Final evaluation of the project “Risk diversification and climate change” (Proyecto Generando Alternativas Campesinas al Cambio Climático (PGACCC)

Background:
FIPAH implemented the project in 20 communities in 6 municipalities and 4 Departments of Honduras from 2008 to 2012. The project activities were implemented through local organized groups; Local Agricultural Research Committees (CIAL and UBI).

The general objective of the project is: To promote participatory research in Lempira, Intibucá, Francisco Morazán and Yoro, for the generation, development and transfer of technologies that are responses to climate change, drought, excessive rain and high temperatures, by increasing of biodiversity, protection, improvement and use of natural resources.
-------
Methodology:
1. Review of project documents
2. Focal groups with target group representatives
3. Interviews with project stakeholders  and FIPAH staff
4. Field visits to the farmers, organisations and he production units.
5. Use of the methodology CEDRA (developed by Tearfund)

Key findings:
1. Good service and commitment of staff of FIPAH with the community.
2. The basis of the work at community level is UBIs and CIALs, organizations with a good track record for 10 years or more and strong commitment to local development.
3. The project has achieved a good degree of effectiveness in budget management, but limited efficiency in achieving some objectives.
4. The administrative system is transparent and credits are handled effectively by the ASOCIAL
5. The climate stations are reliably handled by the beneficiaries, especially women, youth and children. Facilitating the long-term sustainability.
6. Growers and producers (beneficiaries) are empowered and they have released varieties with broad knowledge of the benefits and limitations of each genetic material.
7. Seed banks are a strategy for food security and sovereignty, and in-situ conservation of valuable local genetic material for future research
8. The project has many objectives and activities, dispersed in 5 distant regions, with little institutional experience on climate change and especially a limited budget.
9. Limited presence in the field of technical staff (facilitators hired for 15 days per month)
10. Field staff with limited knowledge on climate change, especially in the area of mitigation, bowing to give emphasis to technology and training on adaptation (breeding). Undermining the empowerment of the project's conceptual integrity.
11. Weak dialogue tables, because they were created late in relation to the project. Except Yorito.
12. Weak coordination with government institutions, did not achieve the signing of agreements because of the difficulties of the approach and staff turnover of government staff.
13. Very small Agro forestry system (few plants per species). Except Vallecillos.
14. CIAL/UBI are highly dependent on the project (FIPAH). Much of the resources and time was consumed in moving materials. It is necessary to give more responsibility to the ASOCIAL.

Recommendations:
1. With this budget FIPAH should cut the amount of regions, because they are widely dispersed and require much budget and personal mobilization.
2. For a more local impact FIPAH should increase the number of communities and CIAL/UBI in each region.
3. To increase training opportunities and income generation for women.
4. To increase training on climate change technicians and facilitators at the beginning of the project.
5. Strengthen the dialogue table and effect on climate change advocacy at the municipal level.
6. To use technology (internet) to achieve greater coordination and control between different regions and reduce costs, for instance follow-up meetings via Skype.
7. Design and implement a sustainability strategy to strengthen ASOCIAL administratively and economically, and to ensure the continuity of the activities of the project.
8. Make strategic alliances with other organizations to strengthen areas that the project can not cover in the socioeconomic area. Establish agreements and strengthen ASOCIALs.
9. To strengthen the microcredit system through ASOCIAL, with the implementation of regional shops, organic and inorganic farm inputs and strengthen micro-enterprises, especially for women, framed in adaptation and mitigation to climate change. Example: The production and marketing of fruit and forest plants.

Comments from the organisation, if any:
The evaluation was conducted by an independent consultant, however in cooperation with FIPAH, the implementing organization. The evaluation was well received by the organization and they have used the findings and recommendation in the design of a phase 2 of the project, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses.