Review of the SOFASPAN Project at the end of its Phase I

Background:

The Malagasy Lutheran Church’s Integrated Rural Development Project SOFASPAN has been implemented in the Synod of ANALA in partnership with the Norwegian Missionary Society (NMS) since 2006. The end of the project’s phase I is drawing near (December 2008). The project’s objective is to contribute to improving the living conditions of the population in various areas by actively involving stakeholders, namely the target groups and the development committees (FANILO) at the base of FLM.

The present evaluation was conducted in November 2008. It assesses the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the Project, highlights the lessons learned from the experience, and provides recommendations to feed in the project’s second phase. It is based on information and data collected through a review of the project’s documents, interviews with target groups, the Project’s team, local authorities, members of the development committees, managers in the Synod of ANALA, and managers at FLM’s headquarters as well as on field observations.

The evaluation report was finalized after the restitution of results at FLM’s headquarters on February 4^{th, 2009. It takes into account the comments and observations made by the concerned people, including the Project’s team.}

Purpose/objective:

The evaluation mission was mainly to assess

(i) whether a new development policy has been drafted within FLM;

(ii) whether an appropriate new organizational structure has been established to coordinate development activities;

(iii) the impact of the structure;

(iv) the significance and the types of training provided and tools developed;

(v) the impact of the training.

Thus, this end-of-period evaluation aims at giving an assessment of the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability (as defined in the box below), highlighting lessons learned, and providing recommendations for the Project’s Phase II.

Methodology:

The mission used the analysis criteria defined above to assess the facts that reflect the project’s results. The analysis also integrated the development philosophy developed by the FlM in 2004, as the logical framework underpinning the vision in operating the Project. As such, the conclusions and recommendations made by the evaluation team incorporate both the philosophy and the analysis criteria mentioned above.

As part of the process, the evaluation team reviewed the project’s documents made available to it. It visited the intervention zones (from November 10 to 14, 2008) to make observations and conduct interviews among the stakeholders. Meetings with decentralized governmental services and other interveners were also planned but could not be held due to time constraints.

The field visits started with a briefing session with the Project’s staff and ended with a presentation of the first and temporary observations to the whole project staff and seven members of the Steering Committee in order to get their views on the perceptions, understandings, and early conclusions of the evaluation mission. A similar presentation was made at NMS in Antananarivo before the international consultant went back to Norway.

Before finalizing the report, the team made

Key findings:

The Project demonstrated relevance beyond any doubt in that its activities met part of the expectations and needs of the population and communities. However, their priorities in getting of poverty and underdevelopment were too numerous and diverse to be met by a single project. The strategy initially designed by the Project was also relevant and in line with both FLM’s development policy and NMS’ support policy. The strategy addressed the issue of sustainability of the benefits resulting from the actions and the empowerment of women and men through the development the responsibility of the development committees FANILO, the participation of target groups, and the use of light permanent staffing. However, the considered strategy failed to be fully materialized due to poor prior assessment of the preconditions for the local third party actors (mainly FANILO and other actors) to have the needed capacity and availability. Indeed, for them to be effectively involved, they needed a series of capacity-building, consultation or networking that required time, and whose duration was beyond the Project’s control. Their actual contribution to implementing the Project’s activities became sporadic or uncertain: very few FANILO demonstrated the capacity to respond to the expectations and solicitations of the Project. On the other hand, the collaboration with other interveners was determined more by opportunities than planning in relationship with the objectives set and the results to be achieved by the Project over time and space.

Recommendations:

The evaluation showed that the project had overall low performance and efficiency though it was relevant. However, at the end of Phase I, compared to start-up, the Project has more results and assets that can help it to better face the challenge of development in a difficult social, economic, and cultural context.

The evaluation mission recommends continuing the Project in order to complete the support actions initiated in the Synod of ANALA. For an implementation strategy that is consistent with the achievements and the lesson learned, there should be close collaboration with the FANILO Fileovana in the Synod of ANALA, as the structures to relay the project in phase II and to take over its actions after close out. The Project should intensively strengthen the skills and capacities of the FANILO Fileovana in the Synod of ANALA and entrust them with the responsibility of identifying development actions that meet the communities’ needs in their respective jurisdictions, presenting such actions to SOFASPAN in the form of sub-projects, and monitor them.

The FANILO Fileovana will be the Project SOFASPAN’s relay in the Synod. It will operate by developing the responsibility among the volunteers mobilized on an ongoing basis to contribute to the project through a model structure that is organized and supported by SOFASPAN, provided that intensive capacity-building is provided initially along with ongoing coaching to gradually empower the FANILO.

Comments from the organisation, if any:

The concluded that the project had not achieved its objectives for several reasons, but some good results were observed. One very important conclusion from the evaluation was its advice to base the activities much more on the voluntary development committees already functioning in the partner church, and this has become a priority not only in this project but in the whole program for integrated development in Madagascar.

– on February 04, 2009 - a restitution of results at FLM’s headquarters to the FLM, including development departments and projects’ national coordination offices, NMS and SOFASPAN representatives. The final report takes into account the comments and observations made in this meeting and those expressed previously by the Project team.