Midterm Evaluation Report; Raayituu Community Development Project (RCDP)

Background:
As part of the national effort of contributing to the country’s socio-economic development in general and improving the socio-economic life of the project area in particular, the EECMY/DASSC-WBS has been implementing a development project entitled Rayitu Community Development Project in Rayitu district of Bale zone. The project is currently in its third phase (2011-2013), directly targeting 8 PAs (5 new and 3 old intervention areas) with such major project activities as clean water supply, education, gender, and stakeholder capacity building.  In the old intervention PAs, this phase of the project makes one-time investments (such as grinding mill purchase and supply) or slight follow-up supports (such as follow-up of cooperative societies).

Purpose/objective:
The major objective of the mid-term evaluation was to assess the project’s progress, covering such aspects of the project’s implementation as planned versus implemented activities and their contributions to the set objectives, major challenges encountered and lessons learned, and to identify key opportunities and recommendations to improve the implementation for the remaining part of the project.

Methodology:
A multi-stakeholder participatory approach was used for the evaluation exercise. Directed by ToR and associated technical proposal, the right-holding community, the WBS-DASSC, and pertinent government offices, and the donor were given the opportunity to take part in the exercise, although no donor representative was available. The evaluation exercise involved the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data from both primary and secondary sources. Basically relating to the ToR, the following methodological elements were used to gather the required data/ information. These are:

Desk review of relevant documents:
Project proposal and plan documents, progress reports (including 2011 annual report and the first six monthly report of the out-going fiscal year), and audit reports were reviewed.

Participatory discussion and reflection:
At the outset of the field work, an evaluation team composed of WBS-DASSC, RCDP, relevant government offices, and the consultant was formed. For the participatory discussion and reflections, the evaluation team selected three PAs that were able to qualitatively represent the different characteristics of the project PAs. The relevant variables used for the disaggregation and selection of the three PAs were project inception time (old vs new PAs), project components, road access/distance, settlement pattern, location (rural vs urban), and presence or absence of other interventions. The selected PAs were Dhaddacha Ballaa, Jaarraa Torbii, and Hara Adii.

Specific methods used under this methodology include general and focused group discussions with the right-holder community; key informants’ interview with influential sources of information from the DASSC-WBS, the community, and governmental offices; and final consultation/debriefing meeting with key project staff.

Observation of project sites and/or physical characteristics:
The evaluation team did also make efforts to capture specific and rather detailed information on some project activities, to help understand their operation and success.

Key findings:
According to both community and government sources, all of the project’s components and activities were generally found to be responsive to the area’s development needs and priorities in general and the project objectives in particular. The project’s water development and non-formal education efforts all target the community’s desperate needs. Of no less relevance and priority hood to the area’s development needs is the contribution of the project’s IGA activities. The only project activity found to be of little weight measured against priority hood _ given resource shortages _ is the project’s government staff capacity building training held on balanced scorecard (BSC) and automation.

Recommendations:

·         Firstly, the district’s development needs are rarely common to other areas because they are very basic and decisive even to the physical wellbeing and survival of the community and its members. Let’s recall some. As a result of FGM, women undergo painful vaginal operation with local knives and at the hands of ordinary community members, the same night they have their first doubly painful (marital) sex, notwithstanding those that risk going back to their parents either if they fail to satisfy their husbands as a result, or if they prefer to avoid the operation. The majority of the project area’s girls are either not entirely enrolled or do drop- out of, for both practical and attitudinal reasons. For all purposes including drinking, the most fortunate community members depend on pond/flood water which is very thick and dark with soil.

·         Secondly, the fact that the RCDP¹ is the only development initiative of tangible outcomes in the district, and that the WBS is the only visible development partner in the area is another challenge. As is stated in the SLOT analysis section, even the very basic world-bank-funded and government-run infrastructural programs like the PCDP[1] and PSNP don’t have total or real presence in the area, although such are normally for remote areas like the district.

·         Thirdly, all the encouraging efforts the project has so for made have not yet brought any final solutions to the area’s endless needs. They only constitute a litmus paper that tested whether the needs are real and basic, whether the community and the local government are committed to investing their best in the project-led effort to addressing the problems, and whether change is possible through such concerted efforts. The test has given a yes response to each of those questions.

·         Design and implement a program, not a project, approach for a stronger and more comprehensive intervention that brings about a sustainable solution to the area’s development problems, while also adequately building the strategic capacities of local stakeholders to take-over and sustain intervention initiatives and results.

Comments from the organisation, if any:
RCDP has been in operation for about 10 years. The project is in one of the most marginalised areas of Ethiopia where drought and harsh climate is continuously hampering crops growth and subsequently leading to movement of community in search for water. The project is in its 3rd phase ending in 2013. The project has applied for new period from 2014 and will rotate to 4 new PAs.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] PCDP: Although this program has intervened in the area, its interventions are highly limited and meager, and hence have had little practical significance.