I.   Basic Project Data

Type of Evaluation:	Final
Project Number:	SEN/96/C01
Project Title:	Local Development Fund in the Tambacounda Region
Cooperating Organization:	UNOPS
Sector:	Integrated Rural Development (0410)
Sub-sector:	Local Governance
Project approval date:	May 1997
Project start date:	January 1998
Project end date:	December 2001
Evaluation date:	September 2001
Project Budget
UNCDF:	US$   3,553,450
UNDP:	880,550
Total:	4,434,000
Expenditure at time of evaluation:	3,060,736 (UNCDF -$2,272,068 /UNDP -$788,668)

II.   Background

The project has been operational in the Tambacounda region since 1998. The project intervention area is the municipality of Kédougou; including all of the districts and Rural Communities (RCs) of the department of Kédougou, and all the RCs of the district of Missirah (department of Tambacounda) . The population of the project area is estimated at around 125, 000 including the 20, 000 in the city of Kédougou. The population density, estimated at five inhabitants per square kilometer, is very low. Before the project began, this area was relatively isolated despite immense agricultural capabilities and other economic opportunities, mining and tourism in particular. The area was considered to be one of the poorest in the country, characterized by the lack of drinking water outlets, low education and literacy levels and health infrastructure and services that were woefully inadequate. During the project formulation phase, five main development problems were identified; these were -weakly developed productive potential, accelerated pressure on natural resources, a weak anchoring of the communal and community institution, the absence of a secondary urban center, and under-exploited tourism potential.

Initially, the project was designed as a “hybrid ”project combining the three instruments used at the time by the UNCDF; i. e. the Local Development Funds (LDFs) , the “eco- development ”approach and micro-finance. At the startup of the project in 1998, the team decided on a de facto reorientation of the project making the “LDF ”component the backbone of the project and relegating the “eco-development ”component to the background. Following the policy of the UNCDF to support best-practice in microfinance, the microfinance component of the project was entrusted to a specialized and autonomous financial operator, the Alliance de Crédit et de l ’Epargne pour la Production (ACEP) .

III.   The Project

Development objectives

Initial development objectives

The initial project document (signed in May 1997) stated the two development objectives as:

• To increase the opportunities for creating revenues and jobs; and

• To promote the basic functions of the local communities as basic players in stimulating local economic life.

Revised development objectives

In May 2000, during a monitoring-evaluation support mission, the following single objective was retained:

• To promote sustainable local development through the decentralization process and the alleviation of poverty.

Immediate objectives

Initial immediate objectives

Initially, the project had the three immediate objectives; these were –i. the development of productive village spaces as part of community-based land management; ii. the anchoring of rural communities in the rural society as stimulus for the economic and social life among many villages; and, the promotion of Kédougou as a secondary, sub- regional relay to facilitate city-country exchanges.

Revised immediate objectives

In May 2000, the immediate objective was revised as; to improve sustainable access of the populations in the area to socio-economic infrastructure and to productive natural resources in the department and in the municipality of Kédougou and the district of Missirah.

Outputs

• The participatory planning, financing, management and negotiation and maintenance capacities of the local players (RCs; City of Kédougou; base organizations) are strengthened;

• Priority infrastructure and social facilities are built or rehabilitated and maintained;

• Natural resources with productive potential are developed or restored as part of a community-based approach to land management;

• Revenue generating projects for the basic organizations are supported.

IV.   Evaluation Findings

Evaluation of Results

In general, in light of the large number of public infrastructure produced or rehabilitated by the project, the mission deems that Outputs 2 and 4 were fully achieved. Output 1 has been achieved in limited fashion: while it is true that local capabilities concerning planning and contract procedures have been greatly strengthened, this is less evident for local infrastructure funding, management and maintenance capabilities. Finally, regarding Output 3, the mission is of the opinion that while noteworthy results were achieved, they were not achieved in the context of an overall land management approach. Specifically, the following results were achieved:

Output 1

Planning system: The participatory planning system established by the project is based on the development of Local Development Plans (LDPs) for the RCs and of Communal Investment Plans (CIP) for the municipality of Kédougou covering a six-year period (1999-2004) , and on the preparation of the Three-Year Investment Plan (TYIP) and of Annual Investment Plans (AIPs) . In all, 13 LDPs, 1 CIP (Kédougou) , 41 AIPs, and 53 Annual Village Plans (AVP) were developed. Despite these positive results, it appears that the planning process was not explicitly carried to its end, for there was no annual budgeting at the local government level, which did not encourage the institutionalization and appropriation of the procedures by the local bodies. Furthermore, the annual planning of investments was not anchored in the legal context and was not designed to allow for the emergence of a negotiation process among local governments and citizens.

Financial mechanism: The financial mechanism established to finance public investments is based on the availability of a three-year Indicative Financial Allotment (IFA) for each local authority (LA) . For the 13 RCs, the total amount of three-year IFAs amounted to around US$1. 75 million; for the commune of Kédougou, this amount totaled US$685, 000. Access to the IFAs was subject, among other things, to the payment of a financial contribution representing 15% of total investment costs (except for revenue- generating micro-projects) . This financial mechanism, due to its complexity, its dependence on the mobilization of local taxation and the allocation of large amounts intended for the local authorities, is not very appropriate to the local context.

Strengthening of capabilities: In order to strengthen local planning and development management capabilities, the project established 13 Local Development Support Cells (LDSC) , a Communal Development Support Cell (CDSC) , 14 Contract and Monitoring Committees (CMC) and 72 Infrastructure Management Committees. Close to 400 rural advisors benefited from basic training in decentralization and the functioning of local authorities (planning, budgeting, legal provisions, etc. ) and some 90 members of the CMC received technical training.

Output 2

In all, 109 infrastructure projects were newly constructed and 36 were rehabilitated. Among the main infrastructure built or rehabilitated were: 13 community hostels; 45 wells; 7 classrooms; 29 health huts; 4 rural maternity hospitals; 1 municipal dispensary; the improvement of the city road system; 1 women ’s shelter; and 1 grain warehouse. In general, the structures produced were of appropriate quality, and even satisfactory in light of the physical constraints of the setting, the procurement problems and the low construction costs. However, despite the numerous information and awareness campaigns conducted both by the personnel of the Technical Secretariat of the FDL and by the prime contractors, concrete provisions could not be made for good management and maintenance practices for the infrastructure, either by the rural communities or the commune of Kédougou.

Output 3

In general, the natural resource management campaigns (NRM) were taken into account in the local planning process; to the extent such campaigns were included in LA planning, the project funded them through the IFAs. Thus, and in all, nine lowland areas and 75 hectares of land were developed; two retention ponds were built; 10 plant nurseries were installed; 39 pilot operators were assisted; 67 brush fire fighting committees were created; and a Land Development and Management Plan (LDMP) was developed for the six sub-territories of the RC of Dialacoto.

Output 4

The local authorities effectively planned micro-projects for the basic organizations (20% of the IFAs was specifically reserved for financing revenue-generating projects for basic organizations) . These micro-projects included truck farming, poultry farming and rice farming. The level of revenue generated by such projects varies and, in all, nine of them seem to have become profitable.

Evaluation of Outcomes and Impact

Achievement of the immediate objective is underway. The project has, undoubtedly, contributed to improving the access of the populations to infrastructure, amenities and natural resources. However, as the management and maintenance of the new infrastructure have not been completely mastered by the local authorities or the beneficiary populations, the conditions do not yet seem to be satisfied for the sustainability of the improved access. Furthermore, the weak attention paid by the project to the institutional anchoring of the various processes and instruments developed, and to their proper appropriation by the local players, raises doubts as to their durability. Thus, the obvious desire of the project to prioritise the completion of infrastructure –and thus to contribute rapidly and concretely to the reduction of poverty – seems to have been prejudicial at the level of the local authorities. .

Based on the results of the assisted self-evaluation performed by the beneficiaries themselves shortly after the final evaluation mission was conducted, the project had very positive impacts. The beneficiaries of the project were numerous (including the population of the area of intervention, elected officials, decentralized services, local enterprises) and the benefits derived from the implementation of the project were varied: improved access to basic social services (health and education) and to drinking water; improved access to productive infrastructure; strengthening of capabilities at many levels (elected officials, populations, services) ; and revenue generation for the enterprises contracted. However, there are a number of risks as to the durability of the benefits, as cited.

Although it is too early to estimate the impact of the project on the reduction of poverty in quantitative terms, many positive elements deserve mention. Thus, most of the investments made directly benefited women, either as individuals or as members of groups, and youths and other marginalized groups were able to benefit from the support of the project. The impact of the project on strengthening local authorities was also positive. By making local elected officials the privileged contacts, the project contributed to an anchoring of the local institutions at the community level. Finally, the project had some impact on national policy, though limited due to the failure to develop a coherent communication strategy; as it was one of the first projects in Senegal to promote development through local authorities, the project allows the State and other development partners to better understand the stakes of the process.

Evaluation of the project design

The initial design of the project did not supply clear guidelines for its proper execution. The initial project document (which did not include any logical framework) , in fact, described many projects, without specifying which should be prioritized in execution. The reorientation of the project in 2000 is, therefore, completely justified, and though it did not result in an amendment of the project document –which would have formalized the new orientations –the evaluation mission feels that the decision to put the eco- development component on the back burner in order to stress the LDF approach was pertinent. However, as a result of its initial conception, the project remained a “hybrid, ” not only in terms of the timid retention of the eco-development component, but also from the standpoint of its intervention strategy. This conceptual confusion left its mark on the execution of the programme, and it explains in part the poor consideration of the institutional dimension.

V.   Recommendations

In order for the project to make the corrections required to ensure better sustainability of the project benefits, it is recommended that the project be extended for at least 12 months, within the limit of the remaining budget. During this last stage, the project should -complete the 1999, 2000 and 2001 programmes, strengthen the capabilities of the community bodies, and, in accordance with the Local Authorities ’Code, anchor the instruments and procedures in the community institutions

VI.   Lessons Learned

It is critical that pilot programmes receive adequate technical support. The few weaknesses of the project are largely due to the conceptual lacunae that could have been easily corrected if the project had received coherent and appropriate methodological and technical support. UNCDF must ensure that this lesson is learned at its headquarters and that it translates into effective improvement of the field operations.

The challenge of ensuring the sustainability of the benefits of an LDF-type project deserves special attention. These projects encompass, beyond the sustainability of the investments, the sustainability of the local development process in its broad sense. Thus, LDF projects must question, as soon as they start up, what would happen if the UNCDF funding were cut off and therefore very early on place the emphasis on the provisions to be made not only for the future proper management and maintenance of the investments, but also for the institutionalization of good governance practices. It is important that the various processes, procedures and tools developed in connection with LDF projects be as simple as possible, since complicated, cumbersome mechanisms only have a small chance of being adopted as common practices.

Finally, there seems to be a certain conceptual contradiction between the LDF approach and a short-term objective for reducing poverty. UNCDF ’s LDF approach seeks to reduce poverty over the long term by providing sustainable, durable and institutionalized solutions through the promotion of good local governance. However, the fight against poverty is often perceived as requiring the implementation of actions capable of providing effective solutions in the short term. This contradiction sometimes creates a dilemma for LDF project teams, who are torn between the desire to provide immediate solutions to the problems of economically disadvantaged populations and the longer-term objective of institutional sustainability.

VII.   Composition of the Evaluation Mission

• El hadji Babaly Dčme, National Consultant, Civil Engineer
• Oumoul Khayri Niang, National Consultant, Anthropologist
• Mike Winter, International Consultant, Head of mission, Anthropologist