Annex II : final evaluation of the rural enterprise development II project (no. 519-0382) (TechnoServe)

During the final year, the purpose was expanded to include the promotion of non-traditional agricultural export products (NTAEs). The project was implemented by Technoserve. Technoserve achieved or exceeded the performance targets established in the Cooperative Agreement. However, in view of the method used by Technoserve to measure its performance, it is unclear how many new benefits were generated. The evaluators attempted to analyze the impact of Technoserve's efforts by tracking several indicators: sugar and coffee productivity, cooperative profits, cooperative net worth, cooperatives' managerial capacity, and employment for men and women. Results were inconclusive. Technoserve's impact on the production and export of non-traditional crops was small, but the requirement was not introduced until the fifth year of the project and, furthermore, did not specify either objectives or performance indicators. Technoserve helped its clients to achieve a degree of organizational maturity, which is an important element of sustainability. Primary benefits have resulted from installation of management information, control, and planning systems, including basic accounting and budgetary control procedures. These basic management development efforts have paid off over the long term. For example, many of CLUSA's successful cooperatives currently producing and exporting non-traditional crops have been assisted by Technoserve. The problem of frequent changes in cooperative leadership was a major obstacle to successful completion of Technoserve's program. Technoserve's investments in time and energy for institutional strengthening of the cooperatives were often lost with the arrival of new cooperative management. Technoserve has had to dedicate too many of its resources to overcome this problem. The following lessons were learned. (1) A project's goals, strategy, performance measures, and indicators should be consistent. Technoserve stated that its goals were to increase rural employment, income, and production through working with self-managed enterprises. Results cannot be measured because performance measures were designed to track process, not progress. (2) The problem with working toward a standard set of broad goals is that there may be occasions in which these goals and the strategy for achieving them become inconsistent. Technoserve's strategy for institutional development of client cooperatives was to help improve management systems and to control costs. Given this strategy, employment could be expected to decline, at least in the near term. (3) When an environment that cannot be changed adversely affects progress, it may become necessary to change the strategy for project implementation. This was particularly applicable to the problem of rotating cooperative leadership. The evaluation team heard repeatedly that frequent turnover of cooperative decision makers meant that the cooperatives either could not graduate, or otherwise would drop recommended policies once the board of directors changed. Technoserve could have made stable management a pre-condition for providing services. Possible solutions might have been to insist, as part of the agreement with a cooperative, on their providing stable management for a fixed period of time, or to nominate a permanent steering committee to manage crop production. (Author abstract)