Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

evaluation finds project impact on the environment and common resource base therefore moderately
successful (rating of 4).
134. Markets. Attention to markets and market access was an omission from the Project design. The
Project did little to increase access to markets, other than through financing a small amount of rural
roads. Market linkages are crucial to raise small farmers above subsistence level, but the Project
design omitted this key domain. Many of those trained in small scale enterprises subsequently failed to
go further, for lack of markets for their products. It should be noted that SOCODEP as designed
(covering much too large and disparate a geographical area) could not effectively address marketing
constraints, within its overall budget. However, there could have been opportunities to more directly
address marketing within Special Objective (SO)s 1, 2, 4 and 6 and with a design which was more
focused geographically, and addressing producers’ needs in a more integrated way, should have
considered markets for increased production as well as the outputs of small enterprises. As a result,
project impact on markets is considered unsuccessful (rating of 2).
135. Overall assessment of impact. The main beneficial impacts of the Project were largely limited
to those individuals who received loans through cooperatives, or who now benefit from physical
infrastructure and services such as roads and health facilities. In the case of credit, these impacts have
been relatively few in number, and short-lived. The expected impacts in relation to increased
individual financial assets (and consequent improved access to physical assets, agricultural
productivity and food security) were limited in extent and continuity. Some benefits of training
impacted beneficially upon individuals, but, with the exception of the BSF component, training and
capacity-building had limited impact on the institutions involved. Impact on social capital was very
limited, because of the largely ineffective restructuring of cooperatives. Consequently, in relation to
the scale presented in IFAD’s Evaluation Manual, overall SOCODEP impact is rated as moderately
unsuccessful (rating of 3) 52 .
B. Sustainability and Ownership
136. The inherent unsustainability of projects. Projects are by definition time-limited inputs of
resources to achieve stated goals. While the immediate project objectives may be met, it is unusual to
achieve real and permanent step-changes to institutions, services and the lives of the poor as a
consequence of short projects. Sustainability needs to be designed in from the beginning, and
interventions need to be long enough in duration and with clear exit strategies, or the achievement of
project objectives and impacts quickly fades into history. SOCODEP is no exception in having paid
too little attention to these issues.
137. Components of sustainability. The main aspects of sustainability relevant to SOCODEP relate
to (a) whether or not the enhanced capacity of the Project’s institutional stakeholders (Government,
cooperatives and lending agencies) will enable them to continue functioning over the long term, (b)
whether cooperatives and individuals will continue to have access to credit services, and (c) whether
physical infrastructure (water supplies, roads, buildings, vehicles and equipment) will continue to
function over time.
138. Institutional sustainability. This represents the least sustainable aspect of the Project. The
reorganizations of Government organs and the reshuffling of staff has greatly diluted the enhancement
of institutional capacity. Physical resources provided as part of institutional capacity-building
activities have been of significant assistance, but they have a limited life.
139. Continued access to credit. While the impact of individual loans has in many cases been a very
significant positive aspect of the Project, continued access to credit and other financial services is
more questionable. In its discussions with individual beneficiaries, the evaluation team found little
evidence that those who had benefited once from loans were able to continue to obtain further credit –
52 “The project generated rural poverty reduction impacts in fewer domains than expected (impact domains
that were relevant to the project as per design at the beginning and/or after revision) and to a lesser extent than
expected.” IFAD OE Project Evaluation Guidelines, December 2005.
32