Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

them. The evaluation team is in favour of projects which involve multiple components addressing the
diverse needs of target populations – but the difficulties of integrating such efforts should be carefully
considered.
48. Management. Management is more than coordination or supervision, and it should be
addressed with greater rigour in future projects and programmes particularly in challenging contexts as
found in SOCODEP. Projects need to be much more decisively managed. It is recommended that new
approaches be explored, either through IFAD itself taking a more hands-on role during execution,
facilitated by the Fund’s field presence officer, which allow closer monitoring and follow-up to
implementation.
49. Role of the field presence officer. The field presence officer can, among other tasks, provide
implementation support to IFAD-funded operations and has the potential to enhance partnerships and
policy dialogue in Ethiopia. Hence, the country presence should be further strengthened, so that it can
play a greater role in enhancing IFAD’s development effectiveness in Ethiopia.
C. Questions for the Forthcoming Country Programme Evaluation (CPE)
50. In view of the CPE for Ethiopia which is planned for 2007, a number of key questions arise
from the present evaluation, which should be addressed in that context. These are:
• Have the present project identification, formulation and appraisal processes encouraged the
setting of unrealistic targets and spreading project of activities too thinly? If so, how can
these tendencies be avoided in future?;
• Are the existing project identification, formulation and appraisal processes sufficiently
participative, in a country in which participation is not a strong tradition? If not, can they be
made more so?
• To what extent have the detailed capacities of project stakeholder institutions been routinely
assessed at the formulation stage, in order to design appropriate capacity-building
programmes? What improvements can be made to this process?
• What has been the impact of the BSF contributions in Ethiopia? How can the partnership be
enhanced in future activities?
• How can the present model of project management and supervision be modified to create a
significantly greater degree of the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) authority and
effectiveness, without de-coupling projects from the implementing institutions? Should
separate project management structures be set up, perhaps using consulting firms, or can the
existing PCU framework be made more effective? How could the field presence officer be
more effective? What model best fits the Ethiopian context? Should clearer guidelines be
framed, setting out responsibilities for taking actions on supervision and MTR
recommendations? Where does the buck stop in terms of project management?; and
• In view of the weak performance of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in some Ethiopian
projects, how can a monitoring culture be encouraged, and how can manageable frameworks
be developed and implemented for monitoring of project performance, reflecting both
quantitative and qualitative achievements?
xvi