Ethiopia SOCODEP CE - main report - IFAD

Table 8. Project Ratings Summary
Evaluation criterion SOCODEP rating 2005 project evaluations average
Project performance
Relevance 5 5
Effectiveness 3 4
Efficiency 3 4
Partner performance
IFAD 3 4
Government 3 4
BSF 4 -
UNOPS 4 4
Project impact
Agriculture Productivity 3 -
Physical and Financial Assets 3 4
Human Assets 4 4
Institutions and Services 2 -
Social Capital and Empowerment 2 4
Food Security 3 4
Environment and Common Resource Base 4 4
Markets 2 -
Overall impact 3 -
Sustainability 2 4
Innovation, Replicability and Scaling-Up 3 4
Overall assessment 3 -
* Source: The Evaluation
B. Conclusions
151. As with most multi-component projects, the project performance and impacts of SOCODEP
have been mixed. There seems little doubt that the Project has had a net benefit to the Region, to
individuals in Government, and to some of the target beneficiaries. The key questions relate to
understanding how the benefits could have been greater, and what lessons can be learned for present
and future projects in Ethiopia and further a field.
152. Context. SOCODEP was one of the first significant internationally funded interventions in
Ethiopia following the fall of the former Marxist-Leninist regime (the Derg) in May 1991. The Project
aimed to respond to the then new legislation concerning Cooperatives, which ostensibly set out a
means of turning the former Government-imposed and politically-dominated Producer Cooperatives of
the Derg into farmer-owned viable business entities serving their members’ interests. In particular, it
aimed to make rural finance (specifically micro-credit) available to so-called Service Cooperatives and
their members.
153. Design. The Project aim, as described in paragraph 152, was an imaginative attempt to respond
to the then new legislation concerning Cooperatives. However, this was an ambitious and in hindsight
an unrealistic goal. A number of factors contributed to the difficulties faced by the SOCODEP. First,
the Region’s size, diversity, poor infrastructure and poverty posed numerous development challenges.
Second, the project underestimated the obstacles to and rate of beneficial change and the capacity of
the government for implementation in the post Derg period.
154. Quality of project delivery. SOCODEP concentrated on delivery of numerical outputs, such as
cooperatives restructured, credit disbursed, trainings delivered, drugs purchased, kilometers of road
constructed, water points built, and so on. Insufficient emphasis was placed on the quality of these
outputs. For example, insufficient consideration was given to the intensity and duration of activities
required to achieve the desired quality standards. In particular, the human factor of individual and
group (community, cooperative, institution) attitudes were addressed minimally. For example, the
design was too optimistic about the speed with which the former model of cooperatives, centrally
controlled by the government, could be turned around into a member-owned and member-controlled
35