Mid-term Evaluation. Interandean Valleys Agreement. 2004-2007 - Final Report

Background:
Within the framework of the mission and objectives of MAN-B, between 2000 and 2002 the pilot phase of the project “Integrated Development of the Interandean Valleys (PDIVI)” started, which was later followed by two new phases (2003-2007 and 2008-2012). Over this time, around 17,000 persons distributed over an approximate area of 623 Km2 in 116 communities of the municipalities of Combaya, Sorata and Quiabaya were covered by the intervention.

With few changes, particularly for perfecting the intervention strategies, the PDIVI has maintained its objectives and its programme structure: Human Development and
Organisational Strengthening Programme; Economic Development Programme and Diaconal Development Programme. In the three programmes there are crosscutting
actions regarding Environment, Gender and Institutional Strengthening.

Purpose/objective:
The overall objective of the evaluation was to: “Analyse the concept and pertinence of the Agreement for Integrated Development of the Interandean Valleys in its first phase of execution, compliance of the set objectives, efficiency in execution, the attained results, the impact and viability, as well as sustainability, considering the conclusions and recommendations of the External Evaluation conducted in 2004; as well as the concept of the proposal in its second phase and the implementing process”.
Methodology:
The evaluation methodology consisted, among other things, of a review and analysis of more than 60 documents and interactions with 279 persons, i.e. technicians (men and women), employees and project beneficiaries, besides a visit to 14 communities in the municipalities of Combaya and Sorata. Also, two workshops were held for sharing findings with the beneficiaries and one session for sharing findings with the MAN-B team.

Key findings:

-There is a high degree of satisfaction with the variety of products of the PDIVI because they respond directly to needs in the social and productive spheres prioritised by the population and the municipal governments. To date, without any doubt the developed projects have contributed to an improvement of the access to and quality of basic social services and to a lower extent of the productive systems.

-In both PDIVIs, there is overall coherence between the objectives and the outcome and programme indicators, and so it is possible to easily measure the quantitative results. But there are no qualitative and impact indicators so it is not possible to measure essential aspects related to effectiveness.

-The PDIVI has more projects in the Economic Development Programme, but from a financial point of view the Human Development projects absorb most resources as their central action axis is the improvement of social infrastructure. This infrastructure has helped thousands of persons to have access to important basic services, but the higher allocation of resources and efforts to this aspect has caused a structuralist bias in the Plan, to the detriment of the other components, especially in terms of qualitative aspects.

-It is clear that there is a good degree of ownership of the administration and management, pedagogic training and operation and maintenance of the systems, though there are gaps in crucial topics related to human development. Without any doubt, the weaknesses are linked to the lack of training and information protocols, as well as the absence of methodological designs and implementing timeframes or plans. This besides the lack of qualitative indicators on the quality and ownership of the contents. Some of the weaknesses as regards the lack of institutionality, exclusive functioning for the PDIVI and dependency, which all affect sustainability, persist.

The organic charts of MAN-B and Area V permit a correct link between both levels, even though in practice, the PDIVI has been relatively autonomous, which has ensured flexibility and strength in execution, though at the same time this has given rise to some inconveniences as regards institutional policies, accounting routines and planning processes.

The following elements stand out in the social field: the cohesion between persons and communities; the dynamism of the grassroots organisations; the interaction of the communities with the Municipal Government and the implementation of an innovating development model that combines ethics, funding, technology transfer, self-management and accountability, and which may become a new paradigm for community-based development.

Recommendations:

Comments from the organisation, if any: