Evaluations of the ‘rehabilitation programme’

In document Evaluation of EC Country Strategy: Mozambique 1996-2000. 2000. (Page 80-82)

Specific programme evaluations and official documents

1.2 Evaluations of the ‘rehabilitation programme’

Evaluation of rehabilitation budget-lines (1998)

This was a global evaluation of the 2 rehabilitation budget-lines: for Southern Africa (B7/3210) and for all developing countries (B7/6410), with Mozambique one of 4 country case studies. Mozambique findings included:

• May have helped consolidate peace by providing visible benefits, though there is a risk of frustration and social unrest when rehabilitation projects end

• Physical results prioritised, with little attention to improving the absorption capacity of local structures. Focus on infrastructure rather than knowledge-transfer

• Lack of ‘exit strategies’ to ensure financial and institutional sustainability after departure of the NGO – little engagement with local government structures

• No significant difference between the budget-lines – both cover wide range of activities across many sectors

• Lack of strategic planning and absence of sectoral policy priorities. Project decisions reactive rather than proactive. However, introduction of Call for Proposals should help

• Unclear rationale for geographical focus

• No gender strategy

• Not enough staff within the Delegation

• NGO capacity varies considerably, with “a marked difference between national and international NGOs”

• Weak coordination with other donors

Evaluation of EC Rehabilitation Budget-Lines B73210 and B7-6410, APT Consult, 1998.

Evaluation of Article 255

This was a global evaluation of Article 255 actions under the 7th EDF, with Mozambique one of 4 country case studies. Mozambique findings included:

• No strategy to guide actions – EC had to be reactive to funding requests, with funds going to some NGOs because there were few alternatives, despite strong concerns within the Commission about the project proposals of those NGOs

• Lack of staff in Delegation and Rehabilitation Cell led to heavy administrative burden and little EC staff involvement in project implementation

• Very little appraisal work, project monitoring, or evaluations

• At a later stage, provincial directorates were given a role in planning – i.e. in the Social Reinsertion in Zambézia and Niassa programme (Moz case study p.14)

• EC procedural delays have given the EC a poor image and may be leading the better NGOs to seek funding from other donors (p.15)

• EC has little involvement in sectoral policy discussions

• Focus on physical infrastructure rather than financial sustainability or links to national planning

• Very little attention to gender or the environment (p.22)

• Impact on peace – the report argues against the claim that the visible benefits of projects will have increased commitment to peace (pp.22-23).

Evaluation of EU Actions Financed by Article 255 “Assistance to Refugees, Returnees and Displaced Persons” under the 7th European Development Fund, 1997.

Evaluation of rehabilitation budget-line (1994)

Covering the period 1988-1993:

• Lack of an overall strategy for rehabilitation, and insufficient rigour in project selection

• Insufficient concern for sustainability

• Implementation generally does follow project proposals, but insufficient monitoring by the EC

• Infrastructure rehabilitation is of very variable quality

• While procedures have been simplified, delays are over-long, except in the case of the Quick Disbursement Facility (for small actions)

• Insufficient transparency in EC procedural requirements, especially with regard to local partners

• Sustainability: coordination with local administrations is insufficient and sometimes non-existent

• Insufficient monitoring and evaluation, and few indicators proposed for these purposes

Evaluation des Actions Financées sur la Ligne Budgétaire B7/5071 “Assistance aux Programmes de Réhabilitation en Afrique Australe”: Mission au Mozambique, COTA, November 1994.

Evaluation of Handicap International

The evaluation covers the entire period during which Handicap International (HI) actions in Mozambique were financed by the EC, i.e. since 1986.

Background: HI has had 13 EC contracts since 1986, for a total of € 5.6 million. They have covered 3 types of action, all linked to injuries from mines: (a) paramedical activities (the core actions, especially in the early years), (b) social integration of disabled people, (c) mine-risk education and de-mining.

• All 3 types of action have been broadly relevant

• Project proposals of poor quality, with no use of the logical framework, objectives and indicators not clearly specified, little reference to Government policies or sustainability, and no evidence as to whether beneficiaries were consulted. While some projects themselves were nevertheless of good quality, inadequate preparation has affected the ability of some projects to phase out, as well as affecting monitoring and evaluation.

• Over-reliance on expatriate staff, with little training of counterparts, though this has improved more recently

• Insufficient consultation with beneficiaries

• Hard to assess effectiveness given unclearly specified objectives

• Some positive impact from direct activities, but expectations have been raised which may not be met as a result of low sustainability and limited capacity-building

Evaluation of the Actions of Handicap International in Mozambique under the Financing of the European Commission, Finnconsult, January 1999.

Overall evaluation of the ‘rehabilitation programme’

An overall (1999) evaluation of the whole ‘rehabilitation programme’ drew similar findings to the previous evaluations. The conclusions of the overall evaluation are as follows:

Project preparation: Lack of strategy, with funding decisions reactive rather than proactive, and lack of transparency in decision-making, though introduction of Calls for Proposals in 1997 should help. No poverty impact assessments in project selection, and no gender mainstreaming. Complication of numerous instruments, each with own procedures. Project preparation made difficult by low staffing levels in early years.

Relevance: Focus on physical rehabilitation rather than institution-building – this focus may have been appropriate immediately after the end of the war, but not in more recent years. However, more recently growing attention to linking projects to Govt budgeting and planning. Road rehabilitation is

an area of EC support recognised as relevant, though the evaluation argues that techniques should be more labour-intensive.

Efficiency: Insufficient staff (both in Delegation and NGO Unit) to monitor all interventions. Too many sectors covered by the NGO Unit. Not enough attention to cost-effectiveness, and long procedural delays.

Effectiveness / impact: Physical results achieved, but in general “a partial and haphazard rather than global and systematic approach”. EC not involved in sector policy discussions, e.g. in education and health sectors. Little monitoring and evaluation, especially in early years – though recent improvements. Difficult to achieve beneficiary participation, especially since local decision-making structures are not yet democratic – top-down management common.

Sustainability: Lack of emphasis on financial sustainability – e.g. little attention to recurrent costs after departure of NGO. Low level of community mobilisation and local government involvement limits ownership and sustainability after the departure of NGOs. Little attention to institution-building, little support for district administrations. Only 15% of projects support local NGOs (and most local NGOs are set up in response to donor needs and have little absorption capacity).

Evaluation of the Rehabilitation Programme in Mozambique, APT Consult, July 1999.

In document Evaluation of EC Country Strategy: Mozambique 1996-2000. 2000. (Page 80-82)