MID TERM REVIEW Kenema District Economic Recovery Programme SIERRA LEONE July 2010 Special Projects Implementation Review Exercise of UNCDF projects in the Local Development and Inclusive Finance Practice Italy MTR/SPIRE Kenema District Canada -Mexico - USA Economic Recovery Programme, Sierra Leone A consortium of DRN and ES Global c/o DRN, leading company: Headquarters Via Ippolito Nievo 62 00153 Rome, Italy Tel +39-06-581-6074 Fax +39-06-581-6390 nd [email protected] 2 DRAFT REPORT Belgium office Square Plasky 92-94 1030 Brussels, Belgium July 2010 Tel: +32-2-732-4607 Tel/Fax +32-2-736-1663 [email protected] EVALUATION TEAM Team Leader Philip Bottern ([email protected]) Andrea Agostinucci International expert ([email protected]) Timbo Mohamed Bailor Allieu National expert ([email protected]) Mid Term Review: Kenema District Economic Recovery Programme, Sierra Leone This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Capital Develop- ment Fund, its Executive Board or the United Nations Member States. This is an inde- pendent publication by UNCDF and reflects the views of its authors. DRN and ES GLOBAL Mid Term Review: Kenema District Economic Recovery Programme, Sierra Leone UNCDF Special Projects Implementation Review Exercise - SPIRE TABLE OF CONTENTS BASIC GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ........................................................................ III PROGRAMME DATA SHEET ............................................................................................................... IV ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... VII 1. THE EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Framework of the Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Scope and Objectives of the Evaluation ........................................................................................... 1 1.3. Methods and Limitations in Data Collection .................................................................................. 2 2. COUNTRY CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Socio-Economic Context ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Policy & Institutional Environment ................................................................................................... 4 3. PROGRAMME PROFILE ................................................................................................................ 7 3.1. Programme Description .......................................................................................................................... 7 3.2. Programme Status ..................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Implementation ..................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.2 Financial data ....................................................................................................................................... 16 4. EVALUATION FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 18 4.1. The Programme Is Highly Relevant for the Development Objectives of Sierra Leone and Well Aligned with UNCDF’s Local Development Programmes .................................. 18 4.2. The Programme has - along with other initiatives - Contributed to Increased Capacity of the Councils ....................................................................................................................... 21 4.3. The programme has contributed to Improved Planning, Funding and Management of Infrastructure and Service Delivery by Local Councils, although the Three Functions are not sufficiently integrated yet. ............................................................................ 25 4.4. The Programme has Started Contributing to Improved Availability of/and Access to Infrastructure and Services, Nevertheless a Consistent and Innovative LED Focus is Yet to be Introduced .............................................................................................................................. 29 4.5. The Programme is Bringing Initial but Substantial Contribution to Improved Local Democratic Governance Systems and Processes based on Community Participation and Empowerment ................................................................................................................................. 34 4.6. Good Ownership of the Planning and Investments’ Selection Processes is a Promising Result, but Unclear Procedures for Maintenance and Low Financial Capacity of LCs Constitute a Serious Risk for the Sustainability of Investments ....... 36 4.7. Management of the Programme has been Fairly Effective, But Strategic Guidance has been Affected by Lack of a Functioning Steering Committee and M&E System . 39 4.8. The Partnerships with the GoSL and other Donors Support Programme Implementation Quite Well, But Potential Synergies for Upscaling are not Fully Developed ................................................................................................................................................... 41 4.9. The Programme is Contributing to Government Efforts to Enhance the Decentralisation Policy Framework, But has Not Directly Induced Specific Improvements on the Basis of Practices Tested at Local Level ......................................... 43 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 45 5.1. Overall Performance Assessment .................................................................................................... 45 5.2. The Programme Provides Effective and Relevant Support and Complements current Government and Donor Efforts ........................................................................................................ 46 Final Report July 2010 i DRN and ES GLOBAL Mid Term Review: Kenema District Economic Recovery Programme, Sierra Leone UNCDF Special Projects Implementation Review Exercise - SPIRE 5.3. The Programme is Starting to Achieve Some Positive Results in Building the Capacities of the Two Local Councils ............................................................................................. 46 5.4. The Programme is Funding Relevant Investments and Contributing to an Enabling Environment for Private Sector Development, but Is Yet to Develop a Strategic Focus and Significant Innovative Approaches to LED ............................................................ 47 5.5. The Revenue Generating Initiatives of the Programme Present Some Deficiencies 48 5.6. Strategic Management Decisions are Hampered by the Lack of a Fully Functional M&E System and a Functioning Programme Steering Committee ................................... 48 5.7. The Programme is Contributing to the Definition of the Decentralisation Policy Framework but Provides still Limited Inputs for Mainstreaming Innovation and Fostering Partnership and Donors’ Up-Take of Piloted Practices .................................... 49 5.8. The Model Has Yet To Show Its Comparative Advantage as a Basis for Replication 50 ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................ 52 ANNEX 2: BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 62 ANNEX 3: LIST OF PEOPLE MET ............................................................................................................. 64 ANNEX 4: FINAL KDERP MTR MISSION PLAN .................................................................................... 66 ANNEX 5: TOTAL PROGRAMME EXPENDITURE ....................................................................................... 69 ANNEX 6: MANAGEMENT RESPONSE MATRIX ........................................................................................ 70 ANNEX 6: EVALUATION QUESTIONS MATRIX ADJUSTED TO KDERP MTR ........................................... 74 ANNEX 8: OPINION SURVEYS FOR NATIONAL AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS ............................................ 92 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF CORE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ....................................................................... 2 TABLE 2: SUMMARY WORK-PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 3 TABLE 3: KDERP: GOAL, OBJECTIVE AND OUTPUTS .................................................................................. 7 TABLE 4: KDERP CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT TRAINING 2007 TO 2009 ........................................ 11 TABLE 5: PARTICIPANTS IN CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT TRAINING ................................................ 11 TABLE 6: INVESTMENTS FUNDED BY THE PROGRAMME LDF ........................................................... 12 TABLE 7: PROGRESS ASSESSMENT PER RRF OUTPUTS AND TARGETS