to donor contractual requirements and that it meets those requirements. We accept that point; however there is substantial mention in the PROMASA II MYAP (2006) of the project’s intent to maximize key stakeholder participation in the project, and a proven effective way to do this is through a more participatory M&E system.   2. Delayed monitoring data collection, processing, analysis, and reporting. For example, in the M&E focus group in Santa Cruz de Quiche it was stated that SO‐2 and SO‐3 reports from the field had not been received by the M&E Unit for processing since September 2009. 3. Lack of integration between monitoring/reporting output performance (i.e., DIP/ARR) and spending—plan versus actual—on a regular basis (e.g., quarterly). The present project M&E system is unable to show cumulative plan‐versus‐actual performance at the output level in either standalone fashion or integrated with cumulative budget/spending information. The PROMASA II management points out that the M&E system was not obligated nor designed to integrate the preceding programmatic and financial information; nevertheless the Finding in this regard is relevant for a possible future MYAP as it relates to a better practice monitoring and reporting system for project management. 4. Qualitative indicators and stakeholder satisfaction indicators were not observed. It is important to note that these were not included in the MYAP and therefore the project was not obligated to include these sorts of indicators. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 42 Long­Term Recommendations There are no short‐term recommendations for the M&E system due to the short period of time remaining in the project lifecycle. 1. Update the PROMASA II/CO information and M&E system.   Steps: a) When designing a possible follow‐on project, consider conducting a customer (stakeholder) survey re: satisfaction with the present M&E system and recommended improvements, based largely on the preceding findings. Ensure that “customers” include a sample of community‐ level participants in each SO, Farmer Leaders, Mother Leaders, Supervisors, COCODEs, mayors, department level planning departments, coordinators, the M&E Departments in Santa Cruz de Quiche and Guatemala City, USAID, and so on. b) Based initially on the findings and recommendations in this MTE (see above, including the Earned Value Analysis approach and a Community‐Based Monitoring component for consideration) and the results of the preceding customer survey, meet internally (SC) and then with partner organizations to explore/identify/prioritize what long‐term improvements are desirable and feasible based on lessons learned from the PROMASA II M&E system (and to some extent the CO information system, as applicable).   Outputs: a) PROMASA II M&E System Rapid Customer Survey Instrument b) Plan for conducting the survey and tabulating/synthesizing the results. c) Survey results and analysis. d) List of long‐term improvements needed in the PROMASA II M&E system (and CO information system if/as applicable) e) Plan for implementing the long‐term improvements and/or incorporating them in a follow‐on project. 2. The CO is encouraged to explore means of upgrading the present information/M&E system as a function of preparing a new MYAP. Steps: a) Apply the long‐term recommended improvements in the M&E system generated per the customer survey and workshop mentioned earlier. Explore including the Earned Value Analysis approach and the Community‐Based Monitoring component—in a future updated M&E system. b) If it is decided to upgrade the M&E system, consider using a consultant or firm with proven results in developing incremental, user‐friendly, cost‐effective, M&E systems. Ensure that the firm or consultant can address the re‐designed M&E system based on the requirements identified in the preceding exercises, including, if agreed/feasible, the Earned Value Analysis approach and the Community‐Based Monitoring component. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 43 c) With the firm’s/consultant’s assistance, develop the updated M&E system, taking into account that different elements of the system will probably need to be piloted before being mainstreamed, and that CO staff will need to be largely dedicated to this ‘project’ for the duration, which could be a year or longer before the complete system is in place. Note that the M&E system should itself be monitored on a regular basis per milestones, indicators, customer satisfaction surveys, and so on – and should include reports on M&E system performance to senior management several times per year. Outputs: a) Terms‐of‐Reference for the development of an updated M&E system. b) An updated M&E system, probably in increments/components over a specified time‐period. c) Satisfied customers, better/more accurate information more regularly, better/more timely management decisions. 16.3 Partnerships   Summary SC/USA/Guatemala Partners SC’s PROMASA II partner organizations are COTONEB, Genesis Empresarial, and Kiej de los Bosques—all Guatemalan NGOs. The key premise behind these associations from SC’s perspective is that the partner organizations will be able help the project’s beneficiary/participant families increase their incomes, which will enable them to procure more food, which, in turn, will improve their household food security. A second premise is that the partner organizations will become more experienced and capable, and thus able to continue providing important services (credit, access to markets, etc.) to the project beneficiaries/participants after PROMASA II ends in September 2011.   One of the partner organization representatives stated that they see an opportunity to not only improve their coverage by working in association with Save, but to help Save develop a permanent capacity to manage microfinance, producer‐consumer linkages, and related initiatives—wherever Save works in Guatemala. What are the Save the Children/USA/Guatemala PROMASA II Partner Organization Roles? COTONEB, implements 49% of the PROMASA II Project (i.e., the same SO‐1, SO‐2, SO‐3 activities carried out by SC, but in the Ixil‐speaking region; whereas SC covers the Quiche‐speaking region).   Genesis Empresarial has been providing microfinance services for an expanding number of PROMASA II beneficiaries/participants for income‐generating projects. Kiej de los Bosques is focusing on the productive and marketing chains in the project, i.e., connecting an increasing number of beneficiaries/participants with potential markets and income‐generating activities. For further information about these organizations and their roles in the project, please see PROMASA II Project Background beginning on page 1. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 44 Findings SC/Guatemala Perspective SC/USA/Guatemala’s perspective is that SC has added value to the PROMASA II Project partner organizations (COTONEB, Kiej de los Bosques, and Genesis Empresarial) by providing programmatic, administrative, and financial management technical assistance. In addition, SC believes that the partners have been exposed to new development knowledge in various areas, especially with respect to integrating field level private sector activities with health and nutrition initiatives. SC states that it measures PROMASA II achievements that are the responsibility of the partner organizations on a quarterly and annual basis per reports submitted by the partner organizations. The reporting relates to each partner’s PROMASA II project performance relative to their respective sub‐ agreement and contract obligations. Note that the MTE did not review these reports and sub‐ agreements, however we suggest that they should be reviewed and, if necessary, be updated as a part of a PROMASA II exit strategy, new MYAP development, and as part of the PROMASA II final evaluation. SC suggests that improvements in communications between SC and its partner organizations are related largely to partner organizations complying with their contractual obligations, especially at the field level (indicators, outputs, etc.). Most communications challenges between SC and its partner organizations, from SC’s perspective, relate to partner organizations not always meeting their contractual obligations (targets, etc.). SC recommends that Genesis Empresarial should consider a more decentralized communication and coordination approach, allowing decisions to be made by Jefes Sucursales rather than primarily at the central level, as at present. (No suggestions for COTONEB or Kiej in this respect.) Coordination   SC believes that coordination between the four organizations (SC, COTONEB, Genesis, and Kiej) has been effective with respect to the three quarterly coordination levels defined by the project: Level 1: Analysis by Supervisors at the community level of project achievements and challenges.   Level 2: Analysis by Coordinators and middle management representatives of all the partners to consider unresolved Level 1 issues, look at strategic matters, and update implementation plans as necessary.24 Level 3: Annual analysis by senior management from the four organizations of their respective sub‐ agreements and contracts in terms of planned‐versus‐ actual performance. SC also has the position of Lider de Trabajo con Socios de PROMASA II, and Supervisor Administrativo Financiero—who on a regular basis provide technical assistance to the partner organizations in programmatic, administrative, and financial areas, including approximately two days per week to COTONEB.)   Lastly, SC believes that through periodic and focused technical assistance, it has been possible to help the partner organizations improve their capabilities in the PROMASA II implementation areas                                                             24 However, per one of the partner organizations, it should be noted that a minimum of the last three (i.e., 3 quarters, or 9 months) Level 1 and Level 2 meetings in Quiché were cancelled due to scheduling conflicts. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 45 assigned to them. Benefits SC believes that its transfer of technical capacity to its partner organizations is resulting in an improved, more professional institutional image for each organization; a significant increase in the number of clients each organization serves; a new appreciation for the importance of health and nutrition interventions; increasing capability to identify, apply for, and professionally manage funds from other organizations. For future projects, communication and coordination planning between partner organizations should take into account lessons learned in PROMASA II with respect to the need for structured, decentralized coordination and decision‐making at all project levels. A cost‐benefit analysis should be conducted to help determine if Kiej de los Bosques can add value to a future project. A similar analysis should be conducted to determine the extent to which Genesis Empresarial’s microfinance strategy impacts poverty and malnutrition in beneficiary/participant families. Partner Perspectives (partner quotes) Note: The partner perspectives below have not been confirmed by SC (Save) and should therefore not be considered “definitive” but rather “indicative” only, with the purpose of including them here being to provide a basis for the partners and Save to build on strengths and work on challenges, as appropriate. The quotes below are presented in random sequence. 1. Save has done well in orienting the partner organizations to basic management requirements of the project. 2. The partnership with Save can/should be more dynamic. For example ideally information should flow in both directions between Save and the partner organizations. 3. Communications between Save and our organization could be stronger. For example planning and coordination for this MTE could have been better. (Per our sub‐agreement with Save, this partner organization should also have conducted its part of the mid‐term evaluation.) 4. Having clear communication channels and organization charts or defined management hierarchies for each partner organization (including SC)—have contributed to harmonious and respectful partnerships and working together.   5. Communications between SC and partner organizations have been generally effective, whether via meetings, e‐mail, telephone, and so on.   6. There are rarely operational problems between Save and our organization, and when there are, they are resolved in a participatory manner between both organizations. 7. There are regular meetings between Save and our organization, especially at the field level with respect to SOs 2 and 3, and Democracy and Governance. There are different meeting levels (1, 2, 3), and these have contributed to sharing information and positive experiences/lessons learned, progress‐relative to plan, problem‐solving, as well as to agreements between Save and our organization regarding administrative and operational decisions. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 46 8. Overall, coordination and communication between Save and our organization has been positive and inclusive, with ideas, suggestions, and agreements being respected—and has been particularly efficient at the coordinator level and above. The process with Save generally has made us feel like a partner organization rather than just an implementing agency under Save. 9. We (partner organization) have not received feedback from Save regarding if what we plan is correct or not. 10. Save has not submitted written reports to us as a partner organization regarding the results/findings of Save’s supervisory field visits. In our opinion, we thus do not receive enough feedback regarding areas where improvements are needed or how we are doing in general and in specific activities.   11. There are no Save field staff assigned to the Ixil speaking area for SO‐1, although there are Save field staff for SOs 2 and 3. 12. From the beginning of the project we have received ongoing training from Save. 13. We have received field‐level support and guidance from Save for SOs 2 and 3, but to a lesser extent with respect to SO‐1 and commodity logistics). 14. Having project component manuals and job descriptions, and respecting the different coordination levels—have contributed to better joint decision‐making between SC and this partner. 15. Working in partnerships minimizes operational costs and helps develop local institutional capacities. 16. Title II food assistance and similar strategies face special challenges when attempting to become less paternalistic, more market‐oriented, more sustainable models, however there are ways in which such seemingly dichotomous strategies can (and should) be made to work in greater harmony. 17. PROMASA II’s goats and mini‐irrigation components could better ensure their continuity after the project ends in September 2011—if they had a credit element that could generate production and sales, and thus greater income for participating families. 18. With respect to the commercialization initiative, there are 8 groups that are being supported by PROMASA II, but we as SC partners desire to know more about them. Short­Term Recommendation 1. Recommendation: Improve communications with and between SC partner organizations. Steps a. SC coordinates a meeting with SC’s partners—COTONEB, Kiej, and Genesis—to identify information/communication gaps—especially between the partners, but with other key stakeholders as well—and means of addressing them. For example:   a1. Re‐starting meetings that were held every two months in Guatemala City to share and evaluate operational experiences. PROMASA II management reports that there are PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 47 already quarterly meetings between SC and its partners. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 48 This meeting could be either a ‘standalone’ exercise, or part of a larger project design workshop or process. a2. Sending reports from SC to its partners in any/all project components and regular (e.g., quarterly) progress reports that will enable the partners to track their own as well as the other partners’ performance relative to plan. Output Agreement and action plan between SC and partner organizations re: measurable ways to improve communications between the organizations and other key stakeholders. Long­Term Recommendations Note that the following recommendations, with the exception of promoting public works activities, are based on suggestions made by Save’s partners. The recommendations relate more to PROMASA II SO‐2 objectives and strategies than to cross‐cutting partnership considerations; nevertheless they are included here to encourage their further investigation with partner organizations (and proven experts, as applicable) in the design stage of a new MYAP.   Consider including in a new MYAP… Recommendation 1: Explore means of significantly expanding target population access to equitable and environmentally sustainable25 income‐generating activities, including, for example: (a) emphasizing and promoting producer‐market alliances; (b) identifying well‐established/proven commercial associates for SC‐COTONEB‐Kiej‐Genesis (and other potential partner) activities; (c) expanding access to credit; (d) promoting with/through stakeholders, particularly the appropriate GOG authorities, large‐scale public works activities.26 Steps SC coordinates a meeting with its partner organizations to agree on a collective strategy for promoting optimal short and long‐term commercial/micro‐ enterprise and other income‐generating activities in the project area. Example, scaling up the goats/cheese business activity (suggested by COTONEB).   A comparative SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) exercise for each organization —focused on desired future project economic impacts in the target population—could be a useful activity in that meeting.   Outputs a) Comparative SWOT analysis for each partner organization (including SC) related to respective roles in implementing an economic development strategy; identification of areas where partners need to upgrade capabilities and/or areas where other partners/experts with the necessary capabilities can complement partner (inclusing SC)                                                             25 Given the magnitude of poverty and food insecurity in the indigenous population, their entrenched causes, institutionalized social and political constraints to solutions, and declining environmental trends (soil, forest cover, water, etc.)—it will be important for follow‐on project and/or new MYAP designers—with partners and other stakeholders, proven experts, and donors—to include explicit criteria for equity and environmental sustainability in all planned strategic and operational interventions. 26 Note that the recommendation is not for Save and partners to plan and/or implement public works activities (e.g., reforesting watersheds), but to be prepared to proactively promote and assist in planning and initiating such activities in a possible follow‐on project. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 49 capabilities. b) Partner and expert‐generated economic development strategy as a key component of a new MYAP. Recommendation 2: For a follow‐on MYAP, explore creating a business incubation unit or equivalent within Save –or within another reputable entity—that is responsive to producer‐market opportunities and that makes use of the Kiej incubation methodology. Note that this recommendation is based on a suggestion by Kiej de los Bosques that was agreed by the MTE team‐member responsible for MTE Cross‐Cutting Factors; however the original suggestion has been expanded by the author to include considering implementation with other organizations as well as with—or in place of—SC.   This recommendation relates to the current PROMASA II project strategy; however because a business incubation unit should not be established within Save this late in the project cycle, it is proposed for a new MYAP.   Steps a) SC meets with Kiej de los Bosques representatives, and other experts if appropriate, to update the present understanding regarding establishing a business incubation unit within SC (now considering other organizations as well), and to ensure that the resulting strategy is incorporated in a new MYAP. Output a) An updated partner (Kiej)‐generated plan for establishing a business incubation unit within SC or another entity as a component of a new MYAP. 16.4 Gender Summary The project has more female than male beneficiaries and approximately twice as many female Madres Lideres as male Lideres Agricolas. The PROMASA II staff includes one female coordinator who is overseeing SO‐1. The other coordinator (male) is responsible for SOs 2 and 3. Findings SO‐1 Finding 1: Most activities in MCHN are conducted by women and for women, while most activities in Governance and Democracy are for gender‐mixed stakeholders. All activities related to the Health and Nutrition component target mothers. It is only in the planned School for Parents that fathers will be specifically addressed. The Nutrition School also included the participation of both women and men. There is also one Mother Leader who is male! This will be a welcome change, as child feeding tends to be seen as women’s responsibility, although women often have little control over the family budget.   The Governance and Democracy component addresses both men and women as participants in PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 50 community organizations. A significant achievement of the project has been the very high participation of women in project‐organized COSANs (Food Security Committees).   SO‐2 and SO‐3 Finding: Many women have participated in SO‐2 activities In analyzing proposed and implemented SO‐2 and SO‐3 activities, it is evident that most activities and promoted practices target men. However, men are the primary landholders and agriculture based on those landholdings (specifically plantings of maize and beans—the “milpa”) are traditionally the responsibility of men. An examination by traditional gender roles of the activities of PROMASA II yields the following: PROMASA II SO‐2 & SO‐3 ACTIVITIES—BY GENDER Male‐Oriented Female‐Oriented Male and Female‐Oriented • Serving as an agricultural leader • Maize and bean cultivation • Soil conservation activities in corn and bean fields • Construction of pens/coups • Compost • Micro irrigation • Agro‐forestry systems • Food for Work • Nurseries • Reforestation • Watershed management • Family garden • Soil activities that fall within the family garden • Maintenance/hygiene/care of animals and pens • Microenterprise groups • Value‐added • Local seed production • Serving on local committees for natural resource management High rates of participation of women in traditionally male‐oriented activities have been noted by SC colleagues. It is also important to note that women aren’t necessarily utilizing or passing along the knowledge acquired through these trainings. If a HH chooses to participate in an SO‐2/3 activity and a male member of the HH is unavailable, a female member of the household will attend. Men may choose to not participate if they have work to do in the fields away from the training, if they go to town on the day of the training or they have migrated out of the area. Women attend trainings, but don’t necessarily share what they have learned with other members of the HH. PROMASA II does focus on the ‘teaching‐and‐doing’ method of disseminating knowledge (‘platica y practica’), which is the ideal means of delivering information and transferring skills. However, the trainings may contain information that is beyond the technical knowledge of women, making it difficult to both pass along the information and/or implement. Some agricultural leaders mentioned that HHs may instruct their casual labor hires to attend the training and implement the practices, but the knowledge does not necessarily remain with this household. As a result, we are reaching people outside of our target beneficiaries. Casual labor can then implement these practices not only for that particular HH, but other HHs as long as they are willing to allow the practice to be utilized in their fields. With regards to PROMASA II staffing, it is generally recognized that the number of females working in the field of agriculture is low. It is therefore challenging to find females for both paid positions within PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 51 the project and as volunteers (e.g., Farmer Leader positions within communities). Within PROMASA II SOs 2 and 3, there is only one female staff and one female Farmer Leader. Recommendations SO‐1 Recommendations (MCHN and Governance Components) We have no gender‐related recommendations for SO‐1. Self‐esteem training was initially proposed for Mother Leaders, however following discussions with PROMASA II staff, this was considered impractical—and agreed by the MTE team—given the many other priorities the project has. SO‐2, SO‐3 Recommendation: Identify activities with high levels of female participation and assess how to improve the application of trainings received over the course of the project. Through the use of farmer leaders and in line with Recommendation 2 under IR 2.1, it is recommended that SC review key issues related to the acceptance and adoption of prioritized practices among female participants. It is possible that some of the barriers to acceptance and adoption are related to gaps in knowledge, specifically those related to literacy and numeracy. It is also recommended that SC and its partners work with Farmer Leaders to identify how key trainings can be better disseminated by female participants to male heads of household who, for example, are responsible for maize and bean production. With regard to future programming, it is crucial to examine how SC can recruit additional female staff, especially within the agriculture/livelihoods field. Additionally, all staff working directly or indirectly with female beneficiaries should be trained in best practices working with and training women. Recommendation 7 under IR 2.1 should also be taken into consideration for future programming. It is important to note that from SC’s perspective it is difficult to recruit female field staff that are willing/able to ride motorcycles, needed to travel between the project’s isolated communities. 16.5 Capacity­Building Finding The PROMASA II project has done an excellent job of capacity‐building with/for its partner organization COTONEB. In addition the project has been proactive in integrating the COSANEs in the COCODEs. These observations have been verified through field observations, focus groups, and key informant interviews. What is missing to some extent is sufficient indicators of institutional capacity and both quantitative and qualitative targets relative to actual achievements. The following comments are related to MYAP text regarding capacity‐building and institutional strengthening activities in PROMASA II. 1) "...The long term capacity ‐building of primary technical providers are essential elements in increasing use of key production and marketing practices."   To date PROMASA has made important efforts to create an extension system through a program that forms and trains Leader Farmers, at a community level. It must be kept in mind that in the communities where PROMASA works there is no regular presence of another entity that provides agricultural services, much the less with a holistic approach. This system of agricultural extension has its origins in the model of integral farms that has been implemented in the plots that belong to each of the Leader Farmers. At the end of the program, as Kristi suggested, it is expected that this group of PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 52 41 Leader Farmers will be organized and have the ability to continue working with their communities, both with productive and commercialization matters.   2) "Training and capacity building of local technical expertise, to strengthen roles of existing committees and the COCODES in close communication with municipal levels as well. In addition, the primary technical skills base will be sustained by trained community “agents” selected jointly by communities and SC and partners who will participate in community and municipal level for a longer term sustainability"   The COSANs are receiving a series of trainings and they are being provided with individual supervision so they can better apply their skills. They also practice managing all the resources assigned to them in a systematic, technical and, most of all, transparent way. This helps to enhance community confidence and it also generates support in their activities at a local level. Training and capacity building include the following topics: a) Democracy and Governability   b) Leadership c) Negotiation techniques   d) Citizen participation laws   e) Basic administrative controls   f) SAN focus Each COSAN selects its own representative. This person will participate in the COCODE, coordinate from inside the SAN commission and hold a certain influence in the community so that the projects with a SAN focus will have priority when presented to the COMUDE.   Also, each COSAN at municipal level is joining as an organization in a system called COSAN`s Municipal Network (5 out of 6 networks are already organized). Each municipal network elects a Chief Representative as well as a Deputy Representative so that they will speak for the COSANs of their district in the COMUSAN and the COMUDE. These representatives seek to develop projects that include the SAN focus and work so that such projects will be included in the budget proposals of the Municipal Council. In regard to the COCODEs they receive training on several matters as well as supervision from D&G technicians in order to better utilize newly acquired knowledge on subjects such as: a) Democracy and Governability b) Problem analysis   c) Formulation of projects d) Projects negotiation and proposal   e) Project Implementation f) SAN focus PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 53 The main goals being achieved through this process are: a) SAN‐focused projects are receiving priority b) Community leaders learn to formulate and propose projects in a correct manner, while they discover the advantages of dealing with potential investors and not only with their local governments   c) They are able to recognize and set in motion appropriate operations and sustainability processes so that their projects may fulfill their purpose in a timely fashion d) They accept the incorporation of a COSAN representative to create a SAN Commission in each COCODE e) They recognize the importance of coordinating their work with the local OMP 3) "The management design of PROMASA II also ensures that SC is working side‐by‐side and placing some staff in the same offices as partner organizations, to ensure a successful partnership through capacity building and direct supervision."   COTONEB, as the main implementation partner, is receiving technical assistance to strengthen its institutionalism and to insure the successful implementation of the program in the following areas: a) Administrative and Financial areas are receiving technical assistance from SC in order to improve their management, both in their own organization and in the program as a whole. Such technical assistance is periodic and direct.   b) In the M&E area, there´s a constant presence of SC in order to keep the best possible record of their advances and their analytical abilities c) In the area of general operations there´s a designated SC “Partnership Leader” who supports the whole process of the program´s implementation. This includes advise for the selection of communities and personnel. It also includes strategies to involve the Administration Council and working commissions of their social organization. This person also helps to determine the role of the commissions in the coordination program and the application of the SAN focus in their proposals.   4) "Strategic Objective 3 is designed to build community resilience and reduce vulnerabilities by improving the management of natural resources within target communities and strengthening the preparedness and the capacity to respond to natural disasters at the household, community, and municipal level."   As a result of this Strategic Objective there has been an improvement in the communities’ ability to prepare and develop plans for the prevention of disasters. This activity has been developed as programmed. To date 31 of the 50 plans programmed by the LOA have been elaborated. In addition an Early Warning System (EWS) is about to be implemented. Four municipal governments are involved in this project and they will receive training and equipment to set in motion the EWS.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 54 5) "Community and municipal strengthening will occur as cross‐cutting strategies across the project."   From the beginning the program has been working in close cooperation with the districts` mayors, their councils and each of the six districts` OMP where the program has been established. Each OMP has received the same information as the COCODEs so that the municipal offices will support them in the process of formulating, taking measures to obtain and negotiating their projects. They are also supporting the training process that members of the COCODEs receive in these subjects. This process itself has brought both organizations closer together. The final goal is to obtain the support and involvement of the communities. Representatives of the program participate in monthly sessions of COMUSAN and COMUDE to promote projects that include the SAN focus. The sustainability of the program is based in this relationship and the support of the COSANs and the COCODEs. 6) The project will have a dedicated "NGO Partner and Municipalities Strengthening Manager..." The leader of SC`s Work with Partners program coordinates the institutional strengthening proposed for COTONEB. This includes taking measures to obtain resources like personnel, cars and equipment. Such person operates as a liaison between PROMASA and the General Manager Administrative Council, and the technical team coordinator of PROMASA‐COTONEB. This person also provides COTONEB with advise to insure a successful implementation of the program according to the expected level of quality. This includes in‐site quality verifications of the activities.   In addition, this person is responsible for coordinating the communication between SC and other social organizations (COTONEB, Kiej de los Bosques and Génesis Empresarial). To achieve this goal three different levels of coordination have been implemented. They meet every three months to deal with matters of implementation and strategy analysis at the community and municipal level.   The reports created to keep a record of this processes are presented every three months and annually. Minutes are also generated to keep track of the meetings between coordinators and SC partners.   Recommendation Consider ways to ensure that the project’s good work in this area is documented and monitored and reported on in a more consistent manner. 16.6 USAID Regulation 216 Compliance   The MTE team was charged with reviewing the PROMASA II Project’s compliance with USAID Regulation 216, which requires all USAID‐funded projects to conduct Initial Environment Examinations (IEEs) to ascertain ‐and then prevent and/or mitigate‐  potential negative social and environmental effects caused by project activities at the project design phase, and then in the implementation phase. Based on field observations, focus group responses (including Farmer Leaders), key informant input, and document review, the MTE team’s findings and recommendations are listed below.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 55 Findings 1. PROMASA II makes a consistent effort to orient project staff regarding the importance of preventing and/or mitigating potential negative social and environmental impacts of project activities. However, the project’s social and environmental impact prevention and mitigation activities are not included in its current monitoring and reporting system. SC/PROMASA II is aware of this issue and is in the process of using technical assistance to modify the monitoring system to do so. (RA 5‐10). 2. Beneficiary households receive training from the project’s Mother Leaders in the preparation of more varied and nutritious meals, however leña (firewood) is consumed not only in the demonstration cooking process, but on a daily basis by each household as well—which contributes to the deforestation problem; and the intense smoke produced by the cooking fires potentially contributes to respiratory stress in the family members.   3. The PROMASA II FFW rural roads maintenance activities result in negligible environmental risk. In addition, the project uses the global standard Low‐Volume Roads Engineering Best Management Practices Field Guide, by Gordon Keller & James Sherar, encapsulated in the project‐produced Manual de Mantenimiento de Caminos, which is used by PROMASA II staff and volunteers for training purposes and as a guide for staff and beneficiaries engaged in road maintenance work. The project also uses checklists to help staff ensure they are following USAID’s guidelines. Recommendation 1 a) PROMASA II needs to be more aware of how some—not all—Farmer Leaders and beneficiaries implement the goat‐garden‐chickens‐compost‐agroforestry modules in occasionally less‐than‐ expected (per Reg 216) socially and environmentally responsible ways, particularly in settings where:   b) Steep slopes—found in much of the project area—are susceptible to soil erosion and runoff when common methods are used for clearing land, making preparations for vegetable gardens, etc. Recommendation 2 PROMASA II management, with staff and other stakeholder representatives, is encouraged to visit a number of project sites in different agro‐ecological zones, at random, to assess Reg 216 compliance relative to the IEE and other factors that may not be in the IEE; note positive actions as well as problems and their causes, and potential solutions; and then develop an action plan to update training for staff and volunteers as necessary. The output from this process would be an action plan to address Reg 216 non‐conformance issues in a consistent and monitorable manner. Recommendation 3 Please see Recommendation 2, above, as it applies to this finding as well. However in addition it is suggested that PROMASA II management and staff with partners and other stakeholders, if/as appropriate, explore reasons why improved stoves (estufas lorenas) were not carried forward from PROMASA I;* and whether or not improved stoves should be included in possible future projects. *Note: It was explained by SC/PROMASA II staff that the primary reason improved stoves were not PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 56 included in the PROMASA II MYAP was insufficient funding for that activity. Recommendation 4 The CO suggests ‐and we agree‐ that it would be useful if a future version of Regulation 216 included more operational (or practical) guidelines, with emphasis on applications in Latin America and a Latin American audience. Selected MYAP Activities and their Potential Environmental Impacts27 Type Activity Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts Improved Access to Water   ‐water containers ‐water contamination ‐transmission of waterborne diseases   ‐pooling of water and potential increase in vectors Sustainable Agriculture Practices ‐vegetable gardens ‐household greenhouses ‐productive parcels ‐soil conservation   ‐metal silos ‐improved granaries ‐water contamination from runoff ‐ water source damage or changes in volumes ‐environmental contamination ‐soil erosion   ‐soil contamination/degradation ‐deforestation ‐ loss of biodiversity and nesting sites Micro Irrigation   ‐installation of micro drip irrigation systems ‐operation and maintain micro drip irrigation systems   ‐transmission of waterborne diseases ‐soil erosion   ‐potential over‐exploitation of aquifers and springs ‐pooling of water and potential increase in vectors ‐contamination of downstream water flow   Family Small Animal Production ‐goat modules ‐poultry modules ‐water and soil contamination ‐environmental contamination ‐increase in disease vectors   Rural Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation ‐road improvement ‐construction of fords for small rivers ‐construction of bridge boxes ‐ditches ‐erosion and uncontrolled runoff from improper construction practices or lack of adequate drainage ‐deforestation ‐loss of biodiversity ‐alteration of water flow ‐alteration of environmental corridors   ‐increased access and unplanned colonization Forestry ‐tree nurseries   ‐tree planting ‐enclosure of forest areas ‐forest management   ‐sustainable forest harvest   ‐acidification of soils due to promotion of improper species ‐introduction of exotic species unsuitable for the local biodiversity and habitat   ‐soil contamination from improper disposal of planting bags   Water Points Protection ‐enclosure of water points area   ‐soil conservation ‐soil contamination from improper disposal of planting bags                                                             27 Ref: Guatemala/Save the Children FY 07 – FY‐11 Multi‐Year Assistance Program Proposal (August 21, 2006), Appendix 4, Initial Environmental Examination provided courtesy of SC/PROMASA II, 26‐5‐2010 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 57 Type Activity Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts ‐tree planting ‐changes in hydrology and water tables from to use of improper forest species   Food Storage of Program Commodities   ‐transportation   ‐storage   ‐pest control for storage    ‐food contamination   ‐commodities inappropriate for human consumption   ‐human toxins   Documents Reviewed (provided by PROMASA II/SC) • Appendix 4 IEE Signed Attachment F Status of Mitigation Measures FY‐10 • Attachment F Status of Mitigation Measures FY‐10     • Formularios_Boleta_Ambiental • Guatemala FY‐10 PREP Attachment/ESR 17 MTE Results by Strategic Objective 17.1 SO 1: Mother­Child Health and Nutrition Practices and Services; and Governance   by MTE Team Member Sandra Saenz de Tejada Summary The focus of this SO‐1 has been the implementation of a strategy to promote the adoption of preventive key MCHN practices and the use of MOH health services in order to improve feeding practices and diminish rates of childhood illnesses and malnutrition. While the SO‐1 has four intermediate results, on the ground it has been divided into two main components: (a) health and nutrition and (b) the strengthening of community organization (Democracy and Governance).   Community health workers (CHW), locally known as Madres Líderes, or Mother Leaders, serve in the critical role of extending coverage of program strategies and disseminating health and nutrition‐ related messages. The project is to be commended for their efforts in training rural women with limited schooling and turning them into proactive community health workers. In spite of ethnic and language differences, and that two institutions are responsible for implementation, the project has managed to reach a large target population with uniform, sound messages. Their success, notwithstanding, has been mixed. While CHWs have achieved to improve project participants’ knowledge of child care and the project fulfilled in FY‐09 some of its end of project targets, exclusive breast‐feeding rates have declined and the prevalence of diarrhea has increased.   In addition, stunting rates have increased in southern Quiché, but have remained constant in the Ixil. Currently there are too few CHWs to adequately cover participating households (each CHW covers, on average, 140 children), and not enough PROMASA II project personnel to supervise their work. In this estimation, with 15 months remaining in the five‐year project, the frequency of contact between CHWs and project participants—combined with other important factors beyond the project’s control PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 58 —will probably not prove sufficient enough to achieve all expected outcomes.   A behavioral change communication (BCC) strategy, comprising a variety of channels, has been designed and is being implemented. So far, the main activity has been the implementation of Schools for Leaders, four two‐hour sessions, in the last of which leaders are asked to make action‐oriented commitments to ameliorate food insecurity. The BCC also includes lobbying at different levels, presentations at health fairs, football games, moveable theater, a song and a School for Parents. Schools are planned to start in August 2010, and attendance of participating households will be compulsory.   The other main component in this SO‐1, which actually affects all three of the project’s SOs, is the strengthening of community organization. It targets three main groups: (a) local food and nutrition security committees (COSAN), (b) the official community organization (COCODE), and (c) officials and organizations at the municipal level, such as municipal planning departments. Community organizations have received a series of trainings in leadership, organization, and the food security framework. In several municipalities the project has promoted COSAN networks, some highly organized and participating in monthly COMUDE meetings. The success of strengthening both COSANs and COCODEs has varied, as well as the degree of interaction between both. At the municipal level, project efforts have included regular meetings with planning officials and active participation at the COMUDE, where the project’s technical expertise in food and nutrition security is widely appreciated.   Key Recommendations   A. Health and Nutrition 1. It is crucial to take a preventive approach and provide counseling in child feeding to all children, independent of their nutritional status. Given labor and time constraints, a suggested approach would be to provide counseling in small groups, relying on the age‐ specific groups already organized for food preparation demonstrations.   2. The observed decline in the duration of exclusive breastfeeding needs immediate attention, as well as the increased prevalence of diarrhea. Rapid, qualitative studies (doer/not doer methodology is recommended) need to be conducted to better grasp the situation and design rapid and appropriate responses.   3. The BCC strategy is ambitious and is starting late in the project cycle. Some of its planned activities will take considerable time and effort to carry out, for which project management should carefully assess the competing needs faced by its field staff and CHWs. Efforts need to concentrate on those activities that motivate mothers to improve their feeding practices, as well as those that inform mothers exactly how to accomplish the recommended behaviors.   B. Governance and Democracy 1. Given the current work load of the Técnicos and the limited time left in the project, it is recommended that the project begin as soon as possible planning a participatory exit strategy, in order to concentrate efforts in those COSANs with more potential. COSANs need PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 59 to be sorted according to their level of organization and potential to carry on food security activities once the project ends. Those COSANs with the least potential for sustainability would take an early phase‐out, but would continue with their food distributions and other roles, but no further training would be offered (or would be kept to a minimum).   2. Linked to the COSAN exit strategy, it is necessary to design a gradual graduation for COCODEs, starting with those less likely to work with the COSAN or less interested in furthering food security issues at the community or municipal level.   3. Communications with local and municipal authorities need to improve, as stated by most officials consulted for this MTE. They stated their interest in receiving concise, regular, written progress reports, as well as an orderly introduction of new staff, particularly new Técnicos. Intermediate Result 1.1: Improved access to MCHN services According to the MYAP there are four strategies in IR 1.1: • Strategy 1.1.1 Strengthen and extend coverage of AIEPI AINM‐C services • Strategy 1.1.2 Initiate early childhood stimulation component • Strategy 1.1.3 Implement adapted Hearth Model, Nutrition School sessions • Strategy 1.1.4 Support improved access to water The first strategy has been implemented with some modifications; the second strategy has not been implemented; the third was canceled due to poor results and in its place a School for Parents is being designed and will be implemented in August 2010 (see IR 1.3 for details). The fourth strategy has not yet been implemented, but the first steps have been taken (identification of water‐deficient communities and proposal for a system of water collection and storage).   Project participants have certainly improved their access to MCHN services, as the project’s CHWs conduct a series of activities to promote better health and nutrition. Improved access to existing public health services has been achieved in a limited fashion, in part because coordination with the MOH has proven difficult, in part due to its high turnover of staff at the Department (DAS) and District levels. In the Ixil area there seems to be a good working relationship between the project and the regional provider of rural health care (Prestadora de Servicios): they coordinate their monthly growth monitoring sessions and help each other with child feeding counseling.28   There also seems to be a friendly collaboration between the project and the MOH in the Ixil area. In the K’iche’ region there is also collaboration with the health services, but it is a more distant relationship. It has been difficult to strengthen the MOH service provision and that of the Prestadora de Servicios in this region, but there might also be a limited intent to do so . The project has missed an opportunity to build the capacity of the health services on which program participants depend.   To date, the emphasis has been on community‐based AINM‐C29 related activities and less on those included in the more comprehensive IMCI (AIEPI) strategy. Although both strategies are supported by                                                             28 In the Ixil area this has been easy to achieve, as COTONEB, the provider of rural health care is the same institution that implements PROMASA II. Coordination with the MOH outside the Ixil area has proven much more challenging. 29 The program’s main interventions are nutrition counseling, especially concerning maternal care during pregnancy, exclusive breastfeeding and appropriate complementary feeding practices, how to care for sick children and promote appropriate use of health services. This type of program is also known as community‐based growth promotion. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 60 the MOH, the AINM‐C has been implemented mostly by the PEC.30 In accordance with the AINM‐C strategy, the core of the CHWs’ activities is growth promotion. The CHWs carry out many of the activities endorsed by the IANM‐C, such as home visits, food demonstrations, brief educational sessions (delivered each month, when mothers gather to receive food‐aid), growth monitoring, and individual counseling. CHWs disseminate knowledge about health care and endorse the use of local health care services. The project requires participants to show proof of their utilization of health services, such as immunization, prenatal care, monthly growth monitoring, deworming, and micro‐ nutrient supplementation.   Findings The pivotal role of Madres Líderes Madres Líderes are better trained, have more responsibilities and cover more population than most CHWs, including those of government‐run AINM‐C. Madres Líderes serve around 140 families each (other CHWs are responsible for around 30). It is estimated that their duties take around 12 full days of work per month31), for which they receive a stipendium of Q500, similar to what the MOH gives its Facilitadores Comunitarios (community facilitators). Their performance may be mixed, but the project is committed to leave behind well trained CHWs. Even though they will no longer be receiving incentives or supervision once the project ends, CHWs might continue in a proactive health promotion role and probably will be sought out by friends and family for health advice. CHWs are the ones in charge of face‐to‐face communications with participating mothers, which are carried out in four main activities: (a) food demonstrations, (b) brief educational sessions before food distribution, (c) home visits and (d) individual counseling (growth monitoring is discussed under a different heading). The following are general observations for each of them. Food demonstrations Food preparation demonstrations are a good way to introduce a more varied diet (the recipes highlight the use of several ingredients such as vegetable and egg combinations) and appropriate energy density (the recipes promote thicker foods). The project has succeeded in developing appropriate and culturally acceptable preparations, particularly for CSB, which is not common in the country. This is one of the most successful activities of SO‐1. It entails monthly demonstrations on how to cook nutritious meals for children, using recipes based on local products, food distributed by PROMASA II and home garden produce. Mothers are divided in small groups (around 15 persons each, disaggregated by the child’s age‐group). Each participant must bring some key ingredients, cooking utensils, or fuel. There is no assigned location for the demonstrations and the cooking space is rotated among the mothers’ own homes. CHWs, often aided by a COSAN member, engage mothers in the cooking demonstration activity by assigning specific tasks during food preparation, ensuring that all participants learn how to prepare the recipes. Both beneficiary mothers and CHWs seem to take pleasure in the activity and most children enjoy the meals.                                                               30 The Guatemalan MOH provides services to the rural population mostly through its own facilities (health posts and health centers). The more isolated communities are mostly served by the PEC (Programa de Extensión de Cobertura, Health Extension Program) which subcontracts local organizations to provide care. This includes the provision of CHWs (facilitador comunitario and several, usually poorly trained madres monitoras) and once‐a‐month visits by a physician to each community.   31 In Honduras, where AIN‐C was originally developed, CHW’s load was less than 20 hours per month PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 61 The actual adoption of these recipes is difficult to assess in rapid field visits, as there is a tendency by respondents to over‐report desired behaviors. Notwithstanding, the general impression left after speaking with participating mothers is that most had tried them (usually mothers could tell how to prepare any given recipe), but few have adopted them on a regular basis in their everyday lives. For example, a woman that was quite enthusiastic about recipe demonstration said that she practiced one such recipe per week; others stated even longer periods: once per fortnight or once a month. This impression, however, is not necessarily representative of the whole project, due to the small sample size used in this evaluation.   Food demonstrations entail logistical complications that often go unnoticed by project staff. Sometimes mothers who were to bring key ingredients, particularly goat’s milk, fail to show up and CHWs then need to improvise: Either obtain the milk from another source or use another recipe. Sometimes the physical space where the demonstration takes place is far from ideal: Either too small, or without enough chairs/benches. Sometimes they are forced to cook outdoors. But the main difficulty seems to be the lack of cooking equipment: CHWs need to ask participants to loan their pots and pans, but often these are not appropriate, tending to be too small for such a large group. The most consistently difficult of all seems to be locating a large enough frying pan. Usually, these circumstances are not actual barriers, but certainly do make the CHW’s work more trying. Education CHWs provide brief education sessions before Title II food distributions. Most CHW feel confident they are doing a good job. They face common hurdles: lack of educational materials (in a focus group it turned out that half of CHWs lacked the AINM‐C booklet 32) and the lack of engagement of a few participants. The success of these educational sessions has been mixed, as is explained below. Home visits Each month, CHWs make a list of those households that need a home visit: underweight children (WAZ ‐2), children with acute malnutrition (HAZ ‐2), newborns, pregnant women, children who fail to grow well for over two months. Given their time availability, each CHW is asked to visit three times per month at least three underweight children, good, yet a very small number in face of the prevalent rates of malnutrition. In addition, CHW also visit most households throughout the year to check on the Title II rations (use, storage) and domestic hygiene. Most of the beneficiaries interviewed had received such a visit. These visits have stressed cleanliness and most parties interviewed stated they have achieved noticeable results. Indeed, most of the 50 households visited had reasonably clean patios and courtyards. CHWs have a user‐friendly form to keep track of these visits, but the form does not include space for necessary follow‐ups.   Growth monitoring The project monitors weight on a quarterly basis (to estimate global malnutrition), and height every semester (to estimate chronic malnutrition). Técnicos, who have been carefully trained and standardized in anthropometry, take all measurements. Cases of acute malnutrition are identified in the field on a quarterly basis by the MUAC methodology. All anthropometric data are sent to the PROMASA II M&E unit and, around 20 days later, CHW get the list of malnourished children (WAZ ‐2 and WHZ ‐2) and proceed to program home visits and individual counseling. There are ongoing plans                                                             32 New education material is currently being prepared and will be ready for distribution by August 2010. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 62 to reduce this time and charts for immediate identification of malnourished children will be available for the next quarterly round (June 2010). Growth monitoring is essential for growth promotion and for counseling on child feeding, two activities that have taken considerable time to take‐off. There are differences on how growth monitoring (GM) is conducted in the Ixil and the K’ich’e areas, as told by Técnicos and CHW in both regions. In the former, given their close collaboration with the PEC (the same institution, COTONEB, implements the PEC and the project), CHW collaborate in the monthly GM sessions. In the K’ich’e area participants are referred to MOH services33 for monthly weight‐for‐age monitoring and when the project conducts their own quarterly monitoring, CHW’s role is usually limited to taking the MUAC, record keeping, helping prepare the children for weighing, and keeping some order. As described by them, in the Ixil area CHW are also involved in preparing the growth charts and providing, with the aid of PEC’s own educadoras34 immediate counseling to all mothers with children under two, although CHW themselves tend to counsel only priority children (WAZ ‐2 and WHZ ‐2).   In the K’iche’ area, the quarterly growth monitoring sessions are quite intense and the Técnicos have no time to assess individual changes in growth patterns or provide counseling. In the K’ich’e area there is limited growth promotion, as counseling concentrates on rescuing children who are already underweight or have acute malnutrition (WAZ ‐2 and WHZ ‐2). Due to overburdened CHWs, only mothers of malnourished children (WAZ, or around 30% of all children according to project data) are currently receiving any counseling, although often only mothers of severely malnourished children (WAZ ‐3, around 6% of children, as of March 2010) and those with acute malnutrition (‐2Z WH, around 2%) receive counseling.   In the Ixil area, however, all children (even the 6% that have normal weight) receive individual counseling: CHW attend priority cases (those already malnourished) and PEC staff provide counseling to all the others. This is possible due to their close collaboration with the PEC (COTONEB implements both the project and PEC) and a friendly division of labor between PEC and project’s staff. The differences in approach could be related to the observed differences in stunting (HA): while in the Ixil the rate has remained basically unchanged (from 77% in baseline to 76% by March 2010), in the K’ich’e area it has deteriorated (from 70% to 76% in the same time period). It looks like lessons can be drawn from the Ixil.   Community treatment of malnourished children After the high increase in underweight children seen during September 200935, both CHWs and the COSAN organized home visits and provided social encouragement to improve the weight of                                                             33 Weight data collected by the MOH‐sponsored health services is often considered suspect due to different quality standards in taking the anthropometry, as PROMASA II project staff claim that MOH personnel tend to overestimate weight by generally not removing children’s clothing or not subtracting the weight of the children’s clothing, and for being careless in calibrating scales. In addition, given the attrition rate among MOH staff, new employees are not always standardized in anthropometry. Besides not being reliable, the growth monitoring these children receive is ineffectual, as in many health‐ posts weight is written down in the child’s health card but mothers are seldom told about the nutritional status of their children (or if they are told, the explanation is inadequate). 34 These are usually teachers (high school graduates with a degree education) that also train CHW and provide other health education.   35 In 2009 many rural households decreased their already precarious food security. In several areas there was drought, in others there were landslides: crops were lost or diminished for many. In addition, the global financial crises and the increased price of fuel translated into a dramatic increase of food stuff. . PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 63 malnourished children. In Calanté, for example, the COSAN took very seriously the 13 children found to be underweight. They organized home visits and each family was visited approximately twice per week, and mothers were supported in their efforts to improve child feeding. By the following quarter, December 2009, the rate of global malnutrition had gone down to 30% (from 54% observed in September 2009) and to only seven children—a remarkable result under any circumstances.   A similar approach has been recently put into place by the project: Underweight children are assigned to a “godparent” (usually the local CHW, but also the community Agricultural Leader (see SO‐2 and SO‐3) and the Técnicos. Each is assigned up to five “godchildren” who visit them and their mothers in their homes and provide constant encouragement to improve feeding practices. While these improvements are impressive, it appears the focus on treatment has drawn attention off of prevention and this will be addressed.   Recommendations Madres Líderes turn‐over rate It is necessary to reduce the current CHW attrition rate, and retention should be addressed as part of project management. As told by CHWs themselves, attrition36 is mostly due to two reasons: Family pressure (husbands not supporting CHW’s work for pay and their complaints that CHW are neglecting their families), and the duress of the position (much walking, often work involving walking to other villages, dealing with some non‐cooperative participants, implementing a wide range of activities, etc.). It should be kept in mind that inadequate support and motivation for community workers are often the main reasons for unsuccessful implementation of many development programs37. Short‐Term Recommendations Recommendation 1: It is necessary to motivate CHWs for work well done. Steps. i) Prepare diplomas for participation for all CHW that have participated during a specified length of time. ii) Prepare a certification of competence for those CHWs that have mastered specific skills. iii) The certificates would be based on –or adapted from‐  existing better practice standards employed elsewhere. iv) The certificates would be endorsed by local municipal and/or health authorities Outputs. i) Plans to evaluate specific skills; ii) diplomas and certificates. Recommendation 2: Increase field visits to supervise CHW. Most CHWs stated that they need more field visits from their supervising Técnicos (technical level field staff; most have some university education) and that they needed more feedback on their performance as well as greater technical support. Steps. i) Técnicos include in their monthly plans long field visits, in order to observe the quality of the services being delivered. ii) Técnicos provide immediate feedback.                                                             36 Attrition is very common in projects that rely on CHW. The turn‐over rate in PROMASA II has not been calculated but it is probably not higher than average (see WHO 2007). 37 Lehmann, U and David Sanders (2007). Community health workers: What do we know about them? The state of the evidence on programmes, activities, costs and impact on health outcomes of using community health workers. WHO, Evidence and Information for Policy, Department of Human Resources for Health. Geneva.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 64 Outputs. Monthly plans include the necessary to time to provide these visits. Long‐Term Recommendations Recommendation 3: It is necessary to address the work situations that make CHW labor so difficult. Steps. i) Find out if CHW that cover more than one community tend to resign in a higher proportion than others covering only one. ii) Conduct a detailed analysis, comparing the turn‐over rates and their explanatory factors of CHW working in one community and those working in more than one.   Output. A report that would serve as input for future projects. Recommendation 4: Food preparation demonstrations.   Monthly sessions of food demonstration could be expanded to include demonstrations of recommended behavioral change. As will be explained below under Intermediate Results 1.2 and 1.3, currently only a fraction of mothers of malnourished children receive counseling on appropriate child feeding. Given over‐burdened staff, it is unlikely that all participating mothers will receive much needed individual counseling, particularly in southern Quiché. An alternative would be to transform food preparation demonstrations to include age‐specific child feeding recommendations, allowing mothers to practice key behavioral change. Steps: a) During the usual recipe demonstrations, CHWs would explain the generic child feeding recommendations. For example, for children aged 9‐11 months, this would include four meals per day, four full tablespoons of food per meal, etc.   b) After food preparation and while children are eating, CHWs would stress again the recommended volume, energy density, and the use of vegetables and animal protein.   c) Mothers would be encouraged to practice active, responsive feeding while in the premises and to continue to put them in practice at home.   d) After children have eaten, mothers would be asked to choose one behavioral change (i.e., increase energy density, frequency of feeding, volume of food eaten), in addition to responsive feeding, which should be recommended to all.   e) One month later, during the next food preparation demonstration, CHWs would invite mothers to comment on what difficulties they found when implementing the recommended changes and for mothers to share progress in adopting them. Outputs. Flowcharts for food demonstrations for age‐specific groups, including key behavioral change. Other short‐term recommendations a) It is necessary to make food demonstrations easier to conduct for the sake of the CHW. One simple solution would be to provide them with the needed cooking equipment: one pot, a PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 65 large frying pan and a serving spoon.   b) It is also necessary to review the recipes that are included in the demonstrations. The recipe book that is under preparation includes 12 recipes, based on readily available ingredients, including, home‐garden produce and food‐aid. The promotion of improved atoles (thin gruels) in the recipe demonstrations is problematic. While the recipe book38 includes only one atole recipe, it turned out to be mothers’ favorite. Atoles are usually too thin; and while the recipe insists on “thick atole,” it is unlikely it will have the appropriate energy density. It is recommended only to stress the use of thicker preparations. c) Food demonstrations need to include how to improve traditional foodstuff frequently given to children. More importantly, mothers need to learn how to increase the density and quality of the traditional baby food: corn porridge (sopa de tortilla deshecha, also called sopa in K’iche’), as it is easier to adopt a behavior for which there is already an approximation (corn porridge) than to adopt a new one (recipes). Mothers are at times reluctant to add vegetables and meat to this type of porridge, and they need to learn to experiment to see how their own recipes can become more varied and dense.   Recommendation 5: Growth monitoring and malnutrition prevention   It is necessary to re‐adopt a preventive approach and include growth promotion, particularly in the K’iche’ area. After their first semester children often begin erratic weight gain and linear growth, due both to increased diarrheal infection and inappropriate complementary feeding (WAZ for this age group is 9%, 12% HAZ). It appears that a focus on treatment has drawn attention off of the main program objectives of prevention. Malnutrition rates only increase with age, and when these children are in their second year of life, almost a third of them are already underweight (WAZ ‐2Z) and four out of five are already stunted (HAZ ‐2Z).   Short term recommendations: a) A clear statement should be made to participating mothers: child malnutrition can be prevented, if feeding practices are addressed at the very moment a child starts eating (6 months). The project needs to stress that it takes less effort from the families to prevent malnutrition than to rehabilitate a malnourished child.   b) CHWs need to redouble their efforts and encourage mothers of children under 24 months to attend MOH monthly weight monitoring, explaining how to read the growth charts. Mothers need to know that after six months, children are expected to gain around 100g (or 4 oz) each month. Failure to achieve appropriate weight gain needs to be understood as a danger sign, as dangerous as those of diarrhea or ARI. c) The project should review why strategies that worked in the past are no longer being implemented. Two examples would be the large community growth charts and the use of blue and red dots to indicate appropriate weight gain.                                                             38 Currently still in revision, the booklet has been prepared to aid CHWs’ food preparation demonstrations. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 66 Recommendation 6: Community treatment of malnourished children The newly established god parenting (padrinos) strategy needs to be well documented. As yet, the treatment is not uniform: Some CHWs, for example, provide weekly home visits, others twice a week; some others visit fortnightly.   Steps. Develop a simple form to keep track not only of weight gain (which is currently being done) but also of the number of visits. If the god parenting strategy proves successful, such information would facilitate assessing the optimal number of visits necessary to produce the desired weight gain.   Output. Detailed monitoring of each child. Intermediate Result 1.2: Improved quality of key MCHN services According to the MYAP there are two main strategies in this IR: • Strategy 1.2.1 Support quality delivery of AIEPI AINM‐C package of services • Strategy 1.2.2 Work with MOH, UPS‐1 and Calidad en Salud to strengthen Logistics and Monitoring and Evaluation systems The main efforts for this intermediate result have been centered on the first strategy and have involved training at different levels: The project’s own field team (Técnicos), CHWs, and public health staff, particularly in the Ixil region. The second strategy was not implemented.   Findings The project has spent considerable time and effort training CHWs in most key‐health practices, as promoted by the MOH’s AINM‐C strategy as well as some of WHO/PAHO’s IMCI initiative. Moreover, the project has invested significant time providing on‐the‐job training to its own Técnicos as well, as few are professionally trained. Both Técnicos and CHWs have also been trained in adult education methodologies, behavioral change and counseling. Técnicos, for example, were directly involved in developing trials of improved practices (TIPS)39 in order to strengthen their counseling skills.   The whole team was also brought into Guatemala City to receive a course on adult education. Técnicos then replicated their training to CHW. While Técnicos are brought together for training, CHWs are trained separately, in their native languages. In the Ixil area, each Técnico is responsible for training the CHWs under her supervision. In the K’ich’e area, CHWs gather every two months for training, and the next month each Técnico conducts refreshing sessions. The training schedule and educational content are the same for both regions.   CHWs’ training is appropriate, both in intensity and scope, but it seems to focus much more on the acquisition of knowledge than to the acquisition of specific skills. Many CHW do not have the necessary materials for their education and counseling sessions (a booklet with color illustrations and covering most key feeding recommendations), as these were handed in early in the project and many newer CHWs never received them. This problem will be resolved in the upcoming months, as the new                                                             39 Following this methodology, Técnicos consulted with a reduced number of participants their opinions (feasibility, attractiveness, degree of difficulty, etc.) on a series of child feeding recommendations. Mothers were asked to try the recommendations for a week, and then provide feedback to Técnicos. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 67 material is finalized.   Supervision for CHWs is insufficient and many CHWs stated that they need more feedback than they are actually receiving. More supervision is particularly needed in counseling. Técnicos are routinely supervised and there seems to be a close follow‐up of their reports and activities. CHW are also routinely supervised by Técnicos, but not in the required frequency: many CHWs feel they need more on the job supervision and, particularly, more feedback on their performance.    Recommendations There needs to be a shift from the acquisition of knowledge to the acquisition of skills. Supervision of CHW must include more field visits. Técnicos need to critically assess their time use and focus on prioritized activities, taking into account that a major goal of the project is to leave well‐trained local CHWs. Steps: a) To achieve the desired impact there needs to be a shift in emphasis: Técnicos need to allocate less training in new topics (or topics not directly related to improved nutritional status) and more emphasis on supervision. b) There also needs to be a shift from the acquisition of knowledge to the acquisition of skills, particularly in terms of counseling. This could be attained by successive practice and timely feedback.   Outputs: Técnicos’ monthly plans include more time for supervision and timely feedback. Long term recommendation: Técnicos need to devote adequate time to assure higher quality service delivery. Each Técnico should assess the supervision needs of the heterogeneous CHW group under her responsibility and allocate her time accordingly. Such assessment could include both a theoretical and practical exam to ascertain CHWs’ strengths and weaknesses. Intermediate Result 1.3: Improved knowledge, attitudes and skills related to key MCHN practices CHWs have successfully improved mothers’ knowledge of danger signs, but there are significant differences among municipalities. While PROMASA conducted an in‐depth formative research strategy at the outset of the program, it is now recommended that the BCC strategy be revisited especially related to exclusive breastfeeding. It is worrisome that exclusive breastfeeding rates, far from improving have actually decreased. Likewise, mothers have also learned about hygiene practices, but this knowledge has not been translated into decreased diarrheal rates.   Most alarmingly, rates have increased, both in the rainy and dry seasons. Mothers have also learned about appropriate child feeding, but this new knowledge still needs to be adopted and transformed into everyday practices. A behavioral change strategy has been designed and its first stage has been recently implemented. Given its late start there is a risk the strategy might not achieve its expected PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 68 impact.   Findings Improved knowledge of child care   CHWs have succeeded in improving project participants’ knowledge of child care (recognition of at least two danger signs during child illness, pregnancy and the neonatal period) and the project fulfilled in FY‐09 some of its end of project targets (see graph, following).   Improved knowledge of danger signs Source: PROMASA II M&E There are, however, important differences among municipalities. Given that the initial differences in knowledge among the six municipalities are large, it is necessary to take a longitudinal approach and compare differences through time. That is, differences in knowledge between the last measurement (FY‐09) and the first (baseline, 2007). As can be seen in the graph below, all three indicators in Sacapulas are negative (FY‐09 values are lower than those in baseline), while in Cotzal and Cunén mothers have learned only danger signs during the neonatal period. It is clear that there has been a significant increase in knowledge only in two municipalities: Nebaj and Chajul. While staff training has been the same in the two regions, those Técnicos and CHWs working in Nebaj and Chajul are likely doing something different and getting much better results.   Acquired knowledge: differences between FY‐09 and baseline measurements Source: PROMASA II M&E PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 69 The one project indicator that measures actual practices is the rate of children under six months who were exclusively breastfed in the previous 24 hours. While there has been a slight mean decrease in the exclusive breast‐feeding rate (from 65% at baseline to 62% by the end of FY‐09—September 2009), in two municipalities (Cunen and Nebaj) the decrease has been considerable (see the table below).   Only in Uspantán has there been a marked improvement in exclusive breast‐feeding. If rates are segregated by region, it can be observed that in the Ixil rates have remained basically unchanged, while in the K’iche’ region rates went significantly down in FY‐08 (from 52% to 35%) and by FY‐09 went back to baseline levels. Again, it was not possible to ascertain why there are these differences among the municipalities, but clearly only in Uspantán have the educational efforts made any impact. Exclusive breastfeeding rates Municipality Baseline FY‐08 FY‐09 FY‐09‐BL Cunén 58.30 39.17 31.58 ‐26.72 Sacapulas 52.60 29.94 52.63 0.03 Uspantán 44.40 36.92 73.68 29.28 Chajul 69.50 41.61 75.00 5.50 Cotzal 73.70 87.58 84.21 10.51 Nebaj 87.50 96.17 73.68 ‐13.82 All K’iche’ 51.77 35.34 52.63 0.86 All Ixil 76.9 75.12 77.63 0.73 TOTAL 65.60 55.67 62.20 ‐3.40 Source: PROMASA II M&E Knowledge on hygiene practices has not been measured, but consulted stakeholders (staff, CHW and participating mothers) stressed that much has been learned. Indeed, during the focus groups conducted with participating mothers they seemed to have internalized such knowledge. Notwithstanding, mothers have not learned to prevent diarrhea and rates, far from diminishing, have actually increased. As can be seen in the table below, during the rainy season, when diarrheal rates are the highest, the prevalence in September 2009 was higher than in September 2008, with the sole exception of Sacapulas. In some municipalities, like Chajul, the increase has been substantial: from 30% to 46%. Even most alarming, the rates have also increased in the dry season, and in Chajul the rate more than doubled between February 2009 and March 2010. In three municipalities there was a very modest decrease: Cunén, Sacapulas and Uspantán. Again, with the available information it is not possible to assess why the rates have risen. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 70 Diarrhea Prevalence Rainy Season Dry Season Sep‐08 Sep‐09 Feb‐09 Mar‐10 Chajul 30 46 21 46 Cotzal 30 37 32 38 Cunén 26 37 33 28 Nebaj 33 39 23 30 Sacapulas 27 25 27 26 Uspantán 28 33 29 28 TOTAL 30 36 27 32.0 Source: PROMASA II M&E Individual counseling in child feeding   While project staff has been trained in counseling, this activity has not received the significance it deserves. This observation was confirmed by project staff in the second MTE workshop, where inappropriate counseling was perceived as the main barrier for achieving the expected impact on the rates of malnutrition. CHWs seem overburdened with many other activities and, as has been seen in many other programs worldwide, individual counseling seems to be at the bottom of their lists. As reported by CHW and Técnicos, the project requires CHWs to prioritize malnourished children for individual counseling. In the Ixil area, however, all mothers of children under three participating in growth monitoring and promotion receive counseling, which is much more in line with a preventive program, without regard of who actually provides this counseling (CHW or PEC personnel). This is possible because in the Ixil the same institution that implements PROMASA II (COTONEB) also provides health services (PEC), and there is a close collaboration between PEC personnel and that of the project. In the K’ich’e area, however, counseling is provided only to the mothers of already malnourished children (and sometimes, due to over‐loaded CHWs, only those severely malnourished (WAZ ‐3, but also WHZ‐2).   As told by CHWs, while counseling is provided in an individual basis, the actual recommendations seem to be more generic than specific to each child, as is the recommended approach. Apparently, mothers are not asked to choose between several options and the whole idea of negotiation between mother and CHW (that is, reaching an agreement that is feasible for the mother to follow) has been transformed into a list of instructions. The situation is likely to change in the near future (June 2010), as there are on‐going plans to reposition the role of counseling in the project when the behavioral change strategy is finally implemented. The new educational material, Ana, una niña sana, will be used for individual counseling. While innovative and attractive, the material centers on which food items should be fed to young children and relatively little is said on how to feed them. As noted in the formative research, rural mothers are notorious passive feeders and they need encouragement and the skills to feed often anorectic children. In addition, iron‐rich foods are only briefly mentioned, in a region of the country where 47% PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 71 of children have anemia (65% on children 6‐11 months; ENSMI 2002). PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 72 Behavioral change and communication strategy A behavioral change and communication (BCC) strategy has been designed and is just beginning to be implemented. It comprises a variety of channels, including raising awareness about the magnitude of malnutrition effects on children’s development, a fact often unnoticed in rural communities where stunted and underweight children are often the norm. The BCC includes three components: • Interpersonal communication: home visits, food preparation demonstration, short educational sessions during food distribution, counseling, School for Leaders and School for Parents. • Educational entertainment: health fairs, football games, moveable theater • Lobbying: network of journalist and a song (in Spanish) written by a popular band from the Western Highlands (Conejos Internacionales). As of May 2010, the main awareness‐raising activity has been the implementation of Schools for Leaders, in which 1064 community leaders40 have participated, 48% of which are women. These “schools” comprise four two‐hour sessions (1, We want a healthy and well nourished community, 2) How children grow in my community, 3) I am a good leader, and 4) Actions to achieve good nutrition) in the last of which leaders are asked to make action‐oriented commitments to ameliorate food insecurity and prevent malnutrition. Schools are conducted by Técnicos, in 66 of PROMASA II’s 123 communities, as of May 2010. A pilot for these schools was conducted by the end of 2009 in 15 communities, and the experience enriched the larger‐scale implementation, which began in April 2010.   The School for Parents is still being planned and is scheduled to start, without a pilot, by August 2010. It will entail 10 fortnightly sessions that will deal with topics such as awareness raising, self‐esteem, gender, empowerment, and a review of all recommended feeding practices. Attendance of participating households will be compulsory.   A new set of training materials was developed and partially validated for the use of CHWs, but as of April 2010 it was still under final review. This material employs a more interactive approach than formerly used material. For example, instead of listing a set of recommended practices, it tells the story of a girl and how her family has implemented all AINM‐C guidelines on child care and child feeding. Some of this material, written in Spanish, was validated with K’iche’ area CHWs and feedback was obtained from all field staff.   Considerable time has been spent producing the educational material, disregarding those produced in earlier phases of the project. For example, during the last months of PROMASA I, project staff devoted significant effort in producing two radio shows that were aired by a community radio in Ixil. This material was not used again. Finally, during field visits considerable amounts refuse of sodas and industrial snacks (i.e., ‘junk food’) were observed. In recent years, consumption of these items has increased substantially in the whole                                                             40 A wide array of leaders were invited, including religious, tradional, teachers, TBAs, etc. Técnicos went to each community and with the help of the local COSANs and COCODEs mapped all community leaders and invited all of them to the training sessions. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 73 country, in all regions and social groups.41 While CHWs and mothers mentioned project recommendations against the purchase of these products, its use does not seem to be addressed in the BCC.    Recommendations Recommendation 1: ‘Doer/no‐ doer,’ behavior framework analysis Steps   a) Conduct a doer/non doer, behavior framework analysis42 to understand the current rates of exclusive breast‐feeding, including possible differences in implementation. Special attention should be given to Cunén, where exclusive breastfeeding since baseline has been unacceptably low and rates have further deteriorated. It is also necessary to assess why rates have declined in Nebaj, but increased substantially in Uspantán. Differences in implementation also need to be considered. b) Conduct data analysis to document rates of diarrhea, disaggregating by community and by water and sanitation systems. Conduct another doer/not doer analysis, to understand the factors that facilitate and hinder the prevention of diarrhea.   c) Assess, in the September 2010 survey, if increased knowledge of danger signs have led to timely health care seeking, using the same questions used in the baseline survey. Outputs: Once the factors underlying these behaviors are understood, plan appropriate action, involving, as much as possible feedback from project’s participants, such as CHWs and COSANs. Long term recommendations: Indicators a) The one indicator on child feeding currently being used is the exclusive breast‐feeding rate for children under six months of age, a recommended and relatively easy to measure indicator. Another WHO/PAHO recommended indicator that could be used in the next survey would be the complementary feeding rate: the proportion of children aged 6‐8.9 months who have begun to eat solids. Late introduction of complementary feeding is a well known cause of child malnutrition.   b) The indicators referring to actual practices of feeding and illness management are more relevant to improved biological utilization of food than are indicators of knowledge.   c) In addition to danger signs, the project could use indicators relating to prevention of diarrhea and dehydration from this disease.                                                             41 The last food expenditure survey (ENIGFAM 1998) noted that sodas are frequently consumed by 60% of the population, and that 37% consume industrial snacks. In the 12 years since this report, consumption has undoubtedly increased. 42 See Child Survival Collaborations and Resources Group (The COREGroup) (2004). Applying the BEHAVE Framework. A Workshop on Strategic Planning for Behavior Change. CORE/USAID/Change/AED.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 74 Recommendation 2: Improved knowledge of child care   Project staff needs to ascertain why their interventions are not making the expected impact. The acquisition of knowledge has been disparate and most gains have concentrated in a few municipalities. In addition, improved knowledge does not easily translate into timely health seeking, as the baseline survey clearly showed43. Exclusive breast‐feeding has declined and apparent improved knowledge in hygiene has had no impact on diarrheal rates. For its own learning, staff needs to conduct rapid, qualitative studies of 1) exclusive breastfeeding, 2) health‐care seeking when faced with danged signs and, and 3) prevalence of diarrhea. Recommendation 3: Improved counseling   Counseling is a crucial aspect of growth promotion. It is necessary to re‐adopt a preventive approach and provide counseling and growth promotion to all children, particularly in the K’iche’ area. The current strategy of targeting predominately only those children already malnourished urgently needs to be revised. According to AINM‐C norms, all children under 24 months, independent of their nutritional status, should receive monthly individual counseling. While this is already being done in the Ixil area, it is not an attainable goal in the K’ich’e area, at least with the available resources. An alternative approach would be to provide counseling in small groups, relying on the age‐specific groups already organized for food preparation demonstrations (see Recommendations IR 1c, above). Group counseling would be in addition to the individual counseling already being provided to malnourished children. Steps a) The project needs to provide CHW with simple, user‐friendly forms to help them assess the most pressing feeding problems for each child, focus on one or two of these and write down mother’s commitment to follow them at home. Honduras’ AIN‐C developed simple and useful algorithms (see, for example the examples provided in World Bank 200944). This recommendation is probably covered in the family booklet that is being designed. b) Ample time should be devoted to train CHW in the use of the new educational material. While this material tells the success story of a little girl eager to eat the improved diet that her parents offer, CHWs should be trained in dealing with the known barriers to change, including how to respond to the main barriers: late introduction, low density food, and low frequency of feeding.   c) Training and training material need to focus on how to feed young children, as mothers’ passive attitude is a known behavioral barrier underlined in the formative research. The new material needs to include in graphic form what it means by food of “thick” consistency, a term easily misunderstood. In Peru this situation has been successfully tackled. They contrast, in a simple graph, the amount of water and nutritious food (alimentos fuentes de fuerza y crecimiento), stating that five bowls of thin soup have the                                                             43 According to that survey, in the face of danger signs, 45% of pregnant women did not seek care; as did 35% of mothers with neonates with danger signs and 16% of mothers whose ill children had danger signs. 44 Marini, A et al (2009). Promoción del crecimiento para prevenir la desnutrición crónica: estrategias con base comunitaria en Centro América. Washington DC: Banco Mundial. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 75 same nutrient value as one bowl of thick porridge45.   d) The new material needs more than a cursory statement on the consumption of iron‐rich foods. The Peruvian Instituto Nacional de Salud (National Health Institute) has developed attractive material on “iron‐friendly” foods (alimentos amigos del hierro46).   e) Although PROMASA has invested substantial time into CHW training, it can be strengthened further especially regarding counseling. The project needs to strengthen CHW’s training, stress their counseling skills and provide timely supervision. Many CHWs interviewed for this MTE expressed insecurity about counseling mothers who are resistant to change their feeding patterns, and many CHWs wished their ‘persuasive’ skills (i.e., ‘selling better health and nutrition practices to skeptical mothers’) could be improved.   Outputs. i) Form for agreed‐upon behavioral changes in child feeding; ii) educational material that addresses known barriers; iii) educational material that include food density and iron‐rich foods. Recommendation 4: Behavioral change and communication strategy Short term recommendations: The BCC strategy is ambitious and is starting late in the project cycle. It is necessary to prioritize activities and channels and concentrate on those known to have an impact on behavioral change such as face‐to‐face interaction. It should be kept in mind that generic information, education, and communication, as well as group talks tend to be ineffective in changing behavior, although both can provide knowledge.47 Steps a) Some activities will take considerable time and effort to carry out. Project management should carefully assess the competing needs faced by its field staff and CHWs and prioritize those activities most likely to have a direct impact on the project’s outcomes within the available timeframe.   b) Efforts need to concentrate on those activities that motivate mothers to improve their feeding practices, as well as those that inform mothers exactly how to accomplish the                                                             45 See http://issuu.com/peru.nutrinet.org/docs/gu_a_educativa_alimentacion_balanceada_ni_os_5_a_o) 46 See http://nutrinet.org/servicios/biblioteca‐digital/Vitaminas‐y‐Minerales/Materiales‐Did%C3%A1cticos/AFICHE‐ANEMIA‐ N%C2%BA‐05‐ALIMENTOS‐AMIGOS‐DEL‐HIERRO‐Per%C3%BA./ 47 References: • Organización Panamericana de la Salud (2004). ProPAN: Proceso para la Promoción de la Alimentación del Niño. Washington, D.C • LINKAGES Project (2004). Behavior Change Communication for Improved Infant Feeding. • Child Survival Collaborations and Resources Group (The COREGroup) (2004). Applying the BEHAVE Framework. A Workshop on Strategic Planning for Behavior Change. CORE/USAID/Change/AED.   • Behrman JR, H Alderman y J Hoddinott (2004). Hunger and Malnutrition. Copenhagen Consensus 2004 Challenge Paper.   • Bhutta ZF, T Ahmed, R E Black, Si Cousens, K Dewey, E Giugliani, B A Haider, B Kirkwood, S S Morris, H P S Sachdev, and Meera Shekar (2008). What works? Interventions for maternal and child undernutrition and survival. Maternal and Child Undernutrition 3. The Lancet, vol 371.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 76 recommended behaviors.   c) There are plans to include early child development training in the BCC. While there is no doubt about the gains to be achieved with a program of ECD48, it is recommended that this activity be dropped. Past experiences have shown that the success of this type of interventions rely on long exposure, frequent contact and quality interaction, conditions that probably cannot be met this late into the project49. d) The project is encouraged to pilot test its School for Parents, just as it did with its School for Leaders. Valuable lessons could be learned in such a test and errors could be easily amended. e) Consideration should be given to the length and scope of the School for Parents. Parents certainly need to be informed about the consequences of malnutrition and to become aware of the short window of opportunity to reverse some of its consequences, but the scope of topics being considered needs to be revised.   f) The BCC should consider including topics on the consumption of sodas and industrial snacks (i.e., ‘junk food’). Awareness raising efforts needs to include the null benefits accrued to such consumption and its high costs. Alcohol abuse also diverts resources and undermines the health of many adults, as were seen in the field visits. This is a topic that could also be included, however briefly, in the School for Parents. g) In addition, while parents need to be motivated to modify their feeding behavior, it is not clear how sessions on gender, self‐esteem and empowerment will strengthen motivation50.   h) There is no evidence that in Guatemala (and in the project areas as well) girls are more malnourished than boys.   i) In addition, empowerment, gender and self‐esteem are probably best dealt with in same‐ gender groups.   j) Finally, it is uncertain that one or two sessions on these topics will make any difference. Previous experience has shown that raising self‐esteem and becoming empowered involves a much longer process. Indeed, a cursory treatment of these topics might only create more dissatisfaction and even conflict.                                                               • 48 Mustard, F (2002). Early Child Development and the Brain‐the Base for Health, Learning, and Behavior Throughout Life. En From Early Childhood Development to Human Development, editado por M. Young, pp 23‐62. Washington: The World Bank.   • Irwin, LG, A Siddiqi, y C Hertzman (2007). Desarrollo de la Primera Infancia: Un Potente Ecualizador. Informe Final para la Comisión sobre los Determinantes Sociales de la Salud de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Ginebra.   • Engle PL, Black MM, Behrman JR, for the International Child Development Steering Group (2007). Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world. Lancet 369: 229–42. • Vegas, Emiliana y Lucrecia Santibáñez (2009). The promise of early childhood development in Latin America. Washington DC, World Bank and Oxford University Press. • 49 Walker SP, SM Chang, CA Powell y SM Grantham‐McGregor (2005). Effects of early childhood psychosocial stimulation and nutritional supplementation on cognition and education in growth‐stunted Jamaican children: prospective cohort study. Lancet 366: 1804‐07. • Schady R (2006). Early Childhood Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3869. Washington DC. 50 During pregnancy and breast‐feeding, however, insufficient food consumption is certainly related to gender. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 77 It is thus recommended to reduce the number of sessions of these schools, provide motivation to change feeding practices, engage fathers in improving the diet, and abandon the sessions on gender, self‐esteem and empowerment. Long term recommendations: a) When designing new programs, BCC efforts may want to focus on ways to optimize food purchases. This would include not only disincentives towards the purchase of junk food but concrete advice on what products to buy. In Peru, for example, the Instituto Nacional de Salud (National Health Institute) has developed list of food items, ranked by it energy, protein or retinol content51.   b) For future projects, it is recommended to use, adapt and improve existing educational material, as producing everything anew is a long, and not always justified, process. PROMASA I produced radio material that was not used in PROMASA II. Moreover, currently another radio show is being produced in the Ixil, starting from scratch.   c) The project is to be commended for obtaining a song on breastfeeding composed by a popular country band. Notwithstanding, it needs to be assessed whether a song in Spanish, in a context where most mothers do not speak that language, can reach the expected audience. Once the song is massively broadcast the project needs to assess if better results would be obtained if it were sung in the local languages.   Intermediate Result 1.4: Strengthened municipal and community capacities and policy environment for sustainable MCHN services According to the MYAP, there are three strategies in this IR: • Strategy 1.4.1 Establish agreements with MOH to institutionalize strengthened technical norms in AIEPI‐AINM‐C • Strategy 1.4.2 Participate actively in current forums that advocate the provision of zinc supplementation into the national health system • Strategy 1.4.3 Promote community and municipal strengthening Out of the three originally stated strategies, the project has implemented only 1.4.3, internally known as Democracy and governance . Project activities have been implemented at three levels: Local food security committees. Since its beginning, the project organized local food security committees (COSAN) in each community to support project activities. The main purpose of these committees is three fold: 1) to ensure that the skills built by PROMASA II will endure, 2) to strengthen local government bodies, and 3) to ensure that food and nutrition security issues become incorporated in local and municipal agendas for long‐term processes. The COSANs have been trained in a variety of themes related to food security, community organization, advocacy, leadership, negotiation skills, existing legislation on citizen participation, and administrative controls. In addition to being in charge of local food‐aid distribution, some COSANs have also become involved in project                                                             51 See http://www.ins.gob.pe/portal/jerarquia/5/371/que‐es‐la‐mejor‐compra/jer.371 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 78 activities. In several municipalities, the project has promoted COSAN networks, some participating in monthly COMUDE meetings (grassroots advocacy at the municipal level). COSAN members see this as a key to sustainability and the chance to include food security concerns at the local and municipal levels.   Local community organizations. The project has approached the official community development organizations (COCODEs) to introduce them to project activities and to COSANs; most COCODEs have also received training in democracy and governance, problem analysis, project design, management, project implementation and food security. . In addition to the project’s initiatives with beneficiaries, COSANs and COCODEs, a recent training and awareness‐raising module (School for Leaders, see Finding IR 1.3c, above) is being conducted with local authorities: the program is currently being offered to all local authorities in 53% of project communities.   Municipal level. PROMASA II project efforts have also been geared to the municipal level. These have included regular meetings with planning officials and active participation in the COMUDEs (Municipal Development Committees) and with COMUSANs. Findings Training of local food security committees (COSAN) An important role played by COSANs is commodity distribution and, according to project staff, most of these groups have been soundly trained and perform their work well: they have a clear understanding of how food is to be distributed and responsibly execute their duties. In addition, several rounds of training on community organization and leadership have been offered to the COSAN. While all are invited, in a process of self‐selection, usually only the COSANs that are interested receive training. In the K’iche’ communities, around 90% of COSAN members are women; in the Ixil area, women comprise around 50%. These percentages need to be compared to women’s participation in COCODEs, which are rarely over 15%. The frequency of contact between the COSANs and PROMASA staff varies greatly: while the K’iche’ communities have three Técnicos, the whole Ixil region has only one. All four Técnicos considered that the current frequency of contact is not enough to obtain the expected impact.   There is great diversity in their level of organization: while some COSANs are enthusiastic and strengthened, already advocating small community projects, others don’t see past their current role in food‐aid distribution. This variation seems to respond to different community dynamics and probably is not related to differences in implementations, given the same Técnico often finds different levels of participation among the communities under his supervision.   Strengthening local, official community organizations (COCODE) COCODEs tend to focus on infrastructure rather than on integrated development. Only rarely do they include goals on find food security, health or education. This narrow view of development has been broadened – with varied degrees of success – by the project. PROMASA II has shown that it is possible to work with these groups and with municipal entities and adopt an approach that focuses on food PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 79 security and nutrition. While COCODEs are relatively new52, grass‐roots organizations of different sorts have a long‐standing history. Leadership was often vested in traditional councils of elders, but most of these were lost during the 30 years of civil war. The project was thus faced with varied forms of organizations, a few of them dividing communities and reviving old enmities of the civil war. During the brief field work undertaken for this MTE it was observed that the degree of participation and level of organization of the COCODEs certainly varied. Some are highly organized and actively seek resource mobilizing and project development. Other seem to be empty shells that operate in name only, while others are co‐opted by the mayor. Likewise, some COCODEs are effective in consensus‐ building, while others are led by authoritarian individuals that exercise political control. In a few communities there were even two COCODEs: the “legal” and the “legitimate”. The situation has made working with COCODE more complicated and underlines the constraints faced in project execution.   In spite of this diversity, most COCODEs have been trained in issues of democracy, governance, problem analysis, the food security approach as well as project development, fund‐raising and implementation. Some have begun to include food security objectives in their work plans. Their ability or interest in working with the COSAN also varies: some communities have integrated the COSAN in their board, others have friendly relationships and consult with COSAN members, but the latter are not part of the board. There are also examples of COCODEs that have failed to work together with the COSAN.   Collaboration with authorities at the municipal‐level   Project staff participates regularly in COMUDE monthly sessions and municipalities are pleased with PROMASA’s work and their food security technical leadership in the COMUDEs and COMUSANs (SESAN’s municipal‐level organization). It is the PROMASA II project’s primary advocacy effort to prioritize food security issues at the municipal level.   Recommendations Recommendation 1: Improving work with COSANs Short term recommendation:   Exit strategy. Given the current work load of the Técnicos and the limited time left in the project, it is recommended that the project begin as soon as possible planning a participatory exit strategy that could be implemented by January 2011. Clear communication needs to be established with the COSANs and communities about the exit strategy, allowing the COSAN some input on its design and implementation. The exit strategy could include the following steps: a) Establish criteria for activity phase out for individual COSANs and establish an explicit time frame for exit.   b) Sort COSANs according to their level of organization and potential to carry on food security activities—without Title II resources—once the project ends. Those COSANs with the least                                                             52 COCODEs substituted other forms of community organizations since 2002, based on changes in the Municipal Code, the Development Councils Law, and the Decentralization Law. These also establish the COMUDE in place of the earlier Municipal Development Councils, and the second‐level COCODES to combine communities in larger municipalities where there are too many for each to be represented in COMUDE. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 80 potential for sustainability (i.e., those that see themselves mostly as local food‐aid distributors) would take an early phase‐out. They would continue with their food distributions and other roles, but no further training would be offered (or would be kept to a minimum). Técnicos would take on an advisory role and finally no role at all. This approach would allow over‐burdened PROMASA II staff to concentrate on other SO‐1 priorities.   c) The other COSANs (those with more potential) would continue with their usual activities, but training efforts would be concentrated on those most promising  ‐‐ those more likely to take over some food security activities at the local level. Some criteria for selecting these COSANs could be the following: i. Interest in furthering their role and proven interest in past training: ownership and commitment to continue their advocacy for food security   ii. Recognition by community members of the COSAN’s value and potential once PROMASA II phases out of the community iii. Ability to work with the local COCODEs iv. Participation in the COSAN network v. Ability to conduct participatory, community‐based strategic (or long‐term) and sustainable planning vi. Mastery of basic skills and concepts: the food security framework , existing management capacity, existing ability/interest to design, manage, monitor and evaluate projects and/or identify other resource/benefits generating activities. Output: Once the most promising COSAN have been identified, an exit strategy would be developed with them, including further training and an explicit time frame for exit, linked to the level of achievement of COSANs goals. Long term recommendations: Additional training a) Additional training would include participatory strategic planning, development of project profiles and resource generation, and project general management. Ideally, School for Leaders would be offered to all promising COSANs. These Schools would include only COSAN members (currently they include all community leaders) and might even be offered in an abbreviated form, to avoid over‐burdening Técnicos. Técnicos, notwithstanding, need the time to follow up on the commitments leaders agreed upon in the schools.   b) Currently, Técnicos share basic malnutrition data with the COSANs, but community groups are not being taught how to analyze health data and rarely do they conduct case‐by‐case analysis of growth‐faltering children. The ASISAN methodology has been postponed because of the time it entails for Técnicos, but an opportunity has been lost to strengthen community goal‐ setting and monitoring. In future project, both could be enhanced by well‐programmed ASISANs, with timely follow‐ups.   Recommendation 2: Improving work with COCODEs Communication with COCODEs needs to improve. Some COCODEs feel that PROMASA staff do not PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 81 inform them of their ongoing work and feel they are sought only when the Técnico or the COSAN need help with community‐level activities. Likewise, whenever there is a change in Técnicos, care should be taken to allow time for a smooth transition, taking time to introduce him or her to the COCODE. Recommendation 3: Improving work with municipal authorities a. Most officials consulted expressed that communication with the project needed some improvement. They stated their interest in receiving concise, regular, written progress reports. Improved communications would also include an orderly introduction of new staff, particularly new Técnicos. b. In the Ixil area, the incipient COSAN network from Cotzal has approached the municipal COMUDE. It could also be linked to the MOH‐headed Mesa Regional de Seguridad Alimentaria (Regional Board on Food Security). Funding for the transportation of COSAN network officials from their communities to the municipal seat should be negotiated, given that this cost is a deterrent for participation. c. Given the proximity of new political elections, all municipal level organizations that work with food security (COMUDE, COMUSAN, etc.) could push local candidates for a commitment to include food security projects, support those that are already in place to reduce child malnutrition and to acknowledge adequate child growth as a desirable political goal. 17.2 SO­2: Food Production, Marketing, and Services by MTE Team Member Kristi Tabaj, with input by MTE Team Leader Peter Heffron Summary Within the PROMASA II Project, this strategic objective has been combined with SO‐3 (Increased adoption of key natural resource management practices that strengthen community and household preparedness for natural disaster). Up until March 2009, SO‐2 and SO‐3 were managed by one person. After March 2009, a manager was hired to separately oversee SO‐3. Staff implementing SO‐2 activities are also involved in the implementation of SO‐3 activities and some beneficiaries of SO‐2, primarily male, are involved in SO‐3 activities53. Both SOs aim to reduce risk – SO‐2 targets risks to food insecurity and SO‐3 targets risks to natural resources needed for agricultural production (land and water).   With regards to SO‐2, beneficiaries seem genuinely satisfied with the following activities: improved seed/material and planting advice for maize and beans, goat module (and the use of goat droppings and urine for fertilizer and pest management), poultry rearing, family gardens and tree nursery activities. Technical guides and trainings provided to PROMASA II staff and ag leaders seem comprehensive, professional and well‐organized. Team members witnessed demonstration plots at the Farmer Leader level which promoted practices taught through PROMASA II.                                                               53 Additionally, there are similar activities within SO‐2 and SO‐3 such as water management and crop production (food versus trees). PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 82 SO‐1 (health and nutrition), SO‐2 (sustainable livelihoods, ag production, income, etc), and SO‐3 (disaster planning and mitigation, environmental protection, etc.) were designed to be mutually reinforcing. SO‐2 is meant to be the "engine" that helps as many of PROMASA's low‐income beneficiary families as possible get out of the poverty  ‐‐and related child (and often mother) malnutrition‐‐ trap that they are in. Although much caution is advised because we were engaged in only a small sample of communities, based on what we did read, hear, and see, it is evident that PROMASA II needs to demonstrate significantly more SO‐2 (coverage) and better (more cost‐effective, quality, sustainable) results  ‐‐  before it can be considered a potentially significant 'game changer' for more than a minority of the project beneficiary families. Per Farmer Leaders, there is interest in/desire for much more holistic approaches to ag, focused on slowing unsustainable practices and restoring what has been lost at community and agro‐ecological zone levels. To their credit, SC/PROMASA II managers and staff and partners at all levels ‐‐including Tecnicos and Farmer Leaders we interviewed‐‐ want SO‐2 to be a success and are seemingly in a near constant state of brainstorming possible, more efficient, ways to involve many more people primarily in agricultural activities that generate income. A problem in our view  ‐‐with no easy solution‐‐  is that much of the brainstorming is centered on 'trickle‐down' approaches. In other words, if we can help set up value‐added 'Business A' with 10 employees with the necessary education and experience, there will be synergies as those 10 people spend money, invest in other community enterprises, and so on. The result will be an eventual improvement in the overall community economy, with more and more low‐income people directly and indirectly benefitting, and so on, with a net result over time being a satisfactory sustainable reduction in malnutrition rates and improved food security. Unfortunately the trickle‐down theory has been proven to be largely false, as less and less trickles down to the growing numbers of poor. The rich‐poor income gap has been steadily increasing largely as a result of applied trickle‐down theory economic policies around the world. Alternatives do exist, such as the massive public works programs the 1930s in the USA. People who otherwise would have gone hungry were able to survive, learn new skills, and build new infrastructure that contributed to a stronger economy, and so on. SO‐2 is thus challenged do 'more, better, faster' (Chambers) to contribute to improved food security and incomes of PROMASA II's beneficiaries, even as some challenges increase, including population pressures, soil depletion, corruption, global warming (e.g., droughts, floods), national and international financial crisis, Farmer Leader turnover, and so on. Short­Term Recommendations a. Identify and prioritize key activities to reach indicator targets (example: marketing training and practices strengthen activities that focus on food security, such as family gardens and small livestock) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 83 b. Develop an exit strategy for activities54 Example: Identify actions that lead to sustainable livelihoods for Agricultural Leaders   Long­Term Recommendations a. Strengthen Agricultural Leaders’ capacities to build and run small businesses or provide services.   b. Examine the possibilities of forming cooperatives and providing the skills needed to support their organization and management.   c. Build the evidence base on the beneficial aspects of providing goat milk to children.   d. Document the successful adoption of agricultural practices, the lack of adoption and the reasons behind both.   e. Examine value chain opportunities based on demand, with an emphasis on future programming.   f. Improve the mechanisms for preparing, preventing and mitigating disasters in communities.   g. Improve the process of formally documenting and sharing best practices, both internally and externally. IR 2.1 Improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to key food production and marketing practices Findings Farmer Leaders have been the major contributor towards providing training and extension services to beneficiaries. Initially, PROMASA II had two sets of local participants involved in disseminating SO‐2 and SO‐3 practices among beneficiaries: Farmer Leaders and Farmer Guides. The Farmer Guides received food rations as an incentive and reported to the Farmer Leaders. However, there were some issues between Health Guides (SO‐1) and Farmer Guides. It was in the best interest of the project to eliminate the Farmer Guide positions and allow Farmer Leaders to take on additional duties. Farmer Leaders were provided input incentives used towards the creation of their demonstration plots. Demonstration plots are limited to the community in which the Farmer Leader lives, but various family gardens and small livestock modules are implemented in the other one to two communities where the leader serves. Each leader is provided training in a number of different topics. The leaders then provide selected trainings to beneficiaries in up to three communities.   Farmer Leaders serve as an example and resource to the communities they serve. Demonstration plots including family gardens, small livestock (goat and poultry) modules, and compost piles provide both beneficiaries and community members not enrolled in the project, the opportunity to see live                                                             54 Refer to the initial final PROMASA II proposal (“Sustainability Strategy” page 29) and FANTA Project. Program Graduation and Exit Strategies: Title II Program Experiences and Related Research. B. L. Rogers and K. Macias. April 2004. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 84 examples of promoted activities on a daily basis. Leaders also serve as a constant resource for advice and information in the communities where they live. They coordinate closely with SO‐1 Mother Leaders in providing health, nutrition, and hygiene guidance as well as monitoring underweight children within their communities. From the start of the project, approximately 15 Farmer Leaders have left the project.55 In one particular case, a Leader left his position when he found full time employment at the local health clinic. He said what he had learned as a Farmer Leader helped him gain employment as Farmer Leaders work closely with Health Guides. Even though he left his position within PROMASA II, he continued to maintain his family garden and small livestock modules, provide vaccines for community members’ small livestock, and otherwise serve as a resource person in the community. Planned SO‐2 and SO‐3 Trainings • Education techniques for adults • Establishing varied land parcels • Improved bean cultivation practices • Harvest and postharvest management of bean • Cost/benefit evaluation of bean cultivation • Establishment of maize • Improved maize cultivation practices • Harvest and postharvest management of maize • Cost/benefit evaluation of maize cultivation • Family garden establishment • Family garden management practices • Erosion management and soil conservation • Establishment of soil conservation practices • Management/construction of soil conservation structures • Construction of goat pens • Health, nutrition and feeding practices among goats • Goat reproduction • Preparation and consumption of goat milk • Hygiene and maintenance of pens • Production and use of organic fertilizer (goat) • Construction of chicken coups • Poultry vaccination • Nutrition and feeding practices for poultry • Poultry reproduction • Hygiene and maintenance of coups • Agroforestry systems • Installation, operation and management of irrigation systems • Integrated pest management • Value‐addition to agricultural products • Artisanal seed production • Market studies • Drafting business plans • Fomento de cultivo • Nursery establishment for reforestation • Management and production of trees • Watershed protection • Forest management plans • Risk analysis • Reforestation • Environmental mitigation management methods                                                             55 Per e‐mail from Rodrigo Arias: 30 June 2010. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 85 for food for work project • Non‐formal education • Basic marketing concepts • Interchange of experience a compradores de especies Some crop and small livestock production activities are well‐above their targets while others are below. Save the Children (SC) completed its first DAP—Proyecto Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria (PROMASA)—in 2006. Many of the activities proposed and being implemented in PROMASA II grew out of the PROMASA. The Lessons Learned and Best Practices document produced in 2006, provided a number of recommended replicable practices around livelihoods and natural resource management activities.56 Each of the activities listed below is being implemented within PROMASA II: • Establishment of an extension system through technical promoters and guides, with modifications to eliminate inefficiencies and simplification of the materials provided to guides/leaders to accommodate basic education levels. • Introduction of an improved bean variety. • Family gardens. Improved nutrition practices for local varieties of plants. • Micro‐irrigation. • Soil conservation. • Small livestock modules (with technical support for up to one year). Once PROMASA II was implemented and the results from the baseline survey reported in March 2008, additional recommendations were made based upon the baseline report. An overall recommendation on the types of activities that should be pursued was provided:   Considering the low levels found in the use of improved practices in the agricultural and marketing, the project should promote those that showed lower performance, and that according to information from the Save the Children team, are the ones that have worked less: for agriculture, granos y postura in corn and bean seeds using improved/certified seed, for small livestock breeding, de‐worming and vaccination, and for marketing, technical assistance and implementation of production and sales plans. 57 In examining the targets and achievements of the above‐mentioned activities as of September 2009, the following is noted regarding trainings provided to PROMASA II beneficiaries: • Improved planting practices for improved maize: 20% • Improved planting practices for improved beans: 37% • Goat de‐worming: 55% • Poultry vaccinations: 118%                                                             56 Lecciones Aprendidas y Buenas Prácticas, Proyecto Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria (PROMASA), Informe elaborado para Save the Children USA/Guatemala, Sandra Saenz de Tejada, octubre 2006. 57 Informe de Linea de Base, Projecto de Seguridad Alimentaria Nutricional (MYAP), Save the Children, Departamento de El Quiche, Guatemala, Marzo 2008 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 86 • Production and sales plans: 8% The table below provides an overview of SO‐2 activities, project targets, and achievements as of September 2009. Variation exists among the activities due to a number of factors. For example, the use of improved bean seeds has been limited to its commercial availability in part due to drought conditions and poor seed production. Trainings around sales and production plans have been limited due to a lack of staff.58 It should be noted that this MTE was conducted in April‐May 2010 and the table below contains the most current information (September 2009) provided by the project to the MTE team. Targets and Achievements of SO‐2 Activities Activity FY ‐ 07 SC ‐MAGA Total FY ‐ 08 Total FY ‐ 09 Total to 30 Oct 2009 Goal LOA % completion Improved varieties of bean 141 710 726 1577 8000 20% Improved maize practices 551 383 2045 2979 8000 37% Family Gardens 179 1753 2291 4223 6000 70% Soil Conservation 0 420 1834 2254 8000 28% Goat module 30 299 273 602 1100 55% Goat Module Transfer 0 21 560 581 4180 14% Poultry Modules 750 360 1139 2249 1900 118% Poultry Module Transfer 0 27 286 313 5200 6% Small livestock Health Plans 0 61 75 136 86 158% Agroforestry Systems 0 89 1387 1476 4180 35% Microirrigation Systems 0 251 239 490 876 56% Value‐added Processing 0 117 527 644 1000 64% Production of Artisanal Seed 0 108 0 108 75 144% Development of potential ag products 0 12 0 12 1000 1% Training on Marketing Process 0 20 60 80 1000 8% Road Maintenance 0 159 97 256 300 85% As illustrated in the above table, 43 trainings have been designed for PROMASA II beneficiaries. Many of these trainings are related and linked to a single activity. For example, the construction of goat pens, health, nutrition and feeding practices among goats, goat reproduction, preparation and consumption of goat milk, hygiene and maintenance of pens and the production and use of organic fertilizer—all fall under one activity: goat module.   This activity aims to improve the nutritional status of children under 3 in a household, potentially serve as a means of income (whether it is the goat itself or byproducts) and provide inputs for the production of compost and organic pesticides. Improving the nutritional status of children under 3 is one of the major components of PROMASA II and therefore the goat module is of great importance.                                                             58 A. Cali memo: 18‐5‐2010 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 87 As of September 2009, PROMASA II had reached 602 HHs or 55% of the target (LOP target: 1100 HHs). In comparison, poultry modules (composed of five trainings) reached 2249 of the targeted 1900 HHs or 118% as of September 2009. This activity is also significant with respect to achieving targets related to improving the nutritional status of children under 3.   The SO‐2 targets and achievements provide a clearer picture of actual and potential project impact. Although the project has another 15 months remaining and impact will be examined in the final evaluation, a basic examination of the current SO‐2 indicators is helpful in identifying and prioritizing key activities to ensure targets are met. The table below shows SO‐2 indicators along with current and final targets. SO‐2 Indicators with Targets Indicator LOA Target Current Status (Sep 2009) Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) 11 10 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) Guatemala 6 5 % of participating farmers that adopt at least 2 improved agricultural production practices 30% 70% % of participating farmers that adopt at least 2 improved livestock production practices 30% 44% % of participating farmers that adopt at least 2 improved formal marketing production practices 30% 14% Women with children under 5 years receiving credit 2500 1385 Women receiving credit and participating in at least one SO‐2 activity 1000 584 With regards to the overall project indicator % children under 60 months underweight (WAZ < ‐2.0 z‐ score, disaggregated by age, the following was presented in the FY‐09 ARR: In FY‐10, our data indicate that global malnutrition rate (low weight for age in children less than 36 months) was 49%, which represented an increase of 12% compared to FY‐08. 59 Moreover, chronic malnutrition (low height for age) and acute (low weight for height) malnutrition increased by 2% and 0.9% respectively (compared to project data from February 2009). This indicates that the food security situation has deteriorated as a result of the food and financial crises mentioned above and as mentioned in the SC PREP for 2010, PROMASA is consolidating efforts help the worst off families mitigate the impact of this food and hunger crisis.   Small livestock health and hygiene topics are key activities positively contributing to PROMASA II. Small livestock health and hygiene practices have been heavily promoted in PROMASA II. The emphasis has been on keeping small livestock in pens and keeping the pens clean to prevent the                                                             59 Weight‐for‐height indicator is obtained for this report from data available through the project’s monitoring and evaluation system, not from a sample. FY‐08 results are based on a total of 8,962 children participating in the project and data for FY‐09 is from 8,274 children. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 88 spread of disease. This practice was clearly adhered to by Farmer Leaders in their demonstration plots as well as other households observed over the course of the mid‐term evaluation site visits.   There has also been a focus in PROMASA II on small livestock vaccination and the availability of vaccines and other medicines through Farmer Leaders. However some Farmer Leaders and PROMASA II staff expressed concern that reliability of the cold‐chain for vaccines is affecting the adoption of regular vaccination of small livestock by households. Even though the vaccine is bought and administered, the lack of a reliable cold‐chain reduces the effectiveness. Beneficiaries then lose faith that the vaccines actually work and choose not to use them in the future. There has also been an emphasis on making sure the products derived from the small livestock are as hygienic as possible (for example, cleaning the udder/teats and the surrounding area of the goat when milking). Mother Leaders and Farmer Leaders have both reinforced the importance of hand‐ washing before and after handling small livestock or small livestock by‐products.   The goat module is holistic. The activities around the goat module are holistic. Goats are produced milk to be consumed by initially undernourished children under 3 in the household. Waste products from the goat are then used for pest management (urine) and fertilizer (droppings), specifically for use in family gardens promoted in PROMASA II. Goats also serve as a household asset. The activity provides yet another illustration of the integrated nature of Title II programming. There are a few downsides to the goat module that affect the success of the activity. Looking at the baseline survey, the top five small livestock kept within a household included poultry (92%), pigs (59%), cows (20%), sheep and other. Goats, rabbits and aquaculture followed. Goat production is highly promoted within the project, primarily for nutritional outcomes, but also for marketing options. However, it is unclear if the tastes and preferences for goat milk have been clearly identified and value‐added goat products are or will be in demand within the local market. If goat milk is not preferred, this will limit the uptake of this practice within households. That said, it appears as though over time, people are responding positively to goat rearing, given the number of households focusing on goat production from the baseline survey (<10%).   While families within PROMASA II are given the opportunity to choose whether or not they want to participate in the goat module, it is not clear if HHs understand the amount of time and labor involved in caring for the goats. Beneficiaries interviewed during the mid‐term evaluation indicated that goat management involved up to two hours of their time daily, primarily focusing on gathering forage. HHs were encouraged and provided with training opportunities on planting forage for livestock. However, HHs prioritized for the goat module are those families with children under the age of 3 who are underweight for age. While the criteria for HH selection does emphasize the requirement of the ability to grow forage, not all HHs have the means to grow forage (especially during the summer months when access to water is poor).   While the HH selection criteria also require space available for the construction and raising of the goat pens, it was evident from some of the households visited, that space could be extremely limited. The collection of goat byproducts (droppings and urine) is simplified through the design of the goat pens, but time must be taken to make enough compost to be beneficial for the HH. Also, HHs may not prioritize the importance of maintaining small livestock health and may not spend money on vaccinations or treating illnesses. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 89 The goats are part of a revolving fund in which receiving HHs provide a kid to a new HH after five months. However, the success of this revolving fund has been limited due to logistical issues. Very little evidence exists as to the effects of giving the adult female goat away five months after the birth of the kid and nutritional gains made by children under 3 within the HH (due to the withdrawal of the milk supply).    Training manuals are detailed and well‐organized resource materials for Farmer Leaders. The training manuals developed for the PROMASA II Project provide enough information to Farmer Leaders to help guide the selection of beneficiaries for particular activities, provide key points on engaging participants and give technical information on the targeted topic. They are basic manuals ‐ under 20 pages‐ meant to serve as a resource after Farmer Leaders have completed training with PROMASA II staff. It is evident that these manuals have been developed over a period of time and include lessons learned from the PROMASA I. In addition to opening up economic opportunities, women’s groups provide chances to increase human and social capital. One of the recommendations from the baseline survey was to promote ag‐based income generating activities directed at women. Kiej de Los Bosques is working with six women’s groups on opportunities to increase income through product development. While not all groups are working on ag‐based projects, the purpose of each group is to develop a product or products for commercialization. Kiej has developed a model to guide groups through a process by which they develop into an independent group such as a cooperative or business. A number of additional benefits were discovered through focus groups conducted during the mid‐term evaluation. They include: • Encouraging creativity • Learning new concepts such as recycling • Socializing among women and other groups they might not know in the community • Bringing children together • Gaining confidence in learning something new • Participating in activities outside of their community Market‐based activities should be supported by assessments demonstrating demand‐ driven opportunities. As previously mentioned, goat production is highly promoted within the project primarily for nutritional outcomes, but also for market options. However, it is unclear as to whether or not an analysis of market demand was conducted prior to selecting goats. The same could be said for other products, such as granadilla and jocote corona, which were targeted for marketing activities, but dropped early on in the project.60                                                             60 A. Cali memo: 18‐5‐2010. Proposed programming areas where granadilla and jocote corona are grown, were elminated prior to program implementation. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 90 Recommendations Recommendation 1: Document the project experience of Farmer Leaders to derive better practices and devise a strategy for their exit from the project (short and long‐term). Leaders are interested in continuing to learn beyond the life of the project, especially around the topic of small livestock health. When asked what will become of their role once PROMASA II concludes, some would like to continue to serve as a resource to the community, such as serving in a leadership role for a cooperative or association. Another observation is that Farmer Leaders could start their own agribusinesses, providing inputs such as vaccines, services or products (vegetables, eggs, small livestock or compost).   Recommendation 2: In order to help Farmer Leaders begin to assess their options, an exit strategy should be developed to help them define how they can best use their skills acquired through the project.   An example of how this might be best accomplished is through a day‐long workshop to share ideas, lessons learned and opportunities. Technically, Farmer Leaders are also beneficiaries and a workshop would provide a chance for PROMASA II staff to draw additional information from them on how the Farmer Leader approach could be improved. PROMASA II staff could also document recommended practices and modifications for activities that are not seeing high levels of adoption. Project staff could then solicit feedback on the types of opportunities Farmer Leaders could pursue. Some of the trainings and activities that PROMASA II staff could provide to help Farmer Leaders transition out of the project include:   Agribusiness skills • Developing a business plan • Finance training • Analysis of market demand for products and services • Marketing their business • Managing inventory Cooperative/association leadership skills • Government of Guatemala requirements for registering groups • Leadership training • Role and responsibilities of leaders within cooperatives/associations Some Farmer Leaders might be interested in pursuing employment through local and international CSOs. Additionally, PROMASA II could provide Farmer Leaders with examples of both career and educational opportunities related to their roles within the project. Recommendation 3: Identify and prioritize key activities in crop and small livestock production to ensure targets for indicators are reached (short term). PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 91 PROMASA II staff have already begun to adjust some of the targets for the activities mentioned above. For example, activities around the use of improved/certified maize seed as well as improved practices have been streamlined and trainings made more efficient to reach an additional 4600 beneficiaries. Goat module, including de‐worming, are on schedule to reach the target by the end of the project while poultry vaccinations have surpassed expectations. Staff have chosen not to pursue the development of potential ag products. Success with marketing activities, specifically around sales and production plans, has been limited due to the lack of staff. However, the PROMASA II staff anticipate reaching all final SO‐2 targets within the remaining time of the project. 61 Recommendation 4: As seen in the above table, additional support is needed to achieve the 30% target of the % of participating farmers that adopt at least 2 improved formal marketing production practices.   PROMASA II staff should place an emphasis on those trainings around drafting sales and production plans, those keeping production and marketing plans and those accessing institutional technical assistance. Recommendation 5: In order to focus on addressing malnutrition rates, it is recommended that the PROMASA II SO‐2 staff work closely with SO‐1 staff to emphasize the following activities: Family Gardens module and Goat module.   More importantly, PROMASA II staff should especially focus on the production, hygiene and consumption of products resulting from the Gardens and Goat module. Emphasis on hygiene (both human and small livestock) should help address concerns with illness affecting nutrient uptake. Messaging around the consumption of goat milk by children as well as diversifying diets through horticulture crops produced in family gardens should be emphasized by Farmer Leaders in their visits with madres lideres.   Recommendation 6: Staff should reduce their focus on the following activities based upon targets being exceeded or close to completion: ◦ Poultry modules ◦ Small livestock health plans ◦ Production of artisanal seed ◦ Road maintenance Recommendation 7: Apart from the work of Kiej de Los Bosques, it is also recommended that activities around value‐added processing (such as canning and cheese making), especially those activities requiring a large number of inputs provided by PROMASA II, not be taken further.                                                               61 A. Cali memo: 18‐5‐2010 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 92 The advantages of value‐added products include increasing shelf life (if kept by the HH) and/or increasing market value. However, further information is needed regarding market demand of the value‐added products currently promoted by PROMASA II.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 93 Recommendation 8: Document and share better practices related to small livestock health and hygiene (long term). PROMASA II is encouraged to formally document and highlight the better practices associated with small livestock hygiene and human hygiene. These activities provide important links between SO‐1 health and nutrition and SO‐2 livelihoods activities. Such linkages illustrate the integrated nature of Title II programming. Recommendation 9: Cold‐chain issues should be informally shared and documented over the remaining life of the project.   SO‐2 staff have identified this challenge, but not much has been shared in terms of identifying solutions. Since cold‐chain issues with vaccines are recognized worldwide, documenting the process of identifying solutions can help inform future programming. Recommendation 10: Build the evidence base around the use of the goat module to support the positive impacts on agricultural production and child nutrition (long term). A cost‐benefit analysis of goat activities is recommended to help demonstrate the cost‐effectiveness of this intervention. Such an analysis could look at all of the outputs of the activity including the costs/benefits of producing compost, organic pesticides, and sales of the small livestock or value‐ added products. Another crucial element is to increase the evidence base on the link between goat milk and child nutrition, including the behaviors and cultural factors behind parents giving or not giving goat milk to children. Additional data is also needed to demonstrate and promote results outside of the project and the organization.   At this point in the project, it is important to start addressing exit strategies targeting such concerns as forage availability, maintaining small livestock health over the life of the small livestock, and strategies to overcome some of the challenges of the revolving fund. Recommendation 11: Training manuals should be updated annually to address emerging issues (short and long term). At this point in the project, the manuals still serve as an excellent resource for Farmer Leaders. The importance of updating the manuals is to ensure they can be adapted by other SC projects worldwide with the most recent better practices identified. Training manuals do provide targeting criteria within each activity. However, further attention needs to be given to the criteria to ensure that HHs have the physical space to implement the activity as well as the economic resources to continue it. Another key point to keep in mind when revising the manuals is the level of complexity of the materials presented. Most of the information is very straightforward and easy to implement, especially when presented alongside the practice. Staff PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 94 should be mindful of some practices which may require math skills beyond the level of the participant (such as determining slope and constructing contours). Application and adoption of these skills is especially difficult for those with limited math/reading skills or little previous experience in the subject matter. This is especially true for women who may attend the trainings, but may not have past agricultural experience to implement recommended practices. Some Farmer Leaders may adjust the skills to accommodate to reading and math deficiencies, but not all. Awareness and further emphasis should be placed ensuring the presentation of the information to beneficiaries is well‐ understood by all.   Recommendation 12: Evaluate program targets and document lessons learned (short and long term).   Because Kiej de Los Bosques began activities later in the project, it is possible that they will not reach their final goals with the women’s groups. More time may be needed or the Kiej targets and outputs may need to be modified, if necessary. Furthermore, Kiej is encouraged to further share the lessons learned and opportunities through the implementation of their model within the project with SC, Genesis and COTONEB.   Recommendation 13: Conduct further analysis is needed in determining demand‐driven market opportunities (long term). For future programming, the focus should be on demand‐driven value chain activities. Useful documents include FANTA’s 2006 evaluation of Guatemala’s Title II programming where the document examines income‐generating activities based on supply and demand. The recently released USAID‐funded “Promoting Gender Equitable Opportunities in Agricultural Value Chains,” finalized in 2009, is also a useful resource in helping to not only determine value chain opportunities, but gender roles within value chains. This could be a valuable assessment in determining future economic opportunities emphasizing the involvement of women. IR 2.2: Improved quality of key food production and marketing services Findings Activities promoted under IR 2.2 also fall under IR 2.1 There are two activities planned under this IR: (a) Train SC and COTONEB Supervisors in key food production and marketing practices being promoted by PROMASA II and (b) Train Farmer Leaders in key food production and marketing practices. Activities conducted under other IRs serve to support improving the quality of key food production and marketing services. Trainings target the Farmer Leader level.   Recommendation: Further clarify the intention of the IR (short term). Please refer to finding and recommendation 1 for further information on improvements in program delivery through farmer leaders.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 95 IR 2.3 Improved access to key food production and marketing services and supplies Findings Within IR 2.3, access has increased as most inputs are provided to beneficiaries. Generally though, this IR aims to improve food availability and does not address long‐term access issues. The revolving fund for small livestock has been met with logistical issues, limiting its success. There are some complications with the revolving fund (for small livestock, specifically goats) as mentioned under IR 2.1 (Finding and Recommendation 4). Scarcity of some inputs and limited uptake of recommended practices have limited the success of certain activities, such as the use of improved bean seed varieties. SC planned to purchase improved bean seeds for activities around improved production practices. However, due to the lack of commercial availability of the improved seeds in the market, not all targeted beneficiaries have been able to participate in this activity. Limited commercial availability was due to drought conditions which lowered the production and therefore availability of the improved bean seed variety. In addition to this, beneficiaries are not following the recommended practice of independently multiplying seeds on their own. Beneficiaries see the value in Food‐For‐Work (FFW) activities at the community and household level. FFW projects in PROMASA I focused not only on community projects, but also on home/land improvement.62 The emphasis shifted within PROMASA II to community‐based projects. Food‐for‐ Work projects can be limited to small projects within the communities.   The MTE team only visited one example of a FFW activities in PROMASA II. One management plan presented was roughly made and posted in the food storeroom. Food was stored off of the floor, but piled with chairs. Although the author requested on various occasions to see FFW sites, he was told that there were no sites (e.g., improved roads, etc.) nearby and that there were no active FFW projects in the area at the time of the community visits. Farmer Leaders consistently stated that the FFW projects are popular with the PROMASA II beneficiaries, and that there is generally a desire for more FFW projects. However they also stated that beneficiaries are not happy with what they claim are significantly lower food wages in PROMASA II COMPARED TO PROMASA I.                                                             62 Soil conservation, household repair, environmental clean‐up.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 96 When asked what, if any, measures are undertaken to mitigate environmental impacts particularly in FFW projects, Farmer Leaders in the communities visited stated that several types of native grasses and other plants were routinely used to prevent or reduce soil erosion on road improvement sites. As stated above, this could not be verified. (Project compliance with USAID Regulation 216 is covered in the Cross‐Cutting Issues section of this report.)   Recommendations Recommendation 1: Explore options for increasing the success rate of the revolving fund (short term). Recommendation 2: An exit strategy is needed to ensure inputs and assets are passed along to additional beneficiaries. Recommendation 3: Document lessons learned and recommendations on the implementation of recommended practices (short and long‐term). In order to better inform future project designs, it is recommended to develop a short document outlining such problems and the various solutions undertaken by PROMASA II staff. It is especially important to document why beneficiaries have not followed the recommended practice of multiplying seed. This recommendation is also linked with a Finding and Recommendation under IR 2.1. Farmer Leaders can help identify the limitations to implementing recommended practices linked to access issues. Recommendation 4: Share better practices and lessons learned with community members and staff once they are received from an internal evaluation (short and medium term). Recommendation 5: Overall, these projects require better oversight including the work itself, management and storage of commodities. A member of the SC Commodity Management Unit is planning on a CO visit within this year and can provide further feedback on the management of activities at the community and program level. Recommendation 6: Since FFW projects are popular and Farmer Leaders state there is demand for more such projects, SC/PROMASA is encouraged to explore (a) why there is a desire/need for additional FFW projects, (b) whether or not more FFW projects can be incorporated in the remaining year of PROMASA II, and (c) how FFW projects can be incorporated or expanded in future projects using Title II resources; and (d) what the difference in FFW payment amounts is between PROMASA I and PROMASA II, why, and if any adjustments need to be made in the current (and/or future) FFP component. (In any case, PROMASA II staff should be proactive in explaining to the beneficiaries rather than waiting for them to complain.) It is suggested that Kiej de los Bosques and other PROMASA II partners be involved in such explorations because of their complementary views on food assistance and possible less paternalistic, more sustainable ways for same to be employed in future projects. Thus, specifically, it is suggested that SC/PROMASA II staff and partners/stakeholders meet to explore possible means of addressing the points presented above, with the output being a rationale, implementation strategy, and if necessary for USAID approval  ‐‐  a request for additional or re‐ PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 97 programmed Title resources‐‐ for an expanded FFW component in the current PROMASA II Project, as well as in a possible future food security projects using Title II resources. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 98 IR 2.4 Strengthened enabling environment for management of livelihood systems Findings Activities under this IR are not clear. Activities, as stated in previously submitted DIPs to USAID, have yet to be implemented. The activities described by the CO for the FY‐09 ARR are not in line with previously submitted DIPs. The FY‐09 ARR states the following: For different project interventions to have a greater impact on beneficiaries, the project has established strategic work alliances with institutions such as the Peace Corps, the Veterinary and Small Livestock Husbandry and Agronomy Faculties of the San Carlos University, the Household Education School and the Mayan Natural Resources Technical Institute (ITEMAYA). At the municipal level, the project is coordinating with the municipal planning offices and at the community level with the COCODEs and COSANs. Within the FY‐10 PREP DIP, the following activities are to be completed within IR 2.4: • Commercial Growers Fairs (target: 4) • Entrepreneurial Alliance Fairs (target: 2) Recommendations Recommendation 1: Further clarification of the intentions within IR 2.4 and the anticipated activities is needed (short term). Recommendation 2: Activities described within the FY‐10 PREP DIP seem better suited under IR 2.3 Improved access to key food production and marketing services and supplies. The DIP should be updated to better reflect activities focusing on strengthening the enabling environment.   This may include current coordination and collaboration with local government, ministries and other key government institutions that have relevant livelihoods activity links. 17.3 SO­3: Natural Resources Management and Natural Disaster Planning by MTE Team Member Kristi Tabaj, with input by MTE Team Leader Peter Heffron Summary As mentioned under SO‐2, SO‐3 is designed to contribute in a synergistic way to SO‐2 and SO‐1, and thus to the overall sustainability and impact of PROMASA II. Thus is SO‐2 is the engine, SO‐3 is largely PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 99 the fuel for the engine. If there are no trees, soil has been washed away, and there's no water for domestic use and irrigation  ‐‐ there will be no agricultural production, linking markets with farmers, and so on. It is interesting that a number of PROMASA II personnel, including Farmer Leaders, tend to speak of soil conservation and related activities as if the challenge is a limited and fixed beginning point of deforested lands, rather than a widespread and rapidly growing 'deficit' of forested areas and consequent increases in lands susceptible to soil erosion. In other words the concept of a moving target and intervening not "from zero," but "from minus 30 and declining" is largely missing. Also missing, with few exceptions, is any sense of urgency regarding tackling the declining environmental trends mentioned above. A quote from a Farmer Leader: ‘Don’t just focus on families with malnourished children (and many families are beginning to have less children). Rather there is a need to focus on the entire (his emphasis) community, involving the alcaldes, COSANES, COCODEs in doing everything necessary on a priority basis given the trends.’ Recommendations Recommendation 1: When designing a future food security project, SC/PROMASA II staff, partner organizations, and other stakeholders are encouraged to explore more deeply how to make the health‐nutrition ‐‐ ag production‐marketing‐income generating ‐‐ and environmental protection and restoration strategic objectives work better together and on more appropriate scales, based on lessons learned in PROMASA II and other projects.   The same process with the same participants suggested for SO‐2 should be involved in SO‐3. In fact both SOs can be combined for these purposes. An ideal (very ideal, admittedly) starting point for future interventions would be a collection of communities sharing a common watershed, inviting SC and partners to participate with other organizations to help the communities achieve their short, medium, and long‐term development objectives, taking into account the trends mentioned earlier, in a sustainable, equitable, manner  ‐‐  based on the communities' 20‐year (for example) strategic plan. Since communities and especially groups of communities cooperating on a watershed level ‐‐ do not have shared visions or long‐range participatory strategic plans, it is suggested that that could be a useful starting point: i.e., facilitating or at least promoting with/through the appropriate stakeholders ‐‐  the development of such a watershed level coalition of communities and better practice participatory visioning and planning process (these better practices do exist and can be adapted to any watershed/community situation). Thus, specifically, it is suggested that SC/PROMASA II and partners/stakeholders soon begin a project design process that takes into account the environmental sustainability trends and causes mentioned above, and lessons learned in PROMASA II and other similar projects, in addition to usual poverty and child nutrition criteria. Kiej de los Bosques and other organizations as mentioned in the SO‐2 Recommendations above should be involved in all phases of the design process. The entire project could be developed as a pilot to test the more holistic approach mentioned by the Farmer Leader above. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 100 The outcome of the above process would be a comprehensive participatory problem analysis considering the trends mentioned above, their causes, options for more effectively addressing them, and constraints‐solutions ‐‐ embodied in a program or project proposal for donor consideration. IR 3.1 Improved access to quality natural resource management and emergency preparedness services and supplies. Findings Natural resource management activities are positively viewed by project participants, even though there are issues with inputs and community participation. Nursery, reforestation and recycling/sanitation activities are viewed positively by participants and seen as important to future generations within their communities. This was stressed by participants at many of the beneficiary focus groups.    A number of issues related to the tree nurseries have been raised. There have been problems with germination, pests and a fungal disease in the soil, so the success of germination/replanting has been low.   Those beneficiaries running tree nurseries noted various levels of participation in activities around watershed and nurseries. In some cases where groups of individuals have taken responsibility for managing nurseries, neglect has been noted.   Farmer Leaders are unanimous in their sense that environmental sustainability trends are worsening and will end in disaster for their communities over the next 20 years‐or‐so (no trees, no water, no topsoil, not enough land per family) if current trends continue. We noted, simply observing the landscape on our way to remote PROMASA II communities, and then around the communities themselves ‐‐ that, with some exceptions, there is widespread deforestation with no visible re‐forestation; and that most farmers are not practicing soil conservation techniques. Soil erosion is also readily apparent on the steep slopes in the project area. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Document lessons learned and apply them to broader disaster risk reduction plans in future programming (medium to long term). Document the major issues with this IR as well as current solutions and strategies for solutions. Findings from discussions with Farmer Leaders encouraged under IR 2.1 Recommendation 1 will provide insight into failed cohesion among groups. Discuss how these activities tie into broader disaster risk reduction activities related to disaster preparedness, mitigation and adaptation. Such discussion and documentation can add to future DRR country plans. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 101 IR 3.2 Improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills to manage natural resources and respond to natural disasters Findings Little activity has been seen with respect to disaster preparedness and risk reduction.   About ¼ of the villages in the project are participating in developing plans. Limitations to implementation have been the result of the difficulty in finding qualified staff to oversee program activities. Disaster preparedness is not anticipated for all PROMASA II communities. Only communities at high risk for disasters are targeted for training by the project in preparing disaster preparedness plans, etc. However we found that some of the Farmer Leaders were not sure if their communities were supposed to have disaster management plans or not. In general they feel having a community disaster management plan is a good idea. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Project activities should continue as scheduled, focusing on exit strategies. Recommendation 2: In general, all future programming within the Guatemala CO should include a disaster risk reduction component focusing on preparedness, mitigation and adaptation activities.   Long‐Term Recommendations Recommendation 3: SO‐1 is where PROMASA II is necessarily focused on measuring overall project impact; however only if ‐‐and the degree to which‐‐ SO‐1 and SO‐2 meet their objectives, will SO‐1's beneficiaries be able to exit the poverty/malnutrition trap they find themselves in. Thus we believe SC/PROMASA II and partners and other stakeholders should strive to ensure that SO‐2 and SO‐3 receive the attention they merit in the current project, as well as in a potential new project. 1. Demonstration Plots Specifically for design consideration in a follow‐on MYAP, as good as they are in the current project, thought could be given to making future demonstration plots  ‐‐with their integrated components (goats, chickens, compost, gardens, agroforestry, etc.)‐‐  even more responsive to beneficiary household limitations, including, increasingly, lack of land and water, and more mouths to feed. It is thus recommended that SC/PROMASA II explore better practices and more innovative strategies to tackle the growing challenges mentioned above in a follow‐on project. This should be accomplished through a well‐designed participatory problem‐solving process involving representatives of all the project stakeholders, including community‐level beneficiaries of both genders.   The process, including analysis in households (including landless households), communities, workshops, etc., should also involve proven integrated rural development, small enterprise PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 102 development, gender, Biointensive gardening, macro‐ecology, strategic planning, and project management practical experts. Note that some combinations of these skills might be embodied in one person and some might contribute their time/effort on a pro‐bono basis.   Expected outcomes from the above process ‐‐to be defined and implemented at the discretion of SC as part of a post‐MTE action plan‐‐ should include, but not be limited to: (a) a good analysis of not only household‐level  ‐‐but also community and watershed‐level‐ food security challenges and their causes, taking into account lessons learned in PROMASA II and other projects; (b) identification of solution options, their costs, and risk analyses. It is possible that the current extension/FLs/model plot strategy will prevail in the above process, however it is likely that it would be not insignificantly improved and that additional approaches or options would also result. 2. Home and Community Gardens It is suggested that SC/PROMASA II explore in a participatory manner, including representatives of all community‐level stakeholders, better, proven home and community vegetable garden practices that produce significantly more food per unit of land, use much less water, improve the soil, and require no purchased inputs. One such proven better practice is known as Biointensive gardening or mini‐ farming and it is suggested that this method be considered along with others, and perhaps be piloted to compare which methods produce better results and are preferred especially by the community‐ level beneficiaries themselves. Information about the Biointensive method in Spanish may be found on page 191 in the Appendices of this report. Although also mentioned under SO‐3 Findings and Recommendations, it needs to be repeated here that ‐‐at least in future projects‐‐ soil conservation methods should, if possible, be an integral part of all home gardening activities, in addition to all other agricultural initiatives. Specifically, the project should:   a) Identify several communities and willing Farmer Leaders and Mother Leaders in different agro‐ecological regions, with garden sites on land typical of the area (e.g., on 20% to 45% slopes to also demonstrate use of terraces, etc.) who are willing and able to participate in piloting several better practice home gardening methods.   b) Based on objective efficiency and sustainability criteria, SC/PROMASA II should select several most promising home gardening methods for trial.   c) Key SC and counterpart staff should receive theoretical and especially practical training in the better practice methods from proven experts/trainers. d) The pilots should then be initiated alongside the current method for comparison. e) The pilots need to then be evaluated based on essentially the same objective criteria mentioned earlier, with "the winner" then being incorporated into the next project design/MYAP.    PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 103 17.4 SO­1, SO­2, and SO­3 Cross­Cutting Elements Introduction The following Cross‐Cutting Findings and Recommendations apply generally to SOs 1, 2, and 3, although the emphasis is on SOs 2 and 3. Findings When all partners are sitting around the table, there is good communication and intention to coordination/collaborate. Management meets/communicates frequently with other partners (at least once per week). Supervisors in the field coordinate monthly while other staff meet quarterly. Although there is good communication, collaboration in the field is mixed and dependent upon the individual relationships with partners. For example, partners work well with SC. Kiej de Los Bosques seems to work well given their recent entry into the program. Overall, in the field, coordination ranges from combined visits from two partners to serendipitous meetings in the field to confusion among the communities about partner participation in PROMASA.   There is very little coordination at the community level of all organizations/government programs providing support. At times there are overlaps in programming, groups with multiple goals, etc., including PROMASA II beneficiaries receiving assistance from other organizations. Recommendations Discuss ways to improve vertical communication as well as communication among partners. If SC plans to continue working in these communities, it is within their best interest to conduct a mapping activity to determine who is working within the communities, the types of activities/inputs provided, and to whom. 18 Conclusions The PROMASA II project is conceptually good, particularly with its explicit programmatic connections between the nutrition/food security, food production/marketing, income‐generating, environmental conservation, disaster preparation/mitigation, and good governance components. This overall conceptual framework should be built upon in future MYAPs, taking into account the findings and recommendations in this MTE and in the final evaluation, as well as better practices generated by similar projects elsewhere. PROMASA II has done particularly well considering the tough target region it works in, that it began operations almost a year behind the official start date—due to circumstances beyond the project’s control—as well as having half the personnel that PROMASA I had to work with twice as many community‐level participants. In addition the project lost ground due to the financial crisis and drought in 2009. In spite of these constraints PROMASA II is on track to achieve most if not all of its objectives as of the MTE (April‐May 2010). PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 104 Because the MTE took place at about 70% into the project lifecycle and based on various discussions and analyses with the CO and PROMASA II management, it has been agreed that there are insufficient time and resources to add major MTE‐related activities to the presently full slate PROMASA II already has in concluding the project by September 2011 with all or most of its objectives accomplished. For this reason the MTE recommendations have been prioritized into short‐term and long‐term, with most of the short‐term recommendations being related to important qualitative improvements and all of the long‐term recommendations being related to a possible follow‐on MYAP.   It has also been agreed that the MTE, as valuable as it is, cannot pretend to uniformly represent all of PROMASA II’s strengths and areas for possible improvement. Thus the CO/PROMASA II team will need to decide which MTE recommendations to adapt as necessary and to then carry out. We believe the updating of the proposed MTE Action Plan (page 22) will assist in that regard. We wish the PROMASA II team, including all of the project stakeholders, the best of luck in its Herculean efforts to improve food security in Guatemala. SST/KT/PH 1 Sept 2010 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 105 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 108 Annexes PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 109 18.1 PROMASA II Organization Chart (Spanish) Organigrama Gerencial de PROMASA II (Mayo 2010—Evaluacion MTE) Chart provided by SC/PROMASA II DIRECTOR PAÍS SUBDIRECTOR PAÍS GERENTE SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA SUBGERENTE SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA Y LIDER DEMOCRACIA Y GOBERNABILIDAD LÍDER SALUD Y NUTRICIÓN LÍDER MEDIOS DE VIDA COORDINADOR LOGÍSTICA DE ALIMETNOS COORDINADOR MONITOREO Y EVALUACIÓN ASISTENTE COORDINADOR CAMPO SUPERVISOR (3) TÉCNICO AGUA SANEAMIENTO (2) TÉCNICO ECC. (4) TÉCNICO SALUD Y NUTRICIÓN (4) COORDINADOR RECURSOS NATURALES TÉCNICO RECURSOS NATURALES (1) SUPERVISOR PLANTAS NATIVAS (1) SUPERVISOR MEDIOS DE VIDA (1) TÉCNICO MEDIOS DE VIDA (7) SUPERVISOR COMERCIALIZACIÓN (1) TÉCNICO COMERCIALIZACIÓN (3) COORDINADOR CAMPO LOGÍSTICA MONITORES ALIMENTOS (3) SUPERVISOR MONITOREO Y EVALUACIÓN (1) TÉCNICO M&E (3) COTONEB GENESIS EMPRESARIAL KIEJ DE LOS BOSQUES SOCIOS IMPLEMENTADORES ASISTENTE TÉCNICO DEMOCRACIA GOBERNABILIDAD (3) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 110 18.2 Terms of Reference General Terms of Reference (Spanish) Términos de Referencia EVALUACIÓN DE MEDIO TÉRMINO CORRESPONDIENTE AL PROGRAMA MAYA DE SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA – PROMASA - DEL PROGRAMA MULTIANUAL DE AYUDA ALIMENTARIA - MYAP – GUATEMALA 2007-2011 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 111 CONTENIDO I. INTRODUCCIÓN II. ANTECEDENTES DEL PROGRAMA III. OBJETIVO DE LA EVALUACIÓN IV. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL TRABAJO V. CONFORMACIÓN DEL EQUIPO VI. METODOLOGÍA VII. CRONOGRAMA VIII. INFORMES Y PRODUCTOS IX. ANEXOS ANEXO 1: METAS, OBJETIVOS ESTRATÉGICOS Y RESULTADOS INTERMEDIOS DEL PROMASA ANEXO 2: FUENTES DE INFORMACIÓN SOBRE DESEMPEÑO EXISTENTES ANEXO 3: FORMATO SUGERIDO PARA EL INFORME FINAL DE LA EMT PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 112 INTRODUCCIÓN El propósito de la Ev aluación de M edio Término del Programa Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria (PROMASA) del PL 4 80 Títu lo II (200 7-2011) de Gu atemala es m edir e l pro greso alcanzado e n el l ogro d e l os o bjetivos d el programa. El objetivo de esta actividad es identificar problemas y restricciones que influyeron en el alcance de los objetivos y trab ajar con el personal del para desarrollar recomendaciones con el ob jeto de mejorar el diseño y ejecución del programa. Los programas de esta índole en G uatemala ha s ido diseñados para reducir la inseguridad alimentaria entre las poblaciones más vulnerables del país. La inseguridad alimentaria en Guatemala es principalmente un problema de p obreza ( acceso), y e sencialmente é sta no ha m ostrado me joría alg una d esde 19 96. La pobreza e n Guatemala se da fundamentalmente en las áreas rurales, que concentran al 70% de la población en situación de pobreza; otro factor es que el 75% de las p ersonas de escasos recursos pertenece a alguna etnia indígena, las regiones Norte y Noroccidente continúan presentando los índices de pobreza más altos del país (77.1% y 75.6% respectivamente)63. La pobreza, junto a los bajos índices de alfabetización, la falta de acceso a la educación y a los servicios públicos de salud ta mbién af ecta l a ó ptima ut ilización d e alimentos e ntre las fa milias de c omunidades r urales. C asi l a mitad d e los niños me nores de si ete años que viv en en áreas rur ales en Gu atemala pres entan problemas d e crecimiento (45.6% con un resultado de talla-para-edad de puntaje Z < -2 D.E). La m alnutrición infantil varía de una re gión a otra, y é sta está alta mente re lacionada con la extrema pob reza. Los ín dices má s a ltos de malnutrición (resultado de talla-para-edad de puntaje Z < -2 S.D.) 64 se dan en los departamentos de Totonicapán (69.4%), Quiché (63.9%), Sololá (65.2%) y Huehuetenango (62.8%), La crisis fina nciera a nivel mundial a mediados del año 2009, insidió drásticamente en las p oblaciones pobres y en extrema pobreza d e l os país es de A mérica Latina, ac entuando lo s nive les ya ca óticos de In seguridad Alimentaría y Nutricional. Guatemala no ha sido la excepción ante esta crisis, y con el decremento de las lluvias, se alargó el período de sequía, incrementado la pérdida de las cosechas de granos básicos, lo que ha impactado drásticamente en las comunidades establecidas en el corredor seco. Un informe de la Secr etaría Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (SESAN), presentado el 16 de agosto del año 2009, establece un incremento del 113% de las comunidades en riesgo de hambre para el año 2009, al pasar de 1,901 en mayo a 4,059 a principios de agosto. El altiplano nacional, ha comenzado a sentir los impactos de la crisis económica (disminución de remesas, poco acceso a créditos blandos, incremento del desempleo, etc) y la pr olongación de la sequía dada por el efecto del Niño, ha repercutido en la pérdida de más del 50% de la cosecha de cultivos agrícolas. Lo anterior, pone en alto riesgo la co secha de po stura (seg unda) de g ranos bá sicos la cu al se tie ne p rogramada pa ra lo s me ses de noviembre 2009 a e nero 2010, agravando esto l a disponibilidad alimentaria y p or consiguiente el incremento de los indicadores de desnutrición, esta región presenta una desnutrición crónica de las más altas del país (27.5 a 91.4 por ciento en los distintos municipios). ANTECEDENTES DEL PROGRAMA El “Proyecto Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria”, PROMASA II forma parte del Programa PL 480 Titulo II, financiado por la Age ncia In ternacional p ara e l De sarrollo d e lo s Esta dos Unid os (e n ade lante USAID), de nominado                                                             63 Banco Mundial (2008) 64 Tercer Censo Nacional de Talla, Guatemala, Junio 2009. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 113 “Programa Multi-Anual de Ayuda Alimentaria” MYAP, por sus siglas en inglés. El nuevo objetivo estratégico 2006- 2010, de la Oficina de Alimentos para la Paz de la USAID para los programas del PL 480 Título II, es reducir la inseguridad alimentaria en poblaciones vulnerables, el cual también responde a emergencias y desastres. El pr ograma fue d iseñado baj o l as estrategias d el Programa d e Alim entos p ara l a P az ( FFP/USAID) correspondiente a l os años 20 04-2008, y al P lan de P aís U SAID/Guatemala 20 06-2010. El ár ea de implementación del consorcio MYAP es principalmente rural, o urbano–rural. La meta del programa es “Mejorar la seguridad alimentaria de las familias guatemaltecas del área rural en regiones del altiplano del país” Anteriormente se implementó el programa de Título II, MYAP (Development Assistance Program), en el cual Save the Children trabajó con el proyecto PROMASA I, en el departamento de El Quiché, durante los años del 2000 al 2006. PROMASA II / MYAP s e lleva a cabo en un período de cinco años, del 2006 al 2011. Las intervenciones del proyecto están dirigidas a l as familias de 123 comunidades rurales ubicadas en seis municipios del Quiché. Las actividades se desarrollan principalmente con cabezas de hogar, hombres y mujeres (embarazadas o madres) y niños y niñas menores de 36 meses. Población Objetivo PROMASA II PVO De partamento Municipios Población familias Chajul 1,240 Cotzal 1,214 Nebaj 2,602 Sacapulas 2,042 Cunén 1,632 Save the Children Quiché Uspantán 1,521 Población meta 10,250 Los objetivos del PROMASA son: Aumentar la adopción de prácticas clave para la atención materno infantil y uso de los servicios de salud,. Aumentar la adopción de prácticas mejoradas de producción de alimentos y mercadeo y uso de los servicios agro pecuarios Aumento en l a adopción d e prácticas m ejoradas para el m anejo de r ecursos naturales q ue fo rtalecen la preparación de la comunidad y los hogares para enfrentarse a un desastre natural. El programa se bas a en un a tabla apr obada de in dicadores de d esempeño par a el monitoreo de las intervenciones, Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT), la cu al cuenta con 11 indicadores de impacto, con sus respectivas metas por año y una meta final para el año 11, basada en el va lor de la Línea de Ba se y el cambio esperado para la Línea Final. La efectividad del proyecto se medirá por medio del cumplimiento de los indicadores, mismos que se clasifican dentro de las categorías de impacto o efecto. Los indicadores están organizados responden a los objetivos estratégicos mencionados. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 114 OBJETIVO DE LA EVALUACIÓN El pro pósito p rincipal de la Eval uación de Medio Término es de facilitar el aprendizaje int erno. El eq uipo evaluador s e bas ará pri ncipalmente e n un a revi sión c ualitativa, i ncluyendo la r evisión de datos cu antitativos disponibles pr ovenientes d el monit oreo y evaluaciones cu antitativas an uales. Esta re visión pa rticipativa está dirigida a (i) evaluar hasta qué punto SC ha alcanzado los objetivos del Programa de Seguridad Alimentaria en Guatemala, de acuerdo a lo establecido en el MYAP y (ii) determinar las oportunidades que existen para mejorar la implementación de las futuras actividades del MYAP de SC en Guatemala. La evaluación es una oportunidad para que SC y el donante puedan det erminar conjuntamente los logr os del M YAP, com parándolos c on los resultados de los pl anes formulados ori ginalmente. Se espera qu e el e quipo a car go de la ev aluación trabaje conjuntamente co n S C a n ivel local y el personal del s ocio i mplementador COTO NEB, p ara i dentificar los problemas y restricciones, y a sí establecer recomendaciones que puedan ponerse en práctica para mejorar la implementación del programa actual. La evaluación permitirá: Analizar, el dis eño, estructura y estrat egias de implementación del PROMASA con relación a las actividades y metas propuestas en el mismo. Determinar c uáles so n l as oportunidades y alter nativas par a pr oducir res ultados qu e ca usen un i mpacto significativo, a largo plazo, en la seguridad alimentaria de las familias cubiertas por el programa; Recomendar los ajustes necesarios al diseño, estructura y mecanismos de implementación que sean factibles de ser incorporados al programa en el tiempo de vida restante del mismo. Revisar las acciones establecidas en el Examen Ambiental Inicial, IEE especialmente en la matriz que contiene el Estatus de las Medidas de Mitigación y su Monitoreo. Determinar c uáles c ondiciones previstas en el P ROMASA, s iguen vigentes de acuerdo a los cambios socioeconómicos y cl imáticos ac aecidos durante el año 20 09, para e valuar los su puestos c laves y ries gos incluidos en la propuesta del programa y su impacto en la su implementación. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL TRABAJO Metas y resultados del PROMASA El equipo a cargo de la evaluación revisará los indicadores, metas y resultados del MYAP, elaborará un resumen de los resultados, los logros o limitantes del Programa y l uego analizará las as ignaciones de los recursos, así como l as sit uaciones e n las q ue l os lo gros s e hayan desviado s ignificativamente de l as m etas originales, procurando determinar las causas para ello. Con respecto al PROMASA, en general, el equipo a cargo de la evaluación responderá las siguientes preguntas que se relacionan con los indicadores, las metas y los resultados. 1. ¿Cuáles han sido l os principales av ances de l P ROMASA e n l a i mplementación d e mecanismos y /o estrategias para mejorar la seguridad alimentaria de los hogares durante el período de implementación? ¿Cuáles han sido la s principales limita ntes pa ra lo grar la se guridad alimen taria en los ho gares? ¿Qué ajustes pod rían realizarse al programa actual para superar dichas limitantes? 2. ¿Son adecuados los indicadores del sistema de monitoreo para monitorear el avance, o deben hacerse algunas adaptaciones? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 115 3. ¿Hasta qué p unto las acti vidades ba jo ca da objetivo es tratégico, son suficientes p ara alcanzar l a seguridad alimentaria de los hogares cubiertos por el programa? 4. ¿Las act ividades de d istribución de a limentos ta nto de alimentos p or trabajo y co mo l as d e Salud Materno-Infantil, están alcanzando a la población objetivo en forma correcta? Enfoques del Programa y modificaciones sugeridas El equipo a cargo de la evaluación revisará los enfoques, las actividades y los resultados en las siguientes áreas programáticas: sal ud y n utrición m aterno-infantil; de mocracia y g obernabilidad; me dios d e vi da; recurs os naturales y manejo de ri esgo y em ergencias. B asándose e n esta rev isión, el e quipo evaluador pr esentará l as recomendaciones opo rtunas pa ra el mejoramiento en la implementación de l programa, inclu yendo recomendaciones especificas sobre cómo integrar entre ellos los siguientes componentes de PROMASA: Intervenciones de salud y nutrición materno-infantil Con respecto a las intervenciones en el campo de la salud y la nutrición materno-infantil, el equipo a cargo de la evaluación responderá las siguientes preguntas: ¿Qué me canismos de c oordinación ha establecido el P ROMASA c on lo s s ervicios de sa lud p ública en l as comunidades? ¿Cuál h a sid o el niv el d e co bertura d e l a i ntervención d e salu d y nutr ición en l a lo s gru pos más v ulnerables (menores de 3 años, madres lactantes y mujeres embarazadas? ¿Seria posible mejorarlo? ¿El per sonal técn ico de c ampo y p ersonal vo luntario ( madres lí deres) ha n sid o c apacitados p ara de sarrollar aconsejar a l os beneficiarios sobre el uso apropiado y seg uro de los alimentos donados, incluyendo el uso de alimentos locales cuando es necesario? ¿El personal técnico de campo y personal voluntario (madres líderes) ha sido capacitado en los temas clave de salud y n utrición m aterno i nfantil, inc luidos en la propuesta ori ginal d el proy ecto? Si no e s así, p orque n o se realizó? ¿El p ersonal t écnico d e c ampo y p ersonal v oluntario ( madres líderes) ha sido c apacitado en l as técn icas necesarias para se r e fectivos en su s a ctividades d e ca mpo (ej: e ducación d e adulto s, tra bajo co munitario, enfoque de género, etc) ¿Son apropiados los mat eriales e ducativos qu e s e re lacionan c on las prá cticas cl ave de sa lud y nutr ición, promovidas por el proyecto (incluyendo los materiales usados en cambio de comportamientos alcanzable). ¿Cual es la c alidad de l as actividades de cons ejería individual y gr upal?¿Las personas re alizándolas, est án utilizando todos los pasos de la consejería y negociación? ¿Cuáles pasos les dificulta más? ¿Por qué? ¿Cómo se podría mejorarlas? ¿Qué problemas r elevantes se presentan con l a p articipación d el personal voluntario (ma dres lí deres?, ¿Q ué soluciones se sugieren para los problemas identificados? ¿Están sie ndo rea lizadas reu niones co n LOS L ÍDERES co munitarios y o tros mie mbros, pa ra la discusión, planificación y reso lución d e pro blemas d e sal ud, n utrición y se guridad ali mentaría? ¿ Son útiles y efectivas?, PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 116 ¿Cómo pueden hacerse más efectivas? ¿Funciona un sistem a de referencia y contra-referencia p ara ni ños co n creci miento insatisfactorio o p roblemas recurrentes de salud? Si / no, ¿por qué? ¿Qué se podría hacer para mejorar el sistema? ¿Existe una proporción adecuada de técnicos de campo y madres líderes por b eneficiarios y u na frecuencia de contacto suficiente para alcanzar el tipo de cambio de comportamiento deseado? Cambio de comportamiento ¿Cómo obtiene la i nformación sobre prácticas y com portamientos los beneficiarios? ¿Cuáles son los canales de información y que personas la brindan? ¿Cuál fue el proceso utilizado para desarrollar, validar y aplicar los materiales de cambio de comportamiento? ¿Cuáles son las practicas que los beneficiarios han tenido más inclinación de adoptar y por qué? ¿Qué factores han limitado el cambio de comportamiento para la adopción de buenas prácticas? ¿Por qué? ¿Son las estrategias utilizadas por el programa adecuadas para alcanzar cambios en comportamiento deseados? Intervenciones de fortalecimiento de democracia y gobernabilidad Con respecto de las intervenciones de fortalecimiento democrático y municipal, el equipo a cargo de la evaluación responderá a las siguientes preguntas: ¿Qué tipo de apoyo brinda PROMASA para la integración y funcionamiento de los COCODES? ¿En qué forma toma en cuenta PROMASA los planes municipales para llevar a cabo sus actividades? ¿Qué actividades de participación ciudadana apoya PROMASA a nivel comunitario? ¿Qué tipo de actividades de las Oficinas Municipales de Planificación (OMP) apoya PROMASA? ¿Los alcaldes conocen las actividades de PROMASA? ¿Las apoyan? ¿Ha fomen tado PROMASA la implementación de la s COSA NES? Al i nterior de l os COCODES de las comunidades objetivo. Fortalecimiento de capacidades ¿Son los mat eriales y m etodologías de c apacitación a propiados p ara los participantes? Si fu era necesario, ¿como se podrían mejorar los materiales para lograr los objetivos? ¿El pro grama está d esarrollando efe ctivamente las c apacidades d e l os líder es? ¿C ómo se p odría mejorar el desarrollo de capacidades de los líderes? Fortalecimiento de socios ¿El programa está desarrollando las capacidades de socios (counterparts y part ners)? Si n o, ¿cómo se p odría PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 117 modificar las estrategias para mejorar el fortalecimiento de capacidad? ¿Qué ca pacidades ne cesita el socio me jorar par a implementar el PR OMASA?, ¿Existe un a estr ategia p ara la mejora de dichas capacidades?, ¿Cuáles son los esfuerzos adicionales que hay que tomar? Sostenibilidad ¿Qué se podría hacer para mejorar la sostenibilidad de los resultados intermedios? ¿Cuáles son las previsiones organizativas para buscar la continuidad de las acciones del programa? ¿Cómo e l pr ograma fort alece o aumenta l a ca pacidad d e soc ios l ocales p ara co ntinuar las actividades d el programa? ¿Qué vinculación existe entre los componentes implementados en el PROMASA, que faciliten la sostenibilidad de las acciones en el futuro?, ¿Cómo se fortalecerían? Cuales serian las bases y elementos para preparar un Plan de Sostenibilidad de PROMASA? Manejo de los recursos agrícolas Con respecto de las intervenciones en el manejo de los recursos agrícolas, el equipo a cargo de la evaluación responderá a las siguientes preguntas: ¿Proporciona el P ROMASA un c onjunto integrado d e i ntervenciones pa ra co ntribuir a mejo rar la in seguridad alimentaria? Si no lo hace, ¿Cómo se puede mejorar? ¿Cómo participan los agricultores en las actividades agrícolas promovidas en el P ROMASA? ¿Hasta qué punto han “hecho suyas” estas actividades los hogares y las comunidades? ¿Están participando las mujeres en este proceso? ¿Son las tec nologías y practicas promovidas i dóneas p ara u n programa d e S eguridad Al imentaria como e l PROMASA? ¿De qué manera? ¿Es e l uso de ár eas demostrativas útil/replicable d e ac uerdo co n l as c ondiciones re ales y n ecesidades d e l os agricultores? ¿Fomenta P ROMASA las c apacidades en los agricultores a fin de que estos tengan un mejor acceso a los mercados? Agua y saneamiento ¿Qué métodos tiene el programa para mejorar el acceso al agua? ¿Incluye el pr oyecto m ensajes co mplementarios a decuados so bre el uso a propiado de agua y prácticas d e higiene? Mercadeo y comercialización Con respecto al mer cadeo y comercialización, el eq uipo a cargo de la eva luación responderá a las sig uientes PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 118 preguntas. ¿Qué estrategias impulsa el PROMASA para mejorar el encadenamiento productivo? ¿Existen grupos organizados vinculados a las iniciativas de mercadeo formal? En caso afirmativo, ¿les permitirá a funcionar cuando el proyecto haya terminado? En términos de alianzas y víncu los con mercados, ¿Qué grupos organizados de productores han participado en estas alianzas o vínculos con mercados? ¿Cuáles son las oportunidades de crecimiento para este indicador? ¿Tienen l os g rupos or ganizados de productores co nocimiento adecuados para e laboración de c ostos d e producción? Servicios Micro-financieros ¿El Pro grama apoya a gr upos comu nitarios org anizados por m edio de servicios d e m icrofinanzas? ¿Cóm o l o hace? ¿Existen dificultades en alcanzar algunas comunidades o áreas para proporcionar servicios de microfinanzas? ¿Cómo puede mejorarse la estrategia de micro-finanzas a fin de tener mayor impacto en la seguridad alimentaría del hogar? Manejo de recursos naturales ¿Las act ividades de m anejo rec ursos naturales pr omovidas por e l P ROMASA s on la s a decuadas p ara u n programa de seguridad alimentaria? Si no ¿Cómo mejorarlas? ¿Existen beneficios directos en l a c omunidad pr oveniente d e la im plementación de l as si guientes actividades como a) protección de fuentes de agua, b) conservación de suelos, c) producción de plantas en viveros? Mantenimiento de caminos rurales ¿Qué criterios se utilizan para seleccionar los caminos rurales a rehabilitar? ¿Participa l a c omunidad en l a rehabilit ación de l os caminos? ¿E n qué forma? ¿ Cómo P ROMASA apoy a la participación comunitaria? Cumplimiento de la regulación ambiental (de acuerdo al IEE) ¿Qué estrategias a seguido PROMASA para atender las recomendaciones incluidas en el IEE? ¿PROMASA h a e laborado y está us ando herramientas ambientales (n ormas, li stas de verificación, etc.) p ara cumplir con las recomendaciones del IEE? ¿El mantenimiento de caminos rurales está de acuerdo con las guías de Gordon Keller? Si no, ¿por qué? ¿Cómo se podría modificar las actividades para asegurar que llenan los requisitos de las guías de Gordon Keller? Sistemas de monitoreo PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 119 Con res pecto al si stema d e mon itoreo de PROMAS A, el e quipo a c argo d e l a ev aluación e valuará: (i) la recopilación, análisis y us o de los datos e i ndicadores anuales para el manejo y l os informes del proyecto; (ii) la estructura actual del sistema de mo nitoreo y exactitud de los datos, y (iii) el flujo de información dentro de la s oficinas r egionales y centrales, y proporcionará su s r ecomendaciones par a mejorar el uso d e la información. Además, el equipo a cargo de la evaluación responderá las siguientes preguntas: ¿Está usa ndo PROMAS A el sistem a de M&E para lograr una retroalimentación constructiva par a el diseño e implementación de los programas? ¿Cuáles i ndicadores d el PROMASA d eben r evisarse de ac uerdo a l a met a y objetivos del pr ograma, para readecuarlos al final del programa? ¿El personal de la unidad de M&E h a sido capacitado adecuadamente? ¿Que otr a capacitación es necesaria? ¿Cuáles son los pasos inmediatos que el programa pueda tomar para mejorar las debilidades? CONFORMACIÓN DEL EQUIPO El equipo a cargo de la ev aluación estar á compuesto por tres pers onas: el líd er del eq uipo, un esp ecialista internacional en medios de vida, un especialista local en salud y nutrición. Todos los miembros del equipo deben contar con un título de postgrado (M S o superior), un mí nimo de cinco (5 ) años de experiencia en la evaluació n de programas financiados por USAID y/o programas de seguridad alimentaria, además poseer conocimientos e métodos c ualitativos y c uantitativos de evaluación. T odos l os miembros d el e quipo deben p oseer exc elente desempeño e n ing lés y es pañol, tant o p or escrito co mo oral. A demás deberán estar f amiliarizados c on te mas transversales de programas com o m anejo de pr oyectos, gé nero, m onitoreo y evaluación, m ejoramiento d e la capacidad institucional y sustentabilidad. SC deberá aprobar a las personas propuestas para estos puestos. Los requisitos para cada uno de los componentes del equipo se detallan a continuación: Líder del equipo El lí der d el e quipo te ndrá las res ponsabilidades específicas de c oordinar to das l as actividades d e ev aluación, supervisar al equipo, alcanzar los objetivos especificados, evaluar y monitorear los sistemas, colaborar con SC y USAID/Guatemala, pr esentar l os r esultados de la evaluación, los i nformes preliminares y fi nales c onforme a l cronograma correspondiente. Es indispensable que es ta persona conozca a fondo lo s programas de Título II, así mismo deberá contar con experiencia y un buen desempeño en programas o proyectos de seguridad alimentaria, y conocer la situación socioeconómica del país. De preferencia, debe tener experiencia como líder de equipo de evaluación de programas de seguridad alimentaría. Además, se espera que el líder de equipo sea especialista en el área de Medios de Vida, Recursos Naturales y se espera que el Líder del equipo tenga conocimientos sobre la Regulación 216 de la USAID y trabajará con los otros miembros del equipo para asegurar el cumplimiento de esta regla en todas las áreas relevantes Consultor Internacional para Medios de Vida, Recursos Naturales y Preparación para Emergencias El consultor internacional para Medios de Vida, Recursos Naturales y Preparación para Emergencias, coordinará todas la s activ idades d e ev aluación q ue s e relac ionen c on este s ector, de m anera qu e se a lcancen todos l os objetivos de e valuación. De ntro d e ese sector se evaluará el dise ño e implementación de la tecn ología y producción agrícola, com ercialización y me rcadeo, microf inanzas, reh abilitación y ma ntenimiento d e cami nos, Recursos Naturales, Preparación para emergencias. Se espera que el miembro del equipo en esta especialidad tenga sólidos conocimientos y experiencia probada con la Regulación 216 de la USAID y trabajará con los otros miembros del equipo para asegurar el cumplimiento de esta regla en todas las áreas relevantes Consultor Nacional para Salud y Nutrición PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 120 El espe cialista e n este secto r co ordinará todas la s actividades de e valuación que se re lacionen co n e ste componente, de manera que se alcancen todos los objetivos de evaluación, incluyendo Intervenciones de salud y nutrición materno-infantil, Cambio de comportamiento, Democracia y G obernabilidad. Se espera que el miembro del equipo en esta especialidad tenga sólidos conocimientos y experiencia probada en la evaluación de las áreas de de pro moción de l crecimiento, sa lud materna inf antil, hi giene, cam bio de comportamiento, desarrollo comunitario y municipal. METODOLOGÍA   Por medio de métodos participativos, el equipo encargado de la evaluación estudiará los enfoques utilizados en el PROMASA y los resultados de los avances, utilizando para ello métodos cualitativos, Antes del arribo del equipo de evaluación, el equipo d e coordinación d el P ROMASA va a segurar la rec olección y an álisis d e i nformación cuantitativa que servirá de insumo para el equipo de evaluación. Aunque no s ean requeridos, también se podrá proporcionar d atos sobre al gunos in dicadores ad icionales, el eq uipo trabajará d e cerca con cada u no de lo s Líderes y Coordinadores del PROMAS A y la mis ión d e la U SAID e n t odas l as fas es de l a ev aluación. Esta participación p ermitirá u n co ntrol t anto de aprendizaje c omo d e ca lidad. Las vis itas a terren o p ermitirán a lo s participantes del programa, partes interesadas y el per sonal de SC compartir sus observaciones con respecto al proceso de evaluación. PROMASA de signará a seis representantes para q ue apoyen al e quipo investigador como enc uestadores y traductores en donde sea necesario. Los r epresentantes prestarán su ay uda a l os especialistas de cada sector para que logren cumplir los objetivos de la evaluación, a l a vez q ue facilitarán el proceso de evaluación en su área objetivo. Como mínimo, los representantes PROMASA llevarán a cabo las siguientes actividades: Proporcionar al equ ipo en cargado de la evaluación, la do cumentación que con tiene to dos los antecedentes relativos a PROMASA, las actividades re alizadas conf orme al Título II, y la información específica sobr e el componente que tiene a su cargo. Proporcionar l a i nformación, lo s i nformes u otra documentación cl ave so bre M&E al equipo a c argo de l a evaluación, y bri ndarle su a poyo p ara que pue da acc eder a lo s siste mas y lo s dat os d e M&E q ue co nsidere necesarios; Sugerir contactos clave, visitas a los sitios o entrevistas a los interesados, con el fin de facilitarle al equipo un adecuado intercambio de información y Coordinar y participa r en las visitas de campo del equipo a cargo de la evaluación, así como en las pláticas y/o reuniones adicionales que solicite dicho equipo. Las contrapartes PROMASA no elaborarán ningún material escrito para el equipo encargado de la evaluación, se limitarán a e ntregarle la d ocumentación existente sobre los antecedentes. Esta eva luación se va a ll evar a ca bo de acuerdo a los siguientes pasos: Planificación participativa El Gerente de la ev aluación de SC pondrá a dis posición documentos y materiales necesarios para el equipo de evaluación. Los miembros del equipo de evaluación revisarán estos documentos, los resultados cuantitativos de la línea de b ase, in formes an uales de ejecu ción y lo s datos de lo s siste mas de mon itoreo y e valuación del programa, además de las preguntas específicas de evaluación65 para planear la recolección de datos cualitativos. El equipo analizará los resultados de este ejercicio en conjunto con SC y presentará sus planes de recolección de datos cualitativos en base a esto. S e espera que el líder del equipo de evaluación prepare un documento breve describiendo el plan metodológico para la evaluación, incluyendo una descripción de: Métodos cualitativos a utilizar, lo que puede incluir: grupos focales, entrevistas con informantes claves, técnicas                                                             65 Numeral IV. Descripción del Trabajo, página 7 del presente documento. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 121 de observación dir ecta, técnicas de me dición rápida y méto dos de med ición parti cipativos q ue inv olucren a beneficiarios y partes interesadas. Se espera que se utilice una combinación de métodos para responder a l as preguntas de la evaluación. Muestreo: Definir el mét odo de s elección de part icipantes, ya sea n personal del programa, socios, voluntarios, beneficiarios y/o personal de la misión de la USAID. Plan de análisis de los datos cualitativos, describiendo la forma en que se va revisar la información para asegurar exactitud, y cómo s e ut ilizará para f ormular re sultados de l a ev aluación, lec ciones aprendidas y recomendaciones. Incluir el plan para triangular los datos tanto cuantitativos como cualitativos. Plan para consultas periódicas con personal y socios claves durante todo el pr oceso de ev aluación para revisar los resultados preliminares y asegurar que los datos ofrezcan una visión lo más completa posible de la ejecución y los resultados del programa hasta la fecha. Fechas de las visitas de campo, incluyendo datos del trabajo en campo a realizar, las comunidades a visitar, los miembros del equipo a participar y los individuos o grupos a entrevistar. Trabajo de campo El líder y lo s miem bros de l eq uipo d e evaluación co ordinarán toda la lo gística necesaria con el Gerente d e evaluación y el de lo gística de SC p ara el trabajo de recolección de datos cualitativos. El eq uipo planeará unos seis (6) días para visitas de campo. Análisis y Elaboración Primer Borrador del Informe El equipo de evaluación realizará el análisis de los datos cualitativos inmediatamente después finalizada la visita de campo y elaborará el Primer Borrador del Informe de la EMT para compartir los resultados preliminares y dar la oportunidad para retroalimentación y discusión con el equipo de coordinación del PROMASA. Presentación de Resultados para SC. Después de elaborar Primer Borrador del Informe, el equipo de evaluación organizará un taller de presentación de resultados de dos días c on la partic ipación del equipo de c oordinación de PRO MASA con el propósito de presentar en forma formal los resultados, las lecciones y las r ecomendaciones de la evaluación del programa, para la retroalimentación y discusión por parte del equipo de PROMASA. Con los aport es del eq uipo de PROM ASA, el equipo evaluador, r ealizará los ajustes necesa rios y elaborará un Segundo Borrador del Informe de la EMT. El eq uipo tamb ién fa cilitará sesiones para to dos lo s pa rticipantes con e l fin de de sarrollar plan es d e acción tomando en consideración los resultados de evaluación. Los planes de acción incluirán en forma tentativa pasos para diseminar los resultados a socios y participantes y planes para el mejoramiento del programa. Revisión del Segundo Borrador del Informe de la EMT El Segundo Borrador del Informe, contempla los aportes del equipo de PROMASA y s erá el que se entregue a USAID/GT y FANTA pa ra su re visión y apo rtes, el tie mpo má ximo p ara re cibir lo s co mentarios de e stas do s organizaciones será de cinco (5) días. Elaboración Informe Anual El equipo de evaluación por su parte tendrá una semana para hacer las revisiones finales de los aportes de los equipos de PROMASA, US AID/GT y FA NTA, par a entregar la ver sión final del info rme a todas las partes interesadas, en duro y electrónico, en idioma ingles como en español. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 122 CRONOGRAMA Actividad Producto Fecha Estimada Días Consultor Lugar de Trabajo Presentación propuesta Técnica‐Metodológica y Financiera para la EMT Propuesta presentada. 19 Marzo‐2010 No se paga por la Propuesta Ciudad Guatemala Planificación participativa. Instrumentos desarrollados y validados. Logística organizada. 24 al 26 Marzo‐2010. 3 Ciudad Guatemala Trabajo de campo. Información recolectada. 05 al 12 Abril‐2010. 6 Quiché Análisis y Elaboración Informe Borrador. Datos tabulados. Primer Borrador del Informe elaborado. 13 al 26 Abril‐2010. 10 Ciudad Guatemala Presentación de resultados para SC. Taller de presentación resultados. Primer Borrador del Informe revisado por SC. Actualización Primer Borrador del Informe con aportes de SC. Segundo Borrador del Informe elaborado. 27 al 30 Abril‐2010. 3 Ciudad Guatemala Revisión por FANTA del Segundo Borrador del Informe. Segundo Borrador del Informe revisado por USAID/GT y FANTA. 03 al 07 Mayo‐2010. 1 Ciudad Guatemala Elaboración Informe Final. Actualización Segundo Borrador del Informe con aportes de USAID/GT y FANTA. Informe Final Entregado (Ingles y Español). 10 al 14 Mayo‐2010. 5 Ciudad Guatemala TOTAL 28   INFORMES Y PRODUCTOS Los productos a entregar por parte del equipo evaluador serán los siguientes Una evaluación detallada “Estrategia de implementación” (plan de trabajo) con un cronograma para la aprobación de SC y PROMASA, dentro de los 15 días subsiguientes a la firma del contrato/acuerdo; El primer borrador del Informe sobre la Evaluación, en español e inglés; Un s egundo b orrador en español e i nglés disc utido y a cordado c on el p ersonal de SC el cu al incluirá la s recomendaciones surgidas de los resultados de la evaluación. Recomendaciones de USAID/GT y FANTA. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 123 Informe final de la e valuación y Re sumen del informe, en idioma español e inglés; y un a copia electrónica en inglés y español. Dicho informe final deberá de considerar el plan acción para atender las recomendaciones del equipo e valuador, nuevos e scenarios d e programas de Se guridad A limentaria c on mayor i ncorporación d e estrategias de oportunidades económicas. ANEXOS Anexo 1: Metas, objetivos estratégicos y resultados intermedios del PROMASA. Meta: Reduce Food insecurity in 123 communities in Quiché, Guatemala. Objetivos Estratégicos y Resultados Intermedios SO 1: Increased adoption of key MCHN practices and use of key services IR 1.1 Improved access to MCHN services at the community level IR 1.2 Improved quality of key MCH services IR 1.3 3 Improved knowledge attitudes and skills of key MCHN practices (by caregivers and persons of influence) IR 1.4 Strengthened municipal and community capacities for sustainable MCHN services SO 2: Increased adoption key food production and market practices and use of services IR 2.1 Improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to key food production and market practices IR 2.2 Improved quality of key food production and marketing services IR 2.3 Improved access to key food production and marketing services and supplies IR 2.4 Strengthened enabling environment for management of livelihood systems SO-3: Increased adoption of key natural resource management practices that strengthen community and household preparedness for natural disaster IR 3.1: Improved access to quality natural resource management and emergency preparedness services and supplies IR 3.2: Improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills to manage natural resources as well as to prepare for and respond to natural disasters Anexo 2: Fuentes de información sobre desempeño existentes. • La si guiente e s un a mue stra de los ti pos de d ocumentos de pr ograma de im portancia q ue estar án disponibles para el equipo de evaluación. • Propuestas para los Programas de Título II (MYAP, por sus siglas en inglés). • Informes de resultados anuales. • Informe de línea de base. • Organigrama del PROMASA. • Mapas de sitios y distribución de intervenciones por comunidad. • Materiales de capacitación empleados. • Estrategias de cambios de comportamiento. • DIPs. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 124 • IPPT. • Monitoreos trimestrales de Peso y Talla. • Informes de microfinanzas (GÉNESIS Empresarial). • Informes sobre línea de pobreza. Anexo 3: Formato sugerido para el informe final de la EMT. Índice Acrónimos Resumen Ejecutivo (Objetivos de la evaluación, fechas, miembros de equipo, métodos, resultados principales, conclusiones y recomendaciones estratégicas.) Introducción (Propósito, objetivos, audiencia y una breve descripción de la situación de la inseguridad alimentaría en Guatemala, el programa de Título II y el propósito y objetivos de la evaluación.) Antecedentes (Breve descripción del programa de Título II en Guatemala, sus objetivos estratégicos, resultados intermedios y estrategias y actividades para lograrlos.) Métodos (Descripción de la composición del equipo de evaluación y la estrategia y el plan de ejecución de la evaluación, incluyendo métodos cualitativos utilizados, descripción de los tipos de individuos entrevistados/muestras, métodos de triangulación, reuniones para compartir resultados, etc.) Resultados Por componente: ( Resultados cualitativos, es decir, el “porqué” que hay detrás de los resultados cuantitativos, al relacionarlos con los resultados/metas esperadas y las intervenciones, estrategias y actividades. Como mínimo para: a) salud materno infantil y nutrición; b) producción agrícola; c) comercialización/desarrollo de la microempresa; d) microfinanzas, e) manejo de recursos naturales y f) cumplimiento de la regulación 216 Temas transversales: (Manejo general del proyecto, efectividad de los sistemas de monitoreo y evaluación; Desarrollo de la capacidad; Sustentabilidad; Reducción de riesgos/mejoramiento de la capacidad de hacer frente a posibles situaciones de gravedad). Incluir el tema de Democracia y Gobernabilidad. Integración: (Efectividad de la integración de los componentes del programa para lograr objetivos y resultados) Historias: (Éxitos y consideraciones para mejorar impactos) Lecciones aprendidas (Para mejorar la ejecución y los logros de los resultados deseados) Conclusiones (Resumen general de los éxitos y limitaciones del programa y prospectos para el impacto en la reducción la inseguridad alimentaria en las áreas beneficiarias del PROMASA) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 125 Recomendaciones (Para el programa en general y como sea necesario, para la misión de la USAID en Guatemala) Anexos: Términos de referencia Plan de Actividades/Lista de sitios visitados Personas entrevistadas Guías de entrevista Lista de documentos de referencia Fotografías/historias adicionales Informes individuales (Resultados y sugerencias) Informe Final: Pautas para los informes: 5 copias en inglés 5 copias en español Copias electrónicas de las versiones en inglés y español Estipulación del # de páginas (por ser acordado entre SC y el equipo de evaluación) Estipulación d el form ato ( ejemplo: tam año de l a im prenta, márg enes, et c. Por ser ac ordado entre S C y el equipo de evaluación). FIN TÉRMINOS DE REFERENCIA GENERALES PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 126 Terms of Reference: Lead Consultant (Spanish) CONSULTOR LÍDER Términos de Referencia Para la Evaluación de Medio Término del PROMASA II CORRESPONDIENTE AL PROGRAMA MAYA DE SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA - PROMASA - DEL PROGRAMA MULTIANUAL DE AYUDA ALIMENTARIA - MYAP – GUATEMALA 2007-2011 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 127 ANTECEDENTES DEL PROGRAMA El “Proyecto Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria”, PROMASA II forma parte del Pr ograma PL 480 Titulo II, financiado por la Agencia Internacional para el Desarrollo de los Estados Unidos (en adelante USAID), d enominado “Programa Multi-Anual de Ayuda Al imentaria” MYAP, por sus siglas e n inglés. El nuevo objetivo estr atégico 2006-2 010, de la Oficina de Alimentos para la Paz de la USAID para los programas del PL 480 Título II, e s reducir la inseguridad alimentaria en poblaciones vulnerables, el cual también responde a emergencias y desastres. El programa fue diseñ ado bajo la s estrategia s del Programa de Ali mentos para la Paz (FFP/USAID) correspondiente a los años 2004-2008, y al Plan de Paí s USAID/ Guatemala 2006-2010. El área de implemen tación del consorcio MYAP es principalme nte rural, o urbano–rural. La meta del programa es “Mejor ar la seguridad aliment aria de las familias guatemaltecas del área rural en regiones del altiplano del país” Anteriormente se imple mentó el programa de Título II, MYAP (Development Assistan ce Program), e n el cual Save the Children (SC) t rabajó con el proyecto PROMASA I, en e l departamento de El Quiché, durante los años del 2000 al 2006. PROMASA II/MYAP se lleva a cabo en un per íodo de cinco años, del 2006 al 2011. Las intervenciones del proyecto están dirigidas a las familias de 123 comunidades rurale s ubicadas en seis municipios del Quiché. Las actividades se desarrollan principalmente con cabezas de hogar, hombres y mujeres (embaraz adas o madres) y niños y niñas menores de 36 meses. Población Objetivo PROMASA II Los objetivos del PROMASA son: a. Aumentar la adopción de prácticas clave para la atención materno infantil y uso de los servicios de salud. b. Aumentar l a adopción de prácticas mejoradas de producción de alimentos y mercadeo y uso de los servicios agro pecuarios. c. Aumento en la adopción de prácticas mejoradas para el manejo de recursos naturales que fortalecen la prepa ración de la comunidad y los h ogares para e nfrentarse a un PVO De partamento Municipios Población familias Chajul 1,240 Cotzal 1,214 Nebaj 2,602 Sacapulas 2,042 Cunén 1,632 Save the Children Quiché Uspantán 1,521 Población meta 10,250 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 128 desastre natural. El programa se basa en una tabla aprobada de indicadores de desempeño para el monitoreo de las inter venciones, Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT), la cual cuent a con 11 indicadores de impacto, con sus respectivas metas por año y una meta final para el año 11, basada en el valor de la Línea de Base y el cambio esperado para la Línea Final. La efectividad del proyecto se medirá por medio del cumplimiento de los indicadores, mismos que se clasifican dentro de las categorías de impacto o efecto. Los indicadores están organizados responden a los objetivos estratégicos mencionados. OBJETIVO DE LA EVALUACIÓN El propósito de la Eval uación de Medio Término es (i) evaluar hasta qué punto SC h a alcanzado los objetivos del Programa de Seguridad Alimentaria en Guatemala, de acuerdo a lo establecido en el M YAP y (ii) determinar las oportunidades que existen para mejorar la implementación de las futuras actividades del MYAP de SC en Guatema la. La evaluación es una oportunidad para q ue SC y el donante pu edan determinar conjuntamente los logros del MYAP, comparándolos con los resultados de los planes formulados originalmente. Se espera que el equipo a cargo de la evaluación trab aje conjunt amente con SC a nivel local y el personal del socio imple mentador COTONEB, p ara identificar los problemas y rest ricciones, y así esta blecer reco mendaciones que puedan ponerse en práctica para mejorar la implementación del programa actual. La evaluación permitirá: Analizar, el diseño, estructura y estrategias de implementación del PROMASA con relación a las actividades y metas propuestas en el mismo.; Determinar cuáles son las oportunidades y alternativas para producir re sultados que causen un impacto significativo, a largo plazo, en la seguridad alimentaria de las familias cubierta s por el programa; Recomendar los ajuste s necesarios al diseño, estructura y mecanismos de implementación que sean factibles de ser incorporados al programa en el tiempo de vid a restante del mismo. Revisar las acciones establecidas e n el Exa men Ambiental Inicial, IEE especialme nte en la matriz que contiene el Estatus de las Medidas de Mitigación y su Monitoreo. Determinar cuáles condiciones previstas en el PROMASA, siguen vigentes de acuerdo a los cambios so cioeconómicos y climáticos acaec idos durante el año 200 9, para evaluar los supuestos claves y riesgos inclu idos en la pro puesta del programa y su impacto en la su implementación. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL TRABAJO Metas y resultados del PROMASA. El Líder a cargo de la evaluación r evisará los indicadores, metas y re sultados de l MYAP, elaborará un resumen de los resultados, los logros o limitantes del Programa y luego PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 129 analizará las asignaciones de los recursos, así como las situaciones en las que los logros se hayan desviado significativamente de las metas originales, procurando determinar las causas para ello. Con respect o al PROMASA, el Líder del equipo a cargo de la evaluación responderá las siguientes preguntas que se relacionan con los indicadores, las metas y los resultados. ¿Cuáles han sido los principales avances del PROMASA en la implement ación de mecanismos y/o estrategias para mejorar la seguridad alimentaria de los hogares durante el período de implement ación? ¿Cuáles han sido las principales limitantes para lograr la seguridad alimentaria en los hogar es? ¿Qué a justes podrían realizarse al progra ma actual para superar dichas limitantes? ¿Son adecuados los indicadores del sistema de monitoreo para monitorear el avance, o deben hacerse algunas adaptaciones? ¿Hasta qué punto la s actividade s bajo cada objetivo estratégico, son su ficientes para alcanzar la seguridad alimentaria de los hogares cubiertos por el programa? ¿Las actividades de distribución de alimentos t anto de alimentos por trabajo y como las de Salud Materno-Infantil, están alcanzando a la población objetivo en forma correcta? Enfoques del Programa y modificaciones sugeridas. El Líder a c argo de la e valuación revisará los enfoques, las actividades y los result ados en las siguient es áreas programáticas: salud y nutrición materno-infantil; dem ocracia y gobernabilidad; medios de vida; r ecursos nat urales y manejo de r iesgo y emergencias. Basándose en esta revisión, e l Líder del Equipo presentará las recomendaciones oportunas para el mejoramiento en la implementación del programa. RESPONSABILIDADES ESPECÍFICAS El líder del equipo será la persona responsable de la Evaluación Intermedia ante la oficina de país de Save the Children. El Líder será el respon sable de pr esentar una propuesta técnica-metodológica; in cluyendo los instrumentos a utilizar y el cronograma a seguir; de acuerdo a los TDRs enviados por SC; para el desarrollo de la Evaluación de Medio Término del PROMASA El Líder deberá coordinar con otros miembros del equipo, el seguimiento y aplicación de los Términos de referencia generales y específicos de cada evaluador. El Líder tendrá la responsabilidad d e integrar y preparar los informes borrador y fi nal de l a consultoría. Asimismo, será el en cargado de preparar el informe específico del componente de Medios de Vida en sus resu ltados de Agricultura y Comercialización y el de Recursos Naturales y Preparación de Emergencias/Manejo de Riesgos. El Líder deberá de preparar un primer borrador del informe, para compartir con el equipo de PROMASA quienes r evisarán la s recomen daciones y conclusion es para ga rantizar la integridad y coherencia del informe con la situación actual del programa. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 130 El Líder incorporará las recomenda ciones del equipo de PROMASA en un segundo borrador del informe, el cual será compartido con U SAID/GT y FANTA, las recomendaciones proporcionadas por estas entidade s, deberán de ser toma das en cuenta por el Líder para la elaboración del Informe Final. Como parte del Informe de la EMT, deberá incluir un Plan de Acción para atender las recomendaciones del equipo evaluador. Dicho plan deb erá incluir la presenta ción de estrategias a prepararse durante el tiempo d e vida que le queda al MYAP, l as cuale s tendrían qu e tener rela ción con pr ogramas de Seguridad Alimentaria más vinculados al desarrollo, con énfasis en el área de oportunidades económicas. El Líder coordinará todas las actividades de evaluación relacionadas a Fortalecimiento de capacidades, fortalecimiento de so cios, sostenibilidad y si stema de monitoreo y evaluación, de manera que se alcancen todos los objetivos de evaluación. Fortalecimiento de capacidades ¿Son los materiales y metodologías de capacitación apropiados para los particip antes? Si fuera necesario, ¿como se podrían mejorar los materiales para lograr los objetivos? ¿El programa está desarrollando efectivamente las capa cidades de los líderes? ¿Cómo se podría mejorar el desarrollo de capacidades de los líderes? Fortalecimiento de socios ¿El programa está desarrollando las capacidades de socios (counterparts y partners)? Si no, ¿cómo se podría modificar las estrategias para mejorar el fortalecimiento de capacidad? ¿Qué capacidades necesita el socio mejorar para implementar el PROMASA?, ¿Exi ste una estrategia p ara la mejo ra de dichas capacidad es?, ¿Cuáles son los e sfuerzos adicionale s que hay que tomar? Sostenibilidad ¿Qué se podría hacer para mejorar la sostenibilidad de los resultados intermedios? ¿Cuáles so n las previsiones organ izativas par a buscar la continuidad de las acciones del programa? ¿Cómo el programa fortalece o au menta la capacidad de socios locales para con tinuar las actividades del programa? ¿Qué vinculación exist e entre los com ponentes implementados en el PROMASA, que faciliten la sostenibilidad de las acciones en el futuro?, ¿Cómo se fortalecerían? Sistemas de monitoreo ¿Está usando PROMASA el siste ma de M&E para lograr una retroalimentación constructiva PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 131 para el diseño e implementación de los programas? ¿Cuáles indicadores del PROMASA deben revisarse de acuerdo a la meta y objetivos del programa, para readecuarlos al final del programa? ¿El personal de la unidad de M&E ha sido capacita do adecuadamente? ¿Que otra capacitación es necesaria? ¿Cuáles son los pasos inmediatos que el programa pue da tomar para mejorar las debilidades? PRODUCTOS Y CRONOGRAMA ENGLISH Activity Product Estimated Date Consultant Days Location Presentation of technical, methodological and financial proposal for evaluation Proposal presented March 19, 2010 No payment for proposal Hawaii Norge Participatory planning Instruments developed and validated Logistics organized April 9‐12, 2010. 3 Guatemala City Field work Information collected April 13‐22, 2010. 8 Quiché Analysis and preparation of first draft of the report Data tabulated First draft of the report prepared April 23‐May 5, 2010. 9 Guatemala City Presentation of results to SC Workshop to present results First draft of report reviewed by SC Incorporate SC comments into first draft of report Second draft of report prepared May 6‐10, 2010. 3 Guatemala City FANTA review of second draft of report Second draft of report reviewed by USAID/GT and FANTA May 10‐14, 2010. 1 Guatemala City PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 132 Activity Product Estimated Date Consultant Days Location Preparation of final report Incorporate USAID/GT and FANTA comments into second draft of report Final report submitted (English and Spanish) May 17‐20, 2010. 4 Hawaii Norge Guate TOTAL     28 days   SPANISH Actividad Producto Fecha Estimada Días Consultor Lugar de Trabajo Presentación propuesta Técnica‐Metodológica y Financiera para la EMT Propuesta presentada. 19 Marzo 2010 No se paga por la Propuesta Hawaii Norge Planificación participativa. Instrumentos desarrollados y validados. Logística organizada. 9 12 Abril 2010 3 Ciudad Guatemala Trabajo de campo. Información recolectada. 13 22 Abril 2010 8 Quiché Análisis y Elaboración Informe Borrador. Datos tabulados. Primer Borrador del Informe elaborado. 23 Abril 5 Mayo 2010 9 Ciudad Guatemala Presentación de resultados para SC. Taller de presentación resultados. Primer Borrador del Informe revisado por SC. Actualización Primer Borrador del Informe con aportes de SC. Segundo Borrador del Informe elaborado. 6 10 Mayo 2010 3 Ciudad Guatemala Revisión por FANTA del Primer Borrador del Informe. Segundo Borrador del Informe revisado por USAID/GT y FANTA. 10 al 14 Mayo 2010 1 Ciudad Guatemala Elaboración Informe Final. Actualización Segundo Borrador del Informe con 17 al 20 Mayo 2010 4 Hawaii Norge PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 133 Actividad Producto Fecha Estimada Días Consultor Lugar de Trabajo aportes de USAID/GT y FANTA. Informe Final Entregado (Ingles y Español). Guate TOTAL 28 dias   Terms of Reference: Maternal Child Health and Governance Specialist The following is excerpted from the SCF‐Guatemala Maternal Child Health Consultant and Governance TOR. Points common to all of the TORs may be found in the General TOR at the beginning of this section. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL TRABAJO Metas y resultados del PROMASA El/La Consultor/a Nacio nal a cargo de la evaluación de lo s Componentes Salud Materna e Infantil y Democracia y Gobernab ilidad, revisará los indi cadores, metas y resultados del MYAP específicamente para dichos componentes, elaborar á un resumen de los re sultados, los logros o limitantes d el Programa y luego analizará la s asignaciones de los recu rsos, así como las situaciones e n las que los logros se hayan desviado significativamente de las metas originales, procurando determinar las causas para ello. Enfoques del Programa y modificaciones sugeridas. El/La Consultor/a a ca rgo de la evaluación revisará los enfoques, las activida des y los resultados en las sig uientes áre as programáticas: sa lud y nutrición materno -infantil y democracia y gobernabilidad Basándose en est a revisión, El/La Consultor/a prese ntará las recomendaciones oportunas para el mejoramiento en la implementación del programa. RESPONSABILIDADES ESPECÍFICAS El/La consultor/a nacional coordinar á todas las actividades de evaluación que se relacionen con los componentes Salud Materna e Infantil, Democracia y Gobernabilidad, de manera que se alcancen todos los objetivos de evaluación, incluyendo Intervenciones de salud y nutrición materno-infantil, Cambio de comportamiento, monitoreo y evaluación de proyectos. Intervenciones de salud y nutrición materno-infantil Con respecto a las inter venciones en el campo de la sa lud y la nutrició n materno-infantil, el equipo a cargo de la evaluación responderá las siguientes preguntas: ¿Qué mecanismos de coordinación ha establecido el PROMASA con los servicios de salu d pública en las comunidades? ¿Cuál ha sido el nivel de cobertura de la intervención de salud y nutrición en la los grupos más vulnerables (menores de 3 años, madres lactante s y mujeres embarazadas? ¿Seria posible mejorarlo? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 134 ¿El personal técnico de campo y personal volu ntario (madres líderes) han sido ca pacitados para desarr ollar acon sejar a lo s beneficiarios sobre e l uso apropia do y seguro de los alimentos donados, incluyendo el uso de alimentos locales cuando es necesario? ¿El personal técnico de campo y personal voluntario (madres líderes) h a sido capacitado en los temas clave de salu d y nutrición materno i nfantil, incluidos en la propuesta original del proyecto? Si no es así, porque no se realizó? ¿El personal técnico de campo y personal voluntario (madres líderes) h a sido capacitado en las técnicas necesarias para ser efectivos en sus actividad es de campo (ej: educa ción de adultos, trabajo comunitario, enfoque de género, etc) ¿Son apropiados los materiales ed ucativos qu e se relacio nan con las prácticas clave de salud y nutrición, promovidas por el proyecto (incluyendo los materiales usados en cambio de comportamientos alcanzable, ¿Cual es la calidad de las actividades de consejería ind ividual y grupal?¿Las personas realizándolas, están utilizando todo s los pasos de la consejería y ne gociación? ¿Cuáles pasos les dificulta más? ¿Por qué? ¿Cómo se podría mejorarlas? ¿Qué problemas relevantes se p resentan con la participación de l personal voluntario (madres líderes?, ¿Qué soluciones se sugieren para los problemas identificados? ¿Están siendo realizadas reuniones con LOS LÍDERES comunitarios y otros miembros, para la discusió n, planifica ción y resolución de problemas de salud, nutrición y seguridad alimentaría? ¿Son útiles y efectivas?, ¿Cómo pueden hacerse más efectivas? ¿Funciona un sistema de referencia y contra-referencia para niños con crecimiento insatisfactorio o problemas recurrent es de sa lud? Si / no, ¿por qué? ¿ Qué se pod ría hacer para mejorar el sistema? ¿Existe una proporción adecuada de técnicos de campo y madres líderes por ben eficiarios y una frecuencia de cont acto suficie nte para alcanzar el tip o de cambio de compo rtamiento deseado? Cambio de comportamiento ¿Cómo obtiene la información sobre prácticas y comportamientos los beneficiarios? ¿Cuáles son los canales de información y que personas la brindan? ¿Cuál fue el proceso ut ilizado para desarrollar, validar y aplicar lo s materiales de cambio de comportamiento? ¿Cuáles son las practicas que los beneficiarios han ten ido más inclin ación de adoptar y por que? ¿Qué factores han limitado el cambio de comportamient o para la adopción d e buenas prácticas? ¿Por qué? ¿Son las e strategias u tilizadas po r el progra ma adecuadas para a lcanzar cambios en comportamiento deseados? Intervenciones de fortalecimiento de democracia y gobernabilidad Con respecto de las intervenciones de fortalecimiento democrático y municipal, el equipo a PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 135 cargo de la evaluación responderá a las siguientes preguntas: ¿Qué tipo de apoyo brinda PROMASA pa ra la integr ación y funcionamiento de los COCODES? ¿En qué for ma toma en cuenta PROMASA los planes municipales para llevar a cabo sus actividades? ¿Qué actividades de participación ciudadana apoya PROMASA a nivel comunitario? ¿Qué tipo de activida des de la s Oficinas Municipales de Planificación (OMP) apoya PROMASA? ¿Los alcaldes conocen las actividades de PROMASA? ¿Las apoyan? ¿Ha fomen tado PROMASA la i mplementación de las COSANES? Al interior de los COCODES de las comunidades objetivo. PRODUCTOS Y CRONOGRAMA Actividad Producto Fecha Estimada Días Consultor Lugar de Trabajo Presentación propuesta Técnica‐Metodológica y Financiera para la EMT Propuesta presentada. 15 Marzo‐2010 No se paga por la Propuesta Ciudad Guatemala Planificación participativa. Instrumentos desarrollados y validados. Logística organizada. 24 al 26 Marzo‐2010. 3 Ciudad Guatemala Trabajo de campo. Información recolectada. 05 al 12 Abril‐2010. 6 Quiché Análisis y Elaboración Informe Borrador. Datos tabulados. Primer Borrador del Informe elaborado. 13 al 26 Abril‐2010. 10 Ciudad Guatemala Presentación de resultados para SC. Taller de presentación resultados. Primer Borrador del Informe revisado por SC. Actualización Primer Borrador del Informe con aportes de SC. Segundo Borrador del Informe elaborado. 27 al 30 Abril‐2010. 3 Ciudad Guatemala Revisión por FANTA del Primer Borrador del Informe. Segundo Borrador del Informe revisado por USAID/GT y FANTA. 03 al 07 Mayo‐2010. 1 Ciudad Guatemala Elaboración Informe Final. Actualización Segundo Borrador del Informe con aportes de USAID/GT y FANTA. Informe Final Entregado (Ingles y Español). 10 al 14 Mayo‐2010. 5 Ciudad Guatemala TOTAL 28   Período del contrato: PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 136 Fecha de Inicio: 24 de marzo de 2010 Fecha de Finalización: 14 de mayo de 2010 Total de días por consultor 28 días Terms of Reference: Livelihood Security Specialist From the SCF‐Guatemala Livelihood Security Consultant TOR. For points common to all of the TORs, please see the General TOR at the beginning of this section. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL TRABAJO Metas y resultados del PROMASA El/La Consultor/a Inter nacional ser á el respon sable de evaluar los dif erentes resultados y actividades que se vienen impleme ntando en el programa, en los componentes Agricultura, Comercialización, Recursos Natu rales y Preparación para Emergencias, re visará lo s indicadores, metas y resultados d el MYAP e specíficamente para dichos componentes, elaborará un resumen de los resultados, los lo gros o fallas del Programa y luego analizará las asignaciones de los recursos, a sí como las situacione s en las que los logros se hayan desviado significativamente de las metas originales, procur ando determinar las ca usas para ello. Enfoques del Programa y modificaciones sugeridas. El/La Consultor/a a ca rgo de la evaluación revisará los enfoques, las activida des y los resultados en las siguiente s áreas programáticas: Agricultura, Comercialización , Microfinanzas, Recursos Naturales y Preparación a Emergencias. Basándose en esta revisión, El/La Consultor/a presentará las reco mendaciones oportunas para el mej oramiento en la implementación del programa. RESPONSABILIDADES ESPECÍFICAS El/La consultor/a inter nacional co ordinará to das las a ctividades de evaluación que s e relacionen con los co mponentes Agricultura, Comercialización, Microfinanzas, Recursos Naturales y Preparación a Emergencias, d e manera que se alcancen todos los obje tivos de evaluación. Agricultura Con respecto de las intervenciones en el manejo de los recursos agrícolas, el equipo a cargo de la evaluación responderá a las siguientes preguntas: ¿Proporciona el PROMASA un conjunto int egrado de intervenciones para co ntribuir a mejorar la inseguridad alimentaria? Si no lo hace, ¿Cómo se puede mejorar? ¿Cómo participan los agricultores en las actividades agrícolas promovidas en el PROMASA? ¿Hasta qué punto han “hecho su yas” estas actividades los hogares y las comunidades? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 137 ¿Están participando las mujeres en este proceso? ¿Son las tecnologías y practicas promovida s idóneas para un programa de Seguridad Alimentaria como el PROMASA? ¿De que manera? ¿Es el uso de áreas demostrativas útil/repl icable de acuerdo con las condiciones r eales y necesidades de los agricultores? ¿Fomenta PROMASA las capacidades en los agricultores a fin de que estos tengan un mejor acceso a los mercados? Mercadeo y comercialización Con respecto al mercadeo y comercialización, el equipo a cargo de la evaluación responderá a las siguientes preguntas. ¿Qué estrategias impulsa el PROMASA para mejorar el encadenamiento productivo? ¿Existen grupos organizados vincu lados a la s iniciat ivas de mercadeo formal? En caso afirmativo, ¿les permitirá a funcionar cuando el proyecto haya terminado? En términos de alianzas y vínculos con mercados, ¿Qué grupos organizados de productores han participado en estas alianzas o vínculos con mercados? ¿Cuáles son las oport unidades de crecimiento para este indicador? ¿Tienen los grupos organizados de productores conocimie nto adecuados para elaboración de costos de producción? Servicios Micro-financieros ¿El Progra ma apo ya a grupos comunitarios organizados por me dio de servicios d e microfinanzas? ¿Cómo lo hace? ¿Existen dificultades en alcanzar algunas comunidades o ár eas para proporcionar servicios de microfinanzas? ¿Cómo puede mejorarse la estrate gia de micro-finanzas a fin de tener mayor i mpacto en la seguridad alimentaría del hogar? Manejo de recursos naturales ¿Las actividades de manejo recursos natur ales promovidas por el PROMASA son las adecuadas para un programa de seguridad alimentaria? Si no ¿Cómo mejorarlas? ¿Existen beneficios dir ectos en la comunidad proveniente de la implementación de las siguientes actividades como a) protección de fuentes de agua, b) conservación de suelos, c) producción de plantas en viveros? Mantenimiento de caminos rurales PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 138 ¿Qué criterios se utilizan para seleccionar los caminos rurales a rehabilitar? ¿Participa l a comunidad en la re habilitación de los caminos? ¿En que forma? ¿Cómo PROMASA apoya la participación comunitaria? PRODUCTOS Y CRONOGRAMA Actividad Producto Fecha Estimada Días Consultor Lugar de Trabajo Presentación propuesta Técnica‐Metodológica y Financiera para la EMT Propuesta presentada. 15 Marzo‐2010 No se paga por la Propuesta Ciudad Guatemala Planificación participativa. Instrumentos desarrollados y validados. Logística organizada. 24 al 26 Marzo‐2010. 3 USA Trabajo de campo. Información recolectada. Datos tabulados 05 al 12 Abril‐2010. 6 Quiché Análisis y Elaboración Informe Borrador. Datos tabulados. Primer Borrador del Informe elaborado. 13 al 23 Abril‐2010. 7 Ciudad Guatemala TOTAL 16   Período del servicio prestado Fecha de Inicio: 24 de marzo de 2010 Fecha de Finalización: 23 de abril de 2010. Total de días por consultor 13 días PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 139 18.3 Consultant CVs Lead Consultant CV Curriculum Vitae Summary Peter Heffron has over 30 years experience in international program and project management, including 10 years as a management consultant and trainer. From 1979 to 1999, he held positions with CARE‐International, from field representative to country director, in 8 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He established the Best Practice Planning management consulting firm in Hawaii, USA, in 2000. Best Practice Planning specializes in international strategic and program planning, implementation, and assessment. Since 2000, as the Best Practice Planning Principal, Peter Heffron has conducted consultancies in over 15 countries. Mr. Heffron holds a Masters Degree in Social Ecology from Goddard College in the USA and has received training in strategic planning, green planning, the Balanced Scorecard, general and project management, system dynamics, and related areas. He is an Adjunct Professor with the Ecole Superieure Management et Commerce (ESC Graduate School of Management) in Lille, France; has served on the Board of Directors of Ecology Action, a non‐ governmental organization promoting food security; and holds membership in the Emergy Society (www.emergysociety.com), and the Project Management Institute (www.pmi.org). He was a founding member of PMI’s International Development Specific Interest Group, conducted a comprehensive review of the Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan for the Hawaii State Legislature, and has made presentations on international development management to ESC faculty and student audiences in Lille, France. Mr. Heffron has given presentations and provided consultancy services that incorporate international and local standards, system dynamics, the Balanced Scorecard, lessons learned, risk, Total Quality Management, and best practices to facilitate holistic problem analysis and better planning, program and project management. He has participated in numerous organizational assessments and has designed and led others, including in international program and project‐based organizations with over 100 employees in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Mr. Heffron has successfully used a flexible‐but‐methodical, participatory approach to organizational assessments that consistently results in a clear understanding of an organization’s strengths, areas where improvements can be made, buy‐in by all levels of staff to the PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 140 analysis process, and, employing project management precepts and methods, a strategy to implement agreed assessment recommendations in a scheduled, measurable manner. ________________________ QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY Over 20 years experience facilitating participatory strategic planning and design, management, monitoring and evaluation of rural and urban emergency relief and development programs and projects in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Stakeholder participation, institutional capacity building and partnering, sustainability, conflict resolution/problem-solving, and gender equity have been key elements of this development approach. Country-office and sub-office management responsibilities have included program coordination, human resources, administration, donor and counterpart relations, budgeting, and finances. Adjunct Professor of Program & Project Management, presenter and simulation exercise facilitator at the Lille, France Graduate School of Management’s annual International Workshop in Strategy, Program, and Project Management (2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009). PhD Candidate Supervisor at the Lille, France Graduate School of Management. The PhD candidate—from Togo, West Africa—is focusing her research on the causes of Sub-Saharan Africa’s development challenges and resulting policy lessons learned. Estimated thesis completion: August 2010. Presentations on social, environmental, economic, sustainability, and planning topics with Q&A encouraged—to audiences/participants in Latin America, North America, Africa, and Asia. Examples: (1) The Relationship Between Program and Project Management Standards and Organizational and Human Resource Development, presented at the ESC Graduate School of Management, and (2) Implementing Transparency Initiatives: Lessons Learned and Best Practices, presented at the International Leadership Conference in Bahrain. BA in social sciences and education, MA in social ecology. Fluent in English and highly proficient in Spanish. Capable in computer programs Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Project, and STELLA (system dynamics). Group facilitation, problem-solving, proposal and report writing skills. Team player. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY International Management Consultant and Trainer International development consulting focuses on providing technical assistance to governmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as private sector enterprises to improve capabilities in participatory strategic planning, program and project design, management, working in partnership with other organizations, and monitoring and evaluation. Emphasis is on utilizing lessons learned and best practices, and in cooperative efforts that result in measurable, cost-effective impact. (Between consulting assignments was engaged as a Hawaii State (USA)-certified substitute teacher.) NovoTech and Best Practice Planning November 2008—October 2009 Manama, Bahrain PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 141 Best Practice Planning July 1999—October 2008 Hilo, Hawai‘i, USA 2008-2009 • Bahrain: NovoTech (Strategic Planning, Project Management Training) 2007-2008 • Global: The Forgiveness Project/UK (Conflict Resolution) 2007 • Madagascar: NGO Project Design (Emergency Drought Relief) 2006 • Nepal: NGO Strategic Planning (Civil War) • Pakistan: NGO Project Design (Earthquake Response) • Sierra Leone: NGO Consortium Project Design/USAID Initial Environmental Examination(IEE) preparation (Post-Civil War) 2005 • Indonesia/Banda Aceh: NGO Project Design (Tsunami Response) • West Bank: NGO Project Design (Livelihood Security Crisis) - CARE • Zimbabwe: NGO Consortium Program Design (Livelihood Security & AIDS Crises) – CRS, CARE, SCF, etc 2002 • Uganda: NGO Project Design (Food Security Crisis) • Bangladesh: NGO Consortium (Food Security Program Evaluation) • Rwanda: NGOs and Partner Organizations (Partnership Workshop and Report) • Eritrea: NGOs and Partner Organizations (Partnership Workshop and Report) 2001 • Canada: Prepare Project Design Manual for NGO – CARE-Canada • Southern Sudan and Somalia: NGO Partnerships/Prepared Papers “Partnering in Emergencies” and “Guidelines for Partnering in Emergencies” PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 142 • Zambia: UN Study/Prepared Report: “Food Security, HIV-AIDS, and Food Aid in Zambia.” 2000 • Norway: Participated in System Dynamics Society Conference: ‘Sustainability in the Third Millennium’. Prepared recommendations and guidelines for use of systems tools by NGOs. • Cuba: Facilitated ‘Results-Based Management’ (project design) workshop and reviewed agriculture project in Santa Clara, Cuba. • USA: Represented CARE at ‘Soil, Food, and People’ conference in California, USA. Prepared conference report for CARE. 1999 • Thailand: Facilitated Project Design Workshop for NGOs. CARE-International 1979—1999 (Primarily CARE country office and program/project management in rural and peri￾urban areas. Programs focused on livelihood security, food security, HIV-AIDS, water and sanitation, agroforestry, disaster mitigation, gender equity; and participatory program planning, implementation, and monitoring.) Country Assignments: 1993—1999 Honduras 1991—1993 Guatemala 1989—1991 Uganda 1987—1989 Panama 1985—1987 Nepal 1982—1985 Dominican Republic 1981—1982 Somalia 1979—1981 Bangladesh VOLUNTEER AND OTHER WORK 1999 - PRESENT • In December 2008 and January 2009 gave 3 presentations with Q&A on environmental sustainability to Connections Charter School (Hilo, Hawaii) ‘Going Global’ students. In October—November 2007, conducted in-depth review of “Hawai‘i 2050 Issue Book” and draft “Hawai‘i 2050 Sustainability Plan” (prepared by Hawai‘i State Government). Participated in International Development Project Management workshops, including preparing sessions focused on different scenarios at the Institut Superior de Gestion Industrielle (Lille, France Graduate School of Management) in Lille, France, in 2008, 2007, 2005, and 2004. Active as a member of the Hilo, Hawai‘i Watershed Advisory Group Steering Committee; PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 143 engaged with the Project Management Institute (PMI) International Development Specific Interest Group (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA), in creating a ‘International Development Project Management Guide’ for project managers and other stakeholders (2000—2005). • Taught short-term TEFL modules to Japanese secondary school students (Hawaii) and Indian nationals (Bahrain) • Team Coordinator, American Friends Service Committee/Mexico (two summers) • International Volunteer Services Appropriate Technology Advisor/ Bangladesh; Peace Corps, Rural Youth Development/Venezuela; VISTA Teaching English as a Second Language/East Dallas, Texas, USA; Big Brother Volunteer/Barre, Vermont, USA. EDUCATION MA—Social Ecology Goddard College, Plainfield, Vermont, USA (Social Ecology integrates the study of human and natural ecosystems.) BA—Social Sciences/English and Education Goddard College, Plainfield, Vermont, USA Secondary School Teaching Certificate (Social Studies and English, Vermont) Soccer team SPECIALIZED TRAINING Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) Certification (Bridge Linguatec, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2009); Substitute Teacher Certification Course (Hilo, Hawai‘i, USA 2003); MicroPlanner project management software (Micro Planning International, Denver, 1999), Project Management (Project Management Institute, Atlanta 1999), Coaching (Honduras, 1998), Senior Management (Guatemala 1997), Systems Thinking (High Performance Systems, Boston, 1997), Total Quality Management (Cargill, Honduras, 1996), Financial Management, (Manila, 1993), Project Design (Guatemala), Aquaculture (Auburn University, Alabama), Agroforestry Extension (Dominican Republic), and Disaster Response (Ethiopia). OTHER INTERESTS AND ACTIVITIES • Ecology; Systems Analysis; Global, Regional and Local Trends; First Aid Certificate, Lifesaving Certificate, Scuba Diving Certificate; Sailing, Chess, Computer Software, Tennis, Soccer, Volleyball, Softball, Backpacking, Mountain Biking, Running. • Member, Board of Directors, Ecology Action (a non-profit organization promoting sustainable urban and rural mini-farming) -October 2000—June 2004 (www.growbiointensive.org) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 144 • Member, Project Management Institute (PMI) - January 2000—December 2004; March 2009—March 2010 (www.pmi.org) • Charter Member, PMI International Development Specific Interest Group - February 2001—December 2004; March 2009—March 2010 • Emergy Society Member – January 2008—December 2010 (www.emergysociety.org) ____________________ PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 145 Maternal Child Health and Governance Consultant CV Sandra Saenz de Tejada 3 avenida 35‐27 zona 12 Ciudad de Guatemala Teléfono: 502‐2476‐7195; celular: 5308‐3819 E‐mail: ssaenzdetejada@gmail.com Educación Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala Licenciatura en arqueología 1986 University of Arizona M. A. Anthropology 1988 University of Arizona Ph. D. Candidacy in Anthropology (pendiente de tesis de graduación) Experiencia profesional Consultora en salud y etnografía Desarrollo infantil tempra no. Revisión conceptual y de experi encias en Guatemala. Ba n Interamericano (agosto – octubre 2009). Consecuencias de l a mu erte m aterna. Estudio de ca sos en Al ta Vera paz. Health Pol Initiative, Guatemala (abril – julio 2009). Migración y cri sis: ca mbios recientes en Hu ehuetenango, G uatemala. B anco Mu nd Washington (abril – julio 2009). Prácticas de alimenta ción infantil: ela boración de d ocumento marco. Mini sterio d e Sa l Pública y Asistencia Social, Guatemala (marzo - sesptiembre 2009). Evaluación del Programa de Micronutrientes. OPS Guatemala (enero- marzo 2009). Facilitadora principal. Taller para l a evaluación del si stema nacional de monitoreo evaluación de VIH e n G uatemala. F ondo Global/Visión M undial Guate mala (octubre noviembre 2008). Investigación formativa alimentación complementaria para el Proyecto Maya de Segurid Alimentaria. Save the Children USA/Guatemala (enero - abril 2008) Evaluación de medio término de los PDA Diamantes y AASDIMA, San Marc os s ob programas de seguridad alimentaria. Visión Mundial Guatemala (julio - septiembre 2007) Estudio de f actibilidad de microseguros a clientas de mi crocréditos. FINCA I nternacion Honduras (mayo y junio 2007) Línea d e ba se d e p roductores agrícolas e n Comayagua y L a Paz, Hond uras. F HIA/IM PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 146 CRISP(abril 2007) Elaboración del documento “Proyecto macro para proyectos en seguridad alimentaria a ni del hogar”. PRESANCA: Comunidad Europea/INCAP (febrero-marzo 2007). Elaboración del documento “Lecciones aprendidas y buenas prácticas” del Proyecto Ma de Seguridad Alimentaria. Save the Children US-Guatemala (septiembre-octubre 2006). Estudio de la condición de vulnerabilidad de mujeres y adolescent es ante viole ncia con las muj eres y la explotación sexu al. UNI FEM y Visión M undial Guatemal a (julio-agos 2006). Evaluación social. Proye cto de calid ad educativa y ampliaci ón de la educación secundar Asistencial Técnica del Banco Mundial al Ministerio de Educación (enero – junio 2006) Evaluación rápida de seguridad alim entaria e n tres dep artamentos de O riente. Vis i Mundial Guatemala (octubre-noviembre 2005) Elaboración del documento “Racismo y acceso a los servici os básicos”. Documento técn para la Vicepresidencia de la República (agosto a septiembre, 2005). Elaboración del documento “Salud y sa neamiento: acceso y diversida d social”. Documen técnicos para el Informe de Desarrollo Humano 2005. PNUD, Guatemala (abril – julio 2005 Investigadora prin cipal. Tran sferencias intergeneracionales e n cuatro comunid ad guatemaltecas. International Food Policy Institute y Estudio 1360 (septiembre 2004 - mar 2005). Reconstrucción histó rica de dos al deas de Santiag o Sacatep équez. FAO/INCAP (juni o julio 2004) Evaluación fi nal d el p royecto "El papel de l a m ujer rural e n la consolidación de democracia". BID/Guatemala y Asocaciòn Mujer Vamos Adelante. (marzo - mayo 2004) esarrollo de l a metodolo gía de trabaj o para el Reencuentro Naci onal. Proye cto Identid a PNUD Guatemala/ Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes (noviembre – diciembre 2003). Asesora técnica. Community Abortion Morbidity Survey, Guatem ala. The Allan Guttmach Institute, NY (septiembre 2003 a juntio 2004 Evaluación del proyecto “Construcción de capacidades en las mujeres en el PDA ADE Jutiapa”. Visión Mundial Guatemala (agosto – septiembre 2003). Salud y seg uridad alime ntaria e n tre s alde as d e San Miguel Ixtahuacán, San Marc o Project Concern International/ Montana Exploradora (marzo 2003). Contaminación intradomi ciliaria po r h umo e n Sa n Lorenzo y Comitancillo, San Ma rco Universidad de California-Berkeley (noviembre 2002). Estudio cualitativo para el Proyecto Ag ua para el Mundo. The Joh ns Hop kins Univer s (septiembre – octubre 2002). Coordinadora de equipo. Línea basa l para el proyecto Identi dad na cional desde diversidad cultural y la cultura de la paz. PNUD/ Mini sterio de Cultura y Deportes (mayo julio 2002). Reconstrucción histórica de cuatro aldeas de Oriente. INCAP/IFPRI/ Estudio 1360 (febrero abril 2002) Evaluación sobre el uso de material de población. The Johns Hopkins University Populati Information Program (noviembre- diciembre 2001). Evaluación final del pro grama "El pa pel de la mujer ru ral en la consolid ación de democracia". BID/Guatemala (septiembre-octubre 2001). PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 147 Coordinadora del equip o. Estudio sob re segu ridad alimentari a en cu atro m unicipios Chinandega, Nicaragua. Save the Children USA (julio-agosto 2001) Elaboración de la línea b asal d el proy ecto “P articipación ciu dadana y fortale cimiento lideresas”. Asociación Mujer Vamos Adelante/BID (octubre - noviembre 2000). Preferencias de la pobla ción d el altiplano e n rel ación a la ració n don ada (noviem b diciembre 99). CARE, Guatemala. Mediciones sobre la utilización del tiempo y cont aminación in tradomiciliaria po r hum (octubre – noviembre 99). SGOMSEC/East-West Center, Honolulu. Consumo de maíz conta minado por fumonisinas en Santa M aría de Jesús: Ensa y domésticos (abril – octubre 99). CONCYT/INCAP. Percepción matern a de enferm edades diarreicas y re spiratorias e n el área mam Quetzaltenango (octubre – diciembre 98). OMS/Emory University Caracterización de los agricultores de la Unidad de Riego de Sansirisay, Sanarate ( junio julio 98). CONCYT/Facultad de Agronomía, USAC. Diseño de la fase cualitativa del si stema de monitoreo del PSAN/ CARE (febrero-mayo 9 INCAP/Pew/CARE. Aceptabilidad de las inmu nizaciones en dos mu nicipios de Escuintla (julio-septiembre 9 INCAP/USAID/Guatemala. Estudio cualitativo sobre prevención del dengue: ensayos domésticos en E scuintla (febre – junio 97). INCAP/USAID/Guatemala Lactancia m aterna en América Lat ina y el Caribe. (junio-agosto 96) Organizac Panamericana de la Salud, Programa de Nutrición, Washington D.C., EE UU. Enfermedades respiratorias y diarreicas entre los nankani del Norte de Ghana (febrero-ab 90). Organización Mundial de la Salud, Programa de IRA, Ginebra, Suiza. Docente Seminario de inves tigación III. Maes tría en Desarrollo, Universidad del V alle de Guatema (agosto 2002 – diciembre 2003). Seminario d e investiga ción: método s cua litativos. Maestría e n Segurid ad Alimenta r Nutricional. Instituto de Nutrición de Centro América y Panamá (agosto – noviembre 1998) Antropóloga: Centro de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas en Salud Reproductiva (CIESAR) Coordinadora Nacional. Estudio Latinoa mericano de ce sáreas, Módulo Soci al . CLAP/OM (febrero - octubre 2000) Investigadora Principal. Investigación cualitativa sob re cesáre as en tre s ho spitales de Ciudad de Guatemala (febrero - mayo 2000). Antropóloga: Instituto de Nutrición de Centro América y Panamá (INCAP) Co-investigadora principal. Consumo de maíz contaminado e ingesta de fumonisinas en d comunidades guatemalte cas. Proye cto financia do por la Universidad d e Emory, EE febrero – marzo 96. Co-investigadora. Investigación cualitativa sobre morbilidad y mortalidad relacionada con aborto. Proyecto financiado por OMS/Ginebra, mayo 1995. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 148 Investigadora principal. Semántica popular y manejo de las infecciones respiratorias agud en cuatro áreas de Guatemala. Proyecto financiado por Clapp & Mayne/USAID, 1995. Investigadora prin cipal. Manejo dom éstico de l as infe cciones respirato rias a gudas Centroamérica. Proyecto financiado por IDRC/Canada, noviembre 1993- diciembre 95. Co-investigadora p rincipal. La higiene de los alim entos dom ésticos del de stete en u comunidad guatemalteca. Proyecto financiado por la OMS, octubre 93 – diciembre 94. Investigadora princi pal. Lacta ncia mate rna e ntre madre s trabaja doras urbanas Centroamérica. Proyecto financiado por SIDA/Suecia, enero – octubre 1992. Directora d e campo. Man ejo alime ntario del ni ño con dia rrea. Proyecto fin anciado po r OMS, octubre 1990-diciembre 1991. Asistente técnica: Universidad de Arizona Consumo de alimentos y cambio agrícola en Lesotho. Office of Arid Lands/Office of Wom in Development; mayo – diciembre 1988. Asistente de investigación sobre consumo de alimentos. Office of Arid Lands, agosto 1986 abril 1988. Las fun ciones multidi smensionales del intercambio fue ra del merca do entre mexican/chicanos en T ucson, Ari zona. Dep artment of Anthropol ogy; enero 1 984 -- ju 1986. Arqueóloga Excavaciones en el Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala. Proyecto Nacional Tikal, noviemb 1981-- agosto 1983. Excavaciones en El Mirador, El Petén. Brigham Young University/INAH, enero-abril 1981. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 149 Livelihood Security Consultant CV Kristi N. Tabaj 2000 L Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 +1 202.640.6681 ktabaj@savechildren.org SUMMARY Over twelve years of combined experience in agriculture, agribusiness and natural resource management in Africa, North America, Latin America, and South Asia. Designed, implemented and managed programs to build capacity, improve household food security and increase economic opportunity. Interest in complementary programming with agriculture, natural resource management and health/nutrition components. Organized, flexible, resourceful and detail-oriented. Advanced Spanish language skills. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Senior Specialist, Africa Child Hunger and Agriculture, Save the Children International, Washington DC; Jan 10 – Present. Primary contact in the Livelihoods Department for programming related to agriculture, natural resource management and climate change, with a special focus on Africa. Provide technical support to country offices on food security and livelihoods programming including maintaining donor relations, proposal development and program implementation as well as assisting with country office livelihoods strategies and staff development. Represent the organization on agricultural issues, alongside Save the Children’s Public Policy and Advocacy Team, providing input to InterAction and related institutions. Specialist, Agriculture and Livelihoods, Save the Children US, Washington, DC; Feb 09- Dec09. Primary contact in the Livelihoods Department for programming related to agriculture, natural resource management and climate change. Provided technical support to country offices on food security and livelihoods programming including proposal development and program implementation as well as assisting with country office livelihoods strategies and staff development. Represented the organization on agricultural issues alongside Save the Children’s Public Policy and Advocacy Team, providing input to InterAction and related institutions. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 150 GDA Program Manager, Mercy Corps Afghanistan; Jun 08-Dec 08. Designed and implemented a USAID Global Development Alliance (GDA) focused on improving grape and pomegranate value chains to increase sales in three provinces, including southern Afghanistan ($2.1 million USD with $2.1 million leveraged from DFID). Developed Alliance partnerships with an Afghan mobile service provider and processing facility for additional leverage. Provided expertise to staff in the design and facilitation of trainings focusing on improved production, harvest and postharvest methods. Guided staff in establishing and facilitating commercial linkages between farmers, traders, wholesalers, processors and exporters, utilizing Alliance partnerships. Worked closely with DFID￾supported programming to meet GDA objectives in Helmand province. Technical Advisor-Agriculture/Agribusiness, Mercy Corps Afghanistan; Feb 07-May 08. Provided strategic guidance on the design and implementation of agriculture and agribusiness activities for USDA, DFID and USAID-funded projects. Provided day-to-day assistance to staff in three field offices on nursery establishment, orchard management and postharvest food safety. Collaborated with the Afghan government, NGOs and other agencies to leverage resources and maximize program output. Designed and tested program￾related M&E tools. Successful co-authored a USAID-funded GDA proposal and provided technical support for the development of a $9 million DFID proposal. Food Security Project Coordinator, Crisis Corps, Guatemala; Feb 06-Jul 06. Co-designed and implemented a post-disaster recovery project aimed at increasing food security and nutrition. Collaborated with FAO to leverage resources including inputs (procurement and distribution), technical assistance (for capacity building activities) and a series training of trainers (ToT) courses to women on agriculture and nutrition. Assisted with a weekly Food for Work distribution. Assessed local and fair trade market opportunities for participants, linking women to local markets. FarmServe Africa Volunteer Consultant, OICI Ghana; Oct-Nov 05, Aug 06. Assessed four communities on postharvest methods for vegetables to determine value-added and market opportunities. Collected additional information on production and harvest activities. Prepared the curriculum, budget and materials for workshops on cost-efficient postharvest drying technologies and marketing. Completed a follow-up visit to work with managers on linkages to markets and the formation of cooperatives. Prepared reports for and debriefed OICI and USAID managers. Student Assistant, International Programs Office, University of California, Davis, CA; Apr￾Jun 05. Served as a coordinator, analyst and drafter for the final document of the Global Horticulture Assessment, a document for USAID. Input, analyzed, and synthesized workshop and survey data obtained from stakeholders. Drafted sections pertaining to Sub-Saharan Africa and PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 151 enabling environment. Research Assistant, University of California, Davis, CA; Sep 03-Jan 05. Conducted primary and secondary research on the flow of migration, money and goods between southern Mexico and California. Trained students and professionals in developing digital tools for online access. Post-Graduate Researcher I, University of California Cooperative Extension, Placerville, CA; Feb-Sep 03. Defined issues and assets of the Latino community in South Lake Tahoe, CA to identify capacity building projects. Collected primary and secondary research through focused interviews, observations, reviews of previous reports and demographic data. Produced a written assessment and presented findings to agencies, organizations, government officials and the public. Agribusiness Intern, The Rodale Institute, Kutztown, PA; May-Dec 02. Assisted in the design and implementation of the farmer web-based direct marketing study: recruited participants, conducted interviews, aided consultations, coordinated in the creation of a baseline survey and documented project progress. Natural Resource Specialist, Peace Corps, Honduras; Feb 00-May 01. Designed and implemented monthly environmental education programming in twelve communities, introducing curriculum to teachers. Completed training with Red Cross on disaster mitigation; worked with local leaders and residents on disaster preparedness through home visits and presentations. Forestry Technician, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Las Vegas, NV; Summers 1994-1996 (Seasonal), Aug 96-Jun 01 (Permanent). Performed various duties for the suppression of wildland fire and planning/management of prescribed fire. As the temporary ecosystem archaeologist, collaborated with project managers, presented information to the public and reported to federal and state agencies (6 months). Member of the Forest’s Human Rights Team, representing Temporary Employees. EDUCATION M.S. International Agricultural Development, University of California, Davis, Sep 05. Thesis: Community Organization for Agricultural Production: A Study of Two Rural Communities in Oaxaca, Mexico. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 152 B.A. Anthropology, Lawrence University, Jun 96. PUBLICATIONS Brown, P., Lumpkin, T., Barber, S., Hardie, E., Kraft, K.H., Luedling, E., Rosenstock, T., Tabaj, K., Clay, D., Luther, G., Marcotte, P., Paull, R., Weller, S., Youseffi, F., Demmett, M. (2005). Global Horticulture Assessment. Scripta Hort., vol. 3, ISHS, Brussels. Downing, K.N. (2004). South Lake Tahoe community assessment, setting the stage for capacity building. University of California Cooperative Extension, Agriculture & Natural Resources. LANGUAGE Spanish (advanced), Portuguese (novice), French and Dari (novice). COMPUTER SKILLS Microsoft Operating Systems (Word, Excel, Power Point, Access, Outlook/Entourage). PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 153 18.4 MTE Methodology (Spanish) La metodología que se va a aplicar a la evaluación (o revisión) de medio término del proyecto PROMASA (RMT) esta resumida a continuación. Por Peter Heffron con insumos de Sandra Sáenz de Tejada, Kristi Tabaj, y el equipo de PROMASA II Actualizado y sometido a la gerencia de PROMASA II para su aprobación el 24 de abril 2010 Meta La meta principal de la RMT es ser como una herramienta o guía para mejorar el proyecto PROMASA II (PROMASA) durante el periodo que queda en la vida del proyecto, o sea hasta la 30 de septiembre 2011.   Enfoque La RMT va a incluir un resumen del desempeño del proyecto en relación a las tres metas estratégicas del proyecto y elementos transversales (ej… trabajo con socios, genero, gerencia, sistemas y procedimientos, ME, etc.) con énfasis en lecciones aprendidas, y recomendaciones para mejoras. Este ultimo incluirá las razones por tales y sugerencias sobre cómo lograrlas, tomando en cuenta factores limitantes y como superarlas. El RMT va a producir un reporte profesional de los resultados, análisis participativo, y recomendaciones para seguimiento (ver productos abajo). Sin embargo la énfasis no va a ser solamente en este importante documento, pero en la implementación de las recomendaciones que resulten de la RMT de manera práctica y medible durante el último año del proyecto. Las recomendaciones van a ser vinculadas con las lecciones aprendidas a todo nivel …campo hasta cede… identificadas a través de la RMT, y van a ser validadas con la participación de personal de SC, PROMASA, USAID, y, en el campo, actores claves en el proyecto. Entonces las recomendaciones van a ser convertidas en un plan de acción realizada en un taller …facilitado por el equipo evaluador… por personal de SC y PROMASA, con insumos de un segundo taller o reunión con representantes de USAID. El plan de acción va a especificar no solamente las acciones necesarias, pero quienes serán responsables para coordinarlas, indicadores de éxito, fechas meta, insumos necesarios, etc., aprobado por SC y gerente del proyecto PROMASA. Productos Los productos principales de la RMT van a ser borradores del reporte de la revisión en español y en ingles (para el 12 de mayo 2010), y el reporte final, tomando en cuenta retroalimentación sobe los borradores, en español y en ingles (para el 31 de mayo 2010). El plan de acción también va a ser un producto, pero va a ser una parte del reporte de la revisión. Expectativas Las guías principales para la revisión son los términos de referencia (TDR) para la revisión y cada consultor preparados por Save the Children USA (SC) en Guatemala. Sin embargo estos van a ser ajustados ligeramente en consulta con SC como sea necesario dado al tiempo disponible y otros factores. Antes de iniciar la revisión, habrá unas reuniones con personal clave de SC, PROMASA, y USAID (el donante principal) para asegurar que hay una congruencia entre los TDRs, expectativas de SC, PROMASA, y USAID. SC tendría que aprobar cualquier cambios en los TDR antes de que el equipo evaluador seguiría con los próximos pasos de la revisión. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 154 La metodología de la revisión es lo siguiente… 1. Términos de referencia preparados por Save the Children USA en Guatemala (SC). 2. Propuesta técnica preparado por Peter en consulta con SC y el resto del equipo evaluador (Sandra y Kristi) y aprobado por SC.   3. Listado de informantes claves preparado por el equipo evaluador (Sandra, Kristi, Peter), en consulta con el equipo coordinador de PROMASA. 4. El equipo evaluador (Sandra, Kristi, Peter, coordinado por Peter) revise los TDR en relación al listado de los informantes claves y al tiempo disponible para realizar la revisión, y prepara un calendario en borrador de las actividades necesarias para lograr la revisión.   5. Este calendario se comparta con SC y al equipo coordinadora de PROMASA para llegar a un consenso sobre ajustes necesarios, especialmente en relación al número de comunidades del proyecto que pueden ser visitadas. Las comunidades a ser visitadas deben ser seleccionadas bajo criterios que incluyen áreas agroecológicos, balance entre comunidades bajo la responsabilidad del socio COTONEB y de SC, balance entre comunidades Quiche e Ixil, comunidades donde se realicen todas las intervenciones de PROMASA (OEs 1, 2, 3), y una variedad representativa con respeto a las situaciones socio‐económicos‐ecológicos. Los criterios arriba descritos de selección de las comunidades serán documentados por el equipo de ME de PROMASA y entregado al equipo ETM. 6. El equipo evaluador revise documentos claves del proyecto proveídos por SC y PROMASA, y pedidos por el equipo ETM (incluyendo el MYAP, los ARRs, y los PREPs), y anote puntos importantes relacionados con los TDRs que pueden ser analizado más en la ETM. 7. El equipo coordinador de PROMASA presenta al equipo ETM un resumen del proyecto PROMASA desde su inicio hasta la fecha, dando la oportunidad para aclaraciones y discusión entre el equipo de PROMASA y el equipo de la ETM. 8. El equipo ETM será responsable por el análisis de los OEs específicos a nivel de resultado intermedio (IR), así… Sandra OE 1 (materno infantil, gobernación, etc.)…. Kristi OE 2 (producción agricultura, etc.) y OE 3 (medio ambiente y desastres)… y Peter (actividades transversales incluyendo gerencia, ME, genero, sostenibilidad, aspectos sociales‐políticos, relaciones entre SC y sus socios (personas indicadas a nivel municipal, COTONEB, etc.). Además de los IRs, los miembros del equipo ETM serán responsables por investigar los mismos factores transversales dentro de sus OEs e IRs, como sea apropiado y factible dado al tiempo limitado disponible. Además de coordinar, el líder del equipo ETM ayudara a sus colegas siempre y cuando ellas necesiten y/o quieren lo mismo. 9. El equipo ETM prepara instrumentos investigativos primero en borrador en consulta con los gerentes y técnicos indicados de PROMASA. Estos instrumentos serán guías de campo, grupos focales, y posiblemente otros tipos, además de preguntas para los grupos focales, informantes claves, etc., y un formato de resumen‐síntesis diario. 10. Cada miembro del equipo ETM prepara sus propios instrumentos basados en criterios estándares acordados entre el equipo. Estos criterios incluyen lo siguiente… aproximadamente una hora neta disponible para cada grupo focal (aproximadamente una hora y media en total), lo mínimo necesario de preguntas necesarias para lograr mejor entender el desempeño de las actividades o PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 155 productos de cada resultado intermedio (IR)… una énfasis en entender desempeño en general, con énfasis en desviaciones significativas (positivas o negativas), lecciones aprendidas, sugerencias ‘incluyendo el ’cómo’ y posibles riesgos y respuestas a estas ‐‐ para hacer mejoras.   11. El equipo RMT va a coordinar con PROMASA la gran tarea de la afinación del calendario, logística, etc., relacionado con estar en el campo 12 días. 12. El equipo RMT va a poner énfasis en involucrar a los participantes en las comunidades representativas del proyecto y a otros actores claves, como COTONEB, a través de grupos focales y entrevistas individuales. También se va a intentar ver por lo menos una muestra de cada tipo de intervención (ej… componente de cabras) a nivel de campo durante los 12 días en el campo. 13. El equipo RMT va a capacitar a aproximadamente 10 miembros del equipo PROMASA que hablen Quiche o Ixtil – a ser enumeradores y traductores, trabajando de cerca con cada miembro del equipo RMT. 14. El equipo RMT va a validar los instrumentos utilizados en la capacitación y afinarlos como sea necesario, y dado al tiempo limitado disponible, antes de aplicarlos con los informantes claves. 15. El equipo RMT va a tener que ser muy eficiente con el tiempo para acomodar las cinco acciones principales diarias contempladas, estos siendo: (1) grupos focales, (2) entrevistas individuales, (3) observaciones de actividades y o productos, (4) reuniones de cada equipo (OE 1, y de OE 2 y 3 combinado) al fin de los ejercicios de campo para resumir, priorizar, y sintetizar el conjunto de información recolectada a través de cada instrumento en matrices y, (5) al fin del día/noche, una reunión entre los miembros del equipo EMT (S, K, P) para compartir, analizar, y preparar un resumen global del día usando una guía para la misma. 16. Como sea necesario, cada miembro del equipo EMT va a tener que utilizar su propio iniciativa, de ser posible coordinado con los demás miembros del equipo y SC, para asegurar que se logre los objetivos diarios (ver anterior). 17. Toda la información recolectada, incluyendo los resúmenes matrices, para seguridad, diariamente van a ser enviados por correo electrónico a los compañeros del equipo RMT, y, si tiene. copiado en las memorias flash drive de cada miembro del equipo RMT Los miembros del equipo son responsables a mantener ordenado estos documentos por OE, fecha, lugar, etc. 18. En el ultimo día en el campo se va a realizar un taller de medio día con participantes representantes de los varios áreas programáticas, de Mlle., y administrativos de PROMASA, e incluyendo representantes a nivel operativo de socios en el proyecto (COTONEB, Kiej, Génesis). El propósito de este taller es dar al personal involucrado con PROMASA II la oportunidad a contribuir más al análisis del desempeño del proyecto hasta la fecha, con énfasis en proponer lecciones aprendidas, recomendaciones para mejoras, priorización de actividades, primeras consideraciones para desarrollar una estrategia de salida (como el proyecto termina en un año y medio), y lineamientos generales‐ideales para un proyecto que podría ser propuesta basado en las lecciones aprendidas en PROMASA II. Los productos de este taller van a ser sintetizados e incorporados en el primer borrador del reporte de evaluación y presentados en relación a las observaciones y recomendaciones preliminares del equipo RMT en el próximo taller (una semana después) con los gerentes a diferentes niveles de SC‐PROMASA en la ciudad de Guatemala (ver a continuación). 19. La mayoría de la información recolectada a nivel de campo va a ser pre‐analizado, priorizado, y sintetizado de manera participativa en el campo. Sin embargo se contempla hasta cuatro días en PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 156 la sede de SC, limpiando y organizando la información para que sea más ordenado y entendible y buscando tendencias y puntos claves que posiblemente no fueron identificados en el campo. 20. El próximo paso será preparar un borrador del reporte de la evaluación‐revisión en ingles con traducción al español para el conocimiento de los equipos SC y PROMASA, y para recibir sus comentarios y sugerencias al respeto para incluirlos en el segundo borrador del reporte. El líder del equipo evaluador es responsable para este y los siguientes pasos en consulta con los otros dos miembros del equipo RMT y con los equipos de SC y PROMASA. 21. El equipo RMT va a preparar y presentar los resultados y recomendaciones tentativas de la revisión en un taller de un día para los equipos SC y PROMASA. El propósito de este taller es compartir los resultados y recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT para el conocimiento de los participantes y para recibir la retroalimentación de los participantes en el taller. También se hará un plan de acción en borrador relacionado con las recomendaciones aceptadas en el taller. Esta retroalimentación y plan de acción en borrador serán incluidas en la preparación del segundo borrador del reporte. 22. El próximo paso será que el equipo RMT prepare y presente en un taller o reunión los resultados y recomendaciones de la revisión actualizada (ver arriba) del proyecto PROMASA II – a USAID‐ FANTA en Guatemala para su conocimiento y retroalimentación. 23. El segundo borrador del reporte, basado en los comentarios recibidos sobre el borrador uno y el de los talleres y o reuniones arriba mencionados – va a ser compartido con USAID y FANTA‐ Guatemala, a través de SC, para recibir sus (USAID‐FANTA) comentarios al respeto. 24. La retroalimentación de USAID‐FANTA va a ser un importante insumo a la versión final del reporte de la RMT, que va a ser sometido a USAID‐Guatemala a través de SC en ingles y a fines de mayo 2010 y en español a medios de junio 2010. Fin   Por Peter Heffron con insumos de Sandra Sáenz de Tejada, Kristi Tabaj, y el equipo de PROMASA) Actualizado y sometido a la gerencia de PROMASA II para su aprobación el 24 de abril 2010 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 157 18.5 MTE Schedule: Field Visits, Persons Interviewed, Etc. (Spanish) El calendario tiene que ser flexible y está sujeto a cambios cuando sea necesario, en consulta con todos los involucrados… Fecha Lugar Actividad y Personas a Entrevistar Responsable ABRIL Vier 9 Guatemala Oficina de SC Reunión con personal SC Revisar el plan de trabajo Acuerdo sobre criterios de selección de las comunidades a ser visitadas Seleccionar las comunidades bajo los criterios Plan preliminar de logística de campo PH/EQUIPO EMT Y PROMASA Sab 10 Guatemala Desarrollar los instrumentos EQUIPO EMT Dom 11 Guatemala Desarrollar los instrumentos EQUIPO EMT Lun 12 Guatemala Reunión con personal SC Presentación del proyecto por personal de PROMASA Plan de trabajo (cont) Revisión del programa Revisión de instrumentos PH/EQUIPO EMT Y PROMASA Mart 13 Guatemala Finalizar instrumentos PH/EQUIPO EMT Y PROMASA Mier 14 am Guatemala 9:00 Reunión con personal USAID SC/PROMASA 11:00 Traslado a Sta Cruz del Chiché SC/PROMASA    4:00 Taller personal democracia PROMASA SST, KS, PH Mier 14 PM Santa Cruz 4:00 Reunión personal democracia PROMASA Equipo completo 4:00 Reunión equipo de monitoreo y evaluación de PROMASA   SST, KS, PH Juev 15   Santa Cruz Capacitación asistentes de campo SST, KS, PH Explicación de instrumentos de salud y democracia:   1) GF madres líderes   2) GF Madres beneficiarias   3) GF COSANes 4) GF COCODEs 5) Visita domiciliaria: EI a madres SST PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 158 Fecha Lugar Actividad y Personas a Entrevistar Responsable Explicación de instrumentos Medios de Vida 1) Entrevistas: lideres agropecuarias 2) GF Agricultores   3) Entrevista/GF con FFW lideres/participantes PH, KT Reunión con Coordinador Regional de Génesis en oficina de Save en Santa Cruz del Quiché KT Práctica de campo: equipo salud 9:00 GF COCODEs (n=5; SST) 9:00 Madres participantes 11: 00 Entrevistas individuales Cunén La Hacienda Práctica de campo: equipo Medios de Vida 1) Entrevistas: lideres agropecuarias 2) GF Agricultores 3) Visita a hogares Equipo Salud Ixil Equipo Medios de Vida Ixil Práctica de campo: equipo salud 1) GF Madres participantes 2) Entrevistas individuales 3) GF Cosanes Vier 16 AM Chutuj, Cunén Práctica de campo: equipo Medios de Vida 1) Entrevistas: lideres agropecuarias 2) GF Agricultores   3) Visita a hogares Equipo K’iche’ 11:00 Entrevista Muni: OPM Alcalde Cunén SST, PH PM: 14‐16 hrs: Discutir experiencia y ajustar instrumentos en oficina Diario ‐‐ Observaciones a actividades del proyecto a nivel de hogar y‐o de campo, y al fin del día‐‐reuniones de los 2 equipos (Salud y MV) para sintetizar y analizar (y llenar cuadro de resumen) ‐‐ approx 2 horas SST, PH, KT Todos Sab 17 y Dom 18 FIN DE SEMANA Ajustar instrumentos impresora, sacar copias, expansión de notas SST, PH, KT Lun 19 Sacapulas 9: 00 GF COSANES de la región (n=12) Equipo Salud 1 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 159 Fecha Lugar Actividad y Personas a Entrevistar Responsable COMUNIDADES CERCANAS 10:30 GF madres participantes (n=12) (ES1) PM: Ampliar notas   Visita domiciliaria (n=6‐8) MODULOS CABRAS (2), POLLOS, HUERTOS Equipo Salud 2 (ES2) EI FC – PEC COTONEB FACILITADOR COMUNITARIO SST y ES2? Salinas 1) 09:00‐1030 Entrevistas: lideres agropecuarias 2) 10:30‐12:30 GF Agricultores    Después del amuerzo: Visito al campo 4) 16:00 (en Cunen) Grupo de mujeres Flor Cunenese y entrevista con personal de campo 5) 19:30 Cena con Hugo Cabrera (Kiej) en Uspantan Equipo Medios de Vida Sacapulas A 30 MIN DE SALINAS 14:00 Entrevista Muni Diario ‐‐ Observaciones a actividades del proyecto a nivel de hogar y‐o de campo, y al fin del día‐‐reuniones de los 2 equipos (Salud y MV) para sintetizar y analizar (y llenar cuadro de resumen) ‐‐ approx 2 horas SST Todos 08:00 GF COCODES del municipio 08:00 GF COSANES del municipio 10:00 Hospital Distrital de Uspantán Enfermera jefe Uspantán Cabecera 11:00 Municipalidad OPM Equipo Salud Visita a madres participantes (n=6‐8) ES2 11:00 GF madres participantes Equipo Salud ES1 11:00 Visita a ex madre guía (n=1) JONAS SST y A1 Mart 20 Caracol 1) 09:00‐10:30 GF de Kiej 2) 10:30‐12:30 Entrevistas: lideres agropecuarias 3) 13:30‐15:30 Entrevista/GF con FFW lideres/participantes Equipo Medios de Vida PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 160 Fecha Lugar Actividad y Personas a Entrevistar Responsable Diario ‐‐ Observaciones a actividades del proyecto a nivel de hogar y‐o de campo, y al fin del día‐‐reuniones de los 2 equipos (Salud y MV) para sintetizar y analizar (y llenar cuadro de resumen) ‐‐ approx 2 horas Todos 9:00 GF Madres líderes 1 Equipo Salud 9:00 GF Madres líderes 2 Equipo Salud 9:00 Reunión equipo técnico SC Equipo Medios de Vida TRASLADO A NEBAJ   14:00 GF COTONEB: personal salud Equipo Salud GF COTONEB: personal Medios de Vida   16:30 GF COTONEB: personal democracia   Mier 21   Uspantán 1) 1730 Reunión con COTONEB Diario ‐‐ Observaciones a actividades del proyecto a nivel de hogar y‐o de campo, y al fin del día‐‐reuniones de los 2 equipos (Salud y MV) para sintetizar y analizar (y llenar cuadro de resumen) ‐‐ approx 2 horas Todos Nebaj 9:00 Reunión Técnicos GÉNESIS.   10:00 GF COSANES de la región 14:00 GF Madres líderes de la región Entrevista a madres participantes (n=6‐8) Entrevista a exmadre guía Equipo Salud 1) 09:00‐12:30 Entrevistas: lideres agropecuarios y visita al campo   Juev 22 Chajul   Ilom Sandra Después del amuerzo: Continua Visita al campo Diario ‐‐ Observaciones a actividades del proyecto a nivel de hogar y‐o de campo, y al fin del día‐‐reuniones de los 2 equipos (Salud y MV) para sintetizar y analizar (y llenar cuadro de resumen) ‐‐ approx 2 horas Equipo Medios de Vida Todos Nebaj, centro 8:00 GF Madres lideres de la región 10:00 Área de Salud Vier 23 SST y ES2 Cotzal 9:00 GF Madres líderes de la región ES1 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 161 Fecha Lugar Actividad y Personas a Entrevistar Responsable 9:00‐10:30 GF: lideres agropecuarios y visita a campo Diario ‐‐ Observaciones a actividades del proyecto a nivel de hogar y‐o de campo, y al fin del día‐‐reuniones de los 2 equipos (Salud y MV) para sintetizar y analizar (y llenar cuadro de resumen) ‐‐ approx 2 horas Equipo Medios de Vida Todos   Chenlá 14:00 Sandra regresa a Guate 16:00 Peter va a Chichi 24‐ 25 FIN DE SEMANA Expansión de notas y preparaciones preliminares para 3 talleres (ph: PROMASA Santa Cruz, SC Guatemala, USAID Guatemala)   9:00 GF COSANES de la región 14:00 GF Madres líderes de la región   EI a madres participantes (n=6‐8) Equipo Salud 1) 0900‐1230 Entrevistas: lideres agropecuarias visita a campo Equipo Medios de Vida Nebaj Janlay Peter Después del almuerzo: Visito al campo Equipo Medios de Vida Cunén   13:00Entrevistas personal PROMASA: salud   SST 14:30 Traslado a Nebaj   Lun 26 Nebaj 15:30 Reunión con Tomas de Paz ‐ COTONEB Diario ‐‐ Observaciones a actividades del proyecto a nivel de hogar y‐o de campo, y al fin del día‐‐reuniones de los 2 equipos (Salud y MV) para sintetizar y analizar (y llenar cuadro de resumen) ‐‐ approx 2 horas SST,   Todos 9:00 GF COCODES 11.00 GF Madres líderes ES1 EI a madres participantes (n=4) Ex madre guía – (n=1‐3) ES2 y SST Mart 27 Nebaj Vijolom II 1) 09:00‐12:30 Entrevistas: lideres agropecuarias visita de campo. 2) 13:30‐15:30 GF Génesis Diario ‐‐ Observaciones a actividades del proyecto a Equipo Medios de Vida   Todos PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 162 Fecha Lugar Actividad y Personas a Entrevistar Responsable nivel de hogar y‐o de campo, y al fin del día‐‐reuniones de los 2 equipos (Salud y MV) para sintetizar y analizar (y llenar cuadro de resumen) ‐‐ approx 2 horas Mier 28   Traslado a S Cruz SST, PH Santa Cruz  14:00 – 18:00 Mini‐taller de presentación de resultados preliminares, validación‐retroalimentación y priorización ‐‐ con Gerencia (SC y COTONEB‐ PROMASA), Lideres (SO‐1, SO‐2‐SO‐3), Coordinadores (M&E, Alimentos, SO‐1, SO‐3), Supervisores (SO‐1, SO‐ 2, M&E), y Técnicos (SO‐1, SO‐2, D&G, M&E) de PROMASA involucrados con la revisión intermedia de PROMASA. SST, PH FIN: TRABAJO DE CAMPO Fecha Lugar Actividad Responsable Viernes Entrevistas personal de SC/Guatemala y síntesis/análisis de la información de campo y del mini‐taller del 27 de abril en Santa Cruz de Quiche MAYO Sab 1 Empezar escribir borrador #1 del reporte del MTE (ingles) (PH) utilizando los sinteses de las encuestas a nivel de campo (arriba) PH Domingo 2   “” “” PH Lunes 3   “” “” PH Martes 4   “” “” PH Miércoles 5   Preparar el taller de presentar los resultados tentativos para información, validación, etc., al equipo SC y PROMASA (S & P) PH Jueves 6   Taller para personal de PROMASA y SC – Productos: Validación del análisis de campo y un plan de acción ST & PH Viernes 7   Productos del taller integrados al primer borrador del reporte PH & ST Sábado 8   “” “” PH Domingo 9   “” “” PH Lunes 10 Día Festival (Día de la Madre) “” “” PH Martes 11   Borrador del reporte revisado por SCF, PROMASA SC/PROMASA Miércoles 12   Preparar el taller de presentar los resultados para información, validación, etc., a USAID (S & P) SC/PROMASA Jueves 13   0900‐1330: Taller para USAID y otras instituciones PH, ST PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 163 Fecha Lugar Actividad Responsable 1430‐1700: Preparar resumen del taller. Viernes 14   Debriefing con gerentes de SC, desempeño de la evaluación hasta la fecha, actualizar próximos pasos, etc. PH & ST y SC/PROMASA Sab 15   NOTA: PH sale del país PH Mart 18   Escribir borrador#2 del reporte del MTE basado en borrador#1 y los insumos del taller con la USAID PH Juev 19   “” “” PH Vier 20   “” “” Enviar borrador#2 a SCF para revisar y enviar a USAID para sus comentarios PH, SC Juev 27   Escribir el reporte del MTE final basado en borrador#2 y los comentarios de USAID a través de SC PH, SC Viern 28   Escribir y entregar el reporte final a SC para entregar a USAID y a Sandra para coordinar la traducción de lo mismo a español PH, SC, ST JUNIO Lun 9 Revisar el borrador de la traducción en español. PH, SC, ST 11 Jun   Entregar el reporte final en español a SC para entregar a USAID PH, SC Fin PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 164 18.6 MTE Survey Instruments SO­1: MCHN and Governance 18.6.1.1 Guía de Discusión con Participantes Materno Infantil Guía de discusión con madres líderes   1. ¿Cómo se sienten Uds de ser madres guía de PROMASA? PREGUNTA ROMPEHIELO. 2. En algunas comunidades las madres líderes no duran mucho. ¿Qué se podría hacer para que ellas quisieran permanecer más tiempo como madres líderes? 3. ¿Sienten que ustedes han recibido una buena capacitación para aconsejar a las madres sobre salud y alimentación? 4. ¿Qué temas les resulta más difíciles de explicar a las señoras en la comunidad?   EXPLICAR EL TIPO DE DIFICULTAD QUE ENFRENTAN 5. ¿Sienten que el material educativo que Uds. utilizan para capacitar a las señoras en la comunidad sea adecuado? a. ¿Cómo se podría mejorar? 6. Ustedes han capacitado a las madres en varios temas de salud y nutrición. ¿Creen que a las señoras les interesa realmente este tipo de charlas? a. ¿Sobre qué temas sienten que a ellas les gustaría más poder aprender? 7. ¿Sienten Uds que reciben un buen acompañamiento de PROMASA en sus actividades?   EXPLORAR: a. Frecuencia de capacitación b. Frecuencia de acompañamiento de los técnicos en sus comunidades 8. De todas las actividades que Uds realizan, ¿cuáles son las que tienen mejores resultados? a. ¿Qué podría hacerse para que estas actividades continuaran aunque ya no estuviera PROMASA? 9. ¿Y qué actividades no tienen buenos resultados? a. ¿Cómo piensan que se podrían mejorar estas actividades? 10. De todas las actividades que hace PROMASA, ¿cuáles creen Uds que son las más importantes para mejorar la desnutrición de los niños? a. ¿Cómo creen que podrían mejorarse estas actividades? EXPLORAR TAMBIEN HUERTOS, POLLOS, CABRAS 11. ¿Qué relación tienen Uds con las monitoras o vigilantes del PEC? a. ¿Con los COSANES? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 165 b. ¿Con el FI? NOTAR SI SON RELACIONES ESPONTANEAS O PROMOVIDAS POR EL PROMASA. 12. ¿Cómo se sienten en general dando la consejería sobre alimentación? a. ¿Qué aspectos se les dificulta más explicar o convencer a las señoras? b. ¿Sienten que tienen un espacio apropiado para hacer la consejería durante la sesión de monitoreo de crecimiento? c. ¿Sienten que tienen el tiempo para hacerla? 13. ¿Cuál ha sido la reacción de las madres beneficiarias a la consejería? a. ¿Qué tipo de recomendaciones les cuesta más a las señoras?   14. ¿Qué resultados han visto Uds de la consejería? a. ¿A qué tipo de señoras se les hace más difícil seguir las recomendaciones? b. ¿Cómo se les podría ayudar?   15. ¿Creen Uds que las señoras van a seguir las recomendaciones con todos los hijos o que hay que volver a dar consejería con cada hijo que tengan? 16. ¿Cómo se sienten al hacer la visita domiciliaria? a. ¿A quiénes realizan la visita domiciliaria? b. ¿Qué se les dificulta para hacerla? c. ¿Qué se podría hacer para hacer la visita domiciliaria más fácil? d. ¿Sienten que les alcanza el tiempo para hacer las visitas domiciliarias?¡ e. ¿Cuál es la reacción de las madres/padres sobre la visita domiciliaria? 17. ¿Qué resultados han visto ustedes de la visita domiciliaria? 18. Sabemos que Uds han logrado que las señoras de la comunidad aprendieran a reconocer los signos de peligro cuando los niños están enfermos y por esto quiero felicitarlas. Ahora, ¿ha habido algún cambio de comportamiento en relación a una búsqueda de atención más rápida cuando un niño se enferma? a. ¿Será que hay más mujeres que buscan atención prenatal? b. ¿Mayor interés en componerse en el hospital? 19. El año pasado hubo más desnutridos que otros años. ¿A qué creen Uds que se debe esto? 20. El año pasado el precio de los alimentos subió mucho. ¿Creen Uds que las familias que están con PROMASA estaban un poco mejor que las que no están con PROMASA? EXPLORAR a. ¿Qué creen que fue lo que más ayudó, los alimentos donados o los proyectos productivos (módulos de animales, huertos, semillas mejoradas, etc.)? 21. ¿Qué hicieron las familias que NO están en PROMASA?   22. Si viniera otra vez una mala cosecha, ¿cuál creen Uds que sería la mejor ayuda que PROMASA podría dar? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 166 Entrevista con personal de salud   Nombre: _________________________________________ Puesto: __________________________ Institución: † MSPAS †PEC Fecha: __/04/2010 Años en el puesto: _____ Municipio: _____ PREGUNTA RESPUESTA 1. ¿Conoce el trabajo que PROMASA/SC está llevando a cabo en las comunidades?   (si) (no) 2. ¿Se ha establecido algún mecanismo de coordinación entre el PROMASA y los servicios de salud pública en las comunidades? NO: PASE A PREG 5 (si) (no) 3. ¿Qué resultados ha tenido esta coordinación a nivel del trabajo en las comunidades?   4. ¿Cómo cree que se podría mejorar esta coordinación?   5. ¿Piensa Ud que las que actividades del PROMASA han incidido en alguna forma a mejorar la calidad de los servicios de salud? NO: PASE A PREG 7 (si) (no) 6. SI: ¿En qué manera? 7. ¿Cree que ha habido un aumento en la demanda de servicios a raíz de las actividades de PROMASA? NO: PASE A PREG 9 (si) (no) 8. SI: ¿En qué grupo poblacional? 1 = Niños ≤ 12m 2= Niños 13‐24 m 3= Niños ≥ 24m 4= Embarazadas 5= Otro: ______________________________ 9. ¿Cree que el trabajo de PROMASA ha tenido un efecto en la búsqueda más oportuna de atención? (si) (no) 10. ¿En qué porcentaje de las comunidades que atiende pensaría que se ha implementado un fondo rotativo para el traslado de emergencias?   _______% 11. ¿En qué forma cree que está operando el plan de emergencias? Guía de discusión con madres participantes de PROMASA 1. Saludo y agradecer presencia 2. Presentación del equipo 3. Razón de la reunión 4. Lo que esperamos de ellas en la reunión • Sus opiniones, diversas y todas valiosas • Información confidencial   • Una sola persona habla a la vez 5. ¿Cómo se sienten Uds de ser participantes de PROMASA? PREGUNTA ROMPEHIEL 6. ¿Cuál creen Uds que es el mayor beneficio de participar en PROMASA? 7. ¿En qué se diferencias las familias que participan en PROMASA con las que no participan?   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 167 8. El año pasado en mi comunidad la comida estuvo un poco escasa y muchas personas pasaron penas. ¿Cómo estuvo aquí la situación? 9. ¿Qué fue lo que pasó aquí? EXPLORAR SI FUE MALA COSECHA, PRECIOS ALTOS, ETC. 10. ¿Sienten que estar en el PROMASA las ayudó un poco en esta situación? 11. ¿De qué forma les ayudó? EXPLORAR BIEN ANTES DE PASAR A LA PREG. 8 12. ¿Qué creen que fue lo que más ayudó, los alimentos donados o los proyectos productivos (módulos de animales, huertos, semillas mejoradas, etc.)? 13. ¿Qué hicieron las familias que NO están en PROMASA?   14. ¿Sienten que hubo alguna diferencia entre cómo las familias que están con PROMASA pasaron este período y las familias que NO están con PROMASA? 15. Si viniera otra vez una mala cosecha, ¿cuál creen Uds que sería la mejor ayuda que PROMASA podría dar? 16. ¿Cómo ven Uds el trabajo de las madres líderes? 17. ¿En qué forma ayudan?   18. ¿Cómo podrían ellas ayudar más a su comunidad?   19. Ustedes han aprendido bastante sobre las enfermedades de los niños están enfermos. ¿Será que ahora les es a ustedes más fácil llevar a sus hijos con las enfermeras o los doctores? EXPLORAR RAZONES   20. ¿A dónde van ustedes cuando necesitan que a sus hijos los vea un doctor o enfermera? 21. ¿Cómo las reciben en ese (esos) lugar(es)? EXPLORAR DIFICULTADES DE ACCESO, ENTREGA MEDICAMENTOS, CALIDAD ATENCIÓN   22. ¿Sienten Uds. que las señoras embarazadas de su comunidad están buscando más atención prenatal?   23. Ustedes han aprendido algunas recetas de cocina para usar los alimentos de la ración. ¿Han podido hacer en sus casas muchas de estas recetas?   24. ¿Cómo creen que podría mejorarse la demostración de preparación de alimentos? 25. Las madres líderes a veces las visitan en sus casas. ¿A Uds les gusta que las vayan a visitar? ¿Qué beneficio tienen estas visitas? 26. ¿Algunas de Uds han recibido consejería de las madres líderes sobre cómo alimentar a los niños?   27. ¿Sienten que la consejería que ellas dan son claras? 28. ¿Han tenido alguna dificultad de seguir en sus casas sus consejos? EXPLORAR TIPO DE DIFICULTADES Y COMO SE PODRIAN SUPERAR 29. ¿Creen que estos consejos de verdad sirvan? EXPLORAR PERCEPCION DE IMPACTO   30. Además de las madres líderes, ¿quiénes más dan consejos sobre cómo alimentar a los niños?   31. ¿Alguna de Uds ha visto diferencias en cómo crecen o se comportan los niños pequeños desde están en PROMASA con los niños que no estuvieron con PROMASA (otros hijos, hijos de vecinos, etc.)? EXPLORAR PERCEPCION DE DIFERENCIAS PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 168 32. Para terminar, ¿como cuántos niños habrá en su comunidad de 0‐5 años? 33. De estos niños, ¿cuántos calculan Uds que están desnutridos?   34. ¿Cómo saben que están desnutridos? HACER CALCULOS DE SU PERCEPCION DE PREVALENCIA DESNUTRICIÓN, IDEALMENTE SEPARANDO LOS NIÑOS FLAQUITOS (DESNUTRICIÓN GLOBAL) DE LOS CHAPARRITOS (DESNUTRICIÓN CRONICA). Visita domiciliaria a madres   Nombre: __________________ Nombre del niño: ________________ Edad niño: ____   Hijos ≤ 5: ____ Años en PROMASA: ____ Comunidad: ________________ Muni: _____ NO PREGUNTA CODIGO NO = 0 SI = 1 1. ¿Ha recibido la misma cantidad de alimentos desde que empezó el programa? S/N     2. ¿Cúal es el que más le gusta a sus hijos? 1 = CBS 2= arroz 3= frijol 4 = aceite 3. ¿Ha ido alguna vez a una demostración de preparación de alimentos? S/N NO: PASE P. 7   4. SI: ¿Cuántas veces ha ido?   5. ¿Qué recetas ha podido preparar seguido en su casa? OBTENER NOMBRES/DESCRIPCION   OBSERVACION: ¿SIENTE QUE LA MADRE REALMENTE CONOCE/HA PROBADO LAS RECETAS? S/N 6. ¿Piensa Ud que en las demostraciones se va muy rápido para que a Ud se le quede lo que dicen o cree que se va a una buena velocidad? 1 = muy rápido 2= van bien 3 = van lento 7. Le quisiera preguntar sobre las charlas que dan antes de la entrega de las raciones. ¿Considera que las madres líderes están bien preparadas para darlas? S/N 8. ¿Le parecen útiles los temas para su vida de todos los días? S/N   9. ¿Qué otros temas le gustaría que se incluyeran en esas charlas? ESPECIFICAR 1) otro tema de salud: ____________________________________________________   2) más recetas 3) temas de manualidades/artesanías 4) aspectos productivos: __________________________________________________ 5) otros:   10. ¿Ha cambiado de alguna forma la alimentación que le da a … (NIÑO INDICE) desde que empezó a participar en el PROMASA? 00 = NO 0 = USO DE ALIMENTOS DONADOS 1 = LME 2 = Introducción AC a los 6m 3 = Aumentó consistencia PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 169 4 = Aumentar frecuencia 5 = Aumentar diversidad 6 = Aumentó proteína animal 7 = Aumentó cantidad 8 = Alimentación activa 9 = Higiene 10 = Agregó aceite 11 = Otra:   11. ¿Cómo piensa Ud que ha estado creciendo su hijo? PERCEPCION DE ESTADO NUT 1 = Siempre crece bien 2 = regular 3 = no crece bien/flaquito 4 = no crece bien/chiquito   12. ¿Nota alguna diferencia entre cómo está creciendo este niño y otros niños (hermanos, vecinos, etc.) que NO están con PROMASA? MARQUE TODOS LOS MENCIONADOS   0 = No, está creciendo igual que todos 1 = Se enferma menos 2 = Come más 3 = Está más alto/crece más rápido 4 = Está más gordito 5 = Está más listo/vivo 6 = Otra:   13. ¿La ha visitado alguna vez la madre líder en su casa? S/NO: PASE A PREG 20   14. ¿Por qué la vino a ver? 1 = Recién nacido 2 = Niño enfermo 3 = Niño no crecía bien 4 = embarazo   5 = higiene 6 = Otra: _______________________________ 15. ¿Le pareció útil/beneficiosa la visita? S/N   16. ¿La ha venido a visitar a su casa alguien de la COSAN para darle consejos? S/N   17. Cuando lleva a pesar a sus hijos con PROMASA, ¿ha recibido algún consejo sobre cómo alimentarlos? S/ NO: PASE A PREG 18   18. ¿Qué le dijeron? MARCAR TODAS LAS MENCIONADAS 1 = LME 2 = Introducción AC a los 6m 3 = Aumentar consistencia 4 = Aumentar frecuencia 5 = Aumentar diversidad 6 = Proteína animal 7 = Aumentar cantidad 8 = Alimentación activa 9 = agregar aceite 10 = Higiene 11 = Agua segura   12 = Otra: _________________________________________ 19. ¿Qué dificultades tuvo para poder seguir los consejos que le dieron? NINGUNA = 0 1 = No tenía los alimentos 2 = No tuve tiempo 3 = Al niño no le gustó 4 = No entendí bien/no me acordé cómo hacerlo 20. ¿Aparte de los consejos de la madre líder y los técnico de PROMASA, ¿recibe Ud consejos de alimentación de otras personas? LEER OPCIONES Y MARCAR LAS MENCIONADAS 1 = Personal del puesto/centro de salud 2 = Madres monitoras/Educadora PEC 3 = Personal otras instituciones 4 = Otras personas: _________________   21. El año pasado, cuando los precios de la comida subieron tanto y la comida estuvo escasa, ¿en qué forma la ayudó estar en el programa? MARCAR TODOS LOS MENCIONADOS 1 = Ahorro, ya no compré arroz, aceite 2 = Tenía huevos 3 = Tenía leche cabra PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 170 4 = Tenía huerta 5 = Tuve mejores rendimientos frijol 6 = Tuve mejores rendimientos maíz 7 = Otra: 22. ¿Cómo le habrá ido a los niños de las familias que NO están en el programa? 23. ¿Ha recibido Ud aves de PROMASA? NO = 0 ¿Hace cuánto tiempo (CALCULE MESES) que los tiene? _______ ¿Cuántas tiene ahora? ______ ¿Cómo cuántos huevos a la semana le ponen? ______ 24. ¿Cabras? NO = 0 SI: ¿Hace cuánto tiempo (CALCULE MESES) que las tiene? ¿Han sembrado Uds algún huerto con PROMASA? NO = 0 SI: ¿Por cuánto tiempo (CALCULE MESES) lo sembró? 25. SI: ¿Qué especies ha sembrado? 26. SI NO HA PARTICIPADO EN NINGUNA PASE A LA LISTA OBSERVACION   ¿Cómo siente Ud que tener pollos/cabras/huertos ha cambiado la forma de alimentar a sus hijos pequeños? LISTA DE OBSERVACIÓN CONDUCTA/ HUELLA DE CONDUCTA NA NSO SI NO • Hay jabón (de cualquier tipo) en la pila • • • • Niño índice tiene manos limpias • • • • Niño índice tiene cara limpia • • • • Los pollos están encorralados • • • • Las cabras están encorraladas • • • • Hay huellas recientes de huerto familiar • • • • Otros animales encorralados (cerdos, patos, vacas, ovejas) • • • • Ausencia de heces humanas o de animales en el patio • • • • Patio limpio • • • PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 171 OBSERVACION OPORTUNISTA DE EPISODIO DE ALIMENTACIÓN ¿Qué está comiendo? ANOTAR INGREDIENTES   ¿Tiene el niño su propio plato? (SI) (NO)   ¿Tiene una consistencia apropiada?  (SI) (NO) ¿ Come el niño por sí mismo? (SI) (NO): RECIBE ALGUNA AYUDA DE LA MADRE ¿Practica la madre la alimentación activa? LO ESTIMULA, LE INSISTE A QUE COMA (SI) (NO) EXPLIQUE ¿Se lavó las manos la madre? (SI) (NO)   ¿Le lavó las manos al niño? (SI) (NO)   Visita domiciliaria a madres que NO siguieron con PROMASA Nombre: _______________________________ Nombre del niño: _____________ Edad niño: ____   Hijos ≤ 5: ____ Comunidad: ___________________________ Muni: _____ NO PREGUNTA CODIGO NO = 0 SI = 1 1. ¿Cuánto tiempo estuvo con PROMASA? CALCULAR EN MESES   2. ¿Desde hace cuánto tiempo ya NO está con PROMASA? CALCULAR EN MESES   3. ¿Participó Ud/su esposo en la COSAN?   4. ¿Fue Ud/su esposo madre guía/líder o guía/líder agropecuario?   5. ¿En qué proyectos participó su familia cuando estuvo en PROMASA? 1 = Prácticas mejoradas siembra maíz 2= semilla frijol 3 = Huertos   4 = Aves 5 = Cabra 6 = Otro: 6. De estos proyectos, ¿cuál fue el que más le gusto? 1 = Prácticas mejoradas siembra maíz 2= semilla frijol 3 = Huertos   4 = Aves 5 = Cabra 6 = Otro: 7. ¿Cuáles de estos proyectos todavía lo tiene?   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 172 1 = Prácticas mejoradas siembra maíz 2= semilla frijol 3 = Huertos   4 = Aves 5 = Cabra 6 = Otro: 8. SI NO TIENE NINGUNO, PIDA EXPLICACIÓN 9. ¿Fue alguna vez a una demostración de preparación de alimentos? S/N     10. ¿Qué recetas ha podido preparar seguido en su casa? OBTENER NOMBRES/DESCRIPCION 11. Le quisiera preguntar sobre las charlas que daban antes de la entrega de las raciones. ¿Considera que las madres líderes estaban bien preparadas para darlas? S/N 12. ¿Le parecen útiles los temas para su vida de todos los días? S/N   13. De los consejos que aprendió en PROMASA sobre cómo alimentar a los niños, ¿cuáles ha podido seguir practicando (con el mismo niño/con otros niños? 1 = LME 2 = Introducción AC a los 6m 3 = Aumentó consistencia 4 = Aumentar frecuencia 5 = Aumentar diversidad 6 = Aumentó proteína animal 7 = Aumentó cantidad 8 = Alimentación activa 9 = Higiene 10 = Agregó aceite 11 = Otra:   14. ¿Cómo piensa Ud que ha estado creciendo ahora su hijo (el que estuvo con PROMASA)?   1 = Siempre crece bien 2 = regular 3 = no crece bien/flaquito 4 = no crece bien/chiquito   15. ¿Nota alguna diferencia entre cómo está creciendo este niño ahora y cuando estaba con PROMASA?   0 = No, está creciendo igual 1 = Está creciendo más 3 = Está creciendo menos   4 = Otra:   16. ¿Estuvo con PROMASA la mayor parte del año pasado? NO: PASE A PREG 19   17. El año pasado, cuando los precios de la comida subieron tanto y la comida estuvo escasa, ¿en qué forma la ayudó estar en el programa? MARCAR TODOS LOS MENCIONADOS 1 = Ahorro, ya no compré arroz, aceite 2 = Tenía huevos 3 = Tenía leche cabra 4 = Tenía huerta 5 = Tuve mejores rendimientos frijol 6 = Tuve mejores rendimientos maíz 7 = Otra: 18. ¿Cómo le habrá ido a los niños de las familias que NO estaban en el programa? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 173 19. ¿Recibió Ud aves de PROMASA? NO = 0 ¿Cuántas tiene ahora? ______ ¿Cómo cuántos huevos a la semana le ponen? ______ 20. ¿Cabras? NO = 0 SI: ¿Aún la tiene? ¿Han sembrado Uds algún huerto con PROMASA? NO = 0 SI: ¿Sembró el año pasado? S/N 21. SI: ¿Qué especies sembró?   22. SI NO CONTINUARON CON ALGUNOS DE LOS PROYECTOS EXPLORAR RAZONES LISTA DE OBSERVACIÓN CONDUCTA/ HUELLA DE CONDUCTA NA NSO SI NO Hay jabón (de cualquier tipo) en la pila   Niño índice tiene manos limpias   Niño índice tiene cara limpia   Los pollos están encorralados   Las cabras están encorraladas   Hay huellas recientes de huerto familiar   Otros animales encorralados (cerdos, patos, vacas, ovejas)   Ausencia de heces humanas o de animales en el patio   Patio limpio   18.6.1.2 Guía de Discusión con miembros de las COSANES 1. ¿Desde cuándo son Uds. de las Cosan? PREGUNTARLE A CADA UNA 2. Para ustedes, ¿qué es lo más valioso de su trabajo en la Cosan? 3. ¿Hay interés de la gente de la comunidad para participar en las Cosanes? 4. ¿Qué podría hacerse para que más gente quisiera participar? 5. ¿Por qué será que hay más mujeres que hombres en las COSANES? 6. ¿Qué actividades hacen como Cosan? 7. Además de estas actividades, ¿qué otras acciones promueven? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 174 8. ¿Promueven alguna acción específica sobre salud o uso de los servicios?   9. En la opinión de ustedes, ¿cuál es la importancia de las COSANES para la comunidad? 10. ¿Qué tipo de relación ha habido entre las COSANES de diferentes comunidades?   11. ¿Cuál ha sido el papel de la COSAN con los COCODES? 12. ¿Participan Uds en alguna red municipal de COSANES? 13. Quisiera que me contaran cómo les ha ido en las visitas que Uds hacen a las casas de las señoras. ¿Por qué motivo las visitan? 14. ¿Qué resultado han tenido estas visitas a las casas? 15. Cuando se acabe el PROMASA, ¿creen ustedes que las COSANES sigan funcionando? 16. ¿Qué habría que hacer para que las COSANES sigan funcionando? 17. El año pasado en mi comunidad la comida estuvo un poco escasa. ¿Cómo estuvo aquí? 18. ¿Qué fue lo que pasó aquí? EXPLORAR SI FUE MALA COSECHA, PRECIOS ALTOS, ETC. 19. ¿Sienten que estar en el PROMASA las ayudó un poco en esta situación? 20. ¿De qué forma les ayudó? 21. ¿Qué hicieron las familias que NO están en PROMASA?   22. Si viniera otra vez una mala cosecha, ¿cuál creen Uds que sería la mejor ayuda que PROMASA podría dar? 23. Si PROMASA fuera a formar COSANES en otros lugares, ¿qué recomendaciones les darían Uds para hacer unas mejores COSANES? 24. Para terminar, ¿como cuántos niños habrá en su comunidad de 0‐5 años? 25. De estos niños, ¿cuántos calculan Uds que están desnutridos?   26. ¿Cómo saben que están desnutridos? HACER CALCULOS DE SU PERCEPCION DE PREVALENCIA DESNUTRICIÓN, IDEALMENTE SEPARANDO LOS NIÑOS FLAQUITOS (DESNUTRICIÓN GLOBAL) DE LOS CHAPARRITOS (DESNUTRICIÓN CRONICA). 18.6.1.3 Guía de Discusión con miembros de los COCODES 1. ¿Cuánto tiempo tienen Uds. de estar en el COCODE? PREGUNTARLE A CADA UN 2. ¿Cuál ha sido la relación del PROMASA con los COCODES? EXPLICAR 3. En la opinión de ustedes, ¿cuál ha sido la ayuda más valiosa del PROMASA hacia los COCODES? 4. ¿Qué tipo de resultados ha traído esta ayuda? 5. ¿Qué más podría hacer PROMASA para fortalecer a los COCODES? 6. ¿Ha ha ayudado PROMASA en algo a la relación entre los COCODES y el COMUDE? 7. ¿Qué resultados ha traído esta interacción? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 175 8. ¿Ha ayudado en alguna forma el PROMASA en la formulación de proyectos? 9. ¿Han ustedes escuchado de las COSANES? SI CONTESTAN NO: PASAR A PREGUNTA 19. 10. ¿Están trabajando ya con las COSANES? SI DIJERAN QUE NO EXPLORAR RAZONES 11. ¿En qué forma las COSANES han enriquecido o ayudado a los COCODES? 12. ¿Han oído lo que dice la gente de la comunidad sobre las COSANES? 13. ¿Qué tipo de acciones promueven los miembros de la COSAN dentro de los COCODES? 14. ¿Promueven las COSANES alguna acción específica sobre salud? EXPLORAR 15. ¿Qué podría hacerse para que las COSANES hicieran mejor su trabajo? 16. En la opinión de ustedes, ¿cuál es la importancia de las COSANES? 17. SI ES UNA REUNIÓN DE VARIOS COCODES: ¿En qué comunidad funciona bien la COSAN? OBTENER 1‐2 HISTORIAS DE CASO. EXPLICAR TIPO DE INTEGRACIÓN, ACCIONES EMPRENDIDAS 18. ¿Qué tipo de impacto ha tenido este COSAN en la comunidad? 19. Cuando se acabe el PROMASA, ¿creen ustedes que las COSANES sigan funcionando? 20. ¿Qué podría hacerse para asegurar que las COSANES sigan funcionando? 21. ¿Están involucrados los COCODES de alguna manera con los planes de emergencia para ayudar a sacar a las señoras embarazadas que está promoviendo el Ministerio de Salud?   22. ¿Ya tienen los fondos para estas emergencias? 23. Para terminar, ¿como cuántos niños habrá en su comunidad de 0‐5 años? 24. De estos niños, ¿cuántos calculan Uds que están desnutridos?   25. ¿Cómo saben que están desnutridos? HACER CALCULOS DE SU PERCEPCION DE PREVALENCIA DESNUTRICIÓN, IDEALMENTE SEPARANDO LOS NIÑOS FLAQUITOS (DESNUTRICIÓN GLOBAL) DE LOS CHAPARRITOS (DESNUTRICIÓN CRONICA). 18.6.1.4 Entrevista con personal de la Oficina Municipal de Planificación Nombre: _____________________ Puesto: _________________ Años en el puesto: ______ 1. ¿Cuál ha sido la relación del PROMASA con la OMP/municipalidad? 2. En su opinión, ¿cuál ha sido la ayuda más valiosa del PROMASA con la OPM/municipalidad? a. ¿Qué tipo de resultados ha traído esta ayuda? 3. ¿Sabe usted cuál ha sido la relación del PROMASA con los COCODES? 4. En su opinión, ¿cuál ha sido la ayuda más valiosa del PROMASA hacia los COCODES? a. ¿Qué tipo de resultados ha traído esta ayuda? 5. ¿Puede usted apreciar alguna diferencia entre los COCODES apoyados por PROMASA y los que no han contado con este apoyo?   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 176 6. ¿Qué otras cosas cree usted que podría hacer el PROMASA para fortalecer a los COCODES? 24.1.1. ¿Piensa usted que PROMASA toma en cuenta los planes municipales para llevar a cabo sus actividades?   a. SI: ¿En qué forma? 7. ¿Conoce usted las Comisiones de Seguridades Alimentaria (COSANES) que ha estado promoviendo PROMASA? NO: PASE A PREG 17 8. ¿Qué tipo de acciones promueven los miembros de la COSAN? 9. ¿Qué podría hacerse para que las COSANES hicieran mejor su trabajo? 10. ¿Cómo ha sido la integración de estas COSANES a los COCODES? 11. En su opinión, ¿cuál es la importancia de las COSANES? 12. ¿Qué tipo de impacto ha tenido en la comunidad? 13. Cuando se acabe el PROMASA, ¿cree usted que las COSANES sigan funcionando? 14. ¿Qué se podría hacer para asegurar que las COSANES sigan funcionando? 15. Si PROMASA fuera a formar COSANES en otros lugares, ¿qué recomendaciones les darían Uds para hacer unas mejores COSANES? 16. El año pasado hubo en muchas partes crisis alimentaria, entre las malas cosechas y los precios que se dispararon. ¿Cómo estuvo la situación en este municipio? 17. ¿En qué forma cree que PROMASA ayudó a las familias?   18. Si viniera otra vez una mala cosecha, ¿cuál sería la mejor ayuda que PROMASA podría dar? SO­2 Livelihoods and SO­3 Natural Resources and Emergencies 18.6.1.5 Guía de Discusión con Líderes Agropecuarios: SO‐2/SO‐3:   Fecha   Hora   Municipio   Comunidad   Encuestador Principal   Encuestador Asistente 1   Encuestador Asistente 2   Encuestador Asistente 3   Cuantas Personas Están Presentes? >> Mujeres Hombres Niños   Actividades (numero de participantes quienes han participado en X componente y por X tiempo) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 177 De estas personas, cuantas participen en SC o COTONEB ?   COTONEB SC otras? De estas personas, cuantas participaron en PROMASA I, o en PROMASA I y II? PROMASA 1 solamente PROMASA II solamente PROMASA I y PROMASA II 1. Cuando empezaron con el programa PROMASA? 2. Como empezaron con el programa? 3. Han recibido capacitación? Si No 4. Que tipo de capacitación existe aquí en la comunidad? 5. Fuera de la comunidad? 6. En que han recibido capacitación? [Espera la respuesta] Micro riego Conservación de los suelos Fertilización orgánica / Aboneras Huertos familiares Practicas mejoradas para maíz Variedades de mejoradas de frijol Manejo de cabras Manejo de aves (gallinas) Salud de animales Producción de pastos y forrajes Mercadeo y comercialización de productos Otros: 7. Cuales son las prácticas de medio ambiente en que recibieron capacitación? [Espera la respuesta] Manejo de Viveros forestales   Reforestación Protección de fuentes de agua PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 178 [Seleciona dos mencionada y pregunta lo siguente] 8. Por cuanto tiempo duro la capacitación (horas, días)? 9. Que aprendieron? 10. Lo que aprendieron lo hicieron en su casa? 11. Que capacitación le gusta más? 12. Recibe apoyo después de la capacitación?        Si No Si recibe apoyo después de la capacitación, en que forma? 13. Reciben otros incentivos?      Si      No 14. Tienen su parcela demostrativa?         Si       No 15. Recibieron apoyo (de capacitación y materiales) para las parcelas demostrativas? Si No 16. Describe el apoyo. 17. Que beneficios ha obtenido de su parcela demostrativa? 18. Alguno de ustedes ha participado en actividades de viveros? Si No Si contesta si: a. Quien es el responsable de esta actividad? b. Platica de las oportunidades y los problemas con los viveros. Si No Si contesta si (ver próxima pagina): 19. Quien es el responsable de esta actividad? 20. Cuál es el desastre (terremoto, deslave, inundación) que se puede dar aquí 21. Si sucediera ese desastre hoy que harían? 22. Hay gente presente que participa en actividades de salud y nutrición? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 179          Mujeres          Hombres Si contesta “si”: a. En que tipo de actividades participa o que servicios reciben? 23. Describe la participación de los participantes con Uds. 24. Cuales son las actividades del proyecto que mas les ayudan? 25. Que parte o actividades del programa puede mejorar que serian los pasos claves para hacer esta sugerencia? 26. Hay participantes en que pueden mostrar sus parcelas demostrativas/fincas? 27. Se puede ver en la comunidad las prácticas o trabajos del PROMASA?    Si    No Si responde si, escriben las actividades que se pueden ver. 18.6.1.6 Guía de Discusión con Participantes Comunitarios: SO‐2/SO‐3 Fecha   Hora   Municipio   Comunidad   Encuestador Principal   Encuestador Asistente 1   Encuestador Asistente 2   Encuestador Asistente 3   Cuantas Personas Están Presentes? >> Mujeres Hombres Niños   Actividades (numero de participantes quienes han participado en X componente y por X tiempo) De estas personas, cuantas participen en SC o COTONEB ? >> COTONEB SC otras? De estas personas, cuantas participaron en PROMASA I, o en PROMASA I y II? >> PROMASA 1 solamente PROMASA II solamente PROMASA I y PROMASA II 1. Cuándo empezaron con PROMASA? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 180 2. Han tenido oportunidades de recibir capacitaciones?        Si   No 3. Cuales son las capacitaciones que han recibido? [Espera la respuesta] Micro riego Conservación de los suelos Fertilización orgánica / Aboneras Huertos familiares   Practicas mejoradas para maíz Variedades de mejoradas de frijol Manejo caprino   Manejo de aves (gallinas) Salud de animales Producción de pastos y forrajes Mercadeo y comercialización de productos Otros:   4. Cuales son las prácticas de medio ambiente en que recibieron capacitación? [Espera la respuesta] Manejo de Viveros forestales   Reforestación Protección de fuentes de agua [Seleccionar dos de las capacitaciones mencionadas y preguntar lo siguiente] 5. Por cuanto tiempo duro la capacitación (horas, días)? 6. Como fue la capacitación (solo hablado o fue práctica)/ Que aprendieron? 7. Lo que aprendieron lo hicieron en su casa? 8. Recibió apoyo después de la capacitación?        Si        No 9. Si recibe apoyo después de la capacitación, en que forma? (Recibe acompanamiento tecnico despues la capacitacion?) 10. Describan la participación del líder agropecuario con Uds. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 181 11. Hay gente presente que participa en actividades de viveros?     Si     No Si contesta si: c. Quien es el responsable de esta actividad? d. Platica de las oportunidades y los problemas con los viveros?. 12. Hay gente presente que participa en actividades de preparar la comunidad para un desastre? Si contesta si: a. Quien es el responsable de esta actividad? b. Cuál es el desastre   c. Si sucediera ese desastre hoy que harían? 13. Hay gente presente que participa en actividades de salud y nutrición?          Mujeres            Hombres   Si contesta “si”: a. En que tipo de actividades participa o que bienes/servicios reciben? 14. Cuales son las actividades del proyecto que mas les ayudan? 15. Que parte del programa puede mejorar y que serian los pasos claves—para hacer esta sugerencia? 16. Hay participantes en que pueden mostrar sus parcelas demostrativas/fincas? 17. Se puede ver en la comunidad las prácticas o trabajos del PROMASA?    Si    No Si responde si, escriben las actividades que se pueden ver. 18.6.1.7 Guía de Discusión: Alimentos por Trabajo: SO‐2/SO‐3   Fecha   Hora   Municipio   Comunidad   Encuestador Principal   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 182 Encuestador Asistente 1   Encuestador Asistente 2   Encuestador Asistente 3   Cuantas Personas Están Presentes? >> Mujeres Hombres Niños   Actividades (numero de participantes quienes han participado en X componente y por X tiempo) De estas personas, cuantas participen en SC o COTONEB ?   COTONEB SC otras? De estas personas, cuantas participaron en PROMASA I, o en PROMASA I y II? PROMASA 1 solamente PROMASA II solamente PROMASA I y PROMASA II 1. Cuando empezó el proyecto PROMASA en la comunidad? 2. Cuando empezaron con el proyecto del APT? 3. Recibieron capacitación?      Si      No 4. Que tipo de capacitación? 5. Recibieron alimentos? 6. Tienen plan de mantenimiento de caminos? Si No 7. Quien esta encargado del plan de mantenimiento? 8. Muestre y explique el plan de mantenimiento? 10. Hay gente presente que participa en actividades de preparer la comunidad por un desastre? Si contesta si: a. Quien es la persona responsable para esta actividad? b. Si viene un desastre hoy (terremoto, inudacion), que puede hacer? Cuales son las actividades o bienes que mas ayudan? Que parte del programa puede mejorar que serian los pasos claves para hacer esta sugerencia? PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 183 Daily Summary Per SO Aplica a PROMASA II Objetivo Intermedio (1 o 2 o 3): _____ Fecha: _____________________ Municipio: __________________________________ Comunidades, Hogares, Puestos de Salud, Huertos, etc., Visitados: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Participantes en Este Resumen Diario: ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Propósito… Sintetizar y resumir el proceso y los resultados del día basado en los Resumen por Instrumento. Quienes y Como…El equipo evaluadora y los asignados técnicos de PROMASA, en computadora, lo más pronto posible después de haber terminado las actividad de campo (grupos focales, entrevistas, observaciones) al fin de cada dia. 1. Breve Descripción del Ambiente (clima, altitud, sequia, inundaciones, etc) Seria ideal tener unas fotos del área… 1.1. Ambiente… Comentarios del EE (color diferente) No   2. Resultados Intermedios (1.1 a 3.2) de PROMASA No Actividades de PROMASA que funcionen bien y porque (especifique IRs) Actividades de PROMASA que funcionen no tan bien y porque (especifique IRs) 1 Ejemplo: huertos familiares (IR x.y)   2    3    2.1 Resultados… Comentarios del EE 3. Cuáles han sido la actividades de PROMASA de más importancia? No Actividades de Mas Importancia (segregados por IR) 1   2   3   3.1 Actividades de más importancia… Comentarios del EE (color diferente) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 184 No   4. Efectos Mitigadores Han habido efectos mitigadores de seguridad alimentaria de parte de PROMASA, y si si, cuáles han sido, y como se manifiesten? No Efectos Mitigadores y Como 1   2   3   4.1 Efectos Mitigadores y Como Se Manifiesten… Comentarios del EE (color diferente) No   5. Observaciones de Campo No Observaciones 1   2   3   5.1 Observaciones de Campo … Comentarios del EE (color diferente) No   6. Sostenibilidad Que hacer para asegurar la sostenibilidad de las actividades una vez que se vaya PROMASA? No Recomendaciones 1   2   3   6.1 Sostenibilidad de las actividades … Comentarios del EE (color diferente) No   7. Recomendaciones Para Mejorar a PROMASA No Recomendaciones 1   2   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 185 3   7.1 Recomendaciones Para Mejorar a PROMASA … Comentarios del EE (color diferente) 8. Otros Comentarios No Recomendaciones 1   2   3   8.1 Otros Comentarios … Comentarios del EE (color diferente) 9. Resumen del EE FIN PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 186 18.7 Better Practice Community­Based Monitoring Example Why Use Participatory Community Monitoring? Following is quoted from “Participatory Community Monitoring for Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: The NicaSalud Experience”. Please see credits following this excerpt. Participatory community monitoring has many benefits, including:   24.1.2. Encourages key members of a local project to participate, allowing them to reflect on their own experiences and learn from them   24.1.3. Enables administrators, field staff, and community members to better understand the project dynamics and thereby improves implementation   24.1.4. Allows community members to express their priorities and their criticism of project development strategies   24.1.5. Increases the sense of ownership on the part of local development staff and community members and provides recommendations for future action   There are six key issues that need to be understood before implementing participatory community monitoring in the context of water, hygiene, and sanitation projects. These topics are described in detail below. They are:   1. The differences between traditional and participatory monitoring   2. The importance of sharing responsibilities between the development organization and the community   3. Parameters and indicators for hygiene improvement programs   4. Gender issues   5. The levels of community participation   6. The concept of community empowerment   Participatory monitoring Chart 1 identifies the main differences between more traditional monitoring and participatory monitoring in four key areas.   Chart 1. Traditional and Participatory Monitoring   Areas Traditional Monitoring Participatory Monitoring 1. Purpose of monitoring   To measure progress relative to the project plan.   To measure successes qualitatively as well as quantitatively. To develop lessons learned to be integrated into the project.   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 187 Areas Traditional Monitoring Participatory Monitoring 2. Focus of information collection   Has a limited number of variables related to the goals of the project plan.   Achieves a holistic analysis. The participatory group methods allow for additional questions to emerge from the repetitive learning process. 3. Information collection methods   Uses quantitative methods. Makes an objective analysis.   Uses quantitative and qualitative methods. Makes a subjective judgment.   4. Responsibility for collecting information   Assumed by outside evaluators and/or project managers.   Assumed by project participants, managers, and community members.   All those involved in designing or conducting participatory monitoring should remember that it is not intended to replace other monitoring, but rather to complement the organization’s monitoring system.   Sharing responsibilities   The diagram below shows the range of possibilities for how monitoring and evaluation (M&E) can be conducted: <—————————————————————————————————————> M&E performed by the organization M&E performed by the community and the organization M&E performed by the community Many development organizations monitor projects by assuming total responsibility, typically by using external consultants. The outside evaluator’s role is to develop the monitoring and evaluation proposal, including the tools, and facilitate implementation, taking into consideration the viewpoints of key project members.   Another model (Diagram 1, far right, above) is the opposite of the first. The community assumes total responsibility for developing and implementing the M&E activities. This model requires that community leaders and groups have the skills to design an M&E process, to develop the information‐ gathering tools, and to analyze and synthesize the information.   For the PCM approach (Diagram 1, middle, above), the development organization and the community share the responsibility for monitoring. The objective is to involve the organization’s members as well as community leaders and groups in both the planning and implementing of monitoring activities.   Community empowerment   Community empowerment is the process whereby the community (or a segment of the community) gains greater control over a project or activity. In the present context, participatory community monitoring is a strategy to enhance empowerment. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 188 Dimensions of Community Empowerment   Source for the above excerpts: Activity Report 141: Participatory Community Monitoring for Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene:   The NicaSalud Experience Translated and Edited by Charlotte Storti, October 2004 * Prepared Under EHP Project 26568/CESH.NIC.Y4‐5.PCM ‐ Environmental Health Project Contract HRN‐I‐00‐99‐00011‐00 Sponsored by the Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition Bureau for Global Health U.S. Agency for International Development ‐ Washington, DC 20523 The complete—highly recommended re: community monitoring—paper is available online: www.ehproject.org/PDF/Activity_Reports/AR‐141formatted.pdf *Note that the editor/translator of the above paper (excerpts)—Charlotte Storti—has written the guide, How to Organize Communities for Health and Social Change, for Save the Children/USA. Additional References (sources for the author of this paper): 24.1.6. Judi Aubel, “Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation for Hygiene Improvement Beyond the toolbox: What else is required for effective PM&E? A Literature Review,” EHP, Arlington, Virginia, November 2004. 24.1.7. Marissa Azmitia, “Analysis of Experiences, Materials and Tools Existing in Nine NGOs on Monitoring,” EHP, Arlington, Virginia, July 2003. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 189 A Model for Community­Based Monitoring The following information was developed by the Canadian Community Monitoring Network: www.ccmn.ca/english/results.html The CCMN Model for Community Based Monitoring   This model has been developed using the lessons learned by the regional coordinators and their experiences testing CBM approaches in their communities. Each of the pilot communities contributed uniquely to the development of the model, which can act as a highly useful reference for other communities interested in starting up a CBM program. Since communities are unique, any approach to Community Based Monitoring should be appropriate to local context, a continually evolving process, and flexible to change. In other words, CBM needs to be versatile, iterative and adaptive. It involves four key interrelated phases: Community Mapping, Participation Assessment, Capacity Building, and Information Gathering & Delivery. Factors for Success 1. Approaches to engaging the community are context specific. * Approaches are appropriate to local context and adaptable. * The ongoing cycle of community mapping, participation assessment, capacity building and information delivery activities and outcomes is continued.   2. Information delivery mechanisms are established. * Information needs are identified and communicated. * Community based monitoring programs are demand driven. * Data is communicated as meaningful information. * New information is integrated into decisions and policies. * Data management and standardization.   3. The experience must be meaningful for participants. * Common concerns are acknowledged. CCMN PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 190 * Local and traditional knowledge is respected. * Benefits of ecological monitoring are understood. * Adequate training and equipment for CBM are provided. * Monitoring results are communicated to the public.   4. Coordination is critical. * Communication, facilitation, negotiation and mediation skills are developed. * Volunteer groups and CBM participants are coordinated at a local scale. * Broader partnerships and networks among communities are maintained.   5. Partnerships in pursuit of sustainability are necessary. * Partnerships to maximize capacity and resources are developed. * Partnerships to address ecological issues at regional or landscape scales are developed. * Existing contacts in the community are linked together. * Existing environmental initiatives are built upon.   6. Collaborative approaches are implemented. * Forums for multi‐stakeholder discussion are encouraged. * Community visioning to define common challenges and goals is conducted. * Influence on government policies, public values, and industry practices is achieved.   7. Ongoing national support for a coordinated network * Commitment to community initiatives is demonstrated. * Support in the form of resources, expertise, and staff is provided. * Established networks and partnerships are maintained. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 191 18.8 Better Practice Family/Community Gardening Example (Spanish) El Método Biointensivo de Cultivo “La población tiende a crecer rápida mente, mas rápidamente que en tiempos pasados, en un futuro próximo, el arte de mas valor será el de obtener una subsistencia confortable de la más pequeña porción de tierra. Ninguna comunidad cuyos m iembros posean este arte, será víctim a de opresión alguna. Dicha com unidad será ind ependiente, sin reye s coronados, ni reyes del dinero, ni reyes de terrenos.” Abraha m Lincon. En 1971 John Jeavons se hizo una pregunta: ¿Cuál es la superficie mínima de suelo en la que un hombre puede obtener todo lo necesario para su subsistencia?. Para obtener la respuesta inicio una serie de trabajos y experimentos basados en el Método Biodinámico Intensivo de Rudolph Steiner, a 31 años de distancia, los resultados han sido publicados en una treintena de folletos y varios libros que han sido traducidos al Francés, Árabe, Ruso, Alemán y Español y el ahora conocido como Método Biointensivo de Cultivo se usa en 130 países, México, Ecuador, Perú y Bolivia entre ellos. El Método Biointensivo de Cultivo ha hecho p or la agricu ltura lo que los Japoneses por la electrónica, la ha microminiaturiza do y la ha hecho igual de eficie nte. Un Se cretario de Agricultura de Estados Unidos dijo que John Jeavons y su método van 15 años adelantados en este campo. Este adelanto es muy o portuno para miles de pequeñas comunidades rurales de países en vías de desarrollo que requieren producir sus p ropios alimentos, básicamente para alimentar a las familia s y encaminarse hacia la autosuficiencia alimentaria. El método Bioint ensivo de Cultivo, permite producir mas alimentos en menos espacio por medios naturales. • El método Biointensivo de cultivo es un méto do de agricultura orgánica en pequeña escala que por sus car acterísticas usa tecnolo gía sencilla pero sofist icada, lo qu e permite que sea fácilmente adoptado por pequeñas comunidades, co n los recursos naturalmente existentes, y que en relación con la agricultura mecanizada de los Estados Unidos: • Obtiene rendimientos del 400 al 3,100%, aun en condiciones adversas del suelo. • No requiere de maqu inaria o fertilizante s y plaguicida s químicos. El elemen to tecnológico clave es la pala común. • La energía mecánica o humana invertida representa so lo el 1% p or unidad de alimento producida. • Solo requiere de un 30% del agua , lo que es particularmente importante en zona s áridas o con poca lluvia. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 192 • Propicia la autosuficiencia. • Usado adecuadamente restituye la fertilidad al suelo, al mi smo tiempo que produce alimentos. Sin embargo la mayor ventaja del Método no es su a lta productividad en poco espacio o e l ahorro de insumos, su mayor bene ficio es que reconstruye el suelo 60 veces más rápido que la naturaleza. En efecto, la capa sup erficial de l suelo es un o de los recursos natu rales más valiosos y paradójicamente mas descuidados, las técnicas agrícolas usuales lo destruyen 17 veces más rápido en r elación con el t iempo que la n aturaleza tarda en formarlo, se estima que de continuar a ese ritmo, a la humanidad le queda suelo solo para 50 a 100 años más. No puedo imaginarme el d esastre que signif icaría para la hu manidad si se de ja lle gar ese momento. Producir alimentos sanos y suficie ntes y cons ervar los suelos cult ivables, son dos retos formidables para la humanidad, sin embargo es alarmante observar que son pocos lo s esfuerzos serios y coordinados para lograrlo. Si se detiene usted a reflexionar, recordará a personas cap aces de realizar complejas tareas intelectuales, como hablar e instruir, investigar, escribir ar tículos, e studios o libr os, pero incapaces de actividades practicas, así sean las mas sencillas, a favor de nuestro ambiente, John Jeavons dice que en esta época la humanidad es rica en experiencias pero pobre en practica. Extiendo una invitación a cada un o de usted es para cultivar personalmente una cama Biointensiva, de mane ra Sustentable, hacerlo les acercara a la tierra, les hará más saludables y les conferirá autoridad para hablar del respeto a la naturaleza. Para mas i nformación sobre este método, sus técnica s, principio s, bibliografía, cursos y asesoría, comuníquese con las organizaciones que aparecen en el directorio anexo. Juan Manuel Martínez Valdez. Presidente de ECOPOL Principios del Método Biointensivo de Cultivo En ocasiones, quienes tienen contacto por primera vez con el Método Biointensivo de Cultivo se muestran incrédulos sobre sus beneficios al ambiente, su ahorro en insumos y sobre todo de sus rend imientos, algunos cue stionan incluso el porque y la urgen cia en desarrollar un método para pequeños espacios e insumos mínimos. Para contestar estas int errogantes, y tomando como base los rendimie ntos intermedios que es posible obtener con el Método Biointensivo y la unidad llamada “un circulo”, equivalente a 93 Metros c uadrados (1,000 pies), se desarrollo el modelo que se pre senta en la gráfica titulada los círculos. En su primera parte representa el área aproximada en la que una persona puede obtener sus alimentos d urante un año usando técnicas d e la agricultura mecánica-química y de la agricultura orgánica d e los Esta dos Unidos, para personas que consumen una dieta abundante en carne, para los que consumen una dieta promedio y para los vegetarianos. Se muestra que en el prim er caso el área necesaria es de 43 a 85 unidades (círculos), en tanto PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 193 que en el segundo es de 22 a 42 y en el tercer caso es de solo 10 círculos. En el segundo apartado se detalla el área cultivable per capita disponible en las naciones en vías de desarrollo con las técnica s agrícolas usuales. En 1977 el promedio disponible era de 30 círcu los, cifra que se redujo a 22 en 1988 , a 16 en el año 2 ,000, y una pr oyección intermedia a 9. En él ultim o apartado de la gráf ica se mue stra él num ero de círculos nece sarios para alimentar a una perso na durante un año con las té cnicas Bio intensivas: 4 para un vegetariano de manera sostenible, 2 si e l agricultor ha adq uirido la destreza nece saria para obtener los máximos rendimientos de manera sostenible. Si se recuerda que la sobrevivencia de la hu manidad depende fundamentalmen te de 3 factores: Sol, suelo y a gua y que 2 de ellos ha n sido gravemente afectados por el hombre, quizá veamos con una perspectiva diferente el problema. La distribución mundial del agua por ejemplo, se ha convertido ya en un problema grave para muchos países, México y Ecuador incluidos, la afirmación de que muchos países tienen agua para regar solo 4 círculos por persona, no es aventurada. Aunque en el foro mun dial de Davos Suiza se menciono que una de las 7 amen azas más graves para la humanidad en este siglo es el hambre, obviamente esta será consecuencia de otros factores, entre ellos la falta de suelos cultivables y agua. Hablar de los problem as que e ste proceso g enera para la pobla ción mundial excede lo s limites de e ste escrito, pero baste decir que pr ácticamente el 80% de la humanidad vive en países en vías de desar rollo y que por falta de visión, recur sos y profesionistas pre parados, estos paíse s aun sueñ an con reso lver sus pro blemas agrícolas con las técnicas que han demostrado sobradamente ser causantes de los graves problemas ambientales que enfrenta la humanidad Para quien pretenda obtener los beneficio s del método Biointensivo y al mismo tiempo mejorar la calidad del suelo que cultiva, la clave es tene r una clara comprensión de sus principios, los cuales p or su sencillez han sid o ampliame nte asimilados y aplicados por individuos y comunidades en mas de 130 países en el mundo, estos principios son: • La doble excavación • El uso de la composta • La siembra cercana • La asociación de cultivos • La integralidad • El uso de semillas de polinización abierta • La producción de Carbón • La producción de Calorías Es importante explicar, así sea de manera bá sica, esto s principio s, así se comprenderá fácilmente cómo funciona el Método y el porque de sus beneficios. La doble excavación. En condicio nes favorables, las raí ces de los cultivos penetran en el suelo en b usca de PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 194 nutrientes a profundidades no conocidas por el común de los agricultores, por ejemplo: Cultivo Profundidad que alcanzan las raíces Coliflor .90 Maíz 1.20 Lechuga 1.20 Jitomate 1.20 Zanahoria 2.60 Betabel 3.00 Alfalfa 30.00 La maquinaria y las her ramientas agrícolas pen etran el sue lo 30 centí metros en promedio, profundidad insuficiente si consideramos las cifras anteriores. El método Biointensivo prefiere el cultivo en “camas” de 1.2 0 a 1.50 Mts. De ancho por 6.0 a 6.5 mts. De largo y 60 centímetros de profundidad. La doble excavación es una técnica que facilita la preparación del suelo a 60 centímetros d e profundidad, y da a la s plantas la oportunidad de un mayor desarrollo sin el gasto extra de energía para perforar el suelo, y que en cambio usan para nutrirse y crecer sanas, con mayor resistencia a los insectos y plagas. La técnica esta diseñad a para lograr el má ximo desempeño con el míni mo esfuerzo, bajo el procedimiento siguiente: 1. Se traza la cama y se dejan estacas permanentes en sus cuatro esquinas; cuan do el terreno es seco y/o arcilloso se remoja el tiempo necesario para humedecerlo y facilitar la excavación. 2. Se inicia cavando en un lado de la cama u na zanja del ancho de la cama, por 30 centímetros y 30 centímetros de profundidad. La tierra que se saca se pone en cubetas. 3. Se afloja la tierra del fondo de la zanja otros treinta centímetros, sin sacarla. 4. Si la tierra es muy pobre, se puede poner en esta zanja un poco de estiércol o composta, si la tierra esta seca, se humedece el fondo de la zanja. 5. En los siguientes 30 ce ntímetros de la cama se excava otra zanja, la tierra que se saque de ella se usa para tapar la anterior. 6. Se repiten los pasos anteriores hasta terminar la cama. 7. Se nivela la cama con un rastrillo una o dos veces durante la excavación. 8. Se incorporan en promedio 5 cube tas (de 20 litros cada u na) de composta, cá scara de huevo y ceniza negra para nutrir el suelo. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 195 La doble excavación es uno de los pasos más importantes del método Biointensivo, equivale a construir los cimiento s de la cam a de cu ltivo, incorpora aire al suelo y lo deja “f lojo”, ideal para que las raíces de las plantas lo penetren sin mayor esfuerzo. Aunque puede usarse cualquier herramienta disponib le, la pala recta y el bieldo facilitan mucho el tr abajo, una vez doble e xcavada la cama no se vuelve a caminar sobre ella, por eso a este método los Irlandeses le conocen como de las “camas Flojas”. La composta La composta (Biomasa digerida), es el abono orgánico por excelencia, la solu ción y el secreto para tener un huerto saludable y productivo. La composta Biointensi va es lo má s cercano a la manera en que la naturaleza fe rtiliza los bosques y los campos, imagínese cuando cae n las hojas de los árboles, una ramita seca, insectos, los cadáveres de pequeñas aves y otros animales, el viento los cubre con polvo, la lluvia provee la humedad y así en un circulo continuo e interminable de auto fertilización, solo roto por el hombre. Las ventajas de la co mposta son muchas, pero las prin cipales que se derivan de su uso continuo son: • Mejora la estructura del suelo • Retiene la humedad • Limita la erosión • Contiene micro y macro nutrientes • Estabiliza el pH del suelo • Neutraliza las toxinas del suelo • Sus ácidos disuelven los minerales del suelo haciéndolos disponibles • Propicia, alimenta y sostiene la vida microbiana • No contamina ni el suelo, ni el aire, ni el agua, ni los cultivos Para hacer composta se necesitan básicamente cuatro elementos: nitrógeno, (materia verde) carbón (materia seca), agua y suelo. El procedimiento es laborioso pero muy sencillo: 9. Se traza un cuadro de un metro por lado, se excava a 30 centímetros de profundidad y se construye una rejilla de rastrojo o cualquier materia orgánica seca gruesa. 10. Se pone encima una capa de 10 centímetros de materia seca. 11. Se continua con una capa de 5 centímetros de materia verde 12. Se cubre con 2 centímetros de suelo (tierra). 13. Se agrega agua. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 196 14. Se continua alternando capas hasta alcanzar 1.50 Mts. De altura. 15. Se voltea solo una vez, cuando la temperatura, después de alcanzar su máximo, empieza a descender 16. Dependiendo de la temporada del año y del clima, la composta tardara de 1 a 6 meses para estar lista. El secreto para lograr u na composta nutritiva e s controlar su humedad y temperatura, el rango ideal de temperatura es de 52 a 62 grados centígrad os, si la temperatura es mas baja, no se logra la descomposición de la materia orgánica y si es mas alta, la composta se mineraliza y el re sultado es similar químicamente a la ceniza, es material inerte, sin ningún valor nutritivo. Si no se tiene termómetro, una manera practica d e saber la temper atura es enterrar una varilla metá lica o un machete diag onalmente en la parte superior de la pila de composta, si después d e 10 minutos el metal e sta frío, la pila no “arran có” y debe volver a hacerse, si se puede tocar el metal y esta caliente pero soportable, la temperatura esta bien, si siente qu e le quema, esta dema siado ca liente, en este caso hay q ue airearla, abriendo huecos o introduciendo tubos para canalizar el calor. Se recomienda enfáticamente no usar a celeradores de los pro cesos natu rales de descomposición de la materia orgánica, porq ue aumentan la temperatura de la pila, se rebasan los rangos apropiados y el producto se mineraliza, perdiendo así la mayoría de su s nutrientes. En cuanto a la humedad, si es poca la composta no inicia el proceso de descomposición y si es mucha se ahoga la vida micro y macrobiótica, prod uciendo de scomposición y malos olores, el gr ado ideal es a semejanza de una e sponja mojada, si u sted toma un puñado de composta y lo aprieta con la mano, deben escurrir sólo unas gotas de agua. Hay un terc er control d e la pila de composta, por el color, el Sr. Steve Rioch*, él mas reconocido especialista en composta Biointensiva, elaboro una guía que sirve para orientarse en cuanto a las condiciones de la composta por su color: Como conocer el grado de maduración de la composta por su color Color Interpretación Negro café Fin ideal de la segunda etapa** Café oscuro Muy bueno al inicio de la segunda etapa Café claro Propicio, pero necesita mas fermentación Verde café Indica fermentación normal en la primera etapa, si permaneciera así, significa que requiere mas ventilación, voltee la pila Amarillo Estado intermedio de la primera etapa, requiere mas tiempo de fermentación y probablemente mas ventilación Negro y húmedo Condición anaeróbica, evítela Verdinegro Condición anaeróbica, evítela PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 197 Color Interpretación Verde Demasiado húmeda y pegajosa, indica también condición anaerobia, evítela Verde‐amarillo Condición ácida y anaeróbica, evítela Gris La pila estaba demasiado caliente y ahora demasiado seca, pero esta bien ventilada Blanca Moho o micelios de actinomicetos muertos, misma condición que para el color gris * Composta Biointensiva, por Steve Rioch © Ecology Action/ECOPOL,1994. ** La primera etapa finaliza cuando se voltea la composta La siembra cercana Con la cama doble excavada y abonada seria un dispendio de nutrientes, esfuerzo, espacio y agua sembrar en surco s, además los surco s permiten la circulación e xcesiva de aire en la tierra, lo que debilita las raíces, lo que hace a la planta más sensible a plagas e insectos, por otra parte, al caminar entre los surco s se compacta el suelo, lo que dificulta el desar rollo de las raíces. El método Biointensivo en cambio imita a la naturaleza y aprovecha mejor el espacio, esta es una de las razones de sus altos re ndimientos, el Señor John Jeavons, creador del método con sus características actuales, of rece una re compensa a quien le demuestre que en la naturaleza alguna planta o árbol crezca en surcos o filas. La regla para la siembra cercana es muy sencilla, se siembran las semillas o las plántulas en un patrón de distribu ción hexagonal. Las d istancias re comendadas son d iferentes a las usadas en la agricultur a tradicional, pues permiten que las hojas de las plantas se toquen cuando son adultas, sin dejar ningún espacio de la cama descubierto. La siembra cercana tien e innumerables ventajas, entre las principales están: 1o. Se limita la evaporación del agua, 2 o. La produ cción es mayor, 3o. Se limita el cre cimiento de hierbas indeseables, 4o. Se crea un microclima bajo las plantas, 5o. Se re ducen los ataques de insectos y 6o. Las raíces aprovechan mejor los nutrientes. Como ejemplo de las distancias recomendadas se anotan los siguientes (en centímetros). Cultivo Distancia* Acelga 15 Ajo 7 a 10 Betabel 10 Brócoli 40 Calabacita 50 Cebolla 10 Papa 30 Pepino   30 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 198 Cultivo Distancia* Rábano 3 * En centímetros Asociación de Cultivos Entre las muchas razones para usar la asociación de cultivos las mas conocidas son evitar el agotamiento de los nu trientes del suelo y li mitar las p lagas, ambos situacio nes son propiciadas por el monocultivo. Una adecuada selección de cultivos debe considerar al menos dos criterios. 17. Los hábitos alimentarios de los cultivos, considerando las plantas fuertes consumidoras o consumidoras voraces, las fertilizantes donantes y las consumidoras ligeras. 18. Las propied ades intrín secas de ca da variedad , por ejem plo los be tabeles que extraen sales del suelo, la valeriana que fortalece a casi todas las hortaliza s y concent ra el fósforo o la mejorana que mejora el sabor y la resistencia a las plagas de práctica mente todos los cultivos. Entre los principales beneficios identificados de la asociación de cultivos están la protección física, el control de insectos y hierbas, mejoría en salud y crecimiento, mejor sabor y nutrición de los cultivos La Integralidad El quinto principio del método Bioi ntensivo consiste en que los 4 primeros no f uncionan separadamente, en otras palabras: los primeros cinco prin cipios de l método son un todo integral y equilibrado, en armonía con la naturaleza. Si alguien se entusiasma con alguno de los principios del método o los usa separadamente y olvida los otros, quizá obtenga buenos resultados inicialmente, pero en una o dos temporadas de cultivo agotará el suelo, si, e s lógico si se detiene a pensarlo, el Métod o Biointensivo produce altos rendimientos gracias al uso combinado de las técnicas y principios desarrollados, pero también tiene el potencial de devastar el suelo si no se usan de manera apropiada, por ejemplo si usa la siembra cercana en un a cama sin la doble excavación, obtendrá plantas débiles y enfermizas, una cama doble excavada y con siembra cercana pero sin composta agotara el suelo rápidamente. La interrelación de los principio s del método los potencia mutuamente, de manera que cada uno de ellos refuerza a los demás y a su vez es reforzado, en un circulo virtuoso continuo. Cualquiera que sea cu idadoso en aplicar e stos principio s obtendrá los rendim ientos y beneficios q ue se descr ibieron al pr incipio, pero aun hay otras cuestion es que con siderar como ¿qué tipo de semilla debo usar?, ¿d e donde obtendré el material para seguir fabricando composta y s er autosuficiente?, ¿qué debo semb rar para que mi fa milia obtenga alimentos nutritivos?, veamos: Semillas de polinización abierta Las especie s animales no son las únicas en p eligro de extinción, las semillas de las que depende nuestra alimentación están seriamente amenazadas y para no variar, por n osotros mismos. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 199 En los sete ntas y ochentas los cie ntíficos par ecían haber encontrado una solución a los problemas del hambre en el mundo, cuando usando se millas híbrid as lograron muy altos rendimientos, sobre to do en cereales, la so lución al ha mbre de cientos de millones de personas había llegad o, la primera plana de los periódicos anunciab a que las hambrunas serían pronto cosa del pasado . Los años t ranscurridos desde la llamada r evolución verde nos p ermiten apreciar un panorama totalmente distinto, las h ambrunas continúan, la s Naciones Unidas reportan que cada noche mas de mil millones de personas duermen con hambre. Pero aun hay mas, la producción de nuestros alimentos depende ahora de las semillas híbridas, de unas cuant as variedades que surten unas pocas compañías transna cionales, ciertamente los rendimientos son altos, pe ro los cultivos resultantes requie ren agua, fertilizantes e insecticid as, insumos cada vez mas escasos y los dos últimos causan mas problemas al ambiente que beneficios. Si esta dependencia es un mal que cada vez mas países pad ecen, palid ece si lo comparamos con la perdida de diversidad, a mediados del siglo pasado cada región, valle y país tenia sus propias variedades de frutas, vegetales y cereales. Dos ejemplos de esta perdida: 1) La India cultivaba en 194 0 alrededor de 30,000 variedades de arroz, en 1997 sólo quedaban 10, 2) de las 7,000 variedades de manzana registradas en los Estado s Unidos en 1904, par a 1997 se habían per dido el 97 %, en el mundo esta tendencia e s tan a larmante que e n el año 2, 000 del tot al de cultivos que confor maban la esencia del patrimonio agrícola de la humanidad solo sobrevivían el 8%. ¿Qué hay de malo en e sto?, para decirlo de manera sencilla y directa, lo que esta en juego es el futuro alimentario de la humanidad. Nu estras semillas criollas son produ cto de la experiencia agrícola de nuestros a buelos, en nuestro paí s, en nue stra región, e n nuestro pueblo, han pasado la prueba del tiempo, no así las semillas híbridas. Afortunadamente exist en personas y organizaciones que se esfuerzan por conservar este patrimonio genético, cada país d ebería tene r sus prop ios banco s de semillas criol las, conservarlas e intercambiarlas y así evitar su perdida Sin detenernos mas a definir otras características de las semilla híbrida, por sus efectos en la economía y en el ambiente, podemos discernir con facilidad que no son la mejor opción. ¿Cuál es entonces la alternativa?, obviamente las semillas que no son híbridas, es decir las de poliniza ción abierta, las que u saban nuestros abuelo s para sus cultivos, la s que se conocen en muchos lugares como criollas o autóctonas. Los cult ivos producto de estas semillas, a diferencia d e las híbr idas, no req uieren de cuidados e speciales, ni fertilizantes, est án perf ectamente adaptadas al ambiente y por lo mismo presentan mayor resistencia a los cambios climáticos y a las plagas, los frutos pueden ser no tan grandes o lustrosos, p ero si mas dulces, aro máticos y exquisitos, ¿ ha notado usted esto cuando con sume un producto importado y lo compara con otro adq uirido e n nuestros mercados locales? Y lo mejor es que estas semillas están a n uestro alca nce, bien i ntercambiándolas co n nuestros vecinos o produciéndolas nosotros mismos, el procedimiento es muy sencillo, quien se interese en hacerlo comuníquese con Ecology Action o ECOPOL y solicite asesoría. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 200 Producción de Carbón en el huerto El secreto para cultivar un huerto saludable y productivo es la composta. Para pro ducirla sin embargo se requieren materia orgánica verde, materia orgánica seca, suelo y agua y si bien en lo gener al casi nun ca hay prob lema con lo s dos últim os element os, con frecuencia se enfrentan dificultades para reunir materia orgán ica, sobre todo la se ca (carbón) La solución no es com prarla o tra erla de otr a parte es decir “importarlas”, la solución de fondo es producirla nosotros mismos, en nuestras propias camas. Una formula muy sencilla para lograrlo, es la llamada 60-30-10. • 60% del área de sus camas se destina al cult ivo de grano s y cereales, como trigo, avena, cebada, centeno, tritícale, maíz, sorgo, amaranto, quínoa, habas, girasoles. El propósito es obtener materia org ánica seca (carbón) para la compo sta y al mismo tiempo aprovechar la parte comestible para la dieta humana. • 30% del área de sus camas se de stina a la producción de calorías para su familia, como papas, camotes, ajo y otro s cultivos q ue sean eficientes en producción de alimentos por unidad de área, es decir que en poco espacio produzcan mas calorías. • 10% del área de las camas se de dica al cultivo de vegetales mixtos, que producen poco carbón y pocas calorías pero permiten agregar a la d ieta vitaminas y minerales, en este 10% también se pueden sembrar cultivos para ingreso. Si se tiene paciencia y la disciplina para aplica r esta formula, en unas cuantas temporadas de cultivo se lograran aportes signif icativos a la alimentación de la fa milia y carbón para la composta, y casi sin sentirlo se emprenderá el camino a la sustentabilidad. Producción de Calorías Es necesario romper con la idea d e que la fu nción del h uerto familiar es produci r algunos vegetales para complementar la dieta de la familia, en realidad una pequeña superficie de terreno en el traspatio de cualquier hogar, cultivada con amor y paciencia es suficie nte para hacer aportes significativos a la dieta familiar. Para lograrlo es necesario pensar en las necesidades y gustos de l a familia, seleccionar cuidadosamente los cultivos, de manera que sean eficientes en p roducir el máximo de calorías en el mínimo de superficie cultivada, no es fácil, pero no es imposible. Es muy importante cultivar y consumir una dieta sana y ba lanceada, basada en productos vegetales, en nuestra civilización se privilegia e l consumo e xcesivo de proteínas d e origen animal y ca lorías “vací as“ (provenientes de azúcares y gr asas), lo qu e es causa de gran parte de nuestras enfermedades. Esta breve descripción de los principios del Método Biointensivo de Cultivo, es sólo una introducción que pretende motivar a quien la lea, si esto se logra, el paso siguiente es hacer contacto con las personas u organizaciones que en el país sean encarg adas del proceso de difusión, ta mbién ayud ará adquirir y leer el libro de John Jeavons “Cultivo Biointensivo de Alimentos”, más alimentos en menos espacio. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 201 Si así lo hace: !Bienvenido al grupo de Biointensivistas! Conclusión A pesar de sus altos re ndimientos, las técnicas sencillas pero sofisticadas y su alto costo￾beneficio, (factores todos documentados), el método Biointensivo de cultivo no es la solución total, pues aun cuando produce cosechas ab undantes e n poco e spacio al tie mpo qu e restituye o conserva la fertilidad del suelo y aun construye suelos, lo que lo constituye en una de las mejores alternativas viables a la depredación del sue lo, si no se usa adecua damente, puede agotar los suelos mucho mas rápido que otros métodos agrícolas. Nuestra ép oca si bien se caracte riza por la depredación de lo s recursos natur ales y la agresión al ambiente, es a la vez una época de oportunidades para miles de individuos, organizaciones y co munidades que emprenden esfuerzos p or encontr ar técnica s sustentables, viables y amigables con el ambiente para p roducir sin agredir, por ello creer que un tipo de agricultura en particular es la único solución o el camino n o es inteligente, en el futuro es muy probable que surja un nuevo método que combine los principios y técnicas de las principales corrientes experimentales de la agricultura orgánica actual como: • Método Biointensivo de cultivo. • Practicas agroforestales. • Método Fukuoka para el cultivo de alimentos sin labranza. • Agricultura tradicional asiática para cultivo de arroz con algas. • Agricultura de tierras áridas de temporal y • Algunas practicas de la agricultura autóctona, entre otras. En tanto esto sucede, recuerde lo que dijo Ghandi: “olvidar como excavar la tierra y cuidar el suelo es olvidarnos de nosotros mismos”, yo estoy de acuerdo, ¿y usted? Juan Manuel Martínez Valdez. Presidente de ECOPOL México PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 202 18.9 MTE Workshops Results Santa Cruz de Quiche—PROMASA II Personnel Inputs to the MTE Introduction Workshop Plan Lugar: Santa Cruz de Quiche Fecha del taller: 28 de mayo 2010 Horario: 1400‐1800 Propósito y productos del taller: En el ultimo día del campo de la evaluación se va a realizar un taller de medio día con participantes representantes de las varios áreas programáticas, de MyE, y gerenciales de PROMASA. El propósito de este taller no es presentar observaciones ni resultados preliminares del equipo evaluador, sino dar al personal involucrado con PROMASA II la oportunidad a contribuir más al análisis del desempeño del proyecto a la fecha, con énfasis en proponer lecciones aprendidas, recomendaciones para mejorar, priorización de actividades, primeras consideraciones para desarrollar una estrategia de salida (dado que el proyecto termina en un año y medio), y lineamientos generales/ideales para un proyecto que podría ser propuesto basado en las lecciones aprendidas en PROMASA II.   Otro producto, menos tangible pero quizás importante también, sería más acercamiento del equipo PROMASA y más claridad sobre los retos y oportunidades que existen en el proyecto. Los productos de este taller van a ser sintetizados e incorporados en el primer borrador del reporte de evaluación y presentados en relación a las observaciones y recomendaciones preliminares del equipo EMT en el próximo taller (una semana después de este taller) con los gerentes en los diferentes niveles de SC‐PROMASA en la ciudad de Guatemala. Nota: Guia de Facilitador al fin de esta sección. Programa Tiempo Actividad 1400 (a) Bienvenida, introducción general, introducción al equipo EMT (Gerente de PROMASA);   (b) Propósito, plan y productos, y expectativas para el taller (líder del equipo EMT)   1430 Breves presentaciones sobre el trabajo de campo hasta la fecha y muy preliminares impresiones y/o preguntas de los miembros del equipo EMT (los tres miembros del equipo, 3 a 5 minutos por persona) seguido por 5 a 10 minutos para preguntas generales o de clarificación de parte de los PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 203 Tiempo Actividad participantes. 1500 Explicación del trabajo en grupos (líder del equipo EMT) y ubicación de los grupos (pre‐asignados) a sus mesas de trabajo. (Nota: Hay una guía para cada facilitador de grupo.) 1515 Trabajo en grupos   La tarea va a variar un poco dependiendo de la área de trabajo* en SC y/o PROMASA, pero el enfoque en general va a ser el siguiente:   19. Sugerencias para mejoras al proyecto PROMASA II 20. Consideraciones iniciales prioritarias para desarrollar una estrategia de salida 21. Lineamientos generales/ideales para un proyecto que podría ser propuesto basado en las lecciones aprendidas en PROMASA II Metodología: Breve introducción e instrucciones al inicio de cada actividad por el facilitador del grupo, lluvia de ideas en rotafolio, eliminación de ideas repetidas, priorización de las ideas (1, 2, 3, etc.), presentar los resultados a la plenaria, y guardar los rotafolios para entregarlos al equipo EMT (ph) después del taller. 1600 Café/Descanso 1615 Continua trabajo en los grupos… Los grupos pueden preparar y presentar sus conclusiones en rotafolio y/o en PowerPoint, con copia preferiblemente en forma electrónica para el equipo EMT antes del fin del taller.   1700 Presentaciones de los grupos (5 a 8 minutos por grupo). PowerPoint o Rotafolio. Dada la premura del tiempo, se privilegiarán las preguntas aclaratorias. Otro tipo de preguntas se responderá según la disponibilidad de tiempo. 1745 Síntesis de las presentaciones, acuerdos sobre como las presentaciones van a servir como un insumo importante a la EMT, agradecimiento (lider del equipo EMT) 1755 Evaluación del taller   1800 Gerente PROMASA) PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 204 Workshop Outputs GRUPO >> 1 2 3 4 PREGUNTAS VV SO‐1 SALUD MATERNO INFANTIL Y NUTRICIONAL SO‐2 SEGURIDAD DE MEDIOS DE VIDA   Y SO‐3 RESILENCIA Y MEDIO AMBIENTE DEMOCRACIA Y GOBERNABILIDAD Y MONITOREO Y EVALUACIÓN GERENCIA Y FACTORES TRANSVERSALES A. Retos principales observados y potenciales en relación al desempeño del proyecto Cobertura grande para el grupo que actualmente ejecuta las actividades Falta de Comunicación: No hay una estrategia para implementar acciones del programa de forma integral. Operativamente cada componente se preocupa por sus actividades y productos. a. Ej. Entrega de gallinas y cabras no priorizadas a familias con hijos de bajo peso. b. Ej. Análisis situacional (solo ha sido responsable del OE1) Atraso sustancial en la dotación de materiales Rotación de personal técnico y ML (nivel académico: a. Manual de inducción estandarizado. b. Recurso humano calificado escazo PROMASA ha sido visto como un programa de entrega de alimentos   a. Debe ser visto Haber roto paradigmas (higiene, sistemas de siembra) Haber mantenido bajo el % de desnutrición Número de familias que han adoptado practicas Mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida de algunas familias participantes Apropiación del proyecto por parte de algunas familias participantes. Disminuir la tasa de desnutrición. Sostenibilidad de prácticas implementadas dentro de las comunidades. Cumplir y alcanzar los indicadores. Crear canales de comunicación en diversos niveles dentro de PROMASA. Explicación: Falta de claridad en cuanto a requerimientos de información, frecuencia y forma de presentación. Crear estrategias de coordinación entre equipo técnico, comunitario e interinstitucional. Explicación: Cada objetivo estratégico del programa trabaja por su cuenta, es necesario crear un mecanismo que permita adoptar una estrategia integrada de implementación. Crear un tipo de reporte para presentar datos a la comunidad. Explicación: Retroalimentación integrada a las comunidades sobre su situación, para discusión, análisis y planificación. Contar con un sistema de organización a nivel comunitario. Explicación: Modelo de organización estandarizado para las comunidades, funciones para cada integrante de COSAN y participantes. Cobertura muy amplia:  ‐Geográfica  ‐Población meta Metas muy altas en Actividades y Sub‐ actividades Problemas de diseño: Estructura inicial del programa muy reducida en comparación con las metas establecidas lo que afectó el tiempo de ejecución (programática y estructura financiera) Supuestos: relación con el gobierno a nivel municipal, fondos de contrapartida de gobierno (que nunca hubieron), capacidades de la población (en el diseño no está contemplado el tiempo real para adopción y logro de cambios de comportamiento   Se estableció demasiado peso a la distribución de alimentos, sacrificando la calidad de los procesos en otras actividades Definición de actividades que realmente tengan PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 205 GRUPO >> 1 2 3 4 integral Poco empoderamiento de la ML (rotación, escolaridad) a. Sea ejemplo, adopción de prácticas Rotación de personal técnico (COTONEB) así como ML Comunicación entre coordinación y técnicos. (Anterior) Implementación tardía de las actividades del OE1 Falta de comunicación efectiva entre los diferentes componentes a. Identificación de actividades claves (conjuntas) Las familias no identifican la desnutrición como un problema impacto Problemas de implementación: Ej: Selección sin criterios de socios   Tendencias políticas organizaciones cooperativas Escasez e inexistencia de RRHH a nivel local, y falta de personal idóneo para puestos técnicos y comunitario,   Rotación de personal que requiere más procesos de capacitación lo que provoca retraso en las actividades Interferencia de programas sociales de gobierno Hay cultura de paternalismo   Pérdida total del voluntariado No hay acciones concretas ni inversiones productivas generadores de ingresos que difícilmente contribuyan a que las familias sean auto‐ sostenibles   Falta de integración de los diferentes componentes Cumplimiento de metas para el tiempo de vida que le queda al proyecto Recambio de participantes en COCODES, COMUDES, COSANES B. Sugerencias para Aumento de técnicos: Mejorar las Elaborar esquema de Revisión y priorización PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 206 GRUPO >> 1 2 3 4 mejoras al proyecto PROMASA II (500 familias por técnico) y disminuir la población cobertura. a. 1 ML por comunidad Identificar actividades claves del equipo y su estrategia de implementación, con instrumentos y guías respectivas, estandarizadas. a. Realizar ASISAN integral conjunto a todo nivel. Implementar programa de desarrollo profesional de parte de RH. Delimitar actividades ML, técnicos y verificar su cumplimiento. condiciones laborales (salarios, viáticos, equipo, etc). Coordinación entre componentes (gerencia, subgerencia, lideres, coordinadores, supervisores, tecnicos, LA, ML) Agilizar y simplificar los procesos administrativos (compras, viaticos, anticipos, liquidaciones) Simplificar los instrumentos utilizados en M&E. Suficiente personal tecnico por cobertura geografica y numero de familias Tecnicos especificos para cada actividad (agricola, pecuario, forestal) actividades por objetivo estratégico, y su relación con resultados intermedios e indicadores. Explicación: Reuniones de equipos técnicos de cada OE para análisis de resultados de las actividades y como afectan los RI’s. Desarrollar un plan de capacitación mensual continuada. Incluido en el POA de cada OE y técnico. Explicación: Cada OE desarrolla un programa de capacitación dirigido hacia sus compañeros de otros OE’s o unidades de apoyo. Esto a nivel de equipos municipales. Definir fechas y personas responsables específicas para que se pueda interactuar entre Gerencia/Coordinación y Técnicos de Campo. Explicación: 1 o 2 personas que aseguren que la información fluya a todo nivel. Revisión de plan de ingreso de PROMASA a comunidades con interés de participación. Explicación: En algunas comunidades el ingreso se hace a través de los COCODE’s, en otras a través de grupos de interés. de actividades con mayor impacto Reducir las metas para mejorar la calidad de las intervenciones   Desarrollar una estrategia para mejorar la integración de los componentes Revisar y ajustar los indicadores Dar prioridad a los modelos diferenciados Solicitar ampliación del proyecto en por lo menos un año más para   Definición de actividades que llegan a tener impacto la sobre la meta en el corto plazo   Más relación entre causa y efecto Necesidad de establecer modelos diferenciados en seguridad alimentaria Consolidar las acciones con financiamiento C. Consideraciones iniciales para desarrollar una estrategia de salida Ordenamiento de comunidades para salida PEPS Elabora plan de salida estructurado Inventario de bienes e insumos proporcionados por PROMASA (cabras, gallinas, herramientas, Definir criterios de salida de comunidades. Explicación: Ejemplo: podría darse salida a comunidades que Establecer criterios para salida de comunidades Análisis de capacidades de los socios para seguir PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 207 GRUPO >> 1 2 3 4 Compromisos por escrito con los COCODES para continuar con las actividades Fortalecer la creación y capacitación de la red municipal de COSANES materiales) Cierre de comunidades paulatinamente de acuerdo a su nivel de tecnificacion, participacion y cumplimiento de metas Reuniones con autoridades locales para presentar resultados. Consolidar mas a las COSANes para que le den continuidad. Elaboracion de documentos de soporte (actas, conocimientos, etc) para la entrega y manejo de bienes y materiales. presentan mejores resultados en el estado nutricional de los participantes. Planes de sensibilización hacia los participantes sobre los beneficios que reciben o recibieron del programa. Explicación: Plan dirigido a comunidades que logran concluir su participación al final del programa en Septiembre 2011. Plan dirigido a comunidades que deben salir antes de la finalización del programa. Compartir información con las comunidades para análisis situacional. Reducción gradual en la entrega de alimentos a los participantes. Explicación: Cambiar la frecuencia de distribución de alimentos, de 1 ración mensual a 1 ración trimestral. impulsando algunas actividades   Análisis de capacidades de las comunidades: COSANES, COCODES, Líderes para darle continuidad a las actividades del Programa Establecer contactos/ coordinar para promover la estructura organizativa comunitaria del proyecto antes otras instituciones (dar a conocer el modelo y venderlo) Reconocimiento por escrito a líderes (agropecuarios, ML, líderes comunitarios) Redes municipales de COSAN´ parte del Proyecto D. Lineamientos generales/ideales para un proyecto que podría ser propuesto basado en las lecciones aprendidas en PROMASA II Utilizar material ya generado Mejorar incentivos   Reducir número de familias a cargo de cada ML Realizar actividades motivacionales para asegurar permanencia Ecuación formal a través de módulos   Creación de comunidades modelos Identificar y atender comunidades que cumplan con todos los medios o recursos para la implementación de actividades de los componentes del Programa. Buena selección de comunidades. Implementación de actividades de acuerdo a las demandas de la comunidad. Plan de integración de equipo institucional.   Creación de criterios estandarizados de implementación. Capacitaciones entre equipos de objetivos estratégicos. Evitar divisionismo en el equipo. Mayor integración de líderes comunitarios en las actividades del programa. Sistematizar las lecciones aprendidas del PROMASA II Con base a los resultados estudiar diferentes modelos de intervención: implementación directa vrs socios Buscar que se garantice la estabilidad dirigencial de los potenciales socios Programas de SAN PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 208 GRUPO >> 1 2 3 4 Dotación de infraestructura Rescatar personal comunitarios e institucional ya calificado Reducir área de cobertura (menos beneficiarios) Promover temas de AUTOESTIMA, GENERO Selección objetiva de municipios y comunidades (no ofrecer ni rogar para entrar) Ampliar grupo etérea beneficiario Granjas integrales productivas con mas recursos externos para incentivar mas la participacion y calidad de las mismas. Priorizar actividades en funcion de la implementacion de GIPs.   Reducir cantidad y mejorar calidad. El componente de fortalecimiento a las organizaciones comunitarias debe ser la punta de lanza del programa. Explicación: Plan de capacitación integral, con intervenciones en liderazgo, técnicas de negociación, D&G, etc. Plan revisado y mejorado de ingreso a comunidades. Estimar un número adecuado de personal técnico institucional con relación al número de comunidades y participantes. Explicación: Técnicos con presencia permanente en las comunidades. (Que vivan en las comunidades) Creación de una fuente permanente para generación de ingresos a nivel comunitario, que permita continuar las actividades después de la salida del programa. Explicación: Una entidad comercial o no lucrativa que continúe generando ingresos y efectuando pagos a los voluntarios. Que exista un coordinador de programa a nivel de cada oficina municipal. Explicación: Brindaría acompañamiento y/o asistencia técnica oportuna a los equipos técnicos de cada oficina municipal de PROMASA. con mayor peso en proyectos en medios de vida (generadores de ingresos), de desarrollo económico local y generación de empleo Promover planes estratégicos de desarrollo comunitario Vincular el enfoque de un nuevo programa con las iniciativas innovadoras emergentes tomando en cuenta experiencias del PROMASA II Identificación de socios potenciales para un nuevo programa Reforzar el enfoque de género en el nuevo programa PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 209 Evaluación de Medio Término de PROMASA II Guía de Facilitador—OEs 1, 2, 3: Análisis por el Equipo de Campo de PROMASA II (Santa Cruz de Quiche—28 de abril 2010) Guia de Faciltador El facilitador/a tiene la libertad de adaptar este guía como sea necesario. 1. Seleccione un relator/monitor del tiempo. (El facilitador va a tener que tomar sus propias notas sobre puntos claves, pero la mayoría de la información necesaria debe ser producido y notado en rotafolio y/o en PowerPoint por el grupo para la presentación y para compartir con el equipo EMT después del taller.) 2. Brevemente acordar al grupo sobre el propósito del taller, a continuación: Propósito y Productos del Taller:   El propósito de este taller no es presentar observaciones ni resultados preliminares del equipo evaluador, sino dar al personal involucrado con PROMASA II la oportunidad a contribuir más al análisis del desempeño del proyecto hasta la fecha, con énfasis en proponer lecciones aprendidas, recomendaciones para mejoras, primeras consideraciones prioritarias para desarrollar una estrategia de salida, y lineamientos generales/ideales para un proyecto que podría ser propuesta basado en las lecciones aprendidas en PROMASA II.   3. Solamente para establecer un marco de referencia para ubicar y animar al grupo, presente— según sus observaciones de campo—un breve (2 a 3 minutos) resumen de tendencias muy generales, positivas y a mejorarse, con respeto al desempeño del OE (más elementos transversales como el género, monitoreo, etc.) que usted, facilitador, está manejando en el EMT. Nota que no se quiere debatir/discutir puntos/observaciones de campo en este taller, sino en el próximo taller. Sería útil tener a mano o en la pantalla de su computadora el PROMASA MYAP, y especialmente el resumen del marco lógico (SG, SO, IR). 4. Metodología Sugerida Para Trabajar con las Cuatro Preguntas (a continuación) 4.1 Breve introducción e instrucciones al inicio de cada pregunta por el facilitador del grupo, lluvia de ideas en rotafolio, eliminación de ideas repetidas, priorización de las ideas (1, 2, 3, etc.), breve síntesis si sea aplicable. 4.2 Favor de asegurar que cada pregunta abajo está escrito en forma resumida en la primera pagina del rotafolio, y que se escribe el numero de la pregunta—1, 2, 3, o 4—y el numero de la pagina en cada hoja, y finalmente, anoten la lluvia de ideas y su priorizacion y, si existen, preguntas, comentarios, etc …para así evitar una mezcla de papeles rotafolio entre su grupo, y entre los grupos después de recolectar los mismos. Estos lineamientos aplican también si están metiendo y mostrando la información en PowerPoint. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 210 a) Proponer lecciones aprendidas generales (no muy detallado o técnico) hasta ahora en relación a lograr las metas intermedias y los productos de su OE según los planes anuales y descripciones de puesto, etc., de los miembros del grupo. b) Sugerencias para mejoras   c) Primeras consideraciones prioritarias para desarrollar una estrategia de salida d) Lineamientos generales para un proyecto ‘ideal’ que podría ser propuesta basado en las lecciones aprendidas en PROMASA II y tomando en cuenta las tendencias sociales, económicas, y ambientales en Guatemala. Se sugiere empezar con un breve discusión sobre que serian importantes criterios para un proyecto ideal, incluyendo, por ejemplo, genero, sostenibilidad, etc. 5. Pide al relator presentar los resultados de las cuatro preguntas dentro de los 5 minutos disponibles por grupo. El facilitador puede preguntar a su grupo si alguien quiere añadir o ampliar algo (brevemente), y el facilitador puede añadir o ampliar también si cree que es importante (brevemente). –Preparado por PH en consulta con el equipo PROMASA II y SST y KT/PROMSA II MTE/25‐5‐2010 SC/Guatemala City—PROMASA II Review of Preliminary MTE Findings Workshop Plan Fecha: 6 Mayo 2010 Tiempo: 0900—1700   Propósito   (1) Presentar a la gerencia de Save the Children‐PROMASA los resultados y recomendaciones preliminares de la evaluación de medio término (EMT) de PROMASA II.   (2) Dar la oportunidad a los participantes a reflexionar sobre los resultados y recomendaciones preliminares con los miembros del equipo del EMT, proponer cambios y añadimientos si hay errores o factores que no han sido tomados en cuenta, priorizar las recomendaciones, hacer un análisis de riesgos relacionado con la implementación de las recomendaciones, y preparar un borrador de un plan de acción para implementar las recomendaciones. Metodología   Presentación El equipo del EMT presenta un resumen del propósito de la EMT y procesos y productos esperados según los términos de referencia, la metodología de la evaluación, incluyendo lugares visitados, personas entrevistadas, etc., seguido por los resultados y recomendaciones preliminares. Habrá espacios para aclaraciones de parte de los participantes. Trabajo en Grupos y Plenaria La mayoría del tiempo en el taller va a ser dedicado a trabajar en grupos para proponer cambios y añadimientos a los resultados y recomendaciones preliminares, corregir errores o identificar factores que no habían sido tomados en cuenta en la evaluación hasta la fecha, aprobar las recomendaciones por consenso, priorizar las recomendaciones aprobadas, hacer un análisis de riesgos relacionado con la implementación de las recomendaciones aprobadas, y preparar un borrador de un plan de acción para implementar las recomendaciones aprobadas. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 211 Save the Children‐PROMASA Plan de Taller Tiempo Actividad Respons 0900 Bienvenidos, expectativas, revisión y ajustes de la agenda propuesta Carlos Mauro Rodrigo Peter 0915 Presentación de un resumen del propósito de la EMT, productos esperados según los términos de referencia, la metodología de la evaluación, incluyendo lugares visitados, personas entrevistadas, resúmenes y análises diarios, etc., y que falta hacerse todavía. Aclaraciones/preguntas y respuestas Peter Sandra 0945 El Proyecto Actual Instrucciones sobre anotar desacuerdos, preguntas, y sugerencias durante la presentación—a tratarse en los grupos de trabajo más tarde. Presentación de los resultados y recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT, por objetivo estratégico, seguido por factores transversales y un resumen de lo que funciona bien y de lo que puede mejorarse.   Aclaraciones/preguntas y respuestas breves (…ver grupos de trabajo a continuación) Peter Sandra 1030 Café y alimentos por trabajo SC 1045 Grupos de Trabajo Instrucciones para los grupos de trabajo. Cada grupo tendrá un guía con todas las observaciones y recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT. Este formato facilitara el cuestionamiento (ver ‘tomar notas durante la presentación,’ arriba, análisis, y priorización de las observaciones y recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT. Discutir en los grupos de trabajo las observaciones y recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT…. Hay preguntas específicas en relación a precisión, relevancia, factibilidad, priorización, y análisis de riesgos. Peter Sandra SC/ Equipo PROMASA 1300 Almuerzo SC 1300 Presentaciones de los resultados de los grupos Peter Sandra 1400 Síntesis en plenaria de los resultados de los grupos Peter Sandra 1430 Un Futuro Proyecto   Instrucciones sobre anotar desacuerdos, preguntas, y sugerencias durante la presentación—a tratarse en los grupos de trabajo más tarde. Presentación de las recomendaciones preliminares del equipo EMT en relación a retos, criterios, y posibles estrategias propuestas para diseñar un nuevo proyecto Titulo II basado en los efectos de PROMASA II y a seguir PROMASA II. Aclaraciones/preguntas y respuestas breves (…ver grupos de trabajo a Peter Sandra PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 212 Tiempo Actividad Respons continuación) 1500 Grupos de Trabajo Instrucciones para los grupos de trabajo. Cada grupo tendrá un guía con todas las recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT en relación a un futuro proyecto. Este formato facilitara el cuestionamiento (ver ‘tomar notas durante la presentación,’ arriba), análisis, y priorización de las observaciones y recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT. Discutir en los grupos de trabajo las observaciones y recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT…. Hay preguntas específicas en relación a precisión, relevancia, factibilidad, priorización, y análisis de riesgos. Peter Sandra SC/ Equipo PROMASA 1545 Café y alimentos por trabajo SC 1600 Presentaciones de los resultados de los grupos Peter Sandra 1620 Síntesis en plenaria de los resultados de los grupos Peter Sandra 1630 Plan de Acción/Seguimiento (borrador) Breve resumen de los próximos pasos de la evaluación. Explicación del propósito del plan de seguimiento en borrador e instrucciones sobre cómo prepararlo, empezando con lluvia de ideas basado en los resultados de los dos ejercicios de grupo anteriormente, y finalizando con priorización, fechas metas, identificación de personas responsables, otros recursos necesarios, breve análisis de riesgos etc.) Peter Sandra SC/ Equipo PROMASA 1655 Evaluación del taller. SC/ Equipo PROMASA 1700 Gracias y adiós. Carlos Mauro Rodrigo Peter Sandra Preliminary Results Presentation to USAID and GOG 13 de mayo, se llevara a cabo en el Salón Marfil, del Hotel Clarion, de 9:00 a 14:00 Fecha del Taller:   13 Mayo 2010 Horario:     09:00 — 13:00   Propósito del taller: • Compartir con los participantes los resultados preliminares de la evaluación de medio término del Proyecto Maya de Seguridad Alimentaria II (PROMASA II), con enfoque a lo que si ha funcionado y lo que no ha funcionado, para reducir la inseguridad alimentaria en seis Municipios del Quiché. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 213 • Impartir a los participantes del taller, las recomendaciones preliminares de la evaluación de medio término. • Basado en lo anterior, por medio de preguntas‐respuestas y un panel de discusión, explorar con los participantes del taller, propuestas de opciones estratégicas para una programación de seguridad alimentaria más efectiva.   Antecedentes Save the Children es una organización no gubernamental con sede en Londres, Inglaterra. Cuenta con 29 organizaciones miembros, incluyendo Save the Children USA (SCF‐USA), fundada en 1932, con sede en Connecticut USA. Save the Children USA actualmente implementa proyectos de ayuda y desarrollo en más de 50 países alrededor del mundo, asistiendo/ayudando a millones de familias a tener un sustento más seguro. La misión de SCF‐USA es crear un cambio positivo y duradero en la vida de los niños y niñas más necesitados en EEUU y alrededor del mundo. Con financiamiento proveniente de la USAID, con su socia Guatemalteca Cooperativa Agrícola Integral Todos Nebajenses (COTONEB) y en asocio cercano con los proveedores de servicios Génesis (micro‐ crédito) y Kiej de los Bosques (enlace de mercadeo entre las familias participantes y el sector privado), en el mes de octubre 2007, SCF‐USA ha implementado en Guatemala el proyecto PROMASA II, trabajando en 123 comunidades en el departamento del Quiché, Guatemala, ayudando a más de 100 mil personas indígenas a mejorar su nutrición y salud. La evaluación de medio término del proyecto PROMASA II, está enfocándose en las formas en que el proyecto pueda mejorar sus sistemas y procesos de una manera en que ayudará a PROMASAII a mejorar su eficiencia e impacto para los próximos 18 meses restantes de operaciones del proyecto. (La fecha de finalización del proyecto PROMASA II es en Septiembre 2011). La evaluación de medio término permitirá tener un mejor entendimiento de lo que ha funcionado y lo que no ha funcionado en el proyecto, y de este modo, qué diseño de mejor práctica de continuidad o un nuevo proyecto necesitará para patentizar una mayor rentabilidad e impacto de la que ya cuenta PROMASA II. La evaluación ha contribuido con el deseo de SCF/Guatemala para identificar los medios de mejores prácticas/más innovadoras para mejorar la seguridad alimentaria.   Este foro brindará una oportunidad a SCF/Guatemala para compartir, en mejor panorama, los hallazgos y recomendaciones de la evaluación de medio término con una audiencia experimentada en la promoción de seguridad de medios de vida y seguridad alimentaria – en particular con – SESAN, MFEWS, USAID, conjuntamente con SCF y sus socios COTONEB, Génesis y Kiej de los Bosques – y de ese modo para probar las suposiciones relacionadas con la posible futura programación.   Qué hay en esta revisión para SESAN, MFEWS y USAID? …Una oportunidad para explorar la experiencia del desarrollo programático de Titulo II de una ONG y sus organizaciones socias, y qué estrategias fueron más exitosas para mejorar la seguridad alimentaria. Esta experiencia e información podría ayudar a todos los participantes en el desarrollo de programas y proyectos más efectivos para mejorar la seguridad alimentaria en Guatemala. Metodología El taller está siendo auspiciado por Save the Children/Guatemala. Peter Heffron, líder del equipo de la evaluación del medio término (EMT), presentará en forma general los resultados y recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT y facilitará la parte de preguntas y respuestas, así como otros momentos PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 214 durante el taller. Sandra Saenz de Tejada, compañera y miembro del equipo evaluador, presentará los resultados del componente de MCH y Peter Heffron presentará los resultados de los componentes de producción agrícola, recursos naturales y preparación para Emergencias, así como de los elementos interrelacionados (gerencia del proyecto, género, etc.). Los participantes del taller serán los representantes de SESAN, MFEWS, USAID, Save the Children, COTONEB, Génesis, Kiej de los Bosques, así como miembros del equipo de la EMT mencionados anteriormente. El listado completo de participantes está adjunto. Este taller será presentado en dos segmentos: 9:00 a 11:00: Presentación de los hallazgos, recomendaciones, preguntas y respuestas de la EMT. 11:15 a 13:00: Discusión de las recomendaciones de la evaluación y su operacionalización.   Plan de Taller USAID Hora Actividad 09:00 Bienvenida Presentaciones de los participantes y facilitador.   Revisión general de la agenda.   09:15 a) presentación del los antecedentes relacionados al área del PROMASA,   b) presentación de los resultados preliminares de la EMT de PROMASA, incluyendo los principales hallazgos y recomendaciones, con énfasis en los abordajes que han y no han funcionado y en los que pueden mejorarse. c) Recomendaciones de direcciones estratégicas para futuros programas de seguridad alimentaria 1030 Discusión – Preguntas y Respuestas   11:00 Descanso – Café 11:15 Presentaciones del equipo PROMASA/Save the Children, con relación las recomendaciones preliminares de la EMT sobre: Qué es factible? Cuáles son las prioridades principales? Recomendaciones en la implementación del plan de acción. Discusión entre PROMASA/SC, USAID, COTONEB, Génesis y Kiej de los Bosques, con relación a los hallazgos y recomendaciones de la EMT con énfasis en identificar las mejores prácticas de mayor, largo y duradero impacto. 12:45 Resumen de las notas tomadas por el equipo de la EMT y consulta al equipo participante si están de acuerdo o faltara alguna sugerencia no tomada en el resumen. 12:55 Próximos pasos en el proceso de la EMT. 13:00 Cierre del taller 13:00 Almuerzo PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 215 Partial Participant List • Quiroa, Rocio • Tartaglia, Mauro • Arias, Rodrigo • Santo, Gabriel   • Garcia, Jose   • Cali, Alejandro   • Argueta, Leonardo • Rendon, Viviana • Santiago Terraza, Secundino • Cabrera, Hugo   • Cherrera • Taracena Berta   • Demata, Silvia • Di Chiara, Evelyn   • Saenz de Tejad, Sandra • Heffron, Peter PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 216 18.10 MTE Photos Link You are invited to see selected photographs taken during the PROMASA II MTE evaluation. Please use the following weblink. http://picasaweb.google.com/peter.heffron/PROMASAIIMTE?feat=directlink PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 217 18.11 PROMASA II Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Reporting Source: PROMASA II MYAP: TABLE 9 PROMASA II MYAP (MODIFIED TO INCLUDE ACTUAL INDICATOR PERFORMANCE)   Personnel, Frequency, Methods, Population Covered were removed from table below Goal: Reduce food insecurity in vulnerable populations living in six municipalities in the Department of Quiché Guatemala Ref Indicator EST BL LOP TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 1 Impact Indicator: % children 0‐59 months stunted (HAZ <= ‐2 z‐score, disaggregated by gender and ages) 74% 70% 49% (Mar 2010 est) Measured at Conclusion of Project 2 0‐35 months 27% 21% 15% (Mar 2010 est) 30% Mar‐10 3 24‐59 months ? ? ?     4 0‐59 months ? ? ?     SO‐1 FOLLOWS… PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 218 SO‐1: Increased adoption of key MCHN practices and use of services REF Indicator EST BL LOP TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 5 a) % of children 0‐59 months underweight (WAZ <=‐2 z‐score, disaggregated by gender and age) 46% 37% 26% (Mar 2010 est) ? Measured at Conclusion of Project 6 b) % Children 0‐35 months with diarrhea in the past 2 weeks 29% 25% 17% (Mar 2010 est) 32% Mar‐10 IR1: Improved Access to MCHN services Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 8 a) % of children 0‐35 months with satisfactory growth (crecen bien)   66% 80% 56% (Mar 2010 est) 70% Mar‐10 9 b) % of children 0‐35 months of age with unsatisfactory growth for two consecutive months   34% 24% 17% (Mar 2010 est) 30% Mar‐10 10 c) # of water reservoirs constructed 0 1100 715 (Dec 2009 est) 0 Dec‐09 11 d) % of children 54% 80% 52% 70% Dec‐09 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 219 Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 12‐23 months fully immunized (BCG, Penta3,OPV3, MMR)   (Dec 2009 est) IR1.2 Improved quality of key MCHN services Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 13 a) % Community level health centers/posts without drug stock‐out at survey   70% 40% 28% (Mar 2010 est) ? Measured at Conclusion of Project IR1.3 Improved, knowledge, attitudes and skills related to key MCHN practices Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 15 a) % infants under 6 months of age exclusively breastfed within the past 24 hours 64% 75% 45% (Sep‐2009 est) 74% Sep‐09 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 220 Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 16 b) % of infants aged 6 to 9 months who received breastmilk and solid or semi‐ solid foods in the last 24 hours 40% 60% 42% (Mar 2010 est) ? Measured at Conclusion of Project 17 c) % of children 6 ‐23 months who ate solid or semi‐solid foods at least the minimum recommended number of times yesterday (for age)   30% 45% 31% (Mar 2010 est) ? Measured at Conclusion of Project 18 d) % children 0‐ 35 months with diarrhea in the last 2 weeks who were continuously fed during illness 58% 70% 49% (Mar 2010 est) ? Measured at Conclusion of Project 19 e) % children 0‐ 35 months with ARI during two weeks preceding survey who were taken to a health facility   55% 65% 45% (Mar 2010 est) ? Measured at Conclusion of Project 20 f) % of mothers with at least 3 antenatal visits with a skilled provider, in the last pregnancy   20% 35% 24% (Mar 2010 est) ? Measured at Conclusion of Project PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 221 IR4: Strengthened community capacities and policy environment for sustainable MCHN services Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 22 a) % of COCODES that have a COSAN member 0 50% 35% (Mar 2010 est) 100% Mar‐10 SO‐2 FOLLOWS… SO‐2: Increased adoption of key food production and marketing practices and use of services REF Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 23 Impact Indicator a) Average number of food groups consumed by HH in previous 24 hours 3 5 3.0 (Sep‐2009 est) 5 Sep‐09 24 Impact Indicator b) Average number of months of inadequate household food provisioning (scarcity) 4 2.5 1.5 (Sep‐2009 est) 2.19 Sep‐09 25 Impact Indicator c) Average HH yield of selected crops (corn and beans) Corn Corn ? ?   26   1600 Beans 2200 Beans ? ?   27   400 KG/ HA 560 KG/ HA ? ?   PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 222 IR 2.1 Improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to key food production and marketing practices Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 29 a) Average number of different type of food crops grown among target farmer HHs 2 4.5 3.1 (Mar 2010 est) ? Measured at Conclusion of Project 30 b) % project HHs using improved food production practices   55% 67% 40% (Sep‐2009 est) 70% Sep‐09 31 c) % project HHs with improved management of small animals/poultry practices   38% 54% 32% (Sep‐2009 est) 44% Sep‐09 32 d) % of project households using improved marketing practices   17% 40% 24% (Sep‐2009 est) 14% Sep‐09 33 e) % of entrepreneurial alliance groups that obtained sales contracts and met requirements of buyers 5% 45% 27% (Sep‐2009 est) ? Sep‐10 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 223 IR2.2 Improved quality of key food production and marketing services Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 34 a) % increase in HH earnings for women credit group participants in commercialization activities 0 30% 21% (Mar 2010 est) 59% Mar‐10 IR2.3 Improved access to key food production and marketing services and supplies Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 37 a) # of KMs of roads rehabilitated/ maintained 0 300 KM 180 KM (Sep‐2009 est) 256 KM Sep‐09 38 b) % of women caregivers in PROMASA II II with access to credit program services 0 30% 21% (Mar 2010 est) 83% Mar‐10 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 224 2.4 Strengthened HH and community capacities for management of livelihood systems Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 40 % communities with functioning marketing group networks 5% 30% 18% (Sep‐2009 est) ? Sep‐10 SO‐3 FOLLOWS… SO‐3: Increased adoption of key NRM practices that strengthen community and household preparedness for natural disaster REF Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 41 a) % of program communities using comprehen‐ sive land use management plans 0 50% 35% (Mar 2010 est) 25% Mar‐10 42 b) % of communities with emergency prepared‐ness plans and maps 0 50% 35% (Mar 2010 est) 25% Mar‐10 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 225 3.1 Improved access to key Natural Resource Management and emergency preparedness services and supplies Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORING STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORING MONTH&YEAR 44 c) % of target communities with protected water sources 0 60% 42% (Mar 2010 est) 29% Mar‐10 3.2 Improved knowledge, attitudes and skills to manage natural resources and respond to natural disasters Ref Indicator EST BL LOP   TGT ESTIMATED TGT AS OF MOST RECENT MONITORIN G STATUS (MOST RECENT) MOST RECENT MONITORI NG MONTH&Y EAR 46 a) % of target HH using key NRM practices 10% 40% 28% (Mar 2010 est) 16% Mar‐10 47 b) % target HH understanding key roles and responsibilities in times of disaster 15% 40% 28% (Mar 2010 est) 25% Mar‐10 PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 226 18.12 FY­2009 Annual Results Report: DIP Status Fiscal Year 2009: Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposal Guidance Attachment E.ii.b: Monitoring and Evaluation Materials:   Detailed Implementation Plan Activity Description Unit of measure Quantity Total Sep‐ 09 Current Status SO.1: Improve the adoption of MCHN practices and services IR:1.1: Improve access to MCHN services Activity 1. Coordination and information meetings with MOH Sessions 4     Completed Activity 2: Conduct Quarterly Growth Monitoring Sessions of children age 0 ‐ 36 months Sessions 4     Completed Activity 3: Establish appropriate physical spaces to provide counseling during GMS Spaces 123     Ongoing Activity 4: Conduct Community FS situation analyses (ASISAN) Sessions 52     Ongoing Activity 5: Install rainfall collection water containers Containers 120     Delayed Activity 6: Train families in building, operation and maintenance of rainfall collection water containers Families 120     Delayed IR:1.2: Improve quality of MCHN services Activity 1: Training/education activities for technical field team to SO‐1 and local MOH Training events 8     Completed Activity 2: Training/education activities to community based volunteers Training events 8     Completed IR:1.3: Improve knowledge, attitudes and skills of MCHN   Activity 1: Implement home visits to participating families (neonatal, pregnancy & infants) Communities 120     Completed Activity 2: Implement nutriton schools in 30% of program communities Communities 22     Completed Activity 3: Conduct nutritional meal preparation demonstrations Demonstrations 12     Completed Activity 4: Design and implement early childhood stimulation strategy Communities 36     Delayed Activity 5: Form mother support groups   Communities 123     Ongoing Activity 6: Conduct education sessions during ration distribution Sessions 12     Completed PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 227 Activity Description Unit of measure Quantity Total Sep‐ 09 Current Status Activity 5: Conduct positive deviance study Communities 56     On‐going IR 1.4 Strengthened municipal and community capacities for sustainable MCHN services Identify and train community based health/nutrition volunteers Volunteers 100     On going Organization, strengthening and training of COSANs   Comissions 123     On going Train OMP's on democracy, governance, FS approach, problem analysis, project management and implementation, and negotiation OMPs 6     On going Creation of FS commissions in COCODEs with a representative from the COSAN. Comissions 123     On going Participation of COSAN representatives in COCODEs meetings Comissions 123     On going Creation of municipal COSAN networks   Network 3     On going Training COCODEs on FS approach, problem analysis, implementation, project management and negotiation Councils 123     On going Participation of SC in monthly COMUDEs sessions Sessions 30     Completed Train COMUDES on democracy and governance Councils 12     On going Share program results with COCODES Comissions 123     On going Share program results with COMUDES Comissions 6     On going Strengthening to COTONEB to guarantee the cover from 30,000 participants in the program Participants 30,000     Ongoing SO 2 Increased adoption key food production and market practices and use of services   IR 2.1 Improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to key food production and market practices Identify and train 41 community volunteer "Farmer Leaders" in all SO‐2 target communities in key food production and marketing practices Leader Farmers 41     Completed Identify and train 126 community volunteer Farmer Guides in all SO‐2 target communities in key food production and marketing practices Farmer Guides 123     Completed Follow‐up supervision and oversight of Farmer Leaders' demonstration plots in every community Demonstrations plots 41     On going Develop a community plan with farmers, agricultural/livestock guides and the COSAN in all target communities Operatives plans 123     Completed Train 6150 subsistence farmer food production participants on improved growing systems for maize and beans cultivation with improve practices Farmers 2900     Completed Train 6400 small farmer participants on key soil management and conservation practices, including Farmers 2900     Completed PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 228 Activity Description Unit of measure Quantity Total Sep‐ 09 Current Status maintenance of soil conserving structures Build structures to conserve soils in farmers' growing areas   Growing areas 2900     Completed Train participants on growing horticultural products, including use of organic fertilizers in household vegetable gardens Farmers 1980     Completed Train identified/eligible beneficiaries on goat handling and facilities development Farmers 1050     Completed Train 150 small farmer in local seed production Farmers 150     On going Train 50 small farmers in composting elaboration Farmers 50     On going Train 150 small farmers in agronomic management and marketing of cash crops Farmers 150     On going Train targeted/eligible beneficiaries on poultry handling and coop construction, including nutrition messages for children over 2 Farmers 1200     Completed Identify market chains and/or markets for new crops Farmers 8     On going Train farmers on how to install, operate, and provide maintenance to micro drip irrigation systems   Farmers 180     Completed Identification of already established artisan production and marketing groups (Entrepreneurial Alliances) and validation of groups' interest and commitment to working with PROMASA II Groups 8     On going Markets identified, analyzed and linked to Entrepreneurial Alliances Groups 8     On going Entrepreneurial Alliances (members) trained and supported in business planning skills, quality control, marketing and promotions, packaging and labeling, etc. to ensure delivery of quality products according to contract agreements with buyers Groups 8     On going Identify, select and form credit and savings groups Groups 520     Completed Train credit and savings groups Groups 520     On going Disburse and collect loans Groups X     On going IR 2.2 Improved quality of key food production and marketing services   Train supervisors on key food production and marketing practices being promoted by PROMASA II Supervisors 12     Completed Train farmer Leaders on key food production and marketing practices Farmer leaders 41     Completed IR 2.3.mproved access to key food production and marketing services and supplies Provide 50% of HHs with one‐year's supply of 6 different highly‐nutritive horticultural seeds (home garden seed packet) for home garden establishment   HHs 1980     Completed PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 229 Activity Description Unit of measure Quantity Total Sep‐ 09 Current Status Provide low‐cost, long‐lasting, and easy‐to‐manage micro drip irrigation equipment to farmers having access to water supply for year round vegetable production HHs 180     On going Provide 40% of subsistence farmer HHs with improved Texel and Hunapú variety seeds to improve bean yields. Requirement for each recipient to contribute an equal amount of seed back to the community at harvest, ensures 70% coverage for all 7,000 target HH HHs 1500     On going Provide all farmers receiving a goat in initial target communities w/materials to build goat pens   HHs 275     Completed Original beneficiaries return goats to COSAN for transfer to new HHs once she has provided first HH with offspring   HHs 830     On going Establish agro‐forestry systems in goat recipient farmer plots for sustainable source of feed   HHs 1015     On going Provide all identified poultry project recipient HHs with materials to build poultry coops and fine hens HHs 625     Completed Original beneficiaries return the original five hens to COSAN for transfer to new HHs once they have provided offspring to original recipients   HHs 720     On going Provide small farmers with potato and haba improved seed HHs 110     On going Provide small farmers with Chipilín and Bledo seed HHs 40     On going Provide small farmers with plants( use as green manure) seed HHs 30     On going Develop community animal‐handling and animal‐ health plans to ensure animal husbandry services available locally Plans 50     On going Commercial growers groups of 20 members each trained on agricultural market price surveillance and communication Communities 20     On going Improve the stretches of roads needed to secure producers' access to markets using FFW Km. 40     Completed IR 2.4 Strengthened enabling environment for management of livelihood systems Commercial growers Fairs Fairs 1     Delayed SO‐3: Increased adoption of key natural resource management practices that strengthen community and household preparedness for natural disaster IR 3.1: Improved access to quality natural resource management and emergency preparedness services and supplies Provision of supplies/equipment to manage nurseries Nurseries 12     Completed Produce plants Plants 20000     On going PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 230 Activity Description Unit of measure Quantity Total Sep‐ 09 Current Status Provide supplies to enclose water‐spring areas in 42 communities   Water‐spring 24     On going Reforestation areas (FFW) Areas 24     On going Develop community‐wide Risk Management plans Risk Management Plans 30     On going IR 3.2: Improved knowledge, attitudes, and skills to manage natural resources as well as to prepare for and respond to natural disasters   Train SC and Partner Supervisors on NRM and Risk Management Supervisors 8     Completed Identify communities for tree nurseries and training on nursery establishment and management   Communities 12     Completed Training participants on reforestation techniques Farmers 240     Completed 18.13 FY­2009 IPTT Report INDICATOR B L Tgt Y1 FY‐ 07 Ac hd YI Y1 Ac hd vs. Yr Tg t Tgt Y2 FY‐ 08 Ac hd Y2 Y2 Achd vs. Yr Tgt Tgt Y3 FY‐ 09 Ac hd Y3 Y3 Achd Vs. Yr Tgt Tgt Y4 FY‐ 10 Ac hd Y4 Y4 Ac hd Vs. Yr Tg t Tg t Y5 FY ‐ 11 LO P Tgt FY‐ 11 YR 5 L O P Ac hd 0 to less 6 months 2 9 %                                        28 % ∆  = ‐  1% *    6 to less 60 months BL/Final 7 6 %                                        73 % ∆  = ‐  3% *    0 to less 36 months 6 6 % *                                        63 % ∆  = ‐  3% *    % children under 60 months stunted (HAZ < ‐ 2.0 z‐ score, disaggreg ated by age:   36 to less 60 months 8 1 %                                        78 % ∆  = ‐  3% *    PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 231 INDICATOR B L Tgt Y1 FY‐ 07 Ac hd YI Y1 Ac hd vs. Yr Tg t Tgt Y2 FY‐ 08 Ac hd Y2 Y2 Achd vs. Yr Tgt Tgt Y3 FY‐ 09 Ac hd Y3 Y3 Achd Vs. Yr Tgt Tgt Y4 FY‐ 10 Ac hd Y4 Y4 Ac hd Vs. Yr Tg t Tg t Y5 FY ‐ 11 LO P Tgt FY‐ 11 YR 5 L O P Ac hd 0 to < 60 months   7 2 %                                        69 % ∆  = ‐  3% *    0 to less 36 months* * 3 6 % 36% **    No t Av ail 35% ** 37 % 97% 34% ** 49 % 69% 32% **       30 ** 30 % ∆  = ‐  6% **    0 to less 36 months* * WHO‐ 2005 2 7 % 27%     No t Av ail 26% 26 % 100% 25% 36 % 69% 23%        21 % 21 % ∆  = ‐  6% **    36 to less 60 months (BL/Final )   3 2 %                                        26 % ∆  = ‐  6% **    % children under 60 months underwei ght (WAZ < ‐2.0 z‐ score, disaggreg ated by age: 0 to < 60 months (BL/Final )   3 4 %                                        28 % ∆  = ‐  6% **    SO‐1: Increased adoption of key MCHN practices and use of services % infants under 6 months of age exclusively breastfed within the past 24 hours 66 % 66% N M No t Av ail 68% 56 % 82% 70% 62 % 89% 72%        74 % 74 %  ∆= 8%    % of mothers and caregivers with children under 36 months who know at least two danger signs of childhood illnesses that indicate the need to seek health services 50 % 50% N M No t Av ail 50% 38 % 70% 54% 64 % 119% 61%        68 % 75 %  ∆= 25 %    PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 232 INDICATOR B L Tgt Y1 FY‐ 07 Ac hd YI Y1 Ac hd vs. Yr Tg t Tgt Y2 FY‐ 08 Ac hd Y2 Y2 Achd vs. Yr Tgt Tgt Y3 FY‐ 09 Ac hd Y3 Y3 Achd Vs. Yr Tgt Tgt Y4 FY‐ 10 Ac hd Y4 Y4 Ac hd Vs. Yr Tg t Tg t Y5 FY ‐ 11 LO P Tgt FY‐ 11 YR 5 L O P Ac hd % of mothers and caregivers with children under 36 months who know at least two danger signs during pregnancy, that indicate the need to seek health services 30 % 30% N M No t Av ail 34% 42 % 124% 38% 75 % 197% 44%        50 % 50 %  ∆= 20 %    % of mothers and caregivers with children under 36 months who know at least two neonatal (<28 days) danger signs that indicate the need to seek health services 26 % 26% N M No t Av ail 29% 38 % 131% 33% 54 % 164% 37%        31 % 41 %  ∆= 15 %    # communities with strengthened community capacity N M 60 N M No t Av ail 108 12 3 114% 123 12 3 100% 123        12 3 123     SO‐2: Increased adoption of key food production and marketing practices and use of services Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP)   11 11 N M No t Av ail 11 10. 1 91% 11 10 89% 11        11 11  ∆= 0%    Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) Guatemala 6 6 N M No t Av ail 6 6 100% 6 5 77% 6        6  6 ∆= 0%    % of participating farmers that adopt at least 2 improved AGRICULTURAL production practices 11 % Not Avai l N M    Not Avai l N M    21% 70 % 333% 26%        30 % 30 %  ∆= 19 %    % of participating farmers that adopt at least 2 improved LIVESTOCK production practices 11 % Not Avai l N M    Not Avai l N M    21% 44 % 210% 26%        30 % 30 %  ∆= 19 %    % of participating farmers that adopt at least 2 improved formal marketing production 15 % Not Avai l N M    Not Avai l N M    20% 14 % 70% 25%        30 % 30 %  ∆= 15 %    PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 233 INDICATOR B L Tgt Y1 FY‐ 07 Ac hd YI Y1 Ac hd vs. Yr Tg t Tgt Y2 FY‐ 08 Ac hd Y2 Y2 Achd vs. Yr Tgt Tgt Y3 FY‐ 09 Ac hd Y3 Y3 Achd Vs. Yr Tgt Tgt Y4 FY‐ 10 Ac hd Y4 Y4 Ac hd Vs. Yr Tg t Tg t Y5 FY ‐ 11 LO P Tgt FY‐ 11 YR 5 L O P Ac hd practices Women with children under 5 year receiving credit   56 7 420 N M No t Av ail 940 99 7 106% 146 0 13 84 95% 198 0       25 00 250 0    Women receiving credit and participating in at least one SO‐2 activity N M 168 N M No t Av ail 376 10 6 28% 584 11 07 190% 792        10 00 100 0    SO‐3: Increased adoption of key household preparedness for natural disaster # of communities that had disaster early warning system in place in the FY N M 0 N M No t Av ail 0 0 Not Avail 30 0 Not Avail 60        0 60     PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 234 18.14 MTE Sustainability Assessment Introduction First, a general observation: In SC/PROMASA II documents, including the MTE terms of reference and in conversations with SC and partner representatives and other stakeholders, the term sustainable clearly means different things to different people.   Given the high stakes involved— approximately 11,500 vulnerable indigenous households in 123 communities participating in the PROMASA II Project that, per Farmer Leader interviews, are headed down a path of unsustainability, there is a need to define the term “sustainable.”66 The most common definition of sustainability is: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (Brundtland Commission, 1987).                                                             66 Ref: Sustainability Primer, 2009, by The Natural Step www.thenaturalstep.org/sites/thenaturalstep.org/files/PrimerGuidebookNAT‐LowRes_20090609.pdf PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 235 Sustainability of PROMASA II Activities Our assessment, based on focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and the small sample of communities visited (8 out of 123)—is that about half of the PROMASA II households that benefited from the project will attempt to continue one or more of the SO‐2 modules (e.g., goats), to some degree, once the project has been completed. Most of the Farmer Leaders said that they would not be able to afford to volunteer their services in their currently assigned communities once the project ends. The Mother Leaders mentioned that they too would find it difficult to serve their assigned communities on a voluntary basis after the project ends. Some did say that if mothers came to them—as opposed to the Mother Leaders visiting communities/households—that they would offer nutritional and other advice even after the project ends. One of the main reasons participants stay in the project is the Title II food rations, which are highly valued. Various Farmer Leaders, Mother Leaders, and household members stated that once the Title II commodities are no longer available (i.e., from the end of the project)—that they would see little reason to continue project activities as opposed to having to seek other food‐generating or income‐ generating activities. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 236 The PROMASA II Project is thus challenged to consider means of increasing the potential sustainability level of project activities once the project ends. Sustainability of PROMASA II Target Population Based on discussions and observations by the MT team, the PROMASA II target population, for the most part, does not consider its own future prospects with great optimism. This is due to rapid population growth, deforestation, high unemployment, high levels of malnutrition, and so on— according to them. The PROMASA II Project has done much of what it has said it would do per the MYAP, however the negative social‐economic‐environmental trends facing the communities (and in many cases being exacerbated by the communities, as well as outside interests)—have far too much momentum for a single project such as PROMASA II to counter. Thus much of the target population, with some exceptions of course, is unlikely to become more sustainable once the project ends. PROMASA II MID-TERM EVALUATION Save the Children/Guatemala Country Office/PROMASA II Project/Mid-Term Evaluation/April-May 2010 PROMASA II MTE sst/kt/ph: 1 September 2010 237 There is unfortunately no easy solution to this challenge. The suggestion is for SC and partners and other key stakeholders in the next MYAP designs to consider ways to achieve more sustainable results, both in terms of program activities and in terms of target populations, by explicitly addressing the difficult constraints that food security projects and their client populations have encountered for a number of decades. END APPENDICES