Summary Sheet for Terminal Evaluation
1.

Outline of the ProjectCountry： Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Project title： Inter-communal Rural Development
Project (IRDP)

Issue/Sector： Rural Development

Cooperation scheme： Technical Cooperation

Division in charge： Urban and Regional Development Total costs： 1,030 million Japanese Yen (planned)
Division I, Economic Infrastructure Department
Period of(R/D)： Dec. 2005 to Feb. 2009

Partner Country’s Implementing Organization：

Cooperation

Extension： Mar. to Dec. 2009

Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development(MRRD)
Supporting Organization in Japan： None

Related Cooperation： None1-1. Background of the Project
In Afghanistan, social and economic conditions are exhausted due to prolonged civil war for more than 20years. Besides, the extended drought since 1998 caused huge damage on agriculture and livestock farming,and it resulted in aggregation of rural poverty. Moreover, until now, many refugees and internally displaced
persons (IDP) have been continuing to return to their communities. Therefore, it is urgent to improve living
condition and activate economic activities in the communities, where they intend to return to, for promoting
reintegration of them.
The MRRD has been implementing the nationwide NSP (National Solidarity Program) with assistance of theWorld Bank. The NSP is aimed at rebuilding of villages, as well as reinforcing and improving of their
institutional capabilities, through forming of CDC (Community Development Committee) and assisting themto implement their own projects (sub-projects). The Afghanistan Government requested the Japanese
Government to assist a project that was formulated to promote community-led rural development that cancover wider geographical areas by clustering the CDCs built by NSP. Three provinces, Balkh, Bamyan andKandahar Province were selected for project implementation. This project came later to include building of amodel for CDCs’ clustering process and sub-project implementations.
Based on the request, the Afghanistan Government and JICA concluded Record of Discussions (R/D) on 11
September 2005 that covered objectives and components of the technical cooperation Afterwards the IRDP
was commenced with 3 years project term. In November 2008, JICA dispatched the Monitoring Team toreview a progress of the IRDP and both the Afghanistan Government and JICA agreed to extend theimplementation period of the project to the end of December 2009, due to delay of some sub-projects thatwere caused with unstable social situations, natural disasters and others. This terminal evaluation wasconducted in June 2009 a half year before the end of the project.
1-2. Project Overview(1) Overall Goal
1)

Livelihood of the residents is improved in the Target Area.

2)

Community-led development model at inter-communal/ Cluster CDC level (IRDP Model) is utilized.

(2) Project Purpose
Community-led development model at inter-communal/ Cluster CDC level (IRDP Model) is established.
(3) Outputs
1)

The method of organizing Cluster CDCs is clarified.

2)

The capacity of Cluster CDCs for community-led development planning and implementation is improved
through planning and implementing the Sub-Projects.。

3)

The validity of Cluster CDCs for community-led development planning and implementation is examined
and the lessons learned are summarized through monitoring and evaluating the Sub-Projects.

(4) Inputs (planned through December 2009)
From Japan：Experts： 88.3 person-months in total
Sub-projects： 320 million JPY for direct cost, 200 million JPY for indirect cost (forming of CCDC andbaseline study, design of sub-projects, and supervisory services by FP)
Local operation costs： 90 million JPY (training, local trips, etc.)
Training in Japan： 14 participants in total
Equipment： personal computers, printers, copy machines and others
From Afghanistan：
Assignment of project counterpart personnel： 29 persons in total (10 persons from MRRD, 19 persons
from RRDs in 3 provinces)
Local operation cost： salaries for project counterpart personnel
Project offices： Kabul City, Balkh, Bamyan and Kandahar Province
2. Evaluation TeamMembersof Team Leader： Kawakita Hirofumi, Senior Advisor, JICAEvaluation

Planning & Management： Suzuki Masahiro, Urban and Regional Development Division I,

Team

Economic Infrastructure Department, JICA
Evaluation Analysis： Terao Toyomitsu, Fisheries Engineering Co., Ltd.
Community Development Management and Planning： Akutsu Takao, Principal Consultant,Overseas Merchandise Inspection Co., Ltd.

Period of30 May 2009 to 19 June 2009

Type of Evaluation： Terminal evaluation

Evaluation
3. Results of Evaluation
3-1. Achievements(1) Achievements in Outputs
Through activities under Output-1), 19 CCDCs have been built in the 3 provinces. Under Output-2),29
sub-projects have been formulated and implemented with substantive participation by communities, among
which 19 sub-projects have been completed by June 2009.

Table： The Number of Sub-Projects in 3 provinces
Province

CCDC

CDC

Sub-projects

Balkh

630Road, clinic, school, etc.： 11

Bamyan727MHP, irrigation channel, etc.： 12Kandahar

629Road, cable extension, etc. 6Total

198629Under Output-3), experiences in these sub-projects have been incorporated into the IRDP Model that ispresented in form of Guidelines, Practitioners Handbook and training modules. All three outputs have beenmostly achieved. However, it was noted that, among 10 uncompleted sub-projects, a few may need somecareful measures for finalizing by December 2009. Through activities under all three outputs, various training
for MRRD, RRD, CCDC and others were conducted. Number of participants is given in the following table.
Table： The Number of Participants for IRDP Training
FY2006

FY2007

FY2008Total

MRRD/FP

580131189

RRD/FP

9742309

448

CCDC

055

215

270

Stakeholders

004747

Total

155

97702

954

Unit： persons(2) Achievements in Project Purpose
For achieving the project purpose, in addition to formulation of the IRDP Model, it is also required to obtainunderstanding by the implementation agencies on the model. The comprehension test was conducted in May
2009 for participants from CLDD and RRDs for training of the IRDP Model. This test included manyquestions that would not be able to answer without rather deep understanding on the guidelines. The
percentage of right answers, 72.5％ in average, shows that their understanding of the model has reached at an
acceptable level. Furthermore, experiences of the IRDP give valuable information to similar projects insub-district level and can hence be applied as a model. It was judged that the project purpose has beenachieved.
3-2. Results of Five Criteria Evaluation(1) Relevance： HighThe IRDP can meet strategic focus areas of Local Governance, Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure, andEconomic Regeneration provided in Agriculture and Rural Development in the Afghanistan National
Development Strategy (ANDS, 2008). Main functions of CLDD of MRRD include promotion andimplementation of community-led rural development. The IRDP has been presenting a series of training andworkshop for the CLDD and RRD officers to execute their mandate in relation with these tasks. The CCDCs
have a considerable number of vulnerable families (female headed, disable headed, IDP and returnee) in manyof their member CDC. Access to social infrastructures is not well developed in the communities. Thesub-projects have improved this situation through development of infrastructures (road, electricity, watersupply) and provision of livelihood measures (sheep raising, carpet weaving) to vulnerable families.

(2) Effectiveness： HighThe project purpose has been achieved. The comprehension test on the IRDP model reached to an acceptablelevel. The IRDP has demonstrated its pilot initiative to design and implement the cluster’s own development
plan. Especially, IRDP’s experience in CDC clustering criteria, cluster formation, conflict resolution,mechanism to appraise sub-project or validate its feasibility, and monitoring (construction supervision) gives
valuable information to design and implement rural development projects in sub-district level.
(3) Efficiency： Moderate
Since delay in a few of the sub-projects is still significant as of June 2009 despite of the extension of theproject term, an extent of the efficiency cannot be rated as high. The Team also noted that the IRDP has been
implemented under remarkably difficult situations that include continued social instability, accessibility toisolated communities, participatory approach that can take time, initial lack of experience in clustering
approach, occasional interruption by inter-communal conflict, restriction of supervisory work by the experts
on site for security requirements, lack of leadership in some CCDC, and unexpectedly difficult work andtransport conditions in midwinter.
(4) Impacts： Relatively highSince the two indicators on livelihood of vulnerable families and access to social infrastructures for theoverall goal in the PDM (Version 2) are difficult to measure, it is desirable to replace them with otherapplicable indicators. There exist some indicative actions in the relevant agencies that may suggest applicationof the IRDP Model. Such indication includes preparation for NSP-II Clustering Project for three provinces
that is funded by JSDF and a plan of MRRD to deliver Practitioners Handbook to 34 provinces in a RRD
national meeting.
(5) Sustainability： ModerateThere are no foreseeable obstacles in sustainability of the project benefits in aspect of policy and financebecause of highly prioritized policy and assistance by donors in community-led rural development. However,in institutional aspect, there is no clear direction to maintain or develop organizations in sub-district level for
supporting communities in perspective of the sub-national governance that has been developed by the IDLG
so far. In addition, There also exists some concern on shortage of technical capacities of the MRRD/CLDDand RRD officers in charge of the rural development. These two should be noted as these may affect thesustainability of the project.
3-3. Conclusion
The IRDP has been implemented under remarkably difficult situations in Afghanistan. Despite this, any of 19
CCDC formed by the IRDP has not dropped out through the last three years, and a majority of the sub-projects
has been successfully completed. Since its initial project stage, the IRDP has demonstrated its pilot initiative
to design and implement the cluster’s own sub-projects. The IRDP’s experience can give valuable information
to design and implement rural development projects in sub-district level. There exist some indicative actions
already in the relevant agencies that may suggest application of the IRDP model. The Team concluded that theproject purpose has been successfully achieved and the IRDP can be terminated in December 2009 asscheduled.

3-4. Recommendations(1) Further understanding and utilization of the IRDP Model by MRRD
① Creation of case studies or evaluation report with experiences and lessons learned from sub-projects② Further training session on the IRDP model for MRRD and RRD counterparts③ Distribution and Dissemination of the IRDP Guideline, training module of the IRDP model andPractitioners’ handbook(2) Confirmation of the implementation of NSP-II Clustering project and more involvement of MRRD inNSP-II Clustering project(3) Promotion for incorporation of CCDC component in NSP-III(4) Providing the IRDP model to other organizations and institutions(5) Completion of the sub-projects within the project period① To review uncompleted sub-project, especially those in Naitaq CCDC, Nakodak CCDC, Karz CCDC
and Khowshab CCDC
② To plan and submit feasible implementations schedule of uncompleted sub-project③ To facilitate community’s efforts by Afghanistan and Japan side to complete the sub-projects(6) Revision of the Overall Goal in PDM ver.2
3-5. Lessons Learned(1)Collaboration with national programs
The IRDP has been collaborating with NSP very well through entire project period. Especially, NSP
experiences on CDC project were utilized to identify its target area and facilitate to plan needs-based projects
in the IRDP, and the IRDP has productively been sharing its own experiences and exchanging opinions on
promotion of CCDC project in NSP-II. Such interactions are important in aspect of spillover effects of a
project and collection of information.
(2)Coordination among JICA projects and experts under MRRD
MRRD and JICA have been jointly working to rehabilitate and improve rural communities in Afghanistan
since 2003. This cooperation by projects and experts were well coordinated through regular meetings androle-sharing arrangement. In the case of multiple inputs in one organization with similar objectives, in order toachieve further efficiency and strategic actions, these components will be necessary to integrate into onecomponent.
(3)Comprehensive development approach from policy level to community development level
In order to achieve national or policy goal, policy formation and project activities should have close linkage
between both. Filed realities and people needs should reach policy makers and program managers smoothly todesign appropriate project to solve the problem at field level. MRRD and the IRDP almost have suchmechanism through coordination, joint working and contract out with FPs, NGOs, other donor programs andJICA Afghanistan office. For the further improvement of this mechanism, mandatory roles, structure andcapacity of MRRD and local governments must be considered to plan future activities and programs.
(4)Formulation of technical cooperation project with strong interest in infrastructure building
The Team reminds the major objective of technical cooperation project is to transfer skills and techniques tosolve necessary policy issues and people’s concerns. From this principle, the Team recognized, at theformation stage of IRDP, the original project concept which had strong initiatives in infrastructure building
was weak on technical transfer component. Therefore, the timing of input for technical transfer was relativelyinefficient in the IRDP. It is necessary for future project to take the balance between two components, i.e.,
technical transfer and infrastructure building.
(5)Technical transfer mechanism and personnel assignment in technical cooperation project
In order to establish effective technical transfer mechanism, continuous dialogue and team building between
Afghanistan and Japanese side are crucial. The Team evaluated to some extent the relationship in the IRDP
was good and effective. However, the Team also indentified room for improvement of this. Especially,
personnel allocation in the IRDP by Afghanistan side should be more strategic to absorb experiences andlessons from technical cooperation and nourish a sense of ownership.
(6)Further impact on personal and organizational behavior at CCDC and CDC level
The Team confirmed the IRDP implemented various trainings such as Quality Control, MHP maintenance,People Participation, Information Sharing, Awareness of woman and Leadership. These trainings directly andindirectly change community or individual behavior through learning specific skills and achieving a project
objective. In order to strengthen community collective actions and mutual understanding among different
communities, technical training

such as Quality Control ortraining such as People Participation

MHP maintenance etc and non-technicalor Awareness of women etc should be implemented with appropriatebalance in a capacity development program for CCDC or CDC level.