E-798 V. 2 August 2003 Third Agricultural Rehabilitation Program (ARP 111) DRAFT SOCIAL APPRAISAL REPORT March 2003 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) FpAN List of Acronyms AETRDP Australia East Timor Rural Development Program Aldeia Hamlet level unit of a village ARP Agricultural Rehabilitation Program ASC Agricultural Service Centre CEP Community Empowerment Program Chefe do Suco Village Leader Chefe do Aldeia Hamlet Leader Conselho do Suco Village Council (established under CEP) Conselho do Katuas Council of Traditional Elders DAO District Agricultural Office/Officer DFO District Forestry Officer DFiO District Fisheries Officer DIO District Irrigation Officer DLO District Livestock Officer GIS Geographic Information Systems JAM Joint Donor's Agriculture Mission KUD Farmer's Cooperative Unit (under the Indonesian system) MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry M & E Monitoring and Evaluation MTR Mid Term Review NGO Non Government Organization NRM Natural Resources Management OALGD Office of Administration, Local Governance and Development OJT Organization Joventude Timorensis (Timorese Youth Organization) OMT Organization Maters Timorensis (Timorese Women's Organization) PAD Project Appraisal Document PPL Extension Officer under the Indonesian System - based at the village, sub-district or district level PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal Suco Village Unit Tara Bandu System of traditional natural resource management involving bans and sanctions WUAs Water User Associations VLWs Village Livestock Workers Table of Content List of Acronyms 1. PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE SOCIAL APPRAISAL 1 1.1 Research Methods 2 2. FINDINGS OF THE SURVEYS 3 2.1 Introdiction 3 2.2 What are the most appropriate village-based institutions ARP III should focus on? 3 2.3 What are the best options for creating demand for services and effective service delivery? 8 2.4 Component 2, Rapid Rehabilitation of Infrastructure 12 2.5 Sub-component 3.1 Animal Health Services 20 2.5.1 Vaccination program 20 2.5.2 Village Livestock Worker Program 23 2.6 Sub-component 3.2 Information to farmers 24 2.7 Sub-component 3.3 Agricultural Service Centres 25 3. SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS 26 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 27 ANNEXURE ANNEX A Terms of Reference for Social Appraisal ANNEX B Interview Guides for Focus Group Discussions and WUA Interviews ANNEX C Suco Institutions Summary ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews ANNEX E Case Studies of Irrigation Schemes ANNEX F Summary Table of Irrigation Scheme Case Studies ARP III: SOCIAL APPRAISAL 1. PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE SOCIAL APPRAISAL The social appraisal aims to provide guidance to the appraisal mission for the design of ARP IlIl due to take place in May 2003. The Terms Of Reference for the social appraisal are attached as Annex A. The social appraisal took place in February 2003 immediately following the Mid Term Review (MTR) of ARP II. During the MTR, many recommendations for action were made based on a self-evaluation of the quality of impact of activities on the farming community. These recommendations will be implemented between February - December, and beyond this in selected components extended into Phase ll. Outcomes will need to be reviewed at the end of Phase II to further incorporate lessons learnt into ARP ll. This social appraisal also does not re-visit the issues covered in the social assessment study for ARP II which was completed in 2001. It is assumed this information is still valid as little has changed in the less than two years since it's completion. Rather, it has sought to gain first-hand insights from the farmers themselves concerning their relationship to agricultural services which ARP IlIl will likely continue to provide. The main theme of the social appraisal is to examine, in the context of existing ARP II components, how best MAFF can identify and then meet the needs of the farming community, while at the same time contributing to creating a culture of empowerment in which demands for services are articulated by farmers. Key areas of focus (in order of priority) are as follows: Component 1, Participatory Natural Resource Management Component. What are the most appropriate village-based institutions which ARP IlIl should focus on in order to build capacity for planning and implementing NRM activities (including the delivery of grant assistance) and creating demand for services? What are the best options for effective service delivery, and which are likely to be the most sustainable? How should ARP IlIl effectively target women within both the service delivery sector as well as beneficiaries/service users? Component 2, Rapid Rehabilitation of Infrastructure Are the schemes assisted under this component (light-medium damaged) optimising their irrigation source, which ones are not, what are the factors preventing full optimisation, and how can the WUAs be assisted to overcome them. What are women's roles in WUAs and do these associations represent the interests of women? Sub-component 3.1, Animal Health Services What are female and male farmer's expectations of the vaccination campaigns. Can they realistically be met by MAFF, and if not, how should expectations be tempered to encourage continued vaccination coverage. Are VLWs likely to be sustained by the community, and if not, what are the options for providing sustainable and effective animal husbandry services? Sub-component 3.2 Information to farmers What type of information do female and male farmers require regarding all facets of agricultural production through to marketing, and what is the most effective means of communicating this information. Sub-component 3.3 - ASCs What is the level of awareness of the female and male farmers about the services the ASCs provide/intend to provide, and what services would they like them to provide? ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 1.1 Research methods Preliminary field visits to NRM community groups and a WUA, coupled with the MTR discussions guided the development of the methodology for the appraisal. In addition, the Monitoring and Evaluation section of MAFF has recently undertaken a quantitative survey of the impact of limited interventions under ARP 11. Exit interviews regarding vaccination services and pre-testing of Village Livestock Workers (VLWs) have also been carried out. These findings were utilised where relevant. As ARP Ill is likely to include continuation of many aspects of ARP 11 rather than embarking on new interventions, more qualitative data was required to refine the implementation of existing components. The social appraisal looked for broad themes emerging from semi-structured interviews with beneficiaries and service providers that could inform program design. It is hoped that certain aspects and findings can be explored later by the various sectors of MAFF as they refine implementation of their components, as well as through the final MAFF M & E survey to measure the impact of ARP 11. The methodology therefore included a number of qualitative tools: a). Focus group discussions with a sample of groups from four existing Component 1 Natural Resource Management (NRM) pilot villages, and eleven non-pilot sucos where VLWs have already been selected in their sub-districts. All of the NRM pilot districts were represented with the exception of Dili. A mixture of upland, coastal and lowland suco from the north and south were included, however due to the onset of heavy rains, pilot suco in Oecussi and Liquisa could not be visited. The highland areas were largely inaccessible at the time of the interviews due to poor road conditions. Most of the interview took in excess of 5 hours. The total number of respondents who participated in the group discussions were 269 men and 125 women. Groups were made up of Implementation Teams, Small Group members and farmers in the pilot suco, and Chefe do Suco, Chefe do Aldeia, members of the Consleho do Katuas, OMT, OJT, Conselho do Suco and male and female farmers in the non-pilot suco. b). Detailed case studies of four light to medium damaged irrigation schemes rehabilitated under ARP I and 11 (Bobonaro and Viqueque) were developed with key informants and WUA members, as well as less detailed discussions with WUAs from a further three schemes in Oecussi. c). Interviews with key service providers (principally MAFF and DAO staff, NGOs at District and National level, Office of Administration for Local Government and Development) about services required and optimal delivery methods. d). Review of agricultural aspects of previous surveys, such as the Participatory Poverty Survey, the Suco and Household surveys, the NGO (community development) survey, as well as lessons learnt from other relevant projects such as the Australia-East Timor Rural Development Program (AETRDP) Phase 1, implementation experience from CEP and various NGO programs where relevant to the issues under review. Other relevant surveys planned for the near future were also examined, such as the research into optimal local government structures. The interview guides are attached as Annex B. The Social Specialist would like to thank MAFF and DAO staff for assisting with the arrangements for and participating in the community interviews. In addition, the enthusiasm of male and female farmers in coming together to spend long hours discussing their views and aspirations for agricultural development and MAFF programs was greatly appreciated, and provided valuable input to the process of refining ARP Ill interventions. ARP Ill Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 2 2. FINDINGS OF THE SURVEYS 2.1 Introduction Although every effort was made to encourage free and frank discussion in the focus groups, the views of the dominant few were often the first and last responses provided. The interviewers routinely attempted to encourage the views of the less vocal participants, including women, by reiterating that we were not necessarily interested in consensus, but wanted to hear and record a variety of opinions. This approach yielded some success, and multiple answers to questions were recorded where differences of view were noted. A great deal of time was required to ensure a good understanding of the questions, and to revisit previous information when contradictions arose. Nevertheless, the interviews occasionally yielded contradictory information (such as reporting 100% vaccination coverage while listing reasons why some community members chose not to vaccinate etc). Exit interviews with the interviewers were held to discuss these discrepancies and annotate contradictory responses where appropriate. Although the sample size was relatively small, the consistency of responses, while also accommodating a wide variety of views, was sufficient to indicate the opinions of the community were faithfully reflected on a broad range of topics. 2.2 What are the most appropriate village-based institutions which ARP III should focus on? The results of the interviews support the current ARP li approach to flexibility - assessing requirements for groupings on a suco by suco basis, incorporating strong, traditional leadership support only where it is found to exist, while assisting new community groups to increase self-reliance through increased decision making and funds management. Implementation Teams in Pilot suco ARP II established purpose-specific Implementation Teams and Small Groups to plan for and manage the use of funds for NRM activities. This approach appears to have been well received by the community and they generally trust these groups to manage the funding resources of their NRM activities. However, as can be seen from the results of the Suco Institutions Summary (see Annex C), the pilot sucos did not nominate the Implementation Team as an important institution in their suco - even though the ARP II activities managed by them are likely to represent the bulk of funded activities taking place in the suco at present. The related Small Groups were mentioned twice (called 'farmer's groups' by the community) in relation to their ARP role. According to the results of the Community Interviews (Annex D) however, the pilot communities interviewed were largely content to see existing money and any hypothetical new funds go straight to the Implementation Teams, even though they do not yet represent an established, formal group within the Suco Structure. All pilot suco were aware of the need for transparency as a way of minimising suspicion over the use of the funds. Only two however admitted to having notice boards which they used. Meetings were also mentioned as a more effective way of communicating expenditure information, but the extent to which this actually happens is not known. The issue of ensuring that information is displayed on notice boards prior to the release of any subsequent funding was addressed in the MTR. The management capacity of these groups also needs to be addressed, and this will be the focus of the remainder of ARP II. Their knowledge of the criteria for selecting activities was poor, which undermines the whole purpose of the NRM focus i.e. to develop and implement activities which will safeguard the suco's natural resources. This issue was also addressed in the MTR and will be addressed in the revised operations manual. In summary, the Implementation Teams and Small Groups have a long way to go before they could be considered fully functioning groups who could sustain NRM activities. ARP Ill should encourage the continued identification and implementation of NRM activities without the need for continued external ARP Ill Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 3 funding assistance. This would involve the development of detailed plans for utilising the economic benefits of existing activities (sale of tree products and fish etc) to develop and continue other activities or at least ensure the whole suco community eventually benefits from initial seed funds provided by ARP. Conselho do suco The grant agreement requires that the treasurer of the Conselho do Suco must receive or at least witness the delivery of NRM activity grant funds. This has proven extremely unpopular at all levels from the community to the District Administration. It appears the mechanism as a safeguard for transparency was not well understood, and according to the community, would not necessarily provide the safeguard required. The DAOs and project advisers, in an attempt to streamline the bureaucratic requirements of funds transfers opted to provide NRM funds straight to the Treasurers of the Implementation Teams, without acknowledging they were required under the terms of the agreement to involve the Conselho do Sucos. This has been raised in the MTR and the requirement that all future funds transfers under ARP 11 be made through the Conselho do Suco has been reconfirmed. The implications for ARP Ill are discussed below. The reasons for the unpopularity of the Conselho do Sucos is not entirely clear. Whilst the value of CEP is clearly acknowledged (it was the most recognised organization external to the sucos), only two of the 13 suco interviewed nominated the related Conselho do Suco as a possible organization to mobilise in the case of discussing a hypothetical new agricultural activity, (one suco said it did not have a Conselho do Suco, another said theirs 'wasn't active'). All groups were prompted about why they would not involve the Conselho do Suco, and the overwhelming reason was that they were 'just involved in CEP'. A couple of the suco were further prompted as to whether they could in fact be mobilised for a non-CEP purpose, and they said they were not sure because they had never tried. Only four suco mentioned that the Conselho do suco were not trusted and a fifth said the problem was at the sub-district level only. What is clear is that a broader role for the conselho do suco beyond that of planning for and administering CEP activities appears not to have been realised. Communities firmly associate them with CEP only. Had they not been specifically prompted to consider the Conselho do suco, they would not have been mentioned at all in the majority or cases as a suco institution which could be considered in managing a hypothetical new agricultural activity. Whilst to extend their role beyond CEP to one of broader community development would not be impossible, it would likely require an extensive education campaign which spelt out this broader non-CEP role. Following that, re-elections to ensure candidates understood the broader role expected of them (and that the community were choosing the most appropriate candidates for this extended role) would need to take place. In their present incarnation, they do not represent a suitable vehicle for implementing ARP Ill activities. Chefe do Suco and Chefe Aldeia The main players most frequently identified as associated with decision making relating to development activities and community mobilisation are the Chefe do Suco and the Chefe do Aldeia. Only in one of the Oecussi groups were the Chefe Aldeias considered more important than the Chefe do Suco, and this was because the role of the Chefe do Suco was unclear according to the community (possibly a result of the suco wanting to separate into two administrative units). This finding is also supported by the 'Government Within Reach' report (NDI, January 2003) which states that "There seems to be mostly high regard for those occupying these positions, due to their closeness with people during the struggle...". "Reinforcing the representative nature of the position, East Timorese see [them] as the key link between the government and the world at large." Seven out of the nine non-pilot suco preferred money to be kept/administered by the Chefe do Suco as the most trusted mechanism. (The four pilot suco by contrast had previous experience with the Implementation Teams and considered them a satisfactory mechanism). It is clear that the support of these key players, though not necessarily direct control, will be essential to the success of the NRM activities. How far this burden should fall to them however needs to be assessed in light of their existing administrative roles and the desirability of establishing broad-based community groups responsible for their own democratic decision-making. ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 4 Conselho do Katuas / Traditional leaders The council of elders was the only other group mentioned with any frequency (5) as a possible group to involve in a hypothetical agriculture activity. Traditional Leaders were mentioned 6 times as important to decision making (likely to be the same people on the Conselho do Katuas), but were not mentioned as being an important point of contact as individuals. Normally very active in making decisions surrounding land tenure, traditional law and natural resource management ceremonies (tara bandu) etc, they tend not to concern themselves with 'development' or modern governance issues, although their role in providing a link between the community and government was mentioned. However as with the Chefe do Suco and Aldeias, they should be involved in implementation groups in an advisory role to ensure their support for activities. The Tara Bandu activities carried out by pilot suco under ARP 11 should be evaluated to determine the success of the revival of such resource management mechanisms, and MAFF should consider ways of incorporating such mechanisms into its own programs as a form of community contribution to forestry/watershed management activities. Other suco level groups The OMT and OJT were the other two groups most consistently mentioned in discussions, but on closer questioning, the majority of these exist only in name. Membership is often vague - including all married women in the former and all unmarried youth (but not necessarily) in the latter. All communities had difficulty describing the role of these groups, and activities are almost non-existent unless an external donor provides direct funds. Once this is spent / finished, the groups are then described as being no longer 'active'. That said, there is a distinct pride associated with being able to name these groups and they are still considered important to decision making/suco development, even when completely inactive. One of the suco in the survey nominated them as an effective means of channelling money because "women are cleverer at managing money". ARP 11 has been engaging the OMT in particular as a vehicle for women's involvement, and this appears to be acceptable. However with such loosely defined membership, the extent to which OMT would continue to function independently to implement NRM activities is questionable, and they may not provide a distinct advantage over any other grouping of women. A focus on OMT may in fact serve to prevent younger, unmarried women for gaining access to activities. 'Farmer groups' are often mentioned by communities, but on closer inspection, do not actually have much of a structure or function. Some were established under Indonesian times, with anecdotal evidence of a variety of extension interventions being implemented through them, but these groups reportedly ceased to function once the extension activity (usually a demonstration plot) was concluded. Farmer groups who are identified now are largely along clan lines, involving single aldeia only, and their 'activities' appear to be limited to intra-household communal land preparation or fence construction. As such, they do not represent any distinct advantages over forming 'new' groups, as these are likely to be along aldeia lines as well and involve the same people. Only one suco mentioned they had a group which paid some sort of membership (the money was then used to buy livestock), while another had a fishing group because they had been given a boat by the NGO Timor Aid and needed to form a group to receive and manage it. A robust tradition of collective action in formally established, non-clan based groups appears to be absent from Timorese farming communities and is perhaps a reflection of low input farming and the relatively recent entry of most communities into the money economy. Where groups did or do exist, they tend to be dependent on external support to provide them with a reason to identify as a group. This is supported by the fact that the majority of the non-pilot suco thought that developing a new group to discuss and implement a hypothetical new agricultural development and manage subsequent funding would be most appropriate, and this is consistent with the ARP 11 approach. ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 5 The need for women's groups All suco interviewed except one mentioned they had a separate women's group already. This was generally seen as a positive thing by both men and women. Nine groups specifically said they should have separate women's groups, but many qualified the need to get assistance from men for things like land clearing and preparation (presumably when considering agricultural production activities). The issue of whether there should be a separate group for women in NRM-type activities was not well understood as people have limited exposure to participatory planning methodologies and do not yet know the potential of a well facilitated process of problem identification, developing solutions and designing appropriate activity interventions. Rather, they are more likely to think about traditionally 'women's' activities like vegetable growing and tais making. Through a proper planning process for NRM, activities selected may be the same between men's and women's groups. What is important is that the process of planning and management offers invaluable experience to the groups who are involved first-hand. In mixed groups, women tend to observe proceedings rather than actively participate. The establishment of equal quotas of men's, women's and mixed groups should be a priority for ARP Ill to ensure women are given the chance to participate fully in these activities. This is likely to be well supported by the community and has been demonstrated in ARP 11 and AETRDP Phase I as an effective way to increase women's direct participation. Pending detailed study and recommendations for appropriate suco level govemance The Office of Administration and Local Government and Development (OALGD) is undertaking a three month study of local governance issues and will make recommendations regarding an appropriate structure and institutions from suco to District level. Funded by Ireland Aid, the study will commence in April 2003, and recommendations are expected by July 2003. A Technical Committee, consisting of Directors from six Ministries (including MAFF) and a representative District Administrator will review the recommendations before passing them on to the Political Committee (comprising the Ministers of the same six Ministries). They will draft an Autonomy Law which it is hoped will be passed by the end of 2003. The Terms of Reference for the study include the delineation of 'the levels of administrative hierarchy down to the community that will facilitate cost effective and efficient service delivery and enhance community initiative and participation" as well as "options for effective decentralisation that clearly define the role of [community] and civil society organizations and entities, empowers communities and strengthens transparency and grass roots democracy". The fate of the Conselho do Sucos as the only legally recognised body at the suco level will be examined and decided as part of this study. While it is possible that they will continue to exist as an appropriate concept for building democratic institutions, it is likely that this would only happen following socialisation of a new non-CEP focused role, fresh elections and possibly a name change. It is hoped that recommendations for the new structure will take into account the primary role of agriculture in suco life and the requirements for managing changes to production mechanisms whilst enhancing the community's traditional role in the management of natural resources. Implications for ARP 11 Whatever the outcome of the Autonomy Law, the suco structure that eventuates will need to be acknowledged and examined by MAFF to determine whether ARP Ill NRM activities should be planned and implemented by the new suco institutions. If they are thought to be appropriate, it will be important that parallel structures are not established in competition, and that MAFF assists in overall capacity building of the newly emerging suco structures. MAFF, in it's important role on the Technical and Political Committees (during the drafting of the Autonomy Law) should consider the need for suco level representation to assist in implementation of their broader programs, and their capacity building and support should be a priority under ARP 111. However if the new suco structures are not sufficiently well defined to be utilised as a vehicle for implementing ARP Ill NRM activities, the existing method of establishing new groups trialed under ARP 11 appears to be appropriate. The identification of new groups and their members should be done in close ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 6 collaboration with the Chefe do Suco, Aldeia and Traditional Leaders (where the suco community respects their authority in whatever form they take under the autonomy law). This should be done in a flexible manner across suco, taking into account the existence and success of farmer or other community groupings that may form the basis for new NRM groups. What will be important is that all interested community members are provided with quality information about the scope of the ARP NRM activities, and are able to self- nominate if they are interested in participating. Suco government and traditional leaders should be encouraged to motivate the poorest to become active members to minimise elite capture, rather than nominate the most progressive/active farmers only (as may have been the case in ARP 11). The number of participating groups identified would depend on the capacity of facilitators to support a number of small groups in any one suco and provide effective training to a potentially large number of participants. The geographic make-up of the suco will help to determine the number of groups, where some may lend themselves to several aldeia being represented by one group. A minimum of three groups per suco should be considered to ensure the presence of at least one women-only and one mixed group to ensure a minimal 50% representation of women. The difficulty of sustaining purpose-specific groups will be common to any institution in which the NRM activity is located, i.e. they may only be sustained as long as the activity is funded. As discussed above, ARP Ill should look at mechanisms for generating and collecting revenue from existing seed fund activities (tree crops and fisheries) as a way of promoting continued identification and implementation of NRM activities. Plans for the maximum distribution of any profits/benefits arising from funded activities to the entire suco population should be included as a pre-requisite for receiving funding to ensure benefits are maximised and non-group members are included. Working through appropriate groups specified in the new suco structure will maximise the likelihood of sustainability, as these groups will have other roles beyond NRM activities and will continue to be accountable to the community. The funding mechanisms developed under ARP 11, whilst not conforming to the Grant Agreement, appear to be appropriate to the community's needs for transparency. The Autonomy Law will likely address this issue in developing appropriate government structures and mechanisms, and ARP Ill should consider the resulting mechanisms in developing a new grant agreement. The mechanisms developed by CEP and adopted by ARP 11, which include the public display of financial transactions should be re-evaluated in light of the high level of illiteracy. In addition, the placement of noticeboards out in the weather means that often the only financial records belonging to the group are rendered illegible by exposure to the weather or lost. In the interests of promoting self reliance, communities should be encouraged to come up with their own plans for ensuring transparency, following the broad principles developed under ARP 11 and endorsed by group members, as a prerequisite to receiving funding. What is clear from the interviews is that communities embrace the idea of the right to information, while the holders of money are keen to avoid suspicion of misappropriation. Whilst some form of public display is likely to remain appropriate, it will only serve it's intended function if communities are assisted in developing more user-friendly formats for disposable public display, and this should be addressed in the remainder of ARP 11 and ARP 111. What is preferable however is that regular community meetings are held at which this information is presented verbally for discussion and comment to all interested parties. How this is done and who should be involved should either follow the requirements of the new Autonomy Law (if appropriate) or be up to individual communities to nominate trusted individuals to perform this very important function. ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 7 2.3 What are the best options for creating demand for services and effective service delivery which are likely to be the most sustainable? Types of services required by farmers Farmers interviewed had difficulty with the concept of 'services' or 'information' provided in the area of agriculture. Nine of the 13 suco identified vaccination as a service, while the others did not - even though they had in fact received this service. Four could not recall any other service/information they had received. Three from Oecussi had received tree seedlings from the DFO and seven mentioned having received 'penyuluhan' (advice/lectures) on farming topics, but were vague about what these were and may have been reporting potential rather than actual services. Instructions on banning the destruction and burning of forests was mentioned by two Oecussi groups. The most well known DAO staff were the Livestock and Forestry officers (mentioned ten times) while agriculture (the DAO) and Fisheries were less well known (mentioned 6 and 5 times respectively). Food Crops and Irrigation were the least well known (being mentioned 4 times each). Two suco knew the names of some of the staff but could not specify which sectors they were from. While it is reasonable that Irrigation staff are only known in areas where there is irrigation (a minority of suco), the limited exposure of food crops staff is of concern. Five groups expressed a desire to be visited more frequently by all sectors - particularly those sector staff who had not yet visited at all. There is a need for all DAO staff to be more visible to the community to ensure that MAFF services are understood and utilised. It is acknowledged that human resources are extremely limited at the district level, however joint visits at peak times such as during vaccination campaigns should be utilised to make greater use of farmer gatherings for extension/information dissemination opportunities. There was an overwhelming feeling that farmers received a lot more information in Indonesian times compared to now, but this was not expressed in terms of disappointment - more as a fact of life post independence: "East Timor is still a new country, so there aren't yet enough PPLs to create activities with farmers. Not enough manpower and facilities." "There was more in Indonesian times because there were more staff at the sub-district level, so more face-to-face contact. We know there are limitations". The mostly keenly felt loss since the Indonesian Administration was the services of the extension officers (PPLs). Ten of the thirteen suco said their PPL was very useful, and the predominant reasons seemed to be the introduction of new varieties to the suco (rambutan, snake fruit, kapok, cashew, jackfruit, mango and dry land rice were mentioned as examples) and the establishment of demonstration plots to extend the technique of growing these varieties. Also, some PPLs introduced new technologies (optimal spacing for planting corn, vegetables and rice, planting in rows, pest management and how to make fertiliser). Only three reported that their PPL was not useful, because they either did nothing or did not make demonstration plots, but one of these said they attended the demonstrations of neighbouring PPL instead which was considered beneficial. When asking what services/information farmers felt they needed, this was explained not in terms of 'physical inputs or handouts' but as assistance that would improve farming output. All groups mentioned lectures/advice (penyuluhan) as a requirement - particularly on technical aspects of farming, including pesticide use/pest reduction, practical application of new techniques, farm and natural resource management, growing trees such as teak, animal husbandry and vaccination. As one farmer put it "so far all we have received are directives about what not to do [regarding forest management] but how do we actually look after our forests"? There is a feeling that 'modern' farming practices are the answer to production problems, as well as inputs such as improved seed, fertiliser and pesticides: 'We are still farming as our ancestors did. This is why we cannot increase production." Face-to-face training in the suco was by far the most popular preference for delivery of training/information (ten Suco) with a strong emphasis on practical demonstration. Two mentioned this was necessary because ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 8 their community was largely illiterate. Only four mentioned other forms of information dissemination (posters, books, leaflets, handouts, radio) and two specifically stated that radio was of limited use as a medium for providing quality information. This is in contrast to the Asia Foundation's survey of preferred methods for receiving communication (2001) which found radio to be the most effective method of delivering political messages. It must be remembered though that farmers are seeking practical information that they can apply to real effect rather than simply provision of general information. Issues of information delivery are further addressed in the section on Information Services below. The use of key farmers The results of the survey show that people do not generally differentiate between or acknowledge people within their community with notably superior farming skills. There is a perception that all farmers have a similar level of farming or animal husbandry skills. While some acknowledge the presence of people in the suco who attended the SPP (secondary agricultural school) in Indonesian times (2 sucos), they are not sought out for advice, and in turn, do not provide it in any formal sense to their communities. Whilst certain skills could be taught to selected farmers in the hope that they will extend this within their communities, it is anticipated that payment of some kind would be required - depending on the expectation for achieving total coverage of the suco community. Training community vaccinators for example, especially for chickens, is likely to be of benefit, and the use of individual farmers to extend key production improvement methods could be further examined if individual farmers were interested in taking on this unpaid role. However this 'trickle down' system of training is usually only effective for limited technical skills transfer, and what is important is that the understanding of the message/technique is not diluted to the point where is not effectively extended in the interests of achieving quantity rather than quality of adoption. As part of the new structure under the Autonomy Law, MAFF could explore the nomination of aldeia-based individuals to be tasked with responsibility for key, routine activities. The organization of a suco's annual rounding-up of free ranging animals for vaccination could fall to specifically designated individuals from each aldeia - ie those with a large livestock holding for example - who could assist the Chefe do Aldeia in creating demand for services by achieving 100% coverage. The use of trained facilitators In the absence of an effective and broad-based extension services, trained facilitators represent one of the best ways to assist in creating farmer demand for services as well as bridging the communication gap between the community and the DAO technical staff. Following a visit in December 2002, the MTR team called for a fresh recruitment process which would improve the quality of facilitators. This was in recognition that the first round of facilitators were not necessarily selected in the most appropriate manner and suffered from a lack of quality training. Once finalised, the background of the new recruits should be documented to determine whether the recruitment process was successful in attracting candidates appropriately skilled and experienced in participatory community development, including University graduates. The performance of the next round of facilitators will need to be closely monitored and discussed at the conclusion of ARP II to determine whether they represent the best combination of skills for the facilitator roles. More importantly, the new recruits will need to be appropriately trained and supported to undertake their roles. The current NRM adviser has developed an orientation and management training, and a Community Development Trainer is being recruited to develop an appropriate participatory planning methodology. The training material from the AETRDP Community Resource Management Planning model has been provided to MAFF as an example of an appropriate and tested methodology for use in East Timor. This could be modified and adopted for ARP 11 and ll. Source/institutional location of facilitators A desirable outcome from implementation of ARP IlIl would be to have the DAOs expand their staffing levels to include a small number of facilitators who would be permanently employed to create a community/technical staff interface. They could expand the number of suco undertaking NRM activities ARP IIl Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 9 supported by.MAFF beyond ARP l1l, as well as assist in creating demand for other services provided through the district offices. As programs are developed and get underway the balance of Dili based to District based staff may need to be reassessed to gain maximum exposure to farmers. However it is acknowledged that funding for extra positions may not be available in the foreseeable future. An alternative then is to utilise the resources available at the sub-district level to increase MAFF'S capacity for outreach. The OALGD is in the process of recruiting 60 Community Development Officers to be based at the sub-district level. Their role is to stimulate development at the suco level, and they will be provided with training to this end. However, as they have no budget to actually plan and implement activities, they will be limited to coordinating the activities of other agencies and may have only limited tasks to perform. As the vast majority will be based in rural areas, their role of facilitating agricultural planning could be maximised by MAFF through supplementary training in NRM participatory planning and management of activities to utilise Component 1 funds under ARP ll. Discussions should be held with the OALGD in the ARP IlIl appraisal to determine the likely parameters and mechanisms of this cooperation. A pilot training program to equip the Community Development Officers with the required skills could then become part of ARP l1l. The sub-district officers and the District Development Offices should also be part of this process in recognition of the important role of agriculture to the East Timorese economy. MAFF and the OALGD should conduct joint discussions to determine how these resources could be best used to facilitate closer working relations and address MAFF's shortfall in extension and participatory planning capacity while stimulating suco level development. Participatory planning skills within MAFF ARP II trained the Fisheries, Forestry and DAOs from the pilot district offices in PRA methodologies, however they have not applied these in other non-pilot suco and only participated in PRA data collection in the pilot suco in a limited way. DAOs were also trained to become trainers in PRA methodologies, but after nearly twelve months, they have not provided this sort of training to other staff and do not intend to train the next batch of facilitators. Whilst it is important that these staff understand the planning principles and methodologies, they do not generally have the time to implement extended participatory planning processes with the community and see their role as providers of technical support to this process. In addition, existing MAFF programs tend to be supply driven rather than demand based. Until resources are specifically earmarked for demand based activities, bottom-up participatory planning outside of Component 1 may not result in any funding. Until staff numbers increase significantly to include the specific role of facilitating demand for services, it will be difficult to locate this function within the existing compliment of District staff, however hiring facilitators/extension staff at the DAO level (discussed above) may be an option. The necessity for female facilitators The issue of female facilitators was only raised in the focus group interwiews with pilot suco as it was felt they best knew what was required of the role. In retrospect, this question should have been asked of all the groups to gain a broader view. Only one of the four pilot suco interviewed said it was better to have a female facilitator so she could "work with the women's group". The other three were of the opinion that it did not really matter whether they were a man or a woman; the most important attribute was skills/knowledge in farming. Two though it important that the facilitator should live in (but not necessarily come from) the suco. The recruitment process underway for replacement facilitators in the 14 pilot suco resulted in female facilitators being hired in every pilot district. Their performance (along with that of their male counterparts) should be closely monitored to ensure both the community and the DAO staff are satisfied with their capacity to facilitate participatory NRM planning and implementation. Attention should be given to addressing any difficulties the women in particular may be facing doing field work in more isolated locations, and these should be addressed as they arise to ensure women are adequately supported in this role. The recent decision to provide one motorcycle per district for the facilitators will need to be especially well coordinated. It is unlikely the female facilitators will be able to ride them (the trail bikes necessary to ARP IIl Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 10 negotiate off-road conditions are generally too large for Timorese women to control) and they may be co- opted for the exclusive use of the male facilitators unless strict guidelines developed. It is therefore desirable that the facilitators work as a team, facilitating both male, female and mixed groups to ensure women's activities are not marginalised and the facilitators provide mutual support to all groups. Partnerships/contracts with NGOs Since the emergency phase, the number of NGOs operating in East Timor has fallen from over 200 to a few dozen who are still active, and the number involved in agriculture are minimal'. In general their field staff lack experience and capacity, many having been only recently formed, and some have very limited/no field activities underway. More importantly, many have a somewhat hostile attitude towards the government sector, demanding inclusion but often lacking proven expertise themselves. The government in turn (MAFF) has an equally suspicious view of NGOs, believing that the majority were formed with a view to making a quick profit rather than providing quality services of real benefit. However many local NGOs are now being supported by international NGOs such as Oxfam and Catholic Relief Services, and organizations such as CARITAS are actively trying to establish stable, local NGOs through an intensive process of capacity building. The extent to which effective NGOs are represented at the District level should be assessed under ARP Ill and contracts for facilitation services considered on a per-district basis (as an alternative to direct hiring of facilitators), with DAO staff providing technical inputs as required. The form of the NGO contracts would need to be carefully negotiated to ensure that MAFF was satisfied with the intended outcome, and that the NGOs were able to provide these services to an agreed level of quality. NGOs would be encouraged to seek funding from other sources to maintain their relationship with the NRM suco and continue providing support to them beyond ARP 111. Expanding demand for NRM services To date, creating demand for appropriate NRM activities has largely been the role of the Component 1 facilitators and the DFOs under their reforestation programs. The former have been somewhat limited to fisheries and forestry activities due to the heavy reliance to date on selecting from the list of 'positive' activities in the operations manual. It is noted that these have not been updated from the list in the PAD, and some of the broader activities within them, such as 'watershed management' may be difficult for communities to conceptualise into related, manageable activities. Under the remainder of ARP 11 and 111, facilitator training (contracted facilitators, Community Development Officers, NGO facilitators, MAFF contracted facilitators) needs to be improved to develop an effective, participatory planning methodology that takes into account a broader range of resource management issues, including livestock management, improved cropping practices and integrated/natural pest management etc. Activities should be based firmly on priority problems farming communities are experiencing and MAFF should be encouraged to respond to these problems, once articulated, rather than developing supply-driven programs. The AETRDP program (Phase 11) is developing activity 'packages' which respond to farmer need based on a process of participatory problem identification. The packages will include activities and information for all aspects of implementation requirements from production through the processing and/or marketing if appropriate, and these should be utilised in ARP Ill districts where relevant. Implications forARP Ill ARP Ill should explore the possibility of encouraging the contracting of ARP 11 facilitators as permanent DAO staff to assist technical staff with participatory identification of a broad range of NRM activities related to sustainable agricultural production improvements. This process could be used to inform development of their program services as well as assisting the community to access available services. I Personal correspondence with staff from the NGO forum who are trying to encourage active NGOs to maintain registration ARP Ill Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 11 However in the absence of likely funding for such positions, MAFF should consider negotiating with the OALGD to access the Community Development Workers in particular to provide facilitation / extension services required in the critical area of agriculture. Alternative mechanisms such as contracting NGOs to provide facilitation services under Component 1 should also be explored, however it is acknowledged that the budgetary requirements for this will likely be beyond MAFFs capacity following completion of ARP 111. What is important in this model is that NGOs may be able to access funding from other sources to continue working in ARP Ill suco, and eventually expand their program to other suco in partnership with MAFF. 2.4 Component 2, Rapid Rehabilitation of Infrastructure Are the schemes assisted under this component (community, light-medium damaged) optimising their irrigation source, which ones are not, what are the factors preventing full optimisation, and how can the WUAs be assisted to overcome them? Introduction In-depth interviews were carried out with the board and members of the WUAs in Bilimau, Halicou, (Bobonaro District) and Baedubu and Uaibati (Viqueque District). Less rigorous discussions were held in Naktuka, Tono and Oemathitu in Oecussi due to time constraints. The comments below refer only to the situation in those schemes and not to rice growing in their respective Districts in general. Two community schemes were also visited for comparison - Futudu 11 in Viqueque and Bolubo in Bobonaro. In the former scheme, no rice had been planted since the ARP rehabilitation works were completed as the main dam structure constructed by the Indonesian Government had subsequently collapsed. Recent efforts to construct a makeshift structure using wire baskets full of rocks (beronjong) had been knocked down by the force of the rver, and the community were not confident about the likelihood of a lesser structure lasting - although they were prepared to try to reconstruct it through their own efforts. According to MAFF, the cost of rebuilding the dam structure was prohibitively high and not a priority at this point in time (only around 3OHa are irrigated under this scheme). In Bolubo, the intake has already been damaged, and according to the ex suco leader, there was not enough water to irrigate the paddy. He did not wish to arrange a community interview to verify this. When the team checked the site they felt the repairs necessary were within the means of the community, and that there was in fact sufficient water. The suco was however in the middle of a leadership dispute (the current suco leader was also the school teacher and the Dili administration had asked him to step down). This may have affected the community's ability to organise sufficiently to undertake the repair work and the District Irrigation Officer (DIO) is monitoring the situation. These two schemes are not included in the discussions below. Case studies prepared after the interviews (including Futudu) are attached as Annex E. Findings The main findings of the interviews are summarised in the table in Annex F. Each scheme visited has a set of conditions, traditions and socio-political relations peculiar to the way it functions. The reasons given for sub-optimal utilisation were complex and varied, and despite efforts to be systematic, were often contradictory and confusing - particularly as farmers were largely being asked to estimate their future plans for planting in an uncertain environment. In addition, the more motivated farmers and active members within the WUA may have been over-represented in the discussions, while the poorer, less motivated farmers (who's behaviour the WUAs felt they had to influence) may have been under-represented. For these ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 12 reasons, the following observations based on the interviews are by no means conclusive and will need to be followed up with accurate monitoring of actual behaviour in the 2002/3 wet and 2003 dry seasons2. An examination of pre-1999 arrangements for rice growing was revealing both for the extent to which rice growing was subsidised and supported, and the uneven adoption of inputs such as fertiliser and pesticides. Baedubu, one of the largest and most complex schemes, was kept operational by the Indonesian government free of charge (de-silting the primary canal every year) while Bilimau had assistance from an NGO and the local sub-district head to excavate the intake each year. Neither of the two schemes in Viqueque or Maliana used fertiliser, and actively rejected it, believing their soil was sufficiently fertile (perhaps because the majority is cropped only once a year). By contrast, the three Oecussi schemes were largely responsible for the maintenance of their own schemes and were using fertiliser and pesticide on a regular basis, with second cropping more widespread. Marketing patterns varied as well. In Viqueque, all surplus produced was sold to the Farmer's Cooperative (KUD), in Oecussi, it was sold in the market at Kefamenanu (West Timor), and in Bobonaro, it appeared to be mostly used for household consumption, with some surplus sold to family members in Maliana. The respective levels of dependency appear to be reflected in the post-conflict production patterns, where the three Oecussi schemes seem to have recovered quickest to pre-1999 production levels (at least in terms of number of hectares planted), with planting experiencing minimal disruption. Those with major government and NGO support on the other hand came to an almost complete standstill and were much slower to overcome production problems (whether this is coincidentally an effect of the extent of the level of damage they suffered is not known). The advent of the drought leading up to the 2002/2003 wet season has further complicated the emerging pattern of useage, with farmers only now starting to prepare their land in time for a March planting. This may mean the 2003 dry season planting will have to be delayed until August for those that plant in March, and the implications of the late wet season planting will need to be closely monitored before conclusions are drawn regarding optimal usage patterns. Of major concern are the estimates used in the feasibility study relating to the number of hectares that can potentially be irrigated and cultivated - both in the wet and dry seasons - compared with those of the farmers. Most WUA board members did not have accurate figures and attempted to guess the total potential paddy in their schemes. In Tono and Oemathitu, they declined to even try to guess. In some cases, the community estimated higher than the feasibility study, and in others, lower. Most put the dry season irrigation potential much lower than the feasibility study. This may be because the reconstruction works were largely completed afterthe 2002 dry season and have therefore not been tested. Most groups did not believe that the rehabilitation works would increase the potential number of dry season hectares as this was still dependent on seasonal rainfall. 2002 dry season Although Halicou, Bilimau and Uaibati were completed in June 2002, they were not planted in the 2002 dry season for the following main reasons: Halicou: Planted 5 ha in corn. Secondary canals still had to be dug to connect to the new intake, and there was a small landslide near the primary canal which filled it with dirt. Works were completed too late for a dry 2 Wet season planting normally occurs around December/January and dry season planting in May/June. In Baedubu and Uaibati, Viqueque, their main rainfall or 'wet' season is in ApriVMay/June when most of the rice is planted, however in the interests of consistency, it is still referred to as their dry season throughout this report. ARP Ill Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 13 season planting taking into account the time needed to clean the canals manually and the limited labour available3. Bilimau: The community were unhappy that the rehabilitation works were not more extensive and refused to plant (according to the local NGO ETADEP). Only 4 hectares near the river were planted. Uaibati: When the work finished, there was not enough water in the system to plant because of the drought. 2002/03 wet season As noted above, because of the prolonged drought, farmers did not commence work preparing the irrigation channels and the land until the rains started. This happened in most areas in late January. As of the end of February, no planting had occurred in any of the schemes and the current status of planting in each scheme is summarised in the Table in Annex F. 2003 dry season Estimates of planned planting in the 2003 dry season may be ambitious, and do not seem to take into account the impact of the late wet season planting. With the exception of Halicou and possibly Oemathitu, all of the WUAs estimated dry season water availability to be well below that of the feasibility study estimates. As actual capacity has not yet been tested post-rehabilitation in a 'normal' dry season, it is likely going to be difficult to get farmers who are unaccustomed to planting a second crop to invest time and resources if they are not convinced of sufficient water availability. Water aside, there are many other constraining factors which farmers raised that compound their difficulties. These are detailed according to each scheme in the case studies. The following is a brief summary of the specific issues which hamper productivity raised by farmers during the interviews, and which will require attention if the yields indicated in the feasibility study are to be reached. Major impediments to second cropping/increasing productivity Threat of flooding which causes damage to intakes, silts up intakes and irrigation channels, damage crops and shifts the course of the river from the intake. The onset of the rains can be swift and violent, sending large volumes of water down the mountains every year which sweeps stones, sediment and other debris past the intakes with often damaging results. In Baedubu, three years of neglect resulted in primary canals being filled with 2 metres of sediment. The rehabilitation works did not include de-silting the entire canal. If GTZ had not assisted with part payment for the use of an excavator, it is likely this canal would have remained silted up this wet season, rendering the scheme inoperable despite the rehabilitation works. In Indonesian times the primary canal was cleaned with an excavator every year free of charge. Farmers will have to bear this cost to produce a product they are not yet sure they can sell. The threat of annual flooding also dissuades farmers from planting near the river in Dec/Jan on this scheme as their crops may be destroyed prior to harvest. In Oecussi, where farmers regularly pool their money to pay for excavation works, heavy sedimentation often re-occurs prior to harvest. If they paid for the clean-up a second time in the one season, payment would exceed the value of the crop. While farmers conceded they could cope with most of the routine de- silting annually, they acknowledge that they cannot deal with repairs to major damage caused by flooding without assistance, and will continue to require heavy machinery to keep the systems operational. The changing course of the river is also a significant factor on many of the schemes - particularly affecting dry season planting. New structures to dam the water and feed it into the intake have to be constructed I According the WUA, only 62 households have ownership rights to this scheme. 26 of these are still in refugee camps in West Timor and a further 25 live away from the area, travelling back to plant rice. Other households have temporary user rights but the actual number was not known by the WUA. ARP IlIl Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 14 annually, sometimes over several hundred metres, and sometimes the task proves impossible depending on the particular course of the river. These factors combined have a significant bearing on farmers choosing to plant a first or second rice crop. Lack of water/longstanding division of water according to tradition / unsuitability of some areas for planting in both seasons / unsatisfactory system of water distribution It was very difficult during discussions to get an idea of whether water availability was the real issue or not. In some cases (Uaibati, Naktuka in particular), farmers said there was simply not enough water in the dry season for a second crop on the total paddy area. In others, (Baedubu, Oemathitu) previously established planting regimes rotated the use of the water to different areas of the scheme in the wet and dry seasons. In Baedubu, the area close to the river is too muddy to cultivate in the peak rainy season (sections B1 - B4), so only B5 - B7 are planted then. These in turn are considered too dry to cultivate in the dry season (too hard for buffalo to puddle), so they are only planted in the wettest season. In Oemathitu, the King determined the planting rotation to ensure the four major areas dependent on the single source had sufficient water to plant at least once a year. If there is any water left over, they allow some of the other areas to use it, but they have not yet tried irrigating it all at once in a single season. Shifting river courses and varying rainfall patterns add to the uncertainty in the dry season. Most groups mentioned that water distribution needed to be improved. In Oecussi especially it was felt that people used water with little regard for their neighbour's needs. The traditional methods were largely adequate (for single season cropping) but needed improvement to maximise water usage. Some of these (Baedubu) included sanctions which were enforced with the authority of the sub-district head. It was acknowledged that it was now the responsibility of the WUAs to improve water distribution but that they had not yet had a chance to trial the method included in the WUA training since the Associations were formed. Lack of tractors /high cost of tractors Under the Indonesian regime, tractors use became increasingly widespread, displacing the use of buffalo in some areas. This appeared true for the schemes in Maliana and Oecussi, where people were less interested in talking about buffalo availability. In Viqueque however, buffalo appear to still be used by the majority for land preparation. Rising fuel costs and the shift from provision of free/subsidised inputs to provision of sustainable services is moving the full costs onto the farmers as NGOs, government, and certainly private operators attempt to recover at least the cost of maintenance, and in the case of the latter, make a profit. Tractors often break down and the timing of their repair is at the whim of the owner/operator. At least one NGO (ETADEP) is selling hand tractors to groups of farmers using a system of repayment after five rice harvests, but this is only available in Maliana. Lack of Buffalo / Buffalo unable to work in the dry season The use of ploughs is virtually non-existent in East Timor, and despite attempts to introduce ploughing technology, the rencah system of running animals around the paddy to 'puddle' the soil remains the preferred method. This requires at least 20 animals working together, and only a minority own herds of this size. Only Viqueque reported that they had sufficient buffalo to work the amount of paddy available - however these are owned by certain individuals, and the poorest rent them to work their land at a cost of half of their harvest. People in Oecussi and Maliana reported that many of their buffalo were shot by militia in the 1999 violence. This has not been confirmed and many are thought to be free ranging in the hills where they are difficult to locate and reclaim. However while they may be an option in the wet season, farmers in the West believe it is not possible to use buffalo in the dry season as they quickly lose condition due to the lack of fodder at this time of the year. Dry season planting is generally restricted to tractors in the West, with hoes used on smaller landholdings. ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 15 Lack of rice seed/poor quality rice seed For the schemes whose rice production was most disrupted such as the Maliana and Viqueque schemes, the availability of sufficient quantities of rice seed was reported as being a problem although this was not possible to verify. In Viqueque, GTZ has a program to distribute rice seed for this wet season and next dry season plantings, so they did not mention seed availability as a major constraint. Maliana does not appear to have received assistance. Oecussi does not have a quantity problem, but would like improved varieties. Availability of other inputs and credit Only farmers in Oecussi reported using feniliser and pesticides regularly in Indonesian times. Whilst it is still available to buy from Kefamenanu, it is now too expensive. Urea has gone from 5 to 50 cents per kg, TSP from 7.5 to 75 cents per kilo and 500ml of pesticide costs $7. Only KCL has stayed the same price. Oecussi farmers were reporting 3.5 - 5 tons per ha in Indonesian times, and this is now down to 1 - 2 tons because the cost of these inputs is prohibitively expensive. The farmers want fertiliser to be supplied on credit - paid back after harvest. Farmers from the schemes visited in Viqueque and Bobonaro by contrast were not interested in using fertiliser. The head of the WUA in Baedubu claimed he had tried it on his own land and the area of crop fertilised produced less than normal. His verdict was that the soil was already sufficiently fertile and that additional inputs resulted in over-fertilisation. The Bilimau farmers believed fertiliser would destroy the structure of the soil. They said the silt in the river, churned up by the rains and deposited on the paddy was sufficient to fertilise the crop. They had had limited exposure to pesticides and reported that birds were their main pest problem. In Viqueque, on the other hand, they had suffered major pest infestation which resulted in the routine use of pesticide, supplied through the KUD. This is now not available for purchase. As with all inputs, including tractor and excavator hire, farmers are having difficulty paying for these inputs and would be reluctant to borrow cash credit as they are uncertain they can sell their rice crops to repay the loans. Whilst credit may be available through the Micro-credit bank in Maliana and the World Bank Small Enterprises Program, until prices are somewhat guaranteed (especially for Viqueque and Oecussi farmers who may not have access to the ASC buyers) it would be difficult to justify encouraging farmers to borrow for rice growing. What they want is access to credit which would be paid back in harvested paddy, although this may not be acceptable to lenders. The issue of credit supply and inputs remains a significant barrier to improving rice production (as was noted in the PAD appraisal of the feasibility studies). The price of rice/market uncertainty The price of rice was not really mentioned as a direct impediment to production by any of the groups. This does not mean it may not be a major determining factor, rather it may indicate a lack of experience in producing and selling rice in the post 1999 climate. Oecussi farmers reported they exchanged surplus rice for their other needs rather than sold it, and whilst this was not their preference, the possibility of exchange was still motivation enough to plant. Bobonaro farmers said they produced mostly for their own consumption, even in Indonesian times, and that a single crop was often not sufficient to meet household needs. The Viqueque farmers had not yet produced a surplus since 1999 and didn't know if they could sell it or not. It may take a few seasons yet to determine to what extent price is a factor in deciding to produce a surplus. Difficulty in coordinating the community when only a minority plant in the dry season Bilimau farmers stated that incursions by cattle and buffalo into the paddy in the dry season in search of fodder was a major disincentive for farmers to plant. As many farmers live far away from the paddy in this scheme, the prospect of protecting their crops (by sleeping near the paddy) twice a year was not an attractive one. In the wet season, there is more fodder available in the hills, and as everyone plants at this time, they all engage in keeping the animals in check. In the dry season however, those that don't plant are indifferent to their animal's behaviour, and although sanctions are imposed for crop destruction, they would ARP Ill Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 16 rather lose an animal than have to cut and carry food for it throughout the dry season. Those that do plant in the dry season tend to be the ones who's houses are close to the paddy. The community agreed they could address this problem themselves however and had started discussing the possibility of building a fence around the paddy. Oecussi farmers appear to rely heavily on the erection and maintenance of sturdy fences to deal with stock intrusions, while Viqueque, with it's second rainy season, does not experience distinct periods of fodder shortage and animal incursions are not as much of a problem. Tradition of planting corn/subsistence tendencies/overcoming the hungry period Traditionally a corn based farming system, rice growing is a relatively new innovation in Timor although it has a history in some areas dating back to Portuguese times. The percentage of farmers who plant rice only is extremely low, with significant effort being invested in other staples in a given year. As noted in the Social Assessment Report of the JAM, 2002, "A basic subsistence survival strategy is to not have all the eggs in one basket. In line with this strategy Timorese rural households have evolved farming systems that spread risk and .. ensure that they have access to a range of crops in an attempt to provide adequate food for the family, irrespective of the nature of the season or any natural disasters that may occur." Indeed, one of the WUAs complained that they were having difficulty coordinating farmers to plant rice this year as they "are all busy planting corn" in what was previously the peak rice growing season. However the results of the WUA interviews may be somewhat at odds with the conclusions of this report that "Formerly surplus producers, wetland farmers are now in subsistence mode. They have little information as to what might happen in the future. They are waiting to see". "Until they see that a market exists, and that they get paid for their rice, they will not produce a surplus". This simplistic view of economic determinism may be proved right, however as the Oecussi farmers have demonstrated, bartering produce is sufficient motivation to produce a surplus - as long as inputs do not have to be paid for in cash. Other growers in Viqueque are willing to plant a crop, regardless of whether they can sell it or not, as they test the post-1999 market situation. The interaction of price, assured markets, rice as a preferred food, the capacity to adequately store surplus for longer periods, the reversion to corn as a staple post 1999, and the uncertainty surrounding the operation and management of their irrigation schemes is complex, and it will take some time before a balance is struck between perceived benefits and returns on labour investment. It is interesting to note that food shortages are still widely reported in rice-growing areas where farmers have not been planting since 1999, and this in itself may provide the impetus to recommence rice growing to maintain subsistence levels if not produce a surplus. Presence of supporting factors to support rice production Whilst the rehabilitation of the light to medium damaged schemes may not have increased the total area of irrigated land (at least under present conditions), most WUA members acknowledged that they assisted the distribution of water from the intake to the primary canals and made irrigating their land easier. Other positive factors mentioned by the groups were as follows: Bobonaro groups: - There are at least some tractors available for rent - There are buffalo and cattle available for land preparation - NGOs like ETADEP and World Vision are providing credit for farming inputs - The Micro Finance Bank in Maliana is able to provide $100 - $300 loans for farming inputs such as tractor hire: ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 17 In addition, in Bobonaro, ETADEP is providing ready-to-use hand tractors to groups on credit at a cost of US$2100. These are to be paid back over five harvests. They also still have the excavator at Raimate which can be rented for clearing heavy sedimentation. Viguegue groups: - Most farmers have buffalo for land preparation, or can rent them. There are enough buffalo for the number of hectares they want to cultivate - There are at least three hand tractors in the area that can be rented - There is an excavator that can be rented - GTZ provided assistance (to Baedubu) to rent the excavator - GTZ will provide seeds and pesticide (to Baedubu) - enough for the next two seasons. They are also working on multiplication of improved seeds in the area. WUAs as an effective way to manage the community's irrigation resources Despite the myriad problems facing rice growers, the WUA board members in particular seemed committed to the idea of WUAs as an appropriate vehicle for management of their water resources. All were well aware of the burden of self reliance that had been placed upon them and the enormity of the responsibility. They felt it was too early to comment on their capacity as they had not had a chance to test their associations during a planting season. When analysing the problems they faced in ensuring crops were planted, WUA's acknowledged it was their responsibility to work with farmers to overcome them. Problems relating to major repair work and measures such as river straightening and intake protection were felt to be the responsibility of the government, as was assistance with marketing crops. Farmers referred to the distribution systems used previously as 'traditional', with one person (a Waicabu) designated by the chefe do suco / sub-district head to control the flow from the intake with the full weight of their authority. Secondary and tertiary distribution was then up to the farmers, with occasionally unsatisfactory results (particularly in Oecussi). As most areas planted only once a year in peak rainy seasons, this system seemed to work satisfactorily on the whole. Only Baedubu reported a system of sanctions for taking too much water. The system of distribution proposed by the WUA training is not far removed from what occurred previously, however the external authority is lacking in this new environment, and closer coordination of the WUAs with the sub-district heads may be desirable to ensure this authority, especially for schemes involving users from multiple suco. All the WUAs interviewed had established or were in the process of establishing sub-groups, but none had done much more than this since their foundation and training. The group in Baedubu had taken the initiative to submit a proposal to GTZ for assistance in hiring the excavator to clear the primary canal. They had also developed a system of dividing responsibility for keeping the canals cleared according to the amount of paddy farmed, but had not yet been able to convene a meeting to inform farmers about it. In Halicou and Bilimau the WUA had coordinated the construction/clearing of the primary and secondary canals and intake. None of the groups, including the Oecussi groups, had developed new systems of water distribution according to the training provided. This will likely occur when the land is ready for planting and irrigation commences in March/April. It will likely take a few seasons of experimentation and support to achieve optimal allocation - particularly if the next few seasons are characterised by lower than normal rainfall. The WUA from Baedubu, perhaps one of the most expansive and previously well supported schemes, seemed the least optimistic about their possibility of success. With farmers from 6 suco to coordinate, many living over 15km from the paddy lands, the organisational task was huge. As the head of the WUA lamented: "First the Portuguese forced farmers to plant rice, then the Indonesian regime also forced us to plant every year - even though the benefits were for ourselves. Now we have democracy, we can't make the farmers do anything". They fear that a small group (the board members) will end up having to do the ARP IiI Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 18 majority of the work if the scheme is to be kept operational. As rice production ceased in 1999, farmers quickly went back to growing corn as their staple crop and may take some persuading to grow one crop of rice per year again - let alone two. The scheme is fortunate in having assistance from may provide the catalyst and support the WUA needs to motivate farmers . The head of the WUA is keen to try to demonstrate growing a second crop of a different rice variety (which matures quicker) on the land subject to flooding prior to harvest (Sections B1 - B4), as well as trialing a third crop such as soy bean. While he is keen to do this at his own cost, bearing the consequence of failure, he is concerned that he is not in a position to advise older farmers how they should plant. He also described a 'leadership crisis' in the WUA, as the authority has now been vested in them rather than more traditional enforcers, such as the suco and sub-district heads. They are unsure whether the community will acknowledge the authority of the WUA in the event of a dispute. The WUA's capacity to recover the crops promised to GTZ as community contribution for the use of the excavator will be an interesting test case and should be closely monitored as an indicator of organisational capacity. In Bilimau and Halicou, the community were used to the presence and support of a strong sub-district head committed to rice growing who had an Irrigation officer assigned in Cailako. The irrigation officer oversaw water distribution, and an excavator was always 'on standby' if they needed to clear the intake. The NGO ETADEP also had a strong presence there with a fleet of 25 tractors. This is now reduced to four, and two of these are currently inoperable. The WUAs felt they would have no problem with water distribution, but feel it is too soon to predict how they will go organising farmers to plant and undertake maintenance works. As stated above, all groups expressed a concern that certain, heavy maintenance works would continue to be beyond their capacity to address unassisted. Bilimau has already forewarned they will change the board members if the WUA does not function well. The Oecussi WUAs by contrast do not foresee problems in organising their members to undertake maintenance works etc as they have always done so, and the maximum number of farmers plant in both seasons according to water availability (and traditional rotations of cropping areas). They are keen to see if they can alter distribution patterns established by the King to bring more land into production for both the wet and dry seasons. They expressed the least fears over increasing production, as long as their fertiliser and pesticide requirements can be met. They were however most concerned with the fact that they cannot sell rice at the moment, but can only use it to exchange for other goods. They want the Maliana ASC to arrange bulk purchases of crops, as well as to provide fertiliser on credit until the cash economy is re- established. One of the concerns shared by all the groups was the distance board members were expected to travel to reach subgroup members. As stated above, some of the WUAs have members from up to six different sucos who may live up to 15km away from the paddy area. Coordinating meetings over these distances in the absence of motorised transportation requires a major time commitment on the part of the board members, not to mention the effort of physically visiting sub-groups. This will limit their capacity to engage in information sharing and advising sub-groups of meetings, and a system of routine meetings should be established at peak pre-planting times to limit the necessity for organising ad hoc meetings. Representation of women Women were under-represented as members of WUAs, and indeed, membership figures held in MAFF were not gender disaggregated. The overall rate of membership was estimated by the WUA consultants to be around 5%. In general, they were only included as members if they were widows and did not have a husband to 'represent' them. Women are engaged in all aspects of rice production with the exception of land preparation and irrigation repair and maintenance work, which is normally done by men. While their importance to the production of rice is acknowledged by men, the tradition of men representing the household in irrigation matters is strong, and women are considered to be equally represented if their husbands are members, even though they may never attend meetings or participate in decision making ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 19 discussions. The guidelines for establishing WUAs did not specifically encourage achieving gender balanced membership, and the idea that more women should be involved to reflect their important role appeared to be a novel one - to both the WUA consultants and the WUAs. Women themselves do not seem to express any great desire to be more involved, however WUAs should be encouraged to progressively include more interested women as members to maximise organisational capacity and skills within the Associations. As women were not specifically invited to attend initial meetings to establish the WUAs, a subsequent round of meetings to ascertain their desired level of involvement should be conducted as part of ongoing support to their strengthening. Implications for ARP 1ll The recommendations in the ARP II MTR report of the Irrigation Specialist are supported by this study. Their implementation - especially in regard to strengthening capacity of both the WUA consultants and the WUAs themselves will go some way towards making them fully operational. The policy for Operation and Maintenance should be reviewed and approved as quickly as possible to ensure that sufficient budget is available for the government to honour its commitment. If any of the schemes suffer significant damage in the next few planting seasons without a speedy response from the government, the community may quickly become disillusioned with the concept of 'joint' responsibility while they are still struggling to re-establish their economies. The issue of the excavators in Viqueque and Baucau needs to be resolved. Intended for the DAOs, these two units appear to have been handed over to the church, who are charging money to farmers to utilise them. MAFF does not appear to have a clear idea whether the price determined by the church is in excess of operations and maintenance costs, and if so, where the profit is going. It is important that this equipment is made available to farmers at an affordable and sustainable price to ensure they are available for use in the future. The timing of this study was perhaps premature in that all schemes have not yet had a wet season since rehabilitation works were completed in which to measure the total area cropped under theirpeak usage. This should at least indicate the availability of sufficient ploughing capacity to be used as a benchmark for dry season planting, as well as the level of willingness to plant rice in the post 1999 climate. The total number of hectares that can actually be irrigated and are actually planted then needs to be accurately documented by MAFF to determine whether farmers are maximising usage of the land and irrigation resources. Whilst the use of accurate GIS measurement is preferable, unless it can be applied immediately following March/April planting, MAFF needs to develop an accurate system of measurement which the WUAs can apply at the very least as a form of self-monitoring. 2.5 Sub-component 3.1, Animal Health Services What are female and male farmer's expectations for the vaccination campaigns. Can they realistically be met by MAFF, and if not, how should expectations be tempered to encourage continued vaccination coverage? 2.5.1 Vaccination Program Expectations of the vaccination campaigns All of the 13 village interviewed reported having received vaccination services. Only one suco in Baucau said they had only received pig vaccinations, with no information about cattle and chickens. Seven had not had chicken vaccinations yet, while the Manufahi and Covalima district suco reported 100% coverage of chickens. (These same suco reported 100% coverage of ail animals although further cross-checking with the interviewers revealed that the respondents may not have been considering animals that are currently free-ranging.) What is important from these findings is that farmer expectations that their animals will not get ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 20 sick if they are vaccinated are being met. Indeed, the wholesale loss of a pig flock in one of the suco visited was said to have occurred because the vaccinators came too late. Estimating the coverage of animals vaccinated is problematic - and it is directly related to gaining an accurate estimate of the total number of animals in the suco. If stock numbers are generally low and animals are tied up or penned the task is easier, but if there are large numbers of free-ranging animals in the suco, it is almost impossible to gain an accurate picture of their numbers. This may be because people genuinely do not know with accuracy the size of their herds, or because there is a pronounced fear that a livestock tax will one day be reintroduced, so the benefits of vaccination are weighed against the disincentive of a future livestock tax. What seems evident however is that all those animals tethered or penned are generally vaccinated. Only four suco said people were still apprehensive about it, and this was largely related to a lack of information about the vaccines and the process rather than an actual belief that it may have negative consequences - a situation that needs to be rectified before the 2003 campaigns. What is promising is that all suco interviewed said they would continue to have their animals vaccinated, and that they expected to increase the numbers vaccinated next time round - especially those animals currently free ranging. Reasons for not vaccinating The benefits of vaccinating were well appreciated and their preventive nature in guarding against disease understood. Where animals were reported to have died following vaccinations, it was specifically stated in six cases that this was because they were sick already and farmers seemed to understand that vaccinations will not cure sick animals. The main reasons given why not all animals may be vaccinated in the suco and their frequency were as follows: - Lack of information/meeting prior to the campaigns / lack of clear information (7) - It's hard to gather the (free-ranging) animals from the hills (4) - Vaccinators could not get to their houses / lack of adequate transport for vaccinators (3) - People are not aware of the benefits of vaccination (to bother collecting free-range animals) (2) - The vaccinators did not give us enough time (to get animals from the hills) (1) - Not enough vaccinators (1) It should be noted that four of the suco who reported that the information provided was not clear also insisted 100% of their animals had been vaccinated. This discrepancy was discussed with the interviewers and they could not explain the community's insistence on complete coverage despite acknowledged weaknesses in service provision. When the other reasons are aggregated according to their relationship with the difficulty of collecting free-ranging animals, this appears to be a main contributing factor to lack of complete vaccination coverage. Subsequent campaigns should focus on targeting free-ranging herds as farmers become more accustom to the annual event. This may require information about the timing of the vaccinations reaching the suco and being disseminated sooner to enable the community to organise holding pens and a coordinated cattle/pig drive. This is also consistent with the findings of the Cattle/Buffalo Campaign exit interviews where all 32 respondents said they didn't receive information in a timely manner and required at least one month notice. Source of information about campaigns and adequacy The majority of suco reported hearing about the vaccination event through their Chefe do Suco/Aldeia, who heard about it directly from the vaccinator following a visit to the suco (10 suco). One suco heard about it from MAFF via the church, one claimed they received no information at all - the vaccinators just arrived and started vaccinating, and one heard about it directly from the vaccinator (whether the Chefe do suco was involved or not was not clear). Only two suco groups mentioned the radio, which is in contrast to the findings of the exit interviews for the Cattle/Buffalo Campaign conducted in December 2002, where all of the 32 respondents claimed they heard about the campaign on the radio rather than from the Chefe do Suco/Aldeia ARP IlIl Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 21 (4). It is likely that more general information was provided in this way, heard by the majority, but information about the actual dates for the events were provided by the vaccinators/suco administration. Despite overall compliance, there is still an obvious room for improvement in information delivery in the suco that claimed that lack of good information about the benefits of vaccination led to less people taking steps to vaccinate. This information would be best delivered through a community meeting prior to the vaccination event rather than through a reliance on posters and brochures. Although a major part of the information campaigns, posters and brochures were not mentioned much in either the client exit interviews or interviews with vaccinators, with the latter indicating meetings as the best method of information dissemination followed by radio. It will be important that vaccinators have enough time to organise and attend meetings prior to conducting vaccinations, and this should be incorporated into their job descriptions. The role of women in vaccinations Nine of the 13 groups said women were involved in vaccinations - three of these specified this was usually if the man was not available, and six differentiated the types of animals women were involved in, with pigs and chickens being their responsibility. Chicken vaccinations seemed to be the least widespread, with only five suco surveyed reporting this service. This may be because people have to go to the DAO to get the vaccine to vaccinate their own stock when they suspect the presence of Newcastle's Disease. A more concerted effort may be required to publicise this service, and women should be targeted as the primary carers of fowl. Although training for women in vaccinating is specified in the PAD, it appears not to have been implemented yet and should be addressed as a priority. Preparedness of the community to pay for vaccinations This question was asked during the interviews to gauge the level of importance farmer's attached to the vaccination service as a factor in effective animal husbandry. It was couched in the context of the government's inability to provide free services indefinitely, and was discussed as a possibility in the years to come. Interestingly, ten of the suco groups indicated they would pay for vaccinations. Four of these qualified the statement that it would have to be within their means, while one said only if the government could guarantee a sale price for livestock. One suco group said they wouldn't pay if government staff were providing the services, and another said they were doubtful because "even while it's free now, people are too lazy to have all their animals vaccinated". Two groups said it would be preferable to let the animals die rather than pay (or pay too much) for vaccinations. In general however, the results of the survey are promising in that the majority of groups indicated that vaccination was a services they would be prepared to consider paying a nominal amount for to continue receiving the perceived benefits. These findings are in contrast to the Results of the feedback from beneficiaries ARP 11, February 2003, where 87% of 392 individual respondents said they would not pay for services. The discrepancy could be explained in the way the question was asked, and the fact that people in a group situation may not be so candid about a refusal to pay. The introduction of a fee for service at this point may be premature, however the concept should be introduced gradually as part of future vaccination campaigns to maximise cost recovery and ensure the service can continue to protect valuable economic and social assets. Implications forARP Ill Information needs to be provided in a more timely and thorough manner than is currently the case to accommodate the needs of the minority who appear to be unconvinced of the benefits of vaccinating. In general, it can be assumed the need for this will lessen in the next few years as acceptance of the necessity of the service grows. What is more important now is that information about the dates of vaccinations is provided directly to individual suco at least one month before the event, and that the Chefe do Suco are instructed/assisted in communicating this information immediately to all aldeia. As discussed in the section (above) on utilising specific individuals to create demand for services, MAFF could explore the possibility of nominating a responsible individual per-aldeia to assist with achieving full coverage by organising ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 22 coordinated efforts to locate and corral free-ranging animals that are currently being neglected by their owners. As part of the NRM activities, the adoption of the penning / cut and carry system of animal husbandry should also be promoted and supported as a way of reducing animal pressure on the environment in watersheds in particular. Chicken vaccination appeared to be the least widespread - possibly because it is not part of the door-to- door service. Community understanding of the requirements for obtaining vaccinations appeared to be low. Efforts to implement training required to empower women in particular with information about this service and how to administer the vaccines should be increased to ensure that chicken stock - vital to household economies - are protected from potential decimation. If this is not addressed adequately in ARP 11, it should be included as a priority activity in ARP 111. While vaccination services are scheduled to remain free of charge until mid-decade, MAFF should start to consider phasing in charges to help subsidise the cost of treating other diseases which contribute to animal mortality. 2.5.2 Are VLWs likely to be sustained by the community, and if not, what are the options for providing sustainable and effective animal husbandry services? Although non-pilot suco in the survey were selected from sub-districts which had appointed VLWs, the VLW program was not well known. In fact, only one suco said they had heard about it but then went on to talk about vaccinators. This is in contrast to the Results of the feedback from beneficiaries ARP 11, February 2003, where 47% of individual respondents said they had heard about VLWs and 35% said they had participated in selecting them. It is possible that these respondents were also confusing the VLWs with paid vaccinators. An attempt was made to gain an understanding of the importance farmers placed on treating sick animals as an indicator of likely support for livestock health services. Farmers in the nine of the survey villages reported resorting to traditional medicine, but most would not (or could not) specify what this was or how widespread the practice. Two specified boiling leaves (papaya), but that this was only used for pigs and other animals were not treated, but were killed and eaten before they died. Six of the groups said they tried to contact MAFF / the DLO, but the time lag was an off-putting factor, as well as the expense involved in travelling to the District town. It is unlikely that this practice is widespread and may have indicated potential rather than actual behaviour. In general, farmer's are somewhat fatalistic about animal illness, believing that once sick, it is better to kill and eat the animal rather than attempt to save it with their limited knowledge and resources. The difficulty people are experience in converting their animals to cash is possibly acting as a disincentive to treat them, although the need to have significant buffer stocks of pigs in particular for ceremonial obligations appears to be quite strong, and should provide motivation enough to invest in treatment for sick animals. Once the VLW program was explained to the groups, all but two indicated that they would likely call a VLW to treat a sick animal. One of the latter said it would depend on cost and the other contradicted their initial statement that they would not call a VLW by saying they would likely pay for these services. Questions were then asked about how much the cost of a hypothetical service would be, and while none of the groups were able to estimate this, twelve of the groups indicated that they might pay - depending on the cost and their ability to pay at the time. One again qualified that they wouldn't pay if the VLW was employed by the government, and three were not sure they would have money available. The issue of payment in kind was discussed as an alternative to paying cash, however all groups but one said this would be a decision for the VLW rather than their own decision. This response seems to acknowledge the unlikelihood of VLWs ARP Ill Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 23 agreeing to an in-kind payment. This is probably a realistic response, as the need for payment for service was explained to them in terms of the VLWs need to replace medicines for the next client. All of the groups were very supportive of the idea of a VLW - the closer to the suco the better, and all but one thought it was an appropriate role for a woman (the one that did not said this was because the suco had 9 aldeia and was too large for a woman to cover - according to female respondents' own assessment). Others emphasised that training was the key, as long as this provided appropriate skills. Of the current batch of VLWs selected, only a small minority are women (selection figures were not gender disaggregated). The subsequent recruitment round should aim to increase the percentage of female recruits to reflect the gender division of animal husbandry roles. Implications for ARP l11 The VLW program has not yet gotten underway. Although the first batch of VLWs have been selected, they have not yet been trained and equipped yet. As such, it is difficult to judge how well they will be accepted and utilised by the farming community. Community awareness is low, and this will need to be addressed in ARP 11, preferably through the next vaccination campaign where paid vaccinators could provide information to those suco with a VLW trained and operating in their sub-district. The tendency to select paid vaccinators to be trained as VLWs (all VLWs in Oecussi were previously paid vaccinators) will need to be closely monitored to see if the combination of free service provision (vaccinations) with a paid service (all other treatments) acts as a disincentive to service utilisation. The perception that the VLWs are government employees being paid a wage will need to countered if they are expected to operate as private service providers. The subsequent round of VLW selection should take this into account. In addition, the dependence on paid vaccinators may be limiting the opportunity for women to take up these opportunities. Future VLW recruitment processes should encourage a gender balance across districts to ensure women's participation in paid employment opportunities and to ensure a focus on pigs and chickens as women's preferred livestock is maintained. 2.6 Sub-component 3.2 Information to farmers What type of information do female and male farmers require regarding all facets of agricultural production through to marketing, and what is the most effective means of communicating this information? It is extremely difficult for poorly educated farmers to express views about information needs and services when they do not yet know the possibilities of these kinds of services. As discussed above, there is an expressed desire to learn about 'new' and 'modern' farming methods, however these need to build on the traditional practices that have been developed by Timorese farmers over centuries of low/no input farming to ensure they are appropriate to local conditions. The challenge for MAFF is to develop such information through interactive trials and demonstrations which result in proven technological innovations suitable for East Timorese farming systems and conditions. The overwhelmingly preferred method of delivery is through direct, practical demonstration, a legacy of the Indonesian extension system. While there were many shortcomings with this system of extension in East Timor and elsewhere, and perhaps more should be shown for the enormous effort of assigning a PPL to every suco, it represented the best method for ensuring the adoption of new varieties and techniques for a largely illiterate farming population. While it is acknowledge that MAFF faces problems with a shortage of human resources to support this face-to-face delivery of technical training, direct extension as a means of effective communication it should not be left behind in the rush to develop alternative, less labour intensive solutions which rely on radio and print media. A focus on disseminating agricultural information for the sake of using up air time is not justified or appreciated. The tendency of Radio Champion to simply download and translate programs from countries with incomparable ecological climates and crop production methods is of questionable value, and this was reflected in the lack of knowledge of/enthusiasm for the agricultural radio programs currently provided by ARP Ill Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 24 MAFF, with farmers in the interviews expressing a preference to hear music rather than 'educational' programs. Results from the VLW pre tests and the vaccination campaign client exit and vaccinator interviews all indicate a preference for face-to-face communication as the most effective means of communication. This is likely because information given to illiterate communities requires a good deal of explanation, and an environment in which they can field questions and have their misconceptions addressed first-hand. While written material can perform this function, it is not accessible by the majority (only 34% literacy is reported nationwide, The Asia Foundation, National Survey of Voter knowledge, 2001). As the recent MTR of MAFF Information Services demonstrated, there is an tendency on the part of the various divisions to blame low farmer awareness on the Information and Communication Service without looking at what the information needs of farmers actually are, and this must be addressed prior to the rush to develop mass dissemination mechanisms. As the Final Report of the International Communications Expert, ARP II, (March 2003) concludes, "Current MAFF approaches emphasise providing information but does not adequately weigh its relevance, appropriateness, applicability by farmers nor how best to present it for farmers to accept. It is more an ideal or ritual". In the long term, information and education for the next generation of farmers needs to be addressed, and perhaps represents the most effective way of bringing about change. The use of children's magazines to promote simple messages about environmental management and the introduction of modern farming concepts should be encouraged under ARP 111. The distribution of tree seedlings to schools by the Forestry division appears to have been well received and should be accompanied by further education in seedling propagation etc. Trialing of new varieties in schools-based demonstration plots should be promoted, and teacher education targeted to provide agricultural information and skills of relevance to farming communities at primary and secondary levels. This would need to be done in close collaboration with the Education Ministry. The possibility of re-establishing the secondary level farmer schools (SPP) and working closely with the Universities to develop appropriate curriculum should also be explored, with MAFF acting as an advisory body. Schools and their teachers represent a significant resource to engage effectively in the process of disseminating agricultural information, knowledge and skills. Implications forARP 111 All MAFF divisions need to work more closely with farmers to develop and trial effective technologies to increase agricultural sustainability and environmental management. Having quality information of real benefit to farmers is a pre-requisite for it's effective dissemination. Information Services need to focus more on training DAO staff in effective training and information delivery which are accompanied by practical trial and demonstration where relevant. Whilst radio and printed material have a role to play in disseminating broad-based messages, they are no substitute for the delivery of practical information which farmers can use. Obviously, the emphasis will need to be on quality rather than quantity as there are simply not enough staff to go round. Farmer field days held jointly with neighbouring villages which capitalise on pre-arranged activities (ie vaccination campaigns, WUA key maintenance activities, ASC member meetings, market days etc) are vehicles which are currently underused as opportunities for face-to-face communication of information and should become cornerstones of MAFFs information strategy in ARP 111. In an effort to increase MAFF's capacity to provide face-to-face information, the possibility of accessing other trainingAinformation providers such as NGOs and donor programs should be explored to expand the options for face-to-face delivery of quality information which can be practically applied within the current Timorese farming system. Greater efforts to document and utilise the training resources available in East Timor in the area of agriculture should be a priority of the resource and extension section with the assistance of the training coordinator in ARP 111. This should start with a survey of donor/NGO programs who are using or providing training/information services, and resources available should be compiled in an up-to-date registry of training providers. The emphasis should be on reducing duplication, sharing resources ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 25 and identifying gaps in the availability of quality training programs. Proven materials from the Indonesian period should also be accessed and collated to assist with the development/updating of appropriate, farmer friendly resources. 2.7 Sub-component 3.3 - ASCs What is the level of awareness of the female and male farmers about the services the ASCs provide/intend to provide? The level of awareness and membership of ASCs was only examined during the interviews with the WUAs in Bobonaro and Viqueque. No discussions were held in Aileu. In general, the level of awareness was found to be extremely low, with many farmers never having heard of the organization. This is in contrast to the results of MAFF's beneficiary feedback survey, where 91% of respondents claimed knowledge of the ASCs, with their main source of knowledge being ASC members, the Chefe do Suco and the Management committee. Given the gender bias of both surveys, relying on predominantly male respondents, women's level of knowledge was not adequately addressed. Anecdotally, in Viqueque one group had never heard the term but know there were people buying copra from their village. It was not confirmed whether this was the ASC or other private buyers. In another, only one of the farmers in the group had heard the ASC mentioned on the radio, and could specify correctly the commodities of the respective districts. In the third, Some farmers had heard the term but did not know what it was. In Bobanaro, both groups had heard about the ASC and knew it was there, but they did not know any members and had not utilised any of their services. The situation may change however when rice production gets underway in these two schemes. What is clear is that the ASCs need to engage in greater self- promotion in keeping with their capacity to respond to increased demand. Implications forARP 111 The Oecussi farmers by contrast had not only heard of the Maliana ASC, they had high hopes of them sending trucks to Oecussi to purchase their rice. Provision of subsidised or guaranteed quality fertiliser was also a priority service that farmers felt the ASC could provide, preferably in exchange for a portion of the harvest. In Viqueque, as discussions were with rice farmers, they were interested in their ASC expanding to provide rice-related inputs. Pesticide was specifically mentioned, as this used to be provided by the KUDs at the sub-district level and was no longer available for purchase. Further discussions with farmers need to take place to determine other needs that the ASCs could accommodate beyond those identified through the initial assessments. The lack of knowledge of the ASCs is also problematic and needs to be addressed, possibly through the use of radio. However, as mentioned above, this should be commensurate with the ASC's capacity to purchase / provide inputs for a larger number of farmers. 3. SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS The activities likely to be continued from ARP II into ARP IlIl are small scale in nature, and with regard to component 1 NRM activities, rely on a process of community discussion and decision making to decide on the nature, location and beneficiaries of activities in a largely democratic manner. The revised operational manual to guide their development should take into account the World Bank's social safeguard requirements. The proposed works to rehabilitate a major irrigation scheme to be implemented under ARP III have been deferred. As such Operational Procedures 4.12 (Involuntary re-settlement), 4.20 (Indigenous People, 11.03 (Cultural Property) and 7.60 (Projects in Disputed Areas) are not likely to apply to ARP ll. ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 26 4. RECOMMENDATIONS In recognition that Timor Leste is an emerging country with social institutions and MAFF service delivery mechanisms still in their early development phases, the ARP 11 Social Assessment recommended that "assessment of 'social appropriateness' should become an integral, continuous part of the program, and one that impacts on the way the program is implemented. The idea is to make certain that the assumptions concerning appropriateness of inputs and effect of the outputs, were actually correct, and suggest changes if they were not." This recommendation is supported. The MTR process has obviously been an appropriate vehicle for the assessment of social (and other) appropriateness of the design and implementation of ARP interventions. The recommendations from the MTR in January/February, if accepted and implemented, will go some way in refining the inputs to maximise the benefits. These in turn will need to be monitored, evaluated and incorporated into the implementation plans for ARP 111. Some of the following recommendations therefore overlap somewhat with what is already underway in the remainder of ARP 11. Component 1, Options for location of NRM activities at suco level, service delivery mechanisms, and the creation of demand for services. The Autonomy Law, expected to be drafted following a comprehensive review of options for suco level government structures, will define the legally recognised basis of power and the suco structure for East Timor. During the drafting of the Autonomy Law, MAFF, in it's important role on the Technical and Political Committees, should consider the need for suco level representation to assist in implementation of their broader programs. The institutions that eventuate will need to be acknowledged and examined by MAFF to determine whether ARP Ill NRM activities should be planned and implemented by the new suco institutions. If they are thought to be appropriate, it will be important that parallel structures are not established in competition, and that MAFF assists in overall capacity building of the newly emerging suco structures. Capacity building and support for these institutions in relation to helping define the demand for services should be a priority under ARP 111. * If the new suco structures prescribed by the Autonomy Law are not sufficiently well defined to be utilised as a vehicle for implementing ARP Ill NRM activities, the existing method of establishing new groups, successfully trialed under ARP 11, appears to be appropriate. The identification of new groups and their members should be done in close collaboration with the Chefe do Suco, Aldeia and Traditional Leaders (where the suco community respects their authority in whatever form they take under the autonomy law). This should be done in a flexible manner across suco, taking into account the existence and success of any farmer or other community groupings that may form the basis for new NRM groups. It will be important that all interested community members are provided with quality information about the scope of the ARP NRM activities, and are able to self-nominate if they are interested in participating. A minimum of three groups per suco should be considered to ensure the presence of at least one women-only and one mixed group to ensure a minimal 50% representation of women. * The funding mechanisms developed under ARP li, whilst not conforming to the Grant Agreement, appear to be appropriate to the community's needs for transparency. The Autonomy Law will likely address this issue in developing appropriate government structures and mechanisms for program funding, and ARP Ill should consider the resulting mechanisms in developing a new grant agreement. The mechanisms developed by CEP and adopted by ARP 11, which include the public display of financial transactions should be re-evaluated in light of the high level of illiteracy rates. In the interests of promoting self reliance, communities should be encouraged to develop their own plans for ensuring transparency, following the broad principles developed under ARP II, and these should be endorsed by group members as a prerequisite to receiving funding. The use of regular ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 27 community meetings at which this information is presented verbally for discussion and comment to all interested parties should be encouraged as a meaningful method of information dissemination. * In order to create expanded demand for services, a system of participatory planning for NRM should be developed for use in ARP 111. The methodology developed under the AETRDP program has been provided to MAFF as a workable, applied planning process which empowers communities to assess their own specific problems and needs. This material should be modified to the needs of ARP and adapted and a training program developed to train facilitators in it's application. In addition, the resulting community plans should have more focus on the future collection and use of benefits (such as sale of tree products and fish) to be used for additional/expanded NRM activities beyond the lives of ARP 11 and 111. * Trained, contracted facilitators, preferably with some experience in both agricultural production and participatory planning methods, represent the most effective way to facilitate demand for services in the area of NRM activities. It is acknowledged that recruitment of suitably experienced and trained facilitators is problematic. This means that the training provided to them by MAFF must be of sufficient quality and quantity to equip them with the required skills for facilitating preparation of well developed proposals in a participatory manner. The newly recruited facilitators in ARP 11 should be closely monitored and their performance evaluated to ensure that their combination of skills and the training provided to them meets the needs of the position. Particular attention will need to be given to the needs of female facilitators to ensure they are fully supported in their role, resulting in low turnover rates. * As ARP 11 and III will be providing the funding for facilitators positions, ARP Ill should explore the possibility of encouraging the contracting of ARP 11 facilitators as permanent DAO staff to assist existing technical staff with participatory identification of a broad range of NRM activities. These facilitators would provide the community liaison services for expanding NRM activities into new suco. This process could then be used to inform development of MAFFs ongoing program services, providing the 'bottom-up' input, as well as assisting farmers in non-pilot suco to access available services. * In the absence of funding for such positions in the foreseeable future however, MAFF should consider negotiating with the OALGD to develop close working relations with the 60 newly appointed Community Development Officers based in the sub-district offices. While OALGD is providing initial training in participatory planning methodologies, the CDOs will not have a budget to implement activities. MAFF could negotiate the provision of supplemental training in participatory planning of NRM activities and the CDOs could provide facilitation / extension services for activities which the NRM component could fund. As most of the CDOs will be based in suco with economies dependent on agricultural production, the development of close working relations and partnerships with MAFF represents a real option to improve MAFF's outreach capability. * Alternative mechanisms such as contracting NGOs to provide facilitation services under Component 1 should also be explored in ARP 111. However it is acknowledged that the budgetary requirements for this will likely be beyond MAFFs capacity following completion of ARP 111. What is important in this model is that NGOs may be able to access funding from other sources to continue working in ARP III suco, and expand their program to other suco with technical support from MAFF. The contracts would have to be carefully defined under this arrangement to ensure MAFF is receiving the quality of services it requires. It is not envisaged that MAFF would build NGO capacity in this regard, but would contract those few local NGOs with International NGO support or a proven track record in the facilitation and implementation of NRM/agricultural activities. Component 2. Rapid Rehabilitation of Infrastructure - Light to Medium Damaged Irrigation Schemes ARP IIl Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 28 * The policy for Operation and Maintenance of irrigation schemes should be reviewed and approved as quickly as possible to ensure that sufficient budget is available for the government to honour its commitment to maintenance costs. If any of the schemes suffer significant damage in the next few planting seasons without a speedy response from the government, the community may quickly become disillusioned with the concept of 'joint' responsibility while they are still struggling to re- establish their economies. * None of the schemes rehabilitated have had a wet season since rehabilitation works were completed in which to measure the total area cropped under their peak usage. This should at least indicate the availability of sufficient ploughing capacity and other inputs to be used as a benchmark for dry season planting, as well as the level of willingness to plant rice in the post 1999 climate. The total number of hectares that can actually be irrigated and are actually planted then needs to be accurately documented by MAFF to determine whether farmers are maximising usage of the land and irrigation resources. Whilst the use of accurate GIS measurement is preferable, unless it can be applied immediately following March/April planting, MAFF needs to develop an accurate system of measurement which the WUAs can apply at the very least as a form of self-monitoring. * Following close monitoring of the 2003 rainy and dry season cropping tendencies, a flexible approach to providing assistance or support based on the specific needs of each system should be considered if utilisation of irrigated land is less than optimal. This may include measures such as: - Continuing support of the WUA consultants. (This is being addressed under ARP 11 with the recruitment of a WUA adviser), however the monitoring and support role of the WUA consultants will likely need to continue into ARP Ill depending on the specific needs of the individual WUAs; - Monitoring the role of the WUAs and ensuring their structures are appropriate for the task of managing their water resources equitably. This may include strengthening the supporting role of the Chefe do Suco or the sub-district head if the authority of the WUAs is not sufficient to settle disputes, organise voluntary labour for maintenance works or ensure compliance with distribution quotas; - As part of the ongoing development of the WUAs, encourage membership of women to assist in related organisational activities based on merit and interest rather than on traditional concepts of male headed household representation; - Develop an appropriate system of monitoring to identify constraints to production as they are experienced by farmers - especially those with the least access to the means for land preparation. These need to be documented and discussed by MAFF to decide whether cost effective means of assistance can and should be provided and by what means; - Continuing to work more closely with the crops division to address the question of appropriate inputs, such as affordable fertiliser and alternatives to chemical pesticide, as well as the possibility of expanding the types of crops produced on irrigated land if the market for rice does not improve; - Improving marketing opportunities and provision of affordable inputs by linking Oecussi and Viqueque producers with the Maliana ASC, or expanding the commodities of the Viqueque ASC to include rice; - Aiding provision of credit for inputs by linking farmers with appropriate credit services such as SEPII, the Micro-Finance program, and NGOs active in the area that offer appropriate services. Credit for tractor hire will be particularly important, however the promotion of credit for rice growing needs to take into account existing marketing opportunities to ensure debts are not incurred for a product that cannot be sold for cash. Alternative forms of credit, such as payment in rice, may need to be considered. The ASC may be a suitable vehicle for exploring such an option; - Establishing better liaison with NGOs active in the area of rice production, particularly those involved in multiplication of better quality seed varieties that are acceptable to ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 29 farmers (such as GTZ) to see if assistance can be extended to other schemes rehabilitated under ARP I and 11; Reconsidering the freeze on building WUA facilities in Oecussi. Their maintenance equipment has to be stored in individual homes at present, and the likelihood of them being used for other purposes and requiring replacement sooner is increased; Resolving the issue of the excavators in Viqueque and Baucau. Intended for the DAOs, these two units appear to have been handed over to the church, who are charging money to farmers to utilise them. MAFF does not appear to have a clear idea about whether the price determined by the church is in excess of operations and maintenance costs, and if so, where the profit is going. It is important that this equipment is made available to farmers at an affordable and sustainable price to ensure they are available for use in the future. Sub-component 3.1, Animal Health Services * Vaccination services are being provided successfully to an increasing number of farmers, however information about the services needs to be provided in a more timely and thorough manner than is currently the case to accommodate the needs of the minority who appear to be unconvinced of the benefits of vaccinating. One of the major factors hampering 100% coverage is the difficulty farmer's have in locating and corralling their free-ranging livestock. Information about the dates of vaccinations must be provided directly to individual suco at least one month before the event, and the Chefe do Suco must be instructed/assisted in communicating this information immediately to all aldeia. The contracts of the vaccinators should reflect their important role in providing this communication. MAFF should also explore the possibility of nominating a responsible individual per-aldeia to assist with achieving full coverage by organising coordinated efforts to locate and corral free-ranging animals that are currently being missed by the campaigns. * Chicken vaccination appeared to be the least widespread - possibly because it is not part of the door-to-door service. Community understanding of the requirements for obtaining vaccinations appeared to be low. Efforts to implement training required to empower women in particular with information about this service and how to administer the vaccines should be increased to ensure that chicken stock - vital to household economies - are protected from potential decimation. If this is not addressed adequately in ARP II, it should be included as a priority activity in ARP lil. * While vaccination services are scheduled to remain free of charge until mid-decade, MAFF should start to consider phasing in charges to help subsidise the cost of treating other diseases which contribute to animal mortality. * Community awareness of the impending VLW service is low, and this will need to be addressed in ARP II. This should be done through the next vaccination campaign where paid vaccinators could provide information to those suco with a VLW trained and operating in their sub-district. Information on the expanded animal health services, how to access them and the standard cost of the services will be vital to the success of the VLWs. * The tendency to select paid vaccinators to be trained as VLWs will need to be closely monitored to see if the combination of free service provision (vaccinations) with a paid service (all other treatments) acts as a disincentive to service utilisation. The perception that the VLWs are government employees will need to countered if they are expected to operate as private service providers. The subsequent round of VLW selection should take this into account. In addition, the dependence on paid vaccinators may be limiting the opportunity for women to take up these opportunities. Future VLW recruitment processes should seek a gender balance across districts to ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 30 ensure women's participation in paid employment opportunities, and to ensure a focus on pigs and chickens as women's preferred livestock is maintained. Sub-component 3.2 Information to farmers * Farmers overwhelmingly express a preference for the delivery of information to improve their productivity face-to-face, including practical trial and demonstration where relevant. Whilst radio and printed material have a role to play in disseminating broad-based messages, they are no substitute for the delivery of practical information which farmers can use. Obviously, the emphasis will need to be on quality rather than quantity as there are simply not enough staff to provide the required level of hands-on interface. However this could be maximised through the use of farmer field days held jointly with neighbouring villages which capitalise on pre-arranged activities (ie vaccination campaigns, WUA key maintenance activities, ASC member meetings, market days etc) and these field based active information sessions should become cornerstones of MAFFs information strategy in ARP l1l. Improved training should also be provided to DAO staff in developing better methods of information and training delivery, and more importantly, developing relevant messages/skills sets which farmers can apply within their farming system. * The possibility of accessing other trainingAnformation providers such as NGOs and donor programs should be explored to expand the options for face-to-face delivery of quality information which can be practically applied within the current Timorese farming system. To this end, NGOs and other training service providers should be used more extensively in ARP Ill. Greater efforts to document and utilise the training resources available in East Timor in the area of agriculture should be a priority of the resource and extension section with the assistance of the training coordinator. This should start with a survey of donor/NGO programs who are using or providing training/information services, and available resources should be compiled in an up-to-date registry of training providers. The emphasis should be on reducing duplication, sharing resources and identifying gaps in the availability of quality training programs. Proven materials from the Indonesian period should also be accessed and collated to assist with the developmenVupdating of appropriate, farmer friendly resources. * In the long term, information and education for the next generation of farmers needs to be addressed, and perhaps represents the most effective way of bringing about change. Schools and their teachers represent a significant resource to engage effectively in the process of disseminating agricultural information, knowledge and skills. The use of children's magazines to promote simple messages about environmental management and the introduction of modern farming concepts should be encouraged under ARP l1l. Trialing of new varieties in schools-based demonstration plots should be promoted, and teacher education targeted to provide agricultural information and skills of relevance to farming communities at primary and secondary levels. This would need to be done in close collaboration with the Education Ministry. The possibility of re-establishing the secondary level farmer schools (SPP) and working closely with the Universities to develop appropriate curriculum should also be explored, with MAFF acting as an advisory body. * Radio remains an appropriate medium for the delivery of simple information messages and creating demand for services. ASCs could be further publicised via the radio as their range of services increases. ARP Illi should look at ways to encourage the use of community radio stations provided through CEP and address the high cost and timing issues which constrain their use for ARP information dissemination. Sub-component 3.3 Agricultural Services Centres ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 31 * Farmers that had not heard of the ASCs had difficulty in conceptualising what sort of services they might be able to provide for them. In Viqueque, as discussions were with rice farmers, they were interested in their ASC expanding to provide rice-related inputs. Pesticide was specifically mentioned, as this use to be provided by the KUDs at the sub-district level and was no longer available for purchase. Oecussi farmers by contrast had heard of the ASCs and were keen for the Maliana ASC to establish trading links to purchase their rice and provide subsidised or guaranteed quality fertiliser in exchange for a portion of the harvest (if the rice cannot be sold). Further discussions with farmers need to take place to determine other needs that the ASCs could accommodate by diversifying services no longer available to farmers. The development of a further two ASCs under ARP 11 and Ill should initiate broader discussions with farmers about the types of services required and the best way to provide and pay for them. ARP Ill Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 32 REFERENCES ARP II Project Appraisal Document, September 28, 2001 Burgess, S, ARP II Preliminary Social Assessment Study, June 2001 The Asia Foundation, East Timor National Survey of Voter Knowledge, 2001 National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), Government Within Reach, January 2003 MAFF Working Group, Analysis of the Timor Leste Household Survey for Agriculture, March 2002 Fernando dos Santos, Results of the Feedback from the Beneficiary Survey, ARP II, January 2003 Government, Donors, National and International NGOs and Civil Society, Community Development Review, November 2001 Bergau, N, Final Report of the Communications Expert, ARP II, March 2003 UNDP, Participatory Potential Assessment, 2002 Second Supervision Mission Aide Memoire, ARP II, July 2002 MAFF, Implementation Completion Report, ARP I, June 2002 Joint Donors Agricultural Mission to Timor Leste, Final Mission Report, October 2002 MAFF, Operations Manual for Component 1, Natural Resources Management, August 2002 SNC/Lavalin International, Feasibility and Engineering Study in respect of Rehabilitation of Identified Irrigation Schemes in East Timor, 2001 ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 33 ANNEX A Terms of Reference Timor-Leste: Third Agriculture Rehabilitation Project Review of Social Aspects Terms of Reference for Social Specialist Role The Consultant will be an integral member of the World Bank's pre-appraisal mission of the Third Agriculture Rehabilitation Project (ARP ll). She will work closely with the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and a small team of East Timorese social experts (to be selected by the consultant) in undertaking a social review of ARP ll, and determine whether the proposed project is socially and culturally sound. To the maximum extent possible, the consultant will seek to involve East Timorese researchers who previously participated in agricultural social assessments, both inside of MAFF and at the local university. Field work could be contracted out if needed. Background Though much of East Timor has recovered from the effects of the traumatic episode of violence and destruction that followed the 1999 referendum for independence, it is having to cope with severe draught conditions. Nowhere is this impact greatest than in the rural agriculture sector, which must sustain 90% of the population and account for 90% of foreign exchange (ignoring aid). East Timor's rural communities, at the dawn of independence, were faced with the daunting challenge of recovering and rebuilding their livelihoods against the background of a weak and practically non-existent institutional environment. This challenge has been made far harder by floods in 1999, lack of farm inputs in 2000 and 2001 and now a long dry season in 2002. The situation is so critical in some areas that 2002 may become a famine year for some of the districts of East Timor. At present, IDA has financed out of the Trust Fund for East Timor (TFET) three projects that relate to East Timor's rural community. These are the Agricultural Rehabilitation Project (ARP), the Community Empowerment Project (CEP) and the Small Enterprises Project (SEP). All three projects, aimed at providing emergency recovery support, have addressed different aspects of the community, and have been running successfully for almost two years. As East Timor withdraws from a phase of emergency aid and settles into a development phase, there is a need to conduct a social review to identify knowledge gaps and issues that should be integrated into the development of the Third Agriculture Rehabilitation Project. Against this backdrop there is a need to evaluate not just where the remaining priority needs are but the reasons why some areas have been hit particularly hard by the present drought - why are traditional coping strategies beginning to fail in some places and not in others? How can Timorese farmers progress from a culture of dependency to a culture of empowerment, where they are able to ask for and receive the services they need? And how can ARP II and ARP IlIl best address the needs of farmers, and help build effective links between communities and MAFF to address present and future needs? Specifically, how can the current ARP components - Participatory Development and Natural Resources Management, Community Irrigation and Roads Rehabilitation, Information to Farmers, Village Livestock Workers and Vaccination, Agriculture Service Centers, and Policy and Strategy Support - be best adjusted to meet farmers' needs and help build a sustainable agriculture program in Timor-Leste? ANNEX A Terms of Reference Many statistical and anecdotal resources are available for such a study, including the Social Assessment related to ARP II, the Implementation Completion Report of ARP I, and the mid-term review results of ARP 11. However, Timor has been in a state of flux and these resources need to be used with some caution. Various other reports and surveys have been generated by projects and activities in the rural sector. These include the recent Poverty Survey, the last Joint Donors Agriculture Mission Report, and miscellaneous reports produced by the AusAID, UNOPs and USAID-funded projects. Tasks The consultant would work on two stages: o A preliminary review of lessons learned from ARP II, immediately prior to and during the Mid- Term Review workshop scheduled for January 29-February 1, 2002. o A more detailed social appraisal of ARP l1l. Key Questions to be Investigated: 1. Lessons Leamed in ARP 11 Due to the December 2002 riots, the consultant's preliminary visit to Timor-Leste had to be cancelled. Hence, the consultant will only have two weeks in-country prior to the mid-term review workshop. During these two weeks, it is recommended that she familiarize herself with the ARP team and review materials; conduct field visits to selected project sites; liaise closely with project staff and donors on lessons learned and project feedback; and prepare the methodology and logistics for the social assessment. Within the time available, the consultant should also liaise closely with the MAFF evaluation team led by Fernando dos Santos to help them interpret the results of the ARP II mid-term review survey from a social perspective, and distill potential lessons for the design of ARP ll. During the Mid-Term Review workshop (January 29-February 1, 2003), the consultant should work closely with the workshop organizers, component teams and participants and the World Bank team in helping the participants distill lessons from ARP II. This evaluation (conducted in small group discussions) should in particular focus on the following: (a) Participatory Natural Resources Management Component (Component 1). In November 2002, Component 1 of ARP II disbursed the first installment of village grants to 14 pilot communities for natural resources management activities (including nurseries, living fences, reforestation, fish pond management). While it is not yet possible to assess actual impact, project implementers should assess lessons learned on the process used for Component 1: for example, was the selection of pilot villages in accordance with the criteria? Was the selection and training of facilitators appropriate? Was the original criteria and procedures (as defined in the Operational Manual) appropriate? How can the management of the grants by the community groups be strengthened? What are the recommended adjustments for the second stage villages, particularly with respect to the ANNEX A Terms of Reference selection and training of second-stage facilitators, and technical follow-up? How can the project encourage genuine participatory planning'? (b) Rapid Infrastructure Rehabilitation (Component 2). The mid-term review should assess the soundness of the process used in (a) community irrigation and road schemes; and (b) light-to-medium damaged schemes. With respect to (b), the assessment should pay particular attention to the following questions: (i) why are farmers not planting second crops? (are there particular socio-cultural constraints that need to be overcome?) (ii) what are the recommended processes by which Water Users Associations could be strengthened to realistically operate these schemes? (iii) what community contribution to operation and maintenance can be expected?; (iv) are there any likely land disputes caused by the rehabilitation works that need to be mitigated? 2 (c) Animal Health Services (Sub-Component 3.1). What has been the experience with vaccination campaigns? What processes should be strengthened to deliver more effective vaccination? Has the process of selection of village livestock workers been effective in ensuring that (a) they are the best for the job; and (b) that they will effectively deliver the services? The mid-term review discussion should recommend any adjustments that may be necessary. (d) Information to Farmers (Sub-Component 3.2). How can the present system of information (MAFF-based) be best adjusted to serve the needs of the farmers? Are the means of communication appropriate? (e) Agriculture Service Centers (ASCs). (Sub-Component 3.3) The project has created 3 Agriculture Service Centers, in Bobonaro, Viqueque and Aileu. Preliminary experience shows that the highest demand for ASC services is on transportation. The mid-term review should assess lessons learned from ASC operations and how they might be strengthened to meet farmers' demand. The consultant will be working with the mid-term review workshop team and World Bank team in facilitating these discussions and helping compile the final results. 1L Targeting Interventions for ARP I11 The Mid-Term Review of ARP Ill should provide the basis for ARP Ill design. Due to limited funding under ARP Ill (US$3 million) it is expected that the project will focus on consolidating the 'softer' aspects of the ARP program - those that require more time to become institutionalized within MAFF. The preference will be for refining existing components (village livestock workers, participatory NRM, community irrigation, information program) according to lessons learned, rather than initiating new activities that may take years to consolidate. Some of the lessons emerging from the November supervision mission were that the first batch of facilitators was composed primarily of ex-extension workers trained during the Indonesian times; this ended up compromising their ability to facilitate genuine participatory planning. 2 Steven Burgess commissioned the work of a team of local experts to investigate potential land disputes in the larger irrigation schemes rehabilitated under ARP II. The team found no evidence of critical land disputes; however, some of the sites were previously inhabited by transmigrants who then fled to Indonesia. This may have implications for future land claims. ANNEX A Terms of Reference The consultant should help assess and guide the social soundness of the ARP IlIl design, with particular focus on the following aspects: (a) Overall Soundness of ARP IlIl Design. Based on the lessons learned from the ARP II mid- term review and other similar projects, the Consultant should propose adjustments in the ARP IlIl design that would take into consideration these lessons, and the overall soundness of the project design from a social point of view. In this review, the consultant should (a) assess whether the components proposed for ARP IlIl are adequate in the present socio- cultural context of Timor-Leste; and (b) make recommendations to ensure that the design of these components are socially and culturally sound. (b) Participatory Development and Natural Resources Management. Timor-Leste suffers from a long legacy of farmers' dependency and disempowerment inherited from the Indonesian system. This is particular problematic in the agriculture and rural development sectors, where there is scarce government budget and staffing, and where the weakness of local government makes bottom-up, demand-based approaches particularly challenging. Past Joint Donors Agriculture Missions have stressed the need to develop an effective system of service delivery that relies on genuine participatory planning and offers farmers the services they need, when they need it. Such a system should also help strengthen community self-reliance and traditional management to make communities less dependent on government hand-outs and more resilient to external shocks (e.g. of droughts and floods, and market instability). Options for effective service delivery might include: (a) strengthening participatory planning skills of MAFF and DAO staff; (b) relying on contracted facilitators (ex- PPLs) for key functions; (c) training a new cadre of facilitators and/or university agriculture graduates to serve as effective bottom-up intermediaries between farmers and the government; (d) relying on non-agriculture mechanisms of local government (such as District Development Workers) and governance (such as Conselhos do Suco); (e) selecting and training key farmers or farmers groups; and/or (f) strengthening local NGOs. The Consultant should assess and propose the best options for ARP IlIl to invest on in order to help create an effective and participatory system of service delivery. (c) Gender Focus. One of the major weaknesses of ARP I was its gender impact. Of particular concern to MAFF is its ability to recruit and effectively maintain female staff and facilitators, provide training to women farmers, and effectively target women groups in field interventions. Many of the ARP program activities, for example - such as irrigation rehabilitation, reforestation and agro-forestry - traditionally favor male farmers. In component 1, many of the women farmers' proposals were ineligible because they involved direct income generation (such as sewing or processing machines). The Consultant should assess how best to change these incentives to enable ARP Illi to effectively target women farmers. (d) Delivery to Communities. Past ARP projects have relied on community contractors (for irrigation) or existing farmers' groups (for natural resource management) for release of village grants. The Consultant should assess the lessons of experience learned from the implementation of these mechanisms, and propose ways whereby the disbursement of the funds could be strengthened to maximize their benefits, accountability, and transparency. (e) Social Safeguards. The consultant should assess whether any of the key social safeguards of the World Bank (e.g. Operational Procedure 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement; Operational Directive 4.20 on Indigenous People; Operational Procedure 11.03 on Cultural Property, and Operational Procedure 7.60 on Projects in Disputed Areas) would apply to ANNEX A Terms of Reference ARP l1l, and if so, propose appropriate mitigative measures (which might include, for example, exclusion of sites where such safeguard risks would apply). Methodology The methodology remains to be detailed, but is expected to include the following: 1) The first stage of the social appraisal of ARP IlIl would involve a review of the existing data. This would include the Social Assessment conducted as a background to the joint donors mission (March 2001), and under ARP II (December 2002), the latest (September 2002) Joint Missions Agriculture Report, the UN Country Assessment Report, the results of the Timor-Leste Poverty Study (particularly with respect to agriculture), relevant supervision mission reports, the evaluation report for ARP I and mid-term review of ARP II, and relevant data from similar projects in Timor-Leste. 2) The secondary review would be complemented by rapid rural appraisals and field studies in selected areas to discuss the main hypotheses with farmers, preferably in close collaboration with MAFF staff. It is envisaged that this will cover different types of topographic situations (e.g. irrigated areas, upland areas, border vs. non-border areas), as well as different socio-economic groups. Interviews with other government agencies, NGOs, other donors, church groups, private sector, and other interest groups could also be held during this period. 3) Preliminary results should be discussed in detail with MAFF and civil society representatives prior to the completion of the draft social appraisal report. The draft report should be provided to the World Bank for comments. 4) The World Bank would then conduct the pre-appraisal mission for ARP l1l. It is expected that this mission will require some interactive adjustment of the social appraisal report, which could be done by e-mail. 5) The final social appraisal report should be finalized around the time of the conclusion of the pre- appraisal mission. 6) In addition to the social appraisal report, the Consultant should provide MAFF with feedback on how best to adjust the Operational Manual for Component 1 (Participatory Development and NRM) based on the lessons learned during the mid-term review. ANNEX A Terms of Reference ANNEX B QUESTION GUIDE FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 1. Prepare materials for Venn Diagramming, including: a. Four circles of coloured paper of about three different sizes each b. Three squares of a different coloured paper of three different sizes each c. Butcher's paper with an empty circle for the village (or this can be drawn on the ground) d. Cello tape e. Different coloured marker pens 2. Designate a team member for facilitation, and one for recording the interview and the Venn Diagram. 3. Explain the purpose of the Venn Diagram, i.e. so that we all have a good understanding of the groups and individuals which are important to the community with regards to agricultural production and the management of their suco's natural resources. (You may need to spend some time discussing what we mean by 'management of natural resources', i.e. the way they use their resources to meet their subsistence needs and earn a living in a way that ensures the resources will remain in a productive condition 5. Ask the group if there are any individuals from inside the village who have specialist skills in agriculture / animal husbandry / forest production? Make a list on the flip chart. 6. Ask the group to name any groups or organizations within the suco that are involved in the management of development activities (including but not limited to agriculture). Give the community plenty of time to answer this question. Prompt to make sure the following groups are considered, but make sure to emphasise we are talking about groups involved in development activities. If the community do not agree that groups like these exist in their suco, don't include them on the list. a. Farmers groups, male/female or mixed b. Conselho do Suco (If considered to be inside the community) c. Chefe do Suco / Chefe do Aldeia d. Conselho do Katuas e. Church groups f. Youth groups (OJT) g. Women's groups (OMT) h. Money lenders/Credit providers/savings groups i. ARP 11 groups/Implementation Team 7. Make a list on the flip chart. Agree and assign a symbol for each group (for illiterate participants). 8. Next, show the group the different sized circles of paper. Ask the group to think about which are the most important individuals / organizations in organising and assisting the community in development activities (including but not limited to agriculture). Explain that they should allocate a large circle to the most important individuals / organizations, and the smallest circle to the least important. Direct the group to choose which size circle best fits ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions each individual / organization, starting with the most important. Explain that more than one individual / organization can have the same sized circle - as long as they are considered to be of equal importance. Get the community to write the name (or draw a picture) of the organisation/individual on the circle. 9. Place all the circles within the circle (suco boundary) on the flip chart (or on the ground) 10. Next, ask what important individuals/groups are from outside the suco. Prompt to make sure the following groups are considered, but make sure to emphasise we are talking about groups involved in development activities a. Koordinator do Posto b. Church groups c. NGOs d. Conselho do Suco (If considered to be inside community) e. Village Livestock Worker (If considered to be inside the community) f. DAO staff g. MAFF staff h. District Development Officer i. District based organisations j. Money lenders/Credit providers k. Providers of assistance in agricultural production (extension workers, private businesses, government services) I. Traders/market buyers m. Other 10. Make a list on the flip chart. Agree and assign a symbol for each group (for illiterate participants). 11. Next, show the group the different sized squares of paper. Ask the group to think about which are the most important individuals / organizations in organising and assisting the community in development activities (including but not limited to agriculture). Explain that we will allocate a large square to the most important individuals / organizations, and the smallest square to the least important. Direct the group to choose which size square best fits each individual / organization, starting with the most important. Explain that more than one individual / organization can have the same sized square - as long as they are considered to be of equal importance. Get the community to write the name (or draw a picture) of the organization / individual on the square. 12. Place all the squares outside the circle (suco boundary) on the flip chart (or on the ground) ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions 13. Now it is time to "interview the diagram". This is the most important step. For each circle and square ask the following questions a. (for individuals with specialist skills in agriculture both inside and outside the village) Do you ever go to them for advice / do they provide the community with advice? b. What sort of advice do they provide? (Ask for a concrete example) c. How often does this happen? d. If they are outside the village, how often do they visit, and how often do the community go to them? e. (for other individuals inside and outside the village) What is their main function or role in development activities (be sure to limit the discussion to development activities, but it can be briader than just agriculture)? f. (for groups inside the village) How many members are there in the group (male or female)? g. (for groups inside and outside the village) What is their main function or role in development activities (be sure to limit the discussion to development activities)? h. Are they still active now? If not, why not? i. If so, what was the most recent development activity they were involved in? (ask for a concrete example) j. Was the activity successful? Why / Why not? Record your discussion of each group with the community on the separate sheets provided: ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions Name of Suco: Sub-District: District:_ Pilot suco? (Y/N) People present at discussions: Total men: Total women:_ Village office holders:_ Implementation Team: Sub-group members:_ INDIVIDUALS INSIDE THE SUCO 1 .Name:_ 2. Name:_ 3. Name:_ 4. Name: GROUPS / ORGANISATIONS INSIDE THE SUCO 1. Name:_ 2. Name:_ 3. Name: 4. Name:_ 5. Name:_ 6. Name: ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE THE SUCO 1 .Name: m 2. Name:_ 3. Name: 4. Name:_ GROUPS / ORGANISATIONS OUTSIDE THE SUCO 1. Name:_ 2. Name:_ 3. Name: 4. Name:_ 5. Name:_ 6. Name: 7. Name:_ ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS 7.1 What agricultural services / information have been delivered in the suco following the emergency period (in 2002/2003), and where did they come from? (prompt for DAO services / activities / information have they received?) NB If vaccination is mentioned, don't go in to too much detail here, wait until you get to the section below on 'The Vaccination Campaign'. 7.1 a Were they satisfactory? Why / why not? (record responses separately for each agricultural service/activity) 7.2 Which groups are the most important for making decisions about development activities? ie if someone wanted to start a new agricultural assistance project in your suco, which groups / individuals should should they consult with? NB. If the Conselho do Suco is not mentioned, ask why they shouldn't be involved: 7.3 Should women be included in these groups, or should they have separate groups to make decisions and implement agricultural / natural resource management activities? 7.4 Which groups are most important in managing any financial assistance that the suco receives? i.e. what would be the best way to get money to the suco and where would be the safest place to keep it? If the Conselho do Suco is not mentioned, ask why they shouldn't be involved: ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions 7.5 Do they know the names of the DAO staff / what sectors are represented (DAO, livestock, fisheries, food crops, forestry, irrigation) How often would they like the DAO staff come to the suco? 7.6 What assistance do they feel they need to increase agricultural production / manage their natural resources (don't limit discussion to material or financial assistance - prompt for training and support). 7.7 a Who should provide this and how? (i.e. Field visits, demonstration plots, radio programs, posters, leaflets, etc.) 7.8 Did they have PPL in the Suco in Indonesian times? What did they do? Were they useful to the community? 7.9 Compared to Indonesian times, was there more or less information / services available in the area of agricultural production? 7.9a How was it provided, by who? 7.9b Are the services / information better or not as good now compared to Indonesian times? Why / why not? ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE FOR ARP 11 PILOT SUCO ONLY 8a. Can the group explain what the criteria for selection of Natural Resource Management activities are? Prompt: What sort of activities can be funded? What sort of activities cannot be funded? 8b. How did the group select the activity/activities they are currently implementing under ARP 11? (Describe the process. Were there meetings? Who was involved? Who made the final decision?). 8c. Were there other activities (besides the ones in the proposal) that the community considered before making the final decision? If so, what were these? 8d. After the grant money was provided, what sort of support did they need to implement the activities well? Prompt for things like training, information, assistance with procurement, assistance with financial management, planning assistance etc.) Who should provide this assistance? (The facilitators, the DAO staff, NGOs, other farmers?) 8e What are the attributes of a good facilitator? - Is it important that there is a female facilitator in the suco? Why / why not? Be sure to ask the views of women respondents. 8f. What is the best way the grant money for ARP 11 activities should be delivered and managed by the suco to minimise the opportunity for misuse (KKN), and who should be involved? 8g. Is it necessary to inform the whole community about the use of the grant money? - If not, why not? - If so, what is the best way to do this? Ask whether the suco has a noticeboard to display financial information about the ARP 11 activity. If so, do they use it? ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions QUESTIONS RELATING TO LIVESTOCK VACCINATION AND VILLAGE LIVESTOCK WORKERS Theme: What are female and male farmer's expectations for the vaccination campaigns. Can they realistically be met by MAFF, and if not, how should expectations be tempered to encourage continued vaccination coverage. Also, what are the perceptions of the VLW program? 1. Prepare a matrix on flip chart paper (see attached example) but do not fill in the headings until you are ready to ask the questions relating to each particular column. 2. Explain to the community that we are now interested in talking about the vaccination services provided by MAFF. 3. Ask them to estimate the total number of pigs, cattle, buffalo, and chickens. (If they don't know, start with the total number of hh in the village (or aldeia if all respondents are from one aldeia only). For each animal type, ask what proportion of hh have cows? In general, how many cows do these households have? Repeat this for each animal type. Record on the flip chart matrix. 4. Have vaccinators come to your suco to vaccinate your animals? If so, which types of animals did they come to vaccinate and which types of animals have they not vaccinated yet. Record the answer on the flip chart matrix. 5. If there has not been a vaccination service for some animal types, ask why not, and whether they know when there will be? 6. If there has been no vaccination service at all yet, ask if they know why not, when there will be, and if they want their animals to be vaccinated. Then proceed to question 13. 7. For the animals that were vaccinated, when was the last time this was done? (by animal type). Record on the flip chart matrix. 8. What proportion of each animal type was vaccinated? Record on the flip chart matrix. a. Ask the community to briefly describe the process of the vaccination campaign, starting from: i. where they heard about it first (who from?) ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions ii. what were they told to do? (count animals, prepare stalls, bring animals to a certain place etc) iii. Who was responsible for organizing the villagers to do it? iv. Did everybody follow the instructions (in the community?) Why not? v. What were the men responsible for, and what were the women responsible for? vi. Did the vaccinators do what they said they would do? (Prompt: were they on time, at the right place, did they provide enough vaccinations for the number of livestock etc)? 9. If not all the animals were vaccinated (refer to the answers for question 8 above), ask if any one present did not vaccinate their animals. Ask these people what were the reasons. If there were more than two reasons, after you have discussed them to make sure they are valid reasons, common to most of those who did not have their animals vaccinated, write them on cards and get them to place the cards in order of importance and record the order of importance. Discuss each of the reasons and ask what % of the village (especially among those not present has these problems /shares these beliefs. Reasons for not vaccinating:- b. Ask whether they will have their animals vaccinated next time? Why / why not? ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions i. If not, is there anything MAFF could do to make it easier for you to vaccinate your animals? Give examples. 10. For those who had their animals vaccinated, why did they do it? a. Was it beneficial? Why (did it mean animals got sick less often?) / why not? 11. If any one claims (above) that their animals died as a result of the vaccination, add a heading on the matrix for 'animals died' and try to record how many they think died as a direct result, and then ask how long after the vaccination did the animals die. (Record this in the matrix) 12. Ask whether those who had their animals vaccinated will do it again? Why/why not? How many people feel this way? (Ask women about pigs and chickens, men about cattle and buffalo if appropriate). 13. Explain that while vaccination services are free at the moment, MAFF may not be able to to continue to provide these services for free in the future. Would the community be prepared to pay a small amount of money for these services? Why? - If not, does this mean they would rather not have their animals vaccinated if they had to pay a small amount? 14. Explain that now we want to talk about livestock health apart from vaccines. Ask if anyone's livestock have got sick and died (or been killed before they died from the illness) in the last year (2002), and briefly describe what they think they died from. 15. If so, did the people who owned them do anything to get help? Who from? (ask about traditional medicines or treatments as well) a. If not, Why not? b. Ask who they think should provide them with help? How much should it cost/how should they be able to pay for this? ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions 16. Have you heard about the Village Livestock Workers? (You don't need to ask this if the VLW was already mentioned in Venn Diagram exercise). If they haven't heard about the VLW program, record their response here, explain the VLW program, and go to question d. below: If they have heard about the VLW program, ask the following questions:- a. Do you know who the VLW responsible for your village is / what is their name? b. How would you contact your VLW if you needed them? c. What sort of services do you think they will they provide? d. Do you think you would call the VLW if your animals got sick? Why / why not? e. If yes, how much do you think the services will cost? f. Will you pay for the services you think will cost money? (If not, why not?) g. Would you prefer to pay in money or in kind (pay by giving grain, chickens of vegetables etc) h. (If people do not want to pay at all) How will the VLW work if they don't get paid? i. Do you think it is necessary to have a trained Livestock Worker available for your suco? Why/why not? ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions LIVESTOCK DATA MATRIX Type of animal Est. no. Vaccinated? Which year, Estimated % Estimated no. How long after they were vaccinated did in Y/N month Vaccinated died from they die? suco/ 2002 vaccination aldeia 2002 CATTLE BUFFALO PIGS CHICKENS ANNEX B Interview Guide for Focus Group Discussions ANNEX B Guidelines for the development of WUA case studies: Name of Scheme_ The central themes to be explored by the case studies are as follows: Are light-medium damaged larger schemes assisted under this component optimising their irrigation source? If so, what are the factors supporting maximum optimisation? If not, what are the factors preventing full optimisation, and how can the WUAs be assisted to overcome them. What are women's roles in rice production, and do WUAs represent their interests? The collection of data will be undertaken in two broad steps: 1. The collection of historical data from key informants (other than WUA members) and an assessment of the current situation. 2. Focus group discussions with WUA members about their pre-1999 planting patterns, and planting post- rehabilitation/construction of their schemes. Section 1. The collection of historical data from key informants (other than WUA members) and an assessment of the current situation. Identification of key informants The DIO should be able to provide historical information about the scheme and planting patterns there in Indonesian times. If not, he should be able to help the team identify a key informant who: - knows the scheme well - held a formal position in the government in the irrigation sector or as a sub-district head - was active in an NGO that had a program in the area It is important that you interview at least 3 key informants to verify the data. (All historical information will need to be verified with the WUA during the focus group discussions - particularly relating to cropping pattems). Each scheme will have a different history, and some aspects of their history will be more relevant than others. It is up to the teams to decide how much information to collect as historical background. The determining factor should be its relevance to current pattems of rice production. Section 2. Focus group discussion with WUA members about their post-1999 planting patterns and planting post- rehabilitation/construction of their schemes. You will need to arrange this meeting before hand. If possible, as many of the board members of the WUA should be present. Make sure at least 20 members are present, including female members (if there are any). Make sure participants know the meeting will take between 4 - 5 hours. Section 3 Water User Associations This section focus on the history of WUAs in the area, as well as women's role within them. The respondents are the same as for section 2 above. ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies Section 1. The collection of historical data from key informants (other than WUA members) and an assessment of the current situation. 1. What is the history of the paddy pre-1 999 - Who opened it up and constructed the first irrigation system. If these were different to the local inhabitants, describe who they were and whether they are still there now. You may need to break down the relevant time periods if the system has a history of usage by non-locals. - How many suco have ownership rights to the paddy, and how far do they live from the land? - Are there any disputes surrounding ownership of the paddy - Was any new technology introduced by the Indonesian administration (demonstrations of fertiliser or pesticide use, improved rice varieties etc). - Were farmers organised into a WUA (P3A) in Indonesian times? - Once the relevant time periods are determined, document their history of irrigation usage and rice production. NB. If the system has only ever been utilised buy the local population, this documentation should focus on the time period when the scheme was at it's largest. Remember, keep the following discussion focused on pre-1999 under the Indonesian administration. ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies 1 a Focus on the total number of paddy for the wet season planting (specify month): - that could be irrigated (potential) - that was planted in rice (actual) - describe the farming inputs used for land preparation (tractors, livestock, ploughs?), for growing rice (fertilisers, pesticides etc - whether organic or chemical, and where/how did farmers purchase them?), - was any of this crop routinely sold, and if so, describe the marketing process (who, where, how?) - if all the potential ha of irrigated land was planted in the wet season, what were the supporting factors which allowed this? (include any NGO or government assistance that was provided at the time) - if all the potential ha of irrigated land was not planted in the wet season, what were some of the factors preventing it? 1 b Focus on the total number of paddy for the dry season planting (specify month): - that could be irrigated (potential) - that was planted in rice (actual) - describe the farming inputs used for land preparation (tractors, livestock, ploughs?), for growing rice (fertilisers, pesticides etc - whether organic or chemical, and where/how did farmers purchase them?), - was any of this crop routinely sold, and if so, describe the marketing process (who, where, how?) - if all the potential ha of irrigated land was planted in the dry season, what were the supporting factors which allowed this? (include any NGO or government assistance that was provided at the time) - if all the potential ha of irrigated land was not planted in the dry season, what were some of the factors preventing it? ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies 2. What is the situation now (post 1999?) - Are the current owners of the paddy the same as pre-1999, if not describe who they are now. - Confirm total number of households owning land in the scheme and whether all are actively farming it or are working elsewhere. - Determine when the irrigation works started and were completed 2a Briefly discuss how many hectares of paddy were cultivated in the planting periods from: - wet season 1999/2000 - dry season 2000 - wet season 2000/2001 2b Focus on the total number of paddy for the wet season planting of 2001/2002 or 2002/2003: - that could be irrigated (potential) - that was planted in rice (actual) - describe the farming inputs used for land preparation (tractors, livestock, ploughs?), for growing rice (fertilisers, pesticides etc - whether organic or chemical, and where/how did farmers purchase them), - was any of this crop was sold, and if so, describe the marketing process (who, where, how, price) - if all the potential ha of irrigated land was planted in the wet season, what were the supporting factors which allowed this? (include any NGO, ASC or government assistance that was provided at the time) - if all the potential ha of irrigated land was not planted in the wet season, what were some of the factors preventing it? ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies 2c Focus on the total number of paddy for the last dry season planting if the irrigation works were completed in time for the 2002 dry season planting. If the system was only completed in time for the 2003 dry season, the emphasis should be on what they think farmers will do next dry season: - that could be irrigated (potential) - that were/will be planted in rice (actual/potential) - describe the farming inputs used for land preparation (tractors, livestock, ploughs?), for growing rice (fertilisers, pesticides etc - whether organic or chemical, and where/how did farmers purchase them), - was any of this crop sold, and if so, describe the marketing process (who, where, how, and what price) - if all the potential ha of irrigated land was planted in the dry season, what were the supporting factors which allowed this? (include any NGO, ASC or government assistance that was provided at the time) - if all the potential ha of irrigated land was not planted in the dry season, what were some of the factors preventing it? ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies Section 2. Focus group discussion with WUA members about their post-1999 planting patterns and planting post- rehabilitation/construction of their schemes. Number of male WUAs in the discussions Number of female members_ Which board members were present 1. Confirm the historical data collected with key informants about the history of the scheme. Pay particular attention to estimations of the numbers of ha planted in the wet and dry season pre 1999. Refer to the key informant questions above regarding pre 1999 wet and dry season planting patterns. You can use the same set of questions for confirmation. If the perception of the community is different to that of the key informants, record the differences and compare the two versions when you are writing up the case study. You will need to accommodate any differences in the final version. 2 Briefly discuss how many hectares of paddy were cultivated in the planting periods from: - wet season 1999/2000 - dry season 2000 - wet season 2000/2001 - dry season 2001 3. Verify the month of completion of the irrigation works: 3a Focus on the total number of paddy for the wet season planting of 2001/2002 or 2002/2003: - that could be irrigated (potential) - that was planted in rice (actual) - describe the farming inputs used for land preparation (tractors, livestock, ploughs?), for growing rice (fertilisers, pesticides etc - whether organic or chemical, and where/how did farmers purchase them), - was any of this crop was sold, and if so, describe the marketing process (who, where, how, price) - If the area planted was much lower than the potential, what were the main reasons (verify with key informant information). ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies 3b Focus on the total number of paddy for the last dry season planting if the irrigation works were completed in time for the 2002 dry season planting. If the system was only completed in time for the 2003 dry season, the emphasis should be on what farmer's think they will do next dry season: Make sure that the respondents own paddy that can be irrigated in the dry season. - How many families in total own paddy that can now be irrigated in the dry season? What is the total number of paddy for the dry season planting: - that can now be irrigated (potential) - that was planted in rice (actual) - describe the farming inputs used for land preparation (tractors, livestock, ploughs?), for growing rice (fertilisers, pesticides etc - whether organic or chemical, and where/how did farmers purchase them), - was any of this crop was sold, and if so, describe the marketing process (who, where, how, price) 3c For the following, use a simple force-field analysis exercise (see attached) - what were the supporting factors which supported rice growing? (include any NGO, ASC or government assistance that was provided at the time) - what were some of the factors hampering rice growing (be sure to cover issues of adequacy of water, tractors, livestock, pests, problems with managing the water distribution, lack of seed, high fuel costs etc? 3d List the problems and undertake a simple problem ranking exercise (see attached) to determine what are the main impediments to rice growing. Together with the group, emphasise that there is no more assistance for them planned by MAFF at the moment. With this in mind, ask what some of the solutions could be. and who should be responsible for implementing them? ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies ATTACHMENT 1 Force Field Analysis Exercise for dry season rice planting in medium - large schemes Materials you will need: 3 large sheets of paper, 2-3 different coloured large felt pens, marking tape of clips to fix the paper to the wall. 1. First identify those who own paddy that can be irrigated in the dry season. 2. Confirm with the group that there is a desire to plant twice. 3. On a large sheet of paper, draw a diagram with a picture of wet season planting on the left, with a big arrow pointing to wet and dry season planting on the right (you should be creative with your drawing!): Above the arrow, write 'negative factors preventing achievement of a second planting'. Below the arrow, write 'positive factors contributing to achieving a second planting' as follows: Negative factors preventing achievement of a second planting (-) Wet season planting (buat Wet season gambar) planting (buat gambar) Dry season planting (buat The situation now gambar) The situation we desire Positive factors contributing to achieving a second planting (+) 4. Because there will not be enough room to write all the reasons the community provide, on two separate sheets, write 'negative factors' and 'positive factors'. 5. Explain to the group that we want to look at all the positive and negative factors. Start with the negative ones first. Make sure that you discuss them at length before writing them on the paper, referring to initial information from key informants. Then look at the positive factors. You may need to prompt the community to look at the resources, factors that they may take for granted. ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies ATTACHMENT2 Simple problem ranking exercise Materials you will need: 1 large sheet of paper, enough small sheets of paper (one for each problem), 2-3 different colored large felt pens. 1. Summarize the main problems raised during the force field analysis exercise. 2. Draw a picture to represent each problem on the small pieces of paper (one per page). 3. On a large sheet, prepare a matrix (see below) and write the problems raised by the community in the horizontal and vertical axis: Pair-wise rankina Example of Pair-wise Ranking of problems which hamper dry season rice planting Not enough water Not enough buffalo B No rice seed RS B Not enough tractors TR TR TR Too many pests PEST B RS TR Price too low PRICE B RS TR PRICE Fuel to expensive FUEL FUEL FUEL TR FUEL FUEL Issues Not Not No rice Not Too Price Fuel to enough enough seed enough many too expensive water buffalo tractors pests low 4. Starting at the second box on the left, ask "which of these problems has the biggest impact on hampering planting in the dry season, Not enough water or not enough buffalo" ? (Hold up the small pieces of paper depicting buffalo and lack of water). Continue with the other items in the column for 'Not enough water' then move the column for 'not enough buffalo until all the columns are complete. 5. Count the number of times each item is listed, then put them in order according to their rank. Score Ranking Not enough water = 0 1 Tractors Not enough buffalo = 4 2 Fuel too expensive No rice seed = 3 3 Not enough buffalos Not enough tractors 6 4 No rice seed Too many pests = 1 5 Price too low Price too low =2 6 Too many pests Fuel to expensive = 5 6. Then, focusing on the problems with the three highest scores, remind participants that MAFF does not have any money for this scheme at the moment, ask what can be done about them and who should do it. Record their answers on the attached sheet. ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies Problem and score () Problems in order of What can be done to Who should be When should it happen? priority (rank) overcome it? responsible for it? ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies Section 3 Water User associations 1 History of WUAs la Was there a WUA here in Indonesian times? If so, how did they manage the system and was it effective. If not, how did they manage the system and was it effective? 1 b During this time, what was the role of the Indonesian Government (District and sub-district) in helping you to distribute water? 1 c How many members does your WUA have (male/female?) ld What activities has the group done so far in terms of water management and rice planting (is there a documented seasonal calendar, distribution system, schedule of maintenance etc?) 1 e What are some of the problems you are facing working together in the WUA (related to management of irrigation)? 1 f Do you think a WUG is the best way for your irrigation system to be managed or would you prefer the government to manage your water for a fee? 1 g Thinking about the operation and maintenance required to keep the scheme functioning to the maximum extent, can the group do all the necessary maintenance work itself? If not, who should help them? 2 Women's roles in rice production and the WUA 2a Are both men and women's active in rice production (land preparation, irrigating, planting, weeding, harvesting, marketing). Estimate the amount of labour contributed to each activity by both women and men. 2b From the previous question about male/female membership, why aren't there as many female members as there are males? 2c Should there be more women members? Why/not? ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE AGRICULTURAL SERVICES CENTRES (ASCS) 1. Is there an ASC in Viqueque/Maliana? 2. If so, how many of the group present are members? 3. What kind of services does it provide to farmers? 4. Has anyone from your suco ever used the services of the ASC? 5. Were the services useful? Why / Why not? 6. What sort of services would you like the Viqueque ASC to provide? Go back to some of the problems the farmers are experiencing in rice production. Is there anything they think the ASC could assist with? ANNEX B Guidelines for the Development of WUA Case Studies ANNEX C SUCO INSTITUTIONS SUMMARY Individuals/Anstitutions Frequency Comments on role and frequency considered within suco mentioned Chefe do Suco 13 Works with the Aldeias and community leaders (6) Implements development activities (4) Coordinates other groups such as OMT, OJT and Conselho do Suco (3) He makes the programs for the aldeias (3) He provides the suco with information from the District and gives advice to the community (3) His role is not clear because he is only a temporary appointment. (2) If NGOs come here, they go straight the the Chefe Aldeia. Only when his role is clarified by the sub-district head can we get on with development of the suco He is responsible for all activities in the suco Motivates the community to be active in all areas that will improve their lives in the suco Chefe do Aldeia 13 He gives information from the Chefe do Suco to the community in the aldeia (4) He waits for / implements instructions from the Chefe do Suco (4) He works together with the Chefe do Suco (3) He forms groups with the farming community (2) So far he has not been cooperative as he has no program of work Does not have good working relations with the Chefe do Suco He is responsible for all activities within the aldeia He brings the aspirations of the community to the Chefe do Suco At the moment, they are more important than the Chefe do Suco OMT 11 Made a vegetable garden (5) Helped by Caritas (3), but they are no longer active because Caritas no longer supports them (1) They couldn't sell the vegetables (1) They are not active because they have no program or activity (4) They formed a group to make Tais (woven cloth), (3) but couldn't sell it so are not active anymore (2) Always works together as a group (of women) Made a group to make eucalyptus oil to sell for $20 per bottle Undertook suco clean-up Every aldeia has its own group, but the board at the suco level are not active Working together they formed a group to trial tree planting, seedlings and vegetable growing (ARP II) OJT 7 They are not active because they have no program or activity (4) They are always willing to help the Chefe do Suco - for example, building/rehabilitating houses (2) Although the group has already been formed, only a minority do anything (2) Have done tree planting with seeds from the DFO ANNEX C Suco Institutions Summary Conselho do Suco 7 They consult with the community about what sort of programs they want, then make a proposal to take to CEP (3) Have constructed a water supply system here (2) but still waiting for the money to come for 2km of pipe So far, the community don't trust them as they are not very open and do not coordinate with the Chefe do Suco (2) An example of mistrust is that they had money to buy 2.5 inch pipes in the proposal, but they only brought 1 inch pipes so that to this day, the water does not flow properly The farmers do not wish to follow their instructions They don't have a role except for in CEP They provided grants for us to plant cassava. We didn't know why we were suddenly being paid to plant cassava. They provided credit for kiosks and cattle for fattening Traditional leader 6 He gives his attention to community traditions and laws (3) He determines what is forbidden in regards to farming activities (2) and determines the sanctions for those who break the laws Helps the relations between the government and the community (2) He settles all conflict within the community Coordinates with the government and the church Works together with the Chefe do Suco/Aldeia to motivate the community to be active in development activities that will improve their lives Conselho do Katuas (Council of 5 They help to solve problems of traditional law within the suco (5) Suco elders) They provide advice or recommendations if they are asked (4) Consists of traditional leaders They decide the things that are forbidden in farming abd have a ceremony ever year to inform the community Farmer's group (local) 4 They have male and female members (2) Since Portuguese times there have been farmer's groups here. The men till the land and the women plant We don't really have any activities, except we work together to make fences around our gardens. For farming, we work individually We grow corn and cassava as a group, but sell the produce individually. We then contribute $2 to the group for other activities, such as buying livestock Still active because they are beneficial to the community, but the results are still in progress Church / Religious leaders 3 Provides spiritual guidance (3) Encourages people to go to church every week Gives aftention to the laws of the church Hlsttelthe people about government activities Farmer's group (Small groups - 2 These groups consists of men and women. They are involved in fisheries and forestry activities (ARP 11 groups) ARP 11) They are in Ived in farming activities, like seedling production, as well as ARP 11 activities A graduate of the farmer high 2 He did not ever give advice to the community and they did not ever go to him for advice (2) school (SPP) Suco government 2 They make long term programs for the suco (2) ANNEX C Suco Institutions Summary Make the decisions on behalf of the community Anti-violence group 1 Provide information and advice about domestic violence issues Valerio, Hipolito (have specialist 1 They never visit the community, and we never ask for advice from them skills Implementation Team (ARP) 1 Duarto do Costa (specialist in 1 Gives advice about how to breed fish. If people need this advice, he is always ready to help. fisheries) People go to him is they need his advice Fishing group 1 Fish together to catch fish for consumption and sale, but no-one want's to buy them so we barter instead for other goods, especially corn, because this is a village close to the sea which is not good for growing corn (low rainfall) We once got assistance from Timor Aid in the form of a boat Community leader 1 There is no dependency on the government because the community try to do things for themselves, like till the land and open irrigation canals Credit Union 1 They give credit to the group members to fulfil their basic needs. It was considered a success because they were open to anyone who wanted to be involved InstitutionsAlndividuals considered outside the suco CEP 8 Built a water storage tank and pipes (3) but it was not enough for the whole community (2) Waits for proposals from Conselho do Suco, then gives money (2) Provided credit for kiosks. This activity is still ongoing Provided credit for fishing equipment Gave advice about how to manage the water supply system Gave one plate of food to 100 households Provided chairs for the suco inventory Gave money directly to the Chefe do Suco to give to the community groups, not through the Conselho do Suco as most of the community do not trust them No longer active District Livestock Officer 5 Gives vaccinations to prevent them getting sick (5) Vaccinator Gives advice/information (3) Collects data on animals for vaccination Very useful for us DAO/agriculture 4 Gives advice/information about farm management (3) Forms working groups and made a demonstration garden (2) He showed us a film about farming (2) Showed us how to plant rice correctly He showed us posters about farming topics IOM 4 Rehabilitated the suco office and grounds (2) I No longer active here (2) ANNEX C Suco Institutions Summary Provided resources for repairing the irrigation canals, such as cement and wire baskets They made a basketball court and toilets for the primary school MAFF staff 3 Still active but they rarely visit (2) They have been here twice and given us advice about fisheries and forestry activities (ARP 11) The community have been there twice but the staff did not come here They gave assistance in the form of free hoes Provide advice to farmers Care international 3 No longer active here (2) They built a water storage tank and rehabilitated the school using community labour Caritas 3 Provided vegetable seeds to the OMT group (3) No longer active here (2) Provided chickens to widows, this was around 2000. there is a big possibility all these chickens are dead now GM / German NGO 3 They gave 30kg of rice to 65 households Helped us to rebuild the suco's main road Provided resources to repair the irrigation canals, and the community provided the labour Provided resources for flood prevention No longer active here NGO Australia 2 Gave advice about managing water supply Built a water storage tank and pipes Did a surve here about water supply (1 year ago) but never came back UNICEF 2 No longer active here (2) World Bank 2 They once gave assistance in the form of kitchen utensils, chairs and tables etc They are no longer active Oxfam 2 Built a water supply system for the school (2) Provide advice to the community in the area of sanitation Timor Aid 2 Provided materials to the community directly to repair their houses Provided a boat and fishing equipment to the fishing group Undefined NGO 2 Formed farmers groups, planted corn and saplings, such as teak and sandalwood Distributed pigs, but wanted us to keep them all in one communal pen. We didn't agree with this and all the pigs died Concern 1 They made a toilet block and provided a water supply to the primary school Livestock officer from Dili 1 Gave chickens to five groups - 50 per group. Some are still alive but some are dead due to illness Rarely gives us any advice ARP 1 World Food Program 1 They divided corn flour and cooking oil amongst the community They gave us food and chickens ANNEX C Suco Institutions Summary ANNEX D RESULTS OF THE COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS - Pilot suco Name of suco Ogues Clacuk Osso-Ala Kakaven Subdistrict Suai Kota Fatuberiu Vemasse Lospalos District Covalima Manufahi Baucau Lautem Pilot suco (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes No of respondents M 35 W 18 M. 1 W 1o M 12 W 3 M 21 W1o Services/Information Vaccination of Provided We have had forestry Information on received livestock only advice/information on and pig vaccination agriculture, farming issues pamphlets from vaccination, garden MAFF demonstration (ARP II?) Level of satisfaction Not satisfied Feel satisfied because Only a few felt Not satisfied with services because there has the facilitator satisfied because because there was not yet been a implemented the they could implement not enough program in our suco farming activities well what was in the information, technical from the PPL pamphlet. Most felt demonstration or unsatisfied because practical application, the information We would like the wasn't enough and DAO people to come they still needed here more often more Knowledge of DAO Forestry Agriculture and Fisheres Pak Valero, Pak sectors Livestock Livestock. Forestry, Forestry Almedia and the Aghculture (DAO) irrgation and food And the ARP facilitator Mario Irrgation crops don't have facilitator. Would like (didn't specify which Food crops representatives. We them to visit twice a divisions they were would like them to. week from) Groups/Individuals Implementation Chefe do Suco Most are important in All groups, such as most important in Team. The Chefe do together with the decision making. the Conselho do development Suco and Conselho Conselho do Suco. Maybe the Conselho Katuas, Chefe do decision making do suco are not The Conselho only do Katuas more so. Suco, Chefe Aldeia, (should be involved involved. They only knows about the The Chefe do Suco, OJT and OMT are in an new know about important letters and OJT and OMT are all important to decision agricultural activity) important forms such receipts that are the important. The making. The as receipts from responsibility of the Conselho do Suco Conselho do Suco procurement. groups. The groups should not be should not be don't trust (believe in) involved because involved because the Conselho do Suco they are especially they are only for CEP involved in the projects from CEP Best method of Should be straight to Should be stored by Best from BNU to Best to give money managing financial Implementation the Implementation MAFF to straight to the OMT assistance Team. The Chefe do Team. The Conselho Implementation because women are Suco and Conselho do Suco is not Team then to the cleverer at managing do Suco should only sufficiently Treasurer of the money. For a new be informed about it transparenVopen to small groups. A project, best to and it's expenditure. the community minorty felt that the establish a new team Implementation Conselho do suco or farmers group. Team gives it straight was approprate The Conselho do to sub-groups. because they are suco should not be close to the Worfd involved because Bank and can get the some times they are money direct. Others not responsible so though they should that the community start a new group (for don't trust them an imagined new activity) ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - Pilot Suco Name of suco Ogues Clacuk Osso-Ala Kakaven Need for separate Yes, women have a Women have a Yes, women should Women are involved women s groups separate group but separate group be involved in in decision making they needed already, but they can decision making, and and are members of assistance from men work together with it should be up to groups. They have to do the land men as well. them whether they the nght and are preparation for their want a separate emancipated. group garden. group or not Assistance farmers Training Seeds, fertiliser, Not only money, but We need supporting feel they need Poster making sprayers we need information information, training More seeds, such as Provide training about and training - and advice Teak (Philippines) managing farm land particularly with Hand sprayers as well as other practical application natural resources of new techniques that will improve our agricultural production Preferred method of Should be straight Until now, only the This should be This should be delivery from the DAO staff agricultural facilitator provided by MAFF provided by MAFF (face-to-face) provides posters / using media such as through field visits, pictures about the radio, posters, demonstrations farming sector. Radio pamphlets and posters and is a difficult media for handouts pamphlets us to access. Presence of PPL pre Yes. He introduced Yes. He made a Yes. He made a There was a PPL. 99 and perception of cashew, jackfruit and demonstration demonstration He did monitorng, usefulness kapok trees in a garden, provided garden that was gave training about demonstration plot. farming posters and useful even though planting techniques We are still getting showed us films about one of two varieties and provided the benefits of these. farming activities. All did not grow well information. He was Very useful for the of these activities not very useful community. were very useful to because there was the community no practical demonstration Level of information More in Indonesian It was better in There was more More available in available compared times because there Indonesian times. All information available Indonesian times, to Indonesian times was a PPL in every farming equipment in Indonesian times, from the army and and thoughts of suco complete with was provided by the but less agriculture, such as quality of service farming equipment. PPL. Now there is no implementation. They demonstration Because we are a PPL and the means of used a variety of gardens, talks and new country, this providing information media, including field films. But it is still service isn't are less. visits, posters, films. better now because established yet. Now, even though we get to enjoy the There is also a there is less benefits directly shortage of information, at least (ARP II?) information there is infrastructure. implementation (ARP II?) Knowledge of NRM Form a group, -You have to have There must be a The criteria includes activity selection coordinate the group, specialist knowledge need, it must be the needs of the criteria look after the to select an activity to feasible (have suco, the soil type, seedlings and check manage natural potential to succeed), community on the activities of resources. must be enough participation and the group. funding. Something funding availability. like a road will not be You can not get funded. funding for Tara Bandu ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - Pilot Suco Name of suco Ogues Clacuk Osso-Ala Kakaven Process of selecting Formed a farmers The farmer groups, There was a meeting This was done activities group, had a meeting the Conselho do suco, of all the community through a meeting with the DAO and the Chefe do Suco and organizations with the whole farming facilitator, and Chefe Aldeia from the suco and we community and the and the final decision were involved in the chose the most groups was made by the process of selecting feasible activity. The Chefe do Suco. the activity. final decision was made by the community through discussion Other non-funding We have already had We need assistance We need technical We need support in support groups training in funds with procurement (like training, and more training, advice, and require management and that provided by importantly, management how to do the NGOs) management training. MAFF farming activities training. MAFF should provide this should provide this as well as as well as agricultural agricultural NGOs NGOs Characteristics of a It doesn't matter if It doesn't matter if A good facilitator Prepared to live in good facilitator and they are a man or a they are a man or a would stay in the the suco, have skills preference for female woman. What is woman because they suco, be honest and in farming, takes facilitators important is that they have the same rights hardworking and initiative can coordinate / (to this sort of work). have good farming hardworking, honest have skills in farming What is important is skills. One could be a and responsible. It is so they can that they have farming woman, as long as better if one is a implement activities skills. she has skills in woman because she in the suco. agriculture can work with the women s group Preferred method of Straight to the You need control and Should work together Straight to the funds transfer to Treasurer and transparency so that with the Implementation team suco Secretary of the money is not wrongly organizations that who gives it to the Implementation used. You also need exist, i.e. small groups. All the Team to have very clear Implementation team groups should be reporting to sub-groups to involved. community. The Chefe do suco should also be involved Necessity of Need to keep Yes, you need to be Need to inform the Yes, it is very informing community community informed very transparent so community so that important so that about funds use so they know about people do not start to corruption is there is no suspicion use of the funds doubt one another minimised of the facilitator or the groups Preferred/actual We have a notice At the moment, we Best way is every The best method is method board where we don't have a notice time there are what we do now. We display financial and board for ARP II purchases, the have a notice board other information money, so for the receipts and all to display information about the activities moment we provide expenditure should about activities. All information directly to be reported to the receipts are posted. the community groups. (There is no For those that can't notice board in use) read, we inform them though a meeting Vaccination services Cattle*100% NovO2 Cattle* 100% NovO2 Pigs 10% SeptO2 Cattle 20% Sept02 provided and Buffalo 100% Nov 02 Buffalo 100% Nov02 No information yet Buffalo 30% Sept 02 estimated % of Pigs 100% Nov02 Pigs 100% Nov02 about cattle and Pigs 5% Nov02 coverage and date Chickens 100% Nov Chickens 100% Nov chickens *Only those tied up *Only those tied up Numbers thought to None None None None have died as a result and time lapse ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - Pilot Suco Name of suco Ogues Clacuk Osso-Ala Kakaven Brief description of Heard about it Heard about the The information The community were process of through the Chefe do vaccination campaign came from MAFF via informed by the vaccination Suco, he heard from from the vaccinator. the Chefe do suco. It Chefe do Suco and the vaccinators. The They were was then publicised Aldeia. The Chefe Aldeia and responsible for through the church. vaccinators didn't community groups organising the The vaccinators did ask us to do anything were responsible for community, who were door-to-door - just went from organising the event willing to do what was vaccinations. There house-to-house. Men and people generally required. Men are was only one are involved in did what they were responsible for vaccinator. He came Cattle, buffalo and supposed to. Men vaccinating cows and according to pig vaccinations. were responsible for buffalo, women for schedule Women could be cows and buffalo and pigs and chickens. involved in chicken women were The vaccinators came vaccinations if they responsible for pigs on time depending on are capable. The and chickens. the amount of animals vaccinators cane on Whether vaccinators to be vaccinated time according to were on time or not their schedule. There depended on where was only one the houses were vaccinator. We don't located and their own know if he had transport situation. sufficient vaccine for They vaccinated at all the animals. individual houses because we didn't prepare a corral. . Reasons why some Lack of exact Lack of exact Community do not The vaccinator did people don't information from the information from the understand about not provide any vaccinate vaccinators vaccinators vaccinations. There information to the Communication Communication was no meeting community before difficult difficult between the vaccinations took If animals are sick If animals are sick vaccinator and the place, so many were already, they will die already, they will die community before scared to try it. anyway if you anyway if you hand, so they weren't vaccinate them. vaccinate them. sure Willingness to People who didn't People who didn't More people will More people will vaccinate next time vaccinate will do so if vaccinate will do so if vaccinate next time vaccinate next time there is clear their animals are in to guard against information (there is good health. They disease - as long as no reason not to do also want to wait and there is information so) see what happens to provided before hand those who were so that people vaccinated understand Perceived benefits of So that animals don't So that animals don't To reduce the To guard against vaccinating get sick get sick. Vaccination incidence of illness in disease. It is very is really useful for animals. It is a very useful because preventing illness. useful service animals don't get Prevention is better sick as often than cure. Perceived link It depends on the Animals that die from None articulated None articulated between health of the animal. vaccination do so vaccinations and If they are already because they were animal deaths sick before being already sick before vaccinated, they will hand, so it depends die anyway. on the health of the animal ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - Pilot Suco Name of suco Ogues Clacuk Osso-Ala Kakaven Willingness to pay We are prepared to Yes, we are prepared We are prepared to People will pay for for vaccinations in. pay because to pay depending on pay as long as it is vaccinations as long future vaccination is what the vaccinator within our means. If it as the government important to us asks for. All people is too expensive, it is can guarantee a need to protect the better if the animal market for their health of this animals dies produce, so that they have an income Usual response to Many people use If the vaccinator Some iook for We asked for help animal illness traditional medicines doesn't come traditional medicine from MAFF staff (did not specify) because he has not close to the suco (did (DLO) but they didn't been contacted, we not specify) come so we let the are forced to use animals die traditional medicine (did not specify) Knowledge of VLW Heard of the program Don't know. No Not heard about the Had not heard about program and but it has not started information yet VLW program the VLW program selection of VLWs here. Services will include medicine, needles and other instruments for treatment (this community may have confused the VLW program with vaccination services) Likelihood of calling Probably not. If an Yes, we would call Yes Yes, if there was such a person to animal is already them if we needed such a person treat a sick animal sick, it will die them anyway. How much might it Don't know. We Don't know. It would That depends on the Don't know how cost and would you would pay for it depend on how much VLW. As long as it is much these services pay? depending on how the VLW asked for within our means, we would cost, but we much the vaccinator and whether we could would pay it wouldn't pay if we asked for afford it don't have an income Would payment be Not really. It would This would depend on Depends on This would depend easier if it was in the depend on the the VLW negotiations with the on the VLW form of goods vaccinator. Doesn't VLW exchange really matter if its money or goods Is there a need for a Yes we need a Yes, we very much Yes, because we are Yes, because we trained livestock livestock worker in need this type of a long way from the could contact them worker in your suco? the suco to improve person to safeguard town so they need quickly in an coordination our animals someone close at emergency hand to provide services when they are required Is this a suitable job Yes, especially for Yes, especially for Yes, as long as they Yes, as long as they for a woman? vaccinating pigs and pigs and chickens feel capable and had the skills chickens have the skills ANNEX 0 Results of the Community Interviews - Pilot Suco RESULTS OF THE COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS - Non Pilot suco Name of suco Ostico Bemoris Betano Lela Loedahar Subdistrict Vemasse Los Palos Manufahi Maukatar Liquisa District Baucau Lautem Manufahi Covalima Liquisa Pilot suco (Y/N) No No No No No No of respondents M 9 W 1 M22 W- M 18 W 14 M 32 W26 M1o W5 Services/Information Only information we Have not received any There has been The DAO has No information or received have received has information from information and provided information campaigns yet. been from the MAFF or DAO. There advice from the DAO and advice to the Only vaccination Pastor, not MAFF. was some pesticide since the emergency suco through direct Vaccination service distributed by MAFF penod. visits Level of satisfaction Not satisfied Not satisfied because People were very People were with services because there is not they have not been satisfied because the satisfied yet clear and visited by staff and agrcultural facilitator complete information they have not came and visited us received any directly information Knowledge of DAO Livestock only Know Valeno and Forestry Forestry Livestock sectors Almedia, but do not Livestock Livestock Fisheres know which sectors Agriculture Agrculture Forestry (but only they are from. We'd Need to add more Irrgation the Chefe Aldeia like them to visit twice staff Food Crops knew for sure a week Groups/Andividuals Most important in All groups are The Chefe do Suco The Chefe do Suco The Chefe do Suco, most important in decision making are important and should decides the activities decides the program through the development Conselho do Katuas, be consulted in and passes them on and passes this on to Conselho do Suco. decision making Chefe do Suco, decision making, to the Aldeias who the Aldeia. There is They know the (should be involved Aldeia, the Church, particularly Conselho pass them on to the no Conselho do aspirations of the in an new OJT through their do Katuas, Chefe do community. The Suco active here. people. But if it's a agricultural activity) various groups. Suco and Aldeia. Conselho do suco new activity, better Conselho do Suco is Conselho do Suco is here is not yet active to go straight to the (Prompt for not involved because like an adviser. They Chefe do Suco and Conselho do Suco) they are only are not in the aldeia, then the farmers involved in CEP but could be involved. group. activities Best method of Best through the Best to do it through We haven't yet had Only the Chefe do The Chefe do Suco managing financial Chefe do Suco or the the Chefe do Suco, or assistance in the Suco is trusted by is most trusted. Or assistance existing suco form a new group to form of money, so we the community for start a new group structure. Probably manage funds. haven't had to store this sort of role. We special for the need to create a new Should not involve the any and don't know have heard about the activity. The (Prompt for team to manage Conselho do Suco what would be the Conselfo do suco Treasurer Conselho Conselho do Suco) money. The because they are only best method. We since long ago, but do Suco is just for Conselho do Suco is advisors and aren't in would have to until now, there is not CEP money only responsible for the aldeia. discuss it in more one established CEP, so they detail here. shouldn't be involved in a new activity Need for separate Don't really know Yes, women should There is already a Women have a Yes, women should women's groups be involved in making women's group here. separate group, but be involved. They decisions and They plant com and they usually do already have a implementing vegetables. agricultural activities separate group agricultural activities together with men although it is not active. Assistance farmers We need equipment We need training, Training, farming Training, pesticide Teak seeds, feel they need like tractors, training advice, courses, a tools, pesticide, more and sprayers, technical training so for farmers groups, a demonstration PPL assistance farming tools, tree we can grow teak technical trainer from garden, and books or seedlings such as better, and look agriculture, advice posters about teak and Phillipines after our animals and information agricultural topics teak better, training in ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - non-Pilot Suco Name of suco Ostico Bemoris Betano Lela Loedahar post-harvest production for women Preferred method of MAFF should provide MAFF should provide The agricultural So far, the team from Direct training and delivery this through routine this through field visits facilitator should give the DAO have advice. We are visits to the suco, and demonstrations or advice and training in provided good happy to get demonstrations and posters how to manage our information about assistance from books about farming farmlands how to farm whatever sources techniques are available Presence of PPL pre Yes, they showed us Yes there was, but he Yes. They gave Yes, he showed us Yes, he brought 99 and perception of how to grow paddy didn't do anything so advice to farmers how to plant green snake fruit, usefulness gogo (dry land rice), the community did not and formed a farmers vegetables and rambutan and and we felt they were feel he was useful group with a formed a farmer's mango trees here really useful because satisfactory outcome group. The result and we are still they made a was to add value to getting the benefits demonstration plot, what they grew of these. We would although they did not like MAFF to meet all expectations increase the number of these trees here Level of information More information in A little bit more in It was better in It was better in There was more in available compared Indonesian times, but Indonesian times, Indonesian times Indonesian times Indonesian times to Indonesian times not much from the agricultural compared to now. than independence. from agriculture and and thoughts of implementation. Now department. It's better East Timor is still a East Timor is just a PPL, but it is good quality of service we only get it through now because there new country, so there new country, so that you have come the Pastor. It is too are practical aren't yet enough there are not a lot of to talk to us about difficult to compare demonstrations PPLs to create PPL or activities in farming quality. (although this aldeia activities with the suco has not had any direct farmers. Not enough visits from MAFF yet) manpower and facilities Vaccination services Cattle Nov 02 Buffalo Cattle* 100% Nov 02 Cattlel100% Nov 02 Cattle 100% Nov 02 provided and Buffalo Nov 02 Pigs May 02 Buffalo 100% Nov 02 Buffalo 100% Nov 02 Pigs 100% Nov02 estimated % of Pigs Aug 02 (could not estimate %) Pigs 100% Nov02 Pigs 100% Nov02 coverage and date (could not estimate Chickens 100% Nov Chickens 100% Nov %) *Only those tied up *Only those tied up Numbers thought to None None None None None have died as a result and time lapse Brief description of Initial information There was no prior Community heard We heard about it We heard about the process of about the vaccination information. The from Chefe do Suco from the village campaign on the vaccination campaign came from vaccinators just (who heard from office, via the radio, and a MAFF and was arrived and went from vaccinator). We were vaccinators. They vaccinator came publicised through house-to-house. told to prepare a came and gave the here directly to the church. The corral to use for vaccinations door-to- count the number of vaccinators came vaccinating the door because we animals in every withpough first animals because we don't yet have a house. The Chefe counting the animals, didn't have one place to vaccinate. aldeia was and just wwent from already. The Chefe The Chefe Aldeia responsible for house-to-house. The Aldeia was was responsible for organising the came when they said responsible for organising the community. Men they would and had organising the community. People were more involved. enough vaccine to community. People did what they were Women less so but cover all that wanted were willing to told to do. Men are they could help. their animals comply. Men and responsible for The vaccinators vaccinated. A lot of women have the catching cattle and came when they people did not same role, only men buffalo. Whether the said they would participate because look after cattle and vaccinators came on there was no buffalo. Whether the time depended on information given vaccinators came on their mode of ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - non-Pilot Suco Name of suco Ostico Bemoris Betano Lela Loedahar beforehand, so the time depended on transportation. community were them. doubtful and not prepared to have their animals vaccinated. Women should be involved in vaccination, as long as they are capable and interested. Reasons why some No information pror Information was not Not enough No reliable people don't to the campaign. clear or the transportation for the communication vaccinate Because of this, vaccinators could not vaccinators and not method, transport for people were scared get to their houses enough vaccinators. the vaccinators is their animals would Not clear unreliable, if the die if they were communication animals are already vaccinated between the sick they will die vaccinator and the anyway owners of livestock Willingness to More people would Yes, to prevent Yes. People agree We agree with Yes, we need vaccinate next time vaccinate next time if disease. Most people with vaccinating. vaccinations vaccination there was good agree with this There is no reason to information provided refuse this service. before hand Perceived benefits of Prevent animal It prevents disease It prevents animal It prevents animals People hope that if vaccinating deaths from disease. which is useful diseases. Very useful from getting sick, so their animal is sick Very useful because because animals are for prevention it is very important and gets vaccinated animals are rarely sick less often it will get better. sick if they are Vaccination vaccinated reduces illness in livestock Perceived link While it is suspected, None articulated Animals die after Animals die after Some animals died between this is only because vaccination if they vaccination if they that were already vaccinations and of lack of information, are already sick. It are already sick. It sick, but we know it animal deaths not actual confirmed depends on their depends on their was not because of deaths condition condition the vaccination Willingness to pay This would depend Those prepared to In order to ensure The community are Some people might for vaccinations in on whether the pay will pay, but if it is our animal's health, willing to pay in order but maybe most future govemment held too expensive, it is we are willing to pay to improve the health would not. Better to discussions / better to let the the fee the of their animals let the animals die. socialisation with the animals die vaccinators set community first Usual response to We try to get help We don't usually do We are forced to rely We are forced to rely We try salt and animal illness from MAFF anything. It's better if on traditional on traditional water from boiled they just die. medicine (would not medicine (would not leaves like papaya specify type - this specify type - this for pigs, then we kill information is not information is not them if they don't shared within a shared within a get better community) community) Knowledge of VLW Have not heard of Haven't heard about Haven't heard about Haven't heard about Don't know about program and this program the program the program - no the program - no this. There hasn't selection of VLWs information information been any information yet Likelihood of calling We would call them if Yes, we would call If we needed to Yes, we'd call them if Yes, we would call such a person to there was such a them if there was a we needed to them treat a sick animal person VLW ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - non-Pilot Suco Name of suco Ostico Bemoris Betano Lela Loedahar How much might it This would depend Don't know how much Should be voluntary, The cost would Don't know how cost and would you on the government. it would cost. We or depends on the depend on how much it would cost, pay? They should set the would pay if we had VLW. Whether we much the VLW but it would depend prce. We would pay any money. would pay would asked for. Whether on how much they it it wasn't too depend on the VLW we would pay would asked for and expensive, i.e. and the owner of the be up to the owner people's ability to according to our animal and the VLW pay ability Would payment be This would depend This would depend on This would depend That would depend That would depend easier if it was in the on negotiations with negotiations with the on both parties on both parties on the VLW form of goods the VLW VLW exchange Is there a need for a Yes, and we would Yes, we need one Yes, a great need Yes, a great need Yes, we need this trained livestock prefer it if they were type of person to worker in your suco? a person from our help us look after own suco our animals better Is this a suitable job Yes, as long as they Yes, if they have the Very suitable. Both Yery suitable, Yes for a woman? have the skills expertise women and men because women have a rght to do this have the rght and sort of work responsibility the same as men ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - non-Pilot Suco ANNEX D RESULTS OF THE COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS - Non Pilot suco (Continued) Name of suco Bobokasi Bobometo Nipani Naimeco Subdistrict Pantai Makasar Oesilo Oecussi Pantai Makasar District Oecussi Oecussi Oecussi Oecussi Pilot suco (YIN) No No No No No of respondents M 17 W 3 M 19 W5 M 30 W 10 M 33 W1o Services/lnformation Vaccination, Re-greening We were given Candlenut So far we have received From forestry, we were received the school (forestry), and mahogany trees as advice/lectures from the told not to destroy the distnbution of buffalo, well as some training in agricultural office and corn forests, not to bum off and heard about the ban on how to plant and look after seeds. Also vaccinations not to cut down trees that cutting sandalwood trees, them. Also vaccination. were illegal. They also burning forests and There is information on the gave trees to the schools promoting reforestation on radio but people can't for re-greening. the radio make use of it. Prefer to From Livestock, there was listen to music. vaccinations Level of satisfaction We don't know about Some of the trees have People were not satisfied People are unsatisfied with services mahogany trees and died because of the with the com that was with the vaccinations trambisi, so we wanted drought but some are still distributed because it all because not all the pigs training in how to grow alive. Radio is not very died because of the were vaccinated and most them properly and get useful. We need to be drought ey want seed that of them died. They were seeds from them to plant shown how to do things can be stored for up to satisfied with the forestry in future. We hear things three years so they can activities but wanted more on the radio but can't do it. replant if it dies. so they could plant shade Would prefer to hear trees for coffeeon unused music on the radio land Knowledge of DAO Livestock Livestock and Forestry are Fisheries Livestock sectors Forestry the only ones that come Livestock Forestry Irrigation here. Also know about Forestry Agriculture (DAO) Fisheres Fisheres and Irrigation but Agriculture (DAO) They often come here Food crops. Only livestock they never come here. comes here. The others we know because they are local Groups/Individuals The Chefe do Suco and Because the role of the All the community and the The Chefe do Suco should most important in Aldeia should invite people Chefe do Suco is not clear organizations here should be the first point of contact development from all groups to discuss here, it is better to go meet and discuss the best because he is trusted to decision making a new activity. The straight to the Chefe do group to make decisions decide who should be (should be involved Conselho do suco are Aldeias and the traditional about a new activity. All involved. The Conselho do in developing a new involved in CEP only. leaders. They would sit except for the Conselho Suco should not be agricultural activity) NGOs don't bother with together with the do Suco and they are only involved. So far, they them but they could be community to discuss the involved in CEP. have been very closed (Prompt for involved. We just haven't best way to implement a and are only involved in Conselho do Suco) tried new activity. The conselho CEP activities. do suco is not yet cohesive. We haven't used them for anything but CEP, but it is possible they could be used Best method of Money should go through We would have to have a The Chefe do Suco is the The Chefe do Suco would managing financial the Chefe do Suco to the full community meeting to best person. The be most trusted, and assistance Chefe do Aldeias, and choose a person we all Conselho do Suco should following him, the Chefe then to the community, as trusted. It is better to not be involved because Aldeia and the suco board long as there was a choose a new group then they only function if there (not explained). (Prompt for community discussion use the conselho do suco. is assistance from CEP. The Conselho do Suco Conselho do Suco) beforehand It is not really a problem at As far as we know, their should not be involved as the village level. People activities are limited to the community no longer trust them, it is more the CEP. trust them. posto level that is not trusted. ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - non-Pilot Suco Name of suco Bobokasi Bobometo Nipani Naimeco Need for separate Women want groups by Women would like a We want a separate group We (women) are capable women's groups themselves. Now they separate group, but if it so we can make our own of having their own group, have a right to be active in was agricultural activities, decisions, but we would but we would still hope to leadership roles. Also, we would need help from also need help from men get help from men if we they could have mixed men to clear land for things like making a needed it. groups and men only fence. groups Assistance farmers We want to rent the 2 We need seeds of all Training about farming. We need advice on how to feel they need DAO tractors because sorts. Especially corn We need more seeds, look after our livestock they are cheaper than seeds because ours are such as peanuts. Also we better, also how to look private ones. We want the already 3 years old. Also need advice/lectures after our forests. So far all DAO to provide good need training in about all aspects of we have received are quality, affordable horticulture and pesticide agriculture directives about what not fertiliser. Training in pest use. to do, but how do we reduction, and also actually look after the training so that we can do forests? We also need our own vaccinations extra seedlings to replant deforested land Preferred method of We want the DAO staff to It is much better if people It's better if people come It's best if the DAO staff delivery come here and train us from the DAO come straight here so farmers come directly here. This is directly, or they could take directly to the village to can understand more. This necessary because many some of us to the districts provide training face-to- is especially important as people are illiterate. to train to become PPL, or face most of the community are the system of 'farmer illiterate contacts' should be re- established. Radio is not useful. Needs to be in Dawan language, but more importantly, we need to see things with our own eyes. Presence of PPL pre Yes, he showed us the Yes, but all he did was Yes, he divided us into Yes, he did 99 and perception of correct spacing for sleep. He was not useful groups to plant demonstrations on usefulness planting corn and rice and to the community. vegetables. He gave us correcting spacing for rice it increased our yields However some of us went advice on how to grow and vegetable planting, to the neighboring suco them, including the correct also how to manage pests when their PPL was doing spacing to maximise and how to make fertiliser. demonstration (planting in production, It was very He also provided the rows using string), and this useful for the farmers, seeds we needed. All this was useful because we didn't know was very useful for the the correct spacing before community. Level of information There was more in There was more advice It's the same. There is still There was more then than available compared Indonesian times because and information in advice/lectures and now - especially from to Indonesian times there were more staff at Indonesian times. The vaccinations as before agriculture and the PPL and thoughts of the sub-district level so PPL in the next suco was who was directly in the quality of service more face-to-face contact. hardworking and was field We know there are taken to Sulawesi for limitations now. Hard to training. Now although we compare quality. have been given seeds, we have not received training in how to grow them properly Vaccination services Cattle -50% Nov 02 Cattle +50% Oct 02 Cattle -50% Oct 02 Cattle -50% Oct 02 provided and Buffalo 100% Nov 02 Pigs +50% June 02 Buffalo* 100% July 02 Buffalo 100% Oct 02 estimated % of Pigs 100% May 02 Pigs -50% Aug 02 Pigs -50% Oct 02 coverage and date *Vaccinated prior to Chickens -50% Oct 02 distribution to community ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - non-Pilot Suco Name of suco Bobokasi Bobometo Nipani Naimeco Numbers thought to None None 1 - 2 cows, about 1 - 2 None have died as a result weeks after the and time lapse vaccination Brief description of The vaccinator bought a The vaccinator came and The vaccinator came and The vaccinator came process of letter to the Suco. The told the Chefe do Suco, informed the Chefe to directly and informed the vaccination Chefe do Suco and who told the Chefe Aldeia Suco, who in turn informed Chefe do Suco, who Aldeias then told the who then organised the the Chefe Aldeia. They informed the Chefe do community about it. Only 2 community. We were told were responsible for Aldeia. They were then people present heard to count our animals, organising the community. responsible for organising about it on the radio. The make a corral, and have We were told to make a the community. We were community did not attempt all the animals gathered corral for vaccinations and told to make a corral in to get the animals (cattle) there by a certain date. to pen all the animals in one place and make sure that are free-ranging in the Not everyone got their the corral. Women and all the animals were in it hills. People lie about the animals from the hills, but men work together. If the when the vaccinator came. number of animals, all cooperated to have man is not available, the People complied with this, because while there is no those already tied up / in women will do all the tasks except for catching the taxation now, they are stalls vaccinated. Women associated with animals in the hills. This worried that there will be in are only involved in vaccination. The was not done. Only the future. We made a vaccinations if their vaccinators came on time women who were widows corral but didn't use it husbands are away. The but there are not enough were fully involved in because we didn't get the vaccinators came on time of them in Oecussi. Also, vaccinations because they animals from the hills but they didn't have they are only contracted don't have husbands to do enough vaccine so they fro a short time. it for them. The vaccinator came back the next day to came when he said he finish would, but there are not enough vaccinators. Reasons why some It is hard to gather the It is too difficult to get all Generally, all those It is too difficult to gather people don't animals from the hills. the animals from the hills. animals that are already in the majority of the animals vaccinate Easier to let them die. The vaccinators did not pens/tied up are (cattle and pigs) who are People are not aware give us enough warning vaccinated. It is only those free ranging in the hills enough of the benefits of (only a few days - need a that are in the hills and vaccination to get together few weeks).There are also difficult to catch that are and get them from the hills pigs free ranging there. not. all at once. We get together as a group to catch one of our animals if we want to sell it but not so far for vaccinations Willingness to Maybe we will try to get If we are given more We want to vaccinate We will try harder next vaccinate next time more animals next time. It warning, next time we will more animals next time vaccination to collect more is a community make more effort to get animals. Both men and responsibility. MAFF our animals down from the women think it is important already do their share hills and hopefully more they are protected from will be vaccinated next illness. We would prefer time that vaccination occurs in August so it does not happen late and animals die. Perceived benefits of It keeps our animals Animals that are Vaccination guards It prevents animals from vaccinating healthy vaccinated are healthier, against animals getting getting sick. In general, and it prevents them from sick our animals that have getting sick been vaccinated do not get sick Perceived link None. None - if animals die after 1 - 2 cows died 1 - 2 None between vaccination, it is because weeks following vaccinations and they were sick anyway vaccination. The owner animal deaths said they were not sick before hand. The DLO clarified that it was possible the animals were carrying the SE bacteria ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - non-Pilot Suco Name of suco Bobokasi Bobometo Nipani Naimeco before they were vaccinated but had not developed the symptoms yet. Willingness to pay We are doubtful that Yes, if we have to, but In general, we are Yes, we will pay, but not if for vaccinations in people will pay. Even must be according to our prepared to pay to have the service is from the future though it is free now, capacity to pay our animals vaccinated - government. If it is from people are still lazy to get as long as it is not too the government, they all their animals. It was expensive and beyond our already get paid so why free in Indonesian times. It means. We think it should should we pay them would depend on the only cost about .50cents again? economy of the suco. or $1. Where would we get the money from? Usual response to For pigs we use the water Sometimes we try to Most times animals get Usually we kill and eat animal illness from boiled papaya contact the DLO, but the sick and quickly die. But if them if they get sick. leaves. We don't do animals usually die before they are still alive after Sometimes we call the anything for other animals, he gets here. We don't about 3 days, we try to DLO or contact someone Just kill them and eat them know any traditional use traditional medicine in the suco who knows before they die medicine. Usually we kill which we make ourselves about traditional medicine them and eat or sell them or call the DLO. before they die Knowledge of VLW No, maybe the last chefe No, we haven't heard of Have not heard about this Don't know about this program and do suco knew about it this program program selection of VLWs Likelihood of calling That would depend on We would call them, Yes we would so that they Perhaps, if they can help such a person to how much it would cost butonly if they lived near could treat the animal us with sick animals treat a sick animal the suco How much might it We don't know. Whether We don't know how much It should only cost as We cannot answer that. If cost and would you we would pay would it might cost. We would much as the community a VLW comes here, they pay? depend on ability to pay pay, but not for another can afford. If we can afford will have to discuss with year or so because we it, we will pay the community how much don't have any money yet to charge. We would pay as long as there is an agreement between the two parties. As long as they are not paid by the govemment as well Would payment be Whether its in money or in Yes, exchanging goods If people have money, If we have money, we easier if it was in the kind would ultimately would be possible, but it they will pay money. If not, would pay with money. If form of goods depend on the VLW would depend on the VLW they will use whatever not, it might be possible to exchange goods they have to exchange goods, as long exchange as the VLW agreed Is there a need for a Yes, we need this type of Yes, but they would have Yes, we need this sort of Yes, they can help people trained livestock service so our animals to come from this village. service to help us with sick who need to treat sick worker in your suco? don't die There are 9 aldeia to animals animals cover. Must live here. Not like the PPL before Is this a suitable job Yes, as long as they are No. The suco is to big for Yes, as long as there is Yes, as long as women for a woman? trained - even for big a woman to cover - training and maximum are provided with animals especially if she was support provided approprate training this marned. What if she came would be a suitable job for home late? them ANNEX D Results of the Community Interviews - non-Pilot Suco ANNEX E Case Studies of Irrigation Schemes Assisted by ARP I and ARP 11 A NOTE OF CAUTION ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE IRRIGATION CASE STUDIES The focus group interviews for developing the irrigation system case studies were largely conducted just after the works were completed. The drought had prevented planting at the normal time (Dec/Jan) and none of the schemes had planted yet following completion of the rehabilitation works. Farmers were therefore left to guess how many people might plant in the coming season following rehabilitation completion, and their estimations may well prove incorrect and should be closely monitored. In addition, although a standard format was used during the interviews (attached in Annex B), information received was often contradictory as farmers grappled with the many and varied constraints to production which may or may not influence farmer's decisions to plant. It is acknowledged that each individual farmer makes decisions based on their own personal socio-economic situation, and that the views of a group in an interview situation may obscure the real reasons farmers decide to plant or not. Aspects which were considered important by some key informants were not mentioned by farmers themselves. Most had trouble estimating the number of hectares which could potentially be irrigated and which were actually planted, so the numbers provided should be viewed with caution despite farmer's best efforts to be accurate. Although efforts were made to invite as many WUA members to these discussions as possible, communication limitations meant that the invitation was not always extended as planned and respondents largely comprised WUA boards. The tendency for the WUA board members to be more progressive may influence their perceptions of what proportion of the community does and does not have sufficient and affordable access to buffalo use or tractor hire. Poorer farmers may therefore have been under-represented in these discussions, and may need special attention in any programs aimed at assisting the provision of inputs essential to increasing rice production other than water. ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies ANNEX E Case Study, Baedubo Irrigation Scheme, Uatocarabau Subdistrict, Viqueque Section 1. Results of discussions with key informants Vicente H Guterres, former technical staff of Irrigation and Public Works, Dili, now head of the WUA section, MAFF Jose Henrique, former Head of the District Agricultural Office, now staff of GTZ agricultural program Bernado do Costa Pinto, former village head and person responsible for expansion of irrigation works Pedro Pinto, also responsible for the irrigation expansion scheme History of the scheme pre 1999 Initial works on the irrigation scheme commenced under the Portuguese Administration in 1949 under the initiative of the Liurai (King) and head of the sub-district. Rice planting started in 1957. Initially, five suco were involved in forced land preparation and rice planting. Following the war in 1959, farmers started replanting in 1960, and this continued until 1964 when the scheme was expanded to include a sixth village. However the harvest that year was low due to damage to the irrigation channel and conflict between the farmers. In 1977, farmers again fled to the hills during the war with the Indonesian occupiers. They came back and started planting rice again around 1982, however this was also encouraged through the use of coercion (threats of violence and withdrawal of liberty) even though the rice product was for the farmers' own consumption. In 1989 the Indonesian Government undertook a survey of the schemes potential and in 1994 expanded the irrigated area by extending the primary canal. It was estimated that @ 1000 ha could be irrigated under this system, however the WUA members interviewed admitted to being a little sceptical about this figure. Apparently the required number of hectares to qualify for extensive irrigation works was 1000. It was therefore in the interests of both the contractor and the community to exaggerate the potential in order that the works go ahead. However the secondary and tertiary channels were never completed, so this potential was never realised. The estimated potential for total irrigated land is therefore difficult to estimate, and key informant accounts (as well as those of the community) varied greatly. The potential is estimated at 900 at most, while the most land actually planted in rice at any one time during the history of the scheme is estimated to be @300. The paddy is owned by approximately 427 households from six surrounding villages (Irabin de Baxio, Afaloicai, Uani Uma, Irabin Decima, Bahatata and Loi Ulu). These are descendants of the original landholders, and though there may have been a few internal migrants over the years, these have now all left. Land disputes are rare and are usually settled within the community. The land irrigated under the 1994 irrigation extension works was distributed by the traditional owner to people (members of his extended family) who traditionally grow rain fed corn crops on the hinterland slopes. Some of these people live up to 14 km away from the irrigated paddy. Planting trends 1994 - 1999 During the Indonesian era, there was a crops extension officer based in Uatocarabau. In 1989, IR64 and 36 was demonstrated there but was not popular with the farmers. Urea and TSP was also trialed in a demonstration plot. One farmer said he tried it, but because the soil was already very fertile, his fertilised plot yielded less (because of over fertilisation) and he never tried it again. Farmers in the scheme have never used fertiliser on a regular basis. However many have routinely used pesticide (especially in 1998 when there was a major pest problem) which they purchased from the Farmer's Cooperative (KUD). Buffalo were the main means of land preparation using the renca system, and these were plentiful and available for use through a 50/50 split of the produce for those not owning significant herds). There were @ five hand tractors available, but these were used by a wealthy minority. After the scheme was expanded, the Indonesians paid a contractor (Nindia Karya) to de-silt the intake and primary channels prior to the main planting season every year. All the farmers had to do was prepare their land and plant. There was no charge for water use or maintenance costs. The WUA members interviewed were of the opinion that this was a bad thing as it was the manifestation of a political decision to win the hearts and minds of the community ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies and make them dependent on the government. During this time, the farmers could sell as much rice as they wanted to the KUD at a price determined by the government. There was no formal WUA established during this time. A worker (Waicabu) was chosen by the community and paid to manage the gates and control the intake. Farmers then managed the secondary and tertiary channels using traditional methods of water distribution. They used sticks with pieces of string tied round them. If the water was under the string, it meant your neighbor was taking too much. If it was over the string, it meant you were taking too much and could be subject to sanctions (supplying a buffalo for a feast) by the sub-district head or the village head, who had the power to enforce such sanctions and empowered the Waicabu to control the community's use of the water. More farmers plant in the April/May than the January/February period, although estimates vary. It was thought that only 100ha of the 300 were planted in January/February. Part of the reason for this is that half of the land is too muddy to plant in the wet season, while the other half is too dry to plant in the dry season. In general, 220 families plant in the April/May, and the other 205 families plant in Jan/March. Planting of one crop only per year per family has been the tradition as far as anyone could remember. Only those few families (10-15) with land in both areas could plant twice a year. One of the impediments to rice production was said to be labour shortages. Because the security situation in the villages was unstable, many young men in particular moved to the district town where they could achieve anonymity more easily. This reduced the labour available for rive cultivation. The post-conflict situation, September 1999 to February 2003 Land ownership did not change following independence, however despite an improved security situation, many people chose to remain in the district town. Their land can be used freely by other family members. In 1999 the intake was destroyed by flooding along with sections of the channel. It was not repaired until 2002, and as a result, was full of three years worth of sedimentation. Paddy was produced only in the wet season of 2001/2 on @50ha of land. Planting in the subsequent season was disrupted as irrigation rehabilitation under ARP started in May 2001 and finished in June 2002. As far as the farmers were concerned, this work was not beneficial, as it only included the BD1 - IV section, and did not include the BDIV - VII section, which was full of mud up to 2 meters deep. They considered the work involved in clearing it manually to be beyond their capacity. The WUA took the initiative to submit a proposal to GTZ (German bi-lateral program) for assistance to rent the excavator which is administered by the local pastor. (The excavator was intended to be handed over by the UN to the DAO, but because it was thought that they were not yet ready to manage it's use effectively, it was handed over to the Church who rents it out for a fee). The cost of 28 days excavation work was $5000. GTZ paid half this cost, and the farmers are expected to pay the rest following harvest. The excavation work was completed on January 24, 2003. The farmers are now preparing some of the land to plant this March/April. They only anticipate planting @70ha from what they estimate to be 380ha which could be irrigated. Following recent flooding, an estimated @ 100 of the 380ha has been covered in sand and mud and cannot be used to grow rice. The remaining 200 ha is considered too muddy to plant at this time of year. Section 2. Results of the discussion with the WUA Respondents The interview was due to coincide with a meeting of the WUA with MAFF to distribute maintenance equipment for the scheme. The meeting time and date had not been communicated to the WUA however and the distribution was postponed. The discussion went ahead but only the 5 members of the WUA board were present. The former village head and an aldeia head were also present. None of the respondents were women. ANNEX E Irngation Scheme Case Studies Results of the discussion Due to the fact that the scheme had only been completed in time for the 2002/3 planting season, the discussion focused on this and plans for the 2003 April May planting seasons. In the present Feb/Mar planting season, the WUA estimated that they would only plant @70ha. In the coming April/May 2003, they estimate only 280ha will be planted due to the sedimentation covering 1 00ha of paddy land. Factors which are supporting plans to plant include the assistance from GTZ with the excavator as well as assistance with seed and pesticide. GTZ will provide seeds for this and the April/May planting season. The farmers do not wish to use fertiliser, even if it is available, as they believe their land is fertile enough already. They have enough buffalo to prepare the land in both seasons, and there are @4 hand tractors available for those who can afford to use them. The factors which are hampering increasing the number of hectares planted were proritised by the WUA and the results are presented in the following table in order of priority: Problems affecting both January and May plantings Problem and score What can be done to address the problem Who should be responsible? Flooding (causes damage to 1. Make a retaining wall to divert the floodwaters from the MAFF intake and washes away January intake rce before harvest) 2. Try planting a rice variety that matures before the The WUA (7) floodwaters come Intake gets silted up (5) 1. Need an excavator (depending on the amount of 1. The farmers, through sediment) collecting money 2. The gate monitor needs to be reinstated 2. The WUA 3. Straighten the river with a bulidozer 3. 80% payment from NGO/MAFF The nver course shifts (5) Need an excavator to guide the water into the intake WUA board with conthbutions from members Traditional to plant rce only in Make a demonstration plot to demonstrate the benefits of WUA board with contributions April/May (3) a second planting in January (2004) from members (the head of the WUA wants to try on his own ______________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~land) The threat of pests (3) Need to make pesticides available again GTZ will provide initial assistance, after that it is up to the WUA Water disthbution is not yet even Need to make a roster of water use for each section of Farmers with the help of the (2) the scheme WUA board It is traditional to plant rice at this Need to make a roster for planting both rice and com Farmers who wish to plant rce time of year (1) and com, with the help of the WUA board Sections 1 - 3 of the scheme are 1. Re-route the small stream from section 2 back into the 1. Needs a substantial amount too muddy to plant in the wet rver of money season (0)' 2. Fix the leakages in the irhgation channel 2. Farmers, with financial assistance from an NGO *The problem of flooding in Sections 1 - 3 of the scheme, whilst receiving a low score, still need attention as this land could potentiall be planted in both the wet and the dry seasons The issue of flooding, which was in turn related to silting of the intake and shifting of the river course was clearly seen as the biggest impediment to utilising the irrigation system optimally. The coincidence of future damage to the system and a slow response could easily destroy farmer's faith in the governmenUcommunity joint responsibility embodied in the Operation and Maintenance guidelines. Neither price nor the capacity to sell was mentioned as a disincentive to plant. This will need to be closely monitored after the first few harvests to find out farmer's perceptions when they try to sell their first surpluses from this scheme since 1998. Clearly, the issue of flooding in both seasons is an issue in Sections BD1 - 3, as well as the hardness of the ground in Jan/Feb in sections BD5 - 7, with neither considered suitable to be planted twice. The farmers believe tractors could help overcome this problem as they can work harder land better than buffalo. The issue of pests creating a ANNEX E Irngation Scheme Case Studies disincentive to plant should be ameliorated by the availability of pesticides (and likely training in its effective use) provided by GTZ. The WUA is still in its infancy, and by it's own admission, was suffering a 'leadership crisis'. They do not feel they can force the community to plant rice, as has been the practice during both the Portuguese and the Indonesian eras, and their legitimacy as a controlling body is not yet accepted by the community. Comparison of Estimates from the feasibility study The feasibility study estimated that 335ha could be planted in both the wet and dry seasons, and that there could be a third planting of other crops on 140ha. Section 3 The WUA No formal WUAs were established under the Indonesian or Portuguese administrations. However farmers had traditional arrangements which were policed by the Waicabo, who was given authority by the Sub-district head and the village leader (see above section). The WUA in Baedubo (Borala) was established in March 2002, with 407 male members and 20 female members and a board of five office holders. Although women are active in planting, weeding and harvesting rice, they are rarely involved in irrigation activities. The board claimed that women were invited to the first meeting, however it transpired that only the household head (normally a man) was invited to represent each household. The 20 female members are therefore all widows, and according to the head of the WUA, they were 'forced' to accept them as they didn't have husbands to represent them. The board felt confident that the interests of women in the area of irrigation are well represented by their husbands. The WUA board are still in the process of forming the sub-groups according to the 7 sections of the irrigation scheme (which are able to be used). To date they have been active in developing the proposal for assistance from GTZ with the excavator, but little else. They have developed a concept for primary irrigation channel maintenance (cleaning) which allocates 5 meters of channel for every 2500m2 of land. Farmers would be responsible for cleaning their own section of secondary canal. They have not yet informed the farmers of this plan. They also have a plan to control the intake themselves. The biggest challenge the board faces is in encouraging the farmers to plant rice in the absence of force. They feel they have no authority over the farmers but have been given an enormous organisational responsibility. The maintenance of the system requires considerable person hours, and while they are willing to try to get farmers to clean minimal sedimentation manually, they are concerned that major sedimentation will again require the use of the excavator and they haven't yet paid for the most recent use. The board are worried that only a few motivated farmers will end up doing all of the work and this may prove to be a task beyond their capacity. The leader of the WUA is relatively young and believes he does not have the right or the authority to influence older farmers. Despite this conviction, he is prepared to try planting IR52 on his own land in January 2004 to demonstrate that this faster maturing rice might be harvested before flooding occurs in May to damage the crop. He is also keen to try planting legumes on the paddy land as a third crop by way of a demonstration to other farmers. He had experience of planting soy beans during a demonstration conducted by the Indonesians, and believes this could be successful too. Section 4 Knowledge of the ASCS None of the farmers interviewed had heard of the ASC. They knew that people had come with trucks to buy copra and candle nut, but they didn't know where they were from. They said they were paying 8cents per kilo for copra. After the function and services of the ASC were explained, the farmers felt that if the ASC could supply pesticide for them to buy this would be a useful service to replace the KUD. ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies ANNEX E Case Study, Uaibati Irrigation Scheme, Uatocarabau Subdistrict, Viqueque Section 1. Results of discussions with key informants Duarte Pinto, Elderly farmer and resident of Uaibati Lino Fernandes, owner of paddy land and resident of Uaibati Armindo Martins, Owner of paddy land Abilio da Crux, farmer History of the scheme pre 1999 Approximately 30ha of irrigated land was opened in 1950 under the authority of the Sub-district head (Adelino Tinoko) and the King (Afonso Fernandes). The irrigation system was traditional, with no permanent structures. About 55 farmers participated in this work over a three month period. This paddy was planted with one crop per year until the disturbance of the war in 1976 during which the farmers abandoned their land and fled to the hills. In 1979 they returned to their land and recommenced planting rice. They continued only to plant once a year until 2001. During this time the land under the scheme was expanded to 40ha. There are 52 families from two suco with ownership rights to the paddy in the Uaibati scheme. The majority come from Uani Umo and the remainder from Irabin Bawah. In Portuguese times the farmers lived in what is known as old Uatu Carbau which was about 16km from the paddy land. In Indonesian times, the military moved these farmers to what is known as new Uatu Carbao, which is much closer to the paddy land. In Portuguese times, land disputes often occurred, but these were normally settled by the community, although sometimes requiring the intervention of the administration. In Indonesian times, these disputes continued, and the Indonesian administration was not able to settle them as the community did not believe in their authority. Some of these disputes are as yet unresolved but are said to be minor. Planting trends 1979 - 2001 Fertiliser trials were conducted at the scheme by the Indonesians (TSP, Urea, KCL) for two years, but the results were not convincing, and much of the paddy died so farmers are no longer keen to use it to improve production. Pesticides were also trialed and farmers are happy to use them as the area is badly affected by pests. Farmers only plant rice in April/May (the wet season in the south). Whilst the total potential paddy area was between 34 - 50ha, the most that was ever cultivated in one season was 15 - 30ha depending on the amount of water available. Buffalo (renca) is most commonly used for land preparation, and some farmers rent tractors. Most of the rice produced was used for home consumption, with only a small amount being sold to the KUD at a price determined by the government. The main limiting factor to expanding the paddy was the limitation of the water source when the spring feeding the river dries up. Other factors included the scarcity of buffalo which had to be hired under a system of paying half the rice crop to the buffalo owners. Tractors were also prohibitively expensive and there were not enough of them to go round. The post-conflict situation, September 1999 to February 2003 Land ownership did not change following independence, with the same 52 families retaining ownership of the 34ha of paddy. Planting continued until 2001 depending on the amount of water available in the system. Some of the paddy was not irrigated and those farmers relied on rain to plant their crops. Rehabilitation of the scheme started on 14 January 2002 and finished in early June, however the gate for the intake was only supplied in March 2003. The intake was provided with a functioning gate and 436 meters of the canal were constructed/repaired. Farmers could not plant in the rainy season of 2002 (April/May) because the repairs were not finished in time. ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies Section 2. Results of the discussion with the WUA Respondents Approximately 10 members and representatives of the board were present during the discussions. The Uaibati scheme has two distinct sections which are controlled overall by the WUA Uaibati Furak. Two further branches have been established to represent the different sections:- WUA Loro-matan and WUA Haburas. In total there are 52 members, with only 3 of them women. The women are widows who do not have husbands or older male children to represent them. Results of the discussion Since Portuguese times rice has only been planted once a year in the rainy season (April/May). In the dry season, there has never been enough water to plant. Farmers hope to be able to plant twice now that the channel is in good condition, but this is dependent on the amount of rainfall and the presence of a 'normal' season (as opposed to the situation of drought they are facing now). Because the rains were late in coming, farmers have not been motivated to prepare the land for planting. Now that the rains have started, they plan to start land preparation in the next few weeks in time for an April/May planting. Factors which are supporting planting include: - most farmers have buffalo, and though some don't, they are able to rent them for payment of half their crop - there are three hand tractors which can be rented - there is paddy land and sufficient labour for planting. The factors which are hampering increasing the number of hectares planted were prioritised by the WUA and the results are presented in the following table in order of priority: Problems affecting both January and May plantings Problem and score What can be done to address the problem Who should be responsible? Not enough water 1. Make a roster for distnbuting water Farmers and WUA board (4) 2. Make an agreement with the farmers who use the water from the upstream intake Price of tractor rental is expensive Make an agreement with the NGO who rents the Farmers and WUA board (3) tractors to do so on a payment in kind (nce) basis Crops are affected by pests (2) 1. Contact an NGO to provide pesticide Farmers and WUA board 2. Make traditional pesticides themselves Not enough rice seeds available (1) 1. Save remainder of seeds for the coming Farmers and WUA board planting season 2. Make a proposal to the ASCs Not enough buffalo for ploughing Animals can be rented to other farmers Farmers (OY according to individual agreements *Although buffalo are most commonly used, the fact that they got a low score as a problem is an indicator of farmer's shifting preferences for tractors. Comparison of Estimates from the feasibility study The feasibility study estimated that 60ha could be planted in the wet and 50ha in the dry season. Section 3 The WUA No formal WUAs were established under the Indonesian or Portuguese administrations. However farmers organised themselves into two groups because there were often conflicts over water distribution (given that water is scarce in this scheme). They gave the authority for water distribution to the 'Waicabu', who was responsible for determining the roster and distributing the water. ANNEX E Irngation Scheme case Studies Because the scheme was small, there was never any assistance provided in keeping the channels clear by the Indonesian government. Because the water has not been available until recently (due to the drought) the WUA has not yet been active in developing a water roster. They feel that a WUA is a reasonable way to manage their water resources as long as it is within their capacity to do so. They estimate that most operation and maintenance tasks are within their capacity, however repairs to the gate and intake may not be in the future (depending on their severity). As this system is spring fed, it is particularly reliant on adequate rainfall. Planting in the scheme this wet season should be closely monitored to see whether the potential for 50ha in the wet season is realistic, and again in the dry season of 2003 to see whether any planting is possible. If so, a demonstration may be appropriate to encourage further uptake. Section 4 Knowledge of the ASCS The farmers interviewed had heard of the term "ASC" but didn't know what it was. After explanation, they felt it could be a possible source of pesticide provision. ANNEX E Irrgation Scheme Case Studies ANNEX E Case Study, Futudu II Community Scheme Irrigation Scheme, Ossu Subdistrict, Viqueque Section 1. Results of discussions with key informants and farmers Felipi Da Silva, former neighbourhood leader in Bua Nurak Virgilio Panao, former head of the farmers group Luis da Silva, Secretary of Bia Nurak village Manuel Afonso, Head of the hamlet Approximately 40 farmers participated in the discussions History of the scheme pre 1999 The Futudu scheme commenced in 1955 under the initiative of Dom Fransisco (King) and irrigated 24ha of land. This was later expanded to 52ha. Water for the scheme came from Loihuno and Builua springs which fed the Futudu river. Water was plentiful and the paddy was cultivated once a year up until the war in 1975 when farmers fled to the hills. Planting recommenced in 1980 up until 1985, when the Loihunu spring filled up with dirt and dried up. Builua spring was still functioning, but there was not enough water for all the paddy. The situation worsened in 1992 when the Indonesian government constructed a pipeline from Builua spring to Viqueque to provide clean water for the town's consumption. Since then, water in the river in the dry season is minimal, and in the wet season (April - May), they can only plant if the rains are sufficient to supplement the irrigation, and normally on only @24ha. 67 families from two villages have ownership rights to the land in Futudu: 42 families from Uabubo, and 25 from Loihuno. Most of the families live close to the paddy. There is an ongoing dispute over land ownership between siblings that until now has not been resolved, however it is considered an internal family matter and is not the responsibility of village authorities. There is no formal WUA managing the scheme, however farmers are organised informally and have a 'larmer contact" group, some members of which was sent to Java to study rice growing and fertiliser application in particular. Water distribution was done traditionally by agreeing the amounts according to need. Planting trends 1985 - 1999 In the rainy season, the potential that could be planted was 52ha, although actual planting usually only occurred on 26ha due to water shortage. Most farmers use buffalo to prepare the land. There was a tractor demonstration once but they have never been used regularly. The Indonesian army also demonstrated the use of ploughs. Farmers generally used their crop for home consumption because they did not grow enough to sell and there was no market for any surplus (no buyers coming to the village). The Indonesian introduced IR-64 to the farmers in the scheme. They felt it had good yields as long as you used modern inputs, but the yields were not as good using traditional methods. They have tried fertilisers like TSP, Urea and KCL and there was also once a demonstration of pesticide. Despite the demonstrations, fertiliser was not used regularly. The post-conflict situation, September 1999 to February 2003 Land ownership did not change following independence, with the same 67 families retaining ownership of the 52ha of paddy. Work commenced on the rehabilitation of the scheme on 28 October 2002 and was completed on 6 December. It involved repairing 315 meters of canal. Around this time however the large retaining wall built by the Indonesians to dam the water and guide it into the intake collapsed. This meant they have not able to use the irrigation system since it was rehabilitated. They tried to overcome the problem by building a new wall using large wire baskets and rocks (beronjong) but this to was knocked down in heavy rains. They do not know how they can overcome this problem, but want assistance to try and build a bigger, stronger wall. Failing this, they will try to construct a simple bamboo and leaf structure after the worst of the rains are over. ANNEX E Irrgation Scheme Case Studies Because of the situation, they do not hold high hopes for planting in this system in the near future, although this will depend on the intensity of the rain in the coming months. Due to water shortages outlined above, it is never possible to plant in the dry season. The situation of the collapse of the retaining wall has been reported to MAFF, however the cost of the work required are excessively high compared to repairs to other priority schemes, and may not be cost effective to go ahead with given the water situation and the likelihood that only one crop per year can be irrigated. Comparison of Estimates from the feasibility study The feasibility study estimated that the scheme comprised lOOha which potentially could be planted. Section 2 Knowledge of the ASCS The farmers interviewed at first said they had not heard of the ASC, and nor had anyone been to their village buying copra or candlenut. After the explanation, one person present said he had heard about it on the radio and could relate which ASC was buying which type of produce. ANNEX E Irrgation Scheme Case Studies ANNEX E Case Study, Bilimau Irrigation Scheme, Kailako Sub-District, Bobonaro Section 1. Results of the discussions with key informants: Alfredo, the DIO from Maliana Guilherme da Costa, resettled in Bilimo in 1982, and subsequently an ETADEP field worker until the mid 1990s. Giliman, executive director of ETADEP Norburto, site manager for the ETADEP base at Raimate History of the scheme Prior to 1982 there were relatively few hectares of irrigated land close to the Marobo River. In 1982 the Indonesian Military shifted 700 families to the area. These families had previously been imprisoned on Atauro island as political prisoners. The majority originated from the Districts of Viqueque, Los Palos and Baucau. They were mostly relatives of clandestine fighters living in the hillsides, or suspected anti-Indonesian activists. The paddy allocated to them was 'owned' by families from the 6 villages nearby who had ancestral connections to that particular land. It was largely 'sleeping land' at the time, unused for crop cultivation but likely used as grazing land. The 700 families were housed in housing estates made up of small houses built in rows, each with a small garden. Each family was issued with one hoe each by the Military, but were left to their own devices to borrow rice and other staple seeds from the local population. Every morning and night they had to report to the local village-based military representative (Hansip). Working in groups, they opened up the 250 - 350 hectares of land and extended the simple network of irrigation channels that make up the Bilimau system. 1982 - 1987 After the internal migrants were relocated to Bilimau, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the local NGO ETADEP started a program of assistance to introduce improved farming methods. This included the provision of 26 tractors to assist with land preparation, which was an appropriate response as the settlers had no buffalo or cows with which to prepare the land. The tractors were provided free of charge for the first year, after which farmers had to pay for fuel. A system was established which involved collection of money to maintain the tractors, however this was not sufficient to replace them when their condition worsened by 1987. During this time, ETADEP also provided training and equipment for ploughing. Approximately 60 pairs of buffalo were trained over 1984 - 86. Apparently they were used for two to three years, then people let the animals go and went back to the renca system. Although no formal evaluation was done, the reasons that ploughing was discontinued were that there was little, measurable improvement in yield compared to tractors or renca, and there is a scarcity of fodder to feed the buffalo all year round. Ploughing buffalo need to be kept in stalls and hand fed using a cut and carry system so they remain obedient. This represented too much work for families, even though ETADEP supplemented this activity with training and seedlings for accasia trees and king grass for supplemental fodder. Ploughing is apparently more suited to the southern rice growing areas where a second, significant rainfall results in greater availability of fodder. In 1986, all the political prisoners were set free, and with few exceptions, all returned home. The paddy land was redistributed to the original owners, and in the order of 700-800 families were issued with certificates. As stated previously, these families came from five neighbouring villages outside Purugua suco (where the paddy is situated) - including one which is situated in a neighbouring sub-district (Atabai). Some of those owning paddy land therefore live far from the actual location, in some cases several kilometres away. It is estimated that between 250 - 400 of these are farming this land now. Others are still in refugee camps in West Timor, or have moved to Maliana, Dili or ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies elsewhere (although this has not been confirmed). If other families want to use their land, they can do so by informing the traditional leaders, on the understanding that it will be given back to the owner should they return. Planting trends (1982-87) During this time, @250 - 350 ha were planted in rice every wet season. No fertiliser or pesticide was used. Farmers believe the sedimentation carried by the churned-up river in the wet season provides enough fertiliser. In the dry season, only around 50 - 70 ha were planted, and these were on the area closest to the river. The simple irrigation system did not allow all 350 to be irrigated. They prepared the land using tractors rather than animals. Some corn was also planted in the paddy area, but not by the majority. 1987 - 1999 In 1987, ETADEP sold all the tractors because they considered the maintenance was becoming too expensive. They purchased 4 more large tractors and 1 hand tractor, and this is still the current size of their fleet. In order to supplement the traction requirements, ETADEP distributed @ 300 buffalo and 300 cows (these figures were disputed, it may have only been 100). They were provided on a revolving basis (distributing offspring to other families), although many families did not necessarily breed their cows or give up the calf as required. Apparently, there was enough animals available to plant most of the 250 - 350ha during the wet season, but in the dry season, only the 50 - 70 ha near the river were planted. Whilst there was not enough water to irrigate the whole area, more than 70 ha could be irrigated (approximately 100 - 150ha). Reasons for not planting a second crop on the @ 30-70 additional ha were that: a) The cattle / buffalo cannot be used in the dry season to prepare land because their body weight falls in the dry period due to lack of fodder. This is exacerbated by the practice of burning off the forest before the rain to make hunting wild pigs and deer easier. There was only enough tractors to plant 50 - 70 ha of paddy b) Many families felt their subsistence needs were met (by other staple crops such as corn and cassava) and are not interested in investing the extra effort required for a second crop. This is particularly true for the families living a long way from the paddy land (for reasons explained in point c and d below). The price paid for paddy under the Indonesian regime was also not attractive enough to warrant this extra work. c) The combined impact of the dry season and the practice of burning off the hillsides forces cattle/buffalo onto the paddy in search of feed, which means crops have to be constantly tended. Although there is a system of sanctions for crop damage, people would rather have their animals killed and eaten or pay the fine, rather than lock them up and provide them with scarce fodder every day. The fact that only the minority plant rice means that the majority are indifferent to their livestock's grazing habits, and the community do not protect the paddy as a whole. d) Because of the smaller crop area, there are a greater number of birds which descend on the ripening rice. This also requires daily vigilance to reduce crop loss. While people are keen to do this once a year as a community, they are not keen to invest this much time for a second year crop. e) There is a belief that under a low/no input system of rice growing, rice production is only satisfactory in the rainy season because the river is churned up and full of silt. The silt content is what fertilizes the crop. Farmers are reluctant to invest in chemical fertiliser in the dry season because they feel they would have to use it in the wet season as well. (Whether this was also connected to the low market price for rice was not confirmed). On the whole, during this period rice production was steady. One of the supporting factors (confirmed by the WUA) was the presence of a strong sub-district head, and an active irrigation extension officer. There was also an excavator/bulldozer which could be used to de-silt the intake as required. The irrigation extension officer helped to coordinate their needs. That particular sub-district head has since passed away and his loss is felt by the rice- growing community. ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies The post conflict period, September 1999 to February 2003 Rice planting was disrupted directly after the violence, and has continued to be hampered, among other reasons, because of the electoral process and three seasons of below average rainfall (actual rainfall was not confirmed). In addition, an unconfirmed number of cattle and buffalo were destroyed by the departing Indonesian military, and many have not been recovered from the hills. In 2001, only 16 - 20 ha were planted in the dry season with disappointing yields. In the wet season of 2001/02, there was limited planting because construction/rehabilitation of the intake was underway. This was completed around June 2002 in time for the dry season planting. Only 8 families planted at this time. According to ETADEP, Morobo river's current in the wet season becomes extremely strong as it winds down around the mountain. The retaining wall of bamboo, leaves and stones which guides the river into the intake gets washed away easily. In Indonesian times, an attempt was made to construct a more permanent structure using large wire baskets filled with stones (beronjong). This too got quickly washed away. For this reason, the wet season planting is done later than usual by the majority, when the current is less damaging. In the dry season, the river changes course completely, and the guiding wall needs to be extended by @500 meters to meet the river. The community felt that the contractors undertaking the reconstruction work should also build a permanent guiding wall which they would not have to reconstruct each planting season. However this was not part of the design of the scheme, and was considered too expensive (and not economically viable). The refusal of the contractor to comply with the community's wishes caused conflict. When the scheme was handed over, publicly, the community accepted it, but privately, they rejected it. According to the current ETADEP field staff (based in Raimate), the subsequent refusal to plant in the dry season of 2002 stems from this unmet expectation. ETADEP believe the community are still hopeful that the World Bank (work on the scheme is associated with the World Bank) will build the required permanent structure. Section 2. Results of the discussion with WUA members Respondents There were approximately 26 male and 2 female members of the WUA representing five suco. Only 16 of those present had land that could be irrigated in the dry season. The head of the WUA was in Dili at the time of the discussion. At least one Chefe do Suco was present and 3 Chefe do Aldeia. Results of the discussion (Most of the history of the scheme and the conflict surrounding the non-construction of a permanent intake structure was not known at the time of the interview. Interestingly, it was not raised by the community - nor was the fact that local youths had deliberately damaged the intake as they were not employed by the contractor. The damage was subsequently fixed by the community). During Indonesian times, there was no formal WUA formed, but people collaborated to operate the scheme with the help of the sub-district authorities. A WUA was established in 2002. Respondents were vague about the exact month, but thought it may have been April. Initial training was provided. So far, the group has established sub-groups and started to clean the irrigation ditches. The WUA leader has prepared a cropping calendar, but as far as the members were aware, it has not been written down. Because the group has only been established for a short while, they don't feel they can really discuss progress, as they have not attempted water distribution yet. However they do not foresee any problems with water distribution. They felt that a WUA is the best way for them to manage their water resources, and mentioned that before the sub-district head did it for them, but now, with the WUA, they could do it themselves (this point was made by the village head.) Last dry season (August 2002) The last time the paddy was used optimally was in 1998. Small areas have been planted near the river since 1999, the largest was 27ha in the 2001 wet season with assistance from ETADEP. The following discussion focused on the ANNEX E Irrgation Scheme Case Studies past dry season rather than the current wet season. The respondents were those present with paddy that could be planted twice. Only 16 (2 women) of those present indicated they owned some of the 50 - 70 ha that was routinely planted twice). These people agreed that planting a second crop in the dry season was a situation they desired. The factors identified as hampering dry season planting (and to some extent wet season planting) were as follows: - "Free-ranging cattle and buffalo will enter the planted paddy. In Indonesian times, they were kept far from the paddy. One alternative is to tie up all the animals for a year until a fence has been constructed to keep them out of the paddy. - Not enough tractors. Before there were 26, now there are only five - and two of these are not working. "People always come from the District and tell us to plant more, but how can we if there aren't enough tractors?" - Price of tractors too high (including fuel costs). If there were more tractors, hiring them would be cheaper. - The condition of cattle and buffalo in the dry season is poor, so they cannot be used for renca - Water is not going into the irrigation channel, but there is enough in the river - Seeds are old, (and many have been eaten in the dry season because of the drought). Need more and better seed to plant". The factors identified as supporting dry season planting were as follows: - 'We can overcome the animal problems ourselves - There is enough water now to irrigate in the dry season - There are five tractors available in the area - There is credit available for farming inputs from ETADEP and World Vision - There is credit available from the new bank in Maliana. Every farmer can borrow between $100 -300 and can use this money to rent tractors from ETADEP". The group ranked the problems in order of priority as follows: Equal 1st: Free ranging livestock, Not enough tractors, Not enough/low quality seed available (3) Second: Fuel costs/tractor rental expensive (1) Third: Cattle and Buffalo not able to work in dry season (0) (After the introduction of tractors, many farmers are less interested in using buffalo and cattle for land preparation and see tractors as the solution). The price (of rice) was not mentioned as a constraining factor. While people felt the price was low, they said they would sell at that price if they needed money, otherwise the second crop would meet their consumption needs not met by the initial crop. Current wet season The community had just started to clean the irrigation ditches in Late January. The group felt that they could overcome the problem of reconstructing the entrance to the intake themselves. They did not mention that the excavator was still available for lease from ETADEP, and as of early February, have not requested to use it. Nor have they requested the tractors be ready for them in April (the excavator is still based in Raimate). ETADEP currently rents 4 tractors at @$40 per ha to farmers in the area (two are currently not operational), but they believe there is only enough tractor power and surviving draft animals to prepare @ 100 ha only in the Bilimau system, so this may be all that is planted this wet season. They are not concerned about the lateness of planting, as they consider it normal that the cleaning of irrigation ditches would only occur in January in preparation for an April planting. Indeed, they routinely use their tractors in other areas from Jan-Mar until the river has dropped sufficiently in Bilimau. ETADEP also have a credit scheme for the purchase of hand tractors. These are sold to groups at a cost of $2100, delivered to the village ready to use (including fuel). Groups have five planting season to pay them back. So far, they have sold 15 units in the area - two in Blimau. None of the groups have paid them back in the required time, so the ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies loan period had to be extended. It is expected that all repayments will be made as the yield improves. Another 10 units have been requested, and ETADEP are having trouble meeting demand. Comparison of Estimates from the Feasibility Study The feasibility study estimated that 350 hectares could be irrigated in both the wet and dry seasons. Follow up action! recommended further study It is possible that the farmers are having problems adjusting to the post-conflict situation and will need more time and support for the WUAs before they can organise their planting for themselves. A follow-up study should be carried out in May to estimate the total area cropped this wet season. If it is less than the total area, the constraints will need to be assessed at that time. This may give a good indication of the availability of cattle/buffalo for land preparation. The 2003 dry season planting should then be measured against this as the benchmark for productivity increase providing the 2003 wet season crop is harvested in time for a dry season planting. Section 3 Knowledge of the ASCs The group had heard of the ASC in Maliana but did not know any members. They had not had any dealings with the ASC or used their services. They hoped the ASC would buy their rice when they start to produce a surplus. ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies ANNEX E Case Study, Halicou Irrigation Scheme, Cailako Subdistrict, Bobonaro Section 1. Results of discussions with key informants Lucio Dinis Marques, rice farmer in the Halicou scheme since 1979 Domingos Barros, former member of the Indonesian Armed Forces and current head of the WUA Bernado, local transmigrant who was relocated by the TNI to Halicou in 1984 History of the scheme pre 1999 In 1963, the Portuguese sub-district Administrator organised farmers from Ai-Asa, Hauba, Bobonaro and Ritabou sucos to open up an irrigation system in Ritabou suco. Hundreds of families were involved, and using traditional irrigation systems (earthen canals), they opened up approximately 145 hectares of paddy. In 1965, the farmers from Ai-Asa and Bobonaro suco were forced to return to their own suco because the irrigation system was not successful and they could not grow rice there. However some farmers remained there. In 1975 when the Indonesian army invaded and farmers fled to the hills and did not return to plant rice until around 1989. Only around 45-50 hectares were planted in rice in the wet season by approximately 46 families who had been resettled in the area as local transmigrants suspected by the Indonesian Military of anti-Indonesian activity. In 1995, the governor of Maliana, Joao Tavars visited Halicou with the agricultural and land departments to redistribute land to local farmers who still lived around the Halicou area. These farmers were given 1 hectare per family with ownership rights for around 30 years (although these were not recognised with a formal certificate). Planting trends 1989 - 1999 Farmers were provided with improved rice seed (IR 32 and 64) as well as pesticide, and they were provided with a tractor from the agricultural department to assist with land preparation. Between 1991 - 1999 there were three hand tractors available which came from Maliana. Farmers were able to rent these by paying part of their harvest to the owners. In 1992-93 the agricultural department (the extension officer from Maliana) made a demonstration plot to demonstrate the use of modern inputs. The demonstration had reasonable results. Farmers were provided with assistance in the form of chemical fertiliser, but they rejected this because they believed their land was already very fertile and did not require fertiliser. Farmers on this scheme in general do not use chemical or organic fertiliser. They used the produce from the rice to meet their own consumption needs and only sold a small portion to relatives from Maliana, Hauba and other areas close by. They rarely sold to the KUD. During this time, there was no formal WUA formed, but farmers relied on traditional methods of water distribution. There was a farmer especially chosen to ensure all areas were irrigated. Every location (branch) of the scheme had a leader who was responsible for distributing water on their part of the scheme. The post-conflict situation, September 1999 to February 2003 There are currently 62 families who have ownership rights to the paddy in Halicou. Of these, 26 are believed to still be in West Timor in refugee camps, and 7 have moved to Zumalai, 12 to Hauba and 6 to Dili seeking business opportunities. Apart from the refugees, those living away from the scheme are expected to return to plant at least one crop in the wet season. In addition to these, farmers from the sub-district Atabai currently have user rights to the land unused by the refugees. They are not required to pay a portion of the harvest to use this land, but are expected to return it to the owners if and when they return. There are no problems with this system as long as the proper authorities have been notified. The irrigation works began in January 2002 and were completed in June 2002. The only paddy that was utilised since 1999 was 5 hectares which were planted in corn in June/July 2002. Farmer estimates of how much land can be irrigated since the rehabilitation works were very sketchy, with some estimating that up to 450 hectares could be irrigated, though not all this land was cleared yet to enable planting (some being covered in trees). Until now ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies (February 2003) none of this land had been planted because farmers were still constructing secondary canals to join up to the new intake (which had been repositioned) and since January, they had completed 2000 meters. Most of the sedimentation in the primary canal has also been cleared away. The farmers planned to plant 444 hectares in the dry season with assistance from 10 hand tractors from Ainaro and 1 large tractor from a local business which they hoped to rent by paying in harvested paddy. (NB this was a hypothetical estimation assuming the water in the system would be sufficient. It is contradicted below by the estimates of the WUA members). Section 2. Results of the discussion with the WUA Respondents Approximately 26 members and representatives of the WUA board were present during the discussions. Only two of those present were women. Results of the discussion The total amount of paddy the group thought they could plant this wet season (delayed due to the drought) was 100 - 250 hectares - providing the large tractor in the area did not break down and stay out of action for a prolonged period. In addition, it was generally believed that the intake was not well located and would be subjected to unacceptable levels of erosion and sedimentation, especially if there are heavy rains in the weeks to come. Factors which are supporting planting include: - there is an irrigation system with sufficient water - there are tractors available as well as cows and buffalo - there is a farmer's group / WUA. The factors which are hampering increasing the number of hectares planted were prioritised by the WUA and the results are presented in the following table in order of priority: Problems affecting both January and May plantings Problem and score What can be done to address the problem Who should be responsible? The intake is threatened by erosion Make a permanent wall (beronjong) to protect the MAFF (9) intake The river tnbutary fills with 1. Provide drainage to restrain the flooding in the river MAFF sedimentation (8) tributary so it does not ruin the irrigation canal 2. Widen the river The intake gate is not functioning (6) 1. Clean the existing sedimentation so it does not Farmers and WUA board damage the intake gate No money / credit (to rent tractors) (6) ? Farmers themselves depending on their harvest Not yet any secondary canals (4) Make them ourselves so that all available land can be Farmers and MAFF irrigated Not enough rice seeds (4) Try to find good quality seed in Maliana. Ask for Farmers information from crops in Maliana as well as the ASC Not enough pesticide (4) Look for assistance in provision of pesticide MAFF Too much sedimentation (2) Clean the sedimentation Farmers and MAFF The interview team inspected the irrigation system. The following are their observations of the situation in Halicou: 1. The threat of erosion hampering irrigation effort is high - especially near the intake. However most of the sedimentation can be cleared by the WUA as long as their coordination is effective. 2. The intake gate location was not in accordance with the farmer's wishes and they are concerned it will be affected by landslides. They have already prepared a beronjong, but it was swept away by the river following heavy rains. ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies 3. The tributary river is too narrow and following heavy rains, dumps mud and stones into the irrigation canal. The course of the river is already threatened by the left hand foot of the mountain which will cause a landslide in heavy rains. 4. Farmers complained that the contractor did not listen to their advice about placement of the intake so that the threat of erosion is now unacceptable high. The farmers felt they knew best about the behaviour of the river and the climate. They also complained that the irrigation works required a lot of funding compared to the works done on the Nunura bridge in Indonesian times. They had expected the contractors to cement 500 meters of canal with the available funds, but the contractors said earthen banks were sufficient and this was consistent with their contract. Comparison of Estimates from the feasibility study The feasibility study estimated that 345ha could be planted in the wet and dry season. Section 3 The WUA No formal WUAs were established under the Indonesian or Portuguese administrations. However farmers distributed the water according to a traditional system of appointing a Waicabo (see above). The section on questions about the WUA was not completed by the interviewers as heavy rain had started to fall and they had to get back to the main road before flooding occurred and they were stranded in the suco. The interviewers observed however that there appeared to be problems within the WUA, including a lack of experience in managing a group and distributing water, so that they needed more time to trial their management system. The WUA consultants will need to monitor this group closely to ensure that with the itinerant nature of the rice growing population, WUA functions and responsibilities are carried out. The current planting season should be monitored as an indicator of their capacity to manage the scheme and the WUA consultants should provided appropriate support in the subsequent season. Section 4 Knowledge of the ASCS The farmers interviewed had heard of the term "ASC" but didn't know what it was. None of the group were members and they had not used the services of the ASC since it was established. After explanation, they felt that the ASC could assist them by providing improved rice seed varieties. ANNEX E Irrigation Scheme Case Studies ANNEX E Results of limited discussions with members of the Naktua, Tono and Oemathitu irrigation schemes, Oecussi District Respondents A group meeting was held with representatives and board members of the three WUAs. Approximately 50 farmers were present, and six of these were women. The results of the discussion are presented in the table in Annex F. The following comments relate to the discussion on the group's experience to date with the WUAs. Results of discussions on the WUAs There were no formal WUAs here in Indonesian times, however a person was appointed to distribute water (on a voluntary basis). They were selected following community discussions. This system did not function very well as some farmers missed out on water. There were no sanctions in place for taking too much water. Since our WUAs were founded (in September 2002) they have not really done anything yet. We received the tools for maintenance works, but we have not had any office built in which to store them, so they are kept at individual farmer's houses. We have had training in water allocation, but have not tried it yet because the rains were late this year and rehabilitation of our systems were only finished in January. It is better if the whole community manages their water resources. Before there was only one person appointed, now there are many people involved (through the WUA) and we can share the responsibility. We do not foresee any problem motivating farmers to clean and maintain the irrigation canals. We have always done it ourselves. However there is a problem with maintaining the intake. We can't do it ourselves. We have to use an excavator. At the moment, we use the one from Korea (the Korean Peace Keeping Force). We have to gather money to use it, but it is expensive now. Sometimes we clear out the canals, and then they flood again and have to be excavated a second time. It costs us more than our harvest is worth. The main problem we are facing as a group is that our members live a long way away and it is difficult for us to get information to them about meetings etc. Also, if we are required to provide reports or information to the DIO, it is a long way to the district town and transportation is difficult. Women are involved in all aspects of rice production. Men tend to be more involved in the heavier work associated with maintaining the irrigation canals. Women are represented by their husbands in the WUAs. As they are active in all aspects of rice production, it is possible that more should be members of the WUAs and attend the meetings. Main constraint to production The three schemes have been planting here since 1999. The land was not all planted in the 2000 season because many tractors, cows and buffalo were stolen and taken to West Timor. Before the irrigation works started, we were planting all the available land. Our main production problem now is the cost of inputs such as fertiliser. The price has increased to a level where we can no longer afford it. Tractor hire is also expensive. We want the DIO to provide the two tractors they have at a price which is below that of the private owners. We use buffalo to supplement tractor use, and for those with small landholdings, they use hoes if there is no other option. We have heard about the ASC in Malaina. We want them to bring their trucks here after harvest time to but our rice. At the moment, we just use it to exchange for other goods. We also want the ASC to provide us with affordable, good quality fertiliser which we would pay for after harvest. At the moment, we don't have the money to buy it. ANNEX E Irrgation Scheme Case Studies ANNEX F TABLE OF IRRIGATION SCHEME POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL UTILISATION Name of scheme Halicou Bilimau Baedubu Uaibati Naktuka Tono Oemathitu No of households 62 239-400 450 52 223 324 244 Rehabilitation works June 2002 June 2002 Sept 2002 June 2002 Dec 2002 Jan 2003 Jan 2003 completed: No of ha irrigated post rehabilitation according to feasibility study: Wet season 345 hectares 350 335 60 170 260 170 Dry season 345 350 335 50 120 260 80 Third season - 140 . No of ha irrigated according to farmers Wet season 450 228 - 300 380 0 145 Did not know ha Did not know ha Tetumnanu Anak Oemolo Naik Oemolo Anak Dry season 444 70 (need to construct 380 (May/June is their 50 (depending on 45 All except Tono Tetumnanu Naik secondary channels) major cropping/wet water availability) Petun depending on Oemolo Anak season) water availability (depending on water availability) Traditionally planted Yes, but don't know Yes, but only on No. Planting is done No Yes, but only on 45ha Yes, but according to No, planting is done two crops per year? how many hectares @50-70ha in both seasons but water availability in both seasons but not on the same land generally not on the same land No of ha planted post rehabilitation Dry season 2002 5ha com 8 families planted 50 0 45 All available All available Wet season 2002V03 0* as of Feb 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planned planting Wet season 2002/03 100 - 250 as long as Just started cleaning 70 (GTZ assisted in 0 145 (just started to All (just started to All (ust started to the big tractor does irrigation channels. hinng excavator to prepare land because prepare land prepare land not break down Plan to plant all (but clear sediment from rains late) because rains late) because rains late) maybe only enough rest of prmary tractors/buffalo for channel at beginning 1 00ha) February) Dry season 2003 444 (but maybe only 70 (unless secondary 280 34 45 All available All available capacity to plant 100 channels are ha) completed ANNEX F Summary Table of Irrigation Scheme Case Studies Reason for delay Farmers had to The farmers were not None of this land is While the According to famners, Land preparation There appears to be construct secondary happy with the ever cropped twice - rehabilitation works there is only enough was delayed awaiting some confusion over canals and are still irrigation works rather 220 families were finished in June, water to irrgate 45ha the completion of the how many ha can be clearing sediment completed and plant in May/June and the intake gate has in the dry season. rehabilitation works. irrigated in the dry from the primary refused to plant in the 205 in Jan/Mar on only just been fixed It is not clear whether season. The areas canal. They expect 2002 dry season. different areas of the (eardy March). a dry season crop irigated from a to be finished in time Planting has started scheme. @200ha are This system is spring will be viable as the single source were to start land late for those who too muddy to cultivate fed and because of wet season harvest rotated according to preparation in March. can crop twice in Jan/Mar and the drought, there will be delayed. the direction of the Only 62 households (70ha), but is on time farmers fear the crops was not enough There is not enough king. Now farmers have rights to this according to those will be destroyed by water for a Jan/Mar water in the dry are free to change land, and 26 of these who can't. The flooding in May before planting. They have season for the Tono the rotation, they fear are still in West sediment has mostly the harvest. Another started preparing the Petun area to be there will not be Timor, leaving a been cleared away, 100 ha are covered in land since the rains irrigated. enough water to go relatively small labour and they will be ready sediment following the have started. round in either force for the total to start planting in previous floods and season for all the paddy area. March. cannot be cultivated. areas, and have not Intake is problematic The rest of the silted yet tried to irrgate because of erosion/ Availability of tractors up canal has only just the whole area at sedimentation threat a major concem been cleared with once. assistance from GTZ. 3 most important - Threat of floods - Not enough tractors - Flooding (damages - Not enough water to N/A (but informally N/A (but informally N/A (but informally factors hampering damaging intake - Not enough rice intake and crops) till the land mentioned tractor, mentioned tractor, mentioned tractor, rice production - River tributary fills seed/quality poor - Intake fills with - Tractor hire is fertiliser and pesticide fertiliser and fertiliser and with sedimentation - Free ranging sedimentation expensive costs as major pesticide costs as pesticide costs as - Construction of the animals enter paddy -The river course - Pest infestation (no constraining factors) major constraining major constraining intake unsatisfactory (in dry season) shifts pesticide available) factors) factors) Use of inputs pre- No fertiliser used No fertiliser used No fertiliser used. No fertiliser used. Both fertiliser and Both fertiliser and Both fertiliser and 1999 Used tractors mostly Used tractors mostly Pesticide used. Pesticide used. pesticide used by pesticide used by pesticide used by and some buffalo and some buffalo Used buffalo mostly Used buffalo mostly majority. majority. majority. and limited tractors. and limited tractors Used tractors mostly Used tractors mostly Used tractors mostly and some buffalo. and some buffalo. and some buffalo. Not interested in Not interested in Cannot access Cannot access Hoes used on smaller Hoes used on Hoes used on using fertiliser - using fertiliser - pesticide now pesticide now areas. smaller areas. smaller areas. believe the land is believe the land is sufficiently fertile sufficiently fertile Not interested in Not interested in Fertiliser and Fertiliser and Fertiliser and using fertiliser - using fertiliser - pesticide from West pesticide from West pesticide from West believe the land is believe the land is Timor now too Timor now too Timor now too sufficiently fertile sufficiently fertile expensive expensive expensive Marketing of Sell to local Mostly for Sold as much surplus Mostly for home Sold surplus to Sold surplus to Sold surplus to surplus: marketrelatives from consumption as they had to KUD consumption but any market in market in market in Indonesian times Maliana surplus sold to KUD Kefamenanu, NTT Kefamenanu, NTT Kefamenanu, NTT Post 1999 Maybe sell to ASC Maybe sell to ASC Don't know Don't know Hope Maliana ASC Hope Maliana Hope Maliana can buy surplus ASC can buy ASC can buy _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __surplus surplus ANNEX F Summary Table of Irrigation Scheme Case Studies Annex xx Main Results of the Social Appraisal East Timor: Third Agricultural Rehabilitation Project 1. Introduction The Social Appraisal (SA) took place in February 2003 immediately following the Mid Term Review (MTR) of ARP II. During the MTR, many recommendations for action were made based on a self-evaluation of the quality of impact of activities on the farming community. These recommendations will be implemented between February - December, and beyond this in selected components extended into ARP l1l. Outcomes will need to be reviewed at the end of Phase II to further incorporate lessons learnt into ARP l1l. This SA complements the social assessment study for ARP II, seeking to gain first-hand insights from the farmers themselves concerning their relationship to agricultural services provided. The main theme of the SA was to examine, in the context of existing ARP II components, how best MAFF can identify and then meet the needs of the farming community, while at the same time contributing to creating a culture of empowerment in which demands for services are articulated by farmers. The methodology included a number of qualitative tools, including focus group discussions with a sample of groups from a mixture of upland, coastal and lowland suco from the north and south (269 men and 125 women), development of detailed case studies of light to medium damaged irrigation schemes rehabilitated under ARP I and 11, and interviews with key service providers. This Annex summarises the results of the SA, and the complete report can be found in the project files (see Annex xx) 2. Key Findings The most appropriate village-based institutions which ARP Ill should focus on The results of the SA support the current ARP II approach to flexibility in established suco-based groups for NRM activity planning and implementation - assessing requirements for groupings on a suco by suco basis, incorporating strong, traditional leadership support only where it is found to exist, while assisting new community groups to increase self-reliance through increased decision making and funds management. Where Implementation Teams had been established in pilot suco, the community were largely content with their performance and nominated them as the most effective grouping to channel new agricultural activities and funds through. Non-pilot communities with no experience of managing external existence (except for CEP) were wary of the involvement of the Conselho do Suco as a possible organization to plan and implement agricultural activities. This seemed to largely be attributed to the fact that they are perceived to be integrally connected to CEP and do not have a broader role in the community. Rather the non-pilot groups identified the Chefe do Suco and the Chefe do Aldeia as the most trusted mechanism for receiving/administering grant funds. How far this burden should fall to them however needs to be assessed in light of their existing administrative roles and the desirability of establishing broad-based community groups responsible for their own democratic decision-making. The Conselho do Katuas / Traditional leaders were also mention as being important to decision making. Normally very active in making decisions surrounding land tenure, traditional law and natural resource management ceremonies etc, they tend not to concern themselves with 'development' or modern governance issues, although they should be involved an advisory role to ensure their support for activities. ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 A robust tradition of collective action in formally established, non-clan based 'farmers' groups appears to be absent from Timorese farming communities and is perhaps a reflection of low input farming and the relatively recent entry of most communities into the money economy. Where groups did or do exist, they tend to be dependent on external support to provide them with a reason to identify as a group. This is supported by the fact that the majority of the non-pilot suco thought that developing a new group to discuss and implement a hypothetical new agricultural development and manage subsequent funding would be most appropriate, and this is consistent with the ARP 11 approach. More importantly, the Office of Administration and Local Government and Development (OALGD) is undertaking a three month study of local governance issues and will make recommendations regarding an appropriate structure and institutions from suco to District level. The suco structure that eventuates will need to be acknowledged and examined by MAFF to determine whether ARP Ill NRM activities should be planned and implemented by the new suco institutions. If they are thought to be appropriate, it will be important that parallel structures are not established in competition, and that MAFF assists in overall capacity building of the newly emerging suco structures. MAFF, in it's important role on the Technical and Political Committees (during the drafting of the Autonomy Law) should consider the need for suco level representation to assist in implementation of their broader programs, and their capacity building and support should be a priority under ARP 111. However if the new suco structures are not sufficiently well defined to be utilised as a vehicle for implementing ARP Ill NRM activities, the existing method of establishing new groups trialed under ARP 11 appears to be appropriate. The identification of new groups and their members should be done in close collaboration with the Chefe do Suco, Aldeia and Traditional Leaders. This should be done in a flexible manner across suco, taking into account the existence and success of any farmer or other community groupings that may form the basis for new NRM groups. What will be important is that all interested community members are provided with quality information about the scope of the ARP NRM activities, and are able to self-nominate if they are interested in participating. Suco government and traditional leaders should be encouraged to motivate the poorest to become active members to minimise elite capture, rather than nominate the most progressive/active farmers only (as may have been the case in ARP 11). The establishment of equal quotas of men's, women's and mixed groups should be a priority for ARP III to ensure women are given the chance to participate fully in these activities. This is likely to be well supported by the community and has been demonstrated in ARP 11 and AETRDP Phase I as an effective way to increase women's direct participation. The difficulty of sustaining purpose-specific groups will be common to any institution in which the NRM activity is located, i.e. they may only be sustained as long as the activity is funded. ARP Ill should encourage groups to develop mechanisms for generating and collecting revenue from existing seed fund activities (tree crops and fisheries) as a way of promoting continued funding and implementation of new NRM activities. Plans for the maximum distribution of any profits/benefits arising from funded activities to the entire suco population should be included as a pre-requisite for receiving funding to ensure benefits are maximised. The Autonomy Law will also likely address the issue of funds disbursement mechanisms, and ARP Ill should consider these in developing a new grant agreement. Communities appear to embrace the idea of the right to information, while the holders of money are keen to avoid suspicion of misappropriation. In the interests of promoting self reliance, communities should be encouraged to develop their own plans for ensuring transparency, following the broad principles developed under ARP 11. These should be endorsed by group members as a prerequisite to receiving funding. Whilst some form of public display is likely to remain appropriate, it will only serve it's intended function if communities are assisted in developing more user-friendly formats for disposable public display, and this should be addressed in the remainder of ARP 11 ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 2 and ARP 111. What is preferable however is that regular community meetings are held at which this information is presented verbally for discussion and comment to all interested parties. Best options for creating demand for services and effective service delivery. The mostly keenly felt loss since independence was the services of the extension officers (PPLs). Their most valued contributions to farmers were the introduction of new varieties to the suco and the establishment of demonstration plots to introduce new technologies. There is a feeling that 'modern' farming practices are the answer to production problems, as well as inputs such as improved seed, fertiliser and pesticides, however farmers feel they have decreased access to these, as well as their face-to-face delivery. In the absence of an effective and broad-based extension services, trained facilitators represent one of the best ways to assist in creating farmer demand for services as well as bridging the communication gap between the community and the DAO technical staff. It is extremely critical however that they receive appropriate training and support to undertake their roles. Attempts to train MAFF staff in participatory methodologies have largely been unsuccessful as they see their role as technical specialists and do not have the time for extended participatory planning sessions. A desirable outcome from implementation of ARP Ill would be to have the DAOs expand their permanent staffing levels to include ARP 11 facilitators who would be permanently employed to create a community/technical staff interface. They could expand the number of suco undertaking NRM activities supported by MAFF beyond ARP 111, as well as assist in creating demand for other services provided through the district offices. If this is not within MAFF's means, an alternative is to utilise the resources available at the sub-district level to increase MAFF'S capacity for outreach. The OALGD is in the process of recruiting 60 Community Development Officers to be based at the sub-district level. Their role is to stimulate development at the suco level, and they will be provided with training to this end. As the vast majority will be based in rural areas, their role of facilitating agricultural planning could be maximised by MAFF through provision of supplementary training in NRM participatory planning and management of activities. A pilot training program to equip the Community Development Officers with the required skills could then become part of ARP 111. The sub-district officers and the District Development Offices should also be part of this process in recognition of the important role of agriculture to the East Timorese economy. Many local NGOs are now being supported by international NGOs such as Oxfam and Catholic Relief Services, and organizations such as CARITAS are actively trying to establish stable, local NGOs through an intensive process of capacity building. The extent to which effective NGOs are represented at the District level should be assessed under ARP Ill and contracts for facilitation services considered on a per-district basis (as an alternative to direct hiring of facilitators), with DAO staff providing technical inputs as required. The form of the NGO contracts would need to be carefully negotiated to ensure that MAFF was satisfied with the intended outcome, and that the NGOs were able to provide these services to an agreed level of quality. NGOs would be encouraged to seek funding from other sources to maintain their relationship with the NRM pilot suco and continue providing support to these and new suco beyond ARP Ill in partnership with MAFF. Under the remainder of ARP 11 and 111, facilitator training (whether contracted facilitators, Community Development Officers, NGO facilitators, MAFF contracted facilitators) needs to be improved to develop an effective, participatory planning methodology that takes into account a broader range of resource management issues, including livestock management, improved cropping practices and integrated/natural pest management etc. Activities should be based firmly on priority problems farming communities are experiencing and MAFF should be encouraged to respond to these problems, once articulated, rather than developing supply-driven programs. ARP III Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 3 issues surrounding the optimal use of lightlmedium damaged irrigation schemes assisted under ARP land!) Each irrigation scheme rehabilitated has a set of conditions, traditions and socio-political relations peculiar to the way it functions. The reasons given for sub-optimal utilisation were complex and varied and were often contradictory and confusing - particularly as farmers were largely being asked to estimate their future plans for planting in an uncertain environment. An examination of pre-1999 arrangements for rice growing was revealing both for the extent to which rice growing was subsidised and supported, and the uneven adoption of inputs such as fertiliser and pesticides. Baedubu, one of the largest and most complex schemes, was kept operational by the Indonesian government free of charge (de-silting the primary canal every year) while Bilimau had assistance from an NGO and the local sub-district head to excavate the intake each year. Neither of the two schemes in Viqueque or Maliana used fertiliser, and actively rejected it, believing their soil was sufficiently fertile (perhaps because the majority is cropped only once a year). By contrast, the three Oecussi schemes were largely responsible for the maintenance of their own schemes and were using fertiliser and pesticide on a regular basis, with second cropping more widespread. Marketing patterns varied as well. In Viqueque, all surplus produced was sold to the Farmer's Cooperative (KUD), in Oecussi, it was sold in the market at Kefamenanu (West Timor), and in Bobonaro, it appeared to be mostly used for household consumption, with some surplus sold to family members in Maliana. Planting a second crop on the same land was not widespread, but was most common in Oecussi. The respective levels of dependency appear to be reflected in the post-conflict production patterns, where the three Oecussi schemes seem to have recovered quickest to pre-1999 production levels (at least in terms of number of hectares planted), with planting experiencing minimal disruption. Those with major government and NGO support on the other hand came to an almost complete standstill and were much slower to overcome production problems (whether this is coincidentally an effect of the extent of the level of damage they suffered is not known). The advent of the drought leading up to the 2002/2003 wet season has further complicated the emerging pattern of usage, with farmers only now starting to prepare their land in time for a March planting. This may mean the 2003 dry season planting will have to be delayed until August, and the implications of the late wet season planting will need to be closely monitored before conclusions are drawn regarding optimal usage patterns. As actual capacity has not yet been tested post-rehabilitation in a 'normal' dry season, it is likely going to be difficult to get farmers who are unaccustomed to planting a second crop to invest time and resources if they are not convinced of sufficient water availability. Water aside, there are many other constraining factors which farmers raised that compound their difficulties. These include: threat of flooding which causes damage to intakes, including silting, damages crops and shifts the course of the river from the intake; lack of water; longstanding division of water according to tradition; unsuitability of some areas for planting in both seasons; unsatisfactory systems of water distribution; lack of / high cost of tractors; lack of buffalo or buffalo unable to work in the dry season; lack of / poor quality rice seed; unavailability of other inputs and credit; market uncertainty; difficulty in coordinating the community when only a minority plant in the dry season and; a tradition of planting corn and subsistence tendencies. The interaction of price, assured markets, rce as a preferred staple, the capacity to adequately store surplus for long periods, the reversion to corn as a reliable staple post-1999, and the uncertainty surrounding the operation and maintenance of their irrigation schemes is complex, and will take some time before a balance is struck between perceived benefits and returns on labour investment. Despite the myriad problems facing rice growers, the WUA board members in particular seemed committed to the idea of WUAs as an appropriate vehicle for management of their water resources. All were well aware of the burden of self reliance that had been placed upon them and the enormity of the responsibility. They felt it was too early to comment on their capacity as they had not had a chance to test their Associations during a planting season. Close monitoring will be required to ensure the WUAs are appropriate for the task of managing their water resources equitably. This may include strengthening the supporting role of the ARP Ill Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 4 Chefe do Suco or sub-district head if the authority of the WUAs is not sufficient to organise voluntary operation and maintenance works and ensure compliance with distribution quotas. Problems relating to major repair work and measures such as river straightening and intake protection were felt to be the responsibility of the government, as was assistance with marketing crops. The policy for Operation and Maintenance should be reviewed and approved as quickly as possible to ensure that sufficient budget is available for the government to honour its commitment. If any of the schemes suffer significant damage in the next few planting seasons without a speedy response from the government, the community may quickly become disillusioned with the concept of 'joint' responsibility while they are still struggling to re-establish their economies. Women were under-represented as members of WUAs, and while their importance to the production of rice is acknowledged by men, the tradition of men representing the household in irrigation matters is strong. Women are considered to be equally represented if their husbands are members, even though they may never attend meetings or participate in decision making discussions. WUAs should be encouraged to progressively include more interested women as members to maximise organisational capacity and skills within the Associations. As women were not specifically invited to attend initial meetings to establish the WUAs, a subsequent round of meetings to ascertain their desired level of involvement should be conducted as part of ongoing support to WUA strengthening. All schemes rehabilitated had not yet had a wet season since works were completed in which to measure the total area cropped under theirpeak usage. This should at least indicate the availability of sufficient ploughing capacity and inputs to be used as a benchmark for dry season planting, as well as the level of willingness to plant rice in the post 1999 climate. The total number of hectares that can actually be irrigated and are actually planted then needs to be accurately documented by MAFF to determine whether farmers are maximising usage of the land and irrigation resources. Whilst the use of accurate GIS measurement is preferable, unless it can be applied immediately following March/April planting, MAFF needs to develop an accurate system of measurement which the WUAs can apply at the very least as a form of self-monitoring. Are vaccination campaigns expectations being met by MAFF? Farmer expectations that their animals will not get sick if they are vaccinated are largely being met through the current vaccination campaigns. Where animals were reported to have died following vaccinations, it was specifically stated that this was because they were sick already, and farmers seemed to understand that vaccinations will not cure sick animals. What is promising is that all suco interviewed said they would continue to have their animals vaccinated, and that they expected to increase the numbers vaccinated during the next campaign - especially those animals currently free ranging. The main reasons given why not all animals may be vaccinated in the suco were related to lack of clear information or a meeting prior to the campaigns, and more importantly, the difficulty associated with gather the,(free-ranging) animals from the hills. Subsequent campaigns should focus on targeting free-ranging herds as farmers become more accustom to the annual event. This may require information about the timing of the vaccinations reaching the suco at least one month in advance to enable the community to organise holding pens and hold a coordinated cattle/pig drive. A majority of groups interviewed indicated that vaccination was a service they would be prepared to consider paying a nominal amount for to continue receiving the perceived benefits. The introduction of a fee for service at this point may be premature, however the concept should be introduced gradually as part of future vaccination campaigns to maximise cost recovery and ensure MAFF can continue to protect valuable economic and social assets. The likelihood of VLWs being sustained by the community In general, farmer's are somewhat fatalistic about animal illness, believing that once sick, it is better to kill and eat the animal rather than attempt to save it with their limited knowledge and resources. The difficulty ARP IIl Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 5 people are experience in converting their animals to cash is possibly acting as a disincentive to treat them, although the need to have significant buffer stocks of pigs in particular for ceremonial obligations appears to be quite strong, and should provide motivation enough to invest in treatment for sick animals. Although the first batch of VLWs have been selected, they have not been trained and equipped yet. As such, it is difficult to judge how well they will be accepted and utilised by the farming community The VLW program was not well known. Once it was explained to the groups, the majority indicated that they would likely call a VLW to treat a sick animal, however this would depended on the cost and their ability to pay at the time. All of the groups were very supportive of the idea of a VLW - the closer to the suco the better, and all but one thought it was an appropriate role for a woman. Information dissemination will need to be addressed in ARP 11 and 111, preferably through the next vaccination campaign where paid vaccinators could provide information to those suco with a VLW trained and operating in their sub-district. The tendency to select paid vaccinators to be trained as VLWs will need to be closely monitored to see if the combination of free service provision (vaccinations) with a paid service (all other treatments) in the one provider acts as a disincentive to service utilisation. The perception that the VLWs are government employees being paid a wage will need to countered if they are expected to operate as private service providers. The subsequent round of VLW selection should take this into account. In addition, the dependence on paid vaccinators may be limiting the opportunity for women to take up these opportunities. Future VLW recruitment processes should encourage a gender balance across districts to maximise women's participation in paid employment opportunities and to ensure a focus on pigs and chickens as women's preferred livestock is maintained. The most effective means of communicating information on sustainable farming productivity There is an expressed desire to learn about 'new' and 'modern' farming methods, however these need to build on the traditional practices that have been developed by Timorese farmers over centuries of low/no input farming to ensure they are appropriate to local conditions. The challenge for MAFF is to develop such information through interactive trials and demonstrations which result in proven technological innovations suitable for East Timorese farming systems. The overwhelmingly preferred method of delivery is through direct, practical demonstration, which enhances the adoption of new varieties and techniques for largely illiterate farming populations. While it is acknowledge that MAFF faces problems with a shortage of human resources to support this face-to-face delivery of technical training, direct extension as a means of effective communication should not be left behind in the rush to develop alternative, less labour intensive solutions which rely on radio and print media. All MAFF divisions need to work more closely with farmers to develop and trial effective technologies to increase agricultural sustainability and environmental management. Developing quality information of real benefit to farmers is a pre-requisite for it's effective dissemination. Information Services need to focus more on training DAO staff in effective training and information delivery which are accompanied by practical trial and demonstration where relevant. Whilst radio and printed material have a role to play in disseminating broad-based messages, they are no substitute for the delivery of practical information which farmers can use. Obviously, the emphasis will need to be on quality rather than quantity as there are simply not enough staff to go round, but this strategy may be more productive than a scatter-gun approach to disseminating agricultural information of dubious relevance and little practical benefit. Farmer field days held jointly with neighbouring villages which capitalise on pre-arranged activities (ie vaccination campaigns, WUA key maintenance activities, ASC member meetings, market days etc) are vehicles which are currently underused as opportunities for face-to-face communication of information and should become cornerstones of MAFFs information strategy in ARP 111. In an effort to increase MAFF's capacity to provide face-to-face information, the possibility of accessing other training/information providers such as NGOs and donor programs should be explored to expand the options for face-to-face delivery of quality information. The use of school teachers at the primary and secondary level also represents an under utilised medium for promoting sustainable farming practices to the next generation. ARP IIl Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 6 What is the level of awareness of ASC services and are their unmet demands? The level of awareness of the ASCs appears to be low, however any efforts at greater promotion should be commensurate with the ASC's capacity to purchase / provide inputs for a larger number of farmers. Farmers that had not heard of the ASCs (or had not had any dealings with them) had difficulty in conceptualising what sort of services they might be able to provide for them. In Viqueque, as discussions were with rice farmers, they were interested in their ASC expanding to provide rice-related inputs. Pesticide was specifically mentioned, as this use to be provided by the KUDs at the sub-district level and was no longer available for purchase. Oecussi farmers by contrast had heard of the ASCs and were keen for the Maliana ASC to establish trading links to purchase their rice and provide subsidised or guaranteed quality fertiliser in exchange for a portion of the harvest (if the rice cannot be sold). Further discussions with farmers need to take place to determine other needs that the ASCs could accommodate by diversifying services no longer available to farmers. The development of a further two ASCs under ARP II and IlIl should initiate broader discussions with farmers about the types of services required and the best mechanisms to provide and pay for them. Social Safeguards The activities likely to be continued from ARP II into ARP IlIl are small scale in nature, and with regard to component 1 NRM activities, rely on a process of community discussion and decision making to decide on the nature, location and beneficiaries of activities in a largely democratic manner. The revised operational manual to guide their development should take into account the World Bank's social safeguard requirements. The proposed works to rehabilitate a major irrigation scheme to be implemented under ARP IlIl have been deferred. As such Operational Procedures 4.12 (Involuntary re-settlement), 4.20 (Indigenous People, 11.03 (Cultural Property) and 7.60 (Projects in Disputed Areas) are not likely to apply to ARP 1ll. Conclusion In recognition that Timor Leste is an emerging country with social institutions and MAFF service delivery mechanisms still in their early development phases, the ARP II Social Assessment recommended that "assessment of 'social appropriateness' should become an integral, continuous part of the program, and one that impacts on the way the program is implemented. The idea is to make certain that the assumptions concerning appropriateness of inputs and effect of the outputs, were actually correct, and suggest changes if they were not." This recommendation is supported. The MTR process has obviously been an appropriate vehicle for the assessment of social (and other) appropriateness of the design and implementation of ARP interventions. The recommendations from the MTR in January/February, if accepted and implemented, will go some way in refining the inputs to maximise the benefits. These in turn will need to be monitored, evaluated and incorporated into the implementation plans for ARP 1I1. ARP iII Draft Social Appraisal Report, March 2003 7