UNCDF | United Nations Capital Development Fund

2000 Project Evaluation Results
Prepared by the UNCDF Evaluation Unit

Lao Democratic Republic

I. Basic Project Data

Project Numbers:	LAO/95/C03
Type of Evaluation:	Mid-Term
Project Title:	Eco-development and irrigation (EDI) in the Northern Provinces
UN Cooperating Organization:	UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS)
Government Executing Agency:	National Rural Development Office
Sector:	Agriculture
Sub-sector:	Irrigated agriculture
Date Project Approved:	18 June 1996
Date Project Began:	January 1997
Date Project Will End:	Dec. 2001
Date Project Evaluated:	August 2000
UNCDF Budget:	US$ 3,596,262
Gov't. Budget:	138,000
UNDP Budget:	480,000
Total Budget:	US $ 4,241,626
Actual UNCDF Expenditures:	$1,795,103

II. Background

The Lao People's Democratic Republic covers an area of 236,000 km2 and is landlocked, surrounded by China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and Myanmar. Approximately 70% of the country is mountainous with the rest of the land consisting of alluvial deposits of the Mekon delta or other river valleys. The population of just over 4.5 million is predominantly (around 75%) rural and is traditionally divided into three main groups: lowland, middle land and highland. Population densities are extremely low at 19 persons per km2. Agriculture dominates the national economy and the livelihoods of the bulk of the population. Large tracts of Laos are forested, with in particular most upland areas covered by woodlands of different levels of maturity. Increasing population densities have led to shorter fallow periods in many areas, which in turn has had serious consequences for soil quality and erosion. The average per capita GDP is low at $320 and many people in Laos are poor by any standards.

The EDI project is located in three provinces (Oudoumxay, Luang Namtha and Phongsaly) in the mountainous north-west of the country. These provinces are all relatively poor and remote, with limited transport and other services and with a large proportion of the population dependent at least in part on shifting cultivation.

III. The Project

Development Objectives

The development objectives of the project are:

To increase food self-sufficiency
To protect and better manage natural resources
To increase family incomes and standards of living

Immediate Objectives

The immediate objectives of the project are:

To initiate the developmental processes through improving irrigation and agricultural productivity, preserving the environment, and producing materials and servicing the five target zones
To improve the develop community participation in decision-making, enabling the population to play a role in the programming, execution and monitoring of their development activities
In the two provinces (Oudoumxay and Phongsaly), supporting communities in planning, executing, administrating and evaluating their own development, through technical assistance and providing essential inputs.

IV. Findings

The findings related to the main objectives of the project are:

The objective of assisting in the development of sustainable forms of land and water resources management through an integrated watersheds approach is valid and the need for such initiatives in the project area is clear.
The objective of completing work on a number of irrigation schemes that were originally "modernised" as part of LAO/89/C03 - "Modernisation of small-scale irrigation schemes in Oudoumxay and Luang Namtha Provinces" is much less valid. A fundamental reason for this is the fact that little account appears to have been taken of the recommendations of an evaluation of the earlier project .

Project Design

The project design is extremely poor: the Project Report is poorly-structured and contradictory and fails to relate eco-development to the needs and opportunities of the time and place in which the project was to be implemented. The stated objectives are vague and there is no clear overall approach or set of specific activities identified. Design problems have been exacerbated by frequent changes and unclear responsibilities in the project's management structure. Too many people have been involved in decisions over minor operational details and no-one has provided a strategic overview for the project as a whole.

Project Implementation and Methodology

The first two years of the project were an inception phase. Although some village-level data were collected little of significance appears to have been achieved in this period, with a failure to establish the pre-conditions for the implementation of a well-designed set of activities based on a clear and coherent strategy.

The project's approach was largely defined by external methodology missions, with little or no 'ownership' of the approach by the national staff responsible for its implementation. The models set up by these external missions were idealistic and, whilst valid on paper, unrealistic in the specific setting of the project. Of particular concern is the methodology defined by these missions, which included a complex series of tasks as a pre-condition for any on-the-ground activity. Detailed planning at both village and watershed level were seen as the starting point, not as an end state to which the project should work over time. The implementation of the approach was assisted by a Resource Institution, from Thailand. There appears to have been conflicts between this Resource Institution and the methodology missions and the contract of the Resource Institution was cancelled.

All aspects of project monitoring, evaluation and reporting have been poor. Some steps being taken to develop a M&E system, but it is not yet operational and the project has not developed a data processing and reporting system (based on mapping systems) that documents the experiences gained: something that is essential if the approach should prove successful and appropriate for replication.

Results

The project's activities on the ground consist of two components:

Component I: The consolidation of five irrigation schemes (Huay Lay, Nam Fen, Nam Mao, Nam Hoi and Nam Tui) built under the Small-Scale Irrigation Project in the provinces of Luang Namtha and Oudoumxay.
Component II: The implementation of an eco-development programme in selected target zones in five selected target zones (Watershed Target Areas or WTAs): Nahom, Namkha, Nambak and Saysana in Oudoumxay Province and Naway in Phongsaly Province.

Component I was designed to have four elements:

Element 1: Improve the meteorological and hydrological monitoring systems. No progress was made on this element.

Element 2: Strengthen the management system of the selected irrigation schemes. Water User Groups (WUGs) have been set up but have not led to significant improvements in water management or to increases in yields or irrigable area. WUGs have taken responsibility for routine tasks but not for maintenance of the engineering works or other major tasks.

Element 3: Find ways to tackle problems related to the function and the development of structure that cannot be handled technically and materially by villagers. The project is not piloting anything replicable. For three schemes, total expenditure for construction-related works has exceeded $5,000 per hectare; extremely poor value for money given that irrigation was taking place prior to the SSIP and that only limited dry season cropping takes place.

Element 4: Improve or modify certain points of the irrigation schemes. Construction works have been carried out but have been poor value for money. Some of the modifications (e.g. new offtakes along main canals) are likely make water management more difficult and, possibly, increase tail-ender problems.

The status of Component II activities is extremely poor. A decision was taken at the Tri-Partite Review in 1998 to concentrate on two WTAs (Nahom and Namkha), with these two to act as pilots in which the approach was fully developed and validated. To date, no project activities except a small amount of data collection have been implemented in the other three WTAs.

The designation of the remaining two WTAs as pilots is a matter of concern. Although some activities is taking place in Nahom and Namkha, they do not have a pilot character and the absence of meaningful M&E means that there is no possibility of assessing what aspects of the activities were successful and why.

The complex implementation approach is not being implemented. In its place is an approach that is largely top-down, with participation by villagers other than the headmen passive or non-existent. Activities that are implemented are separate and fragmented, lack an overall strategy or analytical framework and the wider significance of these activities will be extremely difficult to assess.

The individual activities assessed in the field during the evaluation were in some cases good in terms of their immediate effects. In others, the activities were based on an external perception of needs and potential benefits and are not in line with the priority needs of these villagers. Even where these activities appear beneficial, their scale is extremely limited and only a small proportion (less than 10%) of those project funds that are being spent are for on-the-ground investments to improve the position of the target beneficiaries. This includes no expenditures on the credit component of the programme, which has yet to be started. Overall, little or no action to develop financial mechanisms for the long-term sustainability of the institutional processes being developed at village or watershed levels has taken place. This means that the prospects for any process enduring beyond project lifetime are extremely poor.

The overall status of project activities is consequently a matter of concern. Work has only started in two WTAs and, although designated as pilots, this work is fragmented and not assessed. Prospects for either sustainability or replication elsewhere are consequently poor to non-existent.

There are consequently deep and widespread problems with both the design and execution of the project. This is despite the efforts of the individual staff members currently working on the project, who were found to be generally enthusiastic and, within the confines of their existing training and disciplinary backgrounds, competent. The problems are also despite the dynamic situation in the field, where there are a range of resource opportunities that provide the basis for new development initiatives but as yet these opportunities not been integrated into the project.

There are consequently development potentials both on the ground and in the institutions that provide a basis for meeting the project objectives. It was these potentials that led to the conclusion that the project should be given an opportunity to improve on the current project structure, approach and performance.

V. Recommendations

A selected number of recommendations are as follows:

The existing project budget should not be increased and the time period should be extended by two years, with the budget and work programme adjusted accordingly
The project's basic objectives and strategy need to be re-formulated to reflect the specific conditions of the time and place in which it is being implemented
The strategy should be based on an incremental approach, whereby different stages towards the development of a watersheds-based planning system are introduced gradually and with a sequence that contains steps that are both worthwhile in their own right and contribute to the overall development process
The strategy with on-the-ground activities should be based on entry points: specific and essential needs that are a high priority for individual villages and that form the basis for the first development of relationships with external agencies
The strategy must be flexible and adaptive, developing over time in response to changing circumstances and emerging opportunities, and the project needs to define a clear strategy for and indicators of sustainability and replicability
Future irrigation investments must contain a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, and institutional and water resource assessments
Water supply schemes should be based on the best and cheapest sources, including groundwater, and include hygiene awareness and local maintenance and village-level operation and maintenance.
An effective monitoring and evaluation system is a pre-condition for success and no future programme of activities should proceed until this system is developed
The project should be audited immediately and appropriate changes made to the financial management and accounting systems

VI. Lessons Learned

The basic approach of eco-development had clear relevance and potential, but is in itself too vague and it or similar approaches need to be further developed and in particular related to the specifics of the local situation
The core concept of the new policy approach as set out in Taking Risks, which is to focus on capacity development at the local government level, would clearly be appropriate in that institutional weaknesses at this level are a key issue, but it is essential that any such approach should ensure that the mandated agencies:

1. Have technical competence and adequate resources available
2. Are legitimate and representative of all sections of the community
3. Are linked to local communities
4. Have appropriate administrative boundaries
Whatever the policy context, it is essential that UNCDF ensures that the project design and supervision processes are of a higher standard than those found in EDI
Projects need to have effective management structures in which clear lines of responsibility and accountability are present.
An adequate monitoring and evaluation system is essential. This needs to reflect the project concept and goals and must be integrated into the project in the initial stages of project implementation

VII. The Evaluation Team

The evaluation was carried out by:

Professor John Soussan, Team Leader
Dr. Charles Batchelor