Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

146. Scaling-up. The Project was over-stretched in terms of geographical focus, and the quality of
Project outputs suffered at the expense of quantity. It does not represent a successful pilot which can
be usefully scaled-up.
147. Overall assessment. SOCODEP had no significant innovative design elements, and in
implementation, little of the learning which was being generated was fed back into the execution of
the Project. There is little or no potential for replication or up-scaling. Therefore, innovation,
replicability and scaling-up are assessed overall as moderately unsuccessful (rating of 3) 54 .
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Overall Assessment
148. Outreach and targeting. SOCODEP was unsophisticated in its targeting. There was little
detailed understanding of the nature and variations of rural poverty within the Project Woredas, and
although some women benefited, their numbers were rather small. Even IFAD’s Country Programme
Issues Sheet (May 2006) refers to the view that “…poverty is somewhat evenly spread across rural
areas where 85 per cent of the population live…”, an assertion that is superficially true since most
rural people are very poor, but which hides significant variation, sometimes over small distances.
Furthermore there is also anecdotal evidence of elite capture as the individual beneficiaries of training
and loans were not selected in a uniform and transparent manner.
149. Attaining IFAD’s strategic objectives and the MDGs. To the extent that individuals have
benefited from loans, training in small-scale enterprise development, improved water, sanitation and
health facilities, and new roads, SOCODEP has gone some way to improving health and education,
and reducing poverty and hunger. This impact has however, generally been relatively short-lived.
150. Overall assessment. Table 8 summarizes the ratings attributed to the project by the evaluation,
with the average ratings given to project evaluated in 2005 for comparison. On most criteria
SOCODEP scored one point or more under the 2005 average. Relevance, Impact on physical, financial
and human assets is comparable with 2005 averages, but the performance of the Government is
assessed as below the 2005 average. Because of fundamental weaknesses in project implementation,
caused partly by unrealistic design, partly by insufficiently decisive management, partly by
insufficient political commitment, and partly by externalities including frequent Government
restructuring and reshuffling, SOCODEP is assessed overall by this evaluation as ‘Moderately
unsuccessful’ (rating of 3) 55 .
54 “The project had very few innovative elements in the project design and implementation. Lessons that
should have been learnt from the experience were not.” IFAD OE Project Evaluation Guidelines, December
2005.
55 “The project was rated just below expectations (category 3) for at least three of the six ratings, but none was
rated highly successful.” IFAD OE Project Evaluation Guidelines, December 2005.
34