Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7. SOCODEP: Achievement of Specific Objectives (see also Table 3 and Figure 3) Specific Objective Achievement (quantitative) Achievement (qualitative) SO1. Provide a model for developing Ethiopian cooperatives under the new legislation, particularly with respect to improvement of financial intermediation services in rural areas, which could be replicated in other areas of the country. SO2. Increased capital and income among the rural poor in the project area through off-farm incomegenerating activities particularly for women and families in densely populated areas with limited land for farm expansion. SO3. Strengthen the SRAB to carry out its mandate with respect to cooperative development. SO4. Provide credit to meet financial requirements for agricultural inputs and draught oxen and facilitate the supply of inputs through support to local traders and cooperatives. SO5. Relief of livestock health constraints, particularly with respect to draught animals, through provision of veterinary drugs. SO6. Improve access of rural families to services and markets by rehabilitating and maintaining rural roads. SO7. (BSF Component) Reduce the burden of disease in 8 woredas of the SOCODEP area * Source: The Evaluation Numerical targets for restructuring and re-registering cooperatives were exceeded (130 per cent of Appraisal target; 178 per cent of MTR revised target). Reach of small-scale enterprise development sub-component was very limited. The total amount of training, and loans disbursed was very small. Loans to women for small ruminants were much greater in number. Training and vehicles budgets were disbursed rapidly and fully. Many trainings were delivered. Numerical targets were not met. Total loan disbursement was low, and number of loan recipients fell well below target. Disbursement from the Veterinary Drugs Revolving Fund was very late and very limited in total amount. The total length of roads constructed fell well below the Appraisal target (which was revised downwards at MTR). The majority of the quantitative targets for this component have been met. 28 Many, if not most, restructured cooperatives have failed to compete in their business activities with the private sector; many are in default of loan repayments and ineligible for further credit; many have suffered significant levels of misappropriation of funds; members lack confidence in the officers. Some small businesses have been assisted to take off, and the loans to women for small ruminants have been particularly effective. However, continuity of access to credit is limited to the reach of OMFI. There is little direct evidence with which to assess the quality of training needs assessments and trainings delivered. However, the indirect evidence suggests that much of the capacity-building effort has been ineffective. Cooperative members have benefited from individual loans, but not from (failed) cooperative businesses. Loan repayment rates (with some exceptions, especially loans to women) have been poor under CBE. The Veterinary RDF was partially effective for a short period. Its demise is contributing to an increase in livestock disease. Those living within a few km of the new roads have undoubtedly benefited, but the elevated cost of the higher design standard adopted has limited the reach of this component. The achievement of the component has established the potential for sustained health improvements. However, all aspects require continuing support and funding for long-term sustainability. 115. Efficiency. Because of the nature of the project no attempt was made to assess the economic rate of return in the appraisal or completion reports. Thus, in the evaluation a number of qualitative indicators are used to assess the efficiency of the conversion of project funds into outputs and consequent impact. The four indicators outlined here are well established in project documentation, and were confirmed during the evaluation mission. 116. First, the project contained a number of unrealistically ambitious design aspects (most notably relating to the large geographical extent of the project area). The vast geographic area, poor
infrastructure and communication meant that the projected resources were not optimally used. Second, the overall emphasis on the Project’s numerical outputs (i.e. exceeding the number of restructured cooperatives) rather than the quality of those outputs, has resulted in a significant amount of wasted resources. As a result, many of the project’s activities were diluted to the extent that they failed to achieve their intended outcomes. For example, the generally poor quality of the restructuring of the cooperatives, and the highly compromised institutional strengthening component weakened the project significantly. Efficiency would have been greatly enhanced if the project design had concentrated on a smaller project area, involving a smaller number of SCs, and provided greater intensity of effort and resources. 117. Third, the regional context and many disruptions caused by changes in Government structures further limited the ability of personnel to deliver services in an efficient manner (see para 28 and 33). And fourth, the absorptive capacity of the Government institutions involved was limited to the extent that significant sums of money remained unspent at the end of the project. At project completion, in spite of several extensions to the project completion date, substantial amounts of IFAD’s loan funds and also the BSF grant funds had not been fully utilized (only 68 per cent of the Loan Funds and 93 per cent of the Grant Funds were disbursed). 118. Also, the construction of roads to a higher standard than necessary raised unit costs and limited the outputs achieved. 119. Some allowance has to be made for Ethiopia’s particularly difficult operating environment, so according to IFAD’s rating scales we assess SOCODEP as ‘Moderately Inefficient’ (score 3) 49 . G. Performance of IFAD and its Partners 120. Assessment of partner performance. IFAD’s Evaluation Manual requires a qualitative assessment of each partner, and the partnership as a whole, against stated criteria selected from a list in the manual 50 . In the following paragraphs each partner is considered in turn and assessed on IFAD’s 6-point rating scale, and the partnership as a whole is assessed. 121. IFAD. As the initiator and main source of loan funding for the project, IFAD bore an important part of the shared responsibility for its successful execution. As successive supervision reports flagged similar critical issues (problematic management, political interference, ineffective M&E, questionable quality of cooperatives restructuring, poor performance of cooperatives, and lack of institutional ownership of the project), new mechanisms should have been sought to improve project management, rather than relying on the annual supervision missions by UNOPS. Although IFAD’s role was supportive and responsible – including its initiation of an early MTR and follow-up actions and the inclusion of the BSF component - it was insufficiently flexible and decisive in responding to the problems raised by successive Government reorganizations and the reported lack of Government ownership at the highest levels in the Region. However, it should be recognized that during the time of SOCODEP, IFAD did not have modalities such as direct supervision or field presence to support project implementation. Recognizing the many difficulties faced by the project (e.g. the credit component) and the limited chance of making dramatic improvements IFAD let the project close with about 35 percent of the IFAD loan unspent. Overall, IFAD delegated too much responsibility to institutions which were not well prepared to perform effectively. The evaluation judges IFAD’s performance moderately unsuccessful (rating of 3). 122. Government of Ethiopia (GoE). Although GoE observed the loan conditions and participated in the project implementation, two factors seriously weakened its performance. The first was the repeated reorganization of Government organs and the reshuffling of Government staff, to the point at which institutional capacity-building was seriously undermined. Although such reorganizations were 49 “Poor use of resources: unit costs are above those of comparators, and rates of return are lower than alternative investments and negative” (IFAD OE Project Evaluation Guidelines, December 2005). 50 “Participatory, Delegates, Coordination, Communication & Sharing of Information, Flexible, Supportive, Decisive, Responsible, Learning” (IFAD OE Project Evaluation Guidelines, December 2005). 29
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 30 and 31: Source: Appraisal Report Regional A
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 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,

Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

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

Delete template?

Save as template?