Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

5. Quality of project delivery. SOCODEP concentrated on delivery of numerical outputs, such as
cooperatives restructured, credit disbursed, trainings delivered, drugs purchased, kilometres of road
constructed, water points built, and so on. Insufficient emphasis was placed on the quality of these
outputs. For example, insufficient consideration was given to the intensity and duration of activities
required to achieve the desired quality standards. In particular, the human factor of individual and
group (community, cooperative, institution) attitudes were addressed minimally. For example, the
design was too optimistic about the speed with which the former model of cooperatives, centrally
controlled by the government, could be turned around into a member-owned and member-controlled
viable business model. To turn around a failing, politically-established cooperative to become a viable
business serving its members, or to bring about community ownership and management of a water
point demanded a great deal of attention to quality of the investment, not just numbers.
6. However, some of the activities such as upgrading of health facilities and training of staff and
community health workers performed better.
7. Relevance, effectiveness, efficiency. The project objectives and activities were relevant to
needs of the rural poor in southern Ethiopia (e.g., in terms of the need for credit, improved market
access, better health services and environmental health) and were consistent with the government’s
regionalization programme. The Project was moderately ineffective achieving some, but not all of its
objectives. Similarly, the project was moderately inefficient. Given the difficult operating environment
in Ethiopia, the project could have been more efficient if it had been more realistic and had less
ambitious objectives and coverage. The vast geographic area, poor infrastructure and communication
meant that the projected resources were not optimally used.
8. Sustainability of the SOCODEP’s benefits are unlikely to continue, partly due to the lack of a
defined exit strategy. Moreover, institutional sustainability is limited and on-going access to credit,
and water supply is not assured.
9. Innovation. At the time of design, SOCODEP’s focus on cooperatives and credit represented a
response to the apparent liberalization of national politics and economics, and to the change in
cooperatives legislation. Unfortunately, the country context changed rapidly and the design became
less relevant given the new context. Despite the positive efforts at the MTR, the design adjustments
were not adequate given the changing realities. On another issue, the BSF component introduced an
effective monitoring and evaluation system, which however was not integrated into the other project
components. As the project was overstretched and its components were not integrated, SOCODEP
offered little opportunity for the learning being generated to be feed back into the project. Hence, the
evaluation considered the project to be moderately unsuccessful in terms of innovations, replicability
and upscaling.
10. Policy dialogue. SOCODEP was largely responsive to policy changes and government-led
restructuring. There is little evidence however of the project contributing to IFAD’s effective
engagement in policy dialogue in the country.
11. Participation. Probably the single greatest assurance of sustainability at the level of households
and communities is through real commitment to beneficiary participation. However, the evaluation
found that ensuring beneficiary participation in an area with a weak tradition of participation is
challenging and requires greater commitment in terms of time and resources. As such, approaches
which build on existing social capital (i.e., using indigenous Community Based Organizations), rather
than working through structures imposed from above and outside the beneficiary communities, are
most likely to succeed in the short and long term.
12. Integration. This evaluation report has highlighted at a number of points the lack of integration
between the numerous stakeholders and components within SOCODEP. Although integration is not
easy, particularly given the restructuring of government organs and redeployment of personnel, it is
the only way to create synergies which can maximize the impact of limited budgets.
xviii