Ministry of Agriculture Japan International

and Rural Development Cooperation Agency

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY

Monitoring and Evaluation Report

on Technical Training
of Participating Provinces

Book 6: M & E Report

THE DEVELOPMENT STUDY ON CAPACITY BUILDING

FOR PREPARING FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
FOR AFFORESTATION PROJECTS IN THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
---FICAB---

- March 2008 -
 Preface
“Monitoring and Evaluation Report on Technical Training of PPs (Book 6)” is part of
the training package prepared under the development study on capacity building for preparing
feasibility studies (F/S) and implementation plans (IP) for afforestation projects in the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (hereinafter referred to as “FICAB”).

The immediate objective of FICAB is to strengthen capacities for the preparation of

afforestation projects through practical On-the-Job-Training (OJT), seminars, and workshops.
Five provinces have been selected as targeted provinces for FICAB (Thai Nguyen, Son La,
Quang Nam, Lam Dong, and Long An Provinces).

FICAB was divided into two phases. Phase I was to prepare Model F/S and IP as well
as other training materials in Thai Nguyen, a Core Province (CoP). The second phase was to
implement technical training for staff members of four other provinces as Participating Provinces
(PPs), i.e. Son La, Quang Nam, Lam Dong, and Long An Provinces. The training was
implemented using Model F/S, IP and other training materials.

Through conducting FICAB, four forms of output are to be generated. The first is an
enhanced capacity for MARD personnel. Selected staff members of MARD develop
administrative and coordination capacity for supervising the quality of F/S and IP. The second is
an enhanced capacity for CoP and PPs personnel. Selected staff members of CoP and PPs
enhance the capacity for preparing F/Ss and IPs. The third is the development of a monitoring
and evaluation method for the technical training for preparation of F/S and IP. The fourth is the
development of a training package for conducting the technical training for preparing F/S and IP
for afforestation projects.

The training package is prepared as one of the four above forms of output of the
FICAB. The entire training package comprises the following nine (9) books:

Book 1: Training plan

Book 2: Manual for preparation of Feasibility Study reports for production forest /
agroforestry projects in Vietnam

Book 3: Manual for preparation of Implementation Plans for production forest /

agroforestry development projects in Vietnam

Book 4: Model F/S of Thai Nguyen province

Book 5: Model IP of Thai Nguyen province

Book 6: Monitoring and evaluation report on technical training of PPs

Book 7: Market trend reference book of wood-based and agroforestry products

Book 8: F/S reports of Son La, Quang Nam, Lam Dong, and Long An Provinces

Book 9: IPs of Son La, Quang Nam, Lam Dong, and Long An Provinces

i
 Table of Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables....................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... iv
List of Appendices .............................................................................................................. iv
List of Abbreviation .............................................................................................................v
Summary ............................................................................................................................ vii
Chapter 1 Introduction and methodologies .......................................................................1
1.1 Introduction and methodology ..............................................................................................1
1.2 Outline of the training program in Phase 2 ...........................................................................3
Chapter 2 Attendance and profile of participants.............................................................5
2.1 Number of participants in the introduction workshop and intensive training sessions .........5
2.2 Profile of the participants ......................................................................................................6
2.3 Response rate to the questionnaires.......................................................................................8
Chapter 3 M & E of the training program (Level 1).........................................................9
Chapter 4 M & E of the progress of capacity building (Level 2) ...................................16
4.1 Evaluation of assignments for examination of skill and knowledge ...................................16
4.2 Results of the questionnaire survey for examination of skills and knowledge ...................21
4.3 Results of interviews and questionnaire survey for the examination of attitudes ...............23
Chapter 5 M & E of changes in behavior (Level 3).........................................................24
Chapter 6 M & E of the localization and institutionalization process of the
training package (Level 1 to 2) ..........................................................................................25
6.1 Localization and institutionalization through examining the structure and content of
F/S report and IP............................................................................................................................25
6.2 Level of financial support for the feasibility study .............................................................30
Chapter 7 Conclusion: points for feedback......................................................................32
7.1 Training program (Level 1).................................................................................................32
7.2 Progress of capacity building (Level 2) ..............................................................................33
7.3 Selection of participants (targeting) ....................................................................................33
7.4 Changes in behavior (Level 3) ............................................................................................33
7.5 Progress of institutionalization of the training package (Level 1 to 2) ...............................33

ii
 List of Tables
TABLE 1: RELATION BETWEEN PDM OF FICAB AND THE FOUR-LEVEL APPROACH FOR M & E OF

ACTIVITIES FOR THE CAPACITY BUILDING .............................................................................................2

TABLE 2: CONTENT AND SCHEDULE OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM..................................................................4

TABLE 3: NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN IWS AND INTENSIVE TRAINING SESSIONS OF FIVE WUS .................5
TABLE 4: PARTICIPANTS BY OFFICE...............................................................................................................6
TABLE 5: AVERAGE AGE OF PARTICIPANTS AS OF 2006.................................................................................7
TABLE 6: PARTICIPANTS BY EXPERTISE OR SPECIALIZATION .........................................................................7
TABLE 7: RESPONSE RATE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE FINAL DAY OF THE
INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP AND INTENSIVE TRAINING SESSIONS OF WUS ............................................8

TABLE 8: OVERALL RATINGS OF IWS AND THE INTENSIVE TRAINING SESSIONS OF WUS 1 TO 5 BY
RESPONDENTS OF PPS ...........................................................................................................................9

TABLE 9: RATINGS OF RESPONDENTS ABOUT THE INTENSIVE TRAINING SESSIONS OF WUS 1-5 ..................10
TABLE 10: SOME MAJOR COMMENTS FROM PARTICIPANTS TO THE INTENSIVE TRAINING SESSIONS .............11
TABLE 11: MAJOR COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS TO THE TRAINING PROGRAM OF FICAB .....................14
TABLE 12: DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN CONDUCTING WU 1 ASSIGNMENTS .........................................17
TABLE 13: EVALUATION RESULTS OF F/S REPORTS .....................................................................................19
TABLE 14: EVALUATION RESULTS OF IP......................................................................................................20
TABLE 15: CHANGES OF F/S STRUCTURE ....................................................................................................26
TABLE 16: MAJOR INPUTS FROM COP IN REVISING THE F/S MANUAL AND PREPARING F/S REPORTS ..........26
TABLE 17: MAJOR INPUT FROM PPS IN REVISING THE F/S MANUAL AND F/S REPORTS................................27
TABLE 18: TARGET USERS AND RELEVANT VOLUMES OF THE F/S MANUAL ................................................27
TABLE 19: MAJOR CHANGES BEING MADE TO THE F/S MANUAL AFTER THE TECHNICAL WORKSHOP .........29
TABLE 20: MAJOR CHANGES BEING MADE TO IP MANUAL AFTER THE TECHNICAL WORKSHOP .................29
TABLE 21: MAJOR CHANGES BEING MADE TO THE F/S AND IP MANUALS AFTER THE AP WORKSHOP .........30
TABLE 22: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO SON LA AND LONG AN IN CONDUCTING F/S...................................31

iii
 List of Figures
FIGURE 1: ESTIMATED TOTAL MAN-DAYS OF PSTS PARTICIPATING IN THE TRAINING SESSIONS INCLUDING
THE INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP AND FIVE WUS ...................................................................................6

FIGURE 2: OVERALL EVALUATION ON TRAINING SESSIONS ...........................................................................9

FIGURE 3 CYCLE OF CONCEPTUALIZATION/GENERALIZATION, EXERCISES, AND PRESENTATIONS................13
FIGURE 4: EVALUATION RESULTS OF WU ASSIGNMENTS ............................................................................16
FIGURE 5: EVALUATION OF CAPACITY IF COMPARED WITH THE LEVEL BEFORE ATTENDING THE INTENSIVE
TRAINING SESSIONS ............................................................................................................................21

FIGURE 6: EVALUATION OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TRANSFERRED..................22

FIGURE 7: PROCESS TO LOCALIZE AND INSTITUTIONALIZE THE F/S MANUAL ..............................................28

List of Appendices
Appendix 1: M & E Report of FICAB Phase 1 ……………………………………………………. ….. ... 36
Appendix 2: M & E Report of Introduction Workshop……………………………………………...…....103
Appendix 3: M & E Report of Intensive Training Session of Work Unit 1 …………………………….. .139
Appendix 4: M & E Report of Intensive Training Session of Work Unit 2 and Evaluation of WU 1
Assignment…………………………………………………………….……………….... ...163
Appendix 5: M & E Report of Intensive Training Session of Work Unit 3 …………………………….. .205
Appendix 6: M & E Report of Intensive Training Session of Work Unit 4 and Evaluation of WU 2
Assignment……………………………………………………………….……………….....236
Appendix 7: M & E Report of Intensive Training Session of Work Unit 5 and Evaluation of F/S
Reports………………………………………………………………….……………….... ..288
Appendix 8: Formats for Evaluation of F/S Report and IP…………………………………………. …....351

iv
 List of Abbreviation
B/C Ratio Benefit – Cost Ratio

CCM Communal Consultation Meeting

CoP Core Province (Thai Nguyen Province)

CV Coefficient of Variation

DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FICAB The Development Study on Capacity Building for Preparing Feasibility Studies and
Implementation Plans for Afforestation Projects

FIPI Forest Inventory and Planning Institute

IRR Internal Rate of Return

IWS Introduction Workshop

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

JST JICA Study Team

LA Long An (Participating Province)

LD Lam Dong (Participating Province)

MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NPV Net Present Value

OJT On-the-Job Training

PCA Principal Component Analysis

PDM Project Design Matrix

PMB Project Management Board

PPs Participating Provinces (SL, QN, LD and LA)

PST Provincial Study Team

QN Quang Nam (Participating Province)

SD Standard Deviation

SL Son La (Participating Province)

Sub-DoF Sub-Department of Forestry

TN Thai Nguyen Province (Core Province)

TOT Trainers of Trainees

WU Work Unit

v
vi
 Summary

1. Introduction

Monitoring and evaluation (M & E) aim to check the progress and content of the
training program for any remedial action and improvement during Phase 2 of the Development
Study on Capacity Building for Preparing Feasibility Studies (F/S) and Implementation Plans
(IP) for Afforestation Projects (FICAB). A second aim is to learn lessons for future training
programs, including improvement of the manuals of the training package.

The participants of the training program during Phase 2 of FICAB are provincial
staff members (called “Provincial Study Team (PST)”) in Participating Provinces (PPs: Son
La, Quang Nam, Lam Dong and Long An Provinces). The target level of the training program
is set at a level which will enable participants to prepare a proposal in order to facilitate
investment. At the same time, this target level needs to be realistic in consideration of the
limited availability of resources in the respective provinces.

M & E was conducted on (1) the appropriateness and suitability of the training
program and (2) the progress of capacity building. To the extent possible, it was also to
examine (3) changes in behavior and (4) the process of reviewing selected documents of the
training package as part of the localization and institutionalization process of project planning
in the future. The M & E activities were undertaken in consideration of the causal (means and
ends) relationship among elements at different levels of the Project Design Matrix (PDM) for
FICAB. Each element of the PDM (activities, outputs, project objective and overall goal)
corresponds to the respective levels of the four-level approach for evaluating the training
program (i.e. Reaction -> Learning -> Behavior -> Results).1

2. Attendance of participants

A total of fifty-four (54) persons participated in the introduction and/or intensive

training sessions of Work Units (WUs). The number of participants was nineteen (19) from
Son La (SL), nine (9) from Quang Nam (QN), sixteen (16) from Lam Dong (LD) and ten (10)
from Long An (LA). SL and LD sent a larger number of personnel to the introduction
workshop (IWS) and the intensive training sessions while QN and LA sent a smaller number.

1
Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs 2nd Edition.

vii
In addition, the PSTs of the respective PPs sent a relatively stable number of personnel to the
intensive training sessions throughout the WUs.

However, a few PST members continued to attend all the intensive training sessions of
the five (5) WUs. Although it depends on the policy and interests of respective PPs, it would
be more effective to fix a smaller group of PST to maintain consistency in the feasibility study
and implementation planning instead of changing participants in every WU. For this purpose,
prior guidance and explanation on the training program to PST will be more important.

3. M & E of the training program (Reaction)

For the purpose of examining the appropriateness and suitability of the training
program, at the end of the introduction workshop and intensive training sessions, participants
were asked to provide their overall ratings of the workshop and intensive training sessions on
a scale from 0 to 100. The averages of the overall ratings range from 67 to 81, with WU 3
making the highest score. The overall evaluations show some favorable responses to the
introduction workshop and the intensive training sessions of WUs 1 to 5, particularly WUs 3
and 4. Higher ratings for WUs 3 and 4 are partly because the training session was organized
by an experienced instructor from Forestry University of Vietnam in WU 3 and in the case of
WU 4, organized in a more practical way if compared with the methods adopted in the
intensive training sessions of WUs 1 and 2.

(1) Points to improve in terms of the intensive training sessions

There are some respondents who rated the training sessions at a lower level. The
period of intensive training session is rather short if the content and volume of works are
considered while PST members find it difficult to be away from their home offices for a
longer period of time. In order to meet needs of PSTs for future intensive training sessions, it
would be therefore important to select indispensable items for technical transfer, to integrate
theoretical issues with practical exercises, and to send a clear message (what are the important
points to learn in this session) throughout each training session. There are a number of aspects
that can be pointed out in this respect:

- Content: selection of concrete and practical content such as project planning and
PDM, institutional aspects, cost estimates, fund sources, data and information
collection, maps, market analysis, financial and economic analyses, environmental
impact analysis and report drafting;

- Methodologies: combination of the intensive training sessions and the OJT sessions
in respective PPs, provision of clear and specific instructions, integration of lectures

viii
 and other teaching aids such as exercises, assignments, field trips, group discussions
and presentations; and

- Organization: better time allocation for discussion and exercises, timing and schedule
of the training program, reasonable workload and conducting of field trips.

(2) Points to improve in terms of the implementation of the OJT sessions in PPs

The following points are important for the implementation of the feasibility study and
implementation planning during the OJT sessions in respective PPs:

- Further attention should be paid to the importance of the study process involving
stakeholders, coordination among PST members and the role of the leader in the PST;

- The field survey schedule needs to be somehow flexible in consideration of the

natural and socio-economic conditions in the project area; and
- Time and local budgets should be secured for the OJT of PST members in respective
provinces.

4. M & E of the progress of capacity building (Learning)

M & E of the progress of capacity building is carried out based on evaluation of

assignments, responses to the questionnaire survey, and results of interviews with the
management in the PPs. The objective of the M & E of capacity building is not so much the
evaluation of the participants’ capacities but progress monitoring of capacity development and
the effectiveness of the training program. Assignments, including preparation of F/S reports
and IPs, were evaluated by the JICA Study Team (JST) in principle.

Based on the evaluation of assignments, and the self-evaluation of participants

regarding the level of their skills and knowledge after the intensive training sessions, it can be
seen that the understanding of PST members in PPs has progressed in terms of the content
learned and application of what they learned through the assignments. The interview results of
management in each PP indicate that they observed some changes in the attitudes among PST
members.

Based on the results of the M & E, it is considered that the following aspects of the
planning capacities need to be further strengthened:

- Collection and analytical skills for quantitative data. This includes definition of the
data for quality improvement of data and analysis, and reflection of actual conditions
in the project area;
- Institutional aspects such as the description of roles and responsibilities of the
implementing agency and coordination among different stakeholders in consideration

ix
 of achievement of the project objective;
- Incorporation of supporting services and incentive mechanisms in the project design
based on analysis of necessities; and
- Logical explanation of the necessity and the design of the project based on the PDM.

5. M & E of changes in behavior (Behavior)

M & E was conducted to learn if there had been any changes in behavior among
participants. At the end of the intensive training session of WU 5, participants were asked if
they had applied what they had learned through the training program to any other work in their
offices. The majority of the respondents replied that they had applied what they had learned
through the training program of FICAB. Coupled with a good office climate and their
motivation, it is considered that the training program of FICAB has a somewhat good impact
on changes in the behavior of respondents. However, the monitoring and evaluation of
changes in behavior need to be continued for verification.

6. Progress of institutionalization of the training package

The manuals have been developed in parallel with the implementation of the training
program through the interactive process between JST and parties concerned with the forestry
sector in Vietnam. It is considered that it will be important to make the manuals official
documents at MARD/DoF in the future. As PST members attended the training program, they
also found it important to legitimize the manuals because the institutionalization of the
manuals is likely to increase the predictability of their F/S report and IP being accepted, so far
as they prepare their project in accordance with the manuals and justify the feasibility of the
project. Therefore, the institutionalization of the manuals is considered to be the key to
enhancement of the motivation of participants and the improvement of the capacities of those
involved in the preparation of an F/S report and an IP.

Furthermore, as document reviews were carried out through an interactive feedback

process between JST, the local sub-contractor, PST of CoP and PPs, Department of Forestry
(DoF) and other relevant stakeholders in order to find ways to localize and institutionalize
them, the process is also considered to have served the institutional development of the
forestry sector by enhancing abilities to identify issues and devise counter-measures for the
project planning in the sector.

However, it is thought that it will require some more time before legitimization takes
place because it needs further examination in terms of the applicability of the manuals. Since
the training package is prepared as a teaching aid, efforts to improve the package should be
continued through feedback from the training program and actual applications in provinces.

x
Chapter 1 Introduction and methodologies

1.1 Introduction and methodology

Monitoring and evaluation (M & E) aim to check the progress and content of the training
program for any remedial action and improvement during Phase 22 of the Development Study on
Capacity Building for Preparing Feasibility Studies and Implementation Plans for Afforestation
Projects (FICAB). A second aim is to learn lessons for future training programs, including
improvement of the manuals of the training package.
The participants of the training program during Phase 2 of FICAB are provincial staff
members (called “Provincial Study Team (PST)”) in Participating Provinces (PPs: Son La, Quang
Nam, Lam Dong and Long An Provinces). The target level of the training program is set at a level
which will enable participants to prepare a proposal in order to facilitate investment. At the same
time, this target level needs to be realistic in consideration of the limited availability of resources in
the respective provinces.
M & E is conducted on (1) the appropriateness and suitability of the training program and
(2) the progress of capacity building. To the extent possible, it is also to examine (3) changes in
behavior and (4) the process of reviewing selected documents of the training package as part of the
localization and institutionalization process of project planning in the future. The M & E activities
were undertaken in consideration of the causal (means and ends) relationship among elements at
different levels of the Project Design Matrix (PDM) for FICAB. Each element of the PDM
(activities, outputs, project objective and overall goal) corresponds to the respective levels of the
four-level approach for evaluating the training program (reaction -> learning -> behavior ->
results).3 The relation between the PDM and the four-level approach for the M & E is described in
Table 1 below.
As shown in Table 1, evaluation on level 1 (reaction) measures how participants in the
training program react to it as a measure of “customer satisfaction”. Unless participants react
favorably to progress, they may not be motivated to learn. During Phase 2 of FICAB, the local sub-
contractor played a major role in organizing and training participants of PPs under the supervision
and guidance of JICA Study Team (JST). M & E was conducted from the viewpoint of the
appropriateness and suitability of the training program organized by the local sub-contractor,
through examining the reaction of participants.
Evaluation on level 2 (learning) is related to the extent to which participants improve their
knowledge, increase skills and change attitudes as a result of participating in the training program.
The M & E was carried out from the viewpoint of examining participants’ understanding of the
content transferred and applications to the assignments.
Although it was still in the middle of the training program, M & E was also carried out to
learn if there had been any change in behavior among participants (Level 3).
In addition to M & E of the training program, M & E also covers the process of reviewing
the training package, particularly manuals that were originally prepared during Phase 1 of FICAB
for use at the training program. Because it is intended that the training package be used as a
training aid for the training program in the future, they should be prepared in consideration of the
broad applicability in the Vietnamese context. The level of the documents needs to match the target
level of the training program. Thus, the preparation of the training package is regarded as a
localization and institutionalization process of project planning in the forestry sector through
searching for an appropriate target level of training program. Institutionalization of project
planning will also match with the overall goal of FICAB to satisfy the strategic needs of the sector

2
This M & E report also covers the training program in July and August 2006 although the activities
of this period are classified into Phase 1 of FICAB.
3
Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs 2nd Edition.

1
 in the country, which is described as “Overall capacities for preparing production forest/agro-
forestry development projects are strengthened to facilitate investment” (Level 4).4 5
M & E is based on the attendance of participants, a questionnaire survey, evaluation of
assignments, interviews and the process of incorporating comments received from workshop
participants in the documents. The questionnaire survey aims to examine the level of satisfaction
and understanding of participants while the evaluation results of assignments indicate their level of
understanding and the application of the content learned. The interviews with the management of
the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) or the Sub-Department of Forest
(Sub-DoF) may reveal changes in attitude. Another type of questionnaire is used to examine
changes in behavior of participants. The process of incorporating comments in the documents is
used to check the institutionalization process of the training package, particularly F/S manual.

Table 1: Relation between PDM of FICAB

and the four-level approach for M & E of activities for the capacity building
Ver 2: December 2007
Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
(Reaction) (Learning) (Behavior) (Results)

Narrative Activities (inputs): Outputs: Project Objective: Overall Goal:

Summary of - Conduct training - Capacities of selected staff - Capacities for preparing - Overall capacities for
PDM programs of CoP and members of CoP and PPs are production forest / agro- preparing production
PPs enhanced for preparing F/Ss forestry development forest / agro-forestry
- Prepare and improve a and IPs projects in targeted five development projects are
training package - Applicability of training provinces are strengthened.
through training package is enhanced in terms strengthened. - Investment is facilitated.
programs and of the content and local
workshops resource availability.
Indicators and - Level of satisfaction - Understandings of content - Application of - Amount of investment
viewpoints of of participants learned and application to the technology transferred and facilitated in five
M&E -Compilation process of assignments developed to preparation provinces.
the training package - Examination of comments of F/Ss and IPs - Afforestation area of the
having comments from and incorporation of them in - Training package is project prepared in five
stakeholders the training package utilized as reference provinces
material - Training package is
institutionalized for the
planning process
Timing -Before training starts -In the middle of training -In the middle of training -Some years after
-At beginning and in the program program completion of training
middle of training -At end of training program -At completion of training program
program - At workshop program
- At workshops

4
In comparison with the original version of Table 1 in the inception report, Version 2 of Table 1 (Relation
between PDM of FICAB and the four-level approach for M & E activities) more specifically describes the channels
through which improvement of the training package contributes to enhancement of the capacities of the PST members
and the institutionalization process. The sentences added to the original version of Table 1 are underlined.
5
M & E of the institutionalization process of the training package is limited to Level 1 and 2 during the
implementation period of FICAB.

2
Methodology -Questionnaire survey -Questionnaire/ interview -Questionnaire/ interview - Questionnaire/ interview
to participants survey to participants and survey to participants and survey to participants and
-Attendance concerned personnel concerned personnel concerned personnel
- Organization of -Evaluation of assignments
workshops by JST
- Examination of comments
from participants of
workshops
Reference: Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs 2nd Edition and ECFA, “Competitive
Edge for Development Consultants,” 2004

1.2 Outline of the training program in Phase 2

During the period from July 2006 to March 2007 in Phase 2 of FICAB, a series of training
activities was carried out by alternating the off-the-job intensive training sessions held in Thai
Nguyen, Quang Nam and Lam Dong Provinces and the On-the-Job Training (OJT) in the
respective PPs. The overall training period was divided into five (5) Work Units (WUs) in
accordance with the sequences of preparing F/S and IP. The following five WUs have been
undertaken with emphasis on respective stages of the F/S and IP:
WU 1: Field survey and analysis
WU 2: Project planning
WU 3: Financial and economic analyses
WU 4: Evaluation of environmental aspect and drafting of the F/S report
WU 5: Drafting of the IP.

During each work unit, the training program was undertaken by going through the following
three steps:
Step 1: to learn methodologies by attending the intensive training sessions held in Thai
Nguyen, Quang Nam, and Lam Dong Provinces;
Step 2: to apply what had been learned for the preparation of F/S and IP in respective home
provinces of PST from PPs through the OJT session; and
Step 3: to submit assignments of the OJT for the monitoring and evaluation of the progress
of the capacity building.

Prior to the beginning of the training activities of the five WUs, an introduction workshop
was organized in Thai Nguyen Province from July 17 to 22, 2006. It was aimed to perform the
following three tasks: explanation of the training package prepared during Phase 1; identification of
the capacity gaps by participants from PPs; and initial development of the project concept. It was
expected that the project concept would be improved through participation in the training program.

The following table summarizes the main topics for the training program with the time
schedule and venues.

3
 Table 2: Content and schedule of the training program
WU Topics of WU Step 1: Intensive training session Step 2: OJT Step 3: Assignment
Period Number of Venue session
days
WU 1 Field survey and July 28-August 5 TN August to Assignment 1: field
analysis 3, 2006 September survey and analysis
2006
WU 2 Project planning October 3-9, 6 QN October to Assignment 2: Project
2006 November planning
2006
WU 3 Financial and November 28- 4 TN December Assignment 3:
economic analyses December 1, 2006 to March Draft F/S report
2006 2007
WU 4 Evaluation of December 2- 7 TN
environmental and December 9,
social impacts and 2006
F/S report drafting
WU 5 IP drafting July 3 – July 7, 5 LD July to Sept. Assignment 4:
2007 2007 Draft IP
Total 27

The local sub-contractor, Forestry Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI), organized the
introduction workshop and the intensive training sessions (Step 1) of respective WUs as Trainers of
Trainees (TOT) under the supervision and guidance of the JICA Study Team (JST). Before the
intensive training sessions of WUs, the content of the presentation at each session and time
allocation for each subject were discussed between JST and instructors from FIPI. The teaching
plans of the main subjects were prepared by the instructors. Prior to the intensive training sessions
of WUs 1, 2 and 5, a rehearsal was held using the presentation materials prepared with PowerPoint.

During the introduction workshop and the intensive training session of WU 2, aside from
the in-class activities, field trips were organized to the project area in Phu Binh District of Thai
Nguyen Province and the project areas of the World Bank and FAO projects in Quang Nam
Province, respectively.

After the intensive training sessions of WUs 1 and 2 (Step 1), participants from the PPs
were requested to prepare assignments (Step 2) through the OJT in respective PPs, which were
relevant to the topics explained during WU 1 (field survey and analysis) and WU 2 (project
planning), and then submit the assignments to FICAB project office (Step3). The submission
deadline for the assignments was set before the following intensive training session started. In the
case of WU 3 and 4, the assignment took the form of the draft F/S report. In preparation of
assignments and draft F/S reports in the respective PPs, the local sub-contractor, FIPI and its sub-
ordinate offices (Sub-FIPI), extended support services to PST members in Quang Nam and Lam
Dong. In case of the Son La and Long An, JST and the project management office of FICAB
provided occasional support services to the PST members, including their visits to the respective
provinces in October 2006 and January 2007.
The assignment of WU 5 was to prepare a draft Implementation Plan. In preparation of IP in
the respective PPs, the local sub-contractor worked together with the PST members in all the four
PPs from July 2007 to September 2007.

4
 Chapter 2 Attendance and profile of participants

2.1 Number of participants in the introduction workshop and intensive

training sessions
The following table summarizes the number of participants from the PPs who participated in
the introduction workshop and/or the intensive training sessions of WUs. A total of fifty-four (54)
persons participated in the introduction and/or intensive training sessions of WUs. The number of
participants was nineteen (19) from Son La (SL), nine (9) from Quang Nam (QN), sixteen (16)
from Lam Dong (LD) and ten (10) from Long An (LA). SL and LD sent a larger number of
personnel to the introduction workshop (IWS) and the intensive training sessions while QN and LA
sent a smaller number. In addition, the PSTs of the respective PPs sent a relatively stable number of
personnel to the intensive training sessions throughout the WUs.

Table 3: Number of participants in IWS and intensive training sessions of five WUs
Unit: Persons
Quang
Province Son La Lam Dong Long An Total
Nam
Gross total of participants in IWS /
19 9 16 10 54
intensive training sessions of 5 WUsNote
Out of which:
IWS 11 5 6 7 29
WU 1 6 3 6 4 19
WU 2 6 8 6 5 25
WU 3 5 3 4 4 16
WU 4 6 3 7 5 21
WU 5 6 6 6 4 22
Average number per WU (WUs 1-5) 5.8 4.6 5.8 4.4 20.6
No of participants who attended all intensive
0 2 1 1 4
training sessions of 5 WUs
Source: Record of attendance
Note: Total number of participants who attended at least one workshop from respective PPs.

The bottom row of the above table shows the number of participants who continued to
attend all the intensive training sessions of the five (5) WUs. In the case of QN, two PST members
continued to attend all the intensive training sessions but in the case of SL, there is no person who
attended all the intensive training sessions.

The following table shows the total estimated6 number of man-days for which PST members
from respective PPs participated in the five WUs. According to the table, SL is ranked first in terms
of the number of man-days of PST while QN is ranked last.

6
The number of man-days is estimated by multiplying the duration of the intensive training sessions
at WUs with the number of participants from PPs to the intensive training sessions at the respective WUs.
This gives the “approximate” number of man-days because some participants left in the middle of the
intensive training sessions.

5
 Figure 1: Estimated total man-days of PSTs participating in the training sessions
including the introduction workshop and five WUs

Estimated total man-days of participants who attended intensive

training sessions (man-days)
250

Total man-days spent (man-days

213
191
200

151 156
150

100

50

0
SL QN LD LA

Source: Record of attendance

2.2 Profile of the participants

This section describes the profile of the participants from the PPs in the introduction
workshop and/or the intensive training sessions of WUs in terms of their offices, ages and
expertise/specialization.

(1) Office
The following table shows a profile of participants by office. The majority of PST members
were from DARD, Sub-DoF, or other subordinate agencies under DARD such as extension service
centers. They played a major role in preparing the F/S reports in the PPs. The rest were from
offices such as the implementing agency of the project in preparation, and supporting institutions
like consulting companies.

Table 4: Participants by office

Unit: Persons
Province Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Total PST
Office that PSTs are from
DARD/Sub-DoF Note1) 10 7 10 7 34
Implementing agency Note2) 3 2 2 3 10
Supporting institutions (including 6 0 4 0 10
semi-government, private
consulting firms)
Total 19 9 16 10 54
Source: DARD/Sub-DoF in respective PPs
Note:
1) This category includes extension service centers and protection forest department.
2) The implementing agency is the proposed one, which includes the District Office within which an
implementing agency such as a management board is to be set up.

6
 In the case of LD and LA, the presence of the implementing agency (Da Teh Forest
Enterprise in LD and Lang Sen Conservation Reserve in LA) in the intensive training sessions of
WUs was relatively visible. At least one participant from Da Teh Forest Enterprise was present
throughout the intensive training sessions of WUs. In the case of Lang Sen Conservation Reserve
in LA, one participant was present from the Conservation Reserve at the four intensive training
sessions out of the five WUs with a constant presence of DARD staff members. However, in the
case of SL and QN, the presence is less visible. Three participants attended the training session
from Mai Son District Office including 661 Protection Forest Management Board in Son La. But
two of them attended only one intensive training session and another one attended three intensive
training sessions. In the case of QN, two persons from Nui Thanh District Office attended the
intensive training session of WU 2 in Quang Nam but no other intensive training session.

(2) Age
The average age of the participants was 40.8 with the standard deviation of 9.4 ranging from
24 to 58. On average, participants from Son La were relatively young, particularly PST members
working at DARD and Sub-DoF.

Table 5: Average age of participants as of 2006

Unit: Years
Province Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An PST as a
Office whole
Average age 39.4 43.4 41.4 40.4 40.8
Standard Deviation 11.0 8.1 7.8 9.1 9.4
Max 58 56 57 49 58
Min 25 34 28 24 24
Average age of participants
from DARD/Sub-DoF 35.1 42.9 41.1 40.4 39.6
Source: DARD/Sub-DoF in respective PPs

(3) Specialization/expertise
The following table shows the number of participants by expertise or specialization in
respective provinces. Most of the participants are specialists in forestry (including forest
engineering and silviculture). Participants from LA had a wider range of specializations.

Table 6: Participants by expertise or specialization

Unit: Persons
Province Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Total PST
Office
Forestry/forestry 14 8 11 3 36
engineering/silviculture
Economics/accountant 5 1 5 3 14
Agriculture/husbandry/hort 0 0 0 3 3
iculture
Others 0 0 0 1 1
Total 19 9 16 10 54
Source: DARD/Sub-DoF in respective PPs

7
2.3 Response rate to the questionnaires
Table 7 below summarizes the rate of responses to the questionnaires distributed on the final
day of the introduction workshop and intensive training sessions of WUs. All participants were
requested to identify themselves in answering the questionnaires.

Table 7: Response rate to the questionnaire survey conducted on the final day of the
introduction workshop and intensive training sessions of WUs
Unit: Persons
Organization No. of participants No. of respondents Response rate
(A) (B) (B)/(A) * 100 (%)
IWS/WU
IWS 29 27 93.1%
WU 1 19 18 94.7%
WU 2 25 22 88.0%
WU 3 16 13 81.3%
WU 4 21 16 76.2%
WU 5 22 20 90.9%
Source: Questionnaire survey
Note: Some participants did not show up when the questionnaire was distributed on the final day
although they attended the intensive training sessions.

As seen from the table above, the rate of responses is relatively high.

8
Chapter 3 M & E of the training program (Level 1)

This chapter presents results of M & E on the level of satisfaction of the participants
attending the introduction workshop and intensive training sessions of WUs.

At end of the introduction workshop and intensive training sessions, participants were asked
to provide their overall ratings on a scale from 0 to 100. Table 8 and Figure 2 below compare the
overall ratings given by the respondents to the introduction workshop and the intensive training
sessions of WUs. The averages of the overall ratings range from 67 to 81, with WU 3 making the
highest score. In the case of WU 3, the instructor was invited from Forest University of Vietnam.
The intensive training session of WU 4 was ranked first among the four WUs directly led by the
local sub-contractor.

Table 8: Overall ratings of IWS and the intensive training sessions of WUs 1 to 5 by
respondents of PPs
IWS WU 1 WU2 WU3 WU4 WU 5
No. Respondents 27 18 22 13 16 20
Average 73.3 70.6 67.3 81.5 71.3 69.5
Median 70 70 70 80 70 70
SD 8.9 9.1 10.8 14.1 9.9 10.7
Max 90 80 80 100 90 100
Min 55 50 50 50 50 50
CV 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.15

Figure 2: Overall evaluation on training sessions

Overall evaluation on training sessions
Average (Average scores of respondents )
90.0 SD 16.0
81.5
80.0 73.3 14.0
70.6 71.3 69.5
67.3
70.0
Standard Deviation （SD)

12.0
Average scores

60.0
10.0
50.0
8.0
40.0
6.0
30.0
4.0
20.0

10.0 2.0

0.0 0.0
IWS WU 1 WU2 WU3 WU4 WU5

Source: Questionnaire survey

Note: The full score is 100 points.

On the final day of the intensive training sessions, participants were requested to evaluate
the training session in a number of aspects: (Q3) relation between the content of the training
session and their current work; (Q4) practical aspect of the F/S or IP structure introduced during the
session; (Q5) helpfulness of the methodologies adopted during the session; (Q6) helpfulness of the

9
handouts and exercises for technology transfer; (Q7) conciseness and clearness of lectures and
presentation of instructors; (Q8) integration of lecture and presentation with discussions and
materials in the training session; (Q9) helpfulness of assistants from the local sub-contractor; (Q10)
helpfulness of experience-sharing with PST from other PPs; (Q11) amount or volume of the
content or work during the intensive training session; (Q12) duration of the training session.
Question 7 (Q7) and Question 8 (Q8) were specifically prepared based on the M & E results of the
introduction workshop. From the comments and suggestions from respondents of the workshop,
concise presentation and integration of the presentation with other tools such as discussions and
reports were identified as the two of the major areas for improvement on the side of the workshop
organizers.
The following Table 9 compares the averages of ratings given to each question by
respondents at respective WUs.

Table 9: Ratings of respondents about the intensive training sessions of WUs 1-5
No Aspects Rating scale from 1 to 7 Average ratings
WU1 WU2 WU3 WU4 WU5
Q3 Relation between the content of 1 (Very weak) – 5.6 5.9 6.2 5.6 5.8
the training and their current 4 (Neither) –
work 7 (Very strong)
Q4 Practical aspect of the F/S or IP1 (Not practical) – 5.6 5.8
structure 4 (Neither) - 7 (Very
practical)
Q5 Helpfulness of methodologies 1 (Strongly disagree) – 6.3 6.2 6.5 5.9 6.0
for the preparation of the 4 (Neither) –
project 7 (Strongly agree)
Q6 Helpfulness of handouts and 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.0 6.1
exercises for technology
transfer
Q7 Conciseness and clearness of 5.5 5.6 6.8 5.8 5.5
presentation of instructors
Q8 Integration of presentation with 5.8 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.1
discussions and materials in
training sessions
Q9 Helpfulness of assistants from 6.4 5.4 5.7
FIPI
Q 10 Helpfulness of experience 6.1 5.7 6.5 6.4 6.2
sharing with PST from other
PPs

Q 11 Volume of the work 1 (Too little) – 5.9 5.2 6.3 5.1

4 (Average) –
7 (Too much)
Q 12 Duration of the program 1 (Too short) – 3.3 4.3 3.6 6.2 4.2
4 (Average) –
7 (Too long)
Source: Questionnaire survey
Note: The phrasing of questions used was not exactly same across the questionnaires of WUs 1 to 5 but
can be compared to corresponding questions among them. In addition, the rating scale of WU 1 was
adjusted to 1-7 scale from 1-5 scale in order to compare with the results of the survey during WUs 2-5.

As seen in the above table, the average ratings for Q3 to Q10 center around 6.0. The
ratings in these aspects show favorable responses of respondents to the intensive training sessions.

10
In the intensive training session of WU 3, the average ratings relevant to questions Q3 to Q10
center around 6.5. For WU 3, an experienced instructor was invited from Forestry University of
Vietnam. In particular, a comparison with the results of WU 1 and 2 reveals a high mark given to
the clear and concise presentation of the instructor (Q7).
As seen from the table, many respondents strongly agree that experience-sharing with
PST members from other PPs (Q10) is helpful during WU 4. This may have resulted from the way
in which the intensive training session was organized. The session was carried out through
repeating a cycle of the lecture, exercises of assignments, and presentation of results by PSTs in
front of PSTs from other PPs.
In terms of the work volume (Q11), the volume of the content or work was seen as
somewhat voluminous or too much in WU 1. As the topics of the five day long intensive training
session ranges from preparation of PDM to the land use survey and market analysis, this may be a
natural response from respondents. Also in the case of the intensive training session in WU 4
(Q11), many of the respondents answered with “Too much (7)” (average is 6.3 and median is 7.0).
These indicate a further selection of topics to be dealt with in the intensive training sessions.
As for responses to Q12 in WU 1, many respondents considered that the duration of the
five-day long training session is somewhat short (2 respondents answered with “Too short” and 6
respondents with “Somewhat short”). To the same question in WU 4, many (8 out of 16
respondents) responded with “Too long” but one answered with “Somewhat short.” For those who
attend their daily work in home offices especially at the end of the fiscal year, being away for a
period of eight days (WU 4) or twelve days, if they attended the intensive training sessions of both
WUs 3 and 4, seems to be too long. On the other hand, for those who have to digest all the content
in a limited period of time, the duration seems to be somewhat short. This may imply the necessity
of preparing a more flexible training schedule and providing pre-training guidance so that
participants are able to adjust their office work to the training schedule.
The open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire invited a number of positive
comments as well as areas for improvement in terms of time allocation and schedule, work loads,
handouts and documents, content, training methods, logistic arrangements and so on. The following
table summarizes some major comments received from respondents.

Table 10: Some major comments from participants to the intensive training sessions
Area Comments
Area for improvement
Time allocation - Time allocation is too short to deal with such a huge work load (WU 1 and 4) including
and schedule time allocation for completing assignments (exercises) (WU 1 and 4) and time allocation
for doing exercises and presenting results of work (WU 3).
- Give more time for exercise for discussion (WU 2)
- Time should be given to study and review thoroughly the input information (taught
knowledge) before applying them into an exercise. In order to get better results in the
assignments (reports), analysis should be conducted in the province (not immediately
after class hour) (WU 4)
- Because WU3 and WU4 took place continuously, participants got tired. Period of the 2
training courses is too long. Two intensive training programs should not be incorporated
into one. (WUs 3 and 4)
Work load - Training program is too overloaded for participants. (WU 4)
- The training programs have been giving participants enough essential input to prepare
an F/S report: however, input is too much in a limited time. (WU 4)
Handouts and - (As for the F/S report and other documents distributed) necessity to have a list of F/S
documents report and documents; illustrative pictures; clear explanation; necessity to have
summaries; necessity to be reordered in order to avoid confusion; further analysis of data
and statistics; development of procedures to improve design methods of projects; and
explanation on when and why to use each of the documents (Introduction).

11
Area Comments
Content - Difficulties in collecting data as PST members, etc. (Introduction)
- Need to present more specific examples (WU 1)
- A lot of theory but no practice (WU 1)
- The organizers of the training activities are requested to help PST develop digitalized
maps and edit data of digitalized maps and how to develop digitalized maps (WU 1)
- Provide content and questions closer to the practice (WU 2)
- Field trips need to be enhanced (WU 2)
- Some parts of the training content were repeated during the class but were yet to be
analyzed very deeply. Content should be arranged in a logic order and each item should
be dealt with once only but carefully and effectively to save time and reduce cost. (WU 2
and 4)
- Some exercises overlapped (WU 4)
- More supplement information and broader analysis should be given. (WU 4)
Training methods - Non-condensed slide presentation, necessity to integrate the presentations with report
content, Q & A, and discussions (Introduction)
- More proper guidance during discussion sessions so that they can go straight into the
theme (Introduction).
- More attention to be paid to training methods (WU 2)
- Facilitator should brief and conclude main issues discussed (WU 2)
- Group for discussions should be comprised of participants from different provinces in
order to share information. (WU2)
- Answers to exercises should be distributed to participants when they finish doing their
exercises so that they could check and evaluate their results to see how well they
understand the lesson. (WU 3)
Logistic - More attention should be paid to meals and accommodations.
arrangements
Good points
Methodologies - The training course helps participants know how to apply theoretical input into
preparing an F/S report. Practice exercises provided during class time help participants
know how to do exercise right after lecturing session. (WU 4)
- Two way interaction learning approach is very interesting and useful. (WU 4)
- Participants can carry out the financial and economic analysis by taking part in the
course. (WU 4)
- Completing a draft version of an F/S report and understand deeply a frame structure of
a project. (WU 4)
- Reference materials support well for the lectures (presentation of lecturers) (WU 4)
- Teaching approach of lecturing in combination with case study is very useful (WU 4)

Lecture/class - Lecturers have a good teaching method (concise and very easy to understand/follow)
organization (WU 3)
- Very good lecturers from FIPI (local sub-contractor) and useful support from Sub FIPI
members. (WU 4)
- Organization of the class, good preparation of the handouts and reference materials.
(WU 4)
Logistic - Logistics arrangements good (learning facilities and accommodation) (WU 4)
arrangements
Source: Questionnaire survey
Note: 1) The above responses include those from participants of CoP and Sub-FIPI who participated in the
intensive training sessions together with PSTs of PPs.
2) WUs in the brackets indicate intensive training sessions of Work Units that relevant comments were
received.

In terms of areas for improvement, the work load under the time pressure and the duration
of the intensive training sessions are important aspects to point out. It was learned that participants
found it difficult to attend the intensive training session especially because of the end of the fiscal

12
year in the case of the intensive training session of WU 4. Comments about the content and
methodologies indicate that participants would like to conduct an in-depth or broader analysis for
specific topics in a practical manner. In this respect, integration of the presentation with better
teaching aids will be the important factor to consider together with facilitation skills.

Good points are the practical approach adopted in WU 4 and WU 5 through the integration
of theoretical input with practical exercises. The intensive training session of WU 4 was organized
in such a way that the cycle of lectures, exercises and presentations by PSTs was to be repeated.
After the presentation, discussion was held among participants, lectures, and assistants. This can be
illustrated as in the following Figure 3.

Figure 3 Cycle of conceptualization/generalization, exercises, and presentations

Conceptualization/
Generalization

Presentation Exercises

At every step of this cycle, participants come to identify problems and solutions relating to
the subjects, which helped them further deepen their understanding. Because this cycle is
introduced in a relatively short intensive training session and repeated over five times in WU 4 and
six times in WU 5, participants were able to promptly apply in practice what they learned. It can
also be pointed out that during the intensive training session of WU 4, the experience-sharing
among PST members was particularly enhanced as seen in Question 10 (Q10) of Table 9. In the
case of WU 5, less time was spent on conceptualization/generalization while more time was spent
on exercises. The methodology is deemed appropriate for the training sessions for those who
already gained experience for a number of years in the forestry sector.

PST members who participated in the intensive training session of WU 5, the last work unit,
were asked to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the training program (intensive training
sessions and On-the-Job training sessions of WU 1 to WU 5) under FICAB. In terms of the
weaknesses, they pointed out that the time intervals between intensive training sessions were too
long but each intensive training session was too short to understand the necessary contents. Other
weak points include limitation of teaching skills, the long structure of F/S and IP, problems with
translation of documents, and insufficient/inadequate reflection of the reality of the project area. On
the other hand, they pointed out various strengths of the program. It is interesting to find that they
appreciated various methodologies taught in the training program (multi-disciplinary approach
required for the F/S), focus of the current conditions in the project area and policy issues when
conducting F/S, the combination of theoretical and practical aspects, group learning processes and
preparation process of F/S report and IP through assignments.

The following table summarizes the responses of respondents from PPs.

13
 Table 11: Major comments from respondents to the training program of FICAB
Weakness
Quality of lectures -Some limitations on presentation skill of lecturers
Teaching materials -The structure and content of FS and IP are too long
-Some problems on translation of documents
-Some hard forms of progress (inflexibility of the procedures described in the
documents) could reduce the creativeness of participants
Methodology and -Some content has unclear methodologies
content -Some content is not related to the reality
Duration -Long time between two intensive training sessions but the duration of each one is too
short
-Training durations are too short
-Training time is too short if compared with the number of lectures and exercises
-Time for intensive training is too short. There is no time for understanding all the
necessary content. No time for sharing models (projects) with other provinces
Organization of -Some limitations on the opening and the conclusion of the study sectors (introduction
training and conclusion of each training session during WU 5)
Others -We are lacking in laptops
Strength
Ability of local sub- -FIPI staff have good capacity/very enthusiastic
contractor -Good lecturers
Teaching materials -Good preparation on materials
-Clear IP/specific IP
Methodology and (General)
content -Good content and teaching methods/contents are well prepared/very clear/detailed and
easy to understand
-There are many new view points and approach methods that could increase the capacity
for staff.
-FS and IP building methods make an easy way for evaluation
-FS building bases on the reality/focusing on the reality of current situations and
policies/the content are quite suitable with the local reality
(Specific methodologies)
-Logics of problems were given out and solved/logic between problem and
objective/building good matrix is the main problem leading to the success
-Market analysis
-Inclusion of the implementation of government and local policy
-Assisting with management skills
-Finance and economic analyses are clear and useful
- Evaluation on the environment impacts
Teaching method -Inheriting experience for material compilation (Accumulation of experiences for
compilation of data and information, and exercises through WU 1-5)
-Coordination between academic and practice
-Knowledge impartation (teaching method) through discussion
-Exchanging models between study groups/group working exercises
-The training courses are very practical
-Training methods are quite modern
-Friendship organizing method
Organization of -Suitable training plan
training program -Close schedule (The intended schedule is close to the real teaching time: e.g. time for
each presentation is carefully managed)
-Good cooperation between JICA experts, FIPI staffs and PST in training and field
survey
-The organization is very considerate
-Training courses were assisted by project as well as organizing province

14
Assistance Spending fund for study
JST -JICA are very responsible
-Was assisted by the JICA experts
-Evaluation and feedback receiving ways of JST is quite specific
Others -The capacity of PPs staff will be improved
-We shouldn’t terminate the project at this moment to uphold our knowledge.
Source: Questionnaire survey
Note: The respondents are PST members who participated in the intensive training session of WU5.

15
Chapter 4 M & E of the progress of capacity building (Level 2)

M & E of the progress of capacity building is carried out based on (1) evaluation
of assignments, (2) responses to the questionnaire survey and (3) results of interviews
with the management. The first two aim to examine the aspects of knowledge and skills
while the third is to look at the aspect of attitude.

4.1 Evaluation of assignments for examination of skill and knowledge

The objective of the monitoring and evaluation of capacity building is not so much the
evaluation of the participants’ capacities but progress monitoring of capacity development and
the effectiveness of the training program.
(1) Assignments of WU 1 and WU 2
The participants were provided the first assignment after the intensive training session
of WU 1 and the second one after the intensive training session of WU 2. The third assignment,
drafting of an F/S report, was given after the intensive training sessions of WUs 3 and 4. The
last assignment, drafting of an IP, was provided after the intensive training session of WU 5.
The first assignment covered topics relating to the field survey and analysis such as the
calculation and estimation of standing volume and increment (mean annual increment), a
summary sheet of socio-economic status by commune, interview memos with factories, draft
PDM, and so on. The second assignment related to project planning, including topics relevant to
the afforestation/agro-forestry plan, expenditure plans and an organization chart of the project
implementation structure (Details with evaluation results are shown in Table 6 of Appendix 4
for WU 1 assignment and Table 6 of Appendix 6 for WU 2 assignment). Assignments were to
be submitted within about one and half months after completion of the intensive training session
but before the next intensive training session started.

The following compares the evaluation results of assignments among the four PPs. The
scores show evaluation results out of 1.0.

Figure 4: Evaluation results of WU assignments

0.7 WU1
0.6 WU2

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Son La Quang Lam Long An Avg
Nam Dong

Source: Questionnaire survey

Note: The full point of the score is 1.0.

16
 The evaluation results of the WU 1 assignment were not as high as expected. Some
provinces were not able to submit part of the assignment such as an assignment relating to the
coordination of the PST while others submitted their assignments in different ways based on
their own understanding. A number of reasons have been identified through the questionnaire
survey carried out during the intensive training session of WU 2. These comments range from
coordination issues among different offices to time constraints, financial issues, skills,
inappropriateness of assignments and specific conditions in respective project areas. The
following table summarizes the difficulties encountered in preparing the assignments.

Table 12: Difficulties encountered in conducting WU 1 assignments

Area and issue Difficulties
Coordination among - PST members work in various agencies such as DARD, Sub-DoF,
different offices implementing agency, extension offices, etc.
Time issue - PST members perform their routine tasks at their offices while preparing the
assignments.
- Preparation period for performing assignments is too short. For example, it is
hard to select interviewers to be representatives for CCM. In some places, as
the survey is to be conducted during the harvesting season, it became difficult
to gather farmers for meetings and interviews.
Financial issue - No field trip allowance has been provided as the counter-part budget has yet to
be allocated.
Inadequate skills - Shortage of some technical skills: for example, mapping skills of PST
members are relatively weak.
- Shortage of technical devices and techniques to carry out parts of assignments.
- It is difficult to summarize and write reports.
Inappropriateness of - Evaluation criteria for assignments should be consistent.
assignments and evaluation - Evaluation criteria should be made known in advance.
criteria - Requirements for the assignments were not clear and consistent.
- Requirements in class are different from actual assignments.
- The practical knowledge should reflect the conditions of each province.
Natural conditions and - Bad weather conditions made it difficult to conduct the survey. Some
other difficult conditions in assignments cannot be completed due to floods.
collecting information - As the project area is located at a very high altitude, it is very complicated to
conduct the field survey of natural forest.
- Enterprises do not want to provide their information in the area of the
economy and finance.
Source: Questionnaire survey
Note: Although not all the participants of WU 2 were involved in conducting WU 1 assignments,
difficulties the respondents described in their questionnaire seemed to cover a range of issues
typically encountered in the respective PPs, presumably due to experience-sharing in their offices.

Based on comments from the PST members about the WU 1 assignments, an extra
session was held during the next intensive training session (WU 2) in order to clarify the content
of the assignments under WU 2.
With regard to the results of WU 2 assignments, PST members from all the four PPs
achieved substantial improvement in the quality of WU 2 assignments over the previous ones
(WU 1 assignments) as seen in Figure 4 above. This particularly applied to the case of LA. A
number of reasons can explain this improvement. One of the reasons is that clearer instructions
were given to the participants during the intensive training session of WU 2 for the preparation
of assignments. Another reason resulted from the improvement of the capacity of PST and the

17
local sub-contractor. The fact that the budget for the survey became available is another reason
that can be mentioned.
In terms of the differences among the evaluation results among the four PPs, it is
reasonable to see higher scores for the assignments prepared by PSTs in LD and QN because
both PSTs received support from the local sub-contractor. The total number of man-days during
the introduction workshop and intensive training sessions of WUs shows the largest input on
LD and the second largest on QN among the four PPs, if the number of man-days of Sub-FIPI
participants, who attended the intensive training sessions and were assigned to support these
two provinces, were included. On the other hand, the difference in performance between SL and
LA PST may imply an importance in the selection of participants. In the case of SL, the total
number of participants including the introduction workshop was nineteen (19) and an average of
six (6) participants attended the intensive training sessions of each WU. In terms of the total
man-days of PST members in PPs (excluding input to Sub-FIPI) during the introduction
workshop and intensive training sessions, input on SL PST was the largest among the four PPs.
However, no participant from SL attended all the intensive training sessions of the five WUs.
On the other hand, although the total man-days for LA PST are relatively small compared with
other PPs, one PST member, an experienced staff member, continued to attend all the intensive
training sessions (See Table 3). These differences imply an importance in the selection of
participants for the training program.
Among those submitted, assignments for which PST marked higher scores are related
to the implementation plans of afforestation/agro-forestry projects such as estimated quantity of
seedlings, afforestation/agro-forestry plans, harvesting plans, expenditure plans and loan
repayment schedules (See Table 7 of Appendix 6). On the other hand, assignments rated
relatively low (the average score is equal to or lower than the average of the total assignments,
which is 0.52) are on the structure of the organization of people, 7 the methodology of the
extension service and system, and the project implementation structure. Those assignments are
related to planning for project implementation and to institutional arrangements. A number of
reasons can be seen. Firstly, from the answer to the questionnaire,8 it can be assumed that a
smaller number of PST members were involved in the preparation of these assignments. In
addition, it is not clear who was playing a major role in preparing these assignments among PST
members in some provinces. Secondly, even after the intensive training session of WU 2, PSTs
did not seem to be so familiar with the institutional arrangements which require the description
of roles and responsibilities of the implementing agency and coordination among different
stakeholders in consideration of achieving the project objective. Thirdly, PSTs might not have
come up with the types of supporting services and incentive mechanisms for participating
farmers, including cost estimations for such components, which are required for the successful
implementation of afforestation projects if farmers are to be mobilized. The Project Design
Matrix (PDM) and the process of preparing a PDM will be the effective tool for identifying
problems, finding counter-measures to the problems, and designing the project plan
accordingly. The average score of the assignment relevant to PDM is 0.58 out of 1.0, higher
than the average of the total scores. However, it is deemed important to review once again the
PDM, the problems and objectives analyses and then find out the problems that the project will

7
Two provinces did not submit this assignment.
8
During the intensive training session of WU 4, participants were asked to answer which
assignments they had prepared after WU 1 and WU 2 by pointing out if they played a major role, an
assistant role, or no role. Responses to this questionnaire may not necessarily represent the extent of the
efforts placed by PST of the participating provinces in their preparation of assignments. However, the
responses imply the comparative weights distributed among different assignments (See Table 7 of
Appendix 6).

18
plan to address; who is the target beneficiary; what the causes of the problems are; and then,
what are the possible counter-measures to solve the problems, which in turn will lead to the
achievement of the project objective. Finally, some of the assignments were still not clear to
PSTs.

(2) Evaluation of F/S reports

The F/S reports were evaluated by the JST. The evaluation criteria of the F/S report are
divided into general and specific aspects. The general aspect has a weight of thirty (30) points,
where ten (10) points are distributed equally to evaluate the logical consistency, data quality and
quantity, and correct application of methods. The specific aspect has a weight of seventy (70)
points, where specific aspects are evaluated in accordance with the structure of the F/S report.
The evaluation format of the F/S report is shown in Appendix 8. The following table
summarizes the evaluation results of the F/S reports by PSTs of respective PPs.

Table 13: Evaluation results of F/S reports

Unit: Points
Point Son Quang Long
Allocation La Nam Lam Dong An Average
Total (a) + (b) 100 58.4 66.6 61.9 58.0 61.2
General aspect (a) 30 16.3 18.8 19.0 17.0 17.8
Specific aspects (b) 70 42.2 47.8 42.9 41.0 43.5
Out of which:
Part I 15 9.1 10.4 9.4 7.4 9.0
Part II 25 15.3 16.6 14.0 16.3 15.5
Part III 20 11.1 14.4 13.3 11.6 12.6
Part IV 10 6.8 6.5 6.3 5.8 6.3
Source: Evaluation results by JST

Based on the evaluation results of the F/S reports, the following points need to be raised
for improvement of the report:
(1) Logical consistency needs to be maintained among the chapters of the F/S report and the
rationale of the project needs to be based on the analysis of the existing development issues;
(2) The data quality needs to be ensured based on the legal classification of the land and the
classification of the existing land use;
(3) Description of the institutional arrangement needs to be further elaborated on, based on the
stakeholders analysis, and including the involvement of farmers;
(4) A component-wise cost table needs to be prepared;
(5) Without-project cases need to be described and an incremental analysis should be carried
out; and
(6) The treatment of subsidies needs to be re-examined under the financial and economic
analyses.
These comments were passed on to the participants as feedback of the evaluation results
on the first day of the intensive training session of WU 5 and the Vietnamese translation of the
comments were provided on the final day of the intensive training session of WU 5.

19
 (3) Evaluation of IP
The IPs were evaluated by the JST. The evaluation criteria of the IP are divided into
general and specific aspects. The general aspect has a weight of twenty (20) points, where ten
(10) points are distributed equally to evaluate the practical aspect and clarity (ease of
understanding). The specific aspect has a weight of eighty (80) points, where specific aspects
are evaluated in accordance with the structure of the IP. The evaluation format of the IP is
shown in Appendix 8. The following table summarizes the evaluation results of the IP by PSTs
of respective PPs.

Table 14: Evaluation results of IP

Unit: Points
Point
No allocation SL QN LD LA Average
Total (a) + (b) 100 48.3 72.0 64.3 58.3 60.7
General aspect (a) 20 9.0 14.0 12.0 10.5 11.4
Specific aspect (b) 80 39.3 58.0 52.3 47.8 49.3
Out of which:
Part I 10 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.3 6.6
Part II 70 32.8 51.0 45.8 41.5 42.8
Source: Evaluation results by JST

Based on the evaluation results of the IPs, the following points need to be raised for
improvement:
(1) The report needs to be prepared based on the results of analyzing local conditions in the
project area. The results should be a basis on which to prepare an implementation plan in
various fields such as the implementing arrangement and schedule, loan procedures, sales
procedures, procurement procedures and training needs;
(2) The use of some terminologies were not consistent with definitions in the manuals, which
made the report difficult to understand;
(3) Logical consistency among inputs, activities, components, outputs, project objective, and
overall goal is still not well maintained;
(4) Logical consistency also needs to be maintained among the content of different chapters and
sub-chapters, including consistency in the description of M & E indicators in the chapters
concerned and M & E indicators in the PDM;
(5) It is necessary to examine the critical assumptions in terms of their nature and levels in terms
of the PDM; and
(6) It will be difficult for staff of an implementing agency to comprehend how the project is to
be implemented. It is important to clearly describe the roles and responsibility of key personnel
and internal units of the implementing agency and other important stakeholders involved in the
project implementation.

20
4.2 Results of the questionnaire survey for examination of skills and
knowledge
The participants were asked to compare the present level of knowledge and skills with
the level before participation in the intensive training sessions of respective WUs. The level
ranges from 1 (lower than the level prior to the intensive training session) to 7 (higher than the
level prior to the intensive training session).9 As seen in Figure 5 below, the average of the
ratings of the ex-post capacity level, if compared with the level before attending the intensive
training session, is around the level of 6 “Somewhat higher” across WUs. The averages of the
ratings slightly vary among WUs where the averages of the ratings for WU 1 and WU 3 are
higher than those of WU 2 and WU 4. The standard deviation (SD) is around 0.6 to 0.7 with a
decreasing trend from WU 2 to WU 4, implying less dispersion among the responses in WU 4
compared with those in WUs 2 and 3.

Figure 5: Evaluation of capacity if compared with the level before attending the intensive
training sessions

Self-evaluation of skill and knowledge level

6.2 1.0

6.1 Average 0.9

6.1
SD
6.0 0.8
Average of ratings by responden

6.0
Standard Deviation (SD)

0.7
5.9
0.6
5.8 5.8
5.8 0.5

5.7 0.4
5.7
0.3
5.6
0.2
5.5
0.1

5.4 0.0
WU 1 WU2 WU3 WU4 WU5

Source: Questionnaire survey

Note: Rating scale of WU 1 is adjusted from the five scales (1-5) to the seven scales (1-7).

Furthermore, the analysis examined how much knowledge and skills transferred
through the intensive training session participants claimed to have acquired. While this question
was asked about the overall content in the case of WU 1 and WU 4, specific areas of the
subjects were highlighted in the case of WU 2 and WU 3.10

9
As the different level of the scale was used for the intensive training program of WU 1, the scale
was adjusted to be in line with other WUs.
10
In WU 2, participants were divided into two groups (Group A for the planning and technical
fields, and Group B for the planning, socio-economic, financial and market fields). Therefore, the
responses from the respondents are examined by following the classification of the groups: questions
about the elaboration of the project plan for Group A; questions about the estimation of the investment
cost and financing plan for Group B; and questions about the institutional arrangements and measures for

21
 Figure 6: Evaluation of the acquisition of the knowledge and skills transferred

Self-evaluation of acquisition of technology transferred by respondents

86.0 14.0

84.0
12.0
82.0
Average of ratings by responden

80.0 10.0
78.0

Standard Deviation (SD)

8.0
76.0

74.0
6.0
72.0

70.0 4.0
Average
68.0
SD 2.0
66.0

64.0 0.0
WU1 WU2_Plan WU2_Invest WU2_Insti WU3_EvsF WU3_ICR WU3_CF WU3_Criteria WU3_Sensi WU4 WU5

Source: Questionnaire survey

Note: 1) The full score is 100 points.
2) Specific skills and knowledge asked for WU 2 and WU 3
WU Legend Specific skills and knowledge
2 WU2_Plan Elaboration of project plan
WU2_Invest Estimation of investment cost and financing plan
WU2_Insti Institutional arrangements and measures for the project
3 WU3_EvsF Difference between financial and economic analyses
WU3_ICR Incremental analysis (comparison of with-project case and without-project
case)
WU3_CF Development of financial cash flow statement
WU3_Criteria Evaluation of financial results by applying investment criteria (such as NPV,
IRR and B/C Ratio)
WU3_Sensi Sensitivity analysis

The self-evaluation of the participants shows that about 70 to 80 percent of what had
been transferred to them was acquired. Comparison among different WUs shows a relatively
higher rate of acquisition for WU 3 in comparison to WUs 1, 2, 4 and 5. It can be seen that this
tendency of ratings by respondents is reflected in the average of the overall ratings of each WU
(See Table 8 and Figure 2).

the project for both Groups A and B. In the case where respondents responded to both of the questions
prepared for either Group A or B, only one of their responses was taken into account.

22
4.3 Results of interviews and questionnaire survey for the examination of
attitudes
The results of the interviews 11 with the management of DARD or Sub-DoF in PPs
provide some clues to changes in attitudes of participants. Some management referred to the
importance of conducting the survey in an objective manner by referring to the implementation
of the field survey. According to this opinion, there was a lack of organization of field surveys
including communal consultation meetings (CCM). Therefore, opinions from the local people
and actual conditions were less likely to be well reflected in the project plan.
Management in another PP found differences in PST’s attitudes in their ways of
approaching and managing their work. According to this opinion, PST members showed a
logical and systematic mind for the preparation works so as to make their work plan persuasive
to others. It was mentioned that the advantage of the WUs is to encourage the PST members to
voluntarily learn the process instead of being forced. Provision of equipment under the FICAB
also enabled PST members to meet work requirements in a faster and more precise manner.
It was also pointed out in another PP that in preparing for assignments, PST members
got together to discuss how to conduct the assignments by following instructions. They made
quick responses and feedback to FICAB, which helped them clearly understand the issues and
gain stronger confidences in their work. It was explained that they had already applied some of
what they had learned to work in their province. Due to differences in natural conditions and
institutional arrangements from other provinces, they also plan to localize what they learned in
FICAB and make it suitable to the case in their province.
Management of another PP mentioned that discussions with JST and others about issues
helped PST improve their understanding of the work and forthcoming tasks.

11
Interview was conducted in October 2006 when JST visited respective PPs.

23
Chapter 5 M & E of changes in behavior (Level 3)

Although it was still in the middle of the training program, M & E was also conducted
to learn if there had been any changes in behavior among participants (Level 3). For this
purpose, at the end of the intensive training session of WU 5, participants were asked if they had
applied what they had learned through the training program to any other work in their offices.
Out of 20 respondents, 15 (75%) said that they had. Those who answered “Yes” were
further asked what methodology they applied. The following methodologies were mentioned in
their responses.

1) Application of logic in solving the issues to

implement the project
2) Problems analysis, objectives analysis and PDM
3) Method of information collection and data analysis
4) CCM method for evaluation of participation
5) Investigation of tree productivities
6) Demand analysis
7) Method of project planning and implementation
8) Preparation of annual work plans
9) Financing plans
10) Financial and economic analyses
11) Supplementary ideas to attract investment
12) Preparation of report outlines, documentation and
presentations
13) Steps to prepare a project
14) Project structure

It is assumed that these respondents work in the right office to apply what they learned
and have good motivation to make use of it. Combined with this condition, it can be seen that
the training program of FICAB has some good impact on changes in behavior of the
respondents.

24
Chapter 6 M & E of the localization and institutionalization process of
the training package (Level 1 to 2)

FICAB aims to support endogenous development of local planning capacities for the
preparation of F/S and IP of projects in the forestry sector through the training program. The
training package is to be utilized as the main reference material of the training program. The
target level of the training program is set at a level which will enable participants to prepare a
proposal in order to facilitate investment. At the same time, this target level needs to be realistic
in consideration of the limited resource availability in respective provinces. 12
M & E covers the process of reviewing the manuals that were originally prepared
during Phase 1 of FICAB for use at the training program. The manuals have been developed in
parallel with the implementation of the training program, through an interactive process of
document review among JST, the local sub-contractor, PST of CoP and PPs, DoF and other
relevant stakeholders to find ways to localize and institutionalize the training program,
particularly the manuals. This process can be also interpreted as a process to find a target level
of planning capacity for the training program.
This chapter consists of two parts: the first part describes the localization and
institutionalization of F/S report and IP and the second part examines the level of financial
support extended to the feasibility study from a viewpoint of the localization of the training
program.

6.1 Localization and institutionalization through examining the structure

and content of F/S report and IP
During Phase 1 of FICAB, JST initially drafted manuals with a template of feasibility
study reports and implementation plans referring to available F/S reports, appraisal reports, and
other documents of the financial institutions and investors. The initial template of a F/S report
consisted of 22 chapters such as Chapter 1: Background of Project and Chapter 2: Sector Issues
and Government Measures, while that of an IP consisted of 12 chapters. Toward end of Phase 1
of FICAB, FIPI, under the supervision and guidance of JST, prepared draft Model F/S reports
and IPs for production forest and agro-forestry development projects in Thai Nguyen Province.
PST of Thai Nguyen Province also participated in the preparation of these documents. In
consideration of relevant legal documents in Vietnam, particularly Decree No. 16/2005/ND-CP
of February 7, 2005, the initial 22 chapters of the F/S template were categorized into five parts
in Model F/S. “Conclusions and recommendations” was added to the five parts. The five parts
include Part 1: Background of the Project and Part 2: Project Plan as shown in Column (A) of
Table 15 below. In June 2006, MARD issued Instruction 1321/BNN-LN, which had an attached
document showing the structure of “a project proposal” (Column (B) of Table 15 below).
Consistent with the structure of the attached document and also having additional input from
JICA Vietnam office and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the items of a F/S report

12
Constraints that the PSTs face are not only limited to planning skills but also to other factors
such as the financial capacities of the local institutions and time availability of the local staff. Natural
conditions and cultural issues specific to the project area may also act as constraints. However, because
the focus of FICAB is on planning capacities, it is assumed that other constraints will continue at the
existing level.

25
were restructured into the four parts (Column (C) of Table 15 below). The document review
process of the F/S manual is illustrated in Figure 7 below.
In the case of IP, a template of an implementation plan consisting of initially twelve
(12) chapters was later modified to have eight (8) chapters in two (2) parts.

Table 15: Changes of F/S structure

(A) (B) (C)
Doc Model F/S Production under Attachment document in F/S Manual under FICAB
FICAB Document No. 1321/BNN-
LN by MARD
Date March 2006 June 2, 2006 March 2007
Part 1 Background of the project Project background Project background
Part 2 Project plan Project content Project contents
Part 3 Investment for the project Cost-benefit analysis Project justification
Part 4 Institutional arrangements Findings and Conclusions and
and measurements for the recommendations recommendations
project implementation
Part 5 Effectiveness analysis and
evaluation of the project
Conclusions and
recommendations

Through the technical training in the CoP, JST and the local sub-contractor received
various input to incorporate into the F/S manual such as table formats to summarize numerical
data, frequently-used terminologies for which clearer definitions are required, examples to
illustrate the situation. The following table shows the major input received through the technical
training in the CoP and incorporated in the F/S manual.

Table 16: Major inputs from CoP in revising the F/S manual and preparing F/S reports
No. Major input incorporated through the technical training in CoP
Part 1 Description of land classification and forest land in accordance with the land law
Description of the classification of the current forest land use situation
Definition of land unit
Differentiation of potential market and target market
Description of the distribution system of tea products as an example
Calculation of stumpage based on factory gate prices
Part 2 Definition of a project
Differentiation of target beneficiary and beneficiaries
Part 3 Estimation of rural wages and formats to present results of the financial and economic
analyses

During Phase 2 of FICAB, participants of PPs prepared their F/S reports referring to the
documents which had been drafted during Phase 1 and continuously revised during Phase 2.
Through interaction with participants of PPs in the training program, various ideas to revise the
manuals and models came in among JST and the local sub-contractor. For example, the

26
following Table 17 shows the major input incorporated in the manuals based on experiences
from the training program of PPs.

Table 17: Major input from PPs in revising the F/S manual and F/S reports
No. Major input incorporated based on the technical training in PPs
Part 1 SWOT analysis to analyze opportunities and challenges (Part 1 Sub-chapter 2.6 of F/S
manual), and sample structure and description of project rationale based on the SWOT
analysis (Part 2 Chapter 1 of F/S manual)
Part 2 Clearer description of PDM and definition of some key words
Description of the relation between the overall goal, project objective, outputs, components,
activities, and inputs of the project
Definition of the assistance period and project period
Definition of project area and planting site
Definition of preparation period and operation period
Classification of fund flows of the project
Classification of stakeholders involved in the project into three groups: management group,
implementation group and supporting group.
Definition of implementing agency and community-based organization
Part 3 Simple format of the environmental assessment

The number (1) in Figure 7 below shows the interactive feedback process between
revising works of the F/S manual and F/S reports of PPs.

During Phase 2, JST and the local sub-contractor discussed the structure of the manuals
in consideration of the target users. Through discussions, it was agreed to revise the F/S manual
that would be comprised of the four volumes. Volume I describes the overall process of the
feasibility studies with flow charts. Volume II gives an overview of an F/S report outlining the
structure and content of an F/S report. Volume III presents detailed procedures for preparation
of an F/S report using the input-analysis-output table. Volume IV is a technical guide explaining
methodologies in specific fields such as financial and economic analyses. Depending on past
experiences, users of the manual may refer to relevant parts of the manual or the entire volumes.
Experienced planners may refer to Volumes I and II only, but newly graduated personnel may
need to go through the entire volumes of the F/S manual in order to conduct a feasibility study
and prepare a report (Table 18 below).

Table 18: Target users and relevant volumes of the F/S manual
Target users of the F/S manual Volume of the F/S manual
I II III IV
(1) Experienced planners of F/S * *
(2) Planners without experience of F/S * * * Depend
(3) Fresh university graduates * * * *
Note: Asterisks indicate expected users of different volumes of the F/S manual.

27
 Figure 7: Process to localize and institutionalize the F/S manual

Review at
APW

Review at
TW

Review by
Phase 2

local experts
(3)
(2)

F/S Manual

(1)
F/S of PPs

JICA Vietnam Office/FAO Model F/S

MARD Instruction 1321/ with 4 parts
BNN-LN
Model F/S
Decree 16/2005/ND-CP
FICAB Phase 1

with 5 parts

Existing F/S Manual/

22 items of FS
reports, etc.

JST Local sub-

contractor

Legend:
Documents referred Document prepared Institution
Reference or review for preparation of F/S Manual
Interactive process of feedbacks

28
 In order to enhance the applicability of F/S and IP in Vietnam, a Technical Workshop
(TW) was organized on July 25, 2007 with participation from concerned organizations. Before
holding the workshop, five local experts who have long experience in the forestry sector were
invited to review the documents and provide their comments and suggestions on the manuals
and models in terms of their applicability from the following two perspectives: 1) structure and
concepts of F/S and IP manuals and 2) practical aspects in consideration of the local capacities
in the provinces. The experts were requested to make their comments at the TW. There are a
number of valuable comments and suggestions raised by the participants of the TW. The
following table shows major changes being made to the manuals following the TW.

Table 19: Major changes being made to the F/S manual after the Technical Workshop
No. Major changes being made based on comments and suggestions of participants
1 The description of types of maps to be prepared is added in Volume I F. Expected outputs
of F/S (Step 5) of the F/S manual
2 Examination of farmers’ intentions to participate in the project will be added in Part II.
Section 3.2.1 Planting site selection under Project implementation plan
3 “Demand for wood materials for construction and other use in the province where the
project is located, and neighboring provinces” is included in the analysis of Part II. Section
2.4.1 Demand and supply of forest/agro-forestry products under Sales and marketing.
4 Inclusion of Part 2 Section 3.2.5 “Tending and protection plan” in Project implementation
plan
5 Following additional information is incorporated in Box “Example” Part II. Chapter 4
Project cost of the F/S manual.
Example: Government general practice in terms of the cost structure
General practice of the government for their afforestation projects at the time of preparation
of this manual:
Although the cost structure of a project depends on the type of project, the Government of
Vietnam applies the following structure to afforestation projects: plantation establishment
(production forest development) 50-60%; infrastructure development 10-15%; management
10-12%; contingencies 5-10% of the project cost during the project period.
6 The following explanation is added in the note of Part III. Sub-chapter 1.2 Economic
analysis:
If the project is small in scale, this section can be put together under the heading of the
financial and economic analyses without having the two separate sub-chapters.
7 “Illegal logging” is included as part of the risks in Part III. Chapter 5 Project risks and
mitigating measures.

Table 20: Major changes being made to IP Manual after the Technical Workshop
No. Major changes being made based on comments and suggestions of participants
1 The description of types of maps to be prepared is added in Volume 1. C. Output of IP.
2 The following sentence is added to Part II. Sub-chapter 1.2 Implementing agency
Recruitment and assignment of personnel depend on the project type. For example, if a
project is undertaken with participation of farmers, the head of the project implementing
agency can be selected from the group of farmers. In that case, the government will notify
the persons in charge of the project and help them with orientation of the project and
relevant policies.

The number (2) in Figure 7 above shows the feedback process to the revising work of
the F/S and IP manuals from the Technical Workshop.

29
 In order to enhance the applicability of F/S and IP from the viewpoint of donors
including foreign and domestic agencies, an Advisory Panel Workshop (APW) was organized
on October 11, 2007 with participation from concerned organizations. Although the number of
participants was not as many as expected, there are a number of valuable comments and
suggestions raised by the participants of the APW. The following table shows the main changes
being made to the manuals after the APW.

Table 21: Major changes being made to the F/S and IP manuals after the AP Workshop
No Major changes being made based on comments and suggestions of participants
1 Output of F/S and IP manuals (Book 2 and 3)
The map scale is at least as follows:
Commune level: 1/10,000 to 1/25,000
District level: 1/25,000 to 1/50,000
Provincial level: 1/50,000 to 1/100,000
2 F/S manual (Book 2)
Elaboration of risk profile and mitigating measures such as ways to establish a farmers’
union to reduce illegal logging for community-based protection

The number (3) in Figure 7 above shows the feedback process to the revising work of
the F/S and IP manuals from the Advisory Panel Workshop.

6.2 Level of financial support for the feasibility study

During Phase 2 of FICAB, all the expenses required for the intensive training sessions
(WUs 1 to 5) were born by the project budget of FICAB. On the other hand, expenses incurred
during the OJT period were partly supported by PST themselves. In Quang Nam and Lam
Dong, the local sub-contractor dispatched a group of their staff to assist PST in preparation of
the F/S report and IP under a contract between JST and the local sub-contractor.

In Son La and Long An, there was no personnel sent from the local sub-contractor to
support implementation of the feasibility study by the PSTs due to budgetary constraints of
FICAB but assistance was extended specifically from FICAB project office in the form of
technical as well as financial assistance. Aside from visit of the JST members and the project
office staff members for supporting services, financial assistance was extended to Son La and
Long An. The total amount of the financial assistance was VND 32 million for SL and VND 35
million for LA. The following table summarizes the amount of the assistance.

30
 Table 22: Financial assistance to Son La and Long An in conducting F/S
Unit: Million VND
No Item Son La Long An
1 Support through the local sub-contractor (payment directly 5 8
to the local consultants)
2 Direct financial supports for preparation of assignments 25 25
3 Support for the maps and editing (Note) 2 2
Total (1+2+3) 32 35
Note: For the purpose of estimation, the total amount for support for the maps and editing is allocated
equally to the two provinces. Aside from the above financial assistance, JST members visited Son La for
eight (8) man-days and Long An for thirteen (13) man-days, both times being accompanied by staff
members of FICAB project office.

It is considered that the amount spent for supporting implementation of the feasibility
study in each province was not too big for localization of the training program.

31
Chapter 7 Conclusion: points for feedback

The results of M & E are based on the attendance of the participants, the introduction
workshop, the intensive training sessions of WUs, the assignments, and interviews with the
management in respective PPs. The points for feedback are described in terms of the content of
the training program (Level 1 of the four-level approach), the progress of the capacity building
of PST members in PPs (Level 2) and changes in behavior (Level 3). In addition, the monitoring
results of the institutionalization process of the training package, particularly the F/S manual, is
explained (Level 1 to 2).

7.1 Training program (Level 1)

(1) Appropriateness of training content based on the reaction from participants
Overall evaluations by the participants in the questionnaires show some favorable
responses to the introduction workshop and the intensive training sessions of WUs 1 to 5,
particularly WUs 3 and 4. Higher ratings for WUs 3 and 4 are partly because the training
session was organized by an experienced instructor from Forestry University of Vietnam in WU
3 and in the case of WU 4, organized in a more practical way if compared with the methods
adopted in the intensive training sessions of WUs 1 and 2.

(2) Points to improve in terms of the intensive training sessions

There are some respondents who rated the training sessions at a lower level. The
period of intensive training session is rather short if the content and volume of works are
considered while PST members find it difficult to be away from their home offices for a longer
period of time. In order to meet needs of PSTs for future intensive training sessions, it would be
important to select indispensable items for technical transfer, to integrate theoretical issues with
practical exercises, and to send a clear message (what are the important points to learn in this
session) throughout each training session. There are a number of aspects that can be pointed out
in this respect:
- Content: selection of concrete and practical content such as project planning and PDM,
institutional aspects, cost estimates, fund sources, data and information collection, maps,
market analysis, financial and economic analyses, environmental impact analysis and
report drafting;
- Methodologies: combination of the intensive training sessions and the OJT sessions in
respective PPs, provision of clear and specific instructions, integration of lectures and
other teaching aids such as exercises, assignments, field trips, group discussions and
presentations; and
- Organization: better time allocation for discussion and exercises, timing and schedule
of the training program, reasonable workload and conducting of field trips.

(3) Points to improve in terms of the implementation of the OJT sessions in PPs
The following points are important for the implementation of the feasibility study and
implementation planning during the OJT sessions in respective PPs:
- Further attention should be paid to the importance of the study process involving
stakeholders, coordination among PST members and the role of the leader in the PST;

32
 - The field survey schedule needs to be somehow flexible in consideration of the natural
and socio-economic conditions in the project area; and
- Time and local budgets should be secured for the OJT of PST members in respective
provinces.

7.2 Progress of capacity building (Level 2)

Based on the evaluation of assignments, and the self-evaluation of participants
regarding the level of their skills and knowledge after the intensive training sessions, it can been
seen that the understanding of PST members in PPs has progressed in terms of the content
learned and application of what they learned through the assignments. The interview results of
management in each PP indicate that they observed some changes in the attitudes among PST
members.
Based on the results of the M & E, it is considered that the following aspects of the
planning capacities need to be further strengthened:
- Collection and analytical skills for quantitative data. This includes definition of the
data for quality improvement of data and analysis, and reflection of actual conditions in
the project area;
- Institutional aspects such as the description of roles and responsibilities of the
implementing agency and coordination among different stakeholders in consideration of
achievement of the project objective;
- Incorporation of supporting services and incentive mechanisms in the project design
based on analysis of necessities; and
- Logical explanation of the necessity and design of the project based on the PDM.

7.3 Selection of participants (targeting)

During the training program under FICAB, a few PST members continued to attend all
the intensive training sessions of the five (5) WUs. Although it depends on the policy and
interests of respective PPs, it would be more effective to fix a smaller group of PST to maintain
consistency in the feasibility study and implementation planning instead of changing
participants in every WU. For this purpose, prior guidance and explanation on the training
program to PST will be more important.

7.4 Changes in behavior (Level 3)

The majority of the respondents replied that they had applied what they had learned
through the training program of FICAB. Coupled with a good office climate and their
motivation, it is considered that the training program of FICAB has a somehow good impact on
changes in the behavior of respondents. However, the monitoring and evaluation of changes in
behavior need to be continued for verification.

7.5 Progress of institutionalization of the training package (Level 1 to 2)

The manuals have been developed in parallel with the implementation of the training
program, through the interactive process between JST and parties concerned with the forestry

33
sector in Vietnam. It is considered that it will be important to make the manuals official
documents at MARD/DoF in the future. As PST members attended the training program, they
also found it important to legitimize the manuals because the institutionalization of the manuals
is likely to increase the predictability of their F/S report and IP being accepted, so far as they
prepare their project in accordance with the manuals and justify the feasibility of the project.
Therefore, the institutionalization of the manuals is considered to be the key to enhancement of
the motivation of participants and the improvement of the capacities of those involved in the
preparation of an F/S report and an IP.
Furthermore, as document reviews were carried out through an interactive feedback
process between JST, the local sub-contractor, PST of CoP and PPs, DoF and other relevant
stakeholders in order to find ways to localize and institutionalize them, the process is also
considered to have served the institutional development of the forestry sector by enhancing
abilities to identify issues and devise counter-measures for the project planning in the sector.
However, it is thought that it will require some more time before legitimization takes
place because it needs further examination in terms of the applicability of the manuals. Since the
training package is prepared as a teaching aid, efforts to improve the package should be
continued through feedback from the training program and actual applications in provinces.

34
 APPENDICES

Appendices 1 to 7 are monitoring and evaluation reports drafted right after the training
program of FICAB Phase 1, the introduction workshop and intensive training sessions
of WU 1 to 5 respectively. Results and findings of these reports provided a basis to
prepar the main body of the M & E report on technical training of PPs (Book 6).

35
 Appendix 1

M & E Report of FICAB Phase 1

36
JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA)
Appendix 1

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

VIET NAM

The Development Study

on Capacity Building
for Preparing Feasibility Studies and Implementation Plans
for Afforestation Projects
in the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam

Monitoring and Evaluation Report in Phase 1

March 2006

JAPAN FOREST TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION

OVERSEAS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LTD

37
 List of Abbreviation

CPIU : Commune Project

Implementation Unit

CV : Coefficient of Variation

FIPI : Forest Inventory and Planning

Institute

OJT : On-the-Job Training

PCA : Principal Component Analysis

PMB : Project Management Board

PST : Provincial Study Team

SD : Standard Deviation

38
 Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction and methodologies ................................................................... 40

1.1 Introduction and methodology .........................................................................................40

Chapter 2 Profile of the participants................................................................................ 41

2.1 Profile of participants in the OJT program.......................................................................41

2.2 Profile of respondents under the M & E...........................................................................43

Chapter 3 Evaluation of the OJT program........................................................................ 44

3.1 Evaluation of the OJT program at the end of the program ...............................................44
3.1.1 Evaluation of the OJT program ........................................................................................44
3.1.2 Evaluation of the F/S and IP as an output of the OJT program ........................................46
3.1.3 Overall evaluation of the OJT program ............................................................................49
3.2 Evaluation of the OJT program during the OJT period ....................................................53

Chapter 4 Evaluation of the progress of the capacity building............................................ 55

4.1 Evaluation of the general progress of the capacity building.............................................55

4.2 Evaluation of changes of the attitude ...............................................................................56
4.3 Evaluation of the specific field of the planning capacity .................................................60

Chapter 5 Conclusion: points to be considered for feedback .............................................. 68

Annex 1: Questionnaire form ............................................................................................ 69

Annex 2: Data summary of responses from participants................................................... 77

Annex 3: Summary of responses to Part 1: Q1(12.7) ....................................................... 95

Annex 4: Summary of responses to Part 1: Q 2(1) and Q2(2) .......................................... 97

Annex 5: Summary of responses to Part 2: Q7.1, Q7.2 and Q8. .................................... 100

39
 Chapter 1 Introduction and methodologies

1.1 Introduction and methodology

The monitoring and evaluation report has been prepared mainly based on the
questionnaire survey conducted on March 6, 2006 at the PST-FIPI-JICA Study Team
Joint Meeting and the evaluation by the JICA study team in March 2006. The M & E
aims to (1) evaluate the OJT program and (2) evaluate the progress of the capacity
building of selected staff members (Provincial Study Team members) in Thai Nugyen
province and the local sub-contractor (FIPI) under the On-the-Job training. The M & E
activities for the capacity building have been undertaken in consideration of the causal
(means and ends) relation among items at the different levels of the Project Design
Matrix (PDM) for the Study. Each level of the PDM will correspond to a sequence of
the four levels (reaction –> learning –> behavior -> results) to evaluate the capacity
building program as shown in Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1: Relation between PDM and M & E activities
Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
(Reaction) (Learning) (Behavior) (Results)

Narrative Activities (inputs): Outputs: Project Objective: Overall Goal:

Summary Formulation of a Training Selected staff members of to strengthen the to strengthen the
of PDM Package at the CoP and MARD and DARD (CoP and capacities for preparing overall capacities for
Implementation of Technical PPs) develop their capacities afforestation projects in preparing
Transfer for the PPs for coordination and targeted five provinces afforestation
preparing F/Ss and IPs, projects & facilitate
respectively. investment
Process of Technology Transfer: Trainers (A) and Trainees (B)
1st Phase (A) Study Team
(B) Sub-contractor
PST in CoP (and PPs)
MARD
2nd Phase (A) Study Team
Sub-contractor
(B) PPs
MARD
Viewpoints Appropriateness of training Understandings of contents Application of technology
of M & E contents and methods learned and developed through transferred and developed to
the technology transfer preparation of F/Ss and IPs
M & E Level of satisfaction of Understanding of contents of the Utilization of contents
Aspects participants, applicability of technology transferred and learned and developed to
technology to the Vietnamese developed (Ex post confidence preparation of F/S and IP
context, ex ante capacity level level/ability of major aspects of
of trainees technology learned and
developed)
Timing -Before training starts -Middle of training period -Some time after completion
-Beginning period of training -At end of training of training
Methodolo -Questionnaire survey to -Questionnaire/interview survey -Questionnaire/interview
gy participants to participants and concerned survey to participants and
personnel concerned personnel
-Evaluation by Study team -Evaluation by Study team
Source: Modified from Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs 2nd Edition and
ECFA, “Competitive Edge for Development Consultants,” 2004

40
Chapter 2 Profile of the participants

2.1 Profile of participants in the OJT program

(1) Participants by Office

The following table shows a profile of official participants in the OJT program. The
twelve (12) participants from PST consists of nine (9) officials from Sub-DoF and three
(3) officials from Phu Binh District Office while the participants from FIPI consists of
eight (8) staff members from FIPI and seven (7) members from Sub-FIPI including
centers.

Table 2.1: Organization of participants

PST FIPI
Sub-DOF 9 FIPI 8
Note)
Phu Binh District Government 3 Sub-FIPI 7
Total 12 Total 15
Note: Including centers under FIPI

(2) Education
Their education level is shown in the following table. Ten participants hold the master
degree and sixteen participants do the bachelor degree.

Table 2.2: Educational background

PST FIPI Total
Master 2 8 10
Bachelor 9 7 16
Others 1 0 1
Total 12 15 27

3. Age (as of March 2006)

The average age of the participants is 41.8 years old as of March 2006. Compared with
the participants from PST, the standard deviation (SD) of the participant ages of FIPI is
smaller, implying less variability in terms of ages.

Table 2.3: Age

PST FIPI Total
Average 42.7 41.1 41.8
Standard Deviation 10.8 7.0 9.1

41
4. Expertise
In terms of the expertise, the following table summarizes the responses from
participants. The majority of participants answered that their expertise was forestry,
silviculture, inventory planning, land use planning, and/or survey. Those who have been
trained in the field of social sciences and financial & economic analysis were not found
among the participants although the background of one of the participants is accounting.

Table 2.4: Expertise

Expertise PST FIPI Total
Forestry/silviculture/inventory 7 4 11
planning
Land use planning, survey 1 6 7
Biological and ecology/biodiversity 0 2 2
Agro-forestry/horticulture 1 1 2
Timber and Non-timber processing 1 0 1
Natural resource management 0 1 1
Remote sensing, GIS 0 1 1
Personnel affairs 1 0 1
Accounting 1 0 1
Total 12 15 27
Note: In case the expertise covers more than one area, only one expertise is chosen, which is considered to be
relevant to the current FICAB study.

4. Number of years for which participants worked in the current office

The number of years in the current office is shown in the following table. The average
years for which PST members worked at Sub-DoF was relatively shorter as it may
reflect recent establishment of the department. It is noted that the participants from FIPI
used to work for FIPI for a longer period of time.

Table 2.5: Number of years in the office

PST FIPI Total
Average 9.0 19.3 15.2
SD 8.4 7.2 9.4
Note:
1) In case of PST, the number of years PST members worked for the current office (Sub-DoF or
department under the Phu Binh District Office). The Sub-DoF in Thai Nguyen was established in Nov
1998 with the former name of "Sub-Department of Forestry Development". It has changed the name to
"Sub-Department of Forestry" or Sub-DoF in Oct 2004.
2) In case of FIPI, the number of years for which FIPI members worked for either FIPI or Sub-FIPI.
3) The number of years for which two PST members worked for Sub-DoF is not available.

42
5. Self-evaluation of excel and word skill
The following shows the self evaluation of the computer skills. The responses may
reflect differences in terms of the frequent exposure to the computer program.

Table 2.6: Computer skills

Office PST FIPI Total
Software Excel Word Excel Word Excel Word
Good 2 2 9 9 11 11
Fair 5 4 5 5 10 9
Poor 4 4 0 0 4 4
No answer 1 2 1 1 2 3
Total 12 12 15 15 27 27

2.2 Profile of respondents under the M & E

The following Table 3 summarizes the number of responses from the OJT participants.
The official participants in the OJT program totaled 27 (both FIPI and PST). Out of the
27 participants, 14 respondents (93.3 % of the total FIPI participants) were from FIPI
while 10 respondents (83.3 % of the total PST participants) from PST.

Table 2.7: Summary of responses to the questionnaire survey conducted on March 6, 2006
Item PST FIPI Total
Total Number of Official Participants 12 15 27
(A)
Number of Respondents (B) 10 14 24
(B)/(A) * 100 (%) . 83.3 % 93.3 % 88.8 %
Note: Only those officially-appointed members are counted in the questionnaire survey.

43
Chapter 3 Evaluation of the OJT program

3.1 Evaluation of the OJT program at the end of the program

The questionnaire is comprised of the following two parts:

Part 1: Evaluation of the OJT program; and
Part 2: Evaluation of the capacity being developed.
Part 1 asks the participants to evaluate the OJT program conducted since the middle of
2005 while Part 2 requests them to evaluate their respective capacities being developed
under the OJT program in respective professional fields.

3.1.1 Evaluation of the OJT program

Participants were asked to evaluate the OJT program at the end of the program using a
rating scale from 0 for “Not applicable” to 5 “Strongly agree.” Questionnaire formats
have been prepared as shown in Annex 1. A data summary of the responses is attached
in Annex 2-1.

The questions cover the following points:

Q1(1) Coverage of sufficient number of new ideas (Variable: Idea)
Q1(2) Appropriateness of formats and handout materials used for the program (Variable:
Format)
Q1(3) Appropriateness of explanation and instruction of the JICA study team members
(Variable: Team)
Q1(4) Number of study members (the question asks if it is many) (Variable: Number)
Q1(5) Helpfulness of information, knowledge and experience sharing among the OJT
participants (Variable: Inform)
Q1(6) Sufficiency of the field visits (Variable: Field)
Q1(7) Sufficiency of data and information collection (Variable: Data)
Q1(8) Duration of preparation of the F/S (the question asks if it is long) (Variable:
FSdur)
Q1(9) Duration of preparation of the IP (the question asks if it is long) (Variable: IPdur)
Q1(10) Applicability of the technologies transferred (Variable: Applicab)
Q1(11) Relation between the content of the OJT and the current works (Variable:
Relation)

44
The following Table 3.1 shows the average ratings of the responses by organization
(PST or FIPI).
Table 3.1: Average of ratings of the OJT program by organization

PST
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
FIPI
Q1(1) Idea

Q1(2) Format
Scale
Q1(3) Team 0: Not applicable
Q1(4) Number 1: Strongly disagree
2: Rather disagree
Q1(5) Inform
3: Neither
Q1(6) Field 4: Rather disagree
Q1(7) Data 5: Strongly disagree
Q1(8) FSdur
Note: Response “Not
Q1(9) IPdur
applicable” is excluded
Q1(10) Applicab from the calculation of
Q1(11) Relation the average.

As seen in the table, the responses centered on more or less 4.0 except Q1 (4) Number,
Q1 (8) FSdur, Q1 (9) IPdur and Q1 (11) Relation. For these questions, more than 80%
of the respondents answer either “Rather agree” or “Strongly agree.” On the other hand,
the average of the ratings to these questions Q1(4), Q1(8), Q1(9), and Q1(11) is less
than 4.0 or 3.0. For the question Q1(4) Number which asks the number of study
members, 38% answered that they either “Rather disagree” or “Strongly disagree” to the
statement that “a number of study members are many.” For the questions Q1(8) FSdur
and Q1(9) IPdur which, respectively, ask the duration of preparation of the F/S and IP,
more than 50% of the respondents answered that they either “Rather disagree” or
“Strongly disagree” to the statement “the duration was long.”

For the question Q1(11) which asks the relationship between the contents of the OJT
program and participants’ current work, 67% found the relation either “Somewhat
strong” or “Very strong” while 33% answered “Neither” or “Somewhat weak.” Looking
at the results by office, 50% of the PST respondents replied “Neither.”

45
3.1.2 Evaluation of the F/S and IP as an output of the OJT program

As an output of the OJT program, the F/S and IP reports were presented at the joint
meeting on March 6, 2006. Participants were requested to evaluate the F/S and IP
reports presented in terms of the following aspects:
Q1(12.1) Sufficiency in terms of reflecting conditions of the study area (Variable:
Conditio)
Q1(12.2) Reflection of opinions of the stakeholders (Variable: Opinion)
Q1(12.3) Practical aspect (Variable: Practica)
Q1(12.4) Logical aspect (Variable: Logical)
Q1(12.5) Period required for completion (the question asks whether or not it is shorter)
(Variable: Time)
Q1(12.6) Cost aspect (the question asks whether or not it is less expensive) (Variable:
Cost)

Table 3.2: Average of ratings of the F/S and IP by organization (PST and FIPI)

PST 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

FIPI
Q1(12.1)
Condition
Scale
Q1(12.2)
0: Not applicable
Opinion 1: Strongly disagree
2: Rather disagree
Q1(12.3)
3: Neither
Practica
4: Rather disagree
Q1(12.4) 5: Strongly disagree
Logical

Note: Response “Not

Q1(12.5) Time applicable” is omitted
from the calculation of
Q1(12.6) Cost the average.

Participants are asked to evaluate the reports using a rating scale from 0 for “Not
applicable” to 5 “Strongly agree” for questions Q1(12.1) – Q1(12.6). For the questions
Q1(12.1)-Q1(12.4), the average of ratings centered on 4.0 as a majority of the

46
respondents answered either “Rather agree” or “Strongly agree.” For the questions
Q1(12.5) and Q1(12.6) which ask about the duration and cost of the OJT program, the
average is around 3.0 as respondents answered in various ways. Seven respondents
(30%) chose “Rather disagree” to the statement that the F/S and IP was completed
within a shorter period of time and in a less costly manner.

Under the question Q1(12.7), participants are asked to point out major advantages and
disadvantages of the F/S and IP presented on the day in comparison with the F/S and IP
they knew before. Advantages were raised in terms of the capacity building program,
contents of the reports, methodologies. For example, pointed out were detailed and
logical features of the reports, a bottom-up approach with the participation of farmers.
On the other hand, disadvantages were indicated in terms of the funding sourses,
implementation arrangements, costs aside from the capacity building program and
contents of the report. For example, pointed out were difficulties in implementing the
project without counterpart funds from the government, difficulties in getting access to
the low interest loans and high cost required for the study. A summary of responses is
put in Annex 3.

In Q1(12.8) Overall rating of the F/S and IP (Variable: FS rating), participants are
requested to rate the F/S and IP presented at the joint meeting. The scale of the ratings is
from 0 to 100. The overall rating of the F/S and IP is 74.2 on average with the average
of PST members being 70.0 with the standard deviation of 16.3 and the average of FIPI
members being 77.1 with the standard deviation of 8.3. The larger standard deviation of
PST shows the wider variability of the ratings among the PST members, compared with
that of FIPI. The following Table 3.3 is the frequency distribution of the ratings given
by the respondents.

47
Table 3.3: Overall rating of the F/S and IP presented on March 6, 2006
12

Number of Respondents (persons)

10

8 FIPI
6 PST

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ratings

In order to examine the relation between variables and the F/S rating (Variable:
FSrating), a regression analysis was conducted. The independent variables examined
are Q1(12.1) Conditio, Q1(12.2) Opinion, Q1(12.3) Practica, Q1(12.4) Logical,
Q1(12.5) Time, and Q1(12.6) Cost. The following equation was estimated. SE indicates
standard errors and t means t-value, and P is p-value.

FSrating= 47.0 + 6.7Practica

SE=8.9 SE=2.2
t= 5.3 t=3.1
P< 0.0001 P=0.006
2
R ＝0.309
AdjR2=0.276

The adjusted R2 is not as high but the highly significant level of the coefficient of the
variable Practica is observed. The results of the simple regression analysis show that
the overall rating of the F/S and IP reports is somehow correlated with the variable
Practica 1 . There are three participants who marked “2 (Rather Disagree)” to the
statement that “F/S and IP reports presented today is practical.” One of these three
participants answered to the open-end questions about the disadvantages of the F/S and
IP presented. According to the participants, the survey required a high cost so that it is
difficult to apply in Vietnam.

1
One of the participants from FIPI answered Not Applicable for Q1(12.5) and Q1(12.6). All the answers from this
participant were excluded from the regression analysis. Therefore, the total number of observations for the analysis is
23 instead of 24.

48
 3.1.3 Overall evaluation of the OJT program

(1) Monetary value of the OJT program (Q1(13))

On a trial basis, participants were requested to tell how much they would have been
willing to pay for the participation in the OJT program conducted from November 2005
to the beginning of March 2006 by recalling the situation before they started the OJT
program. Eight (8) participants from PST and thirteen (13) participants from FIPI
responded to this question.2 The average of the respondents from PST was 166,000
VND/day with the standard deviation of 96,000 VND while the average from FIPI was
253,000 VND/day with the standard deviation of 216,000.3

The following frequency distribution shows the possibility of grouping the responses in
the three different categories presumably due to different interpretation of the question.
If the daily monetary value given by respondents is multiplied with the number of days
that participants attended the OJT program, the total monetary value of the OJT
program is calculated at about 140 million VND.45

2
This question was a confusing one for the participants and there seem to be different interpretations about the
question. Some respondents replied with a lower monetary value by thinking about the fees usually charged for the
training program at the domestic institution while others valued the program at a higher rate because foreign
consultants were involved in the training program. There were also some respondents who requested to change their
valuation after interpreting the question in different ways. However, the amount used for the analysis were those
initially responded by the participants.
3
For the calculation, 500,000 vnd/day was used for the value more than 500,000 vnd/day.
4
The number of days that participants attended the OJT program is based on the records prepared by the JICA study
team. Due to difficulties in recording attendance throughout the OJT program, the number of days used for the
calculation does not necessarily reflect the precise number of attendance.
5
If the total sum of the monetary value is compared with the cost involved in the OJT program and the opportunity
cost of the participants in the OJT program, the cost involved in the OJT program is far greater than the monetary
value. However, the effects of the training program should be measured in a long run including its dissemination
effects.

49
Table 3.4: Distribution of monetary values of the OJT program given by respondents

5
No. of responses (persons)

4 FIPI
PST

0 30000 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 >500000

Valuation (VND/day)

(2) Response to the open-end questions about FICAB and the OJT program
Participants were requested to make their comments on FICAB (Q2(1)) and OJT
program (Q2(2)). Comments on FICAB were made in terms of the policy of the forest
sector, planning and approaches. FICAB received generally good comments from the
respondents. As for the OJT program, comments were made on the appropriateness and
practical aspect of the program, capacity building, and logistic issues. Although
respondents expressed generally favorable comments on the OJT program, it is noted
that some respondents questioned the suitability of the program to Vietnamese
conditions, involvement of many groups and duration of the program (too short). Annex
4 shows a summary of the responses.

(3) Overall rating of the OJT program

Participants were requested to evaluate the OJT program on a rating scale from 0 to 100.
The average of the overall ratings of the OJT program is 70.5, ranging from the
minimum rating of 50 to the maximum rating of 90. The average of the PST is 66.3 with
the standard deviation of 15.1 while the average of the FIPI is 72.9 with the standard
deviation of 11.4. The average ratings of FIPI is slightly higher with a lower standard
deviation compared with the ratings given by PST

The following Table 3.5 shows the frequency distribution.

50
Table 3.5: Overall ratings given by the respondents from PST and FIPI.
10
Number of Respondents (persons)

6
FIPI
PST
4

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ratings

In order to identify possible variables that could explain the relation between the overall
ratings of the OJT program and variables, the multiple regression analysis was
conducted. The independent variables examined are: Q1(1) Idea, Q1(2) Format, Q1(3)
Team, Q1(4) Number, Q1(5) Inform, Q1(6) Field, Q1(7) Data, Q1(8) FSdur, Q1(9)
IPdur, Q1(10) Applicab, Q1(11) Relation, and Q1.12(8) FSrating. The following
regression equation was estimated.6 SE indicates standard errors and t means t-values
of the corresponding variables, and p is P-value.

Ficabrat= -3.0 + 3.5Data + 0.8Fsrating

SE=7.9 SE=2.0 SE=0.1
t= -0.4 t=1.7 t=5.9
p=0.7 p=0.1 p<0.01
R2＝0.82
AdjR2=0.80

As seen in the above equation, variables Data and FSrating exhibit some relation with
the overall rating of FICAB (Ficabrat): those who gave higher scores to the F/S and IP
tended to appreciate the OJT program and those who agreed that collection of relevant

6
Two participants from PST did not answer this question. Since the correlation coefficient of this question with the
question in Part 2: Utilization (percentage of the utilization of skills and knowledge acquired through the OJT
program) is 0.77, the missing values have been replaced with the value of Utilization. It was also found that one of
the participants from FIPI did not answer the question 1(7) Data. The missing value was replaced with the average
value of Data. One of the participant from FIPI answered Not Applicable for Q1(12.5) and Q1(12.6). All the answers
from this participant were excluded from the regression analysis. Therefore, the total number of observations for the
analysis is 23 instead of 24.

51
data and information had been sufficient to prepare the report tended to evaluate the
OJT program favorably. In fact, it was found that the simple regression analysis with the
independent variable FSrating shows that the R2 is 0.80 and Adjusted R2 is 0.79. It is
understood that Ficabrat is strongly correlated with Fsrating.

Ficabrat= 0.6 + 1.0Fsrating

SE=7.9 SE=0.1
t=0.1 t=9.1
p=0.9 p<0.01
R2＝0.80
AdjR2=0.79

There are some respondents who marked relatively low scores to the OJT program. The
following items (1) and (2) highlight the comments of these respondents in terms of
disadvantages of F/S and IP, and the OJT program.

(1) Disadvantage of FS and IP

The disadvantages pointed out for the F/S and IP are related to the institutional aspect of
the project, possible fund sources, the costs required for the survey, and reporting. As
for the institutional aspect, a participant pointed out that the assessment and
management of PMB (Project Management Board) and CPIU (Commune Project
Implementation Unit) need to be carefully considered and followed because the project
plan proposes a new model in Vietnam. In terms of the fund sources, farmers borrow
and invest in the project by themselves if there is no counterpart fund from the
governmental budget. Therefore, comments say that implementation and management
may face some difficulties. Disadvantage of F/S and IP is also seen in the large amount
required for the survey. Because of this, it is difficult to apply them in Vietnam. It is also
pointed out that there exist too many chapters in the report and also several overlapping
parts among chapters in the report. Unnecessary overlapping is also seen between FS
and IP.

(2) Comments on the OJT Program

Comments from a participant say that the OJT program is very good: however, when
doing training for Vietnamese staff, it is necessary to guide and follow the conditions in
Vietnam rather than following the international or Japanese conditions and standards. As
a result, the trainee may acquire the contents better without dependency. Another

52
participant also points out that the OJT program is scientific but not yet suitable with
Vietnamese conditions. Time constrains and problems with the coordination seem to be
another factor. A participant says that contents of the OJT program are very useful for
FIPI and PST members: however, training time is short and there exist too many groups
that led to difficult in coordination and sharing information.

3.2 Evaluation of the OJT program during the OJT period

As part of the M & E activities, the questionnaire survey was conducted during the OJT
period and the feedback sessions were occasionally held at the joint meetings.7 The
following are some of the important findings and observations received for the
questionnaire survey conducted on November 25, December 9, during a period from
December 16 to 23, and December 30, 2005.

(1) Survey on November 25, 2005

As a result of the M & E on November 25, 2005, it was identified that there would be
the two major areas for further consideration in order to improve the on-going OJT
program: enhancement of the inter-group cooperation and applicability of the OJT
program in the Vietnamese context.

(2) Survey on December 9, 2005

For possible counter-measures to the point raised at the previous M & E, the following
points were suggested:
(1) For improvement of the intra-and inter-group activities
- Assignment of a chairperson
- Preparation in terms of the time, topics and data & information prior to the inter-group
activities
- Cooperative mind-set among the participants
(2) For enhancement of applicability and usefulness of the OJT program
- Clear, short and easy to understand directions or guidelines
- Applicability to the actual conditions of the study areas
The above points were taken into consideration for the on-going OJT.

7
Respondents during the OJT program are not necessary official participants of PST and FIPI.

53
(3) Survey from December 16 to 23, 2005
As a result of the M & E 3 conducted from December 16 to 23, 2005, the following
points were identified:
(a) Improvement of the capacity building has been seen particularly in the field survey
and analysis, which was intensively undertaken during the initial stage of the feasibility
study.
(b) The improvement of the capacity building in the planning and project evaluation &
analysis needs to be realized toward the later stage of the feasibility study.
(c) The OJT program to improve the capacity level of the site selection, planning
(option evaluation), marketing of the agro-forestry products and financial & economic
analyses needs to be considered.
(d) Change of the attitude is taking place among the participants. The perception change
is seen in various areas such as the establishment of the logical flow of the analysis,
report preparation, specific methodologies being adopted for the study.

(4) Survey on December 30, 2005

Participants were requested to make any comments at the end of the preparation of the
F/S. The following are some of the comments received by the respondents.
(a) Logistic and coordination aspect
- Time for study and application is limited;
- Strengthening discussion among group for sharing information.
(b) Reporting
- The report needs appropriate outline, short content, easy to understand
- Need to be arranged in accordance with Vietnamese regulation and local can be easier
accessed to.
(c) Study tour
- Need to organize study tour models that have been invested in other provinces for
studying and drawing lesson learnt.
(d) Methodology
- Need to consider especially methodology of collection of socio-economic data and
information; consider and improve methodology and content of socio-economic
assessment that serves for planning, monitoring and evaluation of the project;
- Site survey, forecast on the yield of crops and tree consumed a lot of time. This is
necessary activity, however methodology of selecting survey objects, sample survey
distribution and yield forecast are not appropriate. Need to reconsider.
- Construct in more detail with site investigation plan

54
Chapter 4 Evaluation of the progress of the capacity building

Evaluation of the progress of the capacity building is done in order to examine: firstly
the general progress and changes of the attitude; and secondly the progress of the
capacity in respective professional fields.

4.1 Evaluation of the general progress of the capacity building

The participants are asked to compare the present level of the knowledge and skills with
the level before participation in the OJT program. The level ranges from 1 (Lower than
the pre-OJT level) to 5 (Higher than the pre-OJT level). As seen in the following Table
4.1, all the participants responded that the ex-post capacity level is either “Somewhat
higher” for the rating of 4 or “Higher” for the rating of 5. The average of the ratings is
4.4 with the standard deviation of 0.5.

Table 4.1: Evaluation of the capacity if compared with the pre-OJT level

16
Number of Respondents (persons)

14
12
FIPI
10 1: Lower
PST
8 2: Somewhat lower
6
3: About the same
4
2
4: Somewhat higher
0 5: Higher
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

Then, the analysis examined how much of the knowledge and skills transferred through
the OJT program participants claimed to have acquired. Respondents answered that they
had acquired about 75% of the knowledge and skills transferred on average. The
average of the responses from PST is 72.0 with the standard deviation of 14.8 while the
average of the responses from FIPI is 77.9 with the standard deviation of 8.0. As seen in
the following frequency table (Table 4.2), the variability of the responses from PST is
larger that that from FIPI.

For the purpose of learning the utilization of knowledge and skills they acquired,
participants were asked to rate the percentage of knowledge and skills which they

55
acquired and make use of in their offices other than the works relating to FICAB8
assuming that what they acquired is 100. The average use of knowledge and skills is
rated at 66.5 by the respondents. While the average of FIPI members is 71.5 with the
standard deviation of 12.8, the average of PST members is 60 with the standard
deviation of 20.5 (Table 4.3). It is noted that that the responses from PST are
characterized with the lower ratings and wider variability. If the rate of acquisition of
knowledge and skills is multiplied with the rate of the utilization, it is calculated around
50. This implies that on average, 50% of knowledge and skills transferred are being
utilized in their respective offices.

Table 4.2: How much of the knowledge Table 4.3: How much of the knowledge
and skills transferred through the OJT and skills transferred through the OJT
program have been acquired? program are being utilized in the office?
9 9
Number of Respondents (persons)
Number of Respondents (persons)

8 8
7 7
6 6
FIPI FIPI
5 5
PST PST
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ratings Ratings

4.2 Evaluation of changes of the attitude

Participants were requested to evaluate how their attitude changed as a result of

participating in the OJT program using a range from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) with 0 being Not Applicable. The following attitudinal changes were evaluated:

Q2 (4.1) Have become able to set targets of works more efficiently (Variable: Target)
Q2 (4.2) Have become able to express opinions more logically (Variable: Logic)
Q2 (4.3) Have become able to propose project plans (Variable: Plan)
Q2 (4.4) Have begun to take a more active leadership role (Variable: Leadersh)
Q2 (4.5) Improvement of problem-solving ability (Variable: Problem)
Q2 (4.6) More concerned with the quality of data and information (Variable: Quality)
8
Although the question requests them to tell the utilization rate for the works other than those related to the FICAB,
there seemed to be some confusion among respondents in their understanding this question. The answers from
respondents may or may not take into account the works related to the FICAB.

56
Q2 (4.7) More positive in acquiring new knowledge and skills for carrier development
(Variable: Carrier)
Q2 (4.8) More positive in acquiring new knowledge and skills for the development of
the region and country (Variable: Develop)
Q2 (4.9) Received higher evaluation from colleagues (Variable: Evaluat)

The following table (Table 4.4) describers the average of ratings on respective aspects.
The average of the ratings centered on 4.0. For most of the questions, a majority of the
respondents or nearly 90% of the respondents stated they either “Rather agree” or
“Strongly agree.” In particular, 58 % of the respondents for the question about the
quality concern of the data and information (Q 4.6) and 61% of the respondents for the
question about the acquisition of new knowledge and skills for their own carrier
development (Q 4.7) answered that they “Strongly agree.”

Table 4.4: Average of rating on attitudinal changes

PST
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
FIPI
Q2(4.1) Target

Q2(4.2) Logic

Q2(4.3) Plan
0: Not applicable
Q2(4.4) Leadersh
1: Strongly disagree
Q2(4.5) Problem 2: Rather disagree
Q2(4.6) Quality
3: Neither
4: Rather agree
Q2(4.7) Carrier
5: Strongly agree
Q2(4.8) Develop

Q2(4.9) Evaluat

Using these nine variables, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA)9 was conducted.
The analysis aims to find ways to consolidate there variables into a fewer number of
variables. The following table (Table 4.5) shows that the results of the PCA. The

9
For the purpose of the Principal Component Analysis, two observations are taken out as there are missing values in
these valuables. As a result, the total number of observations for each variable numbers 22.

57
eigenvalue of the first principal component shows that the first principal component
(Z-1) contains about 70% of the information of the nine valuables. With the second
principal component together, the two variables (Z-1 and Z-2) will explain 80% of the
information contained in the original nine variables.

Table 4.5: Eigenvalue and factor loading

Item Z-1 Z-2
Eigenvalue 6.272 0.943
Proportion 0.697 0.105
Cumulative 0.697 0.802

Factor loading Z-1 Z-2

target 0.854 0.187
logic 0.920 0.214
plan 0.880 0.244
leadersh 0.954 0.097
problem 0.731 0.495
quality 0.842 -0.089
carrier 0.822 -0.336
develop 0.825 -0.452
evaluat 0.641 -0.472

Figure 4.1: Plot of the factor loading of Z-1 and Z-2

Practical ability
z2
1.000 | target 1
0.833 | logic 2
0.667 | plan 2*
0.500 | 4 leadersh 3
0.333 | problem 4
0.167 | 123 quality 5
0.000 ---------------|--------------- carrier 6
Overall strength -0.167 | 5 develop 7 Overall strength
-0.333 | 6 evaluat 8
(weaker) -0.500 | 8 7 (stronger)
-0.667 |
-0.833 |
-1.000 |
-1.000 z1 1.000

Status

58
The first principal component (Z-1) can be interpreted as a variable that explains
“overall ratings for their change of attitudes” by the respondents. On the other hand, the
second principal component (Z-2) may be interpreted as “ratings of the attitudinal
changes for practical ability vs status.” In other words, nine variables can be classified
in accordance with the practical ability vs status, i.e. changes for the status can be
related to the three variables such as Carrier, Develop and Evaluat while changes for
practical ability can be related to variables such as Target, Logic, Plan, Leadersh,
Problem, and Quality. The higher the value of the second principal component, the
higher the participant’s ratings on the practical ability such as attitudinal changes to set
targets more efficiently. The lower the value of the second principal component, the
higher the participant’s ratings on the status such as higher evaluation from colleagues.
“Higher” or “lower” should be interpreted in a relative term. The following Figure 4.2
shows a scatter plot of the principal component scores by PST (shown as “P”) and FIPI
(shown as “F”). Distinct differences are not observed between PST and FIPI
participants.

Figure 4.2 Principal component scores

z2
Practical ability
2.682 |
2.235 F |
1.788 |
1.341 F |
0.894 F P | P
0.447 F P | F
0.000 -----------P-PP|-----P/F---------
Overall strength Overall strength
-0.447 | F
(weaker) -0.894 | (stronger)
-1.341 F |P F
-1.788 |
-2.235 |
-2.682 P |
-2.682 z1 2.682
Status
P: PST participants
F: FIPI participantt

Aside from the above questions, participants were asked to tell what will be the next
action if a project is deemed not feasible. They are asked to select their choices from the
following alternatives.
1) Still implement the project as planned (Choice 1)

59
 2) Change the scope and design of the proposed project (Choice 2)
3) Change to other project option (Choice 3)
4) Not implement the project (Choice 4)
5) Others (Choice 5)

The following frequency table summarizes the responses. It is compared with the
responses to the same question made in December 2005 although respondents are not
exactly same at these points in time.

Table 4.6: What will be the next action if it is not feasible?

Responses in December 2005 Responce in March 2006

70%
50%
60%
40% FIPI
FIPI
50% PST
respondentspersons (24)
Percentage of total
respondents (24)

PST
Percentage of total

30%
40%

20% 30%

10% 20%

10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 0%
Choice Choice 1 2 3 4 5

Note 1: Multiple choices are allowed. The questionnaire survey in December 2005 includes
some unofficial participants as well
Note 2:
1=Still implement the project as planned
2=Change the scope and design of the proposed project
3=Change to other project option
4=Not implement the project
5=Others

As seen in Table 4.6 above, in case the project is found not feasible, changes to the
alternative project or scope changes are preferred choices to be taken. Some but a few
respondents still insist that the project should be pushed through.

4.3 Evaluation of the specific field of the planning capacity

The On-the-Job Training (OJT), one of the activities (input) under the Study, has been
monitored and evaluated by examining the level of learning (Level 2 of the PDM
above) of officially nominated participants in the OJT program (12 from PST and 15
from FIPI). In order to examine the level of learning, the planning capacity that is

60
required for the preparation of afforestation projects and is deemed necessary to
improve will be classified into seven (7) categories: (1) policy relevance of the project;
(2) consistency with standards, policy and guidelines; (3) selection of project sites; (4)
field survey and analysis; (5) project planning; (6) project analysis and evaluation; and
(7) overall coordination. The seven planning categories are further classified into the
following sub-categories and work items. This classification corresponds to the groups
formulated for the technical transfer: Group A to Group F. Groups corresponding to
respective planning categories, sub-categories and work items are also shown in the
second column from the right end in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Classification of Planning Capacity

No Category Sub-category Work Items Group No. of
indicators
1 Policy Relevance of the Project F 2
2 Consistency with Standards, Policy and Guidelines F 1
3 Selection of project sites C1 and D 3
4 Field Survey and Soil C2 2
Natural Assessment of forest resources C2 3
Analysis Conditions Mapping C2 3
Land ownership and use B and C2 4
Socio-economic Socio-economic conditions B 2
Conditions Market and distribution A 7
channels for forest products
Needs of the people B 3
5 Project Planning Project option evaluation C1 and D 8
Project Production plans for seedlings C1 and D 5
implementation Plantation and tending plan C1 and D 3
plan Harvesting plan C1 and D 4
Infrastructure C1 and D 3
Project Organizational arrangement C1 and D 3
Organization for project implementation
Plan Organization of the people B 2
Labor mobilization plan C1 and D 2
Project Financial plan E 2
Management Sales/marketing plan A 6
Plan
Monitoring and evaluation plan F 4
6 Project Analysis Technical evaluation C1 and D 1
and Evaluation Evaluation of environmental and social aspects B and C2 9
Economic and financial analyses E 9
7 Overall Coordination F 4
Total 95

The learning is measured in various areas classified in the above table. In parallel,
it is planned to be examined from the following three aspects: the knowledge that has

61
 been learned, skills that have been developed and attitudes that have been changed. .

Skill

Figure 4.3: Evaluation of the classified

planning capacity for the OJT program
from the three aspects: skills, know
ledges and attitudes
Classified
Planning
Capacities

Knowledge Attitude

For the purpose of monitoring the learning, the Study team developed a
questionnaire with a total of 95 skill and knowledge indicators classified in the above
seven planning categories and a few additional attitude indicators. Out of 95 indicators,
71 are skills indicators (questions ask “if respondents are able to do tasks”), 24 are
knowledge indicators (questions ask “if respondents understand subjects”).
The grade of 5 scales from the low level (1) to the high level (5) is given to each of the
indicators. The low level 1, for example, indicates that they have “only some knowledge” and
they “need assistance to conduct relevant tasks.”

1 2 3 4 5
Low Level High Level
Only some Good Very good
knowledge, need understanding so as understanding so
assistance from to carry out as to teach
someone else in relevant tasks relevant tasks to
order to carry out without assistance others
relevant tasks of others

The questionnaire has been distributed to the participants at the joint meeting held on
March 6, 2006. 10 Although there are participants other than officially-nominated
participants, the M & E was limited only to those officially-nominated as beneficiaries
of the OJT program.

Aside from the questions on the capacity, participants were asked to describe what they
10
Several official participants submitted their responses to the questionnaire at the later dates.

62
did during the study period in terms of the contents of the study, methodology of
conducting the study, and outputs of the group activities. Their responses are
summarized in Annex 5.

4.3.1 Attendance
The following Figure 4.4 shows simple averages of the attendance rates of groups for
the OJT program during a period from November 15, 2005 to March 6, 2006 11that
have been reclassified into the eight (8) categories of the planning capacities. The
attendance in the OJT program in Figure 4.4 is based on the record of the JICA team
and is not necessarily matched with the one recorded by respective participants if they
did do so. The figure shows that the average attendance rate is more than 60% and the
attendance of groups responsible for the project analysis and evaluation marked the
highest point, followed by that of the groups being responsible for the field survey
(natural conditions).

Figure 4.4: Composite attendance indicator of technical transfer groups being

reclassified into 8 categories of the planning capacity

Composite attendance indicator

(1)Policy/coordination
80%
(8)Project analysis and
60% (2)Selection of project site
evaluation
40%
20%
(7)Planning(organization/
(7)Planning(organization/mana
management)
gement) 0% (3)Field survey (natural)

(4)Field survey (socio-

(6)Planning (Implementation)
economic)

(5)Planning (option evaluation)

11
The official number of days for the OJT program was 45 but if participants attended the OJT program other than
the official period, the number of days was also recorded as the attendance.

63
4.3.2 Analysis of responses in terms of knowledge and skills
The following tables summarize the average ratings by the respondents in terms of the
learning and changes of the knowledge and skills. Table 4.8 shows the average of
ratings given by the respondents, a simple average of ratings of the total respondents
and a simple average of the respondents from the respective institutions. The ratings are
centered more or less on 4.0. Table 4.9 shows the incremental differences between the
ratings before and middle of the OJT. The differences were calculated by simply
subtracting the average ratings in the middle from those before the OJT. The table
shows that the incremental differences of the knowledge is higher that those of the skill
indicators during the surveyed period. It is reasonable to understand that it would be
relatively easy to improve the level of the knowledge at the OJT stage if compared with
the difficulties involving in the development of the skills.

Table 4.8: Average of ratings: Table 4.9: Incremental difference of

Knowledge and skills indicators knowledge and skill indicators
Self-evaluation: incremental difference of
Average of ratings (self-evaluation by respondents) Knowledge & Skill Indicators
Knowledge & Skill Indicators after OJT (average ratings after - before OJT)
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

PST
PST

Knowledge
FIPI Knowledge
Skill FIPI
Skill

PST/FIPI
PST/FIPI

The following Figures 4.5 to 4.8 shows the average ratings and average of the
incremental differences of the ratings self-evaluated by PST and FIPI respondents in
respective planning categories. For the purpose of the data analysis and presentation, we
have classified 95 indicators into the following eight categories ((1) policy/coordination;
(2) selection of project site; (3) field survey (natural conditions); (4) field survey
(socio-economic conditions); (5) planning (option evaluation); (6) planning
(implementation); (7) planning (organization/management); (8) project analysis and
evaluation). This will help focus more on the progress of the OJT in the respective
technical fields.
Before interpretation of the analysis of the survey results, it is important to
understand the limitation of the survey for its simple generalization. For instance,

64
practical and academic experiences of the participants prior to the OJT program are
different one another. The contents of the OJT vary from subject to subject. Participants
may need to spend more time on some subjects while not much on others. The shape of
the learning curve may be also different. Participants in an OJT subject may acquire
skills and knowledge much faster than those from other groups but slower at the later
stage of the OJT program.
Figure 4.5 below compares the average ratings by PST members before, in the middle
and after the OJT program. The ratings of all the categories exceed 3.0 after the OJT
program. The incremental differences shown in Figure 4.6 are positive in all the eight
areas although the degree of the differences varies.

Figure 4.5: Average of ratings by PST (Before-Middle-after the OJT)

Self-evaluation by PST (Before-Middle-After OJT)

(1)Policy/coordination
5.0
(8)Project analysis and 4.0 (2)Selection of project
evaluation site
3.0

2.0
(7)Planning(organizati (3)Field survey
1.0
on/management) (natural)

(6)Planning (4)Field survey (socio

(Implementation) economic)

(5)Planning (option
After
evaluation) Middle
Before

Self-evaluation by PST
(Incremental differences=After of OJT - before OJT)

Figure 4.6:
(1)Policy/coordination
Incremental difference 2.0
(8)Project analysis and evaluation (2)Selection of project site
of average ratings by PST 1.0

(7)Planning(organization/managem
0.0 (3)Field survey (natural)
ent)

(6)Planning (Implementation) (4)Field survey (socio-economic)

(5)Planning (option evaluation)

65
Figure 4.7 below shows the average ratings by FIPI members before and after the OJT
program. The ratings also exceed 3.0 in all the eight areas after the OJT.

Figure 4.7: Average of ratings by FIPI (Before and After the OJT)

Self-evaluation by FIPI (Before - After OJT)

(1)Policy/coordination
5.0
(8)Project analysis and 4.0 (2)Selection of project site
evaluation
3.0

2.0
(7)Planning(organization/man
1.0 (3)Field survey (natural)
agement)

(4)Field survey (socio-

(6)Planning (Implementation)
economic)

(5)Planning (option
evaluation)
After
Before

Self-evaluation by FIPI
(Incremental differences=After - before OJT)
Figure 4.8:
Incremental difference
of average ratings by FIPI (1)Policy/coordination
2.0
(8)Project analysis and evaluation 1.0 (2)Selection of project site

0.0
(7)Planning(organization/managem
-1.0 (3)Field survey (natural)
ent)

(6)Planning (Implementation) (4)Field survey (socio-economic)

(5)Planning (option evaluation)

The following Figures 4.9 and 4.10 compare the difference between the self-evaluation
of PST/FIPI members and that by the JICA study team on the PST/FIPI members before
and after the OJT program. The ratings of the JICA study team was about 3.0 in all the
areas but the project analysis and evaluation.

66
The results show that the self-evaluation by PST/FIPI is higher than the evaluation by
the JICA team.

Figure 4.9: Evaluation of PST/FIPI performance by JICA team (average of ratings)

Evaluation of PST/FIPI by JICA team

(1)Policy/coordination
5.0

(8)Project analysis and evaluation 4.0 (2)Selection of project site

3.0
2.0
(7)Planning(organization/managem
1.0 (3)Field survey (natural)
ent)

(6)Planning (Implementation) (4)Field survey (socio-economic)

(5)Planning (option evaluation)

Dec-05
Mar-06

Difference in evaluating FIPI performance

(Self-evaluation by PST/FIPI - JICA evaluation)
Figure 4.10:
Difference in
(1)Policy/coordination
evaluating PST/FIPI 2.0
(8)Project analysis and evaluation (2)Selection of project site
performance 1.0
0.0
between PST/FIPI (7)Planning(organization/manage
-1.0 (3)Field survey (natural)
ment)
and JICA team
(average of ratings (6)Planning (Implementation) (4)Field survey (socio-economic)

in March 2006) (5)Planning (option evaluation)

67
Chapter 5 Conclusion: points to be considered for feedback

As a result of the M & E conducted on March 6, 2006 coupled with the results of the
M & E undertaken during the OJT period, the Study Team would like to feedback the
following points:
(a) In the middle of the OJT program, the following are, among others, the important
issues used to be raised by respondents as areas for improvement: coordination for
inter-group activities, streamlining of report structure, applicability of methodologies to
the actual conditions of the study areas, and applicability of the OJT program in
Vietnamese context.
(b) At the end of the OJT program, most of the respondents evaluated the program
favorably in terms of the contents: however, in terms of the duration of preparing the
F/S and IP, and the number of study members, respondents showed the mixed
observations. It is also noted that the average rating of PST respondents on the relation
between the contents and their current work is lower than that of FIPI respondents.
(c) The overall rating of the OJT program is generally good as the average ratings of the
respondents is about 70 ranging from 50 to 90. It is found that the average rating of PST
respondents is lower, with a wider variability, than that of FIPI respondents.
(d) The overall rating of the OJT program is strongly correlated with the rating of the
F/S and IP by the respondents. The perception of respondents in terms of sufficiency of
data and information collection also has certain influence on the overall rating of the
OJT program. In terms of factors affecting the ratings of the F/S and IP, the practical
aspect of the F/S and IP seems to have some impacts on the ratings of respondents.
(e) Respondents who evaluated the OJT program with lower scores made the comments
on the disadvantage of the F/S and IP, which are related to the institutional aspect of the
project, possible fund sources, costs required for the survey, and overlapping of the
report contents. Their comments on the OJT program is related to the necessity to
follow the conditions in Vietnam when conducting the training for Vietnamese staff,
time constraints, problems with the coordination, and existence of too many groups for
coordination and information sharing.
(f) Attitudinal changes also took place for respondents. The variables can be classified
into those explaining overall strengths, relative strength of attitudinal changes for status
improvement or changes for practical abilities.
(g) Improvement of the capacity building has been seen in all the planning area for both
PST and FIPI respondents.

68
Annex 1: Questionnaire form

Questionnaire 6 (at end of the OJT program) Code:

Organization: PST FIPI (Please circle your institution)
Group: A B C1 C2 D E F (Please circle your group.)
Name:
We have conducted the OJT program for preparation of the feasibility study (F/S) and
implementation plan (IP) since the middle of 2005. At the end of this OJT program, we
would like to have your cooperation again in responding to this questionnaire. Your
answers will greatly help us formulate the forthcoming capacity building program
(FICAB) in the second phase, which is scheduled to start from June 2006.

This questionnaire comprises of the two parts: evaluation of the OJT program and
self-evaluation of your capacity before and after the OJT program. Please either circle
an appropriate number for your choice or describe your answer and responses in the
brackets provided under each of the questions.

Part 1: Evaluation of the OJT program

1. How do you evaluate the contents, materials, methodologies, and JICA study team
members of the OJT program?
(1) The OJT program contained sufficient number of new ideas to me.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(2) Formats and handout materials used for the OJT program was appropriate to conduct
the feasibility study and prepare the implementation plan.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(3) Explanation and instruction of the JICA study team member was appropriate.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

69
(4) A number of study members are many.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(5) Information, knowledge and experience sharing among the OJT participants was
helpful.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(6) The field visits were sufficient to achieve a good understanding of the study area.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(7) Collection of relevant data and information was sufficient to prepare the report.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(8) Duration of preparation of the F/S was long. (November 15, 2005 to December 30,
2005)
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(9) Duration of preparation of the IP was long. (February 13, 2006 to March 6, 2006)
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(10) The technology transferred under the OJT program was applicable to the conditions
in Vietnam.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

70
(11) How do you find the relationship between the contents of the OJT program and
your current work? Is the relation is strong or weak?
Not Very weak Somewhat Neither Somewhat Very
applicable weak strong strong
0 1 2 3 4 5

(12) The following questions are about the F/S and IP reports presented today
(12.1) F/S and IP reports presented today sufficiently reflect conditions of the study area
in Phu Binh District.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(12.2) F/S and IP reports presented today reflect opinions of the stakeholders of the
project.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(12.3) F/S and IP reports presented today is practical.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(12.4) FS and IP presented today is logical

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(12.5) The FS and IP was completed within a shorter period of time.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(12.6) The FS and IP was completed in a less costly manner.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

(12.7) Compared with the FS and IP you know before, what are the major advantages
and disadvantages of the FS and IP presented today?
(12.7.1) Advantages

71
 (12.7.2) Disadvantages

(12.8) Overall rating of the F/S and IP.

How would you evaluate the F/S and IP on a scale of 0 to 100? Please circle the
appropriate number.
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

(13) Benefits that you have received through the program may benefit your carrier
development, and may benefit your organization by applying the knowledge and skills
and transferring them to colleagues, and also contribute to the people in the study areas
and then, the country as a whole. Considering these benefits of the project in total, how
do you evaluate the benefits of the project in monetary terms? Recalling the situation
before you started this OJT program and considering the duration of the OJT program
from November 2005 to the beginning of March 2006, please indicate how much you
would have been willing to pay for the participation in this OJT program by ticking the
appropriate box below.
□ 10,000 VND or less per day
□ 20,000 VND per day
□ 30,000 VND per day
□ 50,000 VND per day
□ 70,000 VND per day
□ 100,000 VND per day
□ 150,000 VND per day
□ 200,000 VND per day
□ 250,000 VND per day
□ 300,000 VND per day
□ 350,000 VND per day
□ 400,000 VND per day
□ 450,000 VND per day
□ 500,000 VND per day
□ Above 500,000 VND per day
□ Others (please specify the amount _________________VND per day)

72
2. Please describe what you think about this FICAB (JICA Study) and the OJT
program?
(1) About the FICAB as a whole

(2) About the OTJ Training Program

3. Overall rating of the OJT program

How would you evaluate the OJT on a scale of 0 to 100? Please circle the appropriate
number.
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Part 2: Evaluation of the capacity being developed

1. Is the present level of your knowledge and skills high or low compared with the level
of the knowledge and skills you had before you participated in the OJT program?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5

2. How much of the knowledge and skills transferred through the OJT program have
you acquired?
Please provide your evaluation on a scale of 0 being nothing acquired to 100 being fully
acquired.
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3. Out of knowledge and skills you acquired through the OJT program, what is the
percentage you make use of currently in your office other than the works related to the

73
FICAB? Please assume what you acquired is 100 and then give the percentage of the
use in your office out of 100 by circling the appropriate number below.
No utilization Fully utilized
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4. How has your attitude changed as a result of participation in the OJT program?
4.1 I have become able to set targets of my works more proficiently.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

4.2 I have become able to express my own opinions more logically.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

4.3 I have become able to propose project plans.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

4.4 I have begun to take a more active leadership role.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

4.5 My problem-solving ability has improved.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

4.6 I have become more concerned with the quality of data and information to be
collected for the analysis.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

4.7 I have become more positive in acquiring new knowledge and skills for my carrier
development.

74
 Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

4.8 I have become more positive in acquiring new knowledge and skills for the
development of the region and country.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

4.9 I have received higher evaluations from my colleagues.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

5. If a project is deemed not feasible, what will be your next action? Please tick your
choice (multiple choices will be allowed).
Still implement the project as planned

Change the scope and design of the proposed project

Change to other project option

Not implement the project

Others

(Please specify: )

[Link] the OJT program, if you have a chance to disseminate the knowledge and
skills acquired through the OJT program, please describe types of such occasions, the
frequency of the occasions and approximate number of participants in the respective
occasions. Of the knowledge and skills you acquired through the OJT program, what
percentage do you feel was disseminated to your audience at respective occasions? Such
occasions may be lectures, meetings held in-and out-side your organization, seminars,
writing articles and papers, extension activities and workshops.

75
Types of occasions Frequencies Number of Percentage of the
participants/each dissemination to your
occasion audience

7. Please describe what you did during the study period in terms of the contents of the
feasibility and methodology of conducting the study?
7.1 Contents of the feasibility study

(Example: preparation of seedling plans)

7.2 Methodology of conducting the study

(Example: financial analysis)

8. Please describe results outputs of your group activities.

Questions will be followed on the next pages.

76
Annex 2: Data summary of responses from participants

Item PST FIPI Total

Total Number of Official 12 15 27
Participants (A)
Number of Respondents (B) 10 14 24
(B)/(A) * 100 (%) % % %

Part 1: Evaluation of the OJT program

1. How do you evaluate the contents, materials, methodologies, and JICA study team
members of the OJT program?
(1) The OJT program contained sufficient number of new ideas to me.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 1 0 2 12 9 24
Percentage 0% 4% 0% 8% 50% 38% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 3.9 4.0 1.2 5.0 1.0 0.31
FIPI 14 4.4 4.0 0.6 5.0 3.0 0.15
Total 24 4.2 4.0 0.9 5.0 1.0 0.22

(2) Formats and handout materials used for the OJT program was appropriate to conduct
the feasibility study and prepare the implementation plan.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

77
Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 2 3 11 8 24
Percentage 0% 0% 8% 13% 46% 33% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.2 4.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.19
FIPI 14 3.9 4.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 0.25
Total 24 4.0 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.22

(3) Explanation and instruction of the JICA study team member was appropriate.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 0 1 11 12 24
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 4% 46% 50% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.5 4.5 0.5 5.0 4.0 0.12
FIPI 14 4.4 4.5 0.6 5.0 3.0 0.15
Total 24 4.5 4.5 0.6 5.0 3.0 0.13

(4) A number of study members are many.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 4 5 7 5 3 24
Percentage 0% 17% 21% 29% 21% 13% 100%

78
Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV
(b)/(a)
PST 10 2.8 3.0 1.1 5.0 1.0 0.41
FIPI 14 3.0 3.0 1.4 5.0 1.0 0.47
Total 24 2.9 3.0 1.3 5.0 1.0 0.44

(5) Information, knowledge and experience sharing among the OJT participants was
helpful.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 0 0 7 17 24
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 71% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.7 5.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 0.10
FIPI 14 4.7 5.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 0.10
Total 24 4.7 5.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 0.10

(6) The field visits were sufficient to achieve a good understanding of the study area.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 1 1 0 5 17 24
Percentage 0% 4% 4% 0% 21% 71% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.0 4.5 1.4 5.0 1.0 0.35

79
FIPI 14 4.9 5.0 0.4 5.0 4.0 0.07
Total 24 4.5 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 0.23

(7) Collection of relevant data and information was sufficient to prepare the report.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 1 2 9 11 23
Percentage 0% 0% 4% 9% 39% 48% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.1 4.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 0.24
FIPI 13 4.5 5.0 0.7 5.0 3.0 0.15
Total 23 4.3 4.0 0.8 5.0 2.0 0.19

(8) Duration of preparation of the F/S was long. (November 15, 2005 to December 30,
2005)
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 1 6 7 4 4 2 24
Percentage 4% 25% 29% 17% 17% 8% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 2.7 2.5 1.5 5.0 1.0 0.55
FIPI 13 2.4 2.0 1.2 5.0 1.0 0.50
Total 23 2.5 2.0 1.3 5.0 1.0 0.52
Note: A participant who responded “Not applicable” is taken out from the calculation of

80
the above descriptive statistics.

(9) Duration of preparation of the IP was long. (February 13, 2006 to March 6, 2006)
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 1 4 9 5 3 2 24
Percentage 4% 17% 38% 21% 13% 8% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 2.7 2.5 1.3 5.0 1.0 0.50
FIPI 13 2.5 2.0 1.1 5.0 1.0 0.46
Total 23 2.6 2.0 1.2 5.0 1.0 0.47
Note: A participant who responded “Not applicable” is taken out from the calculation of
the above descriptive statistics.

(10) The technology transferred under the OJT program was applicable to the conditions
in Vietnam.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 1 1 0 13 9 24
Percentage 0% 4% 4% 0% 54% 38% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.2 4.5 1.2 5.0 1.0 0.29
FIPI 14 4.1 4.0 0.8 5.0 2.0 0.19
Total 24 4.2 4.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 0.23

(11) How do you find the relationship between the contents of the OJT program and
your current work? Is the relation is strong or weak?

81
 Not Very weak Somewhat Neither Somewhat Very
applicable weak strong strong
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 2 6 11 5 24
Percentage 0% 0% 8% 25% 46% 21% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 3.5 3.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 0.28
FIPI 14 4.0 4.0 0.8 5.0 2.0 0.20
Total 24 3.8 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.23

(12) The following questions are about the F/S and IP reports presented today
(12.1) F/S and IP reports presented today sufficiently reflect conditions of the study area
in Phu Binh District.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 2 1 10 11 24
Percentage 0% 0% 8% 4% 42% 46% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.0 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.24
FIPI 14 4.4 5.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.19
Total 24 4.3 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.21

(12.2) F/S and IP reports presented today reflect opinions of the stakeholders of the
project.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

82
Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 0 3 8 13 24
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 13% 33% 54% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.4 4.5 0.7 5.0 3.0 0.16
FIPI 14 4.4 5.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.17
Total 24 4.4 5.0 0.7 5.0 3.0 0.16

(12.3) F/S and IP reports presented today is practical.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 3 3 9 9 24
Percentage 0% 0% 13% 13% 38% 38% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 3.7 4.0 1.2 5.0 2.0 0.31
FIPI 14 4.2 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.21
Total 24 4.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 0.26

(12.4) FS and IP presented today is logical

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 0 6 9 9 24
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 25% 38% 38% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

83
 (b)/(a)
PST 10 4.1 4.0 0.9 5.0 3.0 0.21
FIPI 14 4.1 4.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.19
Total 24 4.1 4.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.19

(12.5) The FS and IP was completed within a shorter period of time.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 1 0 7 6 5 5 24
Percentage 4% 0% 29% 25% 21% 21% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 3.6 3.5 1.2 5.0 2.0 0.33
FIPI 13 3.2 3.0 1.1 5.0 2.0 0.36
Total 23 3.3 3.0 1.2 5.0 2.0 0.34
Note: A participant who responded “Not applicable” is taken out from the calculation of
the above descriptive statistics.

(12.6) The FS and IP was completed in a less costly manner.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 1 0 7 7 3 6 24
Percentage 4% 0% 29% 29% 13% 25% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 3.9 4.0 1.1 5.0 2.0 0.28
FIPI 13 2.9 3.0 1.1 5.0 2.0 0.38
Total 23 3.3 3.0 1.2 5.0 2.0 0.36

84
Note: A participant who responded “Not applicable” is taken out from the calculation of
the above descriptive statistics.

(12.7) Compared with the FS and IP you know before, what are the major advantages
and disadvantages of the FS and IP presented today?
(12.7.1) Advantages

(12.7.2) Disadvantages

(12.8) Overall rating of the F/S and IP

How would you evaluate the F/S and IP on a scale of 0 to 100? Please circle the
appropriate number.
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency
Percentage

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 70.0 65.0 16.3 90.0 50.0 0.23
FIPI 14 77.1 80.0 8.3 90.0 60.0 0.11
Total 24 74.2 80.0 12.5 90.0 50.0 0.17

(13) Benefits that you have received through the program may benefit your carrier
development, and may benefit your organization by applying the knowledge and skills
and transferring them to colleagues, and also contribute to the people in the study areas
and then, the country as a whole. Considering these benefits of the project in total, how
do you evaluate the benefits of the project in monetary terms? Recalling the situation
before you started this OJT program and considering the duration of the OJT program
from November 2005 to the beginning of March 2006, please indicate how much you

85
would have been willing to pay for the participation in this OJT program by ticking the
appropriate box below.
□ 10,000 VND or less per day
□ 20,000 VND per day
□ 30,000 VND per day
□ 50,000 VND per day
□ 70,000 VND per day
□ 100,000 VND per day
□ 150,000 VND per day
□ 200,000 VND per day
□ 250,000 VND per day
□ 300,000 VND per day
□ 350,000 VND per day
□ 400,000 VND per day
□ 450,000 VND per day
□ 500,000 VND per day
□ Above 500,000 VND per day
□ Others (please specify the amount _________________VND per day)

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
30,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

86
Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV
(b)/(a)
PST 8 166,250 150,000 96,205 300,000 30,000 0.58
FIPI 13 253,077 300,000 216,040 500,000 30,000 0.85
Total 21 220,000 200,000 181,962 500,000 30,000 0.83

2. Please describe what you think about this FICAB (JICA Study) and the OJT
program?
(1) About the FICAB as a whole

(2) About the OJT Program

3. Overall rating of the OJT program

How would you evaluate the OJT on a scale of 0 to 100? Please circle the appropriate
number.
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 8 66.3 60.0 15.1 90.0 50.0 0.23
FIPI 14 72.9 80.0 11.4 80.0 50.0 0.16
Total 22 70.5 75.0 12.9 90.0 50.0 0.18

Part 2: Evaluation of the capacity being developed

1. Is the present level of your knowledge and skills high or low compared with the level

87
of the knowledge and skills you had before you participated in the OJT program?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 0 0 15 9 24
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 0% 63% 38% 0%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.4 4.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 0.12
FIPI 14 4.4 4.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 0.11
Total 24 4.4 4.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 0.11

2. How much of the knowledge and skills transferred through the OJT program have
you acquired?
Please provide your evaluation on a scale of 0 being nothing acquired to 100 being fully
acquired.
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 72.0 75.0 14.8 90.0 50.0 0.20
FIPI 14 77.9 80.0 8.0 90.0 70.0 0.10
Total 24 75.4 80.0 11.4 90.0 50.0 0.15

3. Out of knowledge and skills you acquired through the OJT program, what is the
percentage you make use of currently in your office other than the works related to the
FICAB? Please assume what you acquired is 100 and then give the percentage of the
use in your office out of 100 by circling the appropriate number below.
No utilization Fully utilized
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

88
 (b)/(a)
PST 10 60.0 55.0 20.5 90.0 30.0 0.34
FIPI 13 71.5 80.0 12.8 80.0 40.0 0.18
Total 23 66.5 70.0 17.2 90.0 30.0 0.26

4. How has your attitude changed as a result of participation in the OJT program?
4.1 I have become able to set targets of my works more proficiently.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 1 4 10 9 24
Percentage 0% 0% 4% 17% 42% 38% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.0 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.24
FIPI 14 4.2 4.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.19
Total 24 4.1 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.21

4.2 I have become able to express my own opinions more logically.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 1 5 8 10 24
Percentage 0% 0% 4% 21% 33% 42% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.0 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.24
FIPI 14 4.2 4.5 0.9 5.0 3.0 0.21
Total 24 4.1 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.22

89
4.3 I have become able to propose project plans.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 2 3 11 8 24
Percentage 0% 0% 8% 13% 46% 33% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.0 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.24
FIPI 14 4.1 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.23
Total 24 4.0 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.22

4.4 I have begun to take a more active leadership role.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 2 9 5 7 23
Percentage 0% 0% 9% 39% 22% 30% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 3.6 3.0 1.1 5.0 2.0 0.30
FIPI 13 3.8 4.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 0.26
Total 23 3.7 4.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 0.27

4.5 My problem-solving ability has improved.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree

90
 0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 1 2 15 6 24
Percentage 0% 0% 4% 8% 63% 25% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.0 4.0 0.9 5.0 2.0 0.24
FIPI 14 4.1 4.0 0.5 5.0 3.0 0.13
Total 24 4.1 4.0 0.7 5.0 2.0 0.18

4.6 I have become more concerned with the quality of data and information to be
collected for the analysis.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 0 3 7 14 24
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 13% 29% 58% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 10 4.3 4.0 0.7 5.0 3.0 0.16
FIPI 14 4.6 5.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.17
Total 24 4.5 5.0 0.7 5.0 3.0 0.16

4.7 I have become more positive in acquiring new knowledge and skills for my carrier
development.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

91
Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 0 4 5 14 23
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 17% 22% 61% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 9 4.4 5.0 0.7 5.0 3.0 0.16
FIPI 14 4.4 5.0 0.9 5.0 3.0 0.19
Total 23 4.4 5.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.18

4.8 I have become more positive in acquiring new knowledge and skills for the
development of the region and country.
Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 0 4 8 11 23
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 17% 35% 48% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

(b)/(a)
PST 9 4.4 4.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 0.12
FIPI 14 4.2 4.5 0.9 5.0 3.0 0.21
Total 23 4.3 4.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.18

4.9 I have received higher evaluations from my colleagues.

Not Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
applicable disagree disagree agree agree
0 1 2 3 4 5

Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Frequency 0 0 0 7 9 7 23
Percentage 0% 0% 0% 30% 39% 30% 100%

Team Count Average (a) Median SD (b) Max Min CV

92
 (b)/(a)
PST 9 3.8 4.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.22
FIPI 14 4.1 4.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.19
Total 23 4.0 4.0 0.8 5.0 3.0 0.20

5. If a project is deemed not feasible, what will be your next action? Please tick your
choice (multiple choices will be allowed).
Still implement the project as planned

Change the scope and design of the proposed project

Change to other project option

Not implement the project

Others (Please

specify: )

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5

[Link] the OJT program, if you have a chance to disseminate the knowledge and
skills acquired through the OJT program, please describe types of such occasions, the
frequency of the occasions and approximate number of participants in the respective
occasions. Of the knowledge and skills you acquired through the OJT program, what
percentage do you feel was disseminated to your audience at respective occasions? Such
occasions may be lectures, meetings held in-and out-side your organization, seminars,
writing articles and papers, extension activities and workshops.

93
Types of occasions Frequencies Number of Percentage of the
participants/each dissemination to your
occasion audience

7. Please describe what you did during the study period in terms of the contents of the
feasibility and methodology of conducting the study?
7.1 Contents of the feasibility study

(Example: preparation of seedling plans)

7.2 Methodology of conducting the study

(Example: financial analysis)

8. Please describe results outputs of your group activities.

Questions will be followed on the next pages.

94
Annex 3: Summary of responses to Part 1: Q1(12.7)

Participants were asked to describe the major advantages and disadvantages of the F/S
and IP presented on March 6, 2006, comparing with the F/S and IP they knew before.
The following table shows a summary of responses.

Advantage and Description

disadvantage
Advantage (1) Capacity building program
- Suitable with local requirements on improvement of capacity
building in project preparation
- Improvement of capacity in the field of FS preparation reports;
especially for sale & marketing plan; Market trend of log and forest
products
(2) Contents of the reports
- Reports were presented in clearer and shorter manner
- Detail, logic, clear, sufficient, science, practical and high feasible
- Specific contents; detail information
- Each topic has domestic and foreign expert for implementation so
the contents of individual topic is deeply researched and assessed
with sufficient content
- High level of confidence, construction foundation having scientific
manner.
- Investment for project implementation is surely successful.
- Specific, sufficient, necessary information
- High feasible level
- FS is short and easy to understand, sufficient analysis
- Detail, scientific, and logic
(3) Methodologies
- Financial and economic analysis and marketing is better
- Project is constructed as bottom-up way with the participation of
farmers
- Project is constructed as bottom-up way with the participation of
farmers and related stake holders (2 persons)
- Economic analysis
- Marketing research
Disadvantage (1) Capacity building program
- Too many groups that limited the generalized capacity of each
participated member.
- Allowance for the participant is delayed; the way of organization
is unscientific.
(2) Contents of the report
- Several contents are overlapping
- Too many chapters, several parts are still overlapping among
chapters in the report. There is unnecessary overlapping between FS
and IP for example risks
- IP report still has inappropriate chapters
(3) Funding sources
- Seeking the loan with low interest is difficult
- It is difficult to access to the loan source with low interest rate (2

95
Advantage and Description
disadvantage
persons)
- Fund source: farmer borrowed and invested by themselves if there
is no counterpart fund from governmental budget, so
implementation and management may face some difficulties.
(4) Implementation arrangements
- This is new model in Vietnam so the assessment and management
of PMU and CPIU need to be carefully considered and followed.
(5) Cost
- High cost
- Cost for research is large amount, so it is difficult to apply in
Vietnam
(6)Others
- It is new type of project in Vietnam
- Need to have many transfers

96
Annex 4: Summary of responses to Part 1: Q 2(1) and Q2(2)

A question was asked about the FICAB as a whole (Q 2(1)) and the OJT training
program (Q 2(2)). The following responses have been received.

Question 2.1: What do you think about FICAB ?

(General comments)
- Very good
- Good
- FICAB has been implemented rather good
- Objective of FICAB and OJT is very good
(Comments in terms of the policy of the forest sector)
- Appropriate with existing needs on afforestation project in Thai Nguyen
(improvement of capacity building in FS project preparation)
- It is necessary for Vietnam forestry sector
- Improvement of capacity for Vietnamese staffs.
- Clear objective
- Meeting practically the production requirement in Vietnam
- Having important significant for development of Vietnam forestry through
improving the capacity of forestry staff.
- This is very good program; is helps central and provincial staffs having new method
and having chance to exchange ideas when organizing to divide into groups for
implementation.
(Comments in terms of the planning)
- FICAB project has provided to me the information and contents that are very
necessary for me to know how to preparation of project plans. And knowing to analyze
the related factors for project formulation.
- Help me how to make a detail plan for a project program
- Improvement of capacity in the field of FS preparation reports and IP; especially for
sale & marketing plan for log market and price of non-timber product
- It is very necessary for me. This is foundation, knowledge for me to apply practically
into the formulation of project
- Highly support and hope in the future will continue to implement the similar
program like FICAB
- Scientific way, logic, and efficiency
(Comments in terms of the approach)

97
 Question 2.1: What do you think about FICAB ?
- Acquiring the farmer approach, measurements of implementation organization
especially in project preparation
(Comments in terms of the feasibility of the project)
- The project is high feasible (3 responses)

Question 2.2: What do you think about the OJT program ?

(General comments, appropriateness and practical aspects)
- Good (2 responses)

(Appropriateness)
- Appropriateness
- Suitable with acquired ability of participants in the groups
- Meet the ambition of trainees (2 responses)
- Rather suitable and ability of application in Vietnam
- Appropriate with condition and capability of Vietnam
- Scientific but not yet suitable with Vietnam condition

(Practical)
- Specific, clear
- Practical significant
- Practical, easy to acquire
(Capacity building)
- The training program has brought the knowledge and improvement ability of project
preparation steps and analysis the factors that affect to project in both negative and
positive way.
- This is training methodology through practice a certain feasible project model.
- It is practical and suitable with existing capacity of Vietnamese staffs (2 responses)
- Suitable with capacity
- Very good, through actual working at Phu Binh that create self training method.
- OJT program is very good. However, when doing training for Vietnamese staff need
to guide follow the Vietnam condition rather than international of Japanese standard.
As results the trainee may acquire better and without dependency.
(Logistic issues)

98
 Question 2.2: What do you think about the OJT program ?
- Too little of time
- Contents are very useful for FIPI and PST members; however training time is short
and too many groups that led to difficult in coordination and sharing information.

99
Annex 5: Summary of responses to Part 2: Q7.1, Q7.2 and Q8.

Participants were asked to describe what they did during the study period in terms of
(Q7.1) the contents of the feasibility study, (Q7.2) methodology of conducting the study,
and (Q8) outputs of the group activities.

Q7.1 Contents of FS Q7.2 Methodology Q8 Outputs

Group A: Wood market analysis
- Market survey and Interview, generalization - Survey on consuming
product’s prices and informing on market
- Surveying and collecting marketing and prices - Survey and providing
price data, trend of timber Collecting sufficiently information for A group
market and agroforestry data, analyzing and that is used for project
products processing data with reports
- Preparation of FS and assistant from expert. - Reference book of trend
IP reports as well as of timber market and
marketing and sale plan agroforestry products
- Chapter 9 FS report and
marketing and sale plan
- Chapter 11 IP report and
marketing and sale plan
Group B: Rural socio analysis
Preparation of social Analysis of - FS report on surveyed
economic contents that socio-economic conditions results, analysis of
related with project area (3 (3 responses) socio-economic
responses) conditions of the project
area (afforestation and
agroforestry ) (3
responses)
- Guidance on preparation
of above content of
FS(3 responses)
- IP Report: + Impact of
the project
+ Training and technical
assistant(3
responses)
- Guidance on preparation
of above content of IP(2
responses)

Group C1: Forest planning/ Afforestation planning

- Preparation of Seeding - Planning Methodology - Providing data,
plan; - Collecting and referring information of planning

100
Q7.1 Contents of FS Q7.2 Methodology Q8 Outputs
- Preparation of Plantation to documents and papers and project plans (2
plan - Surveying project sites responses)
- Assessment and selection and outside project area - Selection of project
of most feasible project - Interviewing farmers, model
- Selection of project site forestry staff at site - Selection of planting
(2 responses) - Generalizing, analyzing species
- Selection of planting and constructing research - Determination of annual
species (2 responses) contents planting area, harvesting
- IP preparation volume, demand of
- Technical design (2 seedling and infrastructure.
responses) - Selection of applicable
- Implementation schedule technique for the project
- Mechanism of - Structure of
sustainable development implementation
- Cost norm of technique organization
- Organization structure of (implementation agency)
PMU and CPIU (2 responses)
- Implementation schedule
- Mechanism of
sustainable development
Group C2: Resource survey/ Environmental Impact survey
- Drawing the actual - Soil analysis of soil - Obtaining existing forest
situation of afforestation, patterns to determine the maps of surveyed sites,
natural forest, land. (2 pH rate and soil fertility area and forest volume of
responses) (N,P,K) individual forest. Based on
- Measurement of forest - Site survey combining this information drawing
volume- Proposed suitable with processing data by appropriate technical
species for planting. using computer (2 measurements for
- Conducting sites survey responses) proposing suitable species
on forest species with higher yielding.
- Surveying and - Determination of soil
assessment of yield of types, land use type
labor and species - Drawing maps for
- Actual land use survey project areas
- Soil survey (3 responses) - Proposing suitable
- Mapping species for planting
- Recommendation of
risks from natural
conditions.
- Map of actual land use
- Map of land data
- Data for yield of species
- Determination of planting
species
- Data on actual land use
- Data on incremental
volume of forest
- Data on land use right
- Forestry map and soil
map
Group D: Farming system/ Agroforestry
- Participating in providing - PRA, PRR - The primary results are in

101
Q7.1 Contents of FS Q7.2 Methodology Q8 Outputs
of data - Workshop accordance with proposed
- Reflecting social - Expertise method plan made by the group.
economic and political - Site survey - FS report of
conditions for the mission - Data analysis for Agroforestry (2
- Formulation of feasible agroforestry responses)
Agroforetry project - Report on “Guideline
- Preparation of seedling for Formulation of
plan for agroforestry feasible Affroforestry
- Preparation of harvesting project”
plan for agroforestry - IP report of agroforestry
(2 responses)
Group E: Economic/ Financial analysis
- Study knowledge on - Analysis and assessment - Analysis of project
financial and economic of cost items in project efficiency through
analysis from Japanese implementation, research indicators like NPV, IRR,
expert on procedures of loan, B/C (3 responses)
- Collection of data during management and use of - Results according to total
site surveys with study loan as well as budgetary investment viewpoint
members fund source - Results according to
- Seeking the documents - Preparation of parameter project owner viewpoint
and paper that related to table on input and output - From these investment
financial management - Preparation of plantation criteria it could be
during project and harvesting plan concluded that the feasible
implementation - Financial analysis for level of project is high or
- Preparation of parameter afforestation project low.
table - Analysis of different - Sensitive analysis of the
- Collection of data and viewpoint project. Find out the
information related to cost - Economic analysis factors that affect to
(2 responses) output factors of the
- Preparation of cash flow project
tables - The group has presented
- Analysis of finance and the financial analysis
economic results, cash inflow,
- Collection of output data estimation of project cost
- Expected factors and structure, investment for
other related data project implementation,
and project benefit.
- Group F: Coordination
Implementation - Directing of matters that
preparation is appropriate with
governmental policies
- Contents of policies
- Strategy, master plan of
Viet Nam forestry
development
- Organizing of project
implementation
- Risk analysis
- Consensus of viewpoint
on preparation of FS and
IP

102
 Appendix 2

M & E Report of
Introduction Workshop

103
 Appendix 2

July 27, 2006

Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Introductory Workshop

1. Purpose of the introduction workshop for the training program and M & E
The JICA study team (JST) and the local sub-contractor (FIPI) conducted a training introduction
workshop with the participation of about 35 trainees from Participating Provinces (PPs) and the
local sub-contractor. The workshop was held for a period of six days from July 17 to 22, 2006 in
Thai Nguyen province (Core Province: CoP) with the cooperation of the CoP’s Provincial Study
Team (PST). The first four days were spent for the presentation of the training package, training
plan, and discussions while the last two days were set for a visit to Phu Binh District and the
explanation on utilization of the equipment and facilities donated under the JICA cooperation
program. This draft monitoring and evaluation (M & E) report has been prepared to report the
monitoring results of the first five-day introductory part of the workshop (first four days and the
visit to Phu Binh District on the fifth day).

The introduction workshop forms part of the overall training activities consisting of the five
work units. The workshop aims to perform the following three tasks: explanation of the training
package prepared during Phase 1; identification of the capacity gaps by participants from PPs;
and the initial development of the project concept with the use of the training activities as inputs
to improve the planning capacity. The following elaborates on these three parts of the workshop:

Part 1: Introduction of the training package (1st and 3rd days)

Part 1 is to introduce the concept and framework of F/S and IP, to share with the participants the
Model F/S and IP prepared in the Thai Nguyen Province, to introduce other components of the
training package, and then to explain the training plan and confirm the training activities during
Phase 2. Part 1 of the introduction workshop is also intended to address any issues and concerns
that may possibly arise from the participants of the participating provinces (PPs).
Part 2: Identification of capacity gap in respective provinces in preparation of the F/S and IP
(2nd day).
Part 2 is to let participants realize and identify capacity gaps in preparing the F/S and IP in their
respective PPs. This will also serve to examination of the appropriateness of the training
program and identify points of training focuses.
Part 3: Initial development of the project concept (4th day)
Part 3 is to request participants to present the concept of the proposed project in each province.
Participants are expected to make use of the training activities as inputs to improve their project
concept with the assistance from the local sub-contractor.

104
 Figure 1: Structure of the Introduction Workshop

Training Introductory Workshop

Explanation of F/S・IP (1st day)

Identification of
capacity gap (2nd day)
through SWOT Analysis

Explanation of Capacity Building

Training Plan (3rd day)

Clear definition of Preparation of

Preparation of F/S
F/S
Project Concept (4th day)
through pre-site-assessment

The local sub-contractor led the entire workshop as Trainers of Trainees (TOT) under the
supervision of the JICA Study Team (JST) except the explanation of the roles and
responsibilities of PST under the training activities.

2. Attendance of the participants from PPs

A total of about thirty-five (35) participants attended the introduction workshop from four PPs
and the local sub-contractor. The attendance to each of the sessions is shown as in the following
table.
Table 1: Number of Participants (Trainees) Unit: Persons
Province/Date July 17 July 18 July 19 July 20 July 21 July 22
Son La 12 12 12 12 12 12
Quang Nam 5 5 3 3 3 3
Lam Dong 6 6 6 6 6 6
Long An 7 7 7 7 7 7
Sub FIPI 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total 35 35 33 33 33 33

3. M & E through the questionnaire survey

At the beginning, in the middle, and the end of the workshop, questionnaires were distributed to

105
the workshop participants in order to: measure the level of understanding and changes in the
capacities of the participants, monitor the reaction of each participant to the workshop by
measuring the level of their satisfaction in attending the workshop, which would affect the
future sustainability of the training program, and the effectiveness of the instruction by local
sub-contractor as Trainers of Trainees (TOT).

Six questionnaires were distributed to the participants from the provinces. Each of the
questionnaires has been prepared to examine different aspects as shown in the following Table
2.

Table 2: Timing and Perspectives of M & E

Q Timing of Analytical perspectives of M & E Respondents
Distribution Identification
1 Beginning - Learning objective of each participant Required
- Expectation to the training program
st
2 End of 1 day - Level of understanding on the F/S framework (if they Optional
are able to attain the output image of the F/S and
understand the process of preparation of the F/S)
nd
3 End of 2 - Examine if they are able to realize the capacity gaps in Optional
day their respective provinces that need to be improved in
preparation of F/S
- Examine if they are able to figure out roles and
responsibilities of PST in the process of preparing the
F/S.
rd
4 End of 3 - Level of understanding on the training activities and Optional
day their responsibilities
th
5 End of 4 - Examine if they are able to attain a more logical Required
day concept of the proposed project.
- Level of satisfaction in attending the workshop
- Any change of expectation to the training program if
compared with that prior to the workshop
- Possible ways to transfer the technologies they will
gain
6 End of 5th - Examine what they identified as the most important Optional
day point for application in their respective provinces based
on the visit to the project site.
Questionnaires 1 to 6 have been attached.

106
 4. Results of the questionnaire survey
4.1 Responses of each questionnaire
The following table shows the rate of responses to the questionnaire from Questionnaire 1 (Q 1)
to Questionnaire 6 (Q6).
Table 3: Rate of responses
July 17 (Q1) July 17 (Q2) July 18 (Q3) July 19 (Q4) July 20 (Q5) July 21 (Q6)

Province A B % A B % A B % A B % A B % A B %

Son La 12 11 92 12 10 83 12 10 83 12 10 83 12 11 92 12 6 50

Quang 5 5 100 5 5 100 5 5 100 5 3 60 3 3 100 3 2 67

Nam
Lam Dong 6 6 100 6 6 100 6 6 100 6 7 117 6 6 100 6 5 83

Long An 7 7 100 7 7 100 7 7 100 7 7 100 7 7 100 7 6 86

Sub FIPI 5 5 100 5 5 100 5 4 80 5 4 80 5 5 100 5 5 100

Not known 0 0 NA 0 4 NA 0 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 1 NA

Total 35 34 97 35 37 106 35 32 91 35 31 89 33 32 97 33 25 76

Note 1: A: Number of participants: B Actual number of respondents: %: A/B x 100

Note 2: 37 responses were collected for Questionnaire 2. It is assumed that non-trainees submitted their responses to
the questionnaire.
Note 3: The number of respondents in Lam Dong to Questionnaire 4 exceeds the number of participants by one. This
is due to mistakes in classification of the provinces where they are from.

4.2 Results of the questionnaire survey

This section reports the results of the questionnaire survey in terms of the level of understanding
and changes in the capacities of the participants (Section 4.2.1) and the level of satisfaction of
the participants in attending the workshop and effectiveness of the instruction by the local
sub-contractor as TOT (Section 4.2.2).

4.2.1 Level of understanding and changes in the capacities of the participants

(1) Questionnaire 1 distributed on the first day before the workshop
The first M & E questionnaire was distributed on the first day before the workshop started and
was collected during the tea break in the morning on the same day. The following points have
been clarified as the learning objectives of the respondents and their expectation to the training
activities.

107
Table 4: Objectives and expectation of respondents
No. Objectives and expectation of respondents
1 Improvement of capacity to writing F/S and IP reports
2 Project design through adjustment and application of what has been acquired through
training activities in respective provinces
3 Acquisition of new knowledge and technologies
4 Silvicultural techniques
5 Appraisal methods of projects
6 Experience from other provinces including projects prepared in Thai Nguyen
7 Transfer and application of training contents in respective province
8 Farmers training
9 Materials for F/S and IP preparation

It is noted that a lot of respondents expect to acquire practical knowledge and skills of
preparation of F/S and IP and intend to apply them in their respective provinces after
appropriate modifications.

(2) Questionnaire 2 distributed at the end of the first day

Questionnaire 2 was distributed at the end of the first day. The first day agenda covers
preparation of F/S and IP under the FICAB, presentation of F/S and IP framework, model F/S
and IP, etc., the questionnaire is intended to identify the level of understanding on the
preparation of F/S for afforestation projects. The following Table 5 shows the average of ratings
given by the participants with standard deviations in the respective questions. Based on their
ratings, the level of understandings by the participants is considered to be the average (3) or a
little higher (average of Question 2.1 is 3.5 with SD of 0.6, average of Question 2.2 is 3.8 with
SD of 0.7, average of Question 2.3 is 3.5 with SD of 0.6).

Table 5: Response from participants to questions

Q Analytical perspectives of M & E Ques Question Avg SD
No.
1 - Learning objective of each participant 1. What do you plan to bring back to Open-
- Expectation to the training program your province? Ended
question
2 - Level of understanding on the 2.1 Role of F/S 3.5 0.6
preparation of F/S for afforestation 2.2 Output image of F/S reports 3.8 0.7
projects
2.3 Process of preparation of F/S 3.5 0.6

108
Q Analytical perspectives of M & E Ques Question Avg SD
No.
3 - Examine if they are able to realize the 3.1 Level of confidence about 3.4 0.8
capacity gaps in their respective identification of the capacity gaps
provinces that need to be improved in in respective provinces
preparation of F/S
3.2 Most important knowledge or Open-
- Examine if they are able to figure out
skill that needs to be improved in Ended
roles and responsibilities of PST in the
your province
process of preparing the F/S. question
3.3 Role and responsibilities of your
organization
4 - Level of understanding on the training 4.1 Level of understanding of overall 3.7 0.5
activities and their responsibilities flow of training activities
4.2 Level of understanding about how 3.9 0.6
to use the training plan
4.3 Roles and responsibilities in the 3.8 0.6
training activities
5 - Examine if they are able to attain a 5.1 Have become able to design 4.3 0.6
more logical concept of the proposed proposed project more logically.
project.
- Level of satisfaction in attending the
workshop 5.2 Most important knowledge or Open-
- Any change of expectation to the skills needs to be improved in Ended
training program if compared with that your province
question
prior to the workshop
- Possible ways to transfer the
technologies they will gain
6 - Examine what they identified as the 6.2 Most important point that can Open-
most important point for application in be applied for preparation of the Ended
their respective provinces based on the project in respective province
question
visit to the project site in Phu Binh
District.

(3) Questionnaire 3 distributed at the end of the second day

Questionnaire 3 was distributed at the end of the second day. The second day agenda is the
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis. Participants are expected
to identify capacity gaps associated with preparation of the feasibility studies in their provinces
and, roles and responsibilities of their organizations in the process of preparation. Through the
discussion among the participants in the process of the SWOT analysis, they became more or
less confident that they had identified the capacity gap as shown in Table 5 above (average of
the ratings is 3.4 with SD of 0.8).

As of the most important knowledge or skill that needs to be improved for preparation of the
practical feasibility study in their provinces, a majority of the participants pointed out the
financial and economic analysis, followed by the market analysis, project planning,
environmental impact analysis. The following Table 6 compares the number of responses

109
received from the respondents.

Table 6: Areas needed to be improved in respective provinces (2nd day)

M&E on 2nd day (Area for improvement in your province)

No. of responses
0 5 10 15 20 25

Collection of information,
field survey/analysis

M arket analysis
Areas need to be improved in province

Project planning

Investment promotion

Financial and economic

analysis

Environment impacts

M onitoring and
evaluation

Risk analysis

Synthesizing to draft F/S

and IP

Others

Note: Some participants pointed out more than one area need to be improved.

(3) Questionnaire 4 distributed at the end of the third day

After having explained about the feasibility studies and made participants identified the existing
capacity gaps, the third day agenda is designed so as for participants to find the training plan as
inputs to fill the capacity gaps. Ratings given by the respondents to Questionnaire 4 implies that
respondents have good level of understandings of the overall flow of training activities (average
of 3.7 with SD of 0.5), about how to use the training plan (average of 3.9 with SD of 0.6), and
roles and responsibilities in the training activities (average of 3.8 with SD of 0.6).

(4) Questionnaire 5 distributed at the end of the fourth day

The fourth day was spent for the presentation of the proposed project by participating provinces.

110
Discussions, questions and answers sessions were followed after the presentation. Questionnaire
4 is intended to find out whether or not participants have become able to design the project more
logically. Most of respondents answered that they have rather agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement: “compared with the situation before attending the training introduction workshop, I
have become able to design our proposed project more logically.” After discussions of the
project concept among the participants on the fourth day, they were once again asked what the
most important knowledge or skill that needs to be improved for preparation of the practical
feasibility study in their provinces. The following Table 7 compares responses on the 4th day
with those on the 2nd day. Responses from the respondents did not change so much. The
majority of the respondents again pointed out financial and economic analyses is the most
important area that need to be improved for preparation of the practical feasibility studies in
their provinces.

Table 7: Areas needed to be improved in respective provinces

(Comparison of responses on 2nd and 4th days)

M&E on 2nd and 4th day (Area for improvement in your province)
No. of responses
0 5 10 15 20 25
Areas need to be improved in provinces

Collection of information, field survey/analysis

M arket analysis Q 3.2 on 2nd day

Project planning Q 5.2 on 4th day

Investment promotion

Financial and economic analysis

Environment impacts

M onitoring and evaluation

Risk analysis

Synthesizing to draft F/S and IP

Others

Note: Some participants pointed out more than one area need to be improved.

Although the respondents were given their options not to disclose their identities, some of the

111
respondents still agreed to disclose their identities, which enabled to compare the responses to
Question 3.2 on the second day with those to Question 5.2. The comparison shows that some
respondents changed or added areas to be improved for preparation of F/S over the period from
the 2nd to 4th day.

As for the changes of the learning objective after the four-day training activities, most of the
participants, except a few, maintained their learning objectives set before the workshop. The few
participants added or changed their objectives in the areas of the investment promotion, the
financial and economic analyses, and environmental analysis.

In the same questionnaire 5, participants were also asked to describe the most effective way to
transfer their knowledge and technologies in their provinces. Their responses include: the
combination of theory and practice in the field, use of the training package, discussions,
organization of training courses in provinces, use of website to introduce the training package,
use of visual aids, and preparation of projects. It is considered that the practical application in
the field is the most effective way to conduct the technology transfer.

(6) Questionnaire 6 distributed at the end of the fifth day

Based on the visit to the project site of the model F/S (production forests) in Phu Binh district,
participants were asked to describe the most important point that can be applied for preparation
of the proposed project in their provinces. Comments from respondents varied: identification of
species, soil conditions, topographic conditions, field survey including interviews with farmers,
participation of stakeholders including the communal consultation meetings (CCM), financial
and economic analysis, plant structure, project scheme, land use rights, and so on.

4.2.2 Level of satisfaction of the participants in attending the workshop and the effectiveness of
the instruction by local sub-contractors as TOT

At the end of the 1st day workshop to 5th day, participants were asked to provide overall ratings
of the workshop on a scale from 0 to 100. The following Table 8 shows the ratings given by the
respondents.

112
Table 8: Overall ratings made by respondents about the workshop

Trend of average ratings

75.00
73.1
Average ratings

70.00 69.7
67.43
65.00 65.0
60.00 61.1

55.00
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
day day day day day

1st day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day
No. 37 32 31 32 25
Respondents
Average 67.4 61.1 69.7 73.2 65
Median 70 60 70 70 70
SD 9.8 13.0 13.7 8.7 17.3
Max 100 90 90 90 90
Min 55 30 20 55 40
Note: The average of the overall ratings given on the 4th day is for the 4 day-long
workshop while the average of the overall ratings on other days is for the workshop on
the respective days.

The average of the overall raging ranges from 61 to 73 but there were some participants
who responded with the substantially low ratings such as 30 on the 2nd day and 20 on
the 3rd day. While there are many positive comments, open-ended questions at the end
of the questionnaires revealed a number of areas for improvement in terms of operation
of the workshop. Comments and suggestions from the participants can be classified into
the following four categories: the presentation, facilitation, F/S report and
documentation, and others. In terms of the presentation aspect, respondents pointed out
the non-condensed slide presentation, necessity to integrate the presentations with report
contents, Q & A, and discussions, and also appropriate time allocation. As for the
facilitation, respondents expect more proper guidance during discussion sessions so that
they can go straight into the theme. With regard to the F/S report and documentation,
their comments and suggestions cover: necessity to have a list of documents; illustrative

113
pictures; clear explanation; necessity to have summaries; necessity to be reordered in
order to avoid confusion; further analysis of data and statistics; development of
procedures to improve design methods of projects; and explanation on when and why to
use each of the documents. Other than these aspects, respondents pointed out difficulties
in collecting data as PST members, training schedules, facilities of the workshops, etc.

5. Points to feedback based on the M & E of the introduction workshop

Based on the M & E of the introduction workshop, the points to feedback are as
follows:
(1) Objective and expectation of the respondents
A lot of respondents set their learning objective as acquisition of practical knowledge and skills
of preparation of F/S and IP. They intend to apply them in their respective provinces after
appropriate modifications in consideration of the local conditions.
(2) Level of understanding about the contents of the workshop and changes of their capacities
The level of understanding of respondents about the F/S framework, capacity gaps in their
respective provinces, training activities and concept of their proposed project has shown
improvement based on the results of the questionnaire survey. Consequently, it is considered
that the respondents more or less comprehended the workshop contents as originally planned.
Through attending the workshop and discussions among participants, there appeared to be
changes being observed in terms of the perceptions of some of the respondents to the capacity
gaps, etc.
(3) Identification of knowledge and skills that need to be improved in respective
provinces
Areas needed to be improved in their respective provinces were identified as the
financial and economic analyses, market analysis, environmental impact analysis,
project planning, F/S drafting, etc.
(4) Effective ways to conduct technology transfer in respective provinces
It is considered that the practical application of the knowledge and technologies in the field will
be the most effective way to conduct the transfer.
(5) Presentation and facilitation skills for the workshop
Presentation and facilitation skills for the workshop need to be improved. Condensed
presentation which has been integrated with discussions, Q & A, and report contents
will be required.
(6) Contents and documentation of the F/S and IP reports
A number of points have been mentioned in terms of the documentations and contents
of the existing model F/S and IP, and manuals.

114
Annex (Attachment) 1: Questionnaires
Annex (Attachment) 2: Summary of responses to questionnaires

115
Annex 1: Questionnaires
Questionnaire 1 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An
Name:

Please answer the following question on July 17, 2006 before the introductory
workshop.
Question: What do you plan to bring back to your office and other relevant offices
in your province as your outputs of the training activities (July 2006 until
December 2007)?

116
Questionnaire 2 on July 17, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An
Name: (Optional)
You have completed your first day of the training introduction workshop. Please let us
know your response to the workshop on the first day by answering the following
questions (please circle the appropriate number).

1. We have explained the role of F/S in preparing afforestation projects? How do you
rate your level of understandings about the role of F/S on a scale from Low (1) to High
(5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

2. In terms of the contents of the F/S, have you obtained a clear output image of the F/S
reports? How do you describe your present image of the F/S reports on a scale from Not
clear (1) to Clear (5)?
Not clear Somewhat Not Average Somewhat Clear
1 Clear 2 3 Clear4 5

3. How do you rate your level of understandings about the process of preparation of F/S
on a scale from Low (1) to High (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

4. Please give your rating on the first day program of the workshop on a scale from Poor
(0) to Excellent (100).

Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5. Comments and suggestions including appropriateness of the workshop methods and

facilities, if any.

117
Questionnaire 3 on July 18, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI
Name: (Optional)
You have completed your second day of the training introduction workshop. Please let
us know your response to the workshop on the second day by answering the following
questions (please circle the appropriate number).

1. At the second-day workshop, the SWOT analysis has been conducted in order to help
you identify any gaps of the planning capacity that need to be improved for preparation
of the feasibility studies in your province. Have you identified such capacity gaps in
your province? Please rate your level of confidence about whether or not you have
identified the gaps on a scale from Low Confidence (1) to High Confidence (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence
1 2 3 4 5

2. What is the most important knowledge or skill that needs to be improved for
preparation of the practical feasibility study in your province?

3. Were you able to figure out roles and responsibilities of your organization in the
process of preparing the feasibility studies in your province? Please describe roles and
responsibilities of your organization in the process of preparing the feasibility studies in
your province.

4. Please give your rating on the second day program of the workshop on a scale from
Poor (0) to Excellent (100).
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

118
5. Comments and suggestions to the today’s workshop including methods for
presentation, contents and facilities.

119
Questionnaire 4 on July 19, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI
Name: (Optional)
You have completed your third day of the training introduction workshop. Please let us
know your response to the workshop on the third day by answering the following
questions (please circle the appropriate number).

1. We have explained the overall flow of training activities. How do you rate your level
of understandings about the overall flow of training activities on a scale from Low (1) to
High (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

2. We have explained the contents of the training plan. How do you rate your level of
understandings about how to use the training plan on a scale from Low (1) to High (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

3. We have explained your roles and responsibilities in the training activities. How do
you rate the level of understandings about your roles and responsibilities in the training
activities on a scale from Low (1) to High (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

4. Please give your rating on the third day program of the workshop on a scale from
Poor (0) to Excellent (100).
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5. Comments and suggestions to today’s workshop including methods for presentation,

contents and facilities.

120
Questionnaire 5 on July 20, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An
Name:

1. Questions on the fourth day program of the training introduction workshop

1.1 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement about you?
“Compared with the situation before attending the training introduction workshop, I
have become able to design our proposed project more logically.”

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

1.2 After discussions of the project concept, what do you think is the most important
knowledge or skill that needs to be improved for preparation of the practical feasibility
study in your province?

2. Questions on the training introduction workshop (first four days from July 17 to 22,
2006)
Please let us know your response and comments on this four-day long introduction
workshop by answering the following questions (please circle the appropriate
number).

2.1 Information provided during this introduction workshop helped you understand the
training activities that you will participate in.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

121
2.2 A training package introduced in the workshop will be applicable for practical
preparation of afforestation projects in your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

2.3 Explanation and facilitation of the instructors from Forest Inventory and Planning
Institute (FIPI) were appropriate.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

2.4 Sharing of experiences and additional explanations from the provincial study team
of Thai Nguyen Province were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

2.5 How do you find the relationship between the contents of the training activities and
your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?

Very weak Somewhat Neither Somewhat Very

weak strong strong

1 2 3 4 5

2.6 Duration (length) of the four-day workshop was appropriate.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

2.7 Logistic arrangements (facilities, accommodations, etc.) of the workshop were

appropriate.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

2.8 Overall rating of the four-day long training introduction workshop on a scale from
Poor (0) to Excellent (100).

122
 Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.9 Comments and suggestions including: methods for presentation, contents and
facilities.

3.1 The following question is same as the one asked before the introduction workshop.
Please answer once again to the same question: what do you plan to bring back to
your office and other relevant offices in your province as your outputs of the
training activities (July 2006 until December 2007)? Please tick the appropriate
bracket (one of No.1, No.2, or No.3) and write your answer in the appropriate space.
No 1. ( ) My answer is same as the answer before the introduction workshop.
No 2. ( ) In addition to what I wrote, I plan to transfer the following points:

No 3. ( ) Instead of what I answered before the workshop, I plan to transfer the

following points:

123
3.2 What will be the most effective way in which you can transfer knowledge and
technologies you will gain from the five training work units among your colleagues in
the office and other relevant offices in your province?

124
Questionnaire 6 on July 21, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An
Name: (Optional)

Please let us know your response and comments on the visit to Phu Binh district by
answering the following questions (please circle the appropriate number).

1. What is your rating of today’s visit in order to understand the proposed project
prepared in Phu Binh District under FICAB?

Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2. Based on the visit to the project site, what do you think is the most important point
that you think you can apply for preparation of the proposed project in your province?

125
Annex 2: Summary of responses to questionnaires
Questionnaire 2 on July 17, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An
Name: (Optional)
You have completed your first day of the training introduction workshop. Please let us
know your response to the workshop on the first day by answering the following
questions (please circle the appropriate number).

1. We have explained the role of F/S in preparing afforestation projects? How do you
rate your level of understandings about the role of F/S on a scale from Low (1) to High
(5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

Question 2.1
25
Total number of responses = 37
20
Average= 3.5
No. of responses

15
Standard Deviation＝ 0.6
10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

2. In terms of the contents of the F/S, have you obtained a clear output image of the F/S
reports? How do you describe your present image of the F/S reports on a scale from Not
clear (1) to Clear (5)?
Not clear Somewhat Not Clear Average Somewhat Clear Clear
1 2 3 4 5

Question 2.2
25
Total number of responses = 37
20
Average= 3.8
No. of responses

15
Standard Deviation＝ 0.7
10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

126
3. How do you rate your level of understandings about the process of preparation of F/S
on a scale from Low (1) to High (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

Question 2.3
25
Total number of responses = 36
20 Average= 3.5
Standard Deviation＝ 0.6
No. of responses

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

4. Please give your rating on the first day program of the workshop on a scale from Poor
(0) to Excellent (100).

Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Question 2.4
20
Total number of responses = 37
15 Average= 67.4
No. of responses

Standard Deviation＝ 9.8

10

0
30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Score

127
Questionnaire 3 on July 18, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI
Name: (Optional)
You have completed your second day of the training introduction workshop. Please let
us know your response to the workshop on the second day by answering the following
questions (please circle the appropriate number).

1. At the second-day workshop, the SWOT analysis has been conducted in order to help
you identify any gaps of the planning capacity that need to be improved for preparation
of the feasibility studies in your province. Have you identified such capacity gaps in
your province? Please rate your level of confidence about whether or not you have
identified the gaps on a scale from Low Confidence (1) to High Confidence (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidenc
1 2 3 4 5

Question 3.1
18
16 Total number of responses = 32
14
Average= 3.4
No. of responses

12
10 Standard Deviation＝ 0.8
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

4. Please give your rating on the second day program of the workshop on a scale from
Poor (0) to Excellent (100).
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Question 3.4
15
Total number of responses = 32
Average= 61.1
No. of responses

10
Standard Deviation＝13.0

0
30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Score

128
Questionnaire 4 on July 19, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI
Name: (Optional)
You have completed your third day of the training introduction workshop. Please let us
know your response to the workshop on the third day by answering the following
questions (please circle the appropriate number).

1. We have explained the overall flow of training activities. How do you rate your level
of understandings about the overall flow of training activities on a scale from Low (1) to
High (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

Question 4.1
25

20 No. of Respondents= 31
Average= 3.7
No. of responses

15
Standard Deviation= 0.5
10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

129
2. We have explained the contents of the training plan. How do you rate your level of
understandings about how to use the training plan on a scale from Low (1) to High (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

Question 4.2
25

No. of Respondents= 31
20
Average= 3.9
No. of responses

15
Standard Deviation= 0.6
10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

3. We have explained your roles and responsibilities in the training activities. How do
you rate the level of understandings about your roles and responsibilities in the training
activities on a scale from Low (1) to High (5)?
Low Somewhat Low Average Somewhat High High
1 2 3 4 5

Question 4.3
25
No. of Respondents= 31
20 Average= 3.8
Standard Deviation= 0.6
No. of responses

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

130
4. Please give your rating on the third day program of the workshop on a scale from
Poor (0) to Excellent (100).
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Question 4.4
15

No. of Respondents= 31
No. of responses

10 Average= 69.7
Standard Deviation= 13.7
5

0
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-
100
Score

131
Questionnaire 5 on July 20, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI
Name:
1. Questions on the fourth day program of the training introduction workshop
1.1 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement about you?
“Compared with the situation before attending the training introduction workshop, I
have become able to design our proposed project more logically.”
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Question 5.1.1
25

20 Total number of responses = 32

Average= 4.3
No. of responses

15
Standard Deviation＝ 0.6
10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

132
2. Questions on the training introduction workshop (first four days from July 17 to 22,
2006)
Please let us know your response and comments on this four-day long introduction
workshop by answering the following questions (please circle the appropriate
number).
2.1 Information provided during this introduction workshop helped you understand the
training activities that you will participate in.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5

Question 5.2.1
18
16
14 Total number of responses = 32
No. of responses

12
10
Average= 4.4
8 Standard Deviation＝ 0.8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

2.2 A training package introduced in the workshop will be applicable for practical
preparation of afforestation projects in your province.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5

Question 5.2.2
18
16
Total number of responses = 32
14 Average= 4.4
No. of responses

12
10
Standard Deviation＝ 0.6
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

133
2.3 Explanation and facilitation of the instructors from Forest Inventory and Planning
Institute (FIPI) were appropriate.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5

Question 5.2.3
25
Total number of responses = 32
20
Average= 4.0
No. of responses

15
Standard Deviation＝ 0.7
10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

2.4 Sharing of experiences and additional explanations from the provincial study team
of Thai Nguyen Province were helpful.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5

Question 5.2.4
18
Total number of responses = 32
16
14 Average= 4.2
Standard Deviation＝ 0.8
No. of responses

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

134
2.5 How do you find the relationship between the contents of the training activities and
your current work? Is the relation strong or weak? Somewhat Very
strong strong
Very weak Somewhat Neither
weak
1 2 3 4 5

Question 5.2.5
20 Total number of responses = 32
18
16 Average= 4.2
14
Standard Deviation＝ 0.6
No. of responses

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

2.6 Duration (length) of the four-day workshop was appropriate.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5

Question 5.2.6
14

12
Total number of responses = 32
10 Average= 3.8
No. of responses

8 Standard Deviation＝ 1.1

6

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

135
2.7 Logistic arrangements (facilities, accommodations, etc.) of the workshop were
appropriate.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5

Question 5.2.7
16

14 Total number of responses = 32

12
Average= 3.7
No. of responses

10
Standard Deviation＝ 1.1
8
6

0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating

2.8 Overall rating of the four-day long training introduction workshop on a scale from
Poor (0) to Excellent (100).

Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Question 5.2.8
15
Total number of responses = 32
Average= 73.1
No. of responses

10
Standard Deviation＝ 8.7

0
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-
100
Score

136
Questionnaire 6 on July 21, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An
Name: (Optional)
Please let us know your response and comments on the visit to Phu Binh district by
answering the following questions (please circle the appropriate number).

1. What is your rating of today’s visit in order to understand the proposed project
prepared in Phu Binh District under FICAB?

Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Question 6.1
10

8
No. of responses=25
No. of responses

6
Average= 65.0
4
Standard Deviation= 17.3
2

0
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Score

Trend analysis of the overall ratings

1. Number of respondents
No. of respondents
40
37
35 32 31 32
30
No. of respondents

25
25
20
15
10
5
0
1st day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day

137
2. Overall ratings from Questionnaire 2 on the 1st day to Questionnaire 6 on the 5th day)

Trend of average ratings

75.00
73.1
Average ratings

70.00 69.7
67.43
65.00 65.0
60.00 61.1

55.00
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
day day day day day

3. Variability of ratings

Standard deviation of ratings

20.00
17.3
15.00
13.0 13.7
SD

10.00 9.77 8.7

5.00

0.00
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
day day day day day

138
 Appendix 3

M & E Report of
Intensive Training Session of
Work Unit 1

139
 Appendix 3

September 5, 2006
Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Work Unit One (WU 1)

1. Purpose of the intensive training (Step 1) of Work Unit One and M & E
The JICA study team (JST) and the local sub-contractor (FIPI) conducted an intensive training
of Work Unit One (WU 1) with the participation of about 25 participants from Participating
Provinces (PPs) and the local sub-contractor. It is the first step (Step 1) of WU 1, which is
followed by Step 2 (application of what have been learned to preparation of F/S and IP in the
participating provinces through the On-the-Job Training) and Step 3 (submission of the outputs
(assignments) of the OJT to be monitored and evaluated). The intensive training was held for a
period of five days from July 28 to August 1, 2006 in Thai Nguyen province (Core Province:
CoP) with the cooperation of the CoP’s Provincial Study Team (PST). This draft monitoring and
evaluation (M & E) report has been prepared to report the monitoring results of Step 1 of WU 1.

The objective of WU 1 is to prepare the framework for the project planning (WU 2)
through Option Evaluation including the site selection (Pre-site assessment) and
preparation of the preliminary PDM. Figure 1 illustrates the relations and flows of each
of the activities having been and to be performed in WU 1.

Figure 1: Relations and flows of the activities in WU 1

Project Identification (WU 1) Feasibility Study

Selection of possible sites Selection of most feasible project

through pre-site assessment through Option Evaluation

Step 4: Option assessment and Draft Preparation of the project framework

selection of the most feasible option PDM for the project planning (WU 2)

Preliminary
PDMs CCM

Step 3: Preparation of a short-list of

project options

Step 2: Preparation of a long-list of

project concept alternatives

Project Several Pre-site Step 1: Identification of possible key

Idea proposed project components through data
(Objective) sites Assessment collection and analysis

Collection of basic data and information

(1) Necessity of project (Policy relevance)
(2) Natural condition (Present land use survey, Soil, Mapping, etc.)
(3) Socio-economic (Market survey)
(4) Lessons learned

140
During WU 1, the pre-site assessment and the option evaluation will be conducted, and
the draft Project Design Matrix (PDM) will be prepared for the most feasible project.
The pre-site assessment, the pre-assessment of project area selection for F/S for
afforestation project, is executed to enhance efficiency of the F/S through elimination of
the projects which are expected to encounter difficulties in implementation and through
selection of the project which seems to have higher possibility of implementation at the
stage of project area selection by applying a simple method. The pre-assessment is
expected to contribute to effective execution of Project Option Evaluation. The project
option evaluation is a process to screen various project options and then select the most
feasible project option. It will help a project planner identify the most feasible option
out of a number of possible options at the early planning stage of the project. For
conducting these activities, it is necessary to strengthen capacities for collection of the
basic data and information, examination of the policy relevance and consistency of the
project.

Step 1 of WU 1 is designed to provide basic knowledge and skills to perform the OJT
(Step 2) and prepare assignments for submissions (Step 3). The participants are
divided into two groups by professional field: Group A for planning and technical
officers in the field of afforestation planning and technical evaluation; and Group B for
planning, socio-economic, financial and market analysis officers in the field of market
research, socio-economic and rural community analysis, economic and financial
analysis, and comprehensive project designing, organizational and institutional
arrangement. The course curriculum of the intensive training is shows as in Table 1 (details
are shown in Attachment 1).

Table 1: Course curriculum plan of the intensive training in Thai Nguyen Province
Group Subject Time allocation (day)
A/B Introduction 0.5
A/B Project Design Matrix 1.0
A/B Pre-site assessment and Option Evaluation 0.5
A Soil, forest resources, and mapping 2.0
B Rural socio analysis 1.5
B Market analysis 0.5
A/B Coordination 1.0
Total 5.0 per Group

141
The local sub-contractor led the entire workshop as Trainers of Trainees (TOT) under the
supervision of the JST.

2. Attendance of the participants from PPs

A total of about twenty-five (25) participants attended the intensive training from four PPs and
the local sub-contractor. The attendance to each of the days during the intensive training is
shown as in the following table.
Table 2: Number of Participants (Trainees) Unit: Persons
Province/Date July 28 July 29 July 30 July 31 Aug 1
Son La 6 6 6 6 6
Quang Nam 2 3 3 3 2
Lam Dong 6 6 6 6 6
Long An 3 4 4 4 4
Sub-total PPs1) 17 19 19 19 18
Sub FIPI 7 7 7 7 7
Total 24 26 26 26 25
Out of which, those who 14 16 16 16 15
participated in IWS2)
PST from TN3) 2 2 3 3 1
Note 1) PPs : participating provinces
Note 2) IWS : Introduction Workshop
Note 3) PST members from Thai Nguyen province (CoP)

As seen in Table 2 above, out of the participants in WU 1, about 60% participated in the
introduction workshop. However, the situation differs, depending on provinces. For example,
while all the six (6) participants from Son La participated in the introduction workshop, only
one out of six participants from Lam Dong participated in the introduction workshop. Two to
three PST members from Thai Nguyen province participated in WU 1 as a resource person or
facilitator.

3. Course curriculum
All the course work was carried out as originally scheduled except for an additional one-hour
session being set up for the option evaluation in the morning on the 3rd day (July 30, 2006).
During this one hour session, participants were asked to take advantage of the training
opportunities to discuss a possible long-list or short-list of project options in respective
provinces because they, as PST members, are expected to go through the On-the-Job Training
(OJT) for the option evaluation after completing the intensive training in Thai Nguyen Province.

142
After the extra session for discussion on the possible list of options, participants were grouped
into two, Groups A and B, for their respective works.

4. Structure of M & E through the questionnaire survey

In the middle and at the end of the program, questionnaires were distributed to the participants
in order to: measure the level of understanding of the participants (capacity building), monitor
the reaction of each participant to the intensive training program by measuring the level of their
satisfaction in attending the program, which would affect the future sustainability of the training
program, and the effectiveness of the instruction by local sub-contractor as Trainers of Trainees
(TOT).

A total of five questionnaires was distributed to the participants. Each of the questionnaires has
been prepared to examine different aspects as shown in the following Table 3.

Table 3: Timing and Perspectives of M & E

Q Timing of Analytical perspectives of M & E Respondents
Distribution Identification
1 End of 1st day Understanding about the following points Required
- Project, PDM, and Policy relevance, and F/S
2 End of 2nd Understanding about the Option Evaluation Required
day
3 End of 3rd Reading and plotting of the statistics (Only Group B) Required
day
4 End of 4th Group A: (1) Survey on current land use (including Required
day land use right), (2) survey on forest resources, and
(3) survey on land productivity.
Group B: Statistical inference and calculation of
stumpage value
5 End of 5th Evaluation of the course works Optional
day
Questionnaires 1 to 5 have been attached in Attachment 2.

5. Results of the questionnaire survey

5.1 Responses of each questionnaire
The following table shows the rate of responses to the questionnaire from Questionnaire 1 to
Questionnaire 5. Questionnaire 3 was given only to Group B.
Table 4: Rate of responses
Province July 28 (Quest1) July 29 (Quest 2) July 30 (Quest 3) July 31 (Quest 4) August 1 (Quest 5)

143
 a b % a b % a b % a b % a b %

Total 24 24 100 26 25 96 13 12 92 26 23 88 25 25 100

Note 1: a: Number of participants: b Actual number of respondents: %: a/b x 100

Note 2: Questionnaire 3 on July 30, 2006 is prepared only for Group B.

Most of the participants cooperated with the M & E activities in answering the questionnaires.
The response rate ranged from 88% to 100%.

5.2 Results of the questionnaire survey

This section reports the results of the questionnaire survey in terms of the level of understanding
of the participants (capacity building) (Section 5.2.1) and the level of satisfaction of the
participants in attending the workshop and effectiveness of the instruction by the local
sub-contractor as TOT (Section 5.2.2).

5.2.1 Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)

(1) Questionnaire 1
The first M & E questionnaire was distributed at the end of the first day. In accordance with the
course curriculum, Questionnaire 1 covered four basic points: definition of a project; project
design matrix (or logical framework); policy relevance; and advantage and limitation of
feasibility studies. The following Table 5 shows the average scores and standard deviations of
each of the four questions. 25 points are allocated to each question and 100 points will be given
if all four answers are correct.

Table 5: Results of Questionnaire 1

Questions Point Score SD
allocation
1 Definition of a project 25 points 13.9 9.8
2 Understanding of logical framework 25 points 22.9 6.9
3 Understanding of policy relevance 25 points 20.8 9.3
4 Advantage and limitation of the 25 points 17.4 7.2
feasibility studies
Average of the total score 100 points 75.0
Median score of the total score 75.0
Standard Deviation 12.5
Max of the total score 100.0
Min of the total score 50.0
Number of respondents 24

144
The average and median of the total scores are 75 points ranging from a minimum score of 50 to
a maximum of 100 with the standard deviation of 12.5. Among the four questions, respondents
had difficulties in defining a project and pointing out the limitation of the F/S.

(2) Questionnaire 2
Questionnaire 2 on the second day asked participants to list the three key components when
preparing for the long-list in the process of the option evaluation. As shown in Table 6, most of
the participants gave a correct answer.

Table 6: Results of Questionnaire 2

Statistics Score
Average of the total score 92
Median score of the total score 100
Standard Deviation 27.1
Max 100
Min 0
Number of respondents 25

(3) Questionnaire 3
Questionnaire 3 on the third day was prepared only for Group B (socio-economic survey group).
The question asked participants to plot the consumer price index on the graph. It aimed to (a)
make them familiarize with the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which will be used for the
financial analysis at the later WUs; (b) take proper statistical data from the actual statistical data
book; and (c) visualize the data by plotting it on the graph. For the purpose of doing this test, the
data from the Statistical Yearbook issued by the General Statistics Office was used.

Table 7: Results of Questionnaire 3 for Group B

Statistics Score
Average of the total score 59.2
Median score of the total score 70.0
Standard Deviation 39.7
Max 100
Min 0
Number of respondents 12

145
The average score is 59.2 with the standard deviation of 39.7. The low score with a relatively
wider variability may imply that participants are not so much familiar with the CPI and this type
of data processing. Four (4) out of 12 respondents were able to take correct statistical data and
plot it properly on the graph.

(3) Questionnaire 4
Questionnaire 4 was distributed to both Groups A and B at the end of the fourth day.
Questionnaire for Group A covers four main areas (1) Survey on current land use (including
land use right), (2) survey on forest volume, (3) survey on land productivity, and (4)
relation among the three issues (land use, forest resources and land productivities).

Table 8: Results of Questionnaire 4 for Group A

Questions Point Score SD
allocation
1 Survey on current land use 25 points 23.3 2.8
2 Survey on forest resources 25 points 15.3 4.1
3 Survey on land productivity 25 points 18.2 6.2
4 Relation among 3 issues (1 to 3) 25 points 20.5 6.0
Average of the total score 100 points 77.3
Median score of the total score 81.3
Standard Deviation 9.7
Max of the total score 93.8
Min of the total score 56.3
Number of respondents 11

The average of the total scores is 77.8 with SD of 9.4. Among the four questions, respondents
had difficulties in answering questions relating to surveys on forest resources and land
productivity.

Questionnaire 4 for Group B consists of the two parts: one is about the statistical inference and
the other is about the marketing analysis in which participants were requested to calculate the
stumpage value of the trees. Table 9 shows the scores of the two questions in Questionnaire 4.
Not many respondents were able to correctly calculate the stumpage value of the tree per cubic
meter based on the factory gate price although some participants may have simply
misunderstood what was asked in the question.

146
 Table 9: Results of Questionnaire 4 for Group B
Questions Point Score SD
allocation
1 Statistical inference 50 points 42.3 18.0
2 Calculation of stumpage value 50 points 26.2 22.3
Average of the total score 100 points 68.5
Median score of the total score 50.0
Standard Deviation 25.4
Max of the total score 100.0
Min of the total score 25.0
Number of respondents 13

(4) Average scores of Questionnaires 1 to 4

The following table compares the average scores of Questionnaires 1 to 4. In case of Group B,
the average of the scores of Questionnaire 3 and 4 is calculated. On average, respondents gained
about 70 scores or above. The graph plotting required for Questionnaire 3 and the backward
calculation exercise tested in Questionnaire 4 for Group B lowered the average score of
Questionnaires 3 and 4 for Group B.
Table 10: Average scores and standard deviation of the total scores
Average Scores
100 Standard Deviation

80

60

40

20

0
Q1 Q2 Q4 Grp Q3/4 Grp
A B

(5) Self evaluation of respondents

Participants were asked to evaluate if the present level of their knowledge and skills (on
field survey and analysis, PDM, project option evaluation and other content of WU1)
high or low compared with the level of the knowledge and skills they had before (Q1).
All the respondents but one respondent, who did not respond to the question, chose
either 4 (somewhat higher) or 5 (higher). They were further asked to examine how much

147
of the knowledge and skills transferred through this intensive training program they
have acquired on a scale of 0 being nothing acquired to 100 being fully acquired (Q2).
The average of their ratings is 75.2 with the standard deviation of 7.5. The ratings range
from 60 to 90. The following shows the frequency distribution of their responses.
Table 11: Self-evaluation of respondents.
Self-evaluation of respondents
12

10
No. of respondents

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

The average of the self-evaluation of respondents is more or less found at the same level as the
average scores of Questionnaires 1 to 4.

5.2.2 Evaluation of the intensive training in Thai Nguyen province

(1) Level of satisfaction of the participants in attending the workshop and the effectiveness of
the instruction by local sub-contractors as TOT
Participants were requested to evaluate the intensive training of WU 1 in a number of aspects:
(Q3) relation between the contents of the training and their current works; (Q4) contents and
methodologies for the preparation of the project; (Q5) helpfulness of handouts and materials for
technology transfer; (Q6) conciseness and clearness of presentation of instructors; (Q7)
integration of presentation with discussions and materials in training sessions; (Q8) helpfulness
of experience-sharing with PST from Thai Nguyen province; (Q9) helpfulness of experience
sharing with PST from other PPs; (Q10) volume of the contents; (Q11) duration of the five-day
long training. For Q 3, participants are asked to rate the training on a scale from 1 (Very weak)
to 5 (Very strong) with 3 being (Neither). From Q4 to Q9, participants are requested to rate it on
a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) with 3 being (Neither). For Q 10,
participants are asked to rate it on a scale from 1 (Too little) to 5 (Too much) with 3 being
(Average) and for Q 11, they are asked to rate it on a scale from 1 (Too short) to 5 (Too long)
with 3 being (Average). Questions 6 and 7 have specifically prepared based on the M & E
results of the introduction workshop. From the comments and suggestions from respondents

148
during the introduction workshop, concise presentation and integration of the presentation with
other tools such as discussions and reports have been identified as the two of the major areas for
improvement on the side of the workshop organizers. The following Table 12 shows the average
of each of the questions with standard deviations and minimum scores.

Table 12: Ratings of respondents about the intensive training in Thai Nguyen province
No Aspects Rating scale from Average SD Min
1 to 5 Rating
Q3 Relation between the contents of the 1 (Very weak) to 4.0 0.6 2
training and their current works 5 (Very strong)

Q4 Contents and methodologies for the 1 (Strongly 4.5 0.5 4

preparation of the project disagree) to
Q5 Helpfulness of handouts and materials 5 (Strongly agree) 4.4 0.6 3
for technology transfer
Q6 Conciseness and clearness of 4.1 0.7 2
presentation of instructors
Q7 Integration of presentation with 4.3 0.7 2
discussions and materials in training
sessions
Q8 Helpfulness of experience-sharing 4.2 0.8 2
with PST from Thai Nguyen province
Q9 Helpfulness of experience sharing 4.5 0.8 2
with PST from other PPs
Q10 Volume of the contents 1 (Too little) to 5 4.3 0.6 3
(Too much)
Q11 Duration of the five-day long training 1 (Too short) to 5 2.5 0.8 1
duration of the five-day long training (Too long)
Note: The total number of respondents was 25.

As seen in the above Q 11, many respondents considered that the duration of the five-day long
training is somewhat short (2 respondents answered with 1 (Too short) and 10 respondents with
2 (Somewhat short)). One respondent commented that through the WU1, there were many

149
subjects, contents needed to study but time for disseminating it is short. It was
recommended to consider the contents and disseminating time during the next intensive
training in Quang Nam. Other interesting findings are shown as follows:

(a) According to Q 3, many respondents did not answer that the relation between the contents of
intensive training and their current work was 5 (Very strong) but answered 4 (Somewhat strong).
Although implication of this response requires further analysis, the response may indicate
necessity of providing PST with more detailed information about the contents of the training in
advance for selection of more appropriate personnel to attend the intensive training.
(b) According to Q 4, all the respondents “rather agreed” or “strongly agreed” that contents and
methodologies would help them prepare the project.
(c) According to Q 5, all but one respondent “rather agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the
handouts and materials would help them transfer knowledge and skills to their provinces.
(d) According to Q 6, three respondents did not agree that the presentation of the instructors
from FIPI was concise and clear. From a viewpoint of the organizers, it is considered that some
instructors made improvement over the previous presentation during the introduction workshop
but other instructors would require substantial efforts to improve their teaching techniques.
(e) According to Q 7, all but one respondent “rather agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the
instructors from FIPI integrated their presentation with discussions, Q & A, etc. Utilization of
group discussions, group exercises for preparing PDM, etc. may have resulted in these favorable
responses from participants. For example, the local sub-contractor made their efforts to improve
the way the presentation is organized by distributing copies of the table of contents in order to
explain how their presentation is connected to the reports. On the other hand, comments from a
respondent who gave a lower rate show necessity to maintain the consistency between
instructors and facilitators of discussions so as to help the trainees solve their issues more
clearly.
(f) According to Q 8, three respondents did not agree that the experience sharing of PST from
Thai Nguyen province were helpful. According to Q 9, two respondents did not agree that the
experience sharing of PST from other PPs were helpful. Experience sharing with personnel from
other provinces can be considered as more effective tool for this type of training activities.
(g) According to Q 10, most of the respondents thought that the volume of the contents or works
during the training was somewhat voluminous or too much. As the topics of the five day long
intensive training ranges from preparation of PDM to the land use survey and market analysis,
this may be a natural response from respondents. This may indicate further selection of topics to
be dealt with in the next intensive training.

150
At the end of the 1st day workshop to 5th day, participants were asked to provide overall ratings
of the workshop on a scale from 0 to 100. The following Table 13 shows the overall ratings
given by the respondents.

Table 13: Overall ratings made by respondents about the workshop

1st day 2nd day 4thday 5th day
Group A/B A/B A B A/B
No. of 23 25 11 12 25
Respondents
Average 71.7 78.4 66 78 72.4
Median 70.0 80.0 70 80 70
SD 9.6 6.7 11 11 9
Max 90.0 90.0 80 90 80
Min 50.0 60.0 40 50 50
th
Note: The average of the overall ratings given on the 5 day is for the 5
day-long workshop while the average of the overall ratings on other days is for
the workshop on the respective days.

Average ratings
90
Standard Deviation
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1st day 2nd day 4th (A) 4th (B) 5th day

The average of the overall raging ranges from 66 to 78 but there were some participants
who responded with the low ratings such as 40 and 50 on the 4th day and 5th day. While
there are many positive comments, open-ended questions at the end of the
questionnaires revealed a number of areas for improvement in terms of operation of the
workshop. The following comments have been received aside from those already
mentioned:

151
 (a) Need for presentation of the practical cases
- Need to present more specific example
- A lot of theory but not practice
(b) Time and volume of works
- Training time is short but too many subjects and contents have to learn
- Practical or exercise time in the province and time for submitting report results is too
short
(c) Development of maps
- At end of the four day, a number of comments and suggestions received from Group A
referred to mapping. For example, a respondent would like the organizers to help them
develop digitalized maps and edit data of digitalized maps and how to develop
digitalized maps

6. Points to feedback based on the M & E of the intensive training in Thai Nguyen
province
Based on the M & E of the intensive training in Thai Nguyen province, the points to
feedback are as follows:
6.1 Level of understanding (capacity building)
(1) Although the time allocated for the training is limited, a certain level of the capacity
building has been achieved during the intensive training since the average scores of the
questions in M & E questionnaires was around 70 out of 100, and the self-evaluation of
participants indicated that they had acquired about 70% of what had been transferred.
(2) Improvement of the analytical skill of quantitative data may need to require more
attention based on the results of the questions.
(3) Group A participants showed their keen interests in development of maps.

6.2 Evaluation of the intensive training

(1) Respondents to the questionnaires show favorable responses to the intensive
training: however, there are some respondents who rated the training at the low level.
Efforts will be needed to meet needs of these respondents as well.
(2) Presentation of instructors from the local sub-contractor showed some improvement
but it required continuous efforts for improvement.
(3) Coordination between the instructor and facilitators needs to be enhanced.
(4) As the intensive training period is rather short compared with the contents and
amount of works, it would be necessary to select important and indispensable items for
technical transfer.

152
(5) To enhance the effectiveness, presentation of practical cases, incorporation of
individual and group exercises, and experience and information sharing among
participants will be important. This will help them apply what they learned during the
intensive training for preparation of F/S in respect.
(6) At the earliest possible date, it would be important to send more concrete curriculum
to respective PPs so as for them to select and send more appropriate personnel to the
intensive training.

Annex 1: Course curriculum of Step 1 of Work Unit One Thai Nguyen, 28/7 – 1/8/2006
Annex 2: Questionnaire and summary of responses from respondents

153
Annex 1 Course curriculum of Step 1 of Work Unit One Thai Nguyen, 28/7 –
1/8/2006
Day 1st (July 28)
- WU1 Objectives: field survey analysis Việt
- Participants self introduction Trần Hùng
Introduction - Organizing WU 1
AM (8:30 – 11:30) - Explanation of F/S concept
- Advantages and difficulties when
directing F/S and IP
Noon Lunch break
13:30- 14:30 Viet
PDM
14:30-15-30 Policy relevance Trần Hùng
PM 15:30 -15:45 Tea break
Lesson learned from previous Phú Hùng
15:45- 16:15 afforestation projects
- Summary day 1st session Việt
16:15-16:30 - M&E

Day 2nd (July 29)

Trainee
8:00-8;15 Review day 1st session (group 1)
AM 8:15-10:00 Exercise on PDM 4 groups
10:00-10:15 Tea break
10:15-11:30 Presenting PDM exercise results 4 groups
11:30-13;30 Lunch break
13:30- 14:30 Pre-site assessment Trần Hùng
14:30-15:00 Tea break
PM 15;00-16:00 Project option evaluation Giang
- Summary day 2nd session
16:00-16:30 Trần Hung
- M&E

Day 3rd (July 30)

Group A: (Forest technique & plan)
Review day 2nd session Trainee
AM 8:00-8;15 (group 2)
8:15- 11:30 Land use, forest and forest land use rights Giang
Noon 11:30-13:30 Lunch break
- Soil survey Hà
13:30-16:00 - Estimating afforestation productivity and
PM volume
- Summary day 3rd session
16:00-16:30 Giang
- M&E

154
Day 3rd (July 30)
Group B: (Social economic)
Trainee (group
8:00-8;15 Review day 2nd session 2)
- Ethnic, population, social economic
(including infrastructure, custom)
- Format tables for data collecting
-Evaluating social economic conditions in
project areas Phu Hung
- Household economy
- Poverty rate
- Agricultural and forest cultivation
- Other off-farm activities
Summary day 3rd session
16:00-16:30 Phú Hùng
M&E

Day 4th (July 31)

Group A
Review day 3rd session Trainee (group
AM 8:00-8;15 3)
8:15: 11:30 Developing maps for preparing F/S Lê Hùng
11:30 -13:30 Lunch break
13:30-16:00 Developing maps for preparing F/S Lê Hùng
PM Summary day 3rd session
16:00- 16:30 Lê Hùng
M&E

Group B
Review day 3rd session Trainee (group
8:00-8;15
AM 3)
8:15-11:30 People needs Phu Hung
Noon 11:30-13:30 Lunch break
- Market survey
13:30-16:00 - Marketing Cổn
PM
Summary day 4th session
16:00-16;30 Cổn, Phú Hùng
M&E

Day 5th (August 1)

- Planning field survey
- Assignment schedule
Coordinating -Managing quantity and quality Viet
(code: 07) assignments
- Summary day 5th session
- M&E

155
Annex 2 Questionnaire and summary of responses from respondents
Questionnaire 5 on August 1, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI
Name:
You have completed your five day long the intensive training (Step 1) of Work Unit One
(WU 1) in Thai Nguyen Province. Please answer the following questions.
(please circle the appropriate number).
[Link] the present level of your knowledge and skills (on field survey and analysis, PDM,
project option evaluation and other content of WU1) high or low compared with the
level of the knowledge and skills you had before you participated in this intensive
training?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5

Q 1 Present level of knowledge and skills

compared with the level before
15

No of respondents=24
Average=4.4
No. of respondents

10
SD=0.4

0
1 2 3 4 5

2. How much of the knowledge and skills transferred through this intensive training
program have you acquired? Please provide your evaluation on a scale of 0 being
nothing acquired to 100 being fully acquired.
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q 2 Self-evaluation of respondents
12
No of respondents=25
10
Average=75.2
No. of respondents

8
SD=7.5
6

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

156
3. How do you find the relationship between the contents of this intensive training and
your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?

Very weak Somewhat Neither Somewhat Very

weak strong strong
1 2 3 4 5

Q 3 Relationship with current works

20

15
No of respondents=25
No. of respondents

Average=4.0
10
SD=0.6
5

0
1 2 3 4 5

4. Contents and methodologies introduced during the intensive training will help you
prepare the project in your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Q 4 Contents and methodologies

15

No of respondents=25
No. of respondents

10
Average=4.5
SD=0.5
5

0
1 2 3 4 5

157
5. Handouts and materials distributed during the intensive training will help you transfer
what you learn during the sessions after you go back to your province.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Q 5 Handouts and materials No of respondents=25

15
Average=4.4
SD=0.6
No. of respondents

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

6. Presentation of the instructors from Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI)
were concise and clear.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Q 6 Concise presentation
20
No of respondents=25
15 Average=4.1
No. of respondents

10
SD=0.7

0
1 2 3 4 5

158
7. The instructors from Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) organized the
sessions by integrating the presentation with discussions, Q & A, handouts, and reports.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Q 7 Integration with discussions/reports

20
No of respondents=25
15
Average=4.3
No. of respondents

SD=0.7
10

0
1 2 3 4 5

8. Sharing of experiences and additional explanations from the provincial study team of
Thai Nguyen Province were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Q 8 Experience sharing with PST Thai Nguyen

No of respondents=25
15
Average=4.2
SD=0.8
No. of respondents

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

159
9. Sharing of experiences among PST members from other participating provinces (PPs)
were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

Q 9 Experience sharing with PST PPs

20

No of respondents=25
15
Average=4.5
No. of respondents

10
SD=0.8

0
1 2 3 4 5

10. How do you think of the amount or volume of the contents or works during the
training?

Too little Somewhat Average Somewhat Too

little volumino much
us
1 2 3 4 5

Q 10 Amount of contens or works

15 No of respondents=25
Average=4.3
SD=0.6
No. of respondents

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

160
11. How do you think of the duration of the five day long training?

Too short Somewhat Average Somewhat Too

short long long
1 2 3 4 5

Q 11 Duration of 5 day-long training No of respondents=25

15
Average=2.5
SD=0.8
No. of respondents

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

12. Overall rating of the five day long training workshop on a scale from Poor (0) to
Excellent (100).
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q 12 Overall rating of the five-day long training program

14

12

10
No of respondents=25
No. of respondents

8
Average=72.4
6
SD=8.6
4

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

161
13. Comments and suggestions about the intensive training (level of the contents,
presentation, facilities, etc.)

162
 Appendix 4

M & E Report of
Intensive Training Session of
Work Unit 2
and
Evaluation of WU 1 Assignment

163
 Appendix 4

November 27, 2006

Monitoring and Evaluation Report on Work Unit One Assignment and the
Intensive Training Program of Work Unit Two (WU 2)

1. Work Units One and Two and Monitoring & Evaluation

2. Attendance of the participants in the intensive training program in Quang Nam

province

3. Course curriculum of the intensive training program in Quang Nam province

4. Structure of M & E of the training program

4.1 Assignments of WU 2
4.2 Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program in Quang Nam province

5. Results of evaluation of the assignments and the questionnaire survey

5.1 Responses of assignments and questionnaires
5.2 Results of the assignments and the questionnaire survey
5.2.1 Results of the assignments
5.2.2 Results of the questionnaire survey
[Link] Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)
[Link] Evaluation of the intensive training in Quang Nam province

6. Points to feedback based on the M & E

Attachment (Annex) 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 2

Attachment (Annex) 2: Questionnaires used during the intensive training program of
WU 2
Attachment (Annex) 3: Summary of responses from respondents of Questionnaire 5 of
the intensive training program of WU 2

164
1. Work Units One and Two and Monitoring & Evaluation
The JICA study team (JST) and the local sub-contractor (FIPI) conducted intensive training
programs of Work Unit One (WU 1) and Work Unit Two (WU 2) with the participation of about
30 participants from Participating Provinces (PPs) and the local sub-contractor with the
cooperation of the Provincial Study Team (PST) from the Core Province (CoP). The intensive
training of WU 1 was held in Thai Nguyen province from July 28 to August 3, 2006 while the
intensive training program of WU 2 for a period of seven days from October 3 to October 9,
2006 in Quang Nam province (Participating Province: PP). The intensive training program is the
first step (Step 1) of Work Unit, which is followed by Step 2 (application of what have been
learned to preparation of F/S and IP in the participating provinces through the On-the-Job
Training) and Step 3 (submission of the outputs (assignments) of the OJT to be monitored and
evaluated). This draft monitoring and evaluation (M & E) report has been prepared to report the
monitoring results of Step 3 (assignments) of WU 1 and Step 1 (intensive training) of WU 2.

The objective of WU 2 is to elaborate the project plan based on the draft Project Design
Matrix (PDM or Logical Framework) developed through WU 1. Toward the end of
WU2, the draft PDM is to reflect outputs and activities planned under the proposed
project in a more concrete manner. Figure 1 illustrates the relations and flows of each of
the activities to be performed in WU 2 in relation to WU 1 and the forthcoming WU 3.

Figure 1: Relations and flows of the activities in WU 1, 2 and 3

Project Identification Project Planning Effective Analysis and
(WU 1) (WU 2) Evaluation (WU 3)

Part II:
Project Plan
2.1. Overall objectives Economic and financial
Draft PDM evaluation
PDM
2.1. Immediate objective and main indicators
Environmental
assessment
Option Project Outputs/Activities/Inputs
Evaluation
Social impact analysis
2.2 Project scope and project site
Project risks
Pre-site 2.3 Draft design and infrastructure
assessment
2.4 Project implementation schedule

Part III:
Investment for the Project
Project Idea
3.1 Project cost
3.2 Financial and repayment plan

Collection of basic data and

information through field survey and Part IV: Institutional arrangements and
analysis measurements for the project implementation
(1) Necessity of project (Policy 4.1 Institutional and implementation
relevance) arrangement
(2) Natural condition (Present land
use survey, Soil, Mapping, etc.) 4.2 Monitoring & evaluation of the project
(3) Socio-economic (Market survey) results
(4) Lessons learned
4.3 Mechanism to assure sustainability

165
In Work Unit Two (WU 2), the project plan will be elaborated in order to achieve the
project objective set in the draft PDM. WU 2 is composed of the three main parts: (1)
elaboration of the project plan; (2) estimation of investment costs and financing plan for
the project; and (3) institutional arrangement and measures for the project
implementation. The output of WU 2 will be relayed to WU 3 by means of PDM for the
effectiveness analysis and evaluation of the project.

Figure 2: Flow of the survey for WU 2

Flow of the survey for WU2

cost norm
Labor norm Management cost

Elaboration Estimation of Institutional

of the project investment arrangement
plan cost and and
financing measures for
plan the project

Project
Monitoring and evaluation plan Design
Matrix

Step 1 of WU 2 is designed to provide basic knowledge and skills to perform the OJT
(Step 2) to be followed and prepare assignments for submissions (Step 3). The
participants are divided into two groups by professional field: Group A for planning and
technical officers in the field of afforestation planning and technical evaluation; and
Group B for planning, socio-economic, financial and market analysis officers in the
field of market research, socio-economic and rural community analysis, economic and
financial analysis, and comprehensive project designing, organizational and institutional
arrangement. The original schedule of the intensive training program in Qunag Nam
Province is shown as in Table 1 below with the time allocation of each of the subject (details are
shown in Attachment 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 2).

166
Table 1: Planned schedule of the intensive training program in Quang Nam Province
Group Subject Time allocation

(day)

A/B Feedback of the results of WU 1 assignments 0.5

A/B Use of GPS 0.5
A Project implementation plan (Planting sites election, 1.5
seedling plan, afforestation/planting plan for agroforestry,
harvesting plan, infrastructure plan, extension services,
general idea of project implementation plan, project
implementation schedule)
B Sales and marketing plan 0.5
B Investment plan (preparation of expenditure plan) 0.5
B Financing plan (preparation of financing plan) 0.5
A/B Socio-economic analysis 0.5
A/B Organizational arrangement for project implementation 0.75
A/B Monitoring and evaluation plan 0.5
A/B Explanation of WU2’s assignment 0.5
A/B Field trip to the World Bank and FAO project sites 1.0
A/B Review of the field survey 0.25
Total per group 6.0
Note: The one-day GPS exercise planned in the field on October 7, 2006 was changed to the
recreation day.

The local sub-contractor led the entire workshop as Trainers of Trainees (TOT) under the
supervision of the JST.

2. Attendance of the participants in the intensive training program in Quang Nam

province
A total of about thirty (30) participants attended the intensive training from four PPs and the
local sub-contractor. From CoP (Thai Nguyen province), the three PST members participated in
the intensive training program as resource persons to share their experiences during the first
phase of FICAB. The number of participants to the intensive training of WU 2 is shown as in
the following table.

167
 Table 2: Number of Participants (Trainees) Unit: Persons
Province Son La Quang Lam Long PST Sub- Sub- Total
Nam Dong An Total (1) FIPI (2) (1) + (2)
Total no of 20 10 14 9 53 7 60
2)
participants in IWS ,
intensive training of
WU 1 and 2
No of Participants in 6 8 6 5 25 7 32
intensive training
program of WU 2
Out of which, those 2 2 0 2 6 5 11
who participated in
IWS and WU1
Note: IWS : Introduction Workshop

As seen in Table 2 above, the number of participants in the introduction workshop, intensive
training of WU 1 and 2 totaled 60 including participants from the local sub-contractor. For the
intensive training of WU 2, 32 members participated. Out of which, six (6) PST members and
five (5) consultants from the local sub-contractor continued to participate in the introduction
workshop and the intensive training of WU1.

3. Course curriculum of the intensive training program in Quang Nam province

All the course work was carried out as originally scheduled except the work on the following
days:
(1) On the fourth day, the review session of the field trip was shortened to allocate time for the
monitoring and evaluation plan.
(2) On the fifth day, the field survey for the GPS practice was changed to the recreation day.
(3) On the sixth day, the session of the socio-economic analysis was offered to both Groups A
and B as requested by participants.
(4) On the seventh day, the monitoring and evaluation was shortened to spare more time for
explanation of assignments for WU 2.

4. Structure of M & E of the training program

The monitoring and evaluation of the training program has been conducted in the form of the
assignments and the questionnaire survey. It is intended to examine how the capacity building
has been progressed and how the program has met the needs of the target beneficiaries.

4.1 Assignments of WU 2
A set of assignments of WU 1 was provided to PSTs from each of the participating provinces
during the intensive training program in Thai Nguyen province (July 28 to August 3, 2006).

168
PSTs of PPs were requested to submit all the assignments by September 14, 2006.

It is consisted of twelve (12) assignments which are relevant to the field survey and analysis, the
main subject of WU 1. The following table shows the assignments in relation to the contents of
the F/S report.

Table 3: Assignments for preparing Feasibility Study (Work Unit 1)

F/S report Code Assignm Work Unit 1 Assignment
ent No
Part I: Background of the Project
2 Forest Sector Issues and 1 1 B: Draft PDM (Logical Framework)
Governments' measures
3 Natural and socio-economic
conditions of the project area
3.1 Natural conditions of the project 4-a-i 2 B: Legend/explanatory notes for base maps
area
3 C: Summary sheet to show suitable afforestation
tree species, etc.
3.2 Land and forest-resource use in 4-a-ii 4 B: Calculation and estimation of stand
the project area volume/increment (MA1) by each factor/category
4-a-iii 5 A: Printed base map after modification
3.3 Socio-economic conditions of 4-b-i 11 B: Field note
the project area, including market 6 B: Measurement of viable afforestation area and
and distribution channels of forest note in field note
products
4-b-ii 7 A: Summary sheet of socio-economic status by
commune
4-b-iii 8 D: Meeting memo of interview with Manufactures

Part II: Project Plan

1 Objective of the project 1 1 Draft PDM (same as the assignment 1 above)
1.1 Overall objective 1
1.2 Immediate objectives and main 1
indicators
2.5 Short-listed project options 4-b-iv 9 A: Paper to summarize the result of the CCM
(including analysis of needs of including followings (attendance list with
people) participants’ sign, collected questionnaire
sheet with answers, materials used at the
meetings, summary report of the CCM result)
2.6 Selection of the most feasible 5-a 10 D: Brief report on the reason to select the
project option most feasible option
Coordination 7 12 A: Schedule for the report preparation
D: A list of contact persons with contact
addresses
B: Table of contents of the reports

The M & E was conducted by rating each of the assignments.

169
4.2 Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program in Quang Nam province
During the intensive training program in Quang Nam, a total of five (5) M & E questionnaires
were distributed to the participants at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the program.
The first questionnaire distributed at the beginning of the program is to measure the area they
found difficult in performing WU 1 assignments. The second, third and fourth questionnaires
were exercises relevant to each of the training program, which were distributed to participants
after each of the sessions. They aim to measure the progress of capacity building. The fifth one
is distributed: to monitor reactions of each participant to the intensive training program by
measuring the level of their satisfaction in attending the program, which would affect the future
sustainability of the training program; to monitor the effectiveness of the instruction by the local
sub-contractor as Trainers of Trainees (TOT); to grasp the self-claimed level of understanding of
the training subjects; and so on.

The following table (Table 4) shows different perspectives of each questionnaire, from which
the M & E was conducted. Participants were requested to identify themselves in responding to
all these questionnaires.

Table 4: Timing and Perspectives of M & E (Questionnaires 1 to 5)

Q Timing of Analytical perspectives of M & E
Distribution
Group A (technical) Group B (socio-economic/financial
analysis)
1 End of 1st day Questionnaire 1
(Oct 3) - Involvement in performing WU 1 assignments
- Difficulties encountered in performing WU 1 assignments
2 End of 2nd day Questionnaire 2-A
(Oct 4) - Selection criteria of
planting sites
- Selection of site for
production forest
- Procedure of forest
operations
Beginning of Questionnaire 2-B
the afternoon -Ways to consolidate information on
session on 4th potential market
day (Oct 6) -Calculation of physical and price
contingencies
3 End of 4th day Questionnaire 3-A Questionnaire 3-B
(Oct 6) - Lessons learnt from other -Calculation of real interest rate
projects -Terminologies of loans and trend
- Activities to be done under analysis of outstanding amount of
production forest project loans
4 End of the Questionnaire 4
morning -Preparation of contingency table (2 x 2 matrix based on the data) and
session on 6th brief interpretation of the table
day (Oct 8)
5 End of 7th day Questionnaire 5
(Oct 9) - Overall assessment of WU 2 workshop

170
Questionnaire forms of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been attached in Attachment 2.

5. Results of evaluation of the assignments and the questionnaire survey

5.1 Responses of assignments and questionnaires
(1) Assignments
The submission date of the WU 1 assignments was set on September 14, 2006. Assignments
from the four participating provinces were submitted around this deadline with some delays
being caused by the communication problems.

(2) Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program of WU 2

The following table shows the number of responses or the rate of responses to the questionnaire
from Questionnaire 1 to Questionnaire 5.
Table 5: Number of responses or rate of responses
Q1 (Oct 3) Q2-A (Oct 4) Q 2-B (Oct 6) Q 3-A (Oct 6) Q 3-B (Oct 6)
Date
a b % a a a a

Total 27 32 84.3 15 13 16 13

Q 4 (Oct 8) Q 5 (Oct 9)

a b % a B %

Total 27 30 90.0 29 32 90.6

Note 1: a: Actual number of respondents: b Number of participants: %: a/b x 100

Note 2: The response rate was not calculated for Questionnaires 2 and 3 because the exact number of each group
(Group A or B) is not known.

Most of the participants cooperated with the M & E activities in answering the questionnaires.

5.2 Results of the assignments and the questionnaire survey

5.2.1 Results of the assignments
The assignment of WU 1 was evaluated by the JST and the feedback of the evaluation results
was given on the first day of the intensive training program in Quang Nam province. The
following table shows the scores for each of the assignments by province.

171
 Table 6: Evaluation results of the assignments
No. Assignment Son La Quang Lam Dong Long An
Nam
1 Draft PDM 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
2 Legend for base maps 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0
3 Suitable tree species 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.5
4 Stand volume/MAI 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4
5 Printed base map 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0
6 Measurement of area 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
7 Socio-economic status 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.0
8 Interview memo with manufacturers 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0
9 Results of CCM 0.0 0.4 NA 0.4
10 Reason for most feasible option 0.0 0.6 0.6 NA
11 Field note 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
12 Coordination 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Average Score out of 1.0 0.13 0.47 0.34 0.15
The level of the score is not as high as expected. Some provinces were not able to submit some
of the assignments such as assignment 12 (coordination) while others submitted their
assignments in different ways of understandings such as assignment 11 (field note). The number
of reasons has been given by the participants in conducting the assignments. Those responses
are summarized in the results of the questionnaire survey (Section [Link] (1) Questionnaire 1).

5.2.2 Results of the questionnaire survey

This section reports the results of the questionnaire survey in terms of the level of understanding
of the participants (capacity building) (Section [Link]) and the level of satisfaction of the
participants in attending the workshop and effectiveness of the instruction by the local
sub-contractor as TOT (Section [Link]).

[Link] Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)

(1) Questionnaire 1
The first M & E questionnaire was distributed at the end of the first day of the intensive training
program after the feed-back of the evaluation of the assignments under WU 1. Although not all
the participants of WU 2 were involved in conducting WU 1 assignments, we are able to find
difficulties they have encountered in preparing WU 1 assignments. The following points have
been raised.

172
Table 7: Difficulties encountered in conducting WU 1 assignments
Area and issue Difficulties
Coordination among - PST members works in various agencies
different offices
Time issue - PST members perform their routine tasks at their offices while
preparing the assignments.
- Preparation period for performing assignments is too short. For
example, it is hard to select interviewers to be representatives
for CCM.
Financial issue - No field trip allowance has been provided as the counter-part
budget has yet to be allocated.
Inadequate skills - Shortage of some technical skills: for example, mapping skill
of PST members is relatively weak.
- Shortage of technical device and techniques to carry out parts
of assignments.
- It is difficult to summarize and write reports.
Inappropriateness of - Evaluation criteria for assignments should be consistent.
assignments and - Evaluation criteria should be informed in advance.
evaluation criteria - Requirements for the assignments were not clear and
consistent.
- Requirements in class are different from actual assignments.
- The practical knowledge should reflect the conditions of each
province.
Natural conditions - Bad weather conditions made it difficult to conduct the survey.
and other difficult Some assignments cannot be completed due to floods/
conditions in - Enterprises do not want to provide their information in the area
collecting of the economy and finance.
information

These points have been noted and counter-measures to some issues were taken during the
intensive training program of WU 2. For instance, more clear explanation on each of the
assignments was given to participants by allocating more time during the program.

(2) Questionnaire 2
The second M & E questionnaire was distributed at the end of the second day of the program
(planting site selection, project implementation plan) for Group A. Because of the time
constraints, the second M & E questionnaire for Group B was not distributed on the second day
of the program (sales and marketing plan, and investment and financing plan) but on the fourth
day at the beginning of the session.

In accordance with the course curriculum, Questionnaire 2 for Group A covered three basic
points: selection criteria of planting sites, selection of site for production forest, procedure of
forest operations. The following Table 8 shows the average scores and standard deviations of
each of the three questions. A maximum point of 100 was given if all the answers are correct.

173
 Table 8: Results of Questionnaire 2 (Group A)
Questions Point Average SD
allocation Score
1 Selection criteria of planting sites 30 points 29 2.5
2 Selection of site for production forest 40 points 29 3.8
3 Procedure of forest operations 30 points 29 2.5
Average of the total score 100 points 88
Median score of the total score 90
Standard Deviation 5.5
Max of the total score 95
Min of the total score 75
Number of respondents 15

The average and median of the total scores are about 90 points ranging from a minimum score
of 75 to a maximum of 95 with the standard deviation of 5.5. It is considered that the
participants demonstrated their good level of understandings on the subject.

Questionnaire 2 for Group B covered the two points: market analysis and investment costs. For
the first question, participants were asked to propose an appropriate table format to estimate the
potential market size of targeted products of the project. The second question is to calculate the
physical and price contingencies.

Table 9: Results of Questionnaire 2 (Group B)

Questions Point Average SD
allocation Score
1 Presentation of table format for 50 points 33 8.2
aggregate market potentials
2 Calculation of contingencies 50 points 27 24.9
Average of the total score 100 points 60
Median score of the total score 70
Standard Deviation 30.1
Max of the total score 100
Min of the total score 20
Number of respondents 13

174
The average and median of the total scores are 60 and 70 points, respectively. The scores range
from 20 to 100 with a standard deviation of 30.1. Mistakes or misunderstanding in calculating
contingencies is the major cause of this difference.

(3) Questionnaire 3
In accordance with the course curriculum (project implementation plan) on the fourth day,
Questionnaire 2 for Group A covered the two points: lessons that participants learned through
their field trips to the World Bank and the FAO project sites, and the question relating to the
implementing phase of production afforestation project. The field trip was organized on the
previous day (third day) in Tien Phuoc District, Quang Nam province. The following Table 10
shows the average scores and standard deviations of each of the two questions.

Table 10: Results of Questionnaire 3 (Group A)

Questions Point Average SD
allocation Score
1 Lessons learnt from other projects points 34 11.3
2 Activities to be done in the points 48 5.5
implementing phase of production
afforestation project
Average of the total score 100 points 81
Median score of the total score 83
Standard Deviation 13.2
Max of the total score 98
Min of the total score 50
Number of respondents 16

The average and median of the total scores are a little over 80 points ranging from a minimum
score of 50 to a maximum of 98 with the standard deviation of 13.2. Although some participants
did not answer well to the first question, the overall performance of the participants was
relatively good.

At the end of the program on the financing, Questionnaire 3 was distributed to participants of
Group B. The questionnaire covered the two points: calculation of the real interest rate and the
analysis based on the outstanding amount of loans at one of the branch office of the domestic
financial institution. The following Table 11 shows the average scores and standard deviations
of each of the two questions. Due to difficulties expected for the second question, the less

175
weight was given to the second question.

Table 11: Results of Questionnaire 3 (Group B)

Questions Point Average SD
allocation Score
1 Calculation of real interest rate 60 points 58 3.6
2 Terminologies of loans and trend 40 points 16 9.2
analysis based on the outstanding
amount of loans at VBARD in TN
Average of the total score 100 points 75
Median score of the total score 80
Standard Deviation 9.3
Max of the total score 90
Min of the total score 60
Number of respondents 13

The average and median of the total scores are 75 and 80, respectively. The total point ranges
from 60 to 90 with the standard deviation of 9.3. Based on the answers from the second question,
it was found necessary to explain basic terminologies relating to the loan and the ways to
compare data in different years.

(4) Questionnaire 4
Both groups attended the program on the socio-economic analysis. After the end of the session
on the socio-economic analysis, Questionnaire 4 was distributed to participants. It covered the
two points: preparation of the contingency table (2 x 2 matrix) based on the loan amount and the
brief interpretation of the contingency table. The following Table 12 shows the average scores
and standard deviations of each of the two questions.

Table 12: Results of Questionnaire 4

Questions Point Average SD
allocation Score
1 -Preparation of contingency table (2 x 50 points 36 14.5
2 matrix based on the data)
2 - Brief interpretation of the table 50 points 44 15.7
Average of the total score 100 points 80
Median score of the total score 90

176
 Standard Deviation 22.8
Max of the total score 100
Min of the total score 20
Number of respondents 27

The average and median of the total scores are 80 and 90, respectively. The score ranges from
20 to 100 with a standard deviation of 22.8. Some of the participants prepared the contingency
table in a different way as expected.

(5) Self evaluation of respondents

After the completion of the intensive training program, participants were asked to evaluate if
the present level of their knowledge and skills high or low compared with the level of
the knowledge and skills they had before on a scale from 1 to 7 with 4 being “About the
same” (Q1). Twenty-nine (29) participants responded to the questionnaire. The average
rating of the respondent was 5.9 with a standard deviation of 0.8. The rating ranges from
5.0 to 7.0.

Table 13: Knowledge and skill level (Q1)

Question 1: Knowledge & Skill

14
12
No. of Respondents: 29
Number of responses

10
Average: 5.9
8 Median: 6.0
6 SD: 0.8
4 Max: 7.0
2 Min: 5.0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

The self-evaluation of the participants tells their favorable response to evaluate their
progress in their capacity building.

Participants were further asked to examine how much of the knowledge and skills
transferred through this intensive training program they have acquired on a scale of 0
being nothing acquired to 100 being fully acquired (Q2). Since participants were
divided into the two groups (Group A for planning and technical field, and Group B for
planning, socio-economic, financial and market field), the responses from the
respondents are examined by following the classification of the groups: a question about

177
the elaboration of the project plan for Group A; a question about the estimation of the
investment cost and financing plan for Group B; and a question about the institutional
arrangement and measures for the project for both Groups A and B.12 The following
compares responses from the respondents.

Table 14: Elaboration of the project plan for Group A (Question 2.1)

Question 2.1: Elaboraton of Project Plan

8
7 No. of Respondents: 17
Number of responses

6 Average: 75
5 Median: 80
4 SD: 11
3 Max: 90
2 Min: 50
1
-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

Table 15: Estimation of investment cost and financing plan for Group B (Question 2.2)

Question 2.2: Investment and Financing No. of Respondents: 12

6 Average: 81
5
Median: 80
SD: 11
Number of responses

4 Max: 100
3
Min: 60
2

-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

12
In the case respondents responded to questions for both Group A and B, only one of their responses is taken into
account.

178
Table 16: Institutional arrangement and measures for the project for Group A and B
(Question 2.3)

Question 2.3: Institutional Arrangement

9 No. of Respondents: 26
8 Average: 76
7 Median: 78
Number of responses

6 SD: 12
5 Max: 90
4 Min: 50
3
2
1
-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

In accordance with the self-evaluation of the participants, participants considered that

about 70 to 80 percent of what had been transferred to them had been acquired. As the
self-evaluation ranges from 50 to 100, the variability among the participants and those
who rated with lower scores should be noted.

[Link] Evaluation of the intensive training in Quang Nam province

(1) Level of satisfaction of the participants in attending the workshop and the effectiveness of
the instruction by local sub-contractors as TOT
At the end of the 7th day, participants were requested to evaluate the intensive training of WU 2
in a number of aspects: (Q3) relation between the contents of the training and their current
works; (Q4) contents and methodologies for the preparation of the project; (Q5) helpfulness of
handouts and materials for technology transfer; (Q6) conciseness and clearness of presentation
of instructors; (Q7) integration of presentation with discussions and materials in training
sessions; (Q8) helpfulness of experience-sharing with PST from Thai Nguyen province; (Q9)
helpfulness of experience sharing with PST from other PPs; (Q10) helpfulness of the field trip
to the project sites of the World Bank assisted project and FAO assisted project volume of the
contents.; (Q12) duration of the seven-day long training. For Q 3, participants are asked to rate
the training on a scale from 1 (Very weak) to 7 (Very strong) with 4 being (Neither). From Q4 to
Q10, participants are requested to rate it on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly
agree) with 4 being (Neither). For Q 12, participants are asked to rate it on a scale from 1 (Too
short) to 7 (Too long) with 4 being (Average). Questions 6 and 7 have specifically prepared
based on the M & E results of the introduction workshop. From the comments and suggestions
from respondents during the introduction workshop, the concise presentation and integration of
the presentation with other tools such as discussions and reports were identified as the two of

179
the major areas for improvement on the side of the workshop organizers. The following Table
17 shows the average of each of the questions with standard deviations and minimum scores.

Table 17: Ratings of respondents about the intensive training in Quang Nam province
No Aspects Rating scale from Average SD Min
1 to 7 Rating
Q3 Relation between the contents of the 1 (Very weak) to 6.0 0.8 4.0
training and their current works 7 (Very strong) (5.7)
Q4 Contents and methodologies for the 1 (Strongly 6.1 0.8 4.0
preparation of the project disagree) to (6.3)
Q5 Helpfulness of handouts and materials 7 (Strongly agree) 6.1 1.1 4.0
for technology transfer (6.1)
Q6 Conciseness and clearness of 5.7 1.0 4.0
presentation of instructors (5.7)
Q7 Integration of presentation with 6.0 0.9 4.0
discussions and materials in training (6.0)
sessions
Q8 Helpfulness of experience-sharing 4.9 1.2 3.0
with PST from Thai Nguyen province (5.9)
Q9 Helpfulness of experience sharing 6.0 1.3 3.0
with PST from other PPs (6.3)
Q10 Helpfulness of visit to WB and FAO 5.8 1.1 4.0
project sites
Q12 Duration of the five-day long training 1 (Too short) to 7 4.1 0.7 3.0
duration of the five-day long training (Too long) (3.5)
Note:
1) The total number of respondents was 29.
2) The number in brackets indicates ratings of the corresponding questions during WU 1. The score was adjusted to
1-7 scale from 1-5 scale in order to compare with the results of the survey during WU 2.

As seen in the above table, the average ratings center around 6.0 for Q3 to Q10 except Q8. The
ratings show favorable responses of the respondents to the intensive training of WU 2.
Comparison with the results of WU 1 may indicate some improvement over WU 1 program
although the differences are not so large. As for the experience sharing with PST members from
Thai Nguyen province (Q8), more preparation works may be required in order to make use of
the experiences during the first phase. In terms of the duration of the intensive training program
in WU 2 (Q12), seven days seem to fall in an appropriate range for the participants. When the

180
 JST interviewed with one of the participants at the management position about the duration of
the program, he commented that if the program were longer, it would be difficult for
participants to attend the workshop since they are in charge of several tasks in their
office. In contract, if it were shorter, trainees could not grasp the new concept and
knowledge properly.

At end of the questionnaire (Q13), participants were asked to provide their overall ratings of the
workshop on a scale from 0 to 100. The following Table 18 shows the overall ratings given by
the respondents. It is compared with the ratings given by the participants in the intensive
training of WU 1 (table on the right).

Table 18: Overall ratings given by respondents about the intensive training program of
WU 2 (Left) in Quang Nam and comparison with that of WU 1 (Right)
Q 13: Overall Rating of Intensive Traing Program Statistics WU 1 WU 2
14
No. of 25 29
12
Respondents
Number of responses

10
8 Average 72.4 69.7
6 Median 70 70
4
SD 8.6 11.4
2
0
Max 80 90
10 20 30 40 50 60
Rating
70 80 90 100 Min 50 50

The overall rating of WU2 was 70, slightly lower than that of WU1 (72) with more
variability of responses among the participants (SD is 11.4). While there were positive
comments, open-ended questions at the end of the questionnaires revealed a number of
areas for improvement in terms of operation of the workshop. The following comments
have been received aside from those already mentioned:

Table 19: Overall comments (Q13)

Area Comments
Questions - Provide questions closer to the practice
Exercise - Give more time for exercise for discussion
Training method - More attention to training methods
Contents - Contents should be more detailed
- More linkage with practice (actual situation) for interesting and
interactive

181
Area Comments
- More information on practices into training contents
- More actual facts into training
Main points - Facilitator should brief and conclude main issues discussed
Field trip - Need to be enhanced
Equipment - Provide district study team with equipment
PST TN - Selection of PST and preparation of a clear report
Logistics -Should start lessons from 7 or 7:30 am (in the morning).
- Meals and accommodation should be paid with more attention.
Group discussion - Group discussion: one group should be comprised of participants
from different provinces in order to share information.

6. Points to feedback based on the M & E

Based on the evaluation of the WU 1 assignments and the M & E of the intensive
training in Quang Nam province, the following points are to feedback for improvement
of the training plan. Some of these points were already addressed during the intensive
training program.

6.1 Level of understanding (capacity building)

(1) Although the time allocated for the training is limited, a certain level of the capacity
building has been achieved during the intensive training since the average scores of the
questions in M & E questionnaires was around 70 out of 100, and the self-evaluation of
participants indicated that they had acquired about 70-80% of what had been
transferred.
(2) Improvement of the analytical skill of quantitative data may need to require more
attention based on the results of the questions in Questionnaire 2 to 4. Some of the
technical skills need to be strengthened as shown in the evaluation of the assignments

6.2 Intensive training program of WU 2 and preparation works for assignments

(1) Respondents to the questionnaires show favorable responses to the intensive
training: however, there are some respondents who rated the training at a lower level.
Efforts will be needed to meet needs of these respondents.
(2) Presentation of instructors from the local sub-contractor showed some improvement
but it required continuous efforts for improvement.
(3) As the period of the intensive training program is rather short (one week to 10 days)
compared with the contents and volume of works, it would be necessary to select

182
important and indispensable items for technical transfer. It needs to focus on selected
topics and send a clear message at the end of each session. There are a number of points
that can be pointed out in this respect.
- Selection of focal points (avoid fragmentation of contents)
- Clear and specific instruction
- Establishment of the logical relation between topics and contents
- More concrete and practical contents of handouts
- More exercise to illustrate important points
- Deepen the issues through discussion
- Brief and conclude main issues discussed
Aside from the above points, the following will be important aspects to consider: more
time for discussions; more time for exercises; and better utilization of PST from Core
Province.
(4) Organization of training
- One group can be comprised of participants from different provinces for information
sharing
- Need to enhance the contents of the field trip
(5) Training schedule
- Seven days are considered appropriate.
(6) Assignment and implementation of the feasibility study
- Attention should be paid to coordination issues among PST members.
- Financial issues are also noted in preparing the assignments.
- The field survey needs to be flexible in consideration of the cropping cycle in the
project area.
- Requirements of the assignments need to be clear and to reflect the conditions of the
local conditions.

Annex (Attachment) 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 2 (Schedule of

Intensive training of WU 2: Project planning in Quang Nam
Province (3-9/10/2006))
Annex (Attachment) 2: Questionnaires used during the intensive training program of
WU 2 (Questionnaire forms with some suggested answers)

Annex (Attachment) 3: Summary of responses from respondents of Questionnaire 5 of

the intensive training program of WU 2 (Summary of responses
from respondents)

183
Annex 1: Schedule of Intensive training of WU 2:
Project planning in Quang Nam Province (3-9/10/2006)

Time A B
8:00 – 8:15 Introduction TU+PST’s Quang Nam
WU2 Course Guide (Objective, Contents and Schedule of WU2)
8:15 – 8:30
GIANG
Day 1 8:30 - 9:00 Distributing M & E question sheet GIANG
(3/10) Group discussion on the result of WU1’s assignment (grouping by
9:00 – 11:30
each province) GIANG, VIET, TRAN HUNG, CON, BAY, JSTs
13:30 – 14:00 Introduction and discussion on 2 day fieldtrip GIANG
14:00 – 16:00 Using GPS PST LAM DONG, GIANG
16:0 – 16:30 M & E Progress monitoring GIANG
Code 3 Planting side selection
GIANG Code 5-d-ii) Sales/marketing
8:30 – 11:30
i) General ideas plan CON
ii) Details
Code 5-b Project implementation
Plan (2) GIANG
Day 2 13:30 – 15:30 i) Seedling plan, ii) Afforestation
(4/10) plan, iii) Harvesting plan, iv)
Code 5-d-i) Investment and
Infrastructure, v) Extension service
financing plan BAY
Project implementation Plan for
Agroforestry project VIET
15:30-16:45
Seedling plan, planting plan,
harvesting plan, extension service
16:45-17:00 M & E Progress monitoring VIET
Day 3 Field survey in Tien Phuoc district: Production forest and agroforestry
(5/10) model
Day 4 8:30 – 11:30
Review of the field survey GIANG, VIET
(6/10)

184
 Code 5-b Project implementation
plan (1) GIANG
13:30 – 16:00 i) General idea of Project
implementation plan
ii) Project implementation schedule Code 5-d-i) Investment and

Project implementation Plan for financing plan BAY

Agroforestry project VIET

16:00-16:45 i) General idea of Project
implementation plan
ii) Project implementation schedule
16:45-17:00 M & E Progress monitoring TRAN HUNG
Day 5
Field survey: GPS practice
(7/10)
GPS practice: transferring data to PC Social-economic analysis
8:30-10:00
PST LÂM ĐỒNG ÔNG PHÚ HÙNG

Day 6 Code 5-c Organizational arrangement for project implementation

(8/10) 10:00 – 16:30 (overall structure of implementation, Implementing agency,
Organization of the people, Labor mobilization plan) TRAN HUNG

16:00 – 16:30 M & E Progress monitoring GIANG

8:30 – 15:30 Code 5-e Monitoring and evaluation plan TRAN HUNG
Day 7 Explaining WU2’s assignment
15:30 – 16:00
(9/10) General information on WU3 GIANG, BAY
16:00 - 16:30 M & E Progress monitoring GIANG

185
Annex 2: Questionnaire forms with some suggested answers
Questionnaire 1 for Groups A and B on October 3, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI
Name:
Question A: Assignments related to Work Unit 1
The following questions have been prepared to identify difficulties that you have
encountered in preparation of the assignments concerning Work Unit 1 for improvement
of our training program.

A.1 The total number of assignments under WU 1 is 12 and most of them are related to
the field study and analysis, which is the initial step of preparing the feasibility study.
Please tick the major assignment that you have prepared. If your major involvement is
coordination among different assignments, please state in the same column
“coordination.” If you were not involved in the preparation of the assignment in this
period, please leave the column blank.

No F/S report Code Work Unit 1 Assignments Major

assignment you
have prepared
Part I: Background of the Project
1 2 Forest Sector Issues and 1 B: Draft PDM
Governments' measures
3 Natural and socio-economic
conditions of the project area
2 3.1 Natural conditions of the project 4-a-i B: Legend/explanatory notes for base
area maps
3 C: Summary sheet to show suitable
afforestation tree species, etc.
4 3.2 Land and forest-resource use in the 4-a-ii B: Calculation and estimation of stand
project area volume/increment (MA1) by each
factor/category
5 4-a-iii A: Printed base map after modification
6 3.3 Socio-economic conditions of the 4-b-i B: Field note
7 project area, including market and B: Measurement of viable afforestation
distribution channels of forest products area and note in field note

8 4-b-ii A: Summary sheet of socio-economic

status by commune
9 4-b-iii D: Meeting memo of interview with
Manufactures
Part II: Project Plan
1 Objective of the project 1 Draft PDM
1.1 Overall objective 1
1.2 Immediate objectives and main 1
indicators

186
No F/S report Code Work Unit 1 Assignments Major
assignment you
have prepared
10 2.5 Short-listed project options 4-b-iv A: Paper to summarize the result of
(including analysis of needs of people) the CCM including followings
(attendance list with participants’
sign, collected questionnaire sheet
with answers, materials used at the
meetings, summary report of the
CCM result)
11 2.6 Selection of the most feasible 5-a D: Brief report on the reason to select
project option the most feasible option
12 Coordination 7 A: Schedule for the report preparation
D: A list of contact persons with
contact addresses
B: Table of contents of the reports

A.2 For those who did not submit the field note (daily work record), approximately how
many days did you spend for completing the assignments above? ___________ days

A.3 In preparing the above assignments, what kind of difficulties did you encountered?
If possible, please provide specific examples of difficulties you had. (Example:
selection method of participants to the communal consultation meeting under
socio-economic survey.)

187
Question 2 for Group A (4th, October, 2006) Code ________
Province (Please circle your province)
Sơn La Quảng Nam Lâm Đồng Long An Sub-FIPI
Name: _________________________

M & E QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1: Please write down 6(six) criteria for selecting planting site? (30)
(1) Land use policy (5)
(2) Land use status (5)
(3) Opinions of land users (5)
(4) Natural conditions in the project area (5)
(5) Accessibility to markets (5)
(6) Distances to markets (5)

Question 2: What kinds of forest land use status are suitable for project sites of
production afforestation? (40)
- Bare land:
o Ia (7)
o Ib (7)
o Ic (Species and density do not meet the business objectives) (6)
- Poor plantation forest (low productivity stands, species do not meet the business
objectives) (10)
- Poor natural forest (production forest, species and density do not meet the
business objectives (10)

Question 3: Please re-arrange 6(six) forest operations mentioned below according to

procedure for establishing forest? (40)

1. Fertilizing – 3rd (5)

2. Tending (weeding, hoeing...) - 6th (5)
3. Supplementary planting – 5th (5)
4. Vegetation treatment – 1st (5)
5. Planting – 4th (5)
6. Digging holes – 2nd (5)

188
Question 3 for Group A (6th, October, 2006) Code ________
Province (Please circle your province)
Sơn La Quảng Nam Lâm Đồng Long An Sub-FIPI
Name: _________________________

M & E QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Câu 1: Please write down 1 (one) lesson learned which you had through field survey of
the World Bank project and the FAO project in Tien Phuoc District (30)
- Accurate information (15)
- Meaningful level (15)

Câu 2: A production afforestation project is divided into two phases. One is a

preparatory phase and the other is an implementation phase. Please select D with correct
statements and S with incorrect statements: (30)
An implementation phase includes following operation works:
1. Planting – D (5)
2 Harvesting – D (5)
3. Project dissemination meeting – S (5)
4. Establishment of a project implementation body – S (5)
5. Tending plantation forest – D (5)
6. Identifying financial sources – S (5)

Question 3: Have you understood how to prepare agroforestry plan and production
afforestation plan? Please score yourself on capacity to prepare production afforestation
and agroforestry plan from low confidant level (0) to very confidant level (100)? (40)

- Agroforestry plan (20)

Not confidant Very confidant
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

- Production afforestation plan (20)

Not confidant Very confidant
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

189
Question 2 for Group B (4th, October, 2006) Code ________
Province (Please circle your province)
Sơn La Quảng Nam Lâm Đồng Long An Sub-FIPI
Name: _________________________

1. In order to estimate the potential market size of targeted products of the project, and
other wood materials and Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) in the province and
neighboring provinces, what type of table do you use? Please suggest a format of the
table in the space provided below.

Market demand in 200X

Products
Gỗ tròn Gỗ khai thác Bồ đề
Buyers từ rừng trồng phân tán.
(m3) (m3) (m3)

Tổng toàn tỉnh

By product
Buyers Unit Calendar year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Tổng toàn tỉnh

190
2. Calculate the amount of the price contingency for a project which lasts for one year
from now if the following information and assumptions are given: baseline cost is
100 Million VND, an expected rate of inflation is 10% per annum, and physical
contingency is 5% of the baseline cost.
10.5 Mil. VND.

If the baseline cost is 100 Million VND, an expected rate of inflation is 5% per
annum, and physical contingency is 10% of the baseline cost, calculate the amount
of the price contingency for a project which lasts for one year from now..

__5.5___Mil. VND.

191
Question 3 for Group B (6th, October, 2006) Code ________
Province (Please circle your province)
Sơn La Quảng Nam Lâm Đồng Long An Sub-FIPI
Name: _________________________

1. The relation among the nominal or market interest rate (i), real interest rate (r), risk
element (R) and compensation for the expected loss in the real purchasing power of
the loan principal still outstanding because of the expected future rate of inflation
((1+r+R)gPe) can be expressed as in the following equation:

i＝r+R+(1+r+R)gPe

For the sake of simplicity, please consider the risk element is equal to zero for now.
Rural Bank extends a loan which bears 15% interest rate per annum. If the expected
rate of inflation is 5% p.a., please calculate a real interest rate.
_9.5__% p.a.
2. The following table shows the distribution of outstanding amount of loans in Thai
Nguyen province.

Table : Outstanding loans in Provincial agriculture bank

As of
As of Ratio
12/2004
(Mil. 12/2005 ((d)/(c)-1)
Loan types % %
VND) (Mil. *
VND) (d) 100 (%)
(c)
Total amount of outstanding loan (a) 985,425 100.0 1,211,409 100.0 22.9
Short term (< 12 months) 450,939 45.8 606,526 50.1 34.5
Medium term
423,731 43.0 482,017 39.8 13.8
(from 12- 60 months)
Long term (> 60 months) 110,755 11.2 122,866 10.1 10.9

No. of customers (clients) (b) 94,080 87,560 -6.9

Average loan amount (Mil. VND) 10,5 13,8
(a)/(b)
Source: VBARD in Thai Nguyen province
Note: Estimated data in 2005

Please describe your observation on the table above.

192
Question 4 for Groups A and B (4th, October, 2006) Code ________
Province (Please circle your province)
Sơn La Quảng Nam Lâm Đồng Long An Sub-FIPI
Name: _________________________

The following table shows an amount of loans which randomly-selected farmers 1 to15
borrowed from either Development bank or Venture bank in Bao Bao village in
September 2006.
Farmer Loan size (1000 VND) Bank
1 1,000 Development bank
2 3,000 Development bank
3 5,000 Development bank
4 2,000 Development bank
5 3,000 Development bank
6 35,000 Venture bank
7 2,000 Development bank
8 12,000 Venture bank
9 26,000 Venture bank
10 8,000 Development bank
11 4,000 Development bank
12 13,000 Venture bank
13 10,000 Development bank
14 50,000 Venture bank
15 6,000 Development bank
Basic statistics
Mean (Average) (a) 12,000 VND
Median 6,000 VND
Standard Deviation (b) 14,198 VND
Coefficient of variation (b)/(a) 1.18
Max 50,000 VND
Min 1,000 VND
Skewness 1.84
Kurtosis 2.88
Based on the above data, the following histogram has been prepared (a histogram
represents numbers by area, not height).

0-5000 5001- 10001- 15001- 20001- 25001- 30000- 40000-

10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 40000

Loan amount (1000 VND)

193
(1) Mr. Thao is a social analyst of Bao Bao village. Please help him complete the
following 2 x 2 table based on the above data.
Unit: Number of farmers
Bank Development Venture Bank Total number
Loan size Bank of farmers

Total number of farmers

(2) Choose the appropriate answer in the brackets in the sentence below by circling
either smaller or larger.

Farmers in Bao bao village tend to borrow a (smaller, larger) amount of loans from
Venture Bank.

194
Questionnaire 5 for Groups A and B on October 9, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI
Name:

You have completed your intensive training (Step 1) of Work Unit Two (WU 2) in
Quang Nam Province. Please answer the following questions. (please circle the
appropriate number).

1. Is the present level of your knowledge and skills high or low compared with the
level of the knowledge and skills you had before you participated in this intensive
training?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How much of the knowledge and skills transferred through this intensive training
program have you acquired? Please provide your evaluation on a scale of 0 being
nothing acquired to 100 being fully acquired.
2.1 Elaboration of the Project Plan
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.2 Estimation of Investment Cost and Financing Plan

Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.3 Institutional Arrangement and Measures for the Project

Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3. How do you find the relationship between the contents of this intensive training and
your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?
Somewhat Very
Very weak Somewhat Neither strong strong
weak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

195
4. Contents and methodologies introduced during the intensive training will help you
prepare the project in your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Handouts and materials distributed during the intensive training will help you transfer
what you learn during the sessions after you go back to your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Presentation of the instructors from Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI)
were concise and clear.
Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. The instructors from Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) organized the
sessions by integrating the presentation with discussions, Q & A, handouts, and reports.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Sharing of experiences and additional explanations from the provincial study team of
Thai Nguyen Province were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Sharing of experiences among PST members from other participating provinces (PPs)
were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. The field trip to the project sites of the World Bank assisted Project and FAO
assisted project on the third day were helpful in designing the proposed project in your
province .
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. How do you think of the amount or volume of the contents or works during the
training? (Have been deleted as the translation did not reflect the English text.)
Too little Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
little volumino much
us
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

196
12. How do you think of the duration of the seven day training workshop?
Too short Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
short long long

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Overall rating of the seven day long training workshop on a scale from Poor (0) to
Excellent (100).
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

14. Comments and suggestions about the intensive training (level of the contents,
presentation, facilities, etc.)

197
Annex 3: Summary of responses from respondents
Questionnaire 5 on October 9, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI
Name:
You have completed your intensive training (Step 1) of Work Unit Two (WU 2) in
Quang Nam Province. Please answer the following questions. (please circle the
appropriate number).
2. Is the present level of your knowledge and skills high or low compared with the
level of the knowledge and skills you had before you participated in this intensive
training?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 1: Knowledge & Skill

14
12 No. of respondents: 29
Number of responses

10
Average: 5.9
8
6 Median: 6.0
4 SD: 0.8
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

2. How much of the knowledge and skills transferred through this intensive training
program have you acquired? Please provide your evaluation on a scale of 0 being
nothing acquired to 100 being fully acquired.
2.1 Elaboration of the Project Plan
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Question 2.1: Elaboraton of Project Plan

8 No. of respondents: 17
7 Average: 75
Number of responses

6
5
Median: 80
4 SD: 11
3
2
1
-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

198
2.2 Estimation of Investment Cost and Financing Plan
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Question 2.2: Investment and Financing

6 No. of respondents: 12
5 Average: 81
Number of responses

4
Median: 80
3
SD: 11
2

-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

2.3 Institutional Arrangement and Measures for the Project

Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Question 2.3: Institutional Arrangement

9
8 No. of respondents: 26
7
Number of responses

Average: 76
6
5 Median: 78
4
3
SD: 12
2
1
-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

3. How do you find the relationship between the contents of this intensive training and
your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?
Somewhat Very
Very weak Somewhat Neither strong strong
weak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 3: Relation with Work

16
14 No. of respondents: 29
Number of responses

12
Average: 6.0
10
8 Median: 6.0
6
4 SD: 0.8
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

199
4. Contents and methodologies introduced during the intensive training will help you
prepare the project in your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 4: Contents
14
12 No. of respondents: 29
Number of responses

10
Average: 6.1
8
6 Median: 6.0
4 SD: 0.8
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

5. Handouts and materials distributed during the intensive training will help you transfer
what you learn during the sessions after you go back to your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 5: Handouts
16
14
No. of respondents: 29
Number of responses

12 Average: 6.1
10
8 Median: 6.0
6 SD: 1.1
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

6. Presentation of the instructors from Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI)
were concise and clear.
Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 6: FIPI Presentation

14 No. of respondents: 29
12
Number of responses

10
Average: 5.7
8 Median: 6.0
6
SD: 1.0
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

200
7. The instructors from Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) organized the
sessions by integrating the presentation with discussions, Q & A, handouts, and reports.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 7: FIPI Instructors

16
14 No. of respondents: 29
Number of responses

12
10 Average: 6.0
8
Median: 6.0
6
4 SD: 0.9
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

8. Sharing of experiences and additional explanations from the provincial study team of
Thai Nguyen Province were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 8: TN PST
10
Number of responses

8 No. of respondents: 29
6 Average: 4.9
4 Median: 5.0
2 SD: 1.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

9. Sharing of experiences among PST members from other participating provinces (PPs)
were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 9: PP PST
16
14
No. of respondents: 29
Number of responses

12 Average: 6.0
10
8 Median: 6.0
6
4
SD: 1.3
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

201
10. The field trip to the project sites of the World Bank assisted Project and FAO
assisted project on the third day were helpful in designing the proposed project in your
province .
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 10: Site Visit to WB & FAO

12
10
No. of respondents: 28
Number of responses

8
Average: 5.8
6
4
Median: 6.0
2 SD: 1.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating
11. How do you think of the amount or volume of the contents or works during the
training? (Has been deleted as the Vietnamese translation did not reflect the English
version)
Too little Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
little volumino much
us
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. How do you think of the duration of the seven day training workshop?
Too short Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
short long long

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25
Question 12: Duration No. of respondents: 29
Average: 4.1
Number of responses

20

15 Median: 4.0
10 SD: 0.7
5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

202
13. Overall rating of the seven day long training workshop on a scale from Poor (0) to
Excellent (100).
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q 13: Overall Rating of Intensive Traing

Program
14 No. of respondents: 29
12
Average: 69.7
Number of responses

10
8 Median: 70.0
6
SD: 11.4
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

14. Comments and suggestions about the intensive training (level of the contents,
presentation, facilities, etc.)
No Overall Responses to Q14
rating
1 60 Content of a session should be adjusted in line with time allocation for
each day (Example: one topic/session per day)
2 60 - Tutors and FICAB need to provide questions of closer to the practice.
Better to give exercises earlier so participants can have time prepared,
self discussions with PSTs
- Provide district study team with equipment so they can be active in
works from grass-root level with more reliable work results.
3 60 Delivered contents should be more detailed, should ensure more linkage
with practice (actual situation) so the teaching content will be more
interesting, interactive. After each discussion session, facilitator should
brief and conclude main issues discussed.
4 80 Shortages of equipment for PST
5 70 Group discussion: one group should be comprised of participants from
different provinces in order to share information.
6 80 Provide more information from practices into training content. Should
enhance contents of field trip.
7 80 Should provide more actual facts into training contents.
8 50 Need to pay more attention at training methods (in accordance with
general assessment table) (general assessment table is prepared by FIPI
to assess the training program)
9 80 When selecting core province reporters, it is necessary to select whom of
knowledgeable so a more reasonable simpler discussion among them and
PST(ss) can be ensured: on the other hand, they need to prepare a clear
report with more details. Thus to avoid a case that they just read but
listeners do not know how to conclude main points or do not understand
the contents.
10 80 Need to arrange better meals.
11 80 -Meals should be paid with more attention

203
No Overall Responses to Q14
rating
-Should start lessons from 7 or 7:30 am (in the morning).
12 70 Meals and accommodation should be paid with more attention.
Note: Overall ratings show the level of satisfaction on a scale from 0 to 100 with 100 being Excellent.

204
 Appendix 5

M & E Report of
Intensive Training Session of
Work Unit 3

205
 Appendix 5

December 3, 2006

Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Intensive Training Program of

Work Unit Three (WU 3)

1. Intensive Training of Work Unit Three and Monitoring & Evaluation

2. Attendance of the participants

3. Course curriculum

4. Results of evaluation of the assignments and the questionnaire survey

4.2.1 Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)
4.2.2 Evaluation of the intensive training

5. Points to feedback based on the M & E

Attachment (Annex) 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 3

Attachment (Annex) 2: Questionnaires used during the intensive training program of
WU 3
Attachment (Annex) 3: Summary of responses from respondents of Questionnaire 5 of
the intensive training program of WU 3

206
1. Intensive Training Program of Work Unit Three and Monitoring & Evaluation
The JICA study team (JST) and the local sub-contractor (FIPI) conducted the intensive training
program of Work Unit Three (WU 3) with the participation of about 20 participants. The
participants are from the Provincial Study Team (PST) of Core Province (CoP) and Participating
Provinces (PPs), and the local sub-contractor. The intensive training program of WU 3 was held
for a period of four days from November 28 to December 1, 2006 in Thai Nguyen province.
This draft monitoring and evaluation (M & E) report has been prepared to report the monitoring
results of the intensive training program of WU 3.

The objective of WU 3 is to introduce the financial and economic analyses, and to provide basic
knowledge and skills to perform the financial analysis for preparation of the feasibility study.

Table 1: Planned schedule of the intensive training program of WU 3

Day Subject Time allocation

(day)

1 Part I: Introduction of major concept: 0.5

Concepts of financial and economic analyses
Basis for financial analysis (time value of money, identification 0.5
of interest rate)
2 Part 2: Detailed financial analysis in an investment project for 0.5
production forest (fundamental characteristics of investment
project for production forest, determine project cash inflow,
estimation of project turnover, preparation of project’s financial
cash flow)
Criteria used in financial analysis of a project on production 0.5
forest, safety analysis of an investment project
3 Part 3: Economic analysis (basic rules on economic analysis of 0.5
an investment project, identification of cost and economic
benefits, determination of prices in economic analysis)
Criteria used in economic analysis of an investment project, 0.5
sensitivity analysis, risk analysis
4 Comprehensive practical exercises in financial and economic 0.8
analysis for a production forest project
Group presentation of the results of the analysis 0.2
Total time allocation 4.0

207
The workshop was held in accordance with the planned schedule except for the third day when
the time allocation for the economic analysis in the morning was shortened for the sensitivity
analysis.

Under the supervision of the JST, an instructor was invited from Forestry University to lead the
entire workshop and the local sub-contractor assisted the workshop.

2. Attendance of the participants in the intensive training program in Quang Nam

province
A total of about twenty (20) participants attended the intensive training from four PPs and the
local sub-contractor. The number of participants from PPs and the local sub-contract to the
intensive training of WU 3 is shown as in the following table.

Table 2: Number of Participants (Trainees) Unit: Persons

Province Son Quang Lam Long PST Sub- Sub- Total
La Nam Dong An Total (1) FIPI (2) (1) + (2)
Total no of participants 21 10 16 9 56 7 63
2)
in IWS , intensive
training of WU 1 -3
No of Participants in 5 3 4 4 16 7 23
intensive training
program of WU 3
Out of which, those 1 2 0 2 5 5 10
who participated in
IWS and WU1-2
Note: IWS : Introduction Workshop

From CoP, four participants attended the program.

3. Structure of M & E of the training program

The monitoring and evaluation of the training program has been conducted in accordance with
the progress of the workshop in the form of the exercise-type questionnaires. It is intended to
examine how the capacity building has been progressed and how the program has met the needs
of the target beneficiaries.

A total of four exercise-type questionnaires were distributed at end of each day. Exercise-type
questionnaires were prepared in accordance with the topics of each day and were distributed at
end of the day. The last questionnaire (Questionnaire 5) was distributed after all the program
was completed. Questionnaire 5 aims: to monitor reactions of each participant to the
intensive training program by measuring the level of their satisfaction in attending the program,

208
which would affect the future sustainability of the training program; to monitor the effectiveness
of the instruction; to grasp the self-claimed level of understanding of the training subjects.

The following table (Table 3) shows different perspectives of each questionnaire, from which
the M & E was conducted. Participants were requested to identify themselves in responding to
all these questionnaires.

Table 3: Timing and Perspectives of M & E (Questionnaires 1 to 5)

Q Timing of Distribution Analytical perspectives of M & E

1 End of 1st day (Nov 28) -Difference between financial and economic analyses
-Discounting
2 End of 2nd day (Nov 29) -Description of the with-out project case scenario
-Advantage and disadvantage of NPV and IRR criteria
3 End of 3rd day (Nov 30) -Calculation of economic price of timber for woodchips
4 End of 4th day (Dec 1) -Financial and economic justification of the case study
5 End of 4th day (Dec 1) -Overall evaluation of WU 3
Questionnaire forms of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been attached in Attachment 2.

4. Results of evaluation of the assignments and the questionnaire survey

4.1 Responses of assignments and questionnaires
(1) Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program of WU 2
The following table shows the number of responses to the questionnaire from Questionnaire 1 to
Questionnaire 5. The number of responses differed depending on the questionnaire because
some of the participants left during the workshop. Especially PST from CoP in Thai Nguyen
were not able to participate on the first day of the workshop due to pre-assigned office works.
Most of the participants cooperated with the M & E activities in answering the questionnaires.

Table 4: Number of responses or rate of responses

Date Q1 (Nov 28) Q2 (Nov 29) Q 3 (Nov 30) Q 4 (Dec 1) Q 5 (Dec 1)

Total 23 27 26 23 23

4.2 Results of the questionnaire survey

This section reports the results of the questionnaire survey in terms of the level of understanding
of the participants (capacity building) (Section 4.2.1) and the level of satisfaction of the
participants in attending the workshop and effectiveness of the instruction (Section 4.2.2).

[Link] Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)

Four exercise-type questionnaires (Questionnaires 1-4) were prepared to examine the progress

209
of the capacity improvement. This section describes the findings based on the four
questionnaires.

(1) Questionnaire 1
The first questionnaire was distributed at the end of the first day of the program. In accordance
with the course curriculum, Questionnaire 1 asked participants to describe differences of
financial and economic analyses and to calculate discount factors. The following Table 5 shows
the average scores and standard deviations of each of the two questions. A maximum point of
100 was given if all the answers are correct.

Table 5: Results of Questionnaire 1

Questions Point Average SD
allocation Score
1 Difference between financial and 50 points 38.5 9.5
economic analyses
2 Discounting 50 points 47.4 4.4
Average of the total score 100 points 85.9
Median score of the total score 80
Standard Deviation 10.5
Max of the total score 100
Min of the total score 65
Number of respondents 23

The average of the total scores is about 86 points ranging from a minimum score of 65 to a
maximum of 100 with the standard deviation of 10.5. The variability of the scores comes mainly
from variability of the scores to the first question (difference between financial and economic
analyses). However, in general, it is considered that the participants demonstrated their good
level of understandings on the subject.

(3) Questionnaire 2
Questionnaire 2 covered the two points: description of the without-project case and comparison
of investment criteria (Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return). The following Table 6
shows the average scores and standard deviations of each of the two questions.

210
 Table 6: Results of Questionnaire 2
Questions Point Average SD
allocation Score
1 Description of without-project case 40 points 33.9 9.4
2 Advantage and disadvantage of NPV 60 points 47.2 10.1
and IRR investment criteria
Average of the total score 100 points 81.1
Median score of the total score 80
Standard Deviation 11.2
Max of the total score 95
Min of the total score 45
Number of respondents 27

The average and median of the total scores are about 80 points ranging from a minimum score
of 45 to a maximum of 95 with the standard deviation of 11.2. Compared with the second
question, participants seem to find it difficult to answer the first question (without-project case
scenario). In conducting the financial and economic analyses of the proposed project in their
respective provinces, participants need to think of realistic without-project case scenario. PST
members may require assistance to conduct the incremental analysis.

(4) Questionnaire 3
After the end of the session on the third day, Questionnaire 3 was distributed to participants. The
questionnaire asked participants to calculate the economic price of timber for chip woods. The
following Table 7 shows the average score and standard deviation of the question.

Table 7: Results of Questionnaire 3

Questions Point Average SD
allocation Score
1 Calculation of economic price of 100 points 99.4 2.9
timber for woodchips
Median score of the total score 100
Max of the total score 100
Min of the total score 85
Number of respondents 26

The average and median of the total scores are 100 points with the standard deviation of 2.9.

211
Most of the participants got a full point for this questionnaire. It is considered that the
participants demonstrated their good level of understandings on the subject. However, PST
members may need to have assistance in order to find out economic prices of specific input and
output items relevant to the proposed project,

(4) Questionnaire 4
After the group presentation about their financial and economic analyses of the case study,
Questionnaire 4 was distributed to participants. The questionnaire asked participants to describe
the financial and economic justification of the project they analyzed. The following Table 8
shows the average scores and standard deviations of each of the two questions.

Table 8: Results of Questionnaire 4

Questions Point Average SD
allocation Score
1 Financial justification of the project 50 points 41.3 10.4
2 Economic justification of the project 50 points 38.0 12.1
Average of the total score 100 points 79.3
Median score of the total score 80
Standard Deviation 19.3
Max of the total score 100
Min of the total score 40
Number of respondents 23

The average and median of the total scores are about 80 points ranging from a minimum score
of 40 to a maximum of 100 with the standard deviation of 19.3. The answer to the questionnaire
was evaluated by examining whether or not participants provided numerical results with their
explanation on the results. Some participants responded to the question without utilizing results
of calculation such as NPV and IRR while others provided only numerical results of the analysis.
Although a handful of participants did not do well, the average and median score tells that
participants demonstrated a good level of understanding on the subjects.

(5) Self evaluation of respondents

After the completion of the intensive training program, participants were asked to evaluate if
the present level of their knowledge and skills high or low compared with the level of
the knowledge and skills they had before on a scale from 1 to 7 with 4 being “About the
same” (Q1). Twenty-three (23) participants responded to the questionnaire. The average

212
rating of the respondent was 6.2 with a standard deviation of 0.8. The rating ranges from
5.0 to 7.0.

Table 9: Knowledge and skill level (Q1)

Q 1 Level of Knowledge and Skill
10
No. of Respondents: 23
No of respondents

8
Average: 6.2
6
Median: 6
4 SD: 0.8
Max: 7
2
Min: 5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The self-evaluation of the participants tells their favorable response to evaluate their
progress in their capacity building.

The participants were further asked to examine how much of the knowledge and skills
transferred through this intensive training program they have acquired on a scale of 0
being nothing acquired to 100 being fully acquired (Q2). In answering this question,
they were asked to rate their levels in the following areas:

Table 10: Areas to be self-evaluated

Question Area to be self-evaluated
No.
2.1 Differences between financial and economic analyses
2.2 Incremental analysis (comparison of with-project case and
without-project case)
2.3 Development of financial cash flow statement
2.4 Evaluation of financial results by applying investment criteria (such as
NPV, IRR, BC Ratio)
2.5 Sensitivity analysis

The following Tables 11 to 15 compare responses from the respondents in respective

areas.

213
 Table 11: Differences between financial and economic analyses (Question 2.1)
Q 2.1 Difference between Financial and
Economic Analyses
10
No. of Respondents: 23
No of respondents

8
Average: 77.4
6
Median: 80
4 SD: 9.9
2
Max: 90
Min: 50
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Table 12: Incremental analysis (comparison of with-project case and without-project

case) (Question 2.2)

Q 2.2 Incremental Analyses

9 No. of Respondents: 23
8 Average: 78.7
Median: 80
No of respondents

7
6
SD: 9.0
5
4 Max: 90
3 Min: 60
2
1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Table 13: Development of financial cash flow statement (Question 2.3)

Q 2.3 Cash Flow Statement No. of Respondents: 23

9 Average: 79.1
8 Median: 80
No of respondents

7
6
SD: 11.0
5 Max: 100
4 Min: 60
3
2
1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

214
Table 14: Evaluation of financial results by applying investment criteria (such as NPV,
IRR, BC Ratio) (Question 2.4)

Q 2.4 Evaluation of financial results No. of Respondents: 23

9 Average: 81.3
8 Median: 80
No of respondents

7
6
SD: 10.8
5 Max: 100
4 Min: 60
3
2
1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Table 15: Sensitivity analysis (Question 2.5)

Q 2.5 Sensitivity Analysis
9 No. of Respondents: 23
8 Average: 78.3
Median: 80
No of respondents

7
6 SD: 12.7
5
4
Max: 100
3 Min: 50
2
1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

In accordance with the self-evaluation of the participants, participants considered that

about 80 percent of what had been transferred to them had been acquired. As the
self-evaluation ranges from 50-60 to 100, the variability among the participants and
those who rated with lower scores should be noted.

4.2.2 Evaluation of the intensive training

(1) Level of satisfaction of the participants in attending the workshop and the effectiveness of
the instruction by local sub-contractors as TOT
At the end of the 4th day, participants were requested to evaluate the intensive training of WU 3
in a number of aspects: (Q3) relation between the contents of the training and their current
works; (Q4) coverage of the topics introduced during the intensive training program; (Q5)
methodologies for the preparation of the project; (Q6) helpfulness of handouts and exercises for
technology transfer; (Q7) conciseness and clearness of presentation of instructors; (Q8)
integration of presentation with discussions and materials in training sessions; (Q9) helpfulness

215
of teaching assistants from the local sub-contractor; (Q10) helpfulness of experience sharing
with PST from other PPs; (Q11) amount of works; and (Q12) duration. For Q 3, participants are
asked to rate the training on a scale from 1 (Very weak) to 7 (Very strong) with 4 being
(Neither). For Q 4, they are asked to rate the training on a scale from 1 (Very narrow) to 7 (Very
broad) with 4 being (About right). From Q5 to Q10, participants are requested to rate it on a
scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) with 4 being (Neither). For 11,
participants are asked to rate it on a scale from 1 (Too little) to 7 (Too much) with 4 being
(Average). For 12, participants are asked to rate it on a scale from 1 (Too short) to 7 (Too long)
with 4 being (Average). Questions 7 and 8 have been specifically prepared based on the M & E
results of the introduction workshop. From the comments and suggestions from respondents
during the introduction workshop, the concise presentation and integration of the presentation
with other tools such as discussions and reports were identified as the two of the major areas for
improvement on the side of the workshop organizers. The following Table 16 summarizes the
average of each of the questions with standard deviations and minimum scores. The results are
compared with the averages of WU 1 and 2 in the corresponding questions.

Table 16: Ratings of respondents about the intensive training of WU 3

No Aspects Rating scale Average SD Min WU 2 WU1

from 1 to 7 Rating Avg Avg

Q3 Relation between the 1 (Very 6.2 1.0 3 6.0 5.7

contents of the training weak) to 7
and their current works (Very strong)
Q4 Coverage of the topics 1 (Too 4.6 0.8 4
narrow) to 7
(Too broad)
Q5 Helpfulness of 1 (Strongly 6.4 0.5 6 6.1 6.3
methodologies for the disagree) to
preparation of the project 7 (Strongly
Q6 Helpfulness of handouts agree) 6.3 0.5 5 6.1 6.1
and exercises for
technology transfer
Q7 Conciseness and clearness 6.7 0.4 6 5.7 5.7
of presentation of
instructors

216
No Aspects Rating scale Average SD Min WU 2 WU1

from 1 to 7 Rating Avg Avg

Q8 Integration of presentation 6.5 0.5 6 6.0 6.0

with discussions and
materials in training
sessions
Q9 Helpfulness of assistants 6.4 0.6 5
from FIPI
Q10 Helpfulness of experience 6.4 0.8 4 6.0 6.3
sharing with PST from
other PPs
Q11 Volume of the works 1 (Too little) 5.0 1.0 4 6.0
to 7 (Too
much)
Q12 Duration of the five-day 1 (Too short) 3.9 0.9 1 4.1 3.5
long training duration of to 7 (Too
the five-day long training long)
Note:
1) The total number of respondents was 23.
2) The phrasing of questions used for the questionnaires of WU 1 and 2 was not exactly same as that used for WU 3
questionnaire but can be comparable to corresponding questions. In addition, the rating scale of WU 1 was adjusted to
1-7 scale from 1-5 scale in order to compare with the results of the survey during WU 2 and WU 3.
As for the relation with the current works, a lot of the participants responded close relation with
the current works (Q3). The topics covered during the program seem to be appropriate (Q4).
The average ratings relevant to questions from Q5 to Q10 center around 6.5. The ratings show
very favorable responses of the respondents to the intensive training of WU 3. Comparison with
the results of WU 1 and 2 shows high marks given to the clear and concise presentation of the
instructor (Q7) and integration of his presentation with discussions and materials (Q8). The
volume of the work during the program seems to fall in an appropriate range for participants
(Q11). In terms of the duration of the intensive training program in WU 3 (Q12), the four
day-long program appears to be also suitable to the participants, especially in consideration of
the WU 4 to be followed right after WU 3.

At end of the questionnaire (Q13), participants were asked to provide their overall ratings of the
workshop on a scale from 0 to 100. The following Table 17 shows the overall ratings given by
the respondents. It is compared with the ratings given by the participants in the intensive
training of WU 1 and WU 2 (table on the right).

217
Table 17: Overall ratings given by respondents about the intensive training program of
WU 3 and comparison with overall ratings of WU 1 and 2 (Right)

Q 13 Overall evaluation of WU 3
Statistics WU 1 WU 2 WU3
12 No. of 25 29 23
10 Respondents
No of respondents

8
Average 72.4 69.7 78.3
6
4 Median 70 70 80
2 SD 8.6 11.4 13.1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Max 80 90 100
Min 50 50 50

The average of the overall rating of WU3 was 78.3, about 10 points higher than that of
WU1 (72 point) and WU 2 (70 point) although variability of responses among the
participants increased (SD of WU 3 is 13.1). Open-ended questions at the end of the
questionnaires revealed a number of favorable responses especially for the teaching
skills of the instructor and the way the program was organized. The following are
comments received from the participants.

Table 18: Comments and suggestions to open-end question (Q14)

Area Comments
Lecturer and - The lecturer and tutors of this training course are very good. They are
tutors very helpful and their performance is improved a lot. They help
participants get the points.
- Lecturer have a very good teaching method (concise and very easy to
understand/follow)
Contents - Learners could apply what have learnt into practice.
- Learners could differentiate Fin analysis from Eco analysis and
learners could access to many new technical terminologies in financial
and economic field.
- Contents of the training is very good and very useful for preparing
project plan.
- Content of the training course is very clear and detail

218
Organization Organization and preparation for the class is very good.
Duration - The duration of the training course (WU3-WU4) last too long
(12days) plus this is the end of the year that make it very difficult for
PST members to arrange time to participate fully into the class.
- Duration of the financial and economic analysis training class is quite
short.
- Duration of the training course is quite long and tight. Class time
should be reduced to lift up pressure.
Exercises - Answers to exercises should be distributed to learners when they finish
doing their exercises so that they could check and evaluate their results
to see how well they understand the lesson.
- Time allocation for doing exercises and presenting results of work
should be longer.
Logistics Accommodation and logistics arrangement are excellent.
Facility condition is excellent, good conference hall

5. Points to feedback based on the M & E

Based on the M & E of the intensive training program (WU 3), the following points are
to feedback for improvement of the training plan. Some of these points were already
addressed during the intensive training program.

5.1 Level of understanding (capacity building)

(1) Although the time allocated for the training is limited, a certain level of the capacity
building has been achieved during the intensive training since the average scores of the
questions in M & E questionnaires was around 86 out of 100, and the self-evaluation of
participants indicated that they had acquired about 80% of what had been transferred.

5.2 Intensive training program of WU 3s

(1) Respondents to the questionnaires show rather favorable responses to the intensive
training program. It is considered that this is largely attributed to the teaching skills and
methods of the instructor: its clearness and conciseness by getting to the point of the
specific issues, and integration of his lecture with other supporting teaching tools.
(2) The timing of the training program is an issue to consider in the future expecially
when the program is scheduled at the end of the fiscal year.

219
Annex (Attachment) 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 3
(Course schedule (Nov 29-Dec 1, 2006))

Annex (Attachment) 2: Questionnaires used during the intensive training program of

WU 3 (Questionnaire 5 on December 1, 2006)

Annex (Attachment) 3: Summary of responses from respondents of Questionnaire 5 of

the intensive training program of WU 3

220
 Annex 1: Course schedule (Nov 29-Dec 1, 2006)
Training contents: Financial & Economic analysis for production forest projects
No. Content item Method Time Tools
Session 1
Part 1: Major concepts
1 Financial & Economic
Analysis concepts
1.1 Financial analysis for an
investment project
- Concept
- Objectives and
- White board
Requirements
- Computers,
- Contents
- Projector,
1.2 Economic analysis for an
40 - Handout
investment project Presentation
Minutes
- Concept Discussion
- Objectives and
Requirements
- Contents
1.3 Differentiate between
financial and economic - A0 paper
analyses - White board
- Similarities marker
- Differences
2 Basis for financial
analysis
2.1 Value of money in term of
time
30 - Computers,
- Reason Presentation
Minutes - Projector,
- Measuring methods:
- Handout
Discount and
Accumulation
- Examples
- Practicing exercise - Undertake 30 - White board
+ Discount calculation personal Minutes

221
 + Accumulative exercise
calculation (Not so sure - - Results
accumulation??) discussion
2.2 Identification of interest
rate r in calculation
- Affecting factors of
interest rate r
Presentation
- Selection of calculating - Computers,
20
period - Projector,
Minutes
- Exercise for calculation Undertake - Handout
of interest rate r personal
exercise
Session 2
Part 2: Details of financial
analysis in an investment project
for production forest
1 Fundamental characters of
Investment project for
production forest
1.1 Characters - White board
1.2 Influences of these - - Computers,
characters toward financial Presentation - Projector,
30 Minutes
analysis of an enterprise - Group - A0 paper
involving into production discussion - White board
forest marker
2 Determine project cash - Handout
inflow
2.1 Measuring of costs
2.2 Prepare breakdown of
project cash inflow
3 Estimate project turnover Presentation 30 Minutes
4 Prepare project’s financial
statement for each year
and identify cash flow

222
 5 Exercise on cash flow of a Group
project (Cost flow, profit exercise,
60 Minutes
flow) Results
discussion
Session 3
6 Criteria used in financial
analysis of a project on
production forest
6.1 Criteria used on
investment project
analysis
- CPV - White board
- BPV - Computers,
- NPV - Projector,
-
- A0 paper
Presentation
- White board
- Undertake 60 Minutes
marker
personal
- Handout
exercise
- BCR
- Discussion
- IRR
- Others
- Exercise 60 Minutes
Session 4
6.2 Application of criteria into
financial analysis at
project for production - A0 paper
forest 30 Minutes - White board
- Requirements marker
- Group
- Selection of proper
discussion
indicator
7 Safety analysis of an - White board
investment project - Computers,
7.1 Inflation - 60 Minutes - Projector,
7.2 Sensitivity analysis Presentation - A0 paper

223
 - Methods for sensitivity - White board
analysis marker
(inc. Monte Carlo - Handout
simulation model)
- Exercises on sensitivity - Undertake
analysis of a project personal
30 Minutes
exercise
- Debrief
Session 5
Part 3: Economic analysis
1 Basic rules on economic
analysis of an investment
project
1.1 Necessity 30 Minutes
1.2 Assessment standards in
economic analysis of an
- White board
investment project
- - Computers,
2 Identify cost and
Presentation 30 Minutes - Projector,
economic benefits
- Group - A0 paper
3 Determine price in
discussion - White board
economic analysis
marker
3.1 - Basis for identifying
- Handout
price in economic analysis
60 Minutes
3.2 - Commercial commodity
3.3 - Non-commercial
commodity
3.4 - Conversion ratio
- Debrief
Session 6
4 Criteria used in economic - White board
analysis of an investment - Computers,
project - Projector,
4.1 Common criteria - - A0 paper
4.2 Application of criteria in Presentation 90 Minutes - White board
economic analysis for a - Group marker
production forest project discussion - Handout
5 Sensitivity analysis - 30 Minutes

224
 6 Risk analysis Presentation
Session 7
Comprehensive practical
exercises in financial &
- Group 120
economic analysis for a
exercise Minutes
project in production
forest
Session 8
- Group presentations on
calculating results 120
- Discussion
- Gewneral debriefing Minutes

225
Annex 2: Questionnaire 5 on December 1, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province or your institution):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI Thai Nguyen

Name:
You have completed your intensive training program of Work Unit Three (WU 3) in
Thai Nguyen Province. Please answer the following questions relevant to this intensive
training program held from November 28 to December 1, 2006. (Please circle the
appropriate number).
3. Is the present level of your knowledge and skills about the financial and economic
analyses high or low compared with the level of the knowledge and skills you had
before you participated in this intensive training program of WU 3?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How much of the knowledge and skills transferred through this intensive training
program have you acquired? Please provide your evaluation in the following areas on a
scale of 0 being nothing acquired to 100 being fully acquired.
2.1 Difference between financial and economic analyses
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.2 Incremental analysis (comparison of with-project case and without-project case)

Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.3 Development of financial cash flow statement

Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.4 Evaluation of financial results by applying investment criteria (such as NPV, IRR,
BC Ratio)
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.5 Sensitivity analysis

Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

226
3. How do you find the relationship between the contents of this intensive training
program and your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?
Somewhat Very
Very weak Somewhat Neither strong strong
weak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. How do you think of the coverage of the topics introduced during the intensive
training program? The topics are too broad or too narrow?
Too Somewhat About Somewhat Too
narrow narrow right broad broad
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Methodologies introduced during the intensive training program will help you
prepare the project in your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Handouts and exercises provided during the intensive training program will help you
transfer what you learned after you go back to your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Lecture/presentation of the instructor was concise and clear.

Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. The instructor organized the sessions by integrating the lecture/presentation with

discussions, Q & A, handouts, and exercises.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Teaching assistants from Forestry Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) was
helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Sharing of experiences among PST members from other participating provinces
(PPs) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

227
11. How do you think of the amount or volume of the contents or works during the
four-day intensive training program?
Too little Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
little volumino much
1 2 3 4 5 us 6 7

12. How do you think of the duration of the four-day intensive training program?
Too short Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
short long long
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Overall rating of the four-day long intensive training program on a scale from Poor
(0) to Excellent (100).
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

14. Comments and suggestions about the intensive training program of WU 3 (such as
strength and weakness of the program, accommodation and facilities, etc.)

Thank you for your cooperation.

228
Annex 3: Summary of responses from respondents on December 1, 2006
Code:
Province (Please circle your province or your institution):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI Thai
Nguyen

Name:
You have completed your intensive training program of Work Unit Three (WU 3) in
Thai Nguyen Province. Please answer the following questions relevant to this intensive
training program held from November 28 to December 1, 2006. (Please circle the
appropriate number).
4. Is the present level of your knowledge and skills about the financial and economic
analyses high or low compared with the level of the knowledge and skills you had
before you participated in this intensive training program of WU 3?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q 1 Level of Knowledge and Skill
10 No. of responses: 23
Average: 6.2
No of respondents

6 Median: 6
4 SD: 0.8
2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How much of the knowledge and skills transferred through this intensive training
program have you acquired? Please provide your evaluation in the following areas on a
scale of 0 being nothing acquired to 100 being fully acquired.
2.1 Difference between financial and economic analyses
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q 2.1 Financial vs Economic Analyses

10
No. of responses: 23
Average: 77.4
No of respondents

6 Median: 80
4 SD: 9.9
2

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

229
2.2 Incremental analysis (comparison of with-project case and without-project case)
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q 2.2 Incremental Analyses

No. of responses: 23
9
8 Average: 78.7
No of respondents

7
6 Median: 80
5
4
SD: 9.0
3
2
1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.3 Development of financial cash flow statement

Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q 2.3 Cash Flow Statement

No. of responses: 23
9 Average: 79.1
8
Median: 80
No of respondents

7
6
5
SD: 11.0
4
3
2
1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.4 Evaluation of financial results by applying investment criteria (such as NPV, IRR,
BC Ratio)
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q 2.4 Investment Criteria No. of responses: 23

9 Average: 81.3
8
Median: 80
No of respondents

7
6
5 SD: 10.8
4
3
2
1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

230
2.5 Sensitivity analysis
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Q 2.5 Sensitivity Analysis
9 No. of responses: 23
8
Average: 78.3
No of respondents

7
6 Median: 80
5
4 SD: 12.7
3
2
1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3. How do you find the relationship between the contents of this intensive training
program and your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?
Somewhat Very
Very weak Somewhat Neither strong strong
weak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 3 Relation with works

No. of responses: 23
10
Average: 6.0
8
No of respondents

Median: 6
6
SD: 1.0
4

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. How do you think of the coverage of the topics introduced during the intensive
training program? The topics are too broad or too narrow?
Too Somewhat About Somewhat Too
narrow narrow right broad broad
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 4 Coverage
No. of responses: 23
14
12
Average: 4.6
No of respondents

10 Median: 4
8
SD: 0.8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

231
5. Methodologies introduced during the intensive training program will help you
prepare the project in your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 5 Methodology
No. of responses: 23
16
14 Average: 6.4
No of respondents

12
Median: 6
10
8 SD: 0.5
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Handouts and exercises provided during the intensive training program will help you
transfer what you learned after you go back to your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 6 Handouts
No. of responses: 23
16
14 Average: 6.3
No of respondents

12
Median: 6
10
8 SD: 0.5
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Lecture/presentation of the instructor was concise and clear.

Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 7 Lecture/ Presentation
No. of responses: 23
18
16 Average: 6.7
No of respondents

14
12 Median: 7
10
8
SD: 0.4
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

232
8. The instructor organized the sessions by integrating the lecture/presentation with
discussions, Q & A, handouts, and exercises.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 8 Integration No. of responses: 23

14 Average: 6.5
12
Median: 7
No of respondents

10
8 SD: 0.5
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Teaching assistants from Forestry Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) was
helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 9 Assistant
14
12
No. of responses: 23
No of respondents

10
8 Average: 6.4
6
Median: 7
4
2
SD: 0.6
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Sharing of experiences among PST members from other participating provinces
(PPs) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 10 PPs No. of responses: 23

14 Average: 6.4
12
Median: 7
No of respondents

10
8 SD: 0.8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

233
11. How do you think of the amount or volume of the contents or works during the
four-day intensive training program?
Too little Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
little volumino much
1 2 3 4 5 us 6 7

Q 11 Work volume
No. of responses: 23
10
Average: 5.0
8
No of respondents

Median: 5
6
SD: 1.0
4

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. How do you think of the duration of the four-day intensive training program?
Too short Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
short long long
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 12 Duration No. of responses: 23

12
Average: 3.9
10
No of respondents

8
Median: 4
6 SD: 0.9
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Overall rating of the four-day long intensive training program on a scale from Poor
(0) to Excellent (100).
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q 13 Overall evaluation
No. of responses: 23
12
10
Average: 78.3
No of respondents

8 Median: 80
6 SD: 13.1
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

234
 M & E results of WU 2
Q 13: Overall Rating of Intensive Traing
Program No. of respondents: 29
14
12 Average: 69.7
Number of responses

10 Median: 70.0
8
6
SD: 11.4
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

14. Comments and suggestions about the intensive training program of WU 3 (such as
strength and weakness of the program, accommodation and facilities, etc.)

Thank you for your cooperation.

235
 Appendix 6

M & E Report of
Intensive Training Session of
Work Unit 4
and
Evaluation of WU 2 Assignment

236
 Appendix 6

Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Intensive Training Program of Work

Unit Four (WU 4) and Evaluation of WU 2 Assignments

1. Description of WU 4 and Monitoring & Evaluation

2. Attendance of the participants in the intensive training program of WU 4

3. Course curriculum of the intensive training program of WU 4

4. Structure of M & E of the training program

4.1 Assignments of WU 2
4.2 Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program of WU 4

5. Results of evaluation of the assignments and the questionnaire survey of WU 4

5.1 Responses of assignments and questionnaires of WU 4
5.2 Results of the assignments and the questionnaire survey
5.2.1 Results of the assignments
5.2.2 Results of the questionnaire survey
[Link] Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)
[Link] Evaluation of the intensive training program

6. Points to feedback based on the M & E

6.1 Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)
6.2 Intensive training program

Annex (Attachment) 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 4

Annex (Attachment) 2: Questionnaires used during the intensive training program of
WU 4
Annex (Attachment) 3: Summary of responses from respondents of Questionnaire 3 of
the intensive training program of WU 4

237
1. Description of WU 4 and Monitoring & Evaluation
The JICA study team (JST) and the local sub-contractor (FIPI) conducted the intensive training
program of Work Unit Four (WU 4) with the participation of about 30 participants from the
Provincial Study Team (PST) of Participating Provinces (PPs), the Core Province (CoP), and
the local sub-contractor. The intensive training program of WU 4 was held in Thai Nguyen
province for a period of eight days from December 2 to December 9, 2006 including one day
holiday. It was organized right after the completion of the intensive training program of WU 3.
The intensive training program is the first step (Step 1) of Work Unit, which is followed by
Step 2 (application of what have been learned to preparation of F/S and IP in the participating
provinces through the On-the-Job Training) and Step 3 (submission of the outputs
(assignments) of the OJT to be monitored and evaluated). This draft monitoring and evaluation
(M & E) report has been prepared to report the monitoring results of Step 1 (intensive training)
of WU 4 and Step 3 of WU 2.13

The objective of WU 4 is to provide participants with the proposed structure of the feasibility
study report, and ask them to prepare their findings, the project plan, and the results of the
analysis in accordance with the proposed F/S structure. In the process, the Project Design
Matrix (PDM) is to be elaborated. In general, the intensive training of WU 4 takes the
following three steps and these steps are repeated over the entire period of the program.

Figure 1: Steps taken for WU 4

Step 1:
Explanation on methods of
exercises and presentation by
instructor in accordance with
the proposed F/S structure

Step 2:
Analysis and preparation
of presentation materials
by participants

Step 3:
Presentation of the analysis
with data and information in
accordance with the proposed
F/S structure

13
Step 3 (assignments) of WU 3 was provided during the intensive training program of WU 3 as part of the
practical exercises. There is no separate assignment given after WU 3.

238
At the initial step (Step 1), the instructor explained the relevant part of the F/S structure.
At the following Step 2, participants are requested to prepare the actual data and
information they have collected in accordance with the proposed F/S structure, and
analyze them. At Step 3, representatives from each participating province make their
presentation with the results of the analysis. This cycle is repeated over five times: (1)
the arrangements of the WU assignments in the F/S structure; (2) Part I: Background of
the project; (3) Part II: Project contents; (4) Part III: Project effectiveness and Part IV:
Conclusion and recommendations; and (5) Overall presentation of the report.

The original schedule of the intensive training program is shown as in Table 1 below with
the time allocation of each of the subject (details are shown in Attachment 1: Schedule of the
intensive training program of WU 4).

Table 1: Planned schedule of the intensive training program of WU 4 in Thai Nguyen Province
Day Subject Time allocation (day)

1 Structure of the feasibility reports 0.5

2 WU 4-1 Assignment: arrangement of WU 1-3 0.5
assignments in accordance with the F/S structure
3 Lecture on Part I: Basis for project formulation 0.5
4 WU 4-2 Assignment: Natural conditions 0.5
5 WU 4-3 Assignment: Socio-economic conditions 0.5
6 Lecture on Part II: Project contents 0.5
7 WU 4-4: Planning. Logging and marketing of production 1.0
WU 4-5: Other project activities
8 Lecture on Part III: environmental impact, economic and 0.5
financial analysis. Social impact and risk
Lecture on Part IV: Conclusions and recommendations
9 WU 4-6 Assignment: economic efficiency, etc. 0.5
10 WU 4-7: Assignment: Summing up FS report 2.0
Presentation and comments
Total per group 7.0
Note: After the completion of each assignment, PST members were asked to present their results in front of PST
members from other provinces.

The local sub-contractor led the entire workshop under the supervision of the JST.

2. Attendance of the participants in the intensive training program of WU 4

A total of thirty-one (31) participants attended the intensive training from four PPs and CoP,

239
and the local sub-contractor. From Thai Nguyen province, four PST members participated in
the intensive training program as trainees. The number of participants from PPs and the
sub-contractor is shown as in the following table.

Table 2: Number of Participants in WUs as Trainees Unit: Persons

Province Son La Quang Lam Long PST Sub- Sub- Total
Nam Dong An Total (1) FIPI (2) (1) + (2)
Total no of participants 17 9 15 10 51 7 58
note 1)
in IWS , intensive
training of WU 1 – 4
No of Participants in 6 3 7 5 21 6 27
intensive training
note 2)
program of WU 4
Out of which, those 1 2 0 2 5 5 10
who participated in
IWS and WU1-4
Note:
1) IWS: Introduction Workshop
2) If participants from Thai Nguyen province are included, participants in WU 4 totaled 31.

As seen in Table 2 above, a total of 58 participants participated in the introduction workshop,

intensive training programs of WU 1 - 4 from PPs and the local sub-contractor. Out of which,
five (5) PST members and five (5) consultants from the local sub-contractor continued to
participate in the program from the introduction workshop up to the intensive training program
of WU4. While Quang Nam and Long An more or less fixed a small number of PST members
to attend the intensive training program and occasionally added some more members to the
team while Son La and Lam Dong sent various members to different intensive training
programs from a pool of the PST members.

3. Course curriculum of the intensive training program of WU 4

Most of the course works was carried out as originally scheduled except the work on the last
day, which was shortened by half day as requested from participants.

4. Structure of M & E of the training program

The monitoring and evaluation of the training program has been conducted in the form of the
assignments and the questionnaire survey. It is intended to examine how the capacity building
has been progressed and how the program has met the needs of the target beneficiaries.

4.1 Assignments of WU 2
A set of assignments of WU 2 was provided to PSTs from each of the participating provinces
during the intensive training program in Quang Nam province (October 3 to 9, 2006). PSTs of

240
PPs were requested to submit all the assignments by November 20, 2006.

It is consisted of twelve (12) assignments which are relevant to the project plan, the main
subject of WU 2. The following table (Table 3) shows the assignments in relation to the table
of contents of the F/S report.

Table 3: Assignments for preparing Feasibility Study (Work Unit 2)

Assignment
F/S report Code
No Content
Part I: Background of the Project
3 Natural and socio-economic 4-a
conditions of the project area
3.2 Land and forest-resource use 4-a-ii
in the project area 4-a-iii WU2-1 B: 2) Printed afforestation/agroforestry project maps
(preferable scale is 1:25,000 or larger) after compiling on
the planned elements above
3.3 Socio-economic conditions 4-b-i
of the project area, including 4-b-ii WU2-2 B: 4) Report on Socio-economic condition (this part will
market and distribution channels be incorporated into F/S report.) with tables/graphs,
of forest products explanatory description, results of CCM and results of
household socio-economic survey which contain
questionnaires with code, raw data input, code table, coded
data input.
Part II: Project Plan
3 Project scope and project 3&5
area
3.2 Project implementation plan 5-b
Seedling plan 5-b-i WU2-3 A: 1) A note on estimated quantity of seedling.
Afforestation 5-b-ii WU2-4 A: 5) A note on afforestation/Agroforestry plan developed
plan/Agroforestry with “Project plan, project operation plan” of the draft F/S.
Harvesting plan 5-b-iii WU2-5 A: 3) A note on harvesting plan developed with “Project
plan, project operation plan” of the Draft F/S.
3.3 Infrastructure 5-b-iv
3.4 Extension services 5-b-v WU2-6 B: 3) A note to describe the methodology of the extension
service.
3.5 Sale and marketing plan 5-d-ii WU2-7 B: 3) Make a fair comparison of Total Cost and Expected
Sales Price
4 Project Implementation 5-b
schedule
Part III: Investment for the Project
1 Project cost 5-d-i WU2-8.1 A: 2) Expenditure plan (1 ha model) using the actual data
2 Financial and repayment WU2-8.2 D: 1) Loan repayment schedule based on the interview
plan results with a financial institution
Part IV: Institutional arrangements and measurements for the project implementation
1 Institutional and 5-c
implementation arrangement
1.1 Organizational structure for 5-c-i WU2-9 A: 4) A note and structural chart of the Project
project implementation implementation structure.
5-c-ii WU2-10 B: 5) A report to propose the system and structure of
organization of the people.

241
 Assignment
F/S report Code
No Content
1.2 Labor mobilization plan 5-c-iii WU2-11 A: 2) A report on the estimated monthly and yearly labor
requirements.
2 Monitoring and evaluation of 5-e WU2-12 A: 1) Completed “PDM” and “Monitoring System Table”
the project result to show the monitoring indicators to monitor the
2.1 PDM and M&E indicators progress/achievement of the activities, outputs, project
objective and higher-level objectives (overall goal), to
2.2 Mechanism of M & E explain the M&E scheme/methodology including the
sources of data, timing, frequency and place from which
data is to be collected, organizations/persons that provide
the data, methods by which the data is to be obtained.
Note: The table of contents of the F/S report is the one before revision was made.

The M & E was conducted by rating each of the assignments.

4.2 Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program of WU4

During the intensive training program of WU 4 in Thai Nguyen province, a total of three (3) M
& E questionnaires were distributed to the participants at the beginning, in the middle and at
the end of the program. The first questionnaire (Questionnaire 1) distributed at the end of the
first day is to ask participants to describe the role they are expected to play in preparation
of the feasibility study report and also to describe specific questions and concerns that
they would like to clarify and solve in conducting the feasibility study. The
questionnaire also asks participant’s involvement in preparing WU 1 and 2
assignments. The second questionnaire (Questionnaire 2) distributed at the end of the fourth
day was to ask them to self-evaluate the progress of the capacity improvement and to give
comments and suggestions on the rest of the on-going intensive training program. The last
questionnaire (Questionnaire 3) was distributed on the final day in order: to monitor
reactions of each participant to the intensive training program by measuring the level of their
satisfaction in attending the program, which would affect the future sustainability of the
training program; to monitor the effectiveness of the instruction by the local sub-contractor as
Trainers of Trainees (TOT); and to grasp the self-claimed level of understanding of the training
subjects.

The following table (Table 4) shows different perspectives of each questionnaire, from which
the M & E was designed. Participants were requested to identify themselves in responding to
the first and last questionnaires.

242
Table 4: Timing and Perspectives of M & E (Questionnaires 1 to 3)
Q Timing of Analytical perspectives of M & E
Distribution
1 End of 1st day Questionnaire 1: it aims to learn roles of participants in the preparation
(Dec 2) of the F/S report and their past involvement, and clarify any questions
and concerns.
- Role participants are expected to play in preparation of the
F/S report
- Specific questions and concerns that participants would like
to clarify and solve in conducting the feasibility study
- Involvement in the preparation of previous assignments
2 End of 4th day Questionnaire 2: it aims to do the mid-term evaluation of the intensive
(Dec 6) training program and make necessary adjustments, if any.
- Extent of gaining analytical skills and knowledge to write
Part I
- Level of skills and knowledge to write Part II
- Any inappropriateness in the F/S structure
- Overall rating of the intensive training program
3 Middle of 7th Questionnaire 3: it aims to evaluate the progress of capacity building,
day level of satisfaction, and effectiveness of the program
(Dec 9) - Overall assessment of WU 4 intensive training program
Questionnaire forms of 1, 2 and 3 have been attached in Attachment 2.

5. Results of evaluation of WU 2 assignments and the questionnaire survey of WU 4

5.1 Responses of WU 2 assignments and questionnaires of WU 4
(1) WU 2 assignments
The submission date of the WU 2 assignments was set on November 20, 2006. Assignments
from the four participating provinces were submitted around this deadline with some delays
being caused by the communication problems.

(2) Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program of WU 4

The following table shows the number of responses with the rate of responses to the
questionnaire from Questionnaire 1 (Q1) to Questionnaire 3 (Q3).

Table 5: Number of responses with rate of responses

Q1 (Dec 2) Q 2 (Dec 6) Q 3 (Dec 9)
Date
a b % a b % a b %

Total 25 26 96.2 30 30 100.0 25 25 100.0

Note 1: a: Actual number of respondents: b Number of participants: %: a/b x 100

Note 2: The number of respondents on December 2, 2006 is limited to PST members of PPs and participants from
the local sub-contractor, excluding participants from CoP.

Most of the participants cooperated with the M & E activities in answering the questionnaires.

243
5.2 Results of the assignments and the questionnaire survey
5.2.1 Results of the assignments
The assignment of WU 2 was evaluated by the JST and the feedback of the evaluation results
was given after WU 4. The following table compares the scores for each of the assignments by
province.

Table 6: Evaluation results of WU 2 assignments

No. Assignment Son La Quang Lam Long Avg Sum of
Nam Dong An Deviation
score
WU2-1 Printed afforestation/agroforestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00
project maps -7.85
WU2-2 Report on socio-economic condition 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.55 0.83
WU2-3 Note on estimated quantity of seedling 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.78 3.84
WU2-4 Note on afforestation/agroforestry plan 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.63 1.62
WU2-5 Note on harvesting plan 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.68 2.39
WU2-6 Note to describe the methodology of the 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.48
extension service -0.70
WU2-7 Comparison of total cost and expected 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.53
sales price 0.43
WU2-8 Expenditure plan and loan repayment schedule 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.85 0.76 3.94
WU2-9 Note and chart of the project 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.50
implementation structure -0.26
WU2-10 Report to propose the system and structure 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.15
of organization of the people -5.49
WU2-11 Report on estimated monthly and yearly labor 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.53
requirements 0.48
WU2-12 PDM and M & E mechanism 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.58 0.77
Average Score WU 2 Assignments out of 1.0 0.34 0.59 0.62 0.50 0.52
Average Score of WU 1 Assignments 0.13 0.47 0.34 0.15 0.27
Note: WU2-1 assignment was not submitted by the time when evaluation was made but
submitted later.

As seen in the table, PST members from all the four PPs achieved substantial improvement for
the quality of WU 2 assignments over the previous one (WU 1 assignments). This is
particularly the case to Long An. A number of reasons can explain this improvement. One of
the reasons is that clear instruction was given to the participants during the intensive training
program of WU 2 in preparation of assignments. Another reason is resulted from the
improvement of the capacity of PST and the local sub-contractor. The fact that the budget for
the survey became available is another reason to mention.

Some of the assignments were rated at zero because PSTs did not submit them by the time
when the evaluation was made. Among those submitted, assignments for which PST marked
higher scores are related to the implementation plan of afforestation/agroforestry projects such

244
as estimated quantity of seedling (WU2-3), afforestation/agroforestry plan (WU2-4),
harvesting plan (WU2-5), and expenditure plan and loan repayment schedule (WU2-8). On the
other hand, assignments rated relatively low (the average score is equal to or lower than the
average of the total assignments, which is 0.52) are on the structure of organization of the
people (WU2-10),14 the methodology of the extension service and system (WU2-6), and the
project implementation structure (WU2-9). Those assignments are related to planning for the
project implementation and institutional arrangements. The number of reasons can be pointed
out. Firstly, from the answer to Questionnaire 1,15 it is assumed that a less number of PST
members was involved in the preparation of these assignments. The following table (Table 7)
is prepared based on the answers to Questionnaire 1 (Q1.3). If a respondent answers that the
assignment is the major assignment he/she prepared for, one point is given. If a respondent
answers that his or her involvement in preparation of the assignment is an assistant work, half
point is given. It is also assumed that most of the PST members who were involved in the
preparation of the assignments attended the intensive training program of WU 4.

Table 7: Number of WU 4 participants involved in preparation of WU 2 assignments

Unit: Points
SL QN QN+SF LD LD+SF LA Total of 4 provinces and SF Avg per person

WU2-1 1.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.5 1.0 9.0 0.36

WU2-2 0.5 0.5 1.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 8.0 0.32
WU2-3 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 4.5 1.5 11.0 0.44
WU2-4 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 4.5 1.0 10.5 0.42
WU2-5 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 1.0 9.5 0.38
WU2-6 1.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 6.0 0.24
WU2-7 0.5 0.0 1.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 7.0 0.28
WU2-8-1 2.5 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.5 2.0 10.0 0.40
WU2-8-2 0.5 0.0 1.5 2.5 3.5 2.0 7.5 0.30
WU2-9 1.5 1.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 9.0 0.36
WU2-10: 0.5 0.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 0.0 5.0 0.20
WU2-11: 0.5 0.5 1.0 3.0 4.0 1.5 7.0 0.28
WU2-12: 2.0 1.0 2.5 4.5 5.5 1.5 11.5 0.46

Total 19.0 9.0 23.5 40.0 52.5 16.0 111 4.44

Note:
1) If a respondent answers that the assignment is the major assignment he/she prepared for, one point is given.

14
Two provinces did not submit this assignment.
15
Responses to Question 3 of Questionnaire 1 may not necessarily represent the extent of the efforts placed by PST
of the participating provinces in their preparation of assignments. However, the responses imply the comparative
weights distributed among different assignments.

245
If a respondent answers that his or her involvement in preparation of the assignment is an assistant work, half point
is given. If a respondent answers that he or she was not involved in the preparation, no point is given.
2) In case of Quang Nam and Lam Dong, PST members received supports from the local sub-contractor. For these
two provinces, two cases are shown: one is points of only PST members from the province and the other is total
points of PST members and Sub-FIPI (SF).

As seen in the above table, less number of PST members are involved in preparing WU2-6 and
WU2-10. In addition, in some provinces, it is not sure who is playing a major role in preparing
these assignments among PST members.

Secondly, even after the intensive training of WU 2, PSTs may not be so much familiar with
the institutional arrangements which require the description of roles and responsibilities of the
proposed implementing agency and coordination among different agencies in consideration of
achieving the project objective. Thirdly, PSTs may not have come up with types of supporting
services and incentive mechanisms for participating farmers with cost estimations, which are
required for successful implementation of afforestation projects if farmers are to be mobilized.
The Project Design Matrix (PDM) and the process of preparing PDM will be the effective tool
to identify problems, find counter-measures to the problems, and design the project plan,
accordingly. Although the average score relevant to PDM (WU2-12) is 0.58, higher than the
average of the total scores, it would be important to review once again the PDM, the problem
and objectives analyses and then find out: what is the problem that the proposed project plans
to address; who is the target group; what is the causes of the problems; and then, what are the
possible counter-measures to solve the problems, which lead to the achievement of the project
objective. Fourthly, some of the assignments, WU2-10 for example, are still not clear to PSTs.

5.2.2 Results of the questionnaire survey

This section reports the results of the questionnaire survey in terms of the level of
understanding of the participants (capacity building) (Section [Link]) and the level of
satisfaction of the participants in attending the workshop and effectiveness of the instruction by
the local sub-contractor as TOT (Section [Link]).

[Link] Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)

(1) Questionnaire 1
The first M & E questionnaire was distributed at the end of the first day of the intensive
training program. As for the role that participants are expected to play in preparation of
the F/S report, most of the participants identified their role in the preparation of the
feasibility study report before attending WU 4 although some of them responded
vaguely. For example, some answered that they are supposed to do what the leader will
assign to them while others replied that they will work with others. As for the specific

246
questions and concerns that participants would like to clarify and solve in conducting
the feasibility study, the following table (Table 8) summarizes their responses:

Table 8: Specific questions and concerns that participants would like to clarify and solve
Area Questions (Q1.2)
Financial/E 1) Financial analysis shows that the project is profitable however,
conomic economic analysis indicates that the project will get loss. What is
analysis the level of loss (percentage) will the project be feasible/
infeasible?
2) Fin & Eco analysis
3) How to identify shadow price, land price and other items for the
shake of economic analysis of the project?
4) How to identify the value of environment, land and the value of
declining natural calamity thanks to forest plantation.
5) Is this a must to do economic analysis for afforestation project? If
yes, how and where can we obtain the conversion factor?
Loan 1) How to formulate an appropriate credit scheme for participating
farmers into the forest plantation project?
2) Setting up an appropriate loan program
3) It is very difficult to get loan from financial institutions as the
forest plantation project cycles last quite long (8 years) --> How to
get credit from a bank?
4) Analysis of repayment plan.
Market 1) Market research and market accession is very difficult as the
project is to be implemented at the communal level.
2) The prices of target products may be lower at when forest comes
to harvest period, what should we do?
Cost 2) Lam Dong forest is in high risk of being fire in the dry season so is
estimate there any good way to prepare physical contingency for this risk?
FS 1) Project background plays a very important role in a F/S report
Structure however, national context and provincial context function as a overall
direction for the proposed project so it should not be too long and
account for too large proportion of the report.
2) Item 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 of the F/S structure sometimes be the same.
3) F/S structure and sub items in the F/S
4) How to write contents included in the F/S
5) The proposed F/S report model seems too long and some parts of
the report is repeated and the national context may not necessary to
refer in the local level project. Is it possible to omit or in-cooperate
such parts?
PDM 1) The PDM of Long An has not been fully completed though lots of
discussion and revision has been made. PMU and JST please help us
to work this problem out so that we could start writing the report.
2) We do hope to have the PDM completed to start writing the F/S
report.

247
Area Questions (Q1.2)
Farmers Currently very few investors wish to invest into production forest. The
farmers themselves want to but can not afford to invest into the
production forest plantation. What can be done to work this out?
Others Is it necessary to divide forest plantation area by year according to the
operation cycle or not?

As seen in the above table, a lot of questions and concerns are related to economic and
financial analyses. Other than economic and financial analyses, questions were also raised for
the F/S structure, market issues, PDM and so on. These points have been noted during the
intensive training program, and explanation and additional handouts were provided to major
issues. For instance, a technical note was prepared to explain the conversion from financial to
economic prices. Review sessions were offered after the day’s course work to explain areas to
improve in the PDM. Revised counter-versions of PDM were presented to PSTs who had
submitted their revised PDM. However, it is deemed necessary to extend further supports to
PST members so that they can clarify these questions through the on-the-job training programs
in their respective provinces during Step 3 of WU 4.

As for the open-ended question about any suggestions and comments, several respondents refer
to the necessity of balancing contents of the F/S report by reflecting the size of the project, etc.

(2) Questionnaire 2
The second M & E questionnaire (Questionnaire 2) was distributed at the end of the fourth day
of the program. In accordance with the course curriculum, the first two questions of
Questionnaire 2 asks the participants to rate their level of skills and knowledge to write Part I
and Part II of the feasibility report on a scale from Low Level (1) (Need assistance from
someone else in order to carry out required tasks) to High Level (7) (Very good understanding
so as to teach required tasks to others) with Medium Level being (4) (Good understanding so
as to carry out required tasks without assistance of others). Part I of the F/S report covers the
background (Q2.1) while Part II does the project contents (Q2.2). By the end of the fourth day,
participants prepared assignments relating to these two parts of the F/S report. The
questionnaires were filled out anonymously. The following are the responses of the
questions together with their overall rating of WU 4 (Q2.4) as of December 6, 2006.

248
Table 9: Results questionnaire survey (Q2)

Q2.1 Part 1 Background Q2.2 Part II Project Contents

12 12
10 10
8 8

6 6
4
4
2
2
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q2.4 Overall Evaluation as of Dec 6, 2006 Q2.1 Q2.2 Q2.4

Statistics
14
12 Average 4.9 4.9 69.0
10
Median 5 5 70
8
6 SD 1.0 0.9 11.4
4
2
Max 7 7 90
0 Min 3 3 50
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Correlation coefficient
Q2.1 1.00 0.88 0.76
Q2.2 1.00 0.80
Q2.4 1.00

As for the self-evaluation of skills and knowledge level to write relevant part of the F/S report,
the average and median of the ratings by respondents are about 5 with the standard deviation of
1.0. The minimum rating is 3. In terms of the overall evaluation of WU 4 as of the fourth day
of the program, the average and median ratings are about 70 with the standard deviation of 11.
From the correlation coefficient among Q2.1, Q2.2 and Q2.4, respondents who rated low for
Q2.1 tend to rate low as well for Q2.2 and respondents who rated low for Q2.1 and Q2.2 tend
to rate low for Q2.4. For the open-ended question (Q2.5) about comments and suggestions for
the rest of WU 4, a number of respondents commented that they had been overloaded or they
had been under the time pressure.

As for the question about appropriateness of the F/S structure (Q2.3), a number of comments
are related to the streamlining issues of the report such as overlapped parts of the report,
irrelevant parts to their proposed project, etc.

(3) Self evaluation of respondents

On the last day of the intensive training program (December 9, 2006), participants were asked

249
to evaluate if the present level of their knowledge and skills high or low compared with
the level of the knowledge and skills they had before on a scale from 1 (lower) to 7
(higher) with 4 being “About the same” (Q3.1). Twenty-five (25) participants
responded to the questionnaire. The average rating of the respondent was 5.9 with a
standard deviation of 0.6. The rating ranges from 5.0 to 7.0.

Table 10: Self-evaluation of knowledge and skill level (Q3.1)

Q3.1 Skills and Knowledge Level

16
14 No. of Respondents: 25
No. of Responses

12 Average: 5.9
10 Median: 6.0
8 SD: 0.6
6 Max: 7.0
4 Min: 5.0
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

The self-evaluation of the participants tells their favorable response to evaluate their
progress in their capacity building.

Participants were further asked to examine how much of the knowledge and skills
transferred through this intensive training program they have acquired on a scale of 0
being nothing acquired to 100 being fully acquired (Q3.2.1).

Table 11: Self-claimed level of knowledge and skilled acquired (Q3.2.1)

Q3.2.1 Degree of Skills and Knowledge acquired
20
18
16
No. of Respondents: 25
No. of Responses

14
12 Average: 78.8
10 Median: 80
8 SD: 7.1
6 Max: 90
4 Min: 60
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

In accordance with the self-evaluation of the participants, participants considered that

about 80 percent of what had been transferred to them had been acquired. As the
self-evaluation ranges from 60 to 100, the variability among the participants, although

250
it is not big, and those who rated their level with lower scores should be noted.

In relation to the knowledge and skills, participants were asked to describe the main
part of the F/S structure introduced during the intensive training program. The
following show the results of the responses.
Table 12: Description of F/S structure (Question 3.2.2)

Q3.2.2 Description of F/S Structure

14
12 No. of Respondents: 25
Average: 88.9
No. of Responses

10
Median: 93
8
SD: 10.2
6
Max: 100
4 Min: 59.5
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

The average score of the respondents was 89 with a standard deviation of 10. The
rating ranges from 60 to 100. Respondents seem to gain a good knowledge about the
proposed F/S structure.

Participants were asked to describe the important criteria for evaluating the PDM
(Logical framework) as they were an evaluator of the project proposal. A minimum
score of 70 was given as far as they refer to different elements of the PDM, imply the
relation between the problem and the objective described in the PDM, or importance of
setting an achievable objective. The average score of the respondents was 78 with a
standard deviation of 11. The rating ranges from 70 to 100. Based on the answers, it is
found that not many respondents are able to point out the vertical logical relationship
among different elements in the PDM such as activities, outputs, objective, and overall
goal.
Table 13: Criteria of evaluating PDM (Question 3.2.3)
Q3.2.3 Project Design M atrix No. of Respondents: 25
14
Average: 78.8
12 Median: 75
No. of Responses

10 SD: 10.6
8 Max: 100
6 Min: 70
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

251
[Link] Evaluation of the intensive training program of WU 4
(1) Level of satisfaction of the participants in attending the workshop and the effectiveness of
the instruction by the local sub-contractor as TOT
On the final day of the intensive training program of WU 4, participants were requested to
evaluate the intensive training program in a number of aspects: (Q3.3) relation between the
contents of the training program and their current works; (Q3.4) practical aspect of the F/S
structure introduced during the program; (Q3.5) helpfulness of the methodologies adopted
during the program; (Q3.6) helpfulness of handouts and exercises for technology transfer;
(Q3.7) conciseness and clearness of lecture and presentation of instructors; (Q3.8) integration
of lecture and presentation with discussions and materials in training sessions; (Q3.9)
helpfulness of assistants from the local sub-contractor; (Q3.10) helpfulness of
experience-sharing with PST from other PPs; (Q3.11) amount or volume of the contents or
works during the intensive training program; (Q3.12) duration of the training program. For
Q3.3, participants are asked to rate the training on a scale from 1 (Very weak) to 7 (Very
strong) with 4 being (Neither). As for Q3.4, participants are asked to rate the program on a
scale from 1 (Not practical) to 7 (Very practical) with 4 being (somewhat practical). From Q3.5
to Q3.10, participants are requested to rate it on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7
(Strongly agree) with 4 being (Neither). For Q3.11, participants are asked to rate it on a scale
from 1 (Too little) to 7 (Too much) with 4 being (Average). For Q3.12, participants are asked
to rate it on a scale from 1 (Too short) to 7 (Too long) with 4 being (Average). Questions3.7
and 3.8 have been specifically prepared based on the M & E results of the introduction
workshop. From the comments and suggestions from respondents during the introduction
workshop, the concise presentation and integration of the presentation with other tools such as
discussions and reports were identified as the two of the major areas for improvement on the
side of the workshop organizers. The following Table 14 compares the average of each of the
questions with standard deviations and minimum scores, with the averages of the
corresponding questions of the previous WUs.

252
Table 14: Ratings of respondents about the intensive training of WU 4
No Aspects Rating scale WU4 SD Min WU3 WU2 WU1

from 1 to 7 Avg Avg Avg Avg

Q3.3 Relation between the 1 (Very weak) 5.9 0.8 4.0 6.2 6.0 5.7
contents of the training to 7 (Very
and their current works strong)
Q3.4 Practical aspect of the F/S 1 (Not practical) to 5.7 0.9 4.0
structure 7 (Very practical)

Q3.5 Helpfulness of 1 (Strongly 6.0 0.8 4.0 6.4 6.1 6.3

methodologies for the disagree) to
preparation of the project 7 (Strongly
Q3.6 Helpfulness of handouts agree) 6.1 0.6 5.0 6.3 6.1 6.1
and exercises for
technology transfer
Q3.7 Conciseness and clearness 6.0 0.7 4.0 6.7 5.7 5.7
of presentation of
instructors
Q3.8 Integration of presentation 6.2 0.6 5.0 6.5 6.0 6.0
with discussions and
materials in training
sessions
Q3.9 Helpfulness of assistants 5.8 0.9 4.0 6.4
from FIPI
Q3.10 Helpfulness of experience 6.5 0.6 5.0 6.4 6.0 6.3
sharing with PST from
other PPs
Q3.11 Volume of the works 1 (Too little) to 7 6.2 1.1 3.0 5.0 6.0
(Too much)
Q3.12 Duration of the program 1 (Too short) to 7 5.8 1.2 3.0 3.9 4.1 3.5
(Too long)
Note:
1) The total number of respondents was 25.
2) The phrasing of questions used for the previous questionnaires of WU 1-3 was not exactly same as that used for
WU 4 questionnaire but can be comparable to corresponding questions. In addition, the rating scale of WU 1 was
adjusted to 1-7 scale from 1-5 scale in order to compare with the results of the survey during WUs 2-4.

As seen in the above table, the average ratings for Q3 to Q10 center around 6.0. The ratings in
these aspects show favorable responses of the respondents to the intensive training program of
WU 4. Comparison with the results of WU 1 and 2 indicates some marginal improvement of

253
 WU 4 over WU 1 and WU 2 but lower scores if compared with WU 3 in which an instructor
was invited from Vietnam Forestry University. As seen from the table, many respondents
strongly agree that the experience-sharing with PST members from other PPs (Q3.10) is
helpful. This may be because of the ways in which the training program is organized. The
training program was carried out through repeating a cycle of the lecture, exercises of
assignments, and presentation of the results in front of PSTs from other PPs. Respondents also
gave higher ratings for integration of presentation with discussions and materials in training
sessions (Q3.8). In terms of the volume of works in the intensive training program in WU 4
(Q3.11), many of the respondents answered with “Too much (7).” As for the duration, although
many responded with “Too long (7),” some answered with “Average (4)” or “Somewhat short
(3).” For those who attend their daily works in their home offices especially at the end of the
fiscal year, being away for a period of eight days or twelve days if they attended both WU 3
and 4, seems to be too long. On the other hand, for those who have to digest all the contents in
a limited period of time, the duration seems to be somewhat short.

In question Q3.13, participants were asked to provide their overall ratings of the workshop on a
scale from 0 to 100. The following Table 15 shows the overall ratings given by the respondents.
It is compared with the ratings given by the participants in the past intensive training programs
(WU 1-3) (table on the right).

Table 15: Overall ratings (Q3.13) given by respondents about the intensive training
program of WU 4 (Left)and comparison with those of WU 1 - 3 (Right)
Q3.13 Oveall Evaluation
Statistics WU WU WU WU
10
9 4 3 2 1
8
No. of 25 23 29 25
No. of Responses

7
6 Respondents
5
4 Average 74.4 78.3 69.7 72.4
3
2 Median 80 80 70 70
1
0
SD 10.6 13.1 11.4 8.6
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating
Max 90 100 90 80
Min 50 50 50 50

The average of the overall ratings of WU 4 was 74, slightly higher than that of WU 1
(72) and WU 2 (69) but lower the result of WU 3. The median is 80 and the ratings
range from 50 to 90. It is considered that the intensive training program of WU 4
improved over those of WU 1 and 2.

254
The open-ended question (Q3.14) at the end of Questionnaire 3 revealed a number of
positive comments as well as areas for improvement in terms of time allocation,
contents and work loads of the workshop. The following table summarizes comments
received from respondents.

Table 16: Overall comments (Q3.14)

Area Comments
Area for improvement
Time allocation - Time allocation is too short to deal with such a huge work load
- Time should be given to study and review thoroughly the input information
(taught knowledge) before applying them into doing exercise. In order to get
better result of the assignments (reports) analysis should be conducted in the
province (not immediately after class hour)
- Time allocation for completing assignments (exercises) is too short that
participants had to work too hard (overtime).
Schedule - WU3 and WU4 happen continuously make participants tired.
- Period of the 2 training courses is too long!
- 2 training courses should not be incorporated into 1 time.
- Duration is quite short.
Work load - Training program is too overloaded for learners.
- The training course have been giving participants enough essential inputs to
prepare a F/S report, however, inputs are too many in a limited time.
- Time pressure and too much work load for learners
Contents - Some parts of the training contents are repeated during the class but not yet
research very deeply. In my opinion, contents should be arranged in a logic
order and each content should be dealt once only but carefully and effectively
to save time and reduce cost.
- Some exercises are overlapped
- More supplement information and broader analysis should be given.
Good points
Methodologies - The training course helps participants know how to apply theoretical inputs into
preparing a F/S report. Practice exercises provided during class time help us
know how to do exercise right after lecturing session.
- Two way interaction learning approach is very interesting and useful.
- Participants can carry out the financial and economic analysis by taking part
into the course.
- Completing a draft version of a F/S report and understand deeply a frame
structure of a project.
- Reference materials support well for the lectures (presentation of lecturers)
- Teaching approach of lecturing in combination with case study is very useful
Organization Organization of the class, good preparation of the handouts and reference
materials.
Lecture Very good lecturers from FIPI (local sub-contractor) and useful support from
Sub FIPI members.
Logistic - Logistics arrangement is good (learning facilities and accommodation)
arrangements

In terms of areas for improvement, the work load under the time pressure and duration
of the training program seem to be two of the most important aspects. It was learned
that participants found it difficult to attend the program especially because of the end

255
of the fiscal year. Another comment is about the repetition of the contents. Participants
would like to conduct an in-depth or broader analysis for specific topics without
repeating same. Good points for the program are practical approach by integrating
theoretical inputs with practical exercises. Good logistic arrangement is what many
participants pointed out.

6. Points to feedback based on the M & E

Based on the evaluation of the M & E of the intensive training program of WU 4 and
the WU 2 assignments, the following points are to feedback for improvement of the
training plan. Some of these points were already addressed during the intensive
training program.

6.1 Level of understanding (capacity building)

Based on the evaluation of WU 2 assignments, it is evaluated that the capacity building
of PST members in PPs has progressed.

Although the time allocated for the training is not sufficient, a good level of the
capacity building has been achieved during the intensive training program of WU 4.
This is based on the fact that the average scores of the question (Q3.2.2) about the F/S
structure in Questionnaire 3 was around 90 and the self-evaluation of participants
indicated that, on average, they had acquired about 80% of what had been transferred.

It is deemed important to put more efforts to improve PDM and the logic behind the
PDM so that the project objective is more clearly shared among stakeholders and more
concrete measures are designed to achieve the project objective.

As PST assigns different roles to each of the members, it would be more effective to
target at a limited number of PST members in charge of such specific fields when
transferring the knowledge and skills in particular areas.

6.2 Intensive training program of WU 4

(1) Answers to the questionnaires show some favorable responses to the intensive
training program of WU 4. This is partly because the training was organized through
repeating a cycle of lectures, exercises and presentations. After the presentation,
discussion was held among participants, lectures, and assistants. This can be
conceptualized as in the following figure (Figure 2).

256
Figure 2 Cycle of conceptualization/generalization, exercises, and presentations

Conceptualizati
on/Generalizati
on

Presentation Exercises

At every steps of this cycle, participants come to identify problems and solutions
relating to the subjects, which helped them further deepen their understandings.
Because this cycle is introduced during the relatively short training period and repeated
over five times, participants were able to promptly apply what they learned to the
practice. It is also pointed out that during the intensive training program of WU 4, the
experience-sharing among PST members is particularly enhanced.

However, there are some respondents who rated the training at a lower level. Reasons
seem to include overlapped contents, insufficient information for analysis, narrow
analysis, workload, duration, and timing of the program. Efforts will be required to
meet needs of these respondents.

(2) Because the period of the intensive training program is rather short compared with
the contents and volume of works and also PST members find it difficult to be away
for a longer period of time, it would be important to select important and indispensable
items for the technical transfer during the intensive training program, and make in-dept
analysis for such items during the period.

Based on the comments from respondents of WU 4 and past WUs, it needs to focus on
selected topics during the intensive training program by integrating theoretical issues
with exercises, and send a clear message toward the end of each work session. There
are a number of aspects that can be pointed out in this respect.
- Selection of focal points (avoid fragmentation of contents)
- Establishment of the logical relation between topics and contents
- More concrete and practical contents of handouts
- Clear and specific instruction
- More exercise to illustrate important points
- Deepen the issues through discussion

257
- Brief and conclude main issues discussed
- Relatively good time allocation for discussions and exercises.
- Consolidation of facilitation skills of lecturers and assistant lecturers for intensive
training programs.

(3) Implementation of the feasibility study

Aside from the intensive training program, the following points continue to be
important for the implementation of the feasibility study,
- Further attention should be paid to importance of coordination among PST members
and the role of the leader in the PST.
- The field survey needs to be flexible in consideration of the natural and
socio-economic conditions in the project area.
- Requirements of the study need to be clear and to obtain a consensus among related
stakeholders (such as DOF and JST) at the beginning of each study period. Study
requirements also need to reflect the local conditions.

Annex (Attachment) 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 4 (TIME

SCHEDULE (From 02-12 to 09-12 / 2006) in Thai Nguyen)

Annex (Attachment) 2: Questionnaires used during the intensive training program of

WU 4 (Questionnaire 3 on December 9, 2006)

Annex (Attachment) 3: Summary of responses from respondents of Questionnaire 3 of

the intensive training program of WU 4
Annex 3.1: Summary of responses
Annex 3.2: Response from respondents (Question 2.2)
Annex 3.3: Response from respondents (Question 2.3)
Annex 3.4: Response from respondents (Question 14)

258
 Annex 1 : TIME SCHEDULE (From 02-12 to 09-12 / 2006)
in Thai Nguyen
Day Training contents Key person Assistant
Summing up exercises practiced in 3
units: WU1, WU2, WU3
Concepts relating to the feasibility
project Giang,
Day 5 Main structure of the feasibility Khánh Việt, Trần
(Saturday project Hùng
02/12) Linking the practiced exercises to the
feasibility reports
WU4-1: Groups present exercises
practiced with the FS.
Day 6
(Sunday Holiday
03/12)
Presentation of Part I of the
Day 7 Giang,
Feasibility Report
(Monday Giang Việt, Trần
Trainees prepare and present WU4-2:
04/12) Hùng
Natural conditions of the PA
Trainees prepare and present WU4-3:
Day 8 Giang,
Socio-economic conditions of the PA Khánh
(Tuesday Việt, Trần
Presentation of Part II of the Bảy
05/12) Hùng
Feasibility Report
Trainees prepare and present WU4-4:
Day 9 Project activities as planting, logging Giang,
(Wednesday and marketing Khánh Việt, Trần
06/12) Trainees prepare and present WU4-5: Hùng
Other Project activities
Assessment of environmental impacts
in the PA Quỳnh
Day 10 Assessment of social impacts in the Quỳnh Giang,
(Thursday PA Việt, Trần
Bảy
07/12) Presentation of Part III and IV Hùng
Khánh
Trainees prepare and present WU4-6:
Project effectiveness.
Day 11 Groups prepare WU4-7: All contents Giang,
(Friday of the project Việt, Trần
08/12) Using POWER POINT for reporting Hùng
Groups present briefly the project
Day 12 contents Giang,
(Saturday Remark on WU3, WU4 Khánh Việt, Trần
09/12) Comments and review the training Hùng
course

259
Annex 2 : Summary of responses Code:
Province (Please circle your province or your institution):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI Thai Nguyen

Name:
You have completed your intensive training program of Work Unit Four (WU 4) in
Thai Nguyen Province. Please answer the following questions relevant to this intensive
training program of WU4 held from December 2 to December 9, 2006. (Please circle
the appropriate number).
5. Is the present level of your knowledge and writing skills of the feasibility report
high or low compared with the level you had before you participated in this
intensive training program of WU 4 on a scale from 1 (Lower) to 7 (Higher) with 4
being (About the same) ?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. 1 How much of the knowledge and skills for preparing the contents of the F/S
transferred through this intensive training program of WU 4 have you acquired? Please
provide your evaluation on a scale of 0 being nothing acquired to 100 being fully
acquired.
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2.2 Please describe the main part of the F/S structure introduced during the intensive
training program in the following table.

Part Part title Main contents

II

III

IV

260
2.3 What is the important criterion for evaluating the PDM (logical framework)?

3. How do you find the relationship between the contents of this intensive training
program and your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?
Somewhat Very
Very weak Somewhat Neither strong strong
weak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. After completing WU 4 assignments, how do you think of the proposed structure of

the F/S report introduced during the intensive training program? Is the structure
practical enough to describe the reason behind the implementation of your project, the
project content, and justification of the project?
Not Somewhat Very
practical practical practical
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Methodologies adopted during the intensive training program (first linking the
practiced exercises to the feasibility reports and then, describing the contents in
accordance with the proposed F/S structure) will help you prepare the project in your
province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Handouts and exercises provided during the intensive training program will help you
transfer to other colleagues in your province what you learned after you go back to
your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Lecture/presentation of the instructors was concise and clear.

Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. The instructors organized the sessions by integrating the lecture/presentation with

discussions, Q & A, handouts, and exercises.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

261
9. Assistants from Forestry Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Sharing of experiences among PST members from other participating provinces
(PPs) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. How do you think of the amount or volume of the contents or works during the
eight-day intensive training program?
Too little Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
little volumino much
1 2 3 4 5 us 6 7

12. How do you think of the duration of the eight-day intensive training program?
Too short Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
short long long
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Overall rating of the eight-day long intensive training program on a scale from 0
(Poor) to 100 (Excellent) with 50 being satisfactory.
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

14. Comments and suggestions about the intensive training program of WU 4 (such as
strength and weakness of the program, accommodation and facilities, etc.)

Thank you for your cooperation.

262
Annex 3.1 Response to the questionnaire
Questionnaire 3 on December 9, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province or your institution):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI Thai Nguyen

Name:
You have completed your intensive training program of Work Unit Four (WU 4) in
Thai Nguyen Province. Please answer the following questions relevant to this intensive
training program of WU4 held from December 2 to December 9, 2006. (Please circle
the appropriate number).
6. Is the present level of your knowledge and writing skills of the feasibility report
high or low compared with the level you had before you participated in this
intensive training program of WU 4 on a scale from 1 (Lower) to 7 (Higher) with 4
being (About the same) ?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.1 Skills and Knowledge Level No. of responses: 25

20
Average: 5.9
No. of Responses

15 Median: 6.0
10 SD: 0.6

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

2. 1 How much of the knowledge and skills for preparing the contents of the F/S
transferred through this intensive training program of WU 4 have you acquired? Please
provide your evaluation on a scale of 0 being nothing acquired to 100 being fully
acquired.
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q3.2.1 Degree of Skills and Knowledge acquired

20
No. of responses: 25
No. of Responses

15 Average: 78.8
Median: 80.0
10
SD: 7.1
5

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

263
2.2 Please describe the main part of the F/S structure introduced during the intensive
training program in the following table.
Q3.2.2 Description of F/S Structure
14 No. of responses: 25
12 Average: 88.9
No. of Responses

10
Median: 93.0
8
6 SD: 10.2
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

2.3 What is the important criterion for evaluating the PDM (logical framework)?

Q3.2.3 Project Design M atrix

14 No. of responses: 25
12
Average: 78.8
No. of Responses

10
8
Median: 75.0
6 SD: 10.6
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

3. How do you find the relationship between the contents of this intensive training
program and your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?
Somewhat Very
Very weak Somewhat Neither strong strong
weak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.3 Relation with Current Works

12

10
No. of responses: 25
No. of Responses

8
Average: 5.9
6 Median: 6.0
4 SD: 0.8
2

0
1 2 3 4
Rating 5 6 7

264
4. After completing WU 4 assignments, how do you think of the proposed structure of
the F/S report introduced during the intensive training program? Is the structure
practical enough to describe the reason behind the implementation of your project, the
project content, and justification of the project?
Not Somewhat Very
practical practical practical
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.4 Practical Aspect of FS Structure

10 No. of responses: 25
9
8 Average: 5.7
No. of Responses

7
6
Median: 6.0
5 SD: 0.9
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Rating 5 6 7

5. Methodologies adopted during the intensive training program (first linking the
practiced exercises to the feasibility reports and then, describing the contents in
accordance with the proposed F/S structure) will help you prepare the project in your
province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.5 Helpfulness of Methodologies

14 No. of responses: 25
12
Average: 6.0
No. of Responses

10
Median: 6.0
8
SD: 0.8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4
Rating 5 6 7

265
6. Handouts and exercises provided during the intensive training program will help you
transfer to other colleagues in your province what you learned after you go back to
your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.6 Helpfulness of Handouts and Exercises

18 No. of responses: 25
16
Average: 6.1
No. of Responses

14
12 Median: 6.0
10
8
SD: 0.6
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

7. Lecture/presentation of the instructors was concise and clear.

Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.7 Conciseness and Clearness

18 Presentation No. of responses: 25
16
Average: 6.0
No. of Responses

14
12 Median: 6.0
10
SD: 0.7
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

266
8. The instructors organized the sessions by integrating the lecture/presentation with
discussions, Q & A, handouts, and exercises.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q8 Integration of Lectures with Other Tools

16 No. of responses: 25
14
Average: 6.2
No. of Responses

12
10 Median: 6.0
8 SD: 0.6
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

9. Assistants from Forestry Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.9 Helpfulness of Assistants from FIPI No. of responses: 25

10
9 Average: 5.8
8
Median: 6.0
No. of Responses

7
6 SD: 0.9
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4
Rating 5 6 7

267
10. Sharing of experiences among PST members from other participating provinces
(PPs) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.10 Helpfulness of Experience Sharing

16 No. of responses: 25
14
Average: 6.5
12
No. of Responses

10 Median: 7.0
8 SD: 0.6
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4
Rating 5 6 7

11. How do you think of the amount or volume of the contents or works during the
eight-day intensive training program?
Too little Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
little volumino much
1 2 3 4 5 us 6 7

Q3.11 Volume of Works

16
14 No. of responses: 25
No. of Responses

12
Average: 6.2
10
8 Median: 7.0
6
4
SD: 1.1
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

12. How do you think of the duration of the eight-day intensive training program?
Too short Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
short long long
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.12 Duration
10 No. of responses: 25
8 Average: 5.8
No. of Responses

6 Median: 6.0
4 SD: 1.2
2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

268
13. Overall rating of the eight-day long intensive training program on a scale from 0
(Poor) to 100 (Excellent) with 50 being satisfactory.
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q3.13 Oveall Evaluation

10
9
No. of responses: 25
8 Average: 74.4
No. of Responses

7
6 Median: 80.0
5 SD: 10.6
4
3
2
1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

14. Comments and suggestions about the intensive training program of WU 4 (such as
strength and weakness of the program, accommodation and facilities, etc.)

Thank you for your cooperation.

269
Annex 3.2: Summary of responses from respondents
Question 2.2 Description of the main part of the F/S Structure
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part I Project - General context
(1) Background - Natural and social- economic
conditions
- land use situation and forest
resources
- Market
Part II Project contents - Necessity of the project
- Viewpoints in designing the project
- project
- Implementation arrangement of the
project
- Monitoring & Evaluation
Part Project - Financial analysis
III Justification - Economic analysis
- Assessment of environment and
social impacts of the project
- Project risks
Part Conclusion and - Conclusion
IV recommendations - Recommendations
Total Score
Part I Project Context and current natural and social-
(2) Background economic conditions of the proposed
project area.
Part II Project contents Operation components and Implementation
plan
Part Project efficiency Social- economic and environment
III efficiency
Part Conclusion and Reviewing the process of project
IV recommendations preparation and confirm the feasibility of
the project and giving
suggestions/recommendations.
Total Score

270
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part I Introduction- - Context (introduction)
(3) Project - Basis natural ad social- economic
Background conditions
- Objectives and market
Part II Project Contents - Reasons to implement the proposed
project
- Implementation objectives
- Activities to be implemented
Part Project Assessment on:
III justification and - Economy, environment and society
analysis - Implementation arrangement and
efficiency of the project
Part Conclusion and - Summarizing expected project
IV recommendations results
- Proposing issues to be done
Total Score
Part I Project - Project context, relevant legal
(4) Background framework
- Natural and social- economic
conditions
- Potential market and lessons learnt
from previous projects
Part II Project design - Necessity of the project
- Project objectives
- Project activities
- Potential market, Project cost, financial
plan, project management and
implementation plan, Labor demand,
solutions, evaluation.
Part Project efficiency Economic, environmental and social
III efficiency.
Project risks and solutions to cope with the
potential risks.
Part Conclusion and Summarizes main points and propose
IV recommendations concrete relevant issues to be solved.
Total Score

271
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part I Project - Contexts
(5) Background - Current use of forest resources
- Forest resources and potential land for
production forest development.
- Potential market of forest products and
forest products consumption.
Part II Project contents - Suitability and necessity of the project
- Important issues in designing the project
- Project objectives and project component.
- Organization and implementation
arrangement of the project.
- Summary of the M&E of the project and
project sustainability
Part Project - Financial analysis
III justification - Economic analysis
- Environment impact assessment
- Project risks
Part Conclusions and - Conclusion
IV recommendation - recommendations and suggestions for
further activities.
Total Score
Part I Project - Introduction: context and legal framework
(6) background - Natural and social- economic conditions:
current land use situation, potential forest
product market, lesson learnt from other
projects; advantages and disadvantages.
Part II Project contents - Project rationale
- Objectives
- Project activities; Components,
Implementation, market, cost,
financial plan, implementation
organization, labour demand,
monitoring and evaluation and
sustainability of the project

272
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part Project efficiency - Economic efficiency
III - Environment impact assessment
- Project risks
Part Conclusion and N/A
IV recommendations
Total Score
Part I Project Introduction: - Project context;
(7) background Legal framework
Natural and social- economic conditions;
Current land use and forest resources
Market and forest products consumption,
Lessons learnt from other projects.
Part II Project contents Reasons for proposing the project;
Objectives of the project; Project
components; Project activities; Market;
Project cost; Project implementation;
financial plan; implementation management
and arrangement; labour demand;
monitoring and evaluation
Part Project efficiency Economic efficiency and environment and
III social impact; Project risks.
Part Conclusions and
IV recommendation
Total Score
Part I Project Introduction
(8) background Natural and social economic conditions
- Legal framework
Part II Project contents Project rationale, Project objectives, project
cost, labour demand, monitoring and
evaluation plan.
Part Project efficiency - financial viability
III - economic viability
- environment impact and project
risks

273
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part Conclusion and - giving indicators and conclusion of
IV recommendations the project feasibility.
- proposing recommendations.
Total Score
Part I Project - Project context
(9) background - legal framework
- natural and social economic
conditions
- Market; Opportunities and
challenges
Part II Project contents Reasons for developing the project; project
objectives; market; project cost; financial
plan; labour demand, implementation,
management plan, monitoring and
evaluation.
Part Project efficiency Economic viability
III Environment impact assessment
Social impact assessment
Project risks
Part Conclusion and Summary the expected outputs and desired
IV recommendations indicators of the proposed project;
mentioning about some factors (NPV, IRR,
BCR). Describe briefly good environment,
social and economic impacts of the
project.
Total Score
Part I Project - Introduction
(10) background - natural and social economic
conditions
- legal framework
Part II Project contents Reasons for selecting the project; project
objectives; project cost; labour demand;
M&E

274
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part Project efficiency Economic viability
III Environment impacts
Social impacts
Project risk
Part Conclusion and Mentioning some major criteria and
IV recommendations indictors to prove that the project is feasible
Giving suggestions
Total Score
Part I Project - Project context
(11) background - Legal framework
- Natural and social economic
conditions; Current land use
situation (for the purpose of making
analysis).
Part II Project contents Project objectives, cost, financial plan,
labour demand, M&E
Part Project efficiency Assessment on Economic viability based on
III financial and economic analysis.
Environment and social impact assessment.
Part Conclusion and Come to a conclusion whether the project is
IV recommendations feasible or not and propose suggestions
which make the project successful.
Total Score
Part I Project - Context of project development
(12) background - natural conditions
- Social conditions
- Potential market
Part II Project contents Reasons to develop the project;
Project objectives
Project activities
Project components
Potential market
Project cost
Labour demand

275
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part Project efficiency Project impacts:
III Assessment on economic viability
Assessment on financial viability
Sensitive analysis; Project risks.
Part Conclusion and
IV recommendations
Total Score
Part I Project Introduction: project context, legal
(13) background framework. natural and social economic
conditions (current land use, market,
lessons learnt, advantages and difficulties).
Part II Project contents Reasons to develop the project; project
objectives, project activities (components;
implementation); potential market; project
cost; financial plan, management and
implementation of the project. Labour
demand, M&E, sustainability assessment.
Part Project efficiency - Economic viability
III - Environment impact assessment.
- Social impact assessment
- Project risks
Part Conclusion and - conclusion
IV recommendations - Recommendations
Total Score
Part I Project project context, legal framework. natural
(14) background and social economic conditions, potential
market, lessons learnt from other projects.
Part II Project contents Project rationale, overall and immediate
objectives of the project; project
component; project activities; labour
demand, financial plan, M&E; project
implementation plan.
Part Project efficiency Financial and economic analysis
III Environment and social impact analysis
Project risk

276
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part Conclusion and
IV recommendations
Total Score
Part I Project Project context, legal framework. natural
(15) background and social economic conditions, potential
market, lessons learnt from previous
projects.
Part II Project contents overall and immediate objectives of the
project; project component; project
activities; labour demand, financial plan,
M&E; project implementation plan.
Part Project efficiency Financial and economic analysis
III Environment and social impact analysis
Project risk and solutions
Part Conclusion and
IV recommendations
Total Score
Part I Project - Introduction about the context and legal
(16) background framework of the project.
- natural and social economic conditions,
current land use and market situation;
lessons learnt from other projects
Part II Project contents Reasons for developing the project; project
objective; potential market; project cost;
financial plan, project activities.
Part Project efficiency - Economic viability;
III - Environment and social impact
assessment
Part Conclusion and Project risk.
IV recommendations
Total Score
Part I Project - general context;
(17) background - natural and social economic
conditions.
- Current forest land use
- Market and forest products sales

277
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part II Project contents - Suitability and necessity of the
project
- Important points in designing the
project
- Project objectives
- Financial and economic analysis
- Sustainability of the project
Part Project efficiency Fin & Eco analysis; assessment on
III environment impacts, social impacts,
Project risk.
Part Conclusion and - Further develop advantageous side.
IV recommendations - Propose activities to be taken to make the
project effective.
Total Score
Part I Project Natural and social economic conditions
(18) background
Part II Project contents Objectives, scope and beneficiary target of
the project; financial investment sources of
the project; implementation plan
Part Project efficiency - Economically
III analysis - Financially
- Environmentally;
- Viability level of the project
Part Conclusion and Implementation period of the project-
IV recommendations Expected outputs. Recommendations to the
potential investors and relevant authorities.
Total Score
Part I Project Introduction (context; legal framework;
(19) background natural and social- economic conditions of
the project area).
Part II Project contents - Project rationale; project objectives,
project activities; project components;
market, cost; labour demand.
Part Project efficiency Financial- economic analysis and sensitive
III analysis.

278
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part Conclusion and
IV recommendations
Total Score
Part I Project - Context
(20) background - Current forest resource use;
- Forest resources and potential land for
SF6 production forest;
- Natural and social economic conditions
Part II Project contents - Project objectives, project scope and
target beneficiaries.
- funding sources, implementation
arrangement
Part Project site - Economically
III analysis - Financially
- Environmentally (viability level of
the project)

Part Conclusion and Implementation period of the project-

IV recommendations Expected outputs. Recommendations to the
potential investors and relevant
administrative bodies.
Total Score
Part I Project
(21) background
Part II Project contents
Part Project efficiency Economic efficiency
III Environmental efficiency
Social efficiency
Part Conclusion and
IV recommendations
Total Score

279
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part I Project - Project context
(22) background - legal framework
- Collection of information and assessment
on natural and social economic
conditions; current land use situation in
order to analyze the situation
Part II Project contents - Project cost; financial plan
Part Project efficiency - Assessment on project economic viability
III by doing financial and economic analysis
and environment and social impact analysis.
Part Conclusion and Consider whether the project is feasible or
IV recommendations not and propose recommendations to make
the project successful.
Total Score
Part I Project Introduction about the project
(23) background Natural and social conditions
Part II Project contents - Reasons for selecting the project
- Project objectives
- Project activities
- Project management and implementation
- Potential market
- Project cost
- Financial plan
- Labour demand
Assessment on financial viability and
sustainability of the project.
Part Project efficiency Economic viability
III Environment impacts
Social impacts and Project risks
Part Conclusion and Conclusion
IV recommendations Recommendations
Total Score

280
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part I Project - General context (forestry sector context,
(24) background national/provincial and social context)
- Current forest land use and forest
resources; land potential;
- Market and distribution channels.
Part II Project contents - Reasons for selecting the project
- Project objectives
- Project activities
- Potential market, project cost,
financial plan;
- Project management and
implantation arrangement
Part Project efficiency - Economic efficiency
III - Environment impact assessment
- Social impact assessment
- Project risks
Part Conclusion and - Summaries main results of a F/S report.
IV recommendations Recommend majors points that are
needed doing for the success of the
project
Total Score
Part I Project - General context
(25) background - Forest land use and forest resources
Forest resources and land potential for
production forest
development/agro-forestry
- Market and distribution channels
Part II Project contents - Suitability and necessity of the project
- Important points in designing the project
- Project objectives
- Project activities
- Potential market
- Project cost and financial plan

281
Code Part Part title Main contents Score
Part Project efficiency - Financial and economic analysis
III - Environmental impact assessment
- Project risks

Part Conclusion and Conclusion

IV recommendations Recommendations
Total Score

282
Annex 3.3: Responses from respondents
Question 2.3 Important criterion for evaluating the PDM
No Code Answer Score
1 - Logic relation among criteria/ factors which shown in the PDM
(relation among the immediate objective --> outputs --->
activities and indicators...)
2 Identifying of the core problem and how to solve the core problem
3 - Identifying the core objective of the project
- Expected benefit of the proposed project may bring
- Expected outputs of the proposed project
4 Objective of the project should be clearly set expected outputs of
the project should be identified
5 - Correctly identify problems in order to find ways to cope with
such problem
- Once identify real problems, proper solutions will be mapped out
to solve these problems and a good PDM will be designed
accordingly.
Persons who in charge of appraising the project should consider
thoroughly the overall objective and immediate objectives of the
project which listed in the PDM to see whether these objectives
are correctly reflect the problems identified of the project or not.
6 - Logic relation among contents in the PDM
- indicators should be clear and rationale
7 - Problems of proposed project should be solved well.
- Indicators should be numerical and have good means of
verification
- Expected outputs are objectives of the project themselves.
8 Immediate objectives should be identified and concrete activities to
obtain the objectives should be clearly set out.
9 - Tentative project activities should be coherent (logic) with
identified problems and set objectives of the project design.
10 - Core problem must be identified clearly
- Relevant problems should be analyzed carefully
- Activities to realize the target objectives
11 - Assumptions
- Activities, outputs and immediate objectives of the project
12 - Analyze the problem tree carefully to identify major problems to

283
 be solved during the implementation of the project. PDM reflects
the desired outputs of the project which help people decide
whether the project should be undertaken or not.
13 Desired objectives of the project should be clear, concrete and
achievable.
14 PDM should reflect major contents of the proposed project:
objectives? expected outputs? activities to achieve the goals.
Is the preconditions to obtain the project rationale or not?
15 PDM reflects major information of a project: project objectives,
expected outputs and project activities.
16 It should include sufficient information of a project: project
objectives, necessary conditions to realize the project objectives.
17 - Major problems should be identified in order to propose solutions
for the proposed project.
18 - Clear objectives
- There must be a logic relation between problem tree and
objective tree.
19 Analysis of the problem tree and assessment on existing
problems. Project efficiency should be determined firmly to see
whether the project is going to be undertaken or not.
20 - Based on: Clear objectives; Logic of contents in the problem
trees and objective tree.
21 - Rational and logical of factors written in a PDM
- Reality- oriented.
- Specific indicators and activities
- Core problem must be identified correctly
- Objective should be concrete and correct.
22 Assumptions
Project activities, expected outputs and immediate objectives of the
project
23 Logical relation of factors in the PDM
Clear general and immediate objective.
Tentative efficiency of the proposed project.
24 Logical relation among items in the PDM (overall objective,
immediate objective(s); expected outputs and project activities)
Project Inputs and preconditions
25 Logical relation among the overall objective, immediate

284
objective(s) and expected outputs of the project, etc.
Project inputs and preconditions.

285
Annex 3.4: Responses from respondents
Question 14 Comments and suggestions about the intensive training program of
WU 4
Code Comments and suggestions
- Time allocation is too short to deal with such a huge work load
- WU3 and WU4 happens continuously make participants tired.
- Satisfactory
- The training course help participants know how to apply theoretical
inputs into preparing a F/S report.
Practice exercises provided during class time help us know how to do
exercise right after lecturing session.
- Logistics arrangement is good (learning facilities and accommodations)

- Good logistic arrangements; good facilities.

- Strong points: + organization of the class, good preparation of the
handouts and reference materials.
+ very good lecturers from FIPI and useful support from
Sub FIPI members.
- Points to be improved: + Period of the 2 training courses is too long!
+ Work load during the courses is too much.
- So so
- Very good- Good points of these two training courses should be
maintained and further developed in future training courses.
- Good
- Time should be given to study and review thoroughly the input
information (taught knowledge) before applying them into doing exercise.
In order to get better result of the assignments (reports) analysis should
be conducted in the province (not immediately after class hour)
- The courses last too long!
- N/A
Good
- some parts of the training contents are repeated during the class but not
yet research very deeply. In my opinion, contents should be arranged in a
logic order and each content should be dealt once only but carefully and
effectively to save time and reduce cost.
- some contents of the course were repeatedly talked.
- good logistics arrangement.

286
- Some exercises are overlapped
- More supplement information and broader analysis should be given.
- Good logistics arrangement; Time allocation for completing assignments
(exercises) is too short that participants had to work too hard (overtime).
Two way interaction learning approach is very interesting and useful.
- 2 training courses should not be incorporated into 1 time.
- training program is too overloaded for learners.
- The training course have been giving participants enough essential inputs
to prepare a F/S report, however, inputs are too many in a limited
time.
- Participants can carry out the financial and economic analysis by taking
part into the course.
- Completing a draft version of a F/S report and understand deeply a frame
structure of a project.
- Teaching approach of lecturing in combination with case study is very
useful
- Time pressure and too much work load for learners
- Facility condition is very good. This condition should be maintained for
future training course.
- Quantity of training content is average
- Period of the course is medium
- Logistics and physical conditions for the course are satisfactory.
Contents of the training courses is a bit too many
Duration is quite short.
Amount of content is too many
reference materials support well for the lectures (presentation of lecturers)
Logistics conditions are satisfactory.

287
 Appendix 7

M & E Report of
Intensive Training Session of
Work Unit 5
and
Evaluation of F/S Reports

288
 Appendix 7

Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Report on

the Intensive Training Program of Work Unit Five (WU 5) and
Evaluation of F/S Reports

1. Introduction

2. Attendance of the participants in the intensive training program of WU 5

3. Objective and contents of the intensive training program of WU 5

4. Structure of M & E of the training program

4.1 Evaluation of F/S reports prepared by PPs
4.2 Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program of WU 5

5. Results of evaluation of F/S reports and the questionnaire survey of WU 5

5.1 Submission of F/S reports and responses to the questionnaires of WU 5
5.2 Evaluation of F/S reports and results of the questionnaire survey
5.2.1 Evaluation of F/S reports
5.2.2 Results of the questionnaire survey
[Link] Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)
[Link] Evaluation of the intensive training program of WU 5
[Link] Evaluation of the training program of FICAB

6. Points to feedback based on the M & E

6.1 Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)
6.2 Intensive training program of WU 5

Annex 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 5

Annex 2-1: Questionnaire 1 forms
Annex 2-2: Responses to Questionnaire 1
Annex 3-1: Questionnaire 2 form
Annex 3-2: Responses to Questionnaire 2
Annex 4-1: Questionnaire 3 form
Annex 4-2: Responses to Questionnaire 3
Annex 5: Evaluation form of the F/S report (Attached in Appendix 8)

289
1. Introduction
The JICA study team (JST) and the local sub-contractor (FIPI) conducted the intensive training
program of Work Unit Five (WU 5) with the participation of 34 participants from the
Provincial Study Team (PST) of Participating Provinces (PPs), the Core Province (CoP), and
the local sub-contractor. The intensive training program of WU 5 was held in Lam Dong
province for a period of four and half days from July 3 to July 7, 2007. The intensive training
program is the first step (Step 1) of Work Unit, which is followed by Step 2 (application of
what have been learned to preparation of F/S and IP in the participating provinces through the
On-the-Job Training) and Step 3 (submission of the outputs (assignments) of the OJT to be
monitored and evaluated). This draft monitoring and evaluation (M & E) report has been
prepared to report the monitoring results of Step 1 (intensive training program) of WU 5 and
the evaluation results of the F/S reports prepared by PSTs of PPs after the intensive training
program of WU 4. As the intensive training program of WU 5 is the last one of the five WUs,
the evaluation of the training program of FICAB was also done through the questionnaire
survey conducted during WU 5.

2. Attendance of the participants in the intensive training program of WU 5

A total of thirty-four (34) participants officially registered at the intensive training program.16
They are from four PPs and CoP, and the local sub-contractor. The number of participants from
PPs and the local sub-contractor is twenty-eight (28) as shown in the following table. From
CoP (Thai Nguyen province), six (6) PST members participated in the intensive training
program as trainees.

Table 1: Number of Participants in WUs as Trainees Unit: Persons

Province Son Quang Lam Long PST Sub- Total
La Nam Dong An Sub- FIPI (2) (1) + (2)
Total (1)
No of Participants in 6 6 6 4 22 6 28
intensive training
program of WU 5 note 2)
Total no of participants 19 9 16 10 54 7 61
in IWSnote 1), intensive
training of WU 1 – 5
Out of which, those 0 2 1 1 4 5 9
who participated in
WU1-5
Note:
1) IWS: Introduction Workshop
2) If participants from Thai Nguyen province are included, participants in WU 5 totaled 34.

As seen in Table 1 above, a total of 61 participants participated in the introduction workshop,

16
In addition, the three PST members from Lam Dong province occasionally participated in the program as well.

290
intensive training programs of WU 1 - 5 from PPs and the local sub-contractor. Out of which,
four (4) PST members and five (5) consultants from the local sub-contractor continued to
participate in the intensive training program from WU 1 to WU 5. While Quang Nam and Long
An more or less fixed a small number of PST members to attend the intensive training program
and occasionally added some more members to the team while Son La and Lam Dong sent
various members to different intensive training programs from a pool of the PST members.

3. Objective and contents of the intensive training program of WU 5

The objective of the intensive training program of WU 5 is to introduce to the participants the
revised structure of the F/S report and its manual, the relation between the F/S and IP, the
structure and contents of the Implementation Plan (main subject of WU 5) and then, ask them
to experience through exercises preparation of respective parts and chapters of the IP. In
general, the intensive training program of WU 5 proceeded with the following three steps and
these steps are repeated throughout the program.

Figure 1: Steps taken for WU 5

Step 1:
Presentation of contents of
IP by instructors and
explanation on the group
i

Step 2:
Group exercises by PSTs
of respective PPs

Step 3:
Presentation of the results of
group exercises in front of
other PPs

At the initial step (Step 1), the instructor explained the relevant parts and chapters of the IP. At
the following Step 2, participants are requested to analyze and prepare the relevant parts and
chapters of the IP based on the actual information and experiences in accordance with the IP
structure and contents. At Step 3, representatives from each participating province make their
presentation with the results of the group exercises. This cycle is repeated so as to cover all the
parts and chapters of the IP.

The subjects of the intensive training program of WU 5 and the approximate time allocation to

291
each subject are shown as in Table 2 below with details in Attachment 1: Schedule of the
intensive training program of WU 5.

Table 2: Time allocation of the intensive training program of WU 5 in Lam Dong Province
No Subject Time allocation (day)
1 Introduction (Relation between F/S and IP, IP manual 0.7
and Model IP)
2 Summary of the Project (based on the F/S report) 0.5
3 Institutional arrangement 0.4
4 Implementation schedule 0.6
5 Arrangement for Financial management 0.4
6 Procurement arrangement 0.4
7 Sales and marketing 0.3
8 Training plan 0.3
9 M&E 0.3
10 Presentation of the exercises (draft IP) 0.3
Total 4.2
Note:
1) One day workshop lasted from six to six and half hours. For example, the time allocation of 0.5 means about
three (3) hours (=6 hours x 0.5) spent on the subject concerned.
2) The above time allocation includes time allocated to all the above three steps but does not include the time spent
on the homework after the workshop on each day.

The local sub-contractor led the workshop under the supervision of the JST.

The training program was shortened by half day because the final day was held on Saturday.17
All the training contents were covered as originally scheduled but the time for the presentation
by the instructors was shortened and instead, more time was spent for the group exercises by
the participants.

4. Structure of M & E of the training program

The monitoring and evaluation of the training program has been conducted in the form of the
evaluation of the F/S report prepared after the previous WU (WU 4) and the questionnaire
survey during the intensive training program (WU 5). It is intended to examine how the
capacity building has been progressed and how the program has met the needs of the target
beneficiary.

17
Some participants prepared to leave Lam Dong in the afternoon of the final day.

292
4.1 Evaluation of F/S reports prepared by PPs
F/S reports were prepared by PST members of PPs after WU 4 and submitted through the local
sub-contractor in February 2007. The M & E was conducted by rating the F/S reports prepared
by respective PPs.

4.2 Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program of WU5

During the intensive training program of WU 5 in Lam Dong province, a total of three (3) M &
E questionnaires were distributed to the participants at the beginning, in the middle and at the
end of the program. The first questionnaire (Questionnaire 1) distributed at the end of the first
day (July 3, 2007) was to ask participants to describe the role they were expected to play in
preparation of the IP and also to describe specific questions and concerns that they would like
to clarify and solve in conducting the feasibility study. The questionnaire also asks participant
to answer quizzes relevant to the training subjects (characteristics of IP in comparison with F/S
report and differences between the project objective and the objective of the assistance) on the
first day. The second questionnaire (Questionnaire 2) distributed at the end of the third day
(July 5, 2007) was to ask them to self-evaluate the progress of the capacity improvement and to
give comments and suggestions on the rest of the on-going intensive training program. The
questionnaire also asked participants to answer to the quizzes relevant to the subjects
(institutional arrangements, arrangements for financial management, and procurement
arrangement), which were discussed on the second and third day. The last questionnaire
(Questionnaire 3) was distributed on the final day (July 7, 2007) in order: to monitor reactions
of each participant to the intensive training program by measuring the level of their satisfaction
in attending the program, which would affect the future sustainability of the training program;
to monitor the effectiveness of the instruction by the local sub-contractor as Trainers of
Trainees (TOT); and to grasp the self-claimed level of understanding of the subjects taught
during the intensive training program. Because the intensive training program of WU 5 is the
last intensive training in the series, the questionnaire also asked questions relating to all the
WUs 1 to 5.

The following table (Table 4) shows different perspectives of each questionnaire, from which
the M & E was designed. Participants were requested to identify themselves in responding to
all the three questionnaires.

293
Table 3: Timing and Perspectives of M & E (Questionnaires 1 to 3)
Q Timing of Analytical perspectives of M & E
Distribution
1 End of 1st day Questionnaire 1: it aims to learn if participants recognize their roles in
(July 3, 2007) the preparation of the IP and if the roles expressed by participants are
sufficient to cover the IP. It also aims to clarify any questions and
concerns participants may have.
- Roles that participants are expected to play in preparation of IP
- Specific questions and concerns that participants would like to
clarify and solve in conducting the implementation planning.
- Quizzes relating to the contents of the first day of the intensive
training program (i.e. characteristics of F/S and IP, and explanation
of project objective and objective of assistance)
2 End of 3th day Questionnaire 2: it aims to monitor the intensive training program of
(July 5, 2007) WU 5 as of the mid-day of the program and make necessary
adjustments, if any.
- Extent of gaining analytical skills and knowledge to write the first
half of IP
- Any inappropriateness in the IP structure
- Quizzes relating to the contents of the second and third days of the
intensive training program (i.e. institutional arrangements,
arrangements for financial management, and procurement
arrangement)
- Overall rating of the intensive training program of WU 5 as of the
3rd day
3 Beginning of Questionnaire 3: it aims to monitor and evaluate the progress of
5th day capacity building, level of satisfaction, and effectiveness of the
(July 7, 2007) intensive training program of WU 5, and the training program from
WU 1 to WU 5.
- Overall assessment of the WU 5 intensive training program
- Strengths and weaknesses of the training program of FICAB

Questionnaire forms of 1, 2 and 3 have been attached in Annex 2-1, 3-1 and 4-1, respectively.

5. Results of evaluation of F/S reports and the questionnaire survey of WU 5

5.1 Submission of F/S reports and responses of questionnaires of WU 5
(1) F/S reports
The submission date of the draft F/S reports was set on February 5, 2007 and the final drafts on
March 9, 2007. The draft F/S reports from the four participating provinces were submitted
after February 5 because translation and editing works required a longer time than initially
expected. The final draft of F/S reports were submitted on March 9, 2007.

(2) Questionnaire survey during the intensive training program of WU 5

The following table shows the number of responses with the rate of responses to the
questionnaire from Questionnaire 1 (Q1) to Questionnaire 3 (Q3).

294
Table 4: Number of responses with rate of responses
Q1 (July 3) Q 2 (July 5) Q 3 (July 7)
Date
a b % a b % a b %
Total 30 33 91% 32 33 97% 25 27 93%
Note 1: a: Actual number of respondents: b Number of participants: %: a/b x 100
Note 2: There were cases where participants were not present when the questionnaire was distributed although they
attended the intensive training program.
Note 3: In case of Questionnaire 3, for the purpose of comparing the data with the previous WUs, the number of
respondents was limited to those from PPs and the sub-contractor, excluding participants from CoP.

Most of the participants cooperated with the M & E activities in answering the questionnaires.

5.2 Evaluation of F/S reports and results of the questionnaire survey

5.2.1 Evaluation of F/S reports
The F/S reports were evaluated by the JST. The evaluation criteria of the F/S report are divided
into the general and specific aspects. The general aspect has a weight of thirty (30) points,
where ten (10) points are distributed equally to evaluate the logical consistency, data quality
and quantity, and right application of methods. The specific aspect has a weight of seventy (70)
points, where specific aspects are evaluated in accordance with the structure of the F/S report.
The evaluation format of the F/S report is shown in Annex 5. The following table summarizes
the evaluation results of the F/S reports by PSTs of respective PPs.

Table 5: Evaluation results of F/S reports

Unit: Points
Point
Allocati Son Quang Lam Long
on La Nam Dong An Average
Total (a) + (b) 100 58.4 66.6 61.9 58.0 61.2
General aspect (a) 30 16.3 18.8 19.0 17.0 17.8
Specific aspects (b) 70 42.2 47.8 42.9 41.0 43.5
Out of which:
Part I 15 9.1 10.4 9.4 7.4 9.0
Part II 25 15.3 16.6 14.0 16.3 15.5
Part III 20 11.1 14.4 13.3 11.6 12.6
Part IV 10 6.8 6.5 6.3 5.8 6.3

Based on the evaluation results of the F/S reports, the following aspects can be pointed out.
(1) The logical consistency should be maintained among the chapters of the F/S report and the
rationale of the project should be based on the analysis of the existing development issues;
(2) The data quality should be ensured based on the legal classification of the land and the

295
 classification of the existing land use;
(3) Description of the institutional arrangement needs to be further elaborated based on the
stakeholders analysis, including the involvement of farmers;
(4) A component-wise cost table need to be prepared;
(5) The without-project case needs to be described and the incremental analysis should be
carried out; and
(6) Treatment of subsidies needs to be re-examined under the financial and economic analyses.

These comments were given to the participants as the feedbacks of the evaluation results on the
first day of WU 5 and the Vietnamese translation of the comments were on the final day of WU
5.

5.2.2 Results of the questionnaire survey

This section reports the results of the questionnaire survey in terms of the level of
understanding of the participants (capacity building) (Section [Link]), the level of satisfaction
of the participants in attending the workshop and effectiveness of the instruction by the local
sub-contractor as TOT (Section [Link]), and the evaluation of the training program (WU 1 to
WU 5) of FICAB (Section [Link]).

[Link] Level of understanding of participants (capacity building)

(1) Questionnaire 1
The first M & E questionnaire was distributed at the end of the first day of the intensive
training program (Annex 2-1 for Questionnaire 1). As for the role that participants are expected
to play in preparation of the IP, all the respondents identified their specific role in the
preparation of the feasibility study report. The responses from PST of a participating province
sufficiently cover the contents of the IP except Quang Nam where not all the PST members
responded to Questionnaire 1.

As for the specific questions and concerns that participants would like to clarify and solve in
conducting the feasibility study, the following table (Table 6) summarizes their responses:

296
Table 6: Specific questions and concerns that participants would like to clarify and solve
Area Questions
Land allocation Measure to expedite land allocation procedures (in order to provide land
certificate to households)
Government role Role of government at district level
Participation of - How to assure farmers of the benefits expected from the project.
farmers - How is the policy to protect farmers if there are calamity risks?
Loan Please make sure the proceedings for borrowing capital from investors.
procedures/assura How to ensure the commitment of the investor in investment and sales of
nce of investment products at the time when participation of farmers is not assured.

Harvesting Please clarify the harvesting procedures.

procedures
Documentation - Could we combine IP and FS into one report?

As seen in the above table, the number of responses to this question was not as many but they
provided import points to think of. Some questions are related to the institutional aspects such
as roles of the government and promotion of farmers’ participation in the project while others
are concerned with the broad policy issue like the land allocation, which could be the key to
successful implementation of the project in case the project involves smallholders. The loan
procedure is also one aspect that a participant wishes to clarify. JST and the local
sub-contractor made general comments on these questions and tried to facilitate discussions
among participants.

As for the open-ended question about any suggestions and comments, one respondent points
out some problems with the translation of the documents although he considered it as minor
issues. It is deemed necessary to make proper arrangements of the documents.

(2) Questionnaire 2
The second M & E questionnaire (Questionnaire 2) was distributed at the end of the third day
of the program (Annex 3-1 for Questionnaire 2). In accordance with the progress of the
training program, the first question of Questionnaire 2 asks the participants to rate their level of
analytical skills and knowledge to write Part I and Chapters 1 to 4 of Part II of IP on a scale
from Low Level (1) (Need assistance from someone else in order to carry out required tasks) to
High Level (7) (Very good understanding so as to teach required tasks to others) with Medium
Level being (4) (Good understanding so as to carry out required tasks without assistance of
others). Part I of IP covers the summary of the project while Chapters 1 to 4 of Part II does
institutional arrangements, implementing schedule, arrangement for financial management, and

297
procurement managements, respectively. The following are the responses of the questions
together with their overall rating of WU 5 (Q2.6) as of July 5, 2007.

Table 7: Results of questionnaire survey (Q2.1) of WU 5

Q 2.1 Skill and knowledge level

16 No. of responses: 32
14 Average: 4.5
12

10
Median: 5
Persons

8 SD: 0.9
6
Max: 6
4

2 Min: 2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

As for the self-evaluation of skills and knowledge level to write relevant parts of the IP, the
average and median of the ratings by respondents are 4.5 and 5, respectively, with the standard
deviation of 0.9. The rating shows the medium level, which means the good understanding so
as to carry out required tasks without assistance of others.

This result can be compared with the responses to the same type of the question on the mid-day
of WU 4 as in the following tables. The results show the self-evaluation of skills and
knowledge level to write relevant parts of the F/S report.

Table 8: Results of questionnaire survey (Q2.1 and Q2.2) of WU 4

Q2.1 Part 1 Background Q2.2 Part II Project Contents

12 12
10 10
8 8

6 6

4 4
2
2
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Statistics Q2.1 Q2.2

No. of respondents 30 30
Average 4.9 4.9
Median 5 5
SD 1.0 0.9
Max 7 7
Min 3 3

The comparison indicates that participants of the intensive training program of WU 5 evaluated

298
their level at a slightly lower level than the level of WU 4.

As the training program covered specific subjects as of the third day of the intensive training
program, the questionnaire included specific questions relating to the institutional
arrangements (30 points for Question 2.3), arrangement for the financial management (30
points for Question 2.4), and the procurement arrangement (40 points for Question 2.5). The
points of these three questions (Question 2.3 to 2.5) sum up to 100. The following is the
frequency distribution of the sum of points to these three questions.

Table 9: Results of quizzes (Q2.3 to Q2.5) of WU 5

Q 2.3 + Q 2.4 + Q 2.5

12
No. of responses: 32
10 Average: 74.2
8 Median: 80
Persons

6 SD: 20.2
4 Max: 100
2
Min: 30
0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-
100

The average point is 74.2 with the standard deviation of 20.2. The frequency distribution
shows the negative skew. Half of the respondents marked higher points than 80. The results
show the progress of the learning process among the respondents.

In terms of the overall evaluation of WU 5 as of the third day of the program, the average and
median ratings are about 65 with the standard deviation of 11.

Table 10: Results of questionnaire survey (Q2.6) of WU 5

Q 2.6 Level of Satisfaction
No. of responses: 32
12
Average: 65.6
10

8
Median: 65
SD: 11.3
Persons

4 Max: 90
2 Mix: 50
0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-
100

This can be compared with the results of the same type of the question on the mid-day of WU
4. The following shows the frequency distribution of the overall evaluation of WU 4 as of the

299
mid-day. This shows slightly lowered level of satisfaction of participants of WU 5 compared
with those of WU 4.

Table 11: Results of questionnaire survey (Q2.4) of WU 4

Q2.4 Overall Evaluation as of Dec 6, 2006
No. of respondents 30
Average 69.0
14
Median 70
12
SD 11.4
10 Max 90
8 Min 50
6
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

The open-ended question (Q2.6) about comments and suggestions for the rest of WU 5 reveals
some of the concerns of the respondents. Their concerns include the ways to integrate
respective exercises into the IP, the logical relation between the F/S and IP, ways to organize
lectures and discussions (e.g. necessity of more exercises and discussions, more time to share
reports of respective provinces, more time for reading materials). Their comments and
suggestions are shown in Annex 3-2.

Questionnaire 2 also includes a question about the appropriateness of the IP (Q2.2). Comments
on the inappropriate parts of the IP and their recommendations include the necessity of having
an annual work plan and a detailed project implementation schedule, suggestions to change the
structure in some parts of the report including annexes (e.g. too many tables), necessity of
clarifying the role and responsibilities of the implementation system. The details are shown in
Annex 3-2.

(3) Self-evaluation of respondents in Questionnaire 3

On the last day of the intensive training program (July 7, 2007), participants were asked to
evaluate if the present level of their knowledge and skills of preparing the IP is high or low
compared with the level of the knowledge and skills they had before on a scale from 1 (lower)
to 7 (higher) with 4 being “About the same” (Q3.1). Twenty-five (25) participants responded to
this question.18 The average rating of the respondents was 5.7 with a standard deviation of 0.5.
The rating ranges from 4.0 to 6.0 (Table 12).

18
As explained earlier, the participants from CoP are excluded for the purpose of comparison of the responses with
past WUs.

300
 Table 12: Self-evaluation of knowledge and skill level (Q3.1) of WU 5
Q3.1 Knowledge and Skill Level
No. of Respondents: 25
Average: 5.7
20
18

16 Median: 6.0
No. of Responses

14
SD: 0.5
Max: 6
12

10
8 Min: 4
6
4

2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

The self-evaluation of the participants tells their favorable response to evaluate their progress
of their capacity building. However, if this result is compared with the results of WU 4 (Table
13), it is noticed that the results of WU 5 are slightly lower.

Table 13: Self-evaluation of knowledge and skill level (Q3.1) of WU 4

Q3.1 Skills and Knowledge Level No. of responses: 22
15 Average: 6.0
No. of Responses

10
Median: 6.0
SD: 0.6
5 Max: 7
0
Min: 5
1 2 3 4
Rating 5 6 7

Participants were further asked to examine how much of the knowledge and skills transferred
through this intensive training program they have acquired on a scale of 0 being nothing
acquired to 100 being fully acquired (Q3.2.1).

Table 14: Self-claimed level of knowledge and skilled acquired (Q3.2.1) of WU 5

Q3.2 Degree of Knowledge and Skill Acquired

12
No. of Respondents: 25
10 Average: 74.6
Median: 70
No. of Responses

8
SD: 8.8
6 Max: 90
4
Min: 60
2

0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-
100
Rating

In accordance with the self-evaluation of the participants, participants considered that about 75

301
percent of what had been transferred to them was acquired (Table 14 above). If this result is
compared with the results of WU 4 (Table 15), it is noticed that the results of WU 5 are slightly
lower. As the self-evaluation ranges from 60 to 90, the variability among the participants,
although it is not big, and those who rated their level with lower scores should be noted for
results of both WU 4 and WU 5.

Table 15: Self-claimed level of knowledge and skilled acquired (Q3.2.1) of WU 4

Q3.2.1 Degree of Skills and Knowledge acquired
16 No. of responses: 22
14
Average: 78.6
No. of Responses

12
10 Median: 80.0
8
6 SD: 7.6
4
Max: 90
2
0 Min: 60
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rating

[Link] Evaluation of the intensive training program of WU 5

(1) Level of satisfaction of the participants in attending the workshop and the effectiveness of
the instruction by the local sub-contractor as TOT
On the final day of the intensive training program of WU 5, participants were requested to
evaluate the intensive training program in a number of aspects: (Q3.3) relation between the
contents of the intensive training program and their current works; (Q3.4) practical aspect of
the IP structure introduced during the program; (Q3.5) helpfulness of the methodologies
adopted during the program; (Q3.6) helpfulness of handouts and exercises for technology
transfer; (Q3.7) conciseness and clearness of lecture and presentation of instructors; (Q3.8)
integration of lecture and presentation with discussions and materials in training sessions;
(Q3.9) helpfulness of assistants from the local sub-contractor; (Q3.10) helpfulness of
experience sharing with PST from other PPs; (Q3.11) amount or volume of the contents or
works during the intensive training program; (Q3.12) duration of the training program. For
Q3.3, participants are asked to rate the relation on a scale from 1 (Very weak) to 7 (Very
strong) with 4 being (Neither). As for Q3.4, participants are asked to rate the structure of IP on
a scale from 1 (Not practical) to 7 (Very practical) with 4 being (Neither). From Q3.5 to Q3.10,
participants are requested to rate their responses on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7
(Strongly agree) with 4 being (Neither). For Q3.11, participants are asked to rate the program
on a scale from 1 (Too little) to 7 (Too much) with 4 being (Average). For Q3.12, participants
are asked to rate the program on a scale from 1 (Too short) to 7 (Too long) with 4 being
(Average). Questions 3.7 and 3.8 have been specifically prepared based on the M & E results
of the introduction workshop held in July 2006. From the comments and suggestions from

302
respondents during the introduction workshop, the concise presentation and integration of the
presentation with other tools such as discussions and reports were identified as the two of the
major areas for improvement on the side of the workshop organizers. The following Table 16
compares the average of each of the questions with the averages of the corresponding
questions of the previous WUs.

Table 16: Ratings of respondents about the intensive training of WU 5 in comparison with
those of WUs 1 to 4

No Aspects Rating scale from 1 to 7 Average ratings

WU1 WU2 WU3 WU4 WU5
Q 3.3 Relation between the 1 (Very weak) – 5.7 6.0 6.3 5.9 5.8
contents of the training 4 (Neither) –
and their current works 7 (Very strong)
Q 3.4 Practical aspect of the1 (Not practical) – 5.7 5.8
F/S or IP structure 4 (Neither) - 7 (Very
practical)
Q 3.5 Helpfulness of 1 (Strongly disagree) 6.3 6.1 6.5 6.0 6.0
methodologies for the –
preparation of the 4 (Neither) –
project 7 (Strongly agree)
Q 3.6 Helpfulness of handouts 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.1 6.2
and exercises for
technology transfer
Q 3.7 Conciseness and 5.6 5.7 6.8 5.9 5.5
clearness of
presentation of
instructors
Q 3.8 Integration of 5.9 6.0 6.6 6.2 6.1
presentation with
discussions and
materials in training
sessions
Q 3.9 Helpfulness of 6.5 5.8 5.8
assistants from FIPI
Q 3.10 Helpfulness of 6.2 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.3
experience sharing with
PST from other PPs
Q 3.11 Volume of the works 1 (Too little) – 5.9 5.0 6.4 5.0
4 (Average) –
7 (Too much)
Q 3.12 Duration of the program 1 (Too short) – 3.3 4.1 3.9 6.0 4.1
4 (Average) –
7 (Too long)
Source: Questionnaire survey
Note:
1) The total number of respondents was 25 excluding participants from CoP. One respondent did not answer all the
questions.

303
2) The phrasing of questions used for the previous questionnaires of WU 1-4 was not exactly same as that used for
WU 5 questionnaire but can be comparable to corresponding questions. In addition, the rating scale of WU 1 was
adjusted to 1-7 scale from 1-5 scale in order to compare with the results of the survey during WUs 2-5.

As seen in the above table, the average ratings for Q3 to Q10 center around 6.0. The ratings in
these aspects show favorable responses of the respondents to the intensive training program of
WU 5. Comparison with the results of WU 1 and 2 shows the ratings of WU 5 is more or less
same as the level of WU 1 and 2. If compared with the results of WU 4, slight decrease in the
ratings is noticed for Q3.3 (Relation between the contents of the training and their current
works), for Q3.7 (Conciseness and clearness of presentation of instructors), Q3.8 (Integration
of presentation with discussions and materials in training sessions), and Q3.10 (Helpfulness of
experience sharing with PST from other PPs). The reason behind the decrease of Q3.3 may be
related to the selection of the participants and the features of the IP. Respondents are yet to
understand where the IP take its position in the preparation of the project. The reason behind
Q3.7 and Q3.8 may be related to the limited knowledge and skills for the newly introduced IP
structure on the side of the instructors. The decrease of the rating for Q3.10 may be because
larger differences in the local practice reduced the effectiveness of the experience sharing
among PST members to some extent.

In terms of the work volume (Q3.11) and the duration of the program (Q3.12), answers from
the respondents show tendency towards the average if compared with WU 4. Six (6)
respondents answered with “3 (somewhat short)” for the duration of the program (Q3.12). In
terms of the work volume and duration of the intensive training program, the arrangements of
WU 5 are deemed more appropriate than those of WU 4.

In question Q3.13, participants were asked to provide their overall ratings of the workshop on a
scale from 0 to 100. The following Table 17 shows the overall ratings given by the respondents.
It is compared with the ratings given by the participants in the past intensive training programs
(WU 1-4).

304
Table 17: Overall ratings (Q3.13) given by respondents about the intensive training program of
WUs 1 to 5
IWS WU 1 WU2 WU3 WU4 WU 5
No. Respondents 32 24 29 20 22 24
Average 73.1 72.1 69.7 80.5 75.0 70.9
Median 70 70 70 80 80 70
SD 8.7 8.7 11.4 11.6 10.8 10.0
Max 90 80 90 100 90 100
Min 55 50 50 50 50 50
CV 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.14

82.0 Average 14.0

Overall ratings by responden

80.0 SD 12.0
78.0
10.0
76.0
74.0 8.0
SD
72.0 6.0
70.0
4.0
68.0
66.0 2.0

64.0 0.0
IWS WU 1 WU2 WU3 WU4 WU 5

The average of the overall ratings of WU 5 was about 71, same as the level of WU 2 (70). The
median is 70 and the ratings range from 50 to 100. The intensive training program of WU 5 is
rated lower than WU 3 and 4.

[Link] Evaluation of the training program of FICAB

As the intensive training program of WU 5 is the last one of the five Work Units, participants19
were requested to answer the following questions relating to the training program undertaken
in FICAB: (1) their experience in applying what they learned under FICAB to other works; (2)
strengths and weaknesses of FICAB; and (3) their intention to recommend others to participate
in FICAB.

(1) Their experience in applying what they learned under FICAB to other works
Twenty-four (24) out of thirty-one (31) respondents (i.e., 77% of the respondents) answered
that they had applied what they learned to other works and the remaining six (6) said “No.”
The answer from one (1) respondent was not available. Those answered “Yes” was further

19
Responses to this question include those of PST members from CoP.

305
asked to elaborate on their answer in terms of methodologies that they learned and applied, and
names of other projects and/or works they applied such methodologies. Some of their
responses include the following methodologies and projects:
1) Apply the logic of how to solve the issues to the implementation of 661 project
2) Apply the financial and economic analyses to production forest projects
3) Apply the methodology to projects funded by foreign donor agencies, etc.
4) Preparation of annual work plan
5) Preparation of reports (documentations)
6) Method for project planning
7) Method to collect and process information and data, including interview surveys.
8) Method to conduct Communal Consultation Meeting (CCM)
9) Method of demand analysis, collection of information on wood market
10) PDM
11) Preparation of maps
12) GPS techniques
13) Situation survey
Details are shown in Annex 4-2.

(2) Strengths and weaknesses of FICAB

The respondents pointed out various aspects of the strengths and weaknesses of FICAB. Their
answers to this question can be classified into the following categories.
1) Weaknesses
Organization of the training
(a) Long time intervals between the intensive training programs of different WUs:
however, duration of each intensive training program is short.
(b) Time constraints to share the project contents with other provinces
(c) Limited presentation and teaching skills of some lectures
(d) Because of the different conditions among provinces, experience sharing will be
unrealistic.

Training materials
(a) The structure and contents of F/S and IP are too long.
(b) Some contents of IP are not related to the reality (question about applicability to the
practice)
(c) Some problems on translation of documents
(d) Inflexibilities of the procedures described in the documents
(e) Some contents includes unclear methodologies
(f) Some tables are easy to get confused

306
 (g) Each province has its specific characteristics so that table formats to be used should
not be uniform (question about applicability in their respective provinces)

2) Strengths
Organization of training
(a) Training program through WUs
(b) Good coordination among JST, FIPI, and PST
(c) Good training duration
(d) Funding supports to the studies in respective provinces
(e) Monitoring and evaluation by organizers

Training materials and methodologies

(a) Coordination (combination) between academics and practices (exercises)
(b) Materials and teaching methods (including discussions)
(c) Reflecting the reality
(d) Methodologies such as financial and economic analyses, market analysis, evaluation of
environmental impacts, study on the logics of development issues, and PDM
(e) Group works
(f) Experience and view sharing
(g) Implementation of government policies

(3) Their intention to recommend others to participate in FICAB.

Participants were further requested to answer the question about their future intention to
recommend others to participate in FICAB. Seventeen (17) respondents answered “Yes” while
eight (8) did “No.” Six (6) respondents did not answer to this question. For those who
answered “No” or who did not answer to this question, various reasons can be assumed based
on their answers to the weaknesses of the FICAB as described above. They may be related to
the duration and timing of the intensive training programs, limited presentation and teaching
skills of some lectures, non-applicability of some of the teaching materials.

Respondents who answered “Yes” were further asked to tell to whom they would like to
recommend FICAB. Their responses include staff who conduct the F/S, those who work at the
forestry offices (such as Sub-DoF, relevant offices at the district level), their counter-parts
including their co-workers in their offices, staff who directly implements the project, forest
wardens or guards, and managers at the local level. Their responses provide clearer images of
those who need to have this type of the training program.

6. Points to feedback based on the M & E

307
Based on the evaluation of the M & E of the intensive training program of WU 5 and the
evaluation of the F/S reports, the following points are to feedback for improvement of the
training plan.

6.1 Level of understanding of respondents (capacity building)

Based on the evaluation of the F/S reports, it is evaluated that the capacity building of PST
members in PPs has progressed: however, there are several areas necessary to be improved:
logical consistency of the report and the project rationale; data quality; institutional
arrangements; cost table; and the financial and economic analyses.

Although the time allocated for the training is not sufficient, the capacity building has
progressed during WU 5. This is based on the fact that the average scores of the question (Q2.3
to Q2.5) is 74 with the median score being 80 and the self-evaluation of participants indicated
that, on average, they had acquired about 75% of what had been transferred (Q3.2).
Considering that the intensive training program of WU 5 is the first time when they are
introduced to the IP, this record show more or less favorable results of the intensive training
program.

The responses from the participants show that several respondents found somewhat weak
relations or neither-strong-nor-weak relations between the intensive training program and their
current works. It is important to select right personnel for the training program as well as
explain more about what the IP is.

PPs have different strategies for the training program conducted under FICAB. The total
number of participants from Son La is nineteen (19) but no person from the province continued
to attend all the intensive training programs of the five WUs. On the other hand, the total
number of participants from Quang Nam and Long An is relatively small as nine (9) and ten
(10), respectively but one (1) to two (2) persons continued to attend the five intensive training
programs from these two provinces. As PST assigns different roles to each of the members, it
would be more effective to target at a limited number of PST members in charge of such
specific fields when transferring the knowledge and skills in particular areas. It is considered
that effectiveness will be enhanced if the participants will not change over different WUs but
will be more or less fixed throughout the training program.

6.2 Intensive training program of WU 5

(1) Answers to the questionnaires show some favorable responses to the intensive training
program of WU 5 in terms of the helpfulness of handouts and exercises. This is partly because
of the revised F/S and IP manuals and model F/S and IP. Another reason can be that the

308
training was organized through repeating a cycle of lectures, exercises and presentations.
Comparison with WU 4, less time was spent for the lectures of the instructors and more time
was spared for the group exercises. After the presentation, discussion was held among
participants and instructors. This can be conceptualized as in the following figure (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Cycle of conceptualization/generalization, exercises, and presentations

Conceptualizati
on/Generalizati

Presentation Exercises

Note: The size of boxes show the relative weight placed among these three steps in terms of the time
allocation during the intensive training program of WU 5.

At every steps of this cycle, participants came to identify problems and solutions relating to the
subjects, which helped them further deepen their understandings. Because this cycle is
introduced during the relatively short training period and repeated over six times, participants
were able to promptly apply what they learned to the practice.

On the other hand, some respondents rated the training at a lower level. Reasons may be
related to their observation that the training materials do not reflect the reality, weak relations
between the contents of the intensive training program and their current works, unclear
inter-relations among respective chapters of IP, and so on.

(2) Compared with WU 4, which dealt with the preparation of the F/S report, the overall rating
of WU 5 is lower. There are a number of reasons that could explain this result. Firstly, for most
of the participants, WU 5 was the first time that they were introduced the IP. Even for some
instructors of FIPI, WU 5 was the first occasion to instruct the preparation of IP. Although
participants would like to have clearer explanation about the IP, particularly how they can
integrate all the different parts of the IP and how F/S is related to IP, the explanation might not
be clearer than they expected. Secondly, the duration of WU 5 was still short for them. The
intensive training program of WU 5 was originally planned for a period of five days but it was
shortened by half day in the middle of the intensive training program because some

309
participants showed their intension to leave for home on the last day of WU 5. Consequently,
the intensive training program had to be compressed. Thirdly, the contents of the IP and Model
IP are not sufficient to reflect the local conditions of the respective PPs. The description in
Model IP may not be applicable to some of the provinces. While PST members did the
preparation of respective chapters of the IP as their exercises within the limited time, it is more
important to prepare the IP taking into consideration the local conditions and practices in the
respective provinces. Fourthly, respondents found less relation between the current works and
IP. This may raise an issue of the selection of the participants, the importance of explaining
more on the IP, and improvement of the manuals and models.

2nd Draft Revised August 20, 2007

Annex 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 5
Annex 2-1: Questionnaire 1 forms
Annex 2-2: Responses to Questionnaire 1
Annex 3-1: Questionnaire 2 form
Annex 3-2: Responses to Questionnaire 2
Annex 4-1: Questionnaire 3 form
Annex 4-2: Responses to Questionnaire 3
Annex 5: Evaluation form of the F/S report (Attached in Appendix 8)

310
Annex 1: Schedule of the intensive training program of WU 5
Agenda of Training Workshop WU5 in Da Lat, Lam Dong Province

No. Date Presentation Time Responsibility

1 3-7 Opening 8:30-8:35 5 FIPI
(Tue) Speech by DoF 8:35-8:40 5 [Link]
Speech by JST 8:40-8:45 5 [Link]
Overview of WU5 8:45-9:00 15 Khanh
FS manual 9:00-9:55 55 Khanh
Coffee break 9:55-10:10 15
Feedback of M & E results 10:10-10:50 40 Mochida
of F/S reports prepared by
PPs
Discussion and comment 10:50-11:10 20 Khanh
Relation between FS & IP 11:10-11:35 25 Khanh
Lunch 11:35-13:30
IP manual and IP Thai 13:30-14:00 30 Giang
Nguyen
Qs & As 14:00-14:20 20 Giang
Project summary in IP 14:20-14:50 30 Khanh
Coffee break 14:50-15:05 15
Exercise (group work) 15:05-16:35 90 Khanh
Distribution of M & E
Questionnaire 1
2 4-7 Presentation exercise 8:00-9:00 60 Khanh
(Wed) results
1. Institutional arrangement 9:00-9:30 30 Hung
Exercise (group work) 9:30-10:20 80 Hung
Coffee break 10:20-1030 10
Presentation exercise 10:30-11:30 60 Hung
results
Lunch 11:30-13:30
2. Implementation schedule 13:30-14:00 30 Giang
Exercise (group work) 14:00-14:50 50 Giang

311
 Coffee break 14:50-15:05 15
Exercise (group work) 15:05-16:35 90 Giang
No. Date Presentation Time Responsibility
3 5-7 Presentation exercise results 8:00-9:00 60 Giang
(Thu) Introduction of Mr. Inoue 9:00-9:10 10
(JICA Expert)
[Link] arrangement 9:10-9:35 25 Hung
Coffee break 9:35-9:50 15
4. Procurement management 9:50-10:20 30 Giang
Exercise (group work) 2 10:20-11:30 70
Lunch 11:25-13:00
Exercise (group work) 2 13:30-14:30 60
Coffee break 14:30-14:45 15
Presentation of exercise 14:45-15:40 55 Hung, Giang
results
Review of M & E 15:40-16:10 30 Mochida/Khanh
Questionnaire 1
6. Training plan 16:10-16:30 20 Viet
4 6-7 5. Sales and marketing 8:00-8:25 25 Con
(Thu) 7. M & E 8:25-8:50 25 Hung
Exercise (group work) 8:50-10:00 70 Con
Coffee break 10:00-10:15 15
Exercise (group work) 10:15-11:30 75 Con
Lunch 11:10-13:30
Presentation of exercise 13:30-15:05 95 Con
Coffee break 15:05-15:30 25
Review of exercises, how to 15:30-16:00 30 Khanh
connect exercises into IP
5 7-7 Feedback of Q2 of M & E 8:05-8:35 30 Mochida/Khanh
(Sat) M & E Q3 8:35-9:00 25 Mochida
Presentation of exercise 9:00-9:30 30 Khanh
results
Coffee break 9:30-9:45 15

312
 Presentation exercise results 9:45-10:15 30 Khanh
Closing of the workshop 10:15-10:30 15 Khanh, Tu
AM: From 8:00 to 11:30
PM: From 1:30 to 4:30
include 15 minutes coffee break
Annex 2-1: Questionnaire 1 forms
Questionnaire 1 on July 3, 2007 Code:
Province (Please circle your province or institution):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI Thai Nguyen
Name:

1. Please mark the corresponding boxes with “X” to indicate the chapter(s) of the
implementation plan that you are likely to prepare once you go back to your home
province.

Part/chapter Title of Part and Chapter If you are in charge of

preparation, please
mark with “X.”
Part I SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT
Part II IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN RESPECTIVE
FIELDS
Chapter 1 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT
Chapter 2 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Chapter 3 ARRANGEMENT FOR FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
Chapter 4 PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS
Chapter 5 SALES AND MARKETING
Chapter 6 TRAINING PLAN
Chapter 7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

2. How do you describe the characteristics of IP in comparison with F/S report? In the
description, please mention who will be users of the F/S report and Implementation
Plan.

Report Specific characteristics

F/S

313
IP

3. Please select appropriate words from the box below and put the corresponding
alphabets in the brackets from (1) to (9) in order to complete the following sentences.
You may use appropriate words as many times as you wish.

((1) ) is defined as an objective that is expected to be achieved as a result of

the implementation of the project. It is to be achieved by the end of the ((2) )
period. If an external assistance is provided, the ((3) ) is set and it is to
be achieved by the end of the ((4) ) period. The ((5) ) is
regarded as an interim objective en route to the ((6) ). The
((7) ) and ((8) ) are revealed in the form of specific
benefits for the ((9) ) of the project.

Box
a. Project objective b. Objective of assistance
c. Target beneficiary d. Project e. Assistance

4. Please describe specific questions/concerns that you would like to clarify and solve
during the WU, if any.

5. Your comments and suggestions if any.

Thank you for your cooperation

314
Suggested answers to Questions 2 and 3 above

2. How do you describe the characteristics of IP in comparison with F/S report? In the
description, please mention who will be users of the F/S report and Implementation
Plan.

Report Specific characteristics

F/S A feasibility study (F/S) is a preliminary study undertaken to determine
and document a project's viability. It will determine the likelihood that a
project will fulfill the objective. The main readers of the feasibility study
will be financial institutions or potential investors that possibly extend
their supports to the implementation of the project, and the higher level
authority of the governments that is in a position to authorize the
implementation of the project, if required, and also provide supports for
the implementation.
IP The Implementation Plan (IP) aims to provide management and staff
members involving in the project implementation, particularly those of
the implementing agency, with a plan of how to implement the project
and potential supporting agencies (e.g. financial institution, government
agencies, and foreign donor agencies) with a plan of how those
responsible for the project implementation carry out the project to its
completion. The IP focuses more on how and when the project is to be
implemented than on why the project needs to be executed.

3. Please select appropriate words from the box below and put the corresponding
alphabets in the brackets from (1) to (9) in order to complete the following sentences.
You may use appropriate words as many times as you wish.

(1) Project objective is defined as an objective that is expected to be achieved as a

result of the implementation of the project. It is to be achieved by the end of the (2)
project period. If an external assistance is provided, the (3) objective of the assistance
is set and it is to be achieved by the end of the(4) assistance period. The (5) objective
of the assistance is regarded as an interim objective en route to the (6) project objective.
The (7) project objective and (8) objective of the assistance are revealed in the form of
specific benefits for the (9) target beneficiary of the project.
Box
a. Project objective b. Objective of assistance

315
c. Target beneficiary d. Project e. Assistance

(1) a (2) d (3) b (4) e (5)b (6) a (7) a (8) b (9) c

Annex 2-2: Responses to Questionnaire 1
Answers to Question 1.2 of Questionnaire 1 on July 3, 2007

2. FS and IP
Code F/S IP

-is used by the investor - is used by the investor

- is used by leaders - is used by the M&E Unit

-is used by the investor - is used by the investor
- is used by the M&E Unit
- is used by leaders
- Is used by the investor and - Is used by the managers, investors
managers and the implementation offices.

- Is used by the investor and - Is used by the managers, investors

managers and the implementation offices.

- is used by the investment - is used by the investor

managers - is used by the M&E Unit

- is used by the leaders

- is used by the investor, - is used by the district project
implementation manager office, management board, implementation
authority at many levels, finance office
office. - is used by the investor,
agriculture and forestry encouragement
officer

NA NA

-is the output of investment - is provided for implementation unit

preparation, base for and assistant units such as: finance,

316
Code F/S IP

implementation manager office and investor.

- includes feasible contents, refers to

aspects such as management,
institutional arrangement,
technique, economic, finance, etc,.
to achieve the project objective
- is the output of investment -provides for the implementation
preparation, base for office and assistant office (finance
implementation office, investor, etc,.)

- is used by finance organization, - is used by implementation office and

investor, authority at many levels assistant office
etc,.

- is the final base for steering the -provide information for the staff of
production forest plantation in implementation and assistant office
order to achieve best objective.
-is implemented by the staff of
- is implemented by staff of management office
sufficient offices such as
consultant company, management
office

- is the final document of - refers to proposals of each FS part

investment preparation. The but it is more clarified
contents are completely and
comprehensively studied in all -is used by finance organizations,
fields such as economic, investor, technician and manager from
technique, finance, management, implementation partner
human resource, etc,. in order to
achieve the project objective.

317
Code F/S IP

-is used by finance organizations,

potential investor, authority at
many levels, investigation unit.

-is the base for steering investment - provides for the implementation unit
Its’ contents is adequately studied and potential assistant office (finance
in aspects such as economic, office, state office, investor)
technique, finance in order to
achieve the highest benefit

- is the final document of the - provides for staff of the

investment preparation, base for implementation partner and potential
steering the implementation. The assistant office (finance office,
contents are completely and investor)
comprehensively studied in all
fields such as economic,
technique, finance, etc,. in order to
achieve project objective.

- is the final output that performs - performs the implementation

the investment implementation at progress including material, human
complete and comprehensive level resource, finance, etc,. It also refers to
of all fields such as economy, special periods and technique
technique, management, human methods.
resource etc,.

- is the report that performs the - is the report refers to the FS with a
survey, information collection, more adequate, special and reality
relation and main aim system. It mentions on how will the
establishment of relative and FS be implemented? Who, How,
necessary impacts system in order When to implement? How to
to achieve objectives. evaluate?

- is used by the authority at many - is used by sufficient authorities, IP

levels, finance organizations, implementation partner, project

318
Code F/S IP

potential investors, consultants management board and the investor

for M&E

-is the final document of the -assists the staff of implementation

investment preparation, the base partner and potential assistant.
for steering the implementation.
Its’ contents are adequately, -is the base for implementation
comprehensively and deeply
studied in all fields: economic,
technique, finance, management in
order to achieve objective with the
best profit.

-bases on survey to give out -specializes project components.

reasons for project building with
clear scale and purpose. - raises questions: what, where, when,
who for implementation? to ensure the
-is the base for project justification project objective
including implementation contents
and project effectiveness -is used by manager, technician,
assistant, potential investors, etc.
- is used by finance organization,
investor and authority at many
levels

-is the final document of the -assists the staff of implementation

investment preparation, base for partner.
steering the implementation. Its’
contents are adequately, - clarifies project activities
comprehensively and deeply
studied in order to achieve -is used by implementation partner
objective with the best profit.

- is used by finance organization,

investor and authority at many

319
Code F/S IP

levels

- is the final document of the - is built when FS is completely edited

investment preparation, base for
the authority and the investor to - provides for the implementation
give out proper decisions partner and implementation assistant

- is the comprehensive study on -focuses on institutional arrangement,

nature, economic, society and role and responsibility of relative
resolution to achieve project implementation partner
objective

- location and area -Project summary

-Objective and output -Content and IP including institutional

arrangement, implementing schedule,
-component finance management, procurement
management, sales and marketing,
-Cost training schedule, M&E

-PDM -Users: PST

Users: PST

-is the final document of - provides for the implementation

investment preparation. The partner and implementation assistant
contents are completely and
comprehensively studied in all -users: Implementation partner
fields

-Users: Project management board

-Contain 4 parts: background, -contains 2 parts: project summary and

content, effectiveness, conclusion IP content.

320
Code F/S IP

and recommendation -Answers for the questions: what,

who, when, where for
-Answer for the questions: what, implementation?
who, when, where for
implementation? -user: managers and technician of
implementation partner, technique
-user: managers and technician of consultant office and investor (for
implementation partner, technique M&E)
consultant office and investor (for
M&E)

- including 4 parts: Background, -Including 2 parts: project summary,

content, effectiveness, conclusion Content of the IP
and recommendation
-user: technician of project
-Answers for questions: reasons management board (PBM)
for project building? Project
purpose and scale? Effectiveness?

-User: project owner

-is the final document of the - is the document for implementation

implementation preparation for base on FS report.
being approved by sufficient
authority. - Specializes project activities and the
responsibility of each project partner
- purpose, scale, effectiveness and to achieve objectives of FS component
implementation methods base on
adequately, comprehensively and -user: state office, finance office,
deeply studied in many fields such investor, PMB, implementation
as economic, technique, finance, partner
management in order to achieve
objective with the best benefit.

-user: state office, finance office,

321
Code F/S IP

investor, PMB

- is the final document of the - provides for the Implementation

investment preparation, base for office and state office (finance,
steering the implementation. Its’ investor and relative offices,etc.)
contents are adequately,
comprehensively and deeply -user: managers and technician of
studied in order to achieve implementation office
objective with the best profit.

-user: PBM

- is the final document of the -assists the staff of implementation

investment preparation. Its partner and potential assistant office to
contents are completely and achieve project objective
comprehensively studied in all
fields such as economic,
technique, finance, management,
human resource, etc. in order to
achieve the project objective.

-reasons for Project building -What?

-purpose and scale -who?

-Why and how to implement? -Where?

- Project output? -When?

Users: finance organization,

322
Code F/S IP

potential investor

- is complete, comprehensive -assists the staff of implementation

study on many fields: economic, partner and potential assistant office:
natural condition, technique, finance office, investor
finance, management. FS is the
base for steering investment
progress

- is the final document of the -assists the staff of implementation

investment preparation, base for partner and potential assistant office
steering the implementation. The
contents are completely and
comprehensively studied in all
fields such as economic,
technique, finance, etc,. in order to
achieve project objective.

- Users of the F/S report will be

financial institutions, potential
investors, and authorities at
various levels.

- is the final document of the -assists the staff of implementation

investment preparation, base for partner and potential assistant office
steering the implementation. The
contents are completely and
comprehensively studied in all
fields such as economic,
technique, finance, etc,. in order to
achieve project objective.

323
4. Comments and suggestions for WU 5
Code Comments and suggestions for WU 5

- Measure to expedite land allocation procedures (in order to provide land

certificate to households)

- Role of government at district level?

- We have not assured farmers of the benefits expected from the project.

- Please make sure the proceedings for borrowing capital from investors.

- Please clarify the harvesting procedures.

- Could we combine IP and FS into one report?

[Link] comments and suggestions

Code Any comments and suggestions

- How to ensure the commitment of the investor in investment and sales of

products at the time when participation of farmers is not assured.

- How is the policy to protect farmers if there are calamity risks?

- No big problems
- Some small problems in translation, grammar. It’s necessary to
arrange documents properly

324
Annex 3-1: Questionnaire 2 form
Questionnaire 2 on July 5, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province or your institution):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI Thai Nguyen

Name:

You have completed the half of the intensive training program of WU 5. After WU 5,
you are expected to prepare the Implementation Plan (IP) by yourself. We would like
to proceed with this intensive training program by incorporating your comments and
suggestions. Please let us know your response to this intensive program by answering
the following questions.

1. You have sit through the presentation and carried out exercises in respective fields.
Please let us know if you have gained analytical skills and knowledge to write the
relevant parts (Part I, Chapter 1 to 4 of Part II) of the Implementation Plan. Please
rate your level of skills and knowledge for Part I and Chapter 1 to 4 of Part II of the
IP on a scale from Low Level (1) to High Level (7) with (4) being Medium Level.
(Please circle the appropriate number)

Low Level High Level

Medium Level Very good
Need assistance from Good understanding
someone else in order understanding so
so as to carry out as to teach
to carry out required required tasks
tasks required tasks to
without assistance of others
others
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. If you have found any inappropriateness in the structure of the Implementation Plan
or any suggestions for improvement of the IP, please give your comments and
suggestions.

(1) Inappropriate parts (2) Suggestions for improvement

325
3. Please put appropriate words in the following bracket to complete sentences that
describe the specific features of the implementing agency. (30 points)

In this Manual, the implementing agency is defined as an entity that is responsible for
(_________________________________). The implementing agency is staffed with
personnel whose responsibilities are clearly defined and is equipped with planning and
controlling functions for the project implementation.

4. From Page 74 to Page 75 of the F/S manual, the four types of fund flows are
presented by classifying providers and users of funds. Please circle the name of the
fund flow model that is corresponding to the project you have designed in your
province. PST members in Thai Nguyen will refer to the Model F/S and Model IP to
answer this question. (30 points)
(1) Model A (2) Model B (3) Model C (4) Model D

5. Please list up four types of procurement methods explained in the session. (40
points)
Name of the procurement method
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

6. Please give your rating on WU 5 so far on a scale from Poor (0) to Excellent (100)
with 50 being satisfactory. (Please circle the appropriate number)
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

7. Comments and suggestions for the rest of WU 5 including appropriateness of the

workshop methods and discussions, if any.

Thank you for your cooperation

326
Annex 3-2: Responses to Questionnaire 2
Responses to Questionnaire 2 on July 5, 2006 Code:
Province (Please circle your province or your institution):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI Thai Nguyen

Name:

You have completed the half of the intensive training program of WU 5. After WU 5,
you are expected to prepare the Implementation Plan (IP) by yourself. We would like
to proceed with this intensive training program by incorporating your comments and
suggestions. Please let us know your response to this intensive program by answering
the following questions.

2. You have sit through the presentation and carried out exercises in respective fields.
Please let us know if you have gained analytical skills and knowledge to write the
relevant parts (Part I, Chapter 1 to 4 of Part II) of the Implementation Plan. Please
rate your level of skills and knowledge for Part I and Chapter 1 to 4 of Part II of the
IP on a scale from Low Level (1) to High Level (7) with (4) being Medium Level.
(Please circle the appropriate number)

Low Level High Level

Medium Level Very good
Need assistance from Good understanding
someone else in order understanding so
so as to carry out as to teach
to carry out required required tasks
tasks required tasks to
without assistance of others
others
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q 2.1 Skill and knowledge level

16
No. of responses: 32
14
Average: 4.5
12

10
Median: 5
Persons

8 SD: 0.9
6

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

327
3. If you have found any inappropriateness in the structure of the Implementation
Plan or any suggestions for improvement of the IP, please give your comments and
suggestions.

Code (1) Inappropriate parts (2) Suggestions for improvement

-Annex 2 and Annex 5 are too special The project management board should
-There are too many tables if the adjust, replace and make annual
project was disposed in many work plan
communes, hamlets and households.
-Relationship between borrower and -Relationship between the government
lender and the implementation partner
-Module C: Budget- Farmer
-not close to the reality
-shouldn’t divide the project objective -should change into:
into:
+ Overall objective + Overall objective
+ Project objective + Special objective
- Project outputs and components -should change into:
+Project components
+Expected Outputs
-Project schedule should be more
detail
-For the production forestry project, if
the households are the beneficiaries,
we should concentrate on encouraging
forestry and agriculture expansion
-Need to clarify the role and the
responsibility of the implementation
system

3. Please put appropriate words in the following bracket to complete sentences that
describe the specific features of the implementing agency. (30 points)
In this Manual, the implementing agency is defined as an entity that is responsible for
(_________________________________). The implementing agency is staffed with
personnel whose responsibilities are clearly defined and is equipped with planning and
controlling functions for the project implementation.

4. From Page 74 to Page 75 of the F/S manual, the four types of fund flows are
presented by classifying providers and users of funds. Please circle the name of the
fund flow model that is corresponding to the project you have designed in your
province. PST members in Thai Nguyen will refer to the Model F/S and Model IP to
answer this question. (30 points)
(1) Model A (2) Model B (3) Model C (4) Model D

328
4. Please list up four types of procurement methods explained in the session. (40
points)

Name of the procurement method

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Summation of points for Questions 3 to 5 (Full score=100 points)

Q 2.3 + Q 2.4 + Q 2.5
No. of responses: 32
12 Average: 74.2
10 Median: 80
8 SD: 20.2
Persons

0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-
100

6. Please give your rating on WU 5 so far on a scale from Poor (0) to Excellent (100)
with 50 being satisfactory. (Please circle the appropriate number)
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q 2.7 Level of Satisfaction

12 No. of responses: 32
10 Average: 65.6
8
Median: 65
SD: 11.3
Persons

0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-
100

329
7. Comments and suggestions for the rest of WU 5 including appropriateness of the
workshop methods and discussions, if any.

Code Comment and suggestion

-proper methods and discussion
-we should have field trips and visit scene.
-need more exercises beside the summary exercises. The teachers should
have exercise forms (on paper) to distribute. Participants finish exercises
and give it back to teachers
-integrating the exercises and make report on this on July 6
- integrating the exercises and make report on this on July 6
We should connect exercise parts. This is the trouble of implementing
province. How can we have a perfect exercise?
-Good teaching
-We should share FS between provinces
-We should spend the one day instead of half a day to visit Datlat (Saturday
afternoon)
-Each provincial group has meeting to unify IP programme
-Discussion to supply for omitted contents
-Guide participants to do more exercises in order to create logic between
IP and FS
-teaching method and discussion are very proper
-you should provide participants with materials for their reading before
having class
-No need to come to the detail of all contents. We’ve already known many
of them. Please put it in brief to save the time
After each exercise, the organizing committee need to conclude the
problem to ensure what is right and what should be discussed more.
The teaching method has been better since the 3rd day. Please spend more
time for discussion. There is a need to have more ideas on each provincial
report.
Thank you for your cooperation

330
Suggested answer.
The full version of Question 2 above will read as follows:

Trong Hướng dẫn này, Cơ quan thực hiện được hiểu là đơn vị chịu trách nhiệm đảm
bảo (đạt được các mục tiêu của dự án). Để thực hiện mục tiêu về mặt tổ chức, cơ quan
này cần được bố trí nhân sự để thực hiện những nhiệm vụ tương ứng và được tiến hành
các chức năng hoạch định và kiểm soát thực hiện dự án.

In this Manual, the implementing agency is defined as an entity that is responsible for
(achievement of the project objective). The implementing agency is staffed with
personnel whose responsibilities are clearly defined and is equipped with planning and
controlling functions for the project implementation.

Question 4
Có 4 phương pháp: đấu thầu cạnh tranh, đấu thầu hạn hẹp, mua sắm tại các cửa hàng ở
địa phương và hợp đồng trực tiếp. Đấu thầu cạnh tranh là loại đấu thầu qua quảng cáo
rộng rãi. Đấu thầu hạn chế là trực tiếp mời thầu để cạnh tranh mà không quảng cáo.
Mua sắm tại các cửa hàng ở địa phương là phương pháp dựa vào việc so sánh giá cả từ
các nhà cung cấp. Hợp đồng trực tiếp là thuê tư vấn thực hiện việc mua sắm

There will be four typical procurement methods: competitive bidding, limited bidding,
local shopping, and direct contracting. A Competitive Bidding is a competitive bidding
by open advertisement. A Limited Bidding is a competitive bidding by direct invitation
without open advertisement. A Local shopping is a procurement method based on
comparing price quotation obtained from several suppliers. A Direct contracting is a
method to directly appoint a specific consultant.

331
Annex 4-1: Questionnaire 3 form
Questionnaire 3 on July 7, 2007 Code:
Province (Please circle your province or your institution):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI Thai Nguyen

Name:
Part I
You have completed your intensive training program of Work Unit Five (WU 5) in
Lam Dong Province. Please answer the following questions relevant to this intensive
training program of WU5 held from July 3 to July 7, 2007. (Please circle the
appropriate number).
7. Is the present level of your knowledge and skills of preparing the contents of the
Implementation Plan (IP) high or low compared with the level you had before you
participated in this intensive training program of WU 5 on a scale from 1 (Lower)
to 7 (Higher) with 4 being (About the same) ?
Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. How much of the knowledge and skills for preparing the contents of the IP
transferred through this intensive training program of WU 5 have you acquired? Please
provide your evaluation on a scale of 0 being nothing acquired to 100 being fully
acquired.
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3. How do you find the relationship between the contents of this intensive training
program and your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?
Somewhat Very
Very weak Somewhat Neither strong strong
weak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. After completing WU 5 intensive training program, how do you think of the

proposed structure of the Implementation Plan introduced during the intensive training
program? Is the structure practical enough to put your project proposed in the F/S
report into implementation?
Not Somewhat not Somewhat Very
practical practical Neither practical practical
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

332
5. Methodologies adopted during the intensive training program (explanation of the IP
contents, group works, and presentation) will help you prepare the Implementation
Plan for the project in your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Handouts and exercises provided during the intensive training program will help you
transfer to other colleagues in your province what you learned after you go back to
your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Lecture/presentation of the instructors was concise and clear.

Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. The instructors organized the sessions by integrating the lecture/presentation with

discussions, Q & A, handouts, and exercises.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Assistants of the training sessions from Forestry Inventory and Planning Institute
(FIPI) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Sharing of experiences among PST members from other participating provinces
(PPs) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. How do you think of the amount or volume of the contents or works during the
five-day intensive training program?
Too little Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
little volumino much
1 2 3 4 5 us 6 7

12. How do you think of the duration of the five-day intensive training program?
Too short Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
short long long
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

333
13. Overall rating of the five-day long intensive training program of WU 5 on a scale
from 0 (Poor) to 100 (Excellent) with 50 being satisfactory.
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Part II
You have completed all the five intensive training programs (WU 1 to WU 5) started
from July 2006.

1. Have you ever applied what you learned through the training program of FICAB to
any other works in your office?
1. Yes 0. No

If your answer to the above is Yes, please let us know what you applied. You
may point out names of methodologies you learned and applied, and names of other
projects and/or works you applied such methodologies.

2. If you are asked to evaluate the training program (intensive training program and
On-the-Job Training program of WU 1 to WU 5) under FICAB, what do you think as
strengths and weaknesses of the training program of FICAB?
Strengths Weakness

334
3. Do you recommend others to participate in the FICAB in the future?
1. Yes 0. No

If your answer to the above is yes, to whom do you recommend first?

__________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your cooperation.

335
Annex 4-2: Responses to Questionnaire 3
Questionnaire 3 on July 7, 2007 Code:
Province (Please circle your province or your institution):
Son La Quang Nam Lam Dong Long An Sub-FIPI Thai Nguyen

Name:
Part I
You have completed your intensive training program of Work Unit Five (WU 5) in
Lam Dong Province. Please answer the following questions relevant to this intensive
training program of WU5 held from July 3 to July 7, 2007. (Please circle the
appropriate number).

8. Is the present level of your knowledge and skills of preparing the contents of the
Implementation Plan (IP) high or low compared with the level you had before you
participated in this intensive training program of WU 5 on a scale from 1 (Lower)
to 7 (Higher) with 4 being (About the same) ?

Lower Somewhat lower About the same Somewhat higher Higher

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.1 Knowledge and Skill Level

20
18
No. of responses: 25
16 Average: 5.7
No. of Responses

14
12
Median: 6
10 SD: 0.5
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

336
2. How much of the knowledge and skills for preparing the contents of the IP
transferred through this intensive training program of WU 5 have you acquired? Please
provide your evaluation on a scale of 0 being nothing acquired to 100 being fully
acquired.
Nothing acquired Fully acquired
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q3.2 Degree of Knowledge and Skill Acquired

12 No. of responses: 25
10
Average: 74.6
No. of Responses

8
Median: 70
6
SD: 8.8
4

0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-
100
Rating

3. How do you find the relationship between the contents of this intensive training
program and your current work? Is the relation strong or weak?
Somewhat Very
Very weak Somewhat Neither strong strong
weak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.3 Relation with Current Works

18 No. of responses: 25
16 Average: 5.8
14
Median: 6
No. of Responses

12

10
SD: 0.9
8

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

337
 4. After completing WU 5 intensive training program, how do you think of the
proposed structure of the Implementation Plan introduced during the intensive training
program? Is the structure practical enough to put your project proposed in the F/S
report into implementation?
Not Somewhat not Somewhat Very
practical practical Neither practical practical
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.4 Practical Aspect of IP Structure No. of responses: 25

20
Average: 5.8
18
16 Median: 6
No. of Responses

14
SD: 0.7
12

10
8

6
4

2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

5. Methodologies adopted during the intensive training program (explanation of the IP

contents, group works, and presentation) will help you prepare the Implementation
Plan for the project in your province.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

No. of responses: 25
Q3.5 Helpfulness of Methodologies
18
Average: 6.0
16 Median: 6
14 SD: 0.7
No. of Responses

12

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

338
6. Handouts and exercises provided during the intensive training program will help you
transfer to other colleagues in your province what you learned after you go back to
your province.

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly

disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.6 Helpfulness of Handouts and Exercises No. of responses: 25

16 Average: 6.2
14 Median: 6
12 SD: 0.8
No. of Responses

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

7. Lecture/presentation of the instructors was concise and clear.

Strongly Rather Neither Rather Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.7 Conciseness and Clearness of Presentation

No. of responses: 25
16
Average: 5.5
14
Median: 6
12
No. of Responses

SD: 0.7
10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

339
8. The instructors organized the sessions by integrating the lecture/presentation with
discussions, Q & A, handouts, and exercises.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.8 Integration of Lecutres with Other Tools No. of responses: 25

16 Average: 6.1
14 Median: 6
12 SD: 0.8
No. of Responses

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

9. Assistants of the training sessions from Forestry Inventory and Planning Institute
(FIPI) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.9 Helpfulness of Assistants from FIPI No. of responses: 25

14 Average: 5.8
12 Median: 6
SD: 0.9
No. of Responses

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

340
10. Sharing of experiences among PST members from other participating provinces
(PPs) were helpful.
Strongly Rather Rather Strongly
disagree disagree Neither agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q3.10 Helpfulness of Experience Sharing

14
No. of responses: 25
Average: 6.3
12
Median: 6
No. of Responses

10
SD: 0.8
8

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

11. How do you think of the amount or volume of the contents or works during the
five-day intensive training program?
Too little Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
little volumino much
1 2 3 4 5 us 6 7

No. of responses: 24
Q3.11 Volume of Works
12
Average: 5.0
Median: 5
10
SD: 1.0
No. of Responses

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

341
12. How do you think of the duration of the five-day intensive training program?
Too short Somewhat Average Somewhat Too
short long long
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

No. of responses: 24
Q3.12 Duration
14
Average: 4.1
Median: 4
12
SD: 0.9
No. of Responses

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating

13. Overall rating of the five-day long intensive training program of WU 5 on a scale
from 0 (Poor) to 100 (Excellent) with 50 being satisfactory.
Poor Weak Satisfactory Good Excellent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Q3.13 Overall Evaluation of WU 5 No. of responses: 24

14 Average: 70.9
12 Median: 70
SD: 10.0
No. of Responses

10

0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-
100
Rating

342
Part II
1. Have you ever applied what you learned through the training program of FICAB to
any other works in your office?
1. Yes 0. No

Yes No Not Total

available
(no answer)
No of responses 24 6 1 31
Proportion 77.4 % 19.4% 3.2% 100.0%

If your answer to the above is Yes, please let us know what you applied. You
may point out names of methodologies you learned and applied, and names of other
projects and/or works you applied such methodologies.

Name of Methodologies applied in other works

Code Methodology
- investigating tree productivity for designing ....
-applying in building Feasible afforestation project
-providing provincial leaders assessments for approval
-IP for the project on yearly planting 5 million ha forest in Son La (using the
methodology learnt from the training to make plan for the implementation of
the project, etc.)
-Applying logic methodology into the implementation of 661 project
-Applying in finance and economic analysis
-Applied project:
+ material forest plantation in Duy Hoa commune, Duy Xuyen district, Quang
Nam province
+ material forest plantation of Forestry product and speciality exporting
company in Quang Nam (the company for exporting forestry products and
speciality)
-project KFW6 (funded by Germany organziation)
-project BCI ( develop the corridor for biology diversification in Truong Son)
-Building annual work plan
-Building outline and presentation for report
- Doing things in the right sequence
-method for implementation and building project

343
Code Methodology
-Real conditions are the bases for scientific programmes
-Setting up production forest project (661 programme)
-Approaching method for building project: from the bottom up (for example:
project PC implemented in Lam Dong in 2006-2007)
-Project: Dealing with exhausted forest
+information collecting and data dealing method
+CCM method for evaluating participation level, demand and financial
resource for implementation
+Finance analysis particularly for the output of products to learnt the best and
sustainable method
-Steps for setting up project
- Methods for collecting information
-Give out assessments on the effectiveness of forestry project
-Give out ideas for the supplement of investment attraction mechanism at the
provincial level
-Applying methodology on project structure, finance and economic analysis,
etc. for considering the permission for investment
-Applying the structure, arrangement, presentation for building projects in our
office.
-project: pilot for biology corridor diversification in 3 communes of Lam
Dong
We applied viewpoint and analysis method in FS implementation (evaluation
on demand, production situation; analysis on problem, objective, PDM, etc.) in
order to improve the knowledge of agriculture encouraging staff to build
agriculture encouraging programme, agriculture encouraging sub-project at
district level. The methodologies of our training course are very useful for an
agriculture encouraging trainer like me.

-information collection: for making reports

-logical analysis: for making speech and implementing annual work plan

-Investigating and collecting information, data processing

-CCM method, evaluate the level of participation
Project: dealing with exhausted forest in Dateh forestry yard.
Use of the following methodologies of WUs in other works:
-Building the map: Mepinfor

344
Code Methodology
-GPS technique machine
-Projects: WWF, GTZ and ADB
-building project that relevant to the production plan
-Building the tentative model on plantation of new seedlings.
-Applying methodologies learnt from WUs to get acquainted with building
small local projects, especially, making annual work plan for the
implementation of 661 provincial project.
-building FS on production forest plantation base on the 661 fund in many
districts of Thai Nguyen
-making detailed plan for implementation project on planting production forest
– project “afforestation for environment protection in Thai Nguyen province”
-Afforestation situation survey, collecting information on land, natural
conditions, etc.
-collecting information on provincial wood market
-Applying some methodologies into learning and studying on forestry
-building and setting up plans
-Approaching the farmers through quick interviews and surveys
-learnt by heart the IP contents including: institutional arrangement,
implementation schedule, training plan, monitoring and evaluation

Part 2. Question 2. If you are asked to evaluate the training program (intensive training
program and On-the-Job Training program of WU 1 to WU 5) under FICAB, what do
you think as strengths and weaknesses of the training program of FICAB?

Strength and Weakness of FICAB

Code Strengths Weaknesses

-JICA are very responsible -long time between two training

-FIPI staff have good capacity courses but the duration of each one
-The capacity of PPs staff will be is too short
improved
-FS building bases on the reality
-FS building bases on the reality
-Material and teaching method - The structure and content of FS and
-Inheriting experience for material IP are too long
compilation (Accumulation of

345
Code Strengths Weaknesses
experiences for compilation of data
and information, and exercises
through WU 1-5)
-Finance and economic analyses are
clear and useful
-Methodology
-logics of problems were given out
and solved
-Good contents and teaching -some contents is not related to the
methods reality
-FIPI staff are very enthusiastic -we are lacking in laptop
-FS and IP building methods make
an easy way for evaluation
-Spending fund for study
-Focusing on the reality of current
situations and policies
-Close schedule (The intended
schedule is close to the real teaching
time: e.g. time for each presentation
is carefully managed)
-is assisted by the JICA experts
-Good lecturers -The time for some contents is too
-Suitable training plan short
-Training contents are well prepared
-coordinating between academic and -We shouldn’t terminate the project
practice at this moment to uphold our
-Knowledge impartation (teaching knowledge.
method) through discussion
-Exchanging models between study
groups
-Including the implementation of
government and local policy
-Clear IP
-The logic between problem and
objective
-Building good Matrix is the main

346
Code Strengths Weaknesses
problem leading to the success
-Having specific IP
-The training courses are very -Training durations are too short
practical - No time for sharing models with
- The contents are detailed and easy other provinces
to understand
-Assisting for the management skill
-Training methods are quite modern -Time for intensive training is too
-The contents are quite suitable with short. There is no time for
the local realty understanding all the necessary
contents
-Market analysis
-Economic analysis
Evaluation on the environment
impacts

-There are many new view points -some limitations on presentation

and approaching methods that could skill of lecturers
increase the capacity for staff. -some problems on translation
-Friendship Organizing method documents
- Group working exercises -Some hard forms of progress
-evaluation and feedback receiving (inflexibility of the procedures
ways of JST is quite specific described in the documents) could
reduce the creativeness of
participants
- some limitations on the opening
and the conclusion of the study
sectors (introduction and conclusion
of each training session during WU
5)
-Good cooperation between JICA -Training time is too short to
experts, FIPI staffs and PST in compare with the number of lectures
training and field survey and exercises
- The training contents is very clear -Duration of the workshop is too
-The organization is very short
considerate -the time between each training

347
Code Strengths Weaknesses
-Good preparation on materials workshops are too long
-Good methodology -Some contents has unclear
methodologies
-Training courses were assisted by
project as well as organizing
province
-The lecturers are very enthusiastic
-FIPI staffs have so much experience -Teaching skill is ineffective

-Coordinating between academic

and practice
-Teaching method: discussion
- Experience exchanging between
working groups

-short term training course is very -The duration of WU 1-5 is too short
useful and close to the reality so that the working pressure is quite
-Coordinating between lectures and high.
discussion
-Training method is quite modern,
the contents are plentiful, teaching
skill of lecturers is very good
-combination between academic and
exercises
-The lecturers are very enthusiastic
-The duration is quite good
-experience exchanging between
participants
-detail and clear guidelines -Time for exercises is too short lead
-Adequate materials to the short duration of the training
course.
-The method is specific and detailed. -Provinces have differences in
administrative location, therefore, it
is a little bit unsuitable to share
experience
-training structure is logical -some tables are prolix (easy to get

348
Code Strengths Weaknesses
-Contents are suitable confused)
-Japanese experts and FIPI have -Each province has its own structure
many experience on training and policy so that form using is not
-enthusiastic consistency (table formats to be used
-PPs support to the training course in the documents should not be
and always ready to share their uniform over the different
experience provinces).
-Clear and specific contents Because of the different conditions
- Experts and lecturers are skillful between provinces, sharing
- Scientific organizing experience are unrealistic
-Carefully collecting information -Duration of each training course,
workshop is too short compared to
their contents .
- IP components should be related to
the reality

3. Do you recommend others to participate in the FICAB in the future?

1. Yes 0. No

Yes No Not Total

available
(No answer)
No of responses 17 8 6 31
Proportion 54.8% 25.8% 19.4% 100.0%

If your answer to the above is yes, to whom do you recommend first?

__________________________________________________________________
Recommended person to participate in the FICAB
Code Recommended person
-The staffs who build the local FS
-The staffs who build the FS
-The staffs who are responsible to the forestry branch (Sub-DoF and relevant office at
the district level)
- My counterparts, including co-workers, in my office

349
- Staffs of encouraging forestry offices in the districts of Quang Nam
-Forest warden (forest guard) because promotion of the forestry is also a part of forest
management in the future
-Staffs who directly implement the project
-Technicians in my office
-[Link]
-My counterparts
-Managers at local level
-My counterparts, including co-workers
-[Link]
-Staffs (counterparts, including co-workers) in my office
-My counterparts, including co-workers
-[Link]

350
 Appendix 8

Formats for Evaluation of

F/S Report and IP

351
(1) Format for evaluation of F/S report
No Item Evaluation perspectives Point Sending agency
* A B …
General aspect 30
1 Logical Logical relation of PDM (5 points) 10
consistency and logical construction of the report
(5 points)
2 Data quality and Quality (5 points) and quantity (5 10
quantity points)
3 Correct Appropriate use of the method (5 10
application of points) and application (5 points)
method
Specific aspect 70
Part I 15
1 Context of the How does the description show the 2
project policy relevant of the project?
2 Natural/socio-ec Assessment of data quality and 4
onomic quantity
conditions
2.1 Natural In terms of natural resources in the 2
conditions project area
2.2 Socio-economic In terms of human resource 2
potentials (1 point)
In terms of socio-economic
environment such as household
economy, major economic activities,
financial sources and infrastructure
(1point)
2.3 Land use and - Description of current situation of 5
forest resources forest land (2 point)
- Description of land productivity (3
point)
2.4 Sales and - Description of existing market (2 3
marketing points) and future market prospects
(1 point) (target products,
specifications, prices, quantities,
delivery methods)
2.5 Lessons learned Has any lesson been referred in 1
relation to the project? (0.5 point)
2.6 Opportunities Assessment of opportunities and
and challenges challenges is done? (0.5 point)
Part II 25
1 Project rationale Description of issues (1 point) and 3
presentation of the project as an
appropriate counter-measures (2
points)
2 Project Consistency with the PDM 3
objective/outputs

352
No Item Evaluation perspectives Point Sending agency
* A B …
3 Project Sufficiency and appropriateness of 5
components/Key project components (2 points)
design /implementation plan (2 points)/
consideration or schedule (1 point) in light of
project achievement of the objective
implementation
plan
4 Project cost Description of baseline costs, 3
physical and price contingencies,
assumptions in tables
5 Financing plan Description of cost table by financing 4
sources
Loan repayment schedule
6 Organization of Description of the roles and 3
project responsibilities of the implementing
management and agency to achieve the objective
implementation Appropriateness of stakeholder
analysis
7 Training plan Have training needs been identified 2
for the project implementation?
8 Monitoring and Realistic indicators are being set for 2
Evaluation M & E?
Part III 20
1 Financial/economi Appropriateness of data used for the 10
c analysis analysis (2 points), and
appropriateness of methodologies (5
points) and analysis of results (3
points)
2 Environmental Appropriateness of data used for the 2
impact analysis (1 point), and methodologies
and analysis of results (1 point)
3 Social impact 2
4 Sustainability Any factors being described that are 3
critical to the sustainability of the
project?
5 Risk and Any risks and mitigating measures 3
mitigating being mentioned?
measures
Part IV 10
1 Conclusion Persuasive statement of conclusion 5
2 Recommendation Recommendations for actions being 5
addressed?
Note: (*) For each of the items, 100% of the point is given when description is evaluated as “good,”
70% when it is evaluated as “fair,” 40% when relevant items of the F/S structure are at least
mentioned, 0% when nothing is mentioned for the relevant items of the F/S structure.

353
(2) Format for evaluation of IP
No Item Major perspectives for evaluation Point Sending agency
* A B …
General aspect 20
1 Practical Is the IP practical enough to put in 10
aspect implementation?
2 Clarity (ease Is the IP clear enough to guide the staff 10
of members of the implementing agency to
understanding) implement the project?
Specific aspect 80
Part I
1 Summary of Concise summary of F/S report by 10
the project incorporating any revision made over the
report.
Part II
1 Institutional Clear description of the roles and 10
arrangement responsibilities of the implementing
agency including the internal
organizational structure and the relation
with other major stakeholders
2 Implementati Realistic schedule in consideration of the 10
on schedule timing and sequencing of respective
project activities at both preparation and
operation periods
3 Arrangement Clear explanation of the channels through 10
for financial which the funds be delivered from
arrangement providers to users for all the financial
sources
4 Procurement Clarification of parties that will be in 10
arrangements charge of major actions, particularly
those who are authorized to approve the
award and contract, and how long the
procedures take (preparation of
procurement flow)
5 Sales and Clarification of parties to be involved in 10
marketing major processes, their actions and time
sequences of the actions to be taken
(preparation of sales and marketing flow)
6 Training plan Preparation of the table for training plan 10
in consideration of the training needs
7 M&E Preparation of the table for M & E plan 10
by clarifying respective parties to collect
data and information, to aggregate them,
and to make a decision.
Note: (*) For each of the items, 100% of the point is given when description is evaluated as “good,”
70% when it is evaluated as “fair,” 40% when relevant items of the IP structure are at least
mentioned, 0% when nothing is mentioned for the relevant items of the IP structure.

354
Training Package

Book 1: Training Plan on Capacity Building for Preparing Feasibility Studies and
Implementation Plans for Production Forest/Agroforestry Development Projects in
Vietnam
Book 2: Manual for Preparation of Feasibility Study Reports for Production Forest/Agroforestry
Development Projects in Vietnam
Book 3: Manual for Preparation of Implementation Plans for Production Forest/Agroforestry
Development Projects in Vietnam
Book 4: Model F/S of Thai Nguyen Province
Book 4-1: Model Feasibility Study Report for Smallholder Production Forest
Development Project in Thai Nguyen Province
Book 4-2: Model Feasibility Study Report for Agroforestry Development Project in
Thai Nguyen Province
Book 5: Model IP of Thai Nguyen Province
Book 5-1: Model Implementation Plan for Smallholder Production Forest
Development Project in Thai Nguyen Province
Book 5-2: Model Implementation Plan for Agroforestry Development Project in Thai
Nguyen Province
Book 6: Monitoring and Evaluation Report on Technical Training of Participating Provinces
Book 7: Market Trend Reference Book on Wood-based and Agroforestry Products
Book 8: Feasibility Study Reports of Participating Provinces
Book 8-1: Feasibility Study Report on Agroforestry Project in Ta Hoc Commune, Mai
Son District, Son La Province
Book 8-2: Feasibility Study Report on Production Forest Establishment Project in Nui
Thanh District, Quang Nam Province
Book 8-3: Feasibility Study Report on Treatment of Exhausted Natural Forest and
Production Forest Establishment Project in Da Teh District, Lam Dong
Province
Book 8-4: Feasibility Study Report on Afforestation Project for Serving Biodiversity
Conservation in Long An Province
Book 9: Implementation Plans of Participating Provinces
Book 9-1: Implementation Plan on Agroforestry Project in Ta Hoc Commune, Mai
Son District, Son La Province
Book 9-2: Implementation Plan on Production Forest Establishment Project in Nui
Thanh District, Quang Nam Province
Book 9-3: Implementation Plan on Treatment of Exhausted Natural Forest and
Production Forest Establishment Project in Da Teh District, Lam Dong
Province
Book 9-4: Implementation Plan on Afforestation Project for Serving Biodiversity
Conservation in Long An Province