Evaluation type: External independent final evaluation
Evaluator(s): Dr. C. Inayatullah, Team Leader
Field visit dates: Augst-September 2021
Final report date: 2 February 2021
Commissioned by: Concern Worldwide/ FCDO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Poverty in Pakistan is concentrated in rural areas where 70% of the population lives. The BDRP programme area is all rural. Based on World Bank’s Poverty Headcount Analysis, at US$ 1.25/day income definition, about 21% of Pakistan’s population is below the poverty line and if the line is set at US$ 2/day then 60% of the population is below the poverty line. In 2019, the inflation rate was 10.58%, which has been increasing annually since 2015 when it was 2.53%1. The GDP fell from 5.55% in 2018 to 2.29% in 2019 and -1.55% in 20202. It is feared that with the recent devaluation of the currency, decline in exports and price hikes, and indirect impacts of COVID-19 on reducing job opportunities, poverty has increased considerably. The COIVD-19 has been a big blow to the already fragile economy and responsible for the reduced tax collection. This is evident in the form of budget cuts on development projects and a reduction in staff salaries in the public sector. In 2019, Pakistan ranked 3rd to the last, 151 out of 153 on Global Gender Gap Index, highlighting the urgent need to promote the social, economic, and political empowerment of women.
The impacts of climate change are fast unfolding in Pakistan, which is evident in the form of increased intensity and frequency of extreme events. Based on cumulative Global Climate Risk Index from 1999-2018, the German Watch Group (2020 Report) ranked Pakistan at 5th position on the Global Climate Risk Index- a case of downgraded rank from 8th position (cumulative index 1998-2017). The Group estimated that the country has faced 152 extreme weather events from 1999 to 2018 and lost 9,989 lives and suffered economic losses worth of US$ 3.8 billion3.
Besides inherent climatic factors and poor resources at the government and community level, the technical capacity of the GoP line departments and that of communities is extremely low. It could be gauged from the fact that for example the Chitral district comprises of about 20% of the entire province of KP, and the main economic activity here is livestock. There are only 7 veterinarians and 30 animal husbandry technicians in the entire Chitral (both upper and lower)
Under the above scenario, the programme was formulated in full consultation with the government, UN Agencies and IPs. The selection of project interventions was at the advice of UN specialized agency, i.e., FAO, and the selection of villages was made in full consultation with the government departments, keeping in view the vulnerability to hazards and income poverty of the communities. The project aimed to serve 625,023 vulnerable households (323 male-headed and 301,728 female-headed households) in nine districts, viz., Chitral, D. I. Khan, Jhang, Muzaffargarh, Rajanpur, Kashmore, Ghotki, Dadu and Tharparkar. The project period was 24 months with a total budget of UK £ 16.9 million). The programme applied a consortium approach. The activities were implemented by ACTED in Chitral and D. I. Khan; by WHH in Muzaffargarh and Rajanpur, by Concern Worldwide in Jhang, D. I. Khan and Tharparkar; and by IRC in Ghotki and Dadu. WHH further sub-contracted activities to two local NGOs, namely Doaba Development and Farmers Development Organization, while Concern Worldwide sub-contracted activities to Veer Development Foundation in D. I. Khan, Lodhran Pilot Project in Jhang, and Rural Development Foundation in Tharparkar.
The present Terminal Evaluation (TE) was commissioned by the Concern Worldwide in the last week of August 2020, the field work was completed in 2 weeks and the data analysis and report writing was accomplished in one week. Clearly the duration for this exercise was not sufficient. Four teams were composed who initiated field work simultaneously, each team covering 2 districts, except Team 4 (comprising of 3 professionals) which covered 3 districts. A 3-prong approach was applied to collect data. Firstly, all the documents related with the programme were reviewed, secondly the baseline and endline data on the Household Resilience Index was analyzed, and thirdly consultations were held with beneficiaries’ communities and the staff of relevant government officials in each district. The TE team sampled 50 villages in the programme districts and organized Focused Group Discussion (FGD) in each village. The total number of participants in the FGDs were 876 (484 males. 407 females, 139 People Livening with Disabilities (PLWDs) and 47 elderlies (age 60+ years). The government officials interviewed in all the districts were 90.
Considering the opening paragraphs showing the barriers which Pakistan is facing for sustainable development, and the opinion of all the consulted local communities and GoP officials the TE team endorses that the programme was highly relevant to the immediate and long-term needs of the country, rather the communities were regretting its early closure.
The programme fully achieved its output targets. It accomplished its target of enhancing the resilience of communities to cope with disasters. At the endline survey time, respectively 38%, 33% and 29% households were found in low, medium and high Household Resilience Index (HRI) categories, in contrast with 78%, 18% and 4% at the time of baseline study. A net of 287,491 households moved from low HRI category to medium- and high HRI category which is 55% of the low resilient HRI households at the time of baseline study. This is a very good achievement of the project. Further, analysis indicated that in both the flood- and drought prone areas the trend of improvement in resilience was the same. Likewise, the male- and female-headed households almost equally improved their resilience (52% males-headed and 48% female-headed). This endorses the effectiveness of programme interventions and gender strategy. The project has visibly four impacts, namely, (i) increased household income; (ii) trained volunteer force available for support to the GoP during disasters, (iii) well-informed communities about DRR; (iv) improved knowledge and practices about WASH; (v) self-confidence of communities; (vi) UC level infrastructure which provided evacuation routes as well easy access to cities and markets; and (vii) registration of PLWDs with the Social Welfare Department which gave them a ray of hope in the state of despair.
A separate study is needed to calculate the monetary gains at the household and community level. However, this report cites many examples where individual households were able to increase their income by several folds due to training and provision of tool kits, high quality seed of various crops, seeds of vegetables and fertilizers, etc.) which also changed their lives. The support provided to community structures, advocacy material prepared by the programme, the complaint redressal system practiced were all highly effective. The infrastructure provided at the household level (hand pumps, shelter rooms, etc.) and at community level (roads, bridges, culverts, irrigation channels, drinking water supply schemes, etc.) improved the living standards of people and their access to markets and service providers.
The outbreak of Covid-19 was a blessing in disguise, as the project extensively launched the campaigns to sanitize villages, towns, schools, promote frequent hand washing, and provided soap bars and sanitizers to communities as well as to district authorities. This promoted WASH practices to a great extent, which is likely to impact food absorption and savings on health expenditures. Further, the project provided cash grants to the poor households left out by the GoP schemes due to one or the other reason to make a living during the lockdown days. This practice greatly saved the poor to become destitute.