Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

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