External Evaluation of District Development Cooperation Programmes in Kalangala District in Uganda
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
External Evaluation of District Development Cooperation Programmes in Kalangala District in Uganda FINAL REPORT [V3-2] Prepared by: GOPA Experts Tore Laugerud Godfrey Mukwaya Andrew Arinaitwe 13 August 2018 The opinions expressed in this document represent the authors’ points of view, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ICEIDA, The Icelandic Embassy in Uganda, Kalangala District staff or any of the individual persons or institutions consulted. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary 1. The Kalangala District Development Programme (KDDP) (“the Programme”) was implemented by Kalangala District Local Government (KDLG) during the period 2006-2015, largely financed and supported by Icelandic International Development Cooperation (ICEIDA). Based on needs assessment surveys in 2005, a multi-sectoral programme was designed, covering the strengthening of district and sub-county governments and support to the main sectors: fish- eries (including WATSAN), education, health (2006-2010) and tourism (2011-2013). The Education Component continued into a consolidation phase 2016-2019 (KIEP), still ongoing at the time of this Evaluation. 2. Kalangala comprises 84 islands (Ssese Islands) widely scattered in Lake Victoria, out of which 64 are populated, many being “hard-to-reach”. Population during the last census in 2014 was 53,400, estimated to be around 60,000 in 2018. KDDP was clearly relevant, addressing the main sector challenges of the District, largely being lack of basic infrastructure and services (too low revenue base) to reduce the widespread poverty amongst the marginalised fishing communities. The Programme was at the time of planning, and still was during the Evaluation, very much in line with the national policies and strategies for economic development, poverty eradication and decentralisation of the government system. 3. KDDP was also well in line with Iceland’s strategies for bilateral development cooperation, always having fisheries as an entry point to ICEIDA’s international development cooperation support. As capacity in the District was very limited, ICEIDA had to take on a pragmatic and more pro-active role than intended during the first phase of the Programme (2006-2010), establishing a KDDP ICEIDA Office in Kalangala with a KDDP Project Manager and 4 senior officers. During the second phase (2011-2015), the district administration took a direct managerial role in the im- plementation with ICEIDA being merely a financier and supporting with technical assistance, including monitoring of implementation progress. 4. The overall objective of the Programme is focussing on “sustainable livelihood and equitable socio-economic development”, and immediate objectives (outcomes/purposes) were orderly formulated for each of the pro- gramme components: Local Government Administration: “to facilitate and support the efforts of the Kalangala District Local Government in achieving efficient and effective leadership, administration and management of public, civil society and private agencies in Kalangala District by 2015”. The reference to the private agencies is not understood by the Consultant, as no activities directed to this sector were implemented. (A more relevant formulation in the Project Document however, was not kept as the valid formulation). Fishery and WATSAN: “to facilitate and support the efforts of the Kalangala District Local Government in achieving sustainable quality fisheries production and marketing in Kalangala District, by 2015”. (In Phase II the formulation changed to “… improved fisheries production…”, which is more appropriate). Education: “to facilitate and support the efforts of the Kalangala District local government in achieving equitable access of the population to quality education in Kalangala District by 2015”. Health: “to facilitate and support the efforts of the Kalangala District Local Government in achieving equitable ac- cess of the population to quality health services in Kalangala District by 2015”. The formulated logframe elements are largely relevant, but without any SMART indicators, and without target val- ues connected to the outcomes, thus having limited value as a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tool. GOPA CONSULTANTS External Evaluation of Kalangala District Development Programme (KDDP) 2006-15, Uganda EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5. The overall effectiveness of the Programme has been satisfactory. The managerial set-up, with a Project Superviso- ry Committee (PSC), a Project Management Team (PMT) and two Project Implementation Teams (PITs), has been appropriate. The decision of ICEIDA to be pro-active in the first phase was decided in order to maintain a certain implementation momentum and to be able to show some tangible results in this phase while capacity was built with the district and sub-county governments. The outputs were delivered largely as planned, with some delays in the infrastructure development in Phase I. 6. The Health Component, with activities spread widely out, was discontinued in 2010, mainly due to lack of local staff to build capacity with. Sponsoring of the education of two medical doctors and 3 medical assistants continued into Phase II, proving to be a useful investment, as the two doctors remained in Kalangala. The Tourism Component was closed after 3 years with no tangible results, and with no involvement of the private sector, which surely is a stake- holder that is imperative to successes in tourism at large. These activities were not continued due to lack of funding. The efforts towards the civil society, with 7 rounds of small grants to Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), could not even be detected at the time of the Evaluation (the summary reports from the small grants in the 2 phas- es were not available, although seemingly produced). 7. The outcomes, being the effects of the outputs, had indicators only partly adequately formulated and without target values. The post-harvest loss in fisheries has evidently been reduced and the revenue for fisheries has in- creased. The WATSAN structures on the fish landing sites are however deteriorating due to lack of O&M, except in Kasekulo-Ttubi. Positive results can clearly be found in the Education Component (construction of classrooms, toi- lets, kitchens, provision of furniture and textbooks, etc.), where enrolment of pupils in primary schools has increased, and Kalangala Primary Leaving Examination (PLE) results in the District are amongst the best in the coun- try. There seems to be no visible outcomes from the Health Component efforts today, rather than some solar panels still being operational, and the medical doctors, which education was sponsored by KDDP, operating in the Kalangala Health Centre (HC). 8. Progress reporting was undertaken by the ICEIDA KDDP Programme Office during the first phase and by KDLG in the second phase. Progress reports are mostly focussing on activity progress and delivering of planned outputs. It is however noted that during Phase II the annual reports also have sections analysing performance against outcomes for each component, which is commendable. Monitoring was a shared responsibility mostly between ICEIDA and the District, but also with the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) involved in joint missions. Most monitoring re- ports were prepared by the ICEIDA Senior Programme Officers in the Icelandic Embassy in Kampala. 9. Efficiency also seems to be satisfactory under the prevailing circumstances. Capacity building (construction of new offices, training of staff and procurement of equipment) in the District and sub-county governments has led to less staff turnover and has reduced the staffing gap. Efficiency with O&M in the sub-county governments are, however, not up to standards (deteriorating structures). ICEIDA has exercised far more flexibility in the funding modality than normally is the case with donors (added funds as needs have surfaced, appreciated by the District), but the man- agement costs in the Programme seem to be on the high side. 10. Possible programme impact, being the longer-term effect beyond the planned outputs and outcomes, are based on field observations, key informant interviews and a household (HH) survey in 34 villages (of which 22 were “inter- vention villages”, in which KDDP directly supported fish landing structures, WATSAN facilities and/or schools). The 355 households interviewed have more female heads than reported in the Mid-term Review (MTR) HH survey in 2010 (35% against 21%). The increased school enrolment (due to improved learning environment) has led to higher population ratio of students/pupils now than in 2010 (34% against 6%), with girls attending schools even during GOPA CONSULTANTS External Evaluation of Kalangala District Development Programme (KDDP) 2006-15, Uganda EXECUTIVE SUMMARY their monthly period (due to good sanitation facilities). 60% of the HHs believe quality of education is good/fair. Main occupation amongst the population is still farming, followed by fisheries. The only recognisable impact from the KDDP Health Component is the increase in Caesarean operations undertaken in Kalangala Health Centre by doctors educated with ICEIDA funding. 11. The Evaluation Team strongly believes that KDDP has contributed to the increased general livelihood of people in the target areas. 64% of the HHs reporting improved welfare since 2011, the majority due to increased income. 36% do not experience improved welfare, and 14% of the population reported lack of income and “bad govern- ance” as reasons. A large percentage reports improved