Economic Empowerment Programme

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2014-2018, Kenya
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
11/2016
Completion Date:
12/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR-EEP.pdf tor English 356.07 KB Posted 181
Download document EEP MTR REPORT - Final .pdf report English 349.50 KB Posted 262
Title Economic Empowerment Programme
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2014-2018, Kenya
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2016
Planned End Date: 11/2016
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.1. National and sub-national systems and institutions enabled to achieve structural transformation of productive capacities that are sustainable and employment - and livelihoods- intensive
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: Project Funds
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Ministries of Devolution and Planning; Industrialization and Enterprise Development; Education, Science and Technology MSE Authority, Kenya Investment Authority, Development Partners UNDP
Countries: KENYA
Comments:

Owing to on goiing  mid-term review we are proposing to delete the project outcome evaluation as it will be a duplication

Lessons
1.

The first half of EEP implementation has generated knowledge and new partnerships, which offer opportunities for upscaling, replication and adjustments for positive future.


2.

So far, EEP has been relying on TRAC funds from UNDP, with minimal support in form of running costs and from the respective County Governments.  The contribution in cost sharing needs to be clearly stated at the project design at national and county government levels based on best practices in some developing countries. 


Findings
1.

Relevance

 

The Economic Empowerment Programme (EEP) is relevant in that it seeks to contribute to reducing socio-economic challenges by empowering the citizenry in different ways focusing on national county government priorities contained in Kenya’s Vision 2030 Economic Pillar and MTP II, UNDAF 2014-2018 and UNDP Kenya CPD 2014-2018. It is quite encouraging to note that some of the EEP initiatives are also being incorporated by county governments the BCs in the County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs).


2.

Effectiveness

 

EEP has registered significant results in development of policies and strategies to support the drive towards a prosperous society that is characteristic of skilled people, safe employment opportunities and the ease of doing business. Key promising results include: (i). Biashara Centres established at county levels are providing breakthroughs for service delivery and enhanced capacity on business management and business start-ups; (ii) Encouragement of youth in to engage in agribusiness value chains is going to transform their lives; (iii) The EEP partners have supported development of supportive policies and strategies for job creation, skills development and working conditions; (iv). Significant progress has been made to promote professional experiences and skills of young people for the labour market through internship programs for the youth; (v) Good progress has been registered in efforts towards creation of a One Stop Investment Centre (OSIC) for investors; and (vi) Strong partnerships between the GOK and UN have led to sustained investment in expanding economic opportunities for women-owned enterprises in the public procurement sector both at national and county levels. However, the government policy to award at least 30% of all procurement opportunities to the youth, women and people with disabilities has not been fully exploited.

The Biashara Centre concept has adopted an area-based programming approach that has enabled the UN to provide targeted technical, financial and institutional support in a coordinated manner to Turkana and Marsabit counties. The planning processes have been highly participatory through consultations with the communities, county governments and UN. The GOK and UN have generated evidence-based information for programming.


3.

Efficiency

The EEP PRODOC has put in place thorough structures, policies and procedures that ensure programmatic efficiency: At the Apex, the EEP is coordinated by the Project Board/National Steering Committee chaired by the Principal Secretary, Devolution and Planning supported by the UNDP ACD/Head of Program a.i. The EEP Technical Committee coordinates and monitors implementation of Annual Work Plans (AWPs) based on approved budgets. Under the current arrangements, project funding is being used as agreed but delays are being experienced in refunding partners for costs incurred.

The current Technical Committee is functional but can be strengthened for comprehensiveness, smarter results and stronger linkages. Standard Project logical frameworks should be prepared to incorporating SMART objectives, performance indicators and targets which will equally raise the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the progress reports.

The long absence of a Project Coordinator and support team has seriously affected the efficiency in the implementation of the programme.


4.

Sustainability and Impact

The MTR team has noted that there is evidence indicating a high degree of potential for continuity of Programme benefits. EEP interventions are in high demand to support the devolution process. For sustainability, running costs at BCs are catered for by the County Governments.


5.

Network /linkages

Twelve institutions including 3 government Ministries, 3 state corporations, 5 private sector players and 4 county governments are participating in the implementation of the Economic Empowerment Programme. Most of the twelve institutions focus on youth and women target groups. There is need to increase players from the private sector and civil society organizations.

The strategy for working with Private Sector focuses on four areas I) resource transfer, ii) technology transfer; iii) facilitating or brokering innovative private investments, and iv) value chain linkages of “inclusive business” approaches. Also, some CSOs, in Kenya are now keen to collaborate with the GOK and the UN to enhance their legitimacy to development efforts.

While EEP has done an excellent job in producing communication and publicity materials Biashara Centres, the outreach needs to be expanded


Recommendations
1

The current outputs should be redefined with a view of reducing them into a few interventions which can have a long-term impact and can be achieved within the remaining one and half years more specifically 1.1.1(b), 1.2.1(g), 2.1.1, 2.2.2 (b) and 2.2.3 (d). 

2

In order to benefit from the gains made through EEP so far, it is advisable for the IP to take the lead to provide a Project Coordinator who will perform the role spelt out in paragraph 4.2.10 of the PRODOC with an office preferably at the Ministry of Devolution and Planning.

3

A forum should be created for Responsible Partners whose contribution is still relevant in the implementation of the remaining programme activities once in a quarter to review achievements and prepare quarterly work plan for the next quarter.  Where a Responsible Partner is engaged to implement some project activities, formal agreements should be made between the Implementing Partner and the Responsible Partners as stipulated in paragraph 4.2.8 of PRODOC.

4

The Project Board should review the strategy of establishing county Biashara Centres and the One Stop Investment Centres considering the high initial capital for providing the infrastructure and competent personnel.

5

As part of an exit strategy and sustainability it is important for the Implementing Partner to initiate institutionalization strategies guided by MOUs with county governments for purposes of setting a uniform approach of ownership and leadership.

6

For the period 2017 to 2018, quarterly work plans should be prepared following the standard project logical framework which includes clearly indicates: (1) objectively verifiable indicators of achievement; (2) sources and means of verification; and (3) assumptions.

7

There is also need for the project to broaden the knowledge management products including establishing a comprehensive documentation management system which will make it easy to disseminate information partners and general public.

1. Recommendation:

The current outputs should be redefined with a view of reducing them into a few interventions which can have a long-term impact and can be achieved within the remaining one and half years more specifically 1.1.1(b), 1.2.1(g), 2.1.1, 2.2.2 (b) and 2.2.3 (d). 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/01]

Noted and agreed: The project acknowledges the need to review the outputs considering the remaining period of the project, support through devolved units and factoring in estimated resources that may be available for the remaining period.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation:

In order to benefit from the gains made through EEP so far, it is advisable for the IP to take the lead to provide a Project Coordinator who will perform the role spelt out in paragraph 4.2.10 of the PRODOC with an office preferably at the Ministry of Devolution and Planning.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/01]

Noted and Agreed: This is a great milestone towards ensuring that project activities and support is well mainstreamed with the government programmes and thus ensure continuity and sustainability after project period. UNDP has already initiated this process and as of now, the IP (Ministry of Devolution and Planning0 has seconded an officer to the Project coordination office to provide project implementation support. UNDP will hold discussions with the IP and explore possibility of having a full time GoK seconded Project Coordinator.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation:

A forum should be created for Responsible Partners whose contribution is still relevant in the implementation of the remaining programme activities once in a quarter to review achievements and prepare quarterly work plan for the next quarter.  Where a Responsible Partner is engaged to implement some project activities, formal agreements should be made between the Implementing Partner and the Responsible Partners as stipulated in paragraph 4.2.8 of PRODOC.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/01]

The quarterly meetings for the technical team during which all Responsible Parties are expected to be represented provides for this forum. However, it is noted that there is need to ensure effective participation and presentation by all and UNDP and the IP shall take lead on this. The absence of formal agreements between the IP and the Responsible parties is well noted. The need for these agreements is well noted in the Project Document and UNDP shall bring this to the attention of the IP and advice as recommended.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation:

The Project Board should review the strategy of establishing county Biashara Centres and the One Stop Investment Centres considering the high initial capital for providing the infrastructure and competent personnel.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/01]

Noted and Agreed: A review meeting with the IP, Kenya Investment Authority, County Governments and the Private Sector through representation by the Kenya National Chamber of Commerce and Industry shall be held and the strategy for establishing Business Centres revised. However, for the One Stop Centre (OSC) the government has allocated financial resources for its establishment and operationalization, with UNDP providing technical support on a need basis. The OSC shall serve as a national centre for promoting investment.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation:

As part of an exit strategy and sustainability it is important for the Implementing Partner to initiate institutionalization strategies guided by MOUs with county governments for purposes of setting a uniform approach of ownership and leadership.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/01]

UNDP is a signatory of the United Nations Development

Framework (UNDAF) through which support to national government is provided, and thus will not need to sign MoUs with each specific county Government. However, the need for reviewing the exit strategy and ensuring sustainability is noted and a framework for sustainability and exit shall be discussed during the review meeting (refer management response under item 4), and implementation fast-tracked.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation:

For the period 2017 to 2018, quarterly work plans should be prepared following the standard project logical framework which includes clearly indicates: (1) objectively verifiable indicators of achievement; (2) sources and means of verification; and (3) assumptions.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/01]

Noted and partly agreed: All Workplans and progress reports are prepared using the standard UNDP templates. However, the need to ensure verifiable indicators is well noted and will be acted upon as recommended.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation:

There is also need for the project to broaden the knowledge management products including establishing a comprehensive documentation management system which will make it easy to disseminate information partners and general public.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/01/01]

Noted and Agreed: Project lacks a comprehensive documentation system and this will be acted upon as recommended.

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org