Key lessons and recommendations

This section discusses the key lessons that were drawn from Masindi experience by the evaluation learning partnership. It is focusing on those that have wider and cross-cutting implications for the design and conduct of future projects. More detailed lessons, also reviewed and enforced by all partners can be found in the various Working Papers supporting this Main Report. In the end the section highlights principal recommendations for IFAD/BSF, GoU and Masindi Local Government.

Project design and management

Project design has been a recurrent theme throughout this evaluation exercise and this report: a salutary lesson is that the difficulties of complexity, inadequate duration and funding, and unrealistic phasing and targeting that have been experienced in Masindi must be avoided or mitigated in any future project.

Supervision and management have also been major concerns: their importance is exemplified by the need -- that was surely apparent -- for more rapid and decisive action by Government, the district itself, BSF/IFAD and UNOPS to combat the delaying and obstructing effects of the external and internal factors that plagued the first two years of the Project. The crucial lesson in this context is that analysis, advice and recommendations are necessary, but not sufficient, measures for correcting weaknesses and ensuring adaptation and progress in implementation. What is severely needed is rigorous follow-up on recommendations.

Implementation through District. Implementation through the existing and decentralised district planning and administrative framework is feasible and can be equally efficient and more cost-effective than under a separate project structure. It is more sustainable than separate project management structure, given that the project incorporates a sound phasing out and sustainability plan that ensures that recurrent costs are ultimately borne through local and assured revenues sources, and has the advantage of making complementarity with other government and donor-funded initiatives easier - also an element which favours sustainability. In Masindi the opportunity should have been recognised and taken, even at its interim stage, to incorporate an extension in Masindi into the District Development Support Programme that was designed to capitalise on the Hoima-Kibaale - and indeed Masindi - experience.

Adjustment to Institutional Capacity and Communities Readiness. Targeting, phasing and budgeting of costs must be related to pre-project status of district and community development; and project design must allow for a reasonable period -- on present evidence, of up to two years - for preliminary work in upgrading staff and other resources; undertaking necessary studies and inculcating initial participant interest through community mobilisation, prior to implementation of "hard" investments.

Integrated Project Approach. The integrated, participatory community-based approach utilised in Masindi has been proven to work -- for health, water and sanitation, roads and agriculture components -- despite the inevitable complexity of multi-sectoral interventions. To achieve desired impact an integrated multi-component project like MDICDP requires strong and continuous intersectoral linkages and coordinated planning; it also requires co-ordinated targeting of different activities to ensure that synergies needed for impact are actually achieved. Generally, integrated multi-component programmes are likely to require a longer time-frame for implementation.

Design and Implementation of Local Initiatives. Key principles regarding access to and management of local initiatives and community development funds should be described in the project appraisal; however, eligibility criteria and implementation procedures should be established at an early stage of project implementation through a consultative and participatory process involving different categories of beneficiaries and implementers to ensure feasibility and realistic allocation of funds.

Technical Assistance Needs Caution. Short-term technical assistance is justified - and often indispensable - in order to uplift institutional capacity of implementing agencies. However, in Masindi this proved to be of high cost and, for reasons related to initial low staff district capacity, of low effectiveness. It is important that better use is made of technical assistance in particular for capacity building. Close follow-up and regular assessments should improve impact of such technical assistance.

Location of M&E function. One of the main lessons that can be learnt from the M&E system pertains to the location of the M&E function. In Masindi the position of the Statistician/M&E Officer in the administrative hierarchy of the District Administration was clearly lower than those of the implementing heads of departments, who were supposed to put into practice the M&E guidelines, with the M&F Officer supervising. The lesson is that the M&E Officer should have the professional qualifications and the hierarchical authority to implement his or her function. The M&E function is best placed at the level of Project management.

Recommendations

Based on the evaluation lessons, the mission's main recommendations for BSF/IFAD and GoU/Masindi Local Government are as follows:

The Central Government and Masindi Local Government should actively and expeditiously pursue all possible sources of support for a follow-up phase. This is considered prudent and necessary in order to capitalise and consolidate on the achievements of the present phase, while also avoiding what could otherwise be a serious loss of development impetus for the District. Further investment, building on the increased institutional capacity, would bring exceptional returns in social, economic and local governance terms.

It is of paramount importance that any future assistance spells out a clear purpose of the intervention as well as corresponding indicators of success and means of verification. The unclear objectives and indicators discovered in MDICDP design reinforces the value of Logframe in systematising the project logic; this should be done in a participatory manner together with the implementers (GoU/Masindi) and beneficiaries. Future intervention should concentrate and focus on the needs identified and, more importantly, prioritised with the poor communities themselves.

While maintaining the general thrust of the productive agricultural activities as a main plank of future district development, there is a need to back these up by the encouragement of savings and credit group activities and by the progressive commercialisation of agriculture and of service provision. In the area of social development it would seem vital to give a special emphasis on water which consistently appeared people's number one priority in communities.

GoU and Masindi District Administration must ensure that future assistance incorporate a sound phasing out and sustainability plan that ensure that recurrent costs are ultimately borne principally through local and assured central revenue sources, supplemented by private sector inputs for a more commercialised approach to both service provision and agriculture.

With respect to the location of M&E function Masindi should reconsider its location in the district structure. In order to ensure sufficient authority to supervise implementation of M&E activities of implementing departments, the overall M&E function would be better placed directly under the district executive officer.

Some of the more specific recommendations pertaining to various components can be found in the various working papers. Worthy of record is for example that:

Tap the Private Sector. The usefulness and cost-effectiveness of engagement of private sector contractors and NGOs have been demonstrated in the infrastructure (e.g. borehole drilling and culvert making). GoU and Masindi should seek to further tap such resources in future, for instance for provision of professional services and training.

Need for Incentives for Community Workers. Orientation and training -- for example of Community Health Workers, water source Pump Mechanics and Change Agents -- are likely to be much less effective than they should, unless accompanied by provision of necessary equipment and inputs; and backed up by acceptable means of incentives for work performed: it is becoming recognised that pure voluntarism as a basis for service provision practice is no longer workable; the Masindi Local Government should examine and tap the potential for communities to render compensation for its voluntary workers, when valued and seen useful.

Need for Continuous Training. Training -- of Health Unit Management, Water Source and Sub-county Development Committees and other groups -- should not be a once and for all effort; follow-up empowerment, support and further training, like community outreach, should be continuing effort.

Need to streamline Community Development Activities. Given the recurrent cost implications, it may not be feasible to contemplate an increase in the number of Community Development Assistants. It is therefore urgent that within the Department: a) rigorous planning is ensured to maximise use of scarce human resources; b) the network of change agents strengthened and continuity ensured through an appropriate incentive system. Above all, a co-ordinated effort is required at District level to ensure integrated planning and implementation of community outreach activities maximising use of human and financial resources. NGOs and aid organisations requiring community development services should channel funds in support of operational costs through the local government system and activities should be incorporated in district and sub-county plans.

---

These lessons and recommendations reflect a shared understanding among the core partners of the evaluation of Masindi District Integrated Community Development Project (MDICDP). The partners will aim to adopt and use the lessons and recommendations from this evaluation, not only in the future development of Masindi, but also in designing new projects and programmes aimed towards improving the livelihood of the rural poor.

The core learning partnership in this evaluation included the government of Uganda, Masindi Local Government, the Belgian Survival Fund and IFAD (represented by the Eastern and Southern Africa Division and the Office of Evaluation and Studies).