Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Source: Appraisal Report Regional Agricultural Bureau: Cooperatives Promotion, Sodo Rural Technology Centre: Skills Training for Small scale Enterprise Development. Figure 2. Main Project Stakeholders Financial Institutions: Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, Omo Cooperatives and their Members 14. Organizational structure. The planned organizational structure for the project was as follows: the Southern Regional Agricultural Bureau (SRAB) would have overall responsibility for the project. The Project Coordinator would be the Head of SRAB’s Cooperative Promotion Department. A Project Steering Committee would draw its membership from: • SRAB Chief (Chair); • Project Coordinator (Secretary); • Representative, Ministry of External Economic Cooperation; • Head, SRAB Planning and Project Services; • Head, Rural Credit Department, CBE; • Chief, Regional Finance Bureau; • Head, Regional Bureau for Planning and Economic Development; • Chief, Regional Bureau for Public Works and Urban Development; • Deputy Chief, Field Operations, SRAB; • Heads of participating Zonal Agricultural offices; and • Head, Agricultural Inputs Supply Corporation (AISCO) Regional Coordination Office. 15. Numerous changes in organizational structure took place during implementation. These are outlined in section II.B. 16. Project timescale. With agreed extensions, the original components of SOCODEP (that is, excluding the water, sanitation and health component) ran from September 1994 until July 2002, a total of nearly eight years with the Mid-term Review (MTR) at the end of 1996. Work on the BSF component commenced in November 1998 and continued until Project closure in December 2005, extending the project to 11 years in total. 17. Progress at key steps. The timescale conceals a number of important points related to implementation and performance over the project period, however: • by the time of the Mid-Term Review– carried out in November-December 1996, report dated March 1997 – a total of 77 Service Cooperatives had been restructured, only EB 4.975m (approx. US$790,000 or ten per cent of the US$7.68m originally allocated) had been disbursed in the form of loans, the veterinary revolving drugs fund had not commenced operation, and no roads had yet been completed. The water supply, health and basic sanitation (BSF) component was still three years away from commencement; 6 Regional (Rural) Roads Authority: Road Construction and Maintenance Regional Bureau of Health: Health and Sanitation components Regional Bureau of Water Resources:
• the supervision mission which followed the MTR (October 1997) referred to a situation of crisis and unacceptably low pace and efficiency; a year later the 1998 supervision report, although presented in a more up-beat manner, clearly indicated poor progress in most components; and • even at the time of the March 2002 supervision visit, although “about 225” service cooperatives had been restructured, still only EB 18.83m (approx US$2.28m) had been disbursed in loans. This represented 42per cent of the reduced credit line of US$5.42m recommended by the MTR. The Women’s Income Generating Activities (WIGA) subcomponent had recorded strong performance, as had the Water Supply, Health and Basic Sanitation (WSHBS) BSF project. However, only 74.5km of road rehabilitation and heavy maintenance had been completed – 10 per cent of the appraisal target of 250km rehabilitation and 450km heavy maintenance. Four months from planned loan closure in July 2002, US$10.2m (45per cent of the original budget) remained unspent 5 . B. Objectives and Methodology of the Evaluation 18. Overall objectives. The main objectives of the evaluation were to: (i) assess the performance and impact of the SOCODEP project; and (ii) generate a series of findings and recommendations that would serve IFAD, the Government of the Ethiopia, and other donors in designing and implementing similar projects and programmes in the future. The special focus of the evaluation, as highlighted in the Approach Paper, was to be on Cooperatives Development, Rural Microfinance, Socio-economic impact, and Institutional Capacity-Building. 19. Evaluation methodology. The evaluation followed OE’s guidelines for project evaluations. 6 This included making an assessment of the SOCODEP project according to internationally recognized evaluation criteria, namely: (i) project performance, including relevance, effectiveness and efficiency; (ii) impact on rural poverty; and (iii) performance of partners involved in the project, including IFAD, government institutions, and others. 20. The approach used for the Evaluation Mission therefore was largely a critical review of secondary data, and triangulation through correlation of different data sources, a field visit to the project area, semi-structured interviews, focus groups discussions and comparisons with other donor funded projects namely the IFAD/AfDB-funded the Rural Financial Intermediation Project (RUFIP) 7 , Netherlands supported the Kafa Development Programme (KDP) 8 , and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) supported the Agricultural Cooperatives in Ethiopia Project (ACE) 9 . Specifically, the evaluation included key informant interviews which were held with all relevant Government organs and other stakeholders at National, Regional, Zonal and Woreda levels. At National level, the Federal Cooperatives Agency, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, and Commercial Bank of Ethiopia staff were interviewed, as well as personnel from the RUFIP and the Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (VOCA) projects. At Regional level, officers from the Bureau of Finance and Economic Development, Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development, Bureau of Health, Bureau of Water, Mines and Energy, and the Rural Roads Authority were interviewed. Government officials were interviewed in two of the five project Zones (Kafa and the former North Omo – now Gamo Gofa and Wolayta) and one of the two special Woredas (Derashe). A 5 2002 Supervision report, paragraph 27. 6 This included assessing the project against internationally recognized evaluation criteria, namely: (i) project performance, including relevance, effectiveness and efficiency; (ii) impact on rural poverty; and (iii) performance of partners involved in the project, including IFAD, government institutions, and others. 7 Rural Financial Intermediation Project. 8 Kafa Development Programme, formerly Sustainable Poverty Alleviation Kaficho-Shakicho (SUPAK-S) 9 Agricultural Cooperatives in Ethiopia project, implemented since 1999 by ACDI/VOCA (a merger between the NGOs Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance). 7
Page 1: PROJECT EVALUATION Federal Democrat
Page 4 and 5: Overall Responsibility Lead Evaluat
Page 6 and 7: TABLES 1. Statistical Data 3 2. SOC
Page 8: Ethiopian Birr to one USD 9.50 9.00
Page 12 and 13: into farmer-owned viable business e
Page 14 and 15: large overdrafts on the vehicles an
Page 16 and 17: Institutional Capacity Building 23.
Page 18 and 19: the Derg into farmer-owned viable b
Page 20 and 21: them. The evaluation team is in fav
Page 22 and 23: 5. Quality of project delivery. SOC
Page 24 and 25: approaches be explored, either thro
Page 26 and 27: II. COUNTRY BACKGROUND 2. Ethiopia
Page 28 and 29: Table 2. SOCODEP Objectives Princip
Page 32 and 33: total of ten of the original 33 pro
Page 34 and 35: were never fully harmonized and int
Page 36 and 37: Aspect Table 3. SOCODEP Numerical T
Page 38 and 39: Box 1. Two Examples from Individual
Page 40 and 41: allowances for veterinary assistanc
Page 42 and 43: constructed two motorized water sch
Page 44 and 45: Achievement as % of Appraisal Targe
Page 46 and 47: The condition of many of the SCs (d
Page 48 and 49: provision of physical resources, an
Page 50 and 51: 101. Specific objective 5. Relief o
Page 52 and 53: Table 7. SOCODEP: Achievement of Sp
Page 54 and 55: the prerogative of Government, litt
Page 56 and 57: evaluation finds project impact on
Page 58 and 59: 146. Scaling-up. The Project was ov
Page 60 and 61: viable business model. To turn arou
Page 62 and 63: • Have the present project identi
Page 65: Water Supply & San, 2.28, 10% Healt
Page 69 and 70: 49 Reconstructed Logframe for SOCOD
Page 71 and 72: 51 A1.2.6 Development of audit proc
Page 73 and 74: 53 A1.6.1 Organize initial orientat
Page 75 and 76: 55 A2.1.7 Vocational training to en
Page 77 and 78: 57 SO4 Provide credit to meet finan
Page 79 and 80: 59 A6.3.2 Supervision of rehabilita
Page 81:
61 A7.3.1 Provide Training - Number
Page 84 and 85:
64 IFAD implementation workshops PC
Page 87:
Evaluation Mission Itinerary, 18 th
Page 90 and 91:
Eazo Multi-purpose service cooperat
Page 93 and 94:
Bibliography 73 Appendix VIII Assoc
Page 95:
Via Paolo di Dono 44 - 00142 Rome,
show all

Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?