Content uploaded by Niek de Jong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Niek de Jong on Jan 20, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Central project evaluation
Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in
Nigeria (SEDIN), Nigeria
Project number 2016.2120.0
Evaluation Report
On behalf of GIZ by Niek de Jong (ERBS) and Adeolu Ayanwale
Date of evaluation report: 18 January 2023
Published: September 2024
KNOWING WHAT WORKS
Corporate Unit Evaluation Central Project Evaluation
2
Publication details
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH is a federal enterprise and supports the
German Federal Government in achieving its objectives in the fields of international education and international
cooperation for sustainable development.
This organisational structure strengthens its independence. The unit is mandated to generate evidence-based
results and recommendations for decision-making, to provide plausible verification of results and to increase the
transparency of findings.
The Evaluation Unit commissioned external independent evaluators to conduct the evaluation. This evaluation
report was written by these external evaluators. All opinions and assessments expressed in the report are those
of the authors.
Evaluator/s:
Niek de Jong (ERBS) and Adeolu Ayanwale
Author/s of the evaluation report:
Niek de Jong (ERBS) and Adeolu Ayanwale
Consulting firm:
Erasmus Research & Business Support (ERBS), Erasmus University Rotterdam
street: Burgemeester Oudlaan 50
town: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
T: +31 10 4082479
E: ndejong@ese.eur.nl
I: https://erbs.nl/en/international-cooperation/
Coordination and management:
Claudia Kornahrens, GIZ, Head of Section
Tim K. Loos, GIZ, Evaluation Manager
Central Project Evaluation Section
GIZ Corporate Unit Evaluation
Responsible:
Martha Gutierrez, GIZ, Director
GIZ Corporate Unit Evaluation
Editing:
International Correspondents in Education (ICE)
Published by:
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Registered offices:
Bonn and Eschborn
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 32 + 36
53113 Bonn, Germany
T: +49 228 44 60-0
F: +49 228 44 60-17 66
E : evaluierung@giz.de
I : www.giz.de/evaluierung
www.youtube.com/user/GIZonlineTV
https://linkedin.com/company/gizgmbh
https://x.com/giz_gmbh
Design/layout:
Layout: now [nau], kommunikative & visuelle
gestaltung, Frankfurt and DITHO Design
GmbH, Cologne
Graphics: Stefan Oltsch
Distribution:
GIZ, Bonn
Bonn 2024
3
https://ledin.com/company/gizgmbh
https://x.com/giz_gmbh
Contents
List of figures ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of photos ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of tables .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
The project at a glance ......................................................................................................................................... 8
1 Evaluation objectives and questions .................................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Evaluation objectives ............................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Evaluation questions ............................................................................................................................... 9
2 Object of the evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Definition of the evaluation object .......................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Results model including hypotheses ..................................................................................................... 12
3 Evaluability and evaluation process ................................................................................................................. 21
3.1 Evaluability: data availability and quality ............................................................................................... 21
3.2 Evaluation process ................................................................................................................................ 23
4 Assessment according to OECD DAC criteria ................................................................................................. 25
4.1 Impact and sustainability of predecessor projects ................................................................................. 25
4.2 Relevance .............................................................................................................................................. 28
4.3 Coherence ............................................................................................................................................. 34
4.4 Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 38
4.5 Impact .................................................................................................................................................... 57
4.6 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................... 64
4.7 Sustainability ......................................................................................................................................... 70
4.8 Key results and overall rating ................................................................................................................ 75
5 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................................................. 77
5.1 Key findings and factors of success/failure ........................................................................................... 77
5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 80
List of references ................................................................................................................................................ 82
Annex: Evaluation matrix .................................................................................................................................... 86
4
List of figures
Figure 1: SEDIN III budget in millions of euros (and implementation period) ..................................................... 11
Figure 2: Current results model of the project Pro-poor Growth and Promotion of Employment, Nigeria (2021;
considered up to date in January 2022) .............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 3: Milestones of the evaluation process ................................................................................................... 23
List of photos
Photo 1: Entrance to SMEDAN head office in Abuja (Source: evaluators) ......................................................... 27
Photo 2: Session of a training course (Source: project) ...................................................................................... 55
Photo 3: Federal Ministry of Education (Source: evaluators) .............................................................................. 62
Photo 4: Multi-door courthouse at Ogun Trade Fair (Source: evaluators) .......................................................... 73
Photo 5: Promoting waste recycling in Lagos State (Source: evaluators) .......................................................... 75
List of tables
Table 1: Knowledge interests by main evaluation stakeholder groups ............................................................... 10
Table 2: List of evaluation stakeholders and selected participants ..................................................................... 24
Table 3: Methodology for predecessor project .................................................................................................... 28
Table 4. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: relevance ............................................................................................ 28
Table 5: Dividers/escalating factors in the project context .................................................................................. 33
Table 6: Connectors/deescalating factors in the project context ........................................................................ 33
Table 7. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: coherence ........................................................................................... 34
Table 8: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: coherence ............................................................... 37
Table 9. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: effectiveness ....................................................................................... 38
Table 10: Assessed objective indicators for specific modules (outcome level) .................................................. 40
Table 11: Selected results hypotheses for effectiveness .................................................................................... 42
Table 12: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: effectiveness ........................................................ 56
Table 13. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: impact ............................................................................................... 57
Table 14: Selected results hypotheses for impact .............................................................................................. 59
Table 15: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: impact ................................................................... 63
Table 16. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: efficiency ........................................................................................... 64
Table 17: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: efficiency .............................................................. 69
Table 18. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: sustainability ..................................................................................... 70
Table 19: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: sustainability ......................................................... 74
Table 20. Overall rating of OECD DAC criteria and assessment dimensions .................................................... 76
Table 21: Rating and score scales ...................................................................................................................... 77
5
Abbreviations
AO
Assumption related to achievement of outputs
AM
Assumption related to achievement of outcome
A2F
Access to finance
BMZ
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (Bundesministerium für
wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung)
CBN
Central Bank of Nigeria
CPE
Central project evaluation
CSO
Civil society organisation
DAC
Development Assistance Committee
DC
Development cooperation
ECOWAS
Economic Community of West African States
ETLS
ECOWAS Trade Liberalisation Scheme
EU
European Union
FMITI
Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment
FMFBNP
Federal Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Planning
FMoE
Federal Ministry of Education
GIZ
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
HI
Results hypothesis on the link from outcome to impact
HM
Results hypothesis on the link from output to outcome or module objective
HO
Results hypothesis on the link from activity to output
IDP
Internally displaced person
KfW
KfW Development Bank (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau)
LED
Local economic development
LGA
Local government area
M&E
Monitoring and evaluation
FMBNP
Federal Ministry of Budget and National Planning
MFB
Microfinance banks
MSMEs
Micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises
NBS
National Bureau of Statistics
NICOP
Nigeria Competitiveness Project
NIPC
Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OSSAP-SDGs
Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on SDGs
PCA
Peace and conflict analysis
6
PN
Project number
RBM
Results-based monitoring
SDGs
Sustainable Development Goals
SEA Hub
Student Entrepreneurship Activity Hub
SEDEC
Sustainable Economic Development Cluster
SEDIN
Sustainable Economic Development in Nigeria (programme)/Pro-Poor Growth and Employment
Promotion in Nigeria (project)
SKYE
Skills Development for Youth Employment
SMEDAN
Small and Medium Enterprise Development Agency of Nigeria
SME Loop
Small and Medium Enterprise Business Training and Coaching Loop
TC
Technical cooperation
ToC
Theory of change
7
8
The project at a glance
Nigeria/West Africa: Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in Nigeria (SEDIN)
Project number
2016.2120.0
Creditor reporting system
code(s)
25030 (Business development services) since the 2020 change offer, previ-
ously 25010 (Business policy and management)
Project objective
The employment and income situation of micro-, small and medium-sized en-
terprises (MSMEs) in selected sectors is improved.
Project term
April 2017 September 2023
Project value
EUR 57.32 million (of which EUR 9 million is cofinanced by the European Un-
ion (EU) for the Nigeria Competitiveness Project (NICOP)
Commissioning party
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
(BMZ), EU
Lead executing agency
Federal Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Planning (FMFBNP)
Implementing organisations (in
the partner country)
Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (FMITI), Federal Ministry
of Education (FMoE), the SME Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN),
the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Nigerian Investment Promotion Com-
mission (NIPC), federal universities, public schools, state-level ministries and
agencies, local government area councils, training providers, business asso-
ciations and non-governmental organisations
Other development organisa-
tions involved
EU (NICOP), some collaboration with the World Bank, the Foreign, Common-
wealth & Development Office (FCDO) and the Dutch Centre for the Promo-
tion of Imports from Developing Countries (CBI)
Target group(s)
Direct target groups: implementing organisations and cooperatives. Indirect
target groups: poor and vulnerable population, including migrants and inter-
nally displaced persons (IDPs), in particular the male and female (potential)
owners and employees of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises
(MSMEs)
Development cooperation
(DC) programme
Training and sustainable growth for decent jobs in Nigeria (commissioned 29
March 2022). Formerly, reference was made to Sustainable Economic Devel-
opment in Nigeria (SEDIN).
Implementing organisations of
the DC programme
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, KfW
Development Bank
Organisation responsible for
implementing and coordinating
the DC programme
GIZ, KfW
Reporting year of the CPE
2023
Sample year of the CPE
2017
9
1 Evaluation objectives and questions
This chapter describes the purpose of the evaluation, the standard evaluation criteria and additional stakehold-
1.1 Evaluation objectives
Central project evaluations of projects commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development (BMZ) fulfil three basic functions: they support evidence-based decisions, promote trans-
parency and accountability, and foster organisational learning within the scope of contributing to effective
knowledge management. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH structures the
planning, implementation and use of evaluations so that the contribution the evaluation process and the evalu-
ation findings make to these basic functions is optimised (GIZ, 2018a).
The project Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in Nigeria, henceforth referred to as either SEDIN
tions (CPEs). The evaluation is de fac
has been extended to six years. Recently, a change offer was submitted for an extension until September 2023
and an additional commitment of EUR 6.22 million was made. The GIZ project team has started the process of
designing a follow-up project. The current evaluation may provide input for this process.
An appraisal mission in March 2020 and the appraisal report by Blink et al. (2020) led to a reorientation of the
project, as documented in the change offer of November 2020. The major changes include organisational re-
structuring, replacement of the previous four outputs by five partly new ones and redefinition of the output and
outcome indicators. Another change is the replacement of the previous value chains by newly selected ones,
except for the value chains covered in the Nigeria Competitiveness Project (NICOP) component. A conse-
quence of the project extension and reorientation is that the evaluation faces data limitations on the output and
outcome indicators monitored by the project. Another limitation is that the project does not monitor indicators
beyond outcome level. This will be done with the now-commissioned German development cooperation (DC)
programme. There are (draft) strategy documents that refer to impact-level results. A final limitation to the im-
plementation of the evaluation is the security situation in Nigeria, which restricted the choice of project sites for
field visits during the evaluation phase.
1.2 Evaluation questions
The project is assessed on the basis of standardised evaluation criteria and questions to ensure comparability
by GIZ. This is based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria (updated 2020) for international cooperation and the evalua-
tion criteria for German bilateral cooperation (in German): relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness,
impact and sustainability.
Specific assessment dimensions and analytical questions have been derived from this framework by GIZ.
These form the basis for all CPE in GIZ and can be found in the evaluation matrix (see Annex). In addition,
contributions to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its principles are taken into account, as
well as cross-cutting issues such as gender, the environment, conflict sensitivity and human rights. Also, as-
pects regarding the quality of implementation are included in all OECD DAC criteria (see also Sections 4.2
10
4.6). Questions regarding predecessor projects SEDIN I and II are discussed in Section 4.1. Required addi-
tional questions on fragility in the evaluation matrix apply to the current CPE. Furthermore, additional questions
were incorporated that focus on knowledge interests and decision-making
needs (see Table 1). Thus, the questions addressed in the evaluation go beyond the standard questions in the
evaluation matrix.
Table 1: Knowledge interests by main evaluation stakeholder groups
Evaluation stakeholder
group
Knowledge interests in evaluation/additional
evaluation questions
Relevant section in this report
(FMB)
GIZ sees the SEDIN project as an example for
work on policy matters within a broader project.
Can SEDIN be considered an example for work
on policy matters that are not stand-alone policy
regulatory aspects but integrated into general
work?
Included in the coherence crite-
rion (Section 4.3)
(FMB)
Focus on non-federal level: how could there be
more roll-out to other states without stretching the
resources too thinly?
Included in the effectiveness cri-
terion (Section 4.4) and the effi-
ciency criterion (Section 4.6)
Key national implement-
ing partner
Post-intervention/sustainability: is there a post-in-
tervention or sustainability plan? What are the
strategies to foster sustainability?
Included in the sustainability cri-
terion (Section 4.7)
Key national implement-
ing partner
Institutional set-up: should a separate project im-
plementing unit have been established within the
key implementing partner organisation?
Included in the sustainability
criterion (Section 4.7)
2 Object of the evaluation
This chapter aims to define the evaluation object, including the theory of change, and results hypotheses.
2.1 Definition of the evaluation object
The title of the project is Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in Nigeria SEDIN (project number
[PN] 2016.2120.0).
1
The project forms part of the Sustainable Economic Development Cluster (SEDEC) of the
German development cooperation programme. The overall project objective is to improve the employment and
income situation of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in Nigeria. SEDIN III cooperates with
partners at the federal, state and local levels. Initially, it concentrated its field work in the federal states of
Ogun, Niger and Plateau and on the potato, cassava, rice and housing value chains. Cofinancing by the Euro-
pean Union (EU) since October 2018 for the Nigeria Competitiveness Project (NICOP) and other budget in-
creases allowed the project to scale up spatially to five states Lagos, Oyo, Abia, Kano and Kaduna and in
scope to the tomato, ginger, garment and leather value chains. As indicated earlier, the project appraisal in
2020 led to the selection of new value chains in various states.
The predecessor projects SEDIN I (PN 2010.2046.0) and SEDIN II (PN 2012.2208.2) started in 2011 and
2014. They were active at federal level in three states (Ogun, Niger and Plateau) and in selected local adminis-
trative districts within these states. SEDIN III was commissioned by BMZ in January 2017 with a budget of
1
Some project documents use an alternative project title.
11
EUR 9.6 million and an implementation period from April 2017 to March 2019. In September 2017, it received
an additional commission of EUR 3 million from the German Greturn and reintegration programme
Returning to New Opportunities' (Programm Perspektive Heimat), without changing the implementation period.
In addition, by February 2018, budget had been increased by EUR 9.5 million and its implementa-
tion period extended to March 2020. In October 2018, the BMZ approved the component cofinanced by the Eu-
ropean Union (EU), that is, NICOP. At the same time, the implementation period was extended to July 2022. In
October 2019, SEDIN received a second Returning to New Opportunities Programme commission amounting
to EUR 8 million, which raised the budget to EUR 39.1 million. Another EUR 12 million were pledged during
bilateral negotiations for a further extension of SEDIN. For an overview of the development of the budget, see
Figure 1. GIZ (2022) notes that another EUR 6.22 million were recently commissioned for an extension until
September 2023.
Figure 1: SEDIN III budget in millions of euros (and implementation period) Source: Own elaboration based on the project
proposal and modification offers (GIZ 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2019, 2020)
Political and sectoral context of the project
Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa, with an estimated population of about 200 million. It is one of the
leading economies on the African continent and plays a significant role in West Africa. However, poverty, un-
employment and underemployment are prevalent, especially among young people. Over 133 million Nigerians
are living below the absolute poverty line (3.20 purchasing power parity [PPP] dollars per day). Over half of this
number are youths who are either unemployed or underemployed (World Bank, 2020). According to official fig-
ures, 84% of those employed in Nigeria work in mostly private small businesses. These businesses are often
not optimally integrated into the value chains. The most-cited reasons for this are high regulatory costs and lim-
ited financing opportunities. The financing role that microfinance banks (MFBs) should play is largely lacking
because of high operating costs and inadequate risk management. This makes loan facilities more
expensive and uneconomical for many small businesses. The implication of all this is the prevalence of poverty
and unemployment in the economic and social environment.
9,6 12,6
22,1 22,1
30,1
42,1
9,0
9,0
9,0
-
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
Proposal 2016
(April 2017-March 2019)
Change Offer March
2017 (April 2017-March
2019)
Change Offer October
2017 (April 2017-March
2020)
Change Offer August
2018 (April 2017-July
2022)
Change Offer 2019
(April 2017-July 2022)
Change Offer
September 2020 (April
2017-March 2023)
BMZ EU
12
Other acknowledged explanations for high unemployment in Nigeria are the traditional focus on the capital-in-
tensive mineral sector, coupled with obvious neglect of employment-intensive sectors, such as construction
and agriculture. An obstacle to the development of employment in these sectors is the lack of an adequate
qualified workforce. One reason for this could be the poor quality of curricula, teacher training and equipment in
the technical and vocational education and training (TVET) system. The obvious implication of these realities is
the lack of a well-trained labour force. This further frustrates youth and leads to their
job market and, ultimately, migration abroad in search of better opportunities.
Conflicts are another cause of migration. There are multiple, overlaying, intertwining conflicts in Nigeria, with
regional and historical dynamics. An acknowledged key threat to national security is the Boko Haram insur-
gency. According to estimates, at least 1,200 people died and nearly 200,000 were displaced in the northeast
in 2018 (Human Rights Watch, 2019: 431). The conflict leads to socio-economic fragility, increased food inse-
curity and severe malnutrition. It limits access to education and is responsible for a significant drop in school
banditry continue to grow in various parts of the country. This is fuelled by weak border control and the easy
access of non-Nigerians to rural areas. Kidnapping is a rising threat and is partly attributed to growing unem-
ployment. Transnational crimes, such as transnational trafficking in people, drugs, small arms and light weap-
ons (SALW) and illicit goods, democracy and governance deficits, and armed conflicts have all contributed to
the security problems.
SEDIN supported the review of the National Policy on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises that is effective as
of 2021 (SMEDAN, 2021). In view of the acknowledged challenges faced by MSMEs in Nigeria over the years,
the reviewed policy recommends the harmonisation of all existing financial interventions targeted at MSMEs.
Equally, it recommends the establishment of a wholesome banking institution for them. There is no doubt that
the sub-sectors level of financial literacy needs to be deepened and sustained. In the area of institutional, legal
and regulatory framework, the new policy sought to transform informal micro-enterprises to formal ones by cre-
ating an enabling environment for doing business that meets regulatory requirements. Another very important
factor that is key to a competitive MSME environment and addressed in the new document is the effective de-
livery of tailored skills. This is to be achieved by sharpening the entrepreneurial and vocational/technical skills
of MSMEs.
2.2 Results model including hypotheses
The theory of change (ToC) is the central basis for the expected theory-based evaluation approach. It is es-
sential for assessing all six OECD DAC criteria. The ToC is shown in a results model that covers activities and
intended results at the levels of output, outcome and impact. The inputs are financial and human resources,
and
tral results hypotheses, the key assumptions underlying the results model, risks to achieving central results and
the system boundary.
Overview: objective, partners and target groups, organisation of the project
The intended outcome
-level approach to
achieve this outcome, with involvement of stakeholders at different levels and different degrees of involvement
and responsibilities. The partners/direct target group include the Federal Ministry of Finance,
Budget and National Planning (FMFBNP) as political sponsor and implementing partners such as the Federal
Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (FMITI), the Federal Ministry of Education (FMoE), the Small and
Medium Enterprise Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN), the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Nige-
13
rian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC), state-level ministries and agencies, local government admin-
istrations, training providers and business associations, see also GIZ (2016: 8). The indirect target group of
the project is the poor and vulnerable population, including migrants and internally displaced persons (IDPs),
and the male and female (potential) owners and employees of MSMEs, see also GIZ (2016: 7). Further details
are given below for specific areas of activity. The organisation of the project is as follows: components or
workstreams with teams based in Abuja collaborate with project team members in the states covered by the
project and coordinate activities to realise the intended outputs of the project. For each intended output, the
project mapped results matrix
(GIZ, 2021: Annex 1) identifies assumptions for achieving the outputs and the outcome. Some assumptions
about outputs are more general and not output-specific.
Output level (20172020)
The project proposal (GIZ, 2016) defined four official project outputs that were expected to contribute to the
achievement of the module objective:
• Output A Improved access of MSMEs in selected sectors to financial services. MFBs, state regulators
and training organisations were advised on expanding the range of needs-based financial products and
training formats for basic financial education. These activities were expected to enhance financial
understanding and to improve their lending capacity to MSMEs.
• Output B Improved framework conditions for the creation of employment and income for MSMEs in se-
lected sectors. The main activities were addressing adverse framework conditions, so that MSMEs could
better develop their potential for generating income and employment. The main instrument was public-pri-
vate dialogues at the federal, state and local levels, in which representatives of business associations, pri-
vate interest groups and public authorities participate.
• Output C Improved access to business services for MSMEs in selected sectors. Activities related to Out-
put C included improving MSMEs use of business services, such as services for product registration with
the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Trade Liberalisation Scheme (ETLS), and
better provision of market and price information. SEDIN supported the development of innovative business
ideas into feasible business plans that enable MSMEs to gain access to new customers. It also supported
the development of digital platforms that provide business-relevant information to MSMEs.
• Output D Improved entrepreneurial and management skills of MSMEs in selected sectors. The activities
included training measures and coaching offers. A key approach was the Small and Medium Enterprise
Business Training and Coaching Loop (SME Loop). The approach includes training on core competencies
and semi-annual coaching of MSMEs. Exchange forums (peer-to-peer format) were organised for partici-
pants. Interested MSMEs were advised to organise themselves in networks, cooperatives or other private-
sector structures.
The incorporation of NICOP in the SEDIN III project in 2018 did not lead to a change in the intended outputs in
-on to the existing SEDIN project. NICOP has an integrated value-
chain-based approach and has three pillars technical/value chain core, policy, and access to finance and in-
vestment. Specific NICOP indicators were formulated. Furthermore, the NICOP team used and still uses a
separate logical framework for its reporting to the EU (see EU-GIZ, Annex 3). However, it also reports to SE-
DIN on a defined set of indicators. The specific NICOP output indicators are:
• 1.1. Competitiveness at the .
• 2.1. Regional policies in favour of industrial competitiveness are mainstreamed in the country and help en-
able a business-friendly environment.
Two selected results hypotheses concerning the link from activities to output for the first years of SEDIN III
(including NICOP since 2018) were:
• Hypothesis HO-A: If MFBs are supported to offer needs-based financial products and services that are ap-
propriate for the poor population and women in particular in selected sectors (activity A-A), this will lead to
14
improvement in MSMEs' access to finance in these sectors (O-A).
• Hypothesis HO-C: If digital platforms are developed that provide business-relevant information to MSMEs in
selected sectors (on, for instance, product registration for trade) (A-C), this will lead to improvement in
MSMEs to selected business services in these sectors (O-C).
Key assumptions underlying HO-A are that MFBs have the funds to provide finance to MSMEs (AO1-A), have
the ability to assess credit risks of MSMEs (AO2-A) and are willing to provide finance to MSMEs (AO3-A). Sim-
ilarly, key assumptions underlying HO-C are that the digital platforms are accessible to MSMEs (AO1-C) and
MSMEs have the ability to use the information on the digital platforms (AO2-C). Risks (or potential risks) re-
lated to HO-A are that MFBs lack funding to provide finance to MSMEs, lack information to assess the viability
of MSMEs and lack the capacity to assess credit risks of MSMEs. Similarly, (potential) risks related to HO-C
include unreliable or no internet access and a lack of capacity to access and use digital information.
Output level (20212023)
model and a revision of its results model. Access to finance (A2F) ceased to be a separate component of the
project and became a cross-cutting issue. In terms of common activities and intended results, NICOP became
fully integrated in the remaining three project components, that is, policy, local economic development (LED)
and an enabling entrepreneurial environment. The LED component also includes activities in the area of value
chains. Five (partly) new outputs were formulated in the revised results model of SEDIN, with three new indica-
tors each. The project no longer monitors specific (additional) NICOP indicators. The NICOP team reports to
GIZ on a selection of the new SEDIN output indicators.
2
It reports to the EU on some additional indicators. The
current five official outputs of SEDIN III are:
• Output 1 Framework conditions for the promotion of MSMEs, employment and LED are improved.
• Output 2 Conditions for improved LED have been created.
• Output 3 Selected value chains in the partner states are improved.
• Output 4 Competences for economic participation and entrepreneurship are improved.
• Output 5 Entrepreneurial start-up and development opportunities are improved.
A2F was previously a separate topic but is now incorporated in the other components. Policy is the main com-
ponent that is responsible for achieving Output 1, while LED, an enabling entrepreneurial environment and
NICOP also contribute to the output. The LED component covers the pre-existing topic of value chains and the
new topic of local economic development. For this reason, it coordinates the activities related to outputs 2 and
3. Finally, an enabling entrepreneurial environment is the main component responsible for outputs 4 and 5 (see
also GIZ, 2021). The GIZ Project Progress Report 2021 lists the main activities that are expected to contribute
to the achievement of the outputs.
The project team has made five separate stakeholder maps, one for each intended output in the current results
model (see GIZ, n.d.). An assessment of these maps shows that there is limited overlap between them in terms
of the federal, state and local-level stakeholders involved in the fields of activity related to the outputs. It would
be confusing to include all the stakeholders in a single map because there are many actors, and actors can be
key stakeholders for one output and primary or secondary stakeholders for other outputs. For these reasons, a
single stakeholder map for the entire project would be less clear than the existing separate stakeholder maps.
Instead, reference is made to the existing output-specific stakeholder maps in the project documentation (GIZ,
n.d.).
Output 1 (O1) focuses on the policy level. The main activities (A1 to A4) are:
• policy advice and support to develop concepts that promote MSMEs, employment and LED at federal and
partner state level (A1),
• advice for federal partners on improving the framework conditions for entrepreneurial development (A2),
• organisation and content-related monitoring of exchanges of experience at the national, intergovernmental
2
It reports on indicators 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, 5.1 and 5.2, and on outcome indicator 2.
15
and state levels, and of public-private dialogue (A3), and
• support for research on evidence-based project and policy design (A4).
According to the stakeholder map, key stakeholders involved in activities to achieve Output 1 include public
actors such as FMFBNP, SMEDAN and NIPC. Ministries of Justice also play an important role. Private actors
involved in such activities include business member organisations, chambers of commerce, the Private Sector
Network and value chain associations. An example of a key civil society organisation involved in activities in
the field of Output 1 is the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators. Results hypothesis HO1 on the
links from activities to Output 1 is as follows. If policy advice and support are provided to develop concepts to
promote MSMEs, employment and LED at federal and partner state level, and support for business environ-
ment reform is provided through public-private dialogue and advocacies (A1 to A4), this will contribute to im-
proving the framework conditions for promoting MSMEs, employment and LED (O1). The results matrix in the
progress report of 2021 (GIZ, 2021, Annex 1) identifies assumptions AO1 to AO3 for achieving outputs:
1. The implementation of central economic reforms, and concepts to improve economic and employment
promotion, are not hindered by contradictory legislation and unclear distribution of competences (AO1).
2. Partner state actors are willing to design and implement economic and employment promotion
measures (AO2).
3. Local administrative units and organisations for MSME promotion at the local level are equipped with
sufficient human and financial resources (AO3).
In relation to the key activities, the progress report of 2021 also lists the following assumptions AO4 to AO8:
4. The relevant public authorities constructively take up suggestions for improving the framework condi-
tions to promote MSMEs, employment and LED (AO4).
5. Private sector actors are interested in public-private dialogue formats and show commitment (AO5).
6. Private sector actors, especially MSMEs and smallholder farmers, show interest and participate in the
training and further education measures offered (AO6).
7. Providers of business and financial services are interested in further developing their offer (AO7).
8. Financial sector actors enjoy sufficient trust of MSMEs and entrepreneurs (AO8).
Assumptions AO1, AO2, AO4 and AO5 are relevant for achieving Output 1. Risks identified in the area of Out-
put 1 (beyond more general risks such as the situation of insecurity in the country, political instability, the mac-
roeconomic situation, the degree of stakeholder participation, corruption and Covid-19-related lockdowns) in-
clude the commitment of government to reforms, unclear distribution of competences and regulatory innova-
tions leading to instability in access to finance.
Output 2 (O2) relates to LED in the project sites. The main activities (A5 to A9) are:
• organisation and content-related monitoring of exchanges of experience at regional and local level and of
public-private dialogues (A5),
3
• advice on the implementation of economic and employment development concepts at partner state level
(A6),
• organisational development and advice on setting up LED forums and market associations (A7),
• funding of studies and advice on the development of local markets (A8), and
• advice on the development of local business and economic development organisations (A9).
Key stakeholders involved in activities to achieve Output 2 include public actors such as state governments,
the Ministry for Local Government and local government area councils. Large companies are key private actors
involved in such activities, while traditional institutions are key civil society actors.
The results hypothesis HO2 is that if advice is provided on implementing economic and employment develop-
ment concepts at partner state and local levels, setting up LED forums, and strengthening local market associ-
ations and local business and economic development organisations (A5 to A9), this will contribute to improving
the conditions for LED in the partner states (O2). AO3 and AO5 of the assumptions related to achieving out-
puts are relevant for achieving Output 2. Apart from the aforementioned more general risks, (potential) risks
identified in the area of Output 2 include a lack of clear distribution of competences in the implementation of
3
This activity is the same as A3 under Output 1.
16
economic and employment development concepts at partner state level, a lack of interest in setting up LED fo-
rums and market associations, a lack of interest in the development of local business and economic develop-
ment organisations, and the fact that MSMEs do not always know exactly what they want themselves.
Output 3 (O3) focuses on the improvement of selected value chains in the states covered by the project. The
main activities (A10 to A14) are:
• analysis of the selection of value chains (A10),
• strengthening of the capacities of selected producer organisations (cooperatives and trade associations)
(A11),
• development and provision of training to strengthen links between primary producers, input and equipment
suppliers, food processors and traders, and buyers (A12),
• development and implementation of training measures to strengthen the financial skills of actors in the
value chains (A13), and
• cooperation with development projects in the area of A2F via joint or coordinated measures and the ex-
change of experience (A14).
According to the stakeholder map related to Output 3, the key stakeholders involved in activities in the field of
this output include the LGA councils, and ministries, departments and agencies as key public stakeholders.
MSMEs and private businesses are the key private stakeholders. Civil society is involved as a primary actor
(traditional rulers) or a secondary actor (women groups, non-governmental organisations, civil society organi-
sations [CSOs]). The Central Bank of Nigeria is involved through the National Collateral Registry. The aim is to
use movable assets of (potential) MSMEs as collateral to obtain loans (see National Collateral Registry, n.d.).
The first results hypothesis HO3a on the links from activities to Output 3 is that if the capacity of producer or-
ganisations is strengthened in selected value chains in the partner states (A11), this will contribute to business
development in these chains (O3). A second hypothesis (HO3b) is that if training is provided to strengthen link-
ages between beneficiary MSMEs and other actors within selected value chains (A12), this will contribute to
strengthened linkages within these chains. The assumptions with respect to the achievement of outputs were
listed under Output 1. Only AO3 and AO6 can be considered relevant for achieving Output 3. Apart from the
aforementioned more general risks, (potential) risks in the area of Output 3 include a lack of human and finan-
cial resources among organisations for MSME promotion, a lack of interest or ability to participate in training
among private sector actors at local level, and the fact that MSMEs do not always know exactly what they
want. There is also a risk that few concrete activities are undertaken for a longer period because the new value
chains were only selected a few years ago.
Output 4 (O4) focuses on (building capacity for) the development of competences. The main activities (A15 to
A19) are:
• searching for and selecting institutions to upscale approaches to improve and disseminate basic financial
education (A15),
• developing and implementing approaches to improve the basic economic education/vocational orientation
of secondary school students, school leavers and MSME owners (A16),
• supporting the upscaling and institutionalisation of the Student Entrepreneurship Activity Hub (SEA Hub)
(A17),
• adapting and implementing the SME Business Training and Coaching Loop and the Start-up Loop (A18),
and
• training trainers and coaches (A19).
Key stakeholders in the public sector related to the achievement of Output 4 are the FMoE, the Ministry of
Youth & Sport and the Shared Agency Network Expansion Facility. GIZ (2021: 13) reports the establishment of
a partnership with this agency -learning platform with a presence of around 500,000 agents
Federal Unity Schools across the
students and job seekers are primary private actors, whereas financial literacy trainers, the Business Develop-
ment Committee Network (BDCN) and IDPs are primary civil society actors. The results hypothesis HO4 is
17
that if capacity for providing (basic) training is enhanced on financial and economic literacy and entrepreneur-
ship skills, also for women and migrants/IDPs (A15-A19)
(O4). The assumptions identified with
respect to the achievement of outputs were listed under Output 1. Assumption AO6 can be considered relevant
for achieving Output 4. Apart from the aforementioned more general risks, (potential) risks in the area of Out-
put 4 include constraints on the demand side to participate in the training that is offered, insufficient remaining
time for SEA Hub to complete the pilot phase, and a lack of coordination of activities to strengthen or scale up
the supply of training courses.
Finally, Output 5 (O5) focuses on start-up and development opportunities of (potential) entrepreneurs. The
main activities (A20 to A25) are:
• individual support for company founders (A20),
• development of business plans and strategies of potential MSME founders (A21),
• advice on the registration of companies (A22),
• advice on A2F services for potential MSME founders and entrepreneurs (A23),
• advice on the development of growth and employment strategies for entrepreneurs (A24), and
• advice on initiating business and market relations for MSME founders and entrepreneurs (A25).
The key stakeholders in the public sector identified in the stakeholder map for Output 5 are the Lagos State
Employment Trust Fund (LSTEF) and the Bank of Industry (BOI). Key private sector actors include MFBs, digi-
tal service providers and MSMEs.
4
The Standard Organisation of Nigeria is involved as a civil society actor.
The results hypothesis HO5 is that if support and advice is provided to (potential) MSME founders and entre-
preneurs, including women and migrants/IDPs (A20-A25), this will enhance their start-up and development op-
portunities (O5). Assumptions AO6, AO7 and AO8 of those listed above have some specific relevance for
achieving Output 5. Apart from the aforementioned more general risks, (potential) risks in the area of Output 5
include constraints on the demand side to follow up the advice that is provided, a lack of collateral, a lack of
trust, unreliable or no internet access, a lack of capacity to access digital information and a lack of clarity about
what MSMEs themselves want. A risk on the supply side is a lack of interest in providing support services.
Although the ToC as described in the results model covers all the intended results, some unintended results
emerged as the project implementation progressed. At output level, one of the acknowledged unintended ben-
efits is the inclusion of the tomato value chain actor (GB Foods tomato processor) from Kebbi State. This
state was not included in the initial SEDIN III proposal. Another unintended output is that various capacity-en-
hancing training modules offered by SEDIN in different workstreams were extended to non-actors by the train-
ers who were trained. In addition, digitalisation of cooperatives resulted in enhanced transparency, improved
efficiency and a reduction in overhead costs for these societies. Digitalisation also broke the barrier of middle-
man domination. Alternative dispute resolution gave mediators the opportunity to become certified mediators.
Related examples are the mobilisation of multi-door courthouses and the small claims court to facilitate com-
mercial dispute resolution. Other examples of positive unintended results are the promulgation of the MSME
policy and establishment of the MSME council in Plateau State, improved environmental sensitivity in the mar-
kets and communities as a result of the circular economy mobilisation, and a more efficient market information
sharing system with the use of digital technologies. Finally, the proposed SEA Hub institute is another unin-
tended positive result, due to the acknowledged success of the product.
Outcome and impact level
While the intended outcome of the project continued to be same, the 2020 change offer redefined the outcome
indicators and set target levels for them. Currently there are four indicators on:
1. the business environment,
2. incomes,
3. operational status, and
4
However, the stakeholder map incorrectly classifies the latter as public sector actors.
18
4. (additional) employment.
Each of these reflects a dimension of the intended outcome. A German version of the results model (GIZ,
2021d) shows the assumed causality of each of the five official outputs to a selection of the four outcome di-
mensions. As explained above, the NICOP activities focused on the five official outputs of SEDIN are now fully
integrated within SEDIN, though NICOP also reports on other indicators. At the outcome level, there are two
specific objectives of NICOP beyond the contribution to the intended outcome of SEDIN. These are:
• NICOP-M1 the performance, growth and contribution to industry, regional trade and exports of selected
value chains is improved, and
• NICOP-M2 the climate for business at national and regional levels is improved (EU-GIZ, 2021, Annex 3).
The project proposal (GIZ, 2016) refers to the then current country programme when it describes the intended
impact to which SEDIN III is expected to contribute. More recently and after the start of SEDIN III, GIZ and the
KfW Development Bank (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) drafted a new country programme (GIZ and KfW,
2021). This document explains that SEDIN III is one of the technical cooperation (TC) modules that form part of
the Sus-
tainable Development Goals (SDGs). It mentions SDG 1 (no poverty) and SDG 8 (decent work and economic
growth). It also mentions SDG 4 (quality education) and SDG 17 (partnerships to achieve the goals). The pro-
ject documentation, including the project proposal, refers to SDG 5 (gender equality) and SDG 16 (promote
peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development). The module can therefore be expected to con-
tribute to impact in terms of these SDGs. In addition, the NICOP logframe matrix (EU-GIZ, 2021, Annex 3) de-
fines the following result at the impact level: the competitiveness of Nigeria is strengthened and the countrys
integration into the regional and international trading system is enhanced.
Results hypotheses HM1 to HM5 on the links from outputs to the outcome or the module objective are:
• HM1: If framework conditions for the promotion of MSMEs, employment and LED are improved (Output 1 or
O1), this will enable (potential) MSME owners, including women and migrants/IDPs, to initiate/undertake
economic activities that generate more income and/or employment (M). Output 1 is expected to contribute
to the achievement of outcome dimensions 1, 2 and 3.
• HM2: If conditions for improved LED are created (Output 2 or O2), this will enable (potential) MSME own-
ers, including women and migrants/IDPs, to initiate/undertake economic activities that generate more in-
come and/or employment in selected sectors (M). Output 2 is expected to contribute to the achievement of
outcome dimensions 1, 2 and 3.
• HM3: If access to financial and business services in selected sectors, especially among women, is im-
proved (Output 3 or O3), this will contribute to improving the employment and income situation of MSMEs in
these sectors (M). Output 3 is expected to contribute to the achievement of outcome dimensions 2 and 4.
The equivalent of HM3 for the first years of SEDIN III is the set of two hypotheses HM-A (on the link from
Output A to outcome) and HM-C (on the link from Output C to outcome).
• HM4: If competences for economic participation and entrepreneurship are improved (Output 4 or O4), this
will enable (potential) MSME owners, including women and migrants/IDPs, to initiate/undertake economic
activities that generate more income and/or employment in selected sectors (M). Output 4 is expected to
contribute to the achievement of outcome dimensions 2, 3 and 4.
• HM5: If entrepreneurial start-up and development opportunities are improved (Output 5 or O5), this will con-
tribute to improving the employment and income situation of MSMEs in selected sectors (M). Output 5 is
expected to contribute to the achievement of outcome dimensions 2, 3 and 4.
19
Assumptions (AM1 and AM2) for achieving outcome that are listed in the results matrix (GIZ, 2021b) are:
• The sustainable promotion of MSMEs and employment remains a high priority for governments at federal
and partner state level (AM1).
• Government resources to promote employment and private sector development are provided in sufficient
quantity and used efficiently (AM2).
Finally, selected results hypotheses HI1 to HI3 on the links from outcome to impact are:
5
• HI1: If additional employment and income is generated by MSMEs (M), this will contribute to the achieve-
ment of target 8.5 of SDG 8 (by 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all
women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal
value).
6
• HI2: If additional employment and income is generated by MSMEs (M), this will contribute to fighting pov-
erty, or more specifically, to the achievement of targets 1.1 and 1.2 of SDG 1.
7
• HI3: If more (potential) MSME owners, including women and migrants/IDPs, are initiating/undertaking eco-
nomic activities and generating employment and income (M), this will contribute to the achievement of gen-
der equality (SDG 5).
8
Risks for achieving the outcome (and impact) identified in the 2021 progress report (GIZ, 2021) are:
• political instability and a difficult security situation,
• a volatile security situation and the resulting limited accessibility of the project regions,
• unclear responsibilities within Nigerian government institutions, overlapping mandates of different actors,
• deteriorating macroeconomic framework conditions,
• economic protectionism, poor implementation of the ECOWAS trade agreement,
• the Covid-19 crisis and its consequences,
• an inability to influence the number of returnees reached and ineffective use of services,
• targeted support for returnees leading to irritation among partners and political actors, and
• new priorities, personnel changes and delays due to presidential and gubernatorial elections.
The report classifies the first four as high risks, the next two as medium risks and the other two as low risks. It
considers that all the risks, except those concerning returnees, are hard to influence. Participants of the incep-
tion workshop on the results model referred to the risks identified in the 2021 progress report and other project
documents. In comparison, the results matrix (GIZ, 2021b) identifies the following risk concerning the achieve-
ment of the module objective: a deterioration of the economic, political and security situation hampers the de-
velopment potential of MSMEs and the governments ability to promote them at partner and state level. This is
in fact a broad group of risks, which encompasses some of the above risks. Other (theoretical) risks are that an
improvement in the employment and income situation of MSMEs is not translated into additional jobs with de-
cent employment conditions and sufficient growth of household incomes to lift a part of the households from a
situation of poverty. It may also be the case that there is limited or no progress in gender equality among the
population, even though the targets set for gender are met at the output and outcome level.
It is often difficult to identify unintended results at outcome/impact level. One example that has been men-
tioned is a negative unintended result albeit likely to be temporary namely that labour-saving technical inno-
vations tend to reduce employment in MSMEs in the short run.
.
5
The three results hypotheses concern the first three SDGs mentioned in the project proposal (GIZ, 2016, p. 15).
6
https://nigeria.un.org/en/sdgs/8.
7
https://nigeria.un.org/en/sdgs/1.
8
https://nigeria.un.org/en/sdgs/5.
20
Figure 2: Current results model of the project Pro-poor Growth and Promotion of Employment, Nigeria (2021; considered up
to date in January 2022)
Legend:
A = activity
O = output
M = outcome
HO = hypothesis on the link from activities to
output
HM = hypothesis on the link from output to out-
come
HI = hypothesis on the link from outcome to im-
pact
NICOP-O = output of NICOP other than the offi-
cial SEDIN output, as reported to the EU in
NICOP-M = outcome of NICOP other than the
official SEDIN outcome, as reported to the EU in
Source: Adapted from GIZ (2021),
GIZ (2021d) and EU-GIZ (2021: An-
nex 3)
21
System boundary
sibility or system boundary.
MSMEs. Within the system boundary, the project has, through its activities, a large degree of control on the re-
sults at the output level. However, there may be risks that influence the degree of output achievement. The out-
chievement is likely to be affected by exter-
results model
that is included in the 2021 progress report is still up to date. The intended outcome or module objective is the
same as in the previous model. Figure 2 provides a graphic presentation of the results model of 2021, aug-
mented with the results of NICOP activities that are fully integrated into the SEDIN project, but are not reported
to GIZ
3 Evaluability and evaluation process
This chapter aims to clarify the availability and quality of data and the process of the evaluation.
3.1 Evaluability: data availability and quality
This section covers the following aspects: availability of essential documents, monitoring and baseline data in-
cluding partner data, and secondary data.
Availability of essential documents
The central documents of SEDIN III were available, except for a cost commitment report with end-2020 com-
mitment data. Availability of documentation on the predecessor projects was limited, especially for SEDIN I.
Monitoring and baseline data including partner data
-based monitoring (RBM) system (that also covers partner data) for the part of SEDIN III
that started after the restructuring is an Excel monitoring tool. It measures changes in key results indicators,
that is, the official outcome and official output indicators.
9
The GIZ project team made available an update of
the RBM data in March 2022. The March 2022 version contains baseline and target values of outcome indica-
tors, and baseline and annual target values of output indicators. There are some observations (numerical val-
information on the current status of several indicators is qualitative. The Excel document contains information
on which workstream is responsible, which other workstreams contribute to the results, and what the contrib-
uting interventions are. The tool also gives scores to indicate the degree to which the indicators are on track
. However, annual project pro-
gress reports present values of the indicators that were monitored. Some observations are based on a survey
among MSMEs conducted in 2019/2020 (GIZ, 2020d).
10
Most (2016) baseline values of the indicators related
to the old results model were equal to zero. Due to the changes in the indicators, the end of 2019 or early 2020
values of the old indicators could not be used as baseline values for indicators related to the new results
9
A similar Excel document for 20172020, when different indicators were monitored, does not exist. The project team referred to the data in the progress reports. These data
have been entered in an Excel document.
10
The SEDIN project team also provided a report on a small survey among 15 MSMEs related to support for registering products under the ECOWAS Trade Liberalisation
Scheme (ETLS), see Nwosu (2019). The report presents some (predominantly qualitative) findings of the survey.
22
model. The baseline values for the new unrelated indicators were therefore also set to zero. In general, the
quality of the monitoring data is moderate. Links to partners monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are
lacking.
Blink et al. (2020) described the state of affairs at the time of the appraisal and can somehow be considered a
(qualitative) baseline study. There is also a commissioned report with qualitative information on conflict and
context, but the information is not up to date. No regular context and conflict monitoring takes place.
The evaluation uses the limited monitoring data that is available. It complements the recent RBM data with val-
ues for indicators presented in the progress report for the earlier years.
Secondary data
With regard to accuracy, reliability and representativeness, secondary data available at the federal level is in
general rather poor for use in tracking SDG progress. There is a lack of annual government statistics produced
by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The NBS very often uses secondary data from other sources, in-
cluding the international databases of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Bank and the
United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF).
The NBS made federal and state-level estimates of consumption poverty and inequality in 2019, based on the
Living Standards Survey conducted in that year (NBS, 2020). Since the methodology of the survey was differ-
ent from that of previous living standards surveys, the estimates of the 2019 survey can only be used as base-
line values. The NBS does not cover most of the other relevant SDG indicators. This affects the monitoring of
SDG 5 (gender equality) and SDG 16 (peace and justice).
Time series of estimates of various SDG indicators can be found online, for example for poverty indices with
two poverty lines.
11
These estimates sometimes appear to be synthetic estimates. They are complementary to
the official SDG indicators and the Voluntary National Reviews on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, provided by the Office of the Senior Spe-
cial Assistant to the President on SDGs (see, for example, OSSAP-SDGs, 2020).
MSME surveys were conducted in 2017 and 2021. The survey reports contain some comparable data on the
number of MSMEs, ownership structure, employment (also by gender but with very few figures) and source of
finance of activities (see Kale, 2019; SMEDAN-NBS, 2019, 2022). In general, the surveys report on MSMEs
responses to qualitative questions.
It is clear that datasets sometimes measure different things. Data from external sources may be very different
from official statistics. With regard to the usefulness of periodic data, as previously mentioned, coverage is
lacking for some indicators at the federal level. Secondary sources have better year-on-year coverage and the
NBS has been improving its country-wide data collection. The secondary data available from the NBS, the
MSME survey reports, the World Bank and so on are used as much as possible.
11
See https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/nigeria/indicators.
23
3.2 Evaluation process
This section covers the following aspects: milestones of the evaluation process (see Figure 3), involvement of
stakeholders, selection of interviewees, data analysis process, roles of international and local evaluators,
(semi-)remote evaluation (to the extent applicable), and context and conflict sensitivity within the evaluation
process.
Figure 3: Milestones of the evaluation process
Involvement of stakeholders
human rights and gender equality lens to se-
lect and involve the stakeholders. During the inception phase, the evaluators obtained a list of key stakeholders
of the project from which
sation of the human rights and gender equality lens. The main categories included:
• those with the authority to make decisions related to the intervention, such as FMITI, FMoE and state min-
istries in Plateau, Lagos and Ogun, government officials (commissioners, directors, etc.) and the EU Dele-
gation to Nigeria,
• those who have direct responsibility for the intervention, such as the funding agency, government and pro-
ject managers,
• secondary stakeholders, such as private sector actors (e.g. chambers of commerce and industry, business
member organisations and the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators),
• other authorities (SMEDAN, state judiciary and NIPC),
• others who one way or another benefit from the intervention, and
• other interest groups who are not directly participating in the intervention, such as other development
agencies working in the area (for example, USAID and the World Bank), CSOs and private business
groups.
their interconnections. Participants of the inception phase workshops were asked to give feedback on draft in-
struments for the implementation of the evaluation. These participants and other stakeholders interviewed in
the inception phase were asked to give suggestions for additional evaluation questions.
Selection of interviewees
Due to travel restrictions imposed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the inception mission had
to be performed remotely in January 2022. Key project team members were interviewed and participated in the
inception phase workshops. Other key stakeholders were interviewed during the inception phase. The evalua-
tion mission was conducted in Nigeria from March to April 2022. The evaluation team visited Abuja, Jos, Abeo-
kuta and Lagos between 27 March and 8 April 2022 and held (mainly) face-to-face individual or group inter-
views with a cross-section of project stakeholders, who were selected in consultation with the project team. Ad-
ditional online interviews were conducted after the mission. Table 2 shows the number of (group) interview par-
ticipants, broken down by category and gender. The percentage of women involved in the interviews ranged
Evaluation start
(launch meeting)
10 Dec 2021
Inception mission
(remote)
14 Jan 2022
Evaluation
mission (on-site)
28 Mar 2022
08 Apr 2022
Final report
for publication
18 Jan 2023
24
from about 71% among the donor group to 33% among the final beneficiaries. The evaluators used a standard
interview guidance/semi-structured questionnaire where feasible and desired, or a check list for open/less
structured interviews. The evaluation team considers that the interviewees selected for the evaluation form a
were covered
and that the three states visited were selected to reflect some of the variation across all the project states.
However, the security situation in some project states limited the selection of states that could be visited. This
was partially compensated for by conducting additional online interviews. The team furthermore invited 75 in-
terviewed and other stakeholders/experts to participate in an e-survey. About a third of them were women. The
final column of Table 2 shows the number of people invited per category of stakeholders.
Table 2: List of evaluation stakeholders and selected participants
Organisation/company/
target group
Overall number of
persons involved in
evaluation
(including gender
disaggregation)
No. of inter-
view partici-
pants
No. of focus
group par-
ticipants
No. of work-
shop partici-
pants
No. of in-
vited survey
participants
Donors/international
organisations
6
(4f; 2m)
6
(4f; 2m)
5
BMZ, EU, World Bank, USAID, International Organization for Migration (IOM)
GIZ
19
(8f; 11m)
19
(8f; 11m)
17
GIZ project team, GIZ headquarters Germany
Partner organisations
(direct target group)
12
(2f; 10m)
12
(2f; 10m)
16
Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Planning (FMFBNP), Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (FMITI), Central
Bank of Nigeria - National Collateral Registry (CBN-NCR), Nigeria Investment Promotion Council (NIPC), SMEDAN, Ministry of
Budget and Planning (Ogun State), training provider organisations
Other stakeholders
(e.g. public actors,
other development pro-
jects)
20
(8f; 12m)
20
(8f; 12m)
15
Ministry of Budget and Planning (Ogun State); Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (Ogun); Ministry of Local Government
and Chieftaincy Affairs, Plateau State; Ministry of Education, Plateau State; Office of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and
Investment, Plateau State; SDG Office/Lagos Investment Office; Lagos State Employment Trust Fund (LSETF); Ministry of Educa-
tion Plateau and Lagos states; STEAM UP Lagos project; Alimosho LGA/Alimosho LED Forum; SEA Hub; Ogun
Civil society and pri-
vate sector actors
15
(6f; 9m)
15
(6f; 9m)
10
State-level chambers of commerce; market associations; potato market association; Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access
(EFInA); Recyclers Association of Nigeria (RAN)/Lagos Recyclers Association (LAGRA); Integrated Cassava Processors Coopera-
tive Society; Cassava Revolution Programme; Private Sector Network (PSN), Plateau State
Universities and think
tanks
2
(2f)
2
(2f)
2
Federal University of Technology, Minna (FUTMINNA), Circular Economy Innovation Partnership (CEIP) Africa
Final beneficiaries/ in-
direct target groups/
representatives
12
(4f; 8m)
12
(4f; 8m)
10
Various
Note: f = female; m = male
25
Data analysis process
Most of the interviews conducted by the evaluation team were recorded, provided that the respondent gave
consent to do so. Full transcripts were made of most of the interviews. Summaries of key points were made of
other interviews. Transcripts and project documents were analysed by keyword search in Word/PDF docu-
ments and selective use of ATLAS.ti. The qualitative data analysis followed the steps of classifying the data,
descriptive analysis and contribution analysis. Excel and Stata were used for the descriptive analysis of re-
sponses to a short e-survey with closed questions using a four-point rating scale. In the end, 33 out of the 75
people who were invited to participate responded hence the response rate was 44%.
Roles of international and local evaluators
The international evaluator held overall responsibility for implementing the evaluation and the evaluation report.
He led the inception and evaluation missions and the analysis and reporting. His comparative advantage was
his experience in similar evaluations in other contexts. The local evaluator played a key role in preparing the
evaluation mission, documenting interview results and interpreting findings in the social and political context of
Nigeria. His comparative advantage was his extensive knowledge of the Nigerian context and the object of the
evaluation, his experience of participation in other evaluations in Nigeria and his background in agricultural
economics. The team triangulated data from documents and explorative interviews prior to the evaluation mis-
sion. It subsequently implemented researcher triangulation after the evaluation field mission and jointly ana-
lysed all the information and results collected, in accordance with the evaluation matrix. It also triangulated find-
ings from the inception and evaluation missions with findings from the document review and the e-survey.
(Semi-)remote evaluation
The evaluation was conducted in a semi-remote fashion. The inception mission was conducted in a fully re-
mote way due to Covid-19-related travel restrictions. The first interviews and some interviews during the evalu-
ation mission were conducted remotely, though most of the interviews were conducted face-to-face. Further-
more, the evaluators conducted an e-survey among (principally) the stakeholders of the project.
Context and conflict sensitivity within the evaluation process
Some potential risks of the evaluation process regarding context and conflict sensitivity were identified in the
inception report. Measures were taken to try to avoid the materialisation of these risks. The purpose of the
evaluation and the evaluation mission was explained to the stakeholders selected for interviews and participa-
tion in the e-survey. An attempt was made to mitigate the risk of inconsistent interpretation by triangulating the
results.
4 Assessment according to OECD DAC criteria
This chapter presents the assessment of SEDIN III according to the OECD DAC criteria relevance, coherence,
effectiveness, impact, efficiency and sustainability. It also describes the assessment of impact and sustainabil-
ity of the predecessor projects.
4.1 Impact and sustainability of predecessor projects
This section analyses and assesses the impact and sustainability of the predecessor projects SEDIN I (PN
2010.2046.0) and SEDIN II (PN 2012.2208.02) on the basis of documentation and selected interviews.
26
Summarising assessment of predecessor project
The predecessor projects started in 2011 and 2014 and were active at federal level in three states (Ogun, Ni-
ger and Plateau) and in selected local administrative districts within these states. They aimed at MSME devel-
opment through supply-side and demand-side interventions. Some interventions focused on MSMEs in se-
lected value chains, while others were not focused on the same MSMEs. The external evaluation of SEDIN I
noted that impact related to activities in the enabling environment component (still) had to be verified. The eval-
uation of SEDIN II rated the impact and the sustainability of the project as rather unsatisfactory.
Analysis and assessment of predecessor project
SEDIN I and II started in 2011 and 2014. They were active at federal level in three states (Ogun, Niger and
Plateau) and in selected local administrative districts within these states. State governments and local stake-
holders were helped to develop concepts for improving the business enabling environment in areas such as
business registration, land acquisition, construction permits and taxation. Additionally, the predecessor projects
supported the development of one-stop shops that provide a bundle of services to MSMEs and investors. Im-
plementation partners such as MFBs and business development service providers were supported to improve
their services. To support the development of entrepreneurship skills, and the start-up and growth of MSMEs,
the projects offered various training and coaching formats with a duration from six weeks to six months. To in-
crease sustainable access to demand-oriented financial services, the projects contributed to improving the
management and product development of selected MFBs on the supply side, and to enhancing the financial
poor population, in particular the founders, owners and employees of MSMEs.
Bauer-Wolf et al. (2013) explained that the module objective of SEDIN I was to improve access to demand-
driven financial services and employment in MSMEs. SEDIN I had three components: reform of the financial
sector, regional integration and an enabling environment. A sub-component of the latter was the promotion of
value chains (shea nut in Niger State, potatoes in Plateau State, cassava in Ogun State and construction in all
three states). Bauer-Wolf et al. noted that the impact related to activities in the enabling environment compo-
nent (still) had to be verified. In comparison, SEDIN II had four intervention areas the same as those in the
first years of SEDIN III and replaced the shea nut value chain by that of rice. The module objective was also
adapted and was the same as that of SEDIN III currently. The end report of SEDIN II (GIZ, 2018: 17) concludes
.The report
special situation of women entrepreneurs means that the project also contributed to gender equality (ibid.). In
with regard to achieving overarching development results (impacts) are not fully reflected in the context of the
This external report explains that the four intervention areas targeted four groups.
For example, intervention area three on the promotion of value chains directly targeted MSMEs in value chains,
whereas most of the other intervention areas focused on intermediaries or MSMEs in other sectors as well. The
fully overlap. The report al
it indicates that the M&E system did not systematically assess data that would allow conclu-
sions to be drawn on the pro-poor effects of MSME or on gender equality. The external evaluators rated the
impact of the project as rather unsatisfactory.
As regards sustainability, GIZ (. It identi-
fied risk factors that could influence the
that fundamental prerequisites for the development of MSMEs were structurally anchored, that the reform pro-
27
cesses continued independently and that the impacts achieved were sustained beyond the duration of the pro-
s that the project created sustainable structures in various intervention areas. In the
area business enabling environment reforms, for example, it developed public-private sector dialogue and ex-
change formats that could be replicated in different states and at local level. Some private sector associations
started to replicate these formats in local communities that were not covered by the project. The report further-
more indicates that some platforms introduced membership fees. This could contribute to financial sustainabil-
ity.
The implementation of the project in cooperation with numerous partners at the federal, state and local level
increased the required coordination and monitoring effort. Several implementing partners still had weak institu-
tional capacities, leading to slow, costly implementation of some measures. In many cases, the capacities that
were created were not fully anchored within the partner organisations. Consequently, frequent staff turnover
often led to a loss of knowledge. The main reasons were the weak institutional capacities of partner organisa-
tions and weak ownership. Weak ownership was reflected by the limited involvement of the Federal Ministry of
Finance, Budget and National Planning (FMFBNP) the political project partner in planning and coordination
processes. The evaluation also revealed that the project was aware of various risk factors, but that the risk
management strategy had room for improvement. The evaluation rated the sustainability of the project as ra-
ther unsatisfactory (GIZ, 2016b).
Photo 1: Entrance to SMEDAN head office in Abuja (Source: evaluators)
28
Methodology for assessing predecessor project
Table 3: Methodology for predecessor project
Predecessor project:
assessment dimensions
Basis for
assessment
Evaluation design and
empirical methods
Data quality and
limitations
Impact of the predecessor
project
Reports and external eval-
uations
Evaluation design: The
analysis follows the analyt-
ical questions from the
evaluation matrix (see An-
nex); no specific design.
Empirical methods:
Interviews, analysis of
documents
Limited access to project
documentation of SEDIN I
and II. Collection of infor-
mation from key inform-
ants was limited, because
few stakeholders could be
identified who were ac-
tively involved in and know
the predecessor projects
well enough.
Sustainability of the prede-
cessor project
Reports and external eval-
uations
Evaluation design:
No specific design
Empirical methods:
Interviews, analysis of
documents
As above.
4.2 Relevance
This section analyses and assesses the relevance of SEDIN III (PN 2016.2120.0).
Summarising assessment and rating of relevance
Table 4. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: relevance
Criterion
Assessment dimension
Score and rating
Relevance
Alignment with policies and priorities
27 out of 30 points
Alignment with the needs and capacities of the benefi-
ciaries and stakeholders
27 out of 30 points
Appropriateness of the design*
16 out of 20 points
Adaptability response to change
16 out of 20 points
Relevance total score and rating
Score: 86 out of 100 points
Rating: Level 2: successful
-poor economic growth in partner countries
and with the policies and priorities of the development partners in Nigeria. The project addresses the needs
and capacities of its beneficiaries and stakeholders. It targets disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, such as
youth, women, (returning) migrants and IDPs. It aims to mainstream gender as a cross-cutting theme in achiev-
ing its objective. The initial project design was based on the experience of SEDIN I and II. The expansion of the
-related activities was initially not reflected in an
adjustment of the design. An appraisal of SEDIN III in 2020 identified some weaknesses in the design and pre-
sented options for a new organisational set-up of the project. One of these options was selected in the change
offer of 2020. The project remains focused on economic and social sustainability, by aiming at durable im-
provement of the employment and income situation of MSMEs. This indirectly contributes to the attainment of
selected SDGs. SEDIN III accounts for the political and institutional context by selecting various partner states
throughout the country and various local government administrations (LGA councils) within these states for the
implementation of the project.
29
In total, the relevance of the project is rated as Level 2: successful, with 86 out of 100 points.
Analysis and assessment of relevance
This section presents the analysis and assessment of the relevance of SEDIN III in terms of the four assess-
ment dimensions listed in Table 4. It addresses the analytical questions in the evaluation matrix in the Annex.
The methodology for the assessment is presented in Table 5. The main data sources for the assessment con-
sist of project documentation, policy documents, interview and e-survey data gathered for the evaluation, and
secondary data sources.
Relevance dimension 1: Alignment with policies and priorities
12
The objec-
tive is in line with the BMZ policy to promote pro-poor economic growth in partner countries, with a focus on
private sector development through support of MSMEs (cf. BMZ, 2018). The project is indirectly expected to
contribute to the SDGs. In an interview, it was mentioned for example that we are always looking at getting the
maximum impact for the money that we are spending. And so there is always a discussion around whether the
DGs mentioned in the
draft country programme are SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 5 (gender equality) and SDG 8 (decent employment
and economic growth) (GIZ-KfW, 2021). However, neither an up-to-date development cooperation (DC) pro-
gramme nor a BMZ country strategy for Nigeria existed at the time of elaboration of the 2020 change offer. GIZ
and KfW were assigned the task of drafting a new DC programme, which was approved only recently (GIZ-
KfW, 2021; GIZ, 2022: 2; Int_12 with GIZ). Hence, the module was not adapted in the context of a valid existing
programme. It was the other way around: the new DC programme was drafted on the basis of existing modules
programme are aligned to policies and priorities of the development partners in Nigeria. The Nigerian
Gnd priorities are outlined in, for instance, the National Employment Strategy (Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 2017), the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan 20172020 (MBNP, 2017), the current
National Development Plan 20212025 (FMFBNP, 2021) and the recently revised National Policy on MSMEs
(SMEDAN, 2021). The National Development Plan aims to create employment and lift 35 million Nigerians out
of poverty by 2025 (and 100 million by 2030), through improving the enabling environment for MSME develop-
ment (FMFBNP, 2021: 29, 35, 71
fundamental objectives of the national MSME policy (SMEDAN, 2021: 33). An overwhelming majority (88%) of
the e-survey respondents confirmed that the design of SEDIN III is very much in line with national policy objec-
tives. SEDIN III . It
achieves this by means of public-private dialogues and the involvement of the private sector in project imple-
mentation, by focusing on the needs of the poor population, and by targeting vulnerable groups, such as youth,
women, (returning) migrants and IDPs. The e-survey results tend to confirm the focus on gender and mi-
grants/IDPs political and institutional context
by selecting various partner states throughout the country and various local government administrations within
those states for the implementation of project activities. A Brief Political Economy Analysis of November 2020
identified various political factors (such as patronage politics, political violence and social polarisation) that the
strengthen state in(conflict)
context. A starting point for SEDIN III is the do-no-harm principle the same principle that guided the ap-
proach of its predecessor (Int_9 with GIZ; Int_13 with donors; GIZ 2016, 2018c). A peace and conflict analysis
(PCA) matrix for context analysis undertaken for SEDIN II was updated in 2016 (GIZ, 2014, 2016). PCA matri-
ces identify (potential) escalating and deescalating factors, (potential) risks and measures to reduce such risks.
The (updated) context analysis was taken into consideration in the design of SEDIN III. The project proposal
emphasises that the project follows the do-no-harm principle and takes into consideration contextual risks. It
12
The results of the e-survey show that the respondents are generally quite familiar with this objective.
30
refers to public-private dialogue events that may have a conflict deescalating effect (GIZ, 2016: 14, 16). The
next update of the PCA matrix was made out in 2018 and used for the extension of the project with the EU-co-
financed NICOP component (GIZ, 2018a, 2018d). The first full PCA report, by Uduka (2020), identifies in more
detail the sources of conflict and violence both in general and within the states, sectors and intervention ar-
eas in which the project is active. It pays special attention to the issue of migration and migration-related con-
flicts. It also contains an analysis of groups of actors involved in the project implementation and a list of recom-
mendations on how SEDIN can address various identified risks, including the (conflict) context and political
risks. Section 3 of the Brief Political Economy Analysis (GIGA, 2020) and the appraisal report by Blink et al.
(2020) also contains assessments of the (conflict) context of the project. All these assessments were taken into
consideration in the change offer of 2020, which presented a partly adapted design of the project and its activi-
ties (GIZ, 2020). Further adaptations are planned for the next phase of SEDIN (Int_13 with donors). Most of the
e-survey respondents agreed that the design of SEDIN III takes conflict sensitivity into consideration. However,
their opinions on the extent to which the design does this vary and are only weakly correlated with their degree
of involvement in the design of SEDIN III.
13
Relevance dimension 1 Alignment with policies and priorities
scores 27 out of 30 points.
Relevance dimension 2: Alignment with the needs and capacities of the beneficiaries and stakeholders
project targets disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. For some of the outcome indicators it sets target values
to be achieved. For example, the project aims to mainstream gender as a cross-cutting theme, to achieve its
objective of improving the employment and income situation of MSMEs in Nigeria. This was also highlighted in
various interviews, while the results of the e-survey confirm that the project targets specific groups.
The gender analysis by Faniyi (2016) undertaken for the evaluation of SEDIN II provided input for the design of
SEDIN III. More recently, the gender analyses for SEDIN III by Sauer and Röthlisberger (2019) and Salawu
(2020) provided input for the 2020 change offer (GIZ, 2020). The aforementioned 2014 and 2016 PCAs as-
sessed the degree of relevance for SEDIN of various (potential) escalating factors in the project context. They
identified various (potential) deescalating factors, such as measures targeted at disadvantaged groups, includ-
ing women. The PCAs also noted potential (security) risks, including personnel risks and risks related to esca-
lating factors. The GIZ Risk and Security Management Office monitors potential (security) risks. The project
proposal and change offers refer to various risks (cf. GIZ, 2016, 2020).
The target group of SEDIN III comprises a direct target group of (key) stakeholders and an indirect target group
or beneficiaries among the poor and vulnerable population (see Table 5 and GIZ, 2016: 8). The project ad-
dresses the need for capacity building within selected groups of stakeholders in the direct target group. It ap-
plies the 2030 Agenda leave no one b
lation, including migrants and IDPs. It thereby focuses on the indirect target group of (potential) owners and
employees of MSMEs in selected value chains. They include smallholder farms in agricultural value chains
(such as tomato, chilli and ginger farms) and enterprises in value chains such as ICT/e-commerce, waste recy-
cling, leather and garments, and processing of agricultural products. An overwhelming majority of MSMEs in
Nigeria are informal micro-enterprises. According to project documents, the needs of the indirect target
group(s) include improved A2F services, training on financial literacy and entrepreneurship skills, a more at-
tractive business and investment climate, and strengthened links to larger companies within a value chain.
Relevance dimension 2 Alignment with the needs and capacities of the beneficiaries and stakeholders
scores 27 out of 30 points.
13
The correlation coefficient is 0.23.
31
Relevance dimension 3: Appropriateness of the design
The initial design was based on the experience of the predecessor projects. It was created for a pro-
ject with a budget of less than one-fifth of its current budget. It aimed to achieve four outputs: improved A2F, an
improved enabling business environment, improved business development services and improved entrepre-
neurship skills. NICOP became an add-on to the existing project, with a different approach to that of the rest of
gration-related activities was not reflected in an adjustment of the design. The appraisal of the project led to the
conclusion that the design was no longer appropriate. A weakness observed by Blink et al. (2020: 34)
and finance--cutting issue. The appraisal led to organisa-
tional restructuring for the project implementation, the formulation of a partly new, streamlined and expanded
set of formal outputs, and full integration of NICOP activities into the design of the project. A2F became a
cross- improvement of employment and incomes in MSMEs
current design
outputs and outcome changed and became more logical and realistic (GIZ, 2020; Int_9, 11 with GIZ). However,
as explained in Section 2.2, the project documentation is often not very explicit and precise in terms of the as-
sumptions that are made.
several dimensions of sustainability. It focuses on economic and social sus-
tainability by aiming at a durable improvement in the employment and income situation of MSMEs, which indi-
rectly contributes to the attainment of selected SDGs. Gender equality is one of these SDGs (cf. EU-GIZ,
(2021: 41). The economic dimension of sustainability is emphasised by the involvement in the
implementation of the project. At the same time, the project (intentionally or unintentionally) considers the envi-
ronmental dimension of sustainability. Clear examples of the latter are the selection of waste recycling as one
of the value chains that the project currently focuses on and the inclusion of the circular economy in its support
approach.
Relevance dimension 3 Appropriateness of the design scores 16 out of 20 points.
Relevance dimension 4: Adaptability response to change
The design of the project was adapted in line with the findings and recommendations of the appraisal of SE-
DIN III, which identified some weaknesses in the design and observed that the project was not yielding all the
expected results, especially those related to the support of MFBs. The restructuring of the project led to an ad-
aptation of the results model and implied a stronger focus on national-level activities. It aimed to create
stronger links with the private sector (see GIZ, 2020). The Covid-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns
boosted the digitalisation of (project) activities (such as training) that had already been initiated. The pandemic
also led to a shift in focus from state and local-level activities to activities at the federal level and research. The
increased focus on federal/national-level activities was in fact a return to the approach of SEDIN II (Int_1 with
GIZ). At the same time, the incorporation of an additional budget from the Returning to New Opportunities Pro-
gramme provided an opportunity to expand the project with migration- La-
gos and Edo.
Unfortunately, the restructuring of the project also led to discontinuation in the monitoring of the indicators that
were initially selected. This makes it virtually impossible to observe (and let alone explain) changes throughout
the entire period of implementation of SEDIN III.
Relevance dimension 4 Adaptability response to change scores 16 out of 20 points.
32
Methodology for assessing relevance
Table 5: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: relevance
Relevance
assessment dimensions
Basis for
assessment
Evaluation design and
empirical methods
Data quality and
limitations
Alignment with policies
and priorities
Results model/matrix,
module objective/ pro-
gramme indicators, SDGs.
National Employment Pol-
icy 2017; Nigerian Eco-
nomic Recovery Growth
Plan (NERGP) 2017
2020; National Develop-
ment Plan (NDP) 2021
2025; National Policy on
MSMEs 2021; BMZ coun-
try strategy
Evaluation design:
The analysis follows the
analytical questions from
the evaluation matrix (see
Annex); no specific evalu-
ation design.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, inter-
views and e-survey among
stakeholders
The various (project) docu-
ments already contain
quite a lot of information
needed for the analysis,
though the time horizon of
the documents vary.
The selection of interview-
ees is not likely to be rep-
resentative.
Alignment with the
needs and capacities of
the beneficiaries and
stakeholders
Partners/direct target
group or (key) stakehold-
ers: FMBNP, FMITI,
SMEDAN, CBN, NIPC,
state-level ministries and
agencies, LGAs, training
providers and business as-
sociations
Indirect target groups or
beneficiaries: poor and
vulnerable population, in-
cluding migrants and IDPs;
(potential) owners and em-
ployees of MSMEs
Evaluation design:
See above.
Empirical methods:
See above.
See above.
Appropriateness of the
design*
ToC, results model/matrix,
SDGs, BMZ country strat-
egy, national strategies
Evaluation design:
See above.
Empirical methods:
See above.
See above.
Adaptability response
to change
Five official change offers
from March 2017, October
2017, August 2018, Au-
gust 2019 and November
2020
Evaluation design:
See above.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, analy-
sis of monitoring data, in-
terviews and e-survey
among stakeholders
See above.
ts
hypotheses) with outputs, activities, instruments and results hypotheses and the implementation strategy (e.g. methodological ap-
proach, capacity development strategy, results hypotheses).
33
Conflict sensitivity in the project design
Table 5 identifies dividers and escalating factors in the project context, while Table 6 lists some deescalating
factors and dividers.
14
Table 5: Dividers/escalating factors in the project context
Which escalating factors/dividers
were identified in the project con-
text?
Addressed by the project?
(yes/no)
If addressed, how is it considered
by the project design?
Lack of coordination in the choice of
beneficiaries, especially as far as
A2F is concerned
Yes
Inclusivity of various interests
through the NICOP component
Poorly functioning local/state gov-
ernment administrations
No
Limited government support among
the various groups in the population
No
Fundamental cleavages between
the north and south of the country;
ethnicity/religious differences
No
Issues on land use rights, crime and
violence, making some groups dis-
advantaged/marginalised
No
Lack of internal coherence in the
experience of the
SME Loop, leading to different inter-
pretations
No
Lack of clear identity and focus of
the project, leading to different inter-
pretations
No
Non-involvement of local partners
and counterparts in the governance
structure of the project
No
Resistance amongst established
layers of ruling elites and weaken-
ing of regulation due to political in-
terest
No
Table 6: Connectors/deescalating factors in the project context
Which deescalating factors/con-
nectors were identified in the pro-
ject context?
Addressed by the project?
(yes/no)
If addressed, how is it considered
by the project design?
Conscious support for capacity de-
velopment of MSME operators
Yes
Scaling up of the component; ca-
pacity building in conflict manage-
ment
Entrepreneurship training and
coaching for marginalised groups
Yes
Step-down entrepreneurial training
for identified groups
Technical and entrepreneurial ca-
pacity building and integration into
the financial system for farmers and
other entrepreneurs would have a
positive impact on income
Yes
Step-down entrepreneurial training
for identified groups
14
Dividers and escalating factors can be seen as sources of tension, for example destructive institutions, structures, norms and behaviour. Connectors and deescalating factors
are the opposite, instead taking the form of peace-promoting actors and institutions, structural changes, and peace-promoting norms and behaviour (GIZ, 2022d).
34
Which deescalating factors/con-
nectors were identified in the pro-
ject context?
Addressed by the project?
(yes/no)
If addressed, how is it considered
by the project design?
and could reduce the propensity to
indulge in confrontation.
Inclusion of returning migrants in
the project directly contributes to the
need to create social cohesion and
ensure reintegration.
Yes
Step-down entrepreneurial training
for identified groups
Re-engineering of the security ar-
chitecture of the government at fed-
eral/state/local level
No
Re-emphasising the gender-bal-
ance in activities with beneficiaries
Yes
Policy advocacy and support for
MSMEs at federal and local level
Focus on strengthening the position
of MSMEs to perform better, create
more employment and contribute
more to the economy
Yes
Policy advocacy and support for
MSMEs at federal and local level
4.3 Coherence
This section analyses and assesses the internal and external coherence of the project. It is structured accord-
ing to the questions in the evaluation matrix in the Annex and the assessment dimensions in Table 7.
Summarising assessment and rating of coherence
Table 7. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: coherence
Criterion
Assessment dimension
Score and rating
Coherence
Internal Coherence
37 out of 50 points
External Coherence
30 out of 50 points
Overall score and rating
Score: 67 out of 100 points
Rating: Level 3: moderately
successful
In the past, the division of responsibilities of SEDIN III and other modules of German DC was not always clear
within the cluster. However, this has improved, and some activities (such as training) are jointly undertaken.
. This was initially an add-on to existing SEDIN
activities but is now fully integrated within the SEDIN project. The exchange of experiences on policy and other
matters between stakeholders of SEDIN and other modules is an important element of the project. In this
sense, SEDIN integrates work on policy matters within a more comprehensive approach that goes beyond the
project as such. The project adheres to international and national norms and standards to which German de-
velopment cooperation is committed. Inclusiveness/leaving no one behind and respect for international rights
are key in the project. Regarding external coherence, the project complements and supports the efforts of the
Nigerian G
not much direct collaboration between GIZ and other donors. SEDIN III uses a largely demand-driven selection
of specific project activities, provided that they fit in with its general set-up and approach. It sometimes uses
existing systems and structures, but there are cases where the partners make use of systems devel-
oped by the project (in collaboration with national partners).
35
In total, the coherence of the project is rated as Level 3: moderately successful, with 67 out of 100
points.
Analysis and assessment of coherence
This section presents the analysis and assessment of the coherence of SEDIN III in terms of the two assess-
ment dimensions listed in Table 7. It addresses the analytical questions in the evaluation matrix. The main data
sources for the assessment consist of project documentation, policy documents, interview and e-survey data
gathered for the evaluation, and secondary data sources (see Table 8).
Coherence dimension 1: Internal Coherence
SEDIN III concerns technical cooperation only, but there is synergy with the financial cooperation modules of
German DC (GIZ, 2022: 3). The module forms part of the Sustainable Economic Development Cluster, which
currently also includes the modules Skills Development for Youth Employment (SKYE, PN: 2018.2022.4), the
global TC programme Migration for Development (PN: 20.2045.1) and the programme Migration and Diaspora
(PN: 19.2146.9). In the past, there were overlaps with other projects and especially with SKYE, though some
margin of overlap always remains. The division of responsibilities was not always clear. In the past, it was diffi-
cult for BMZ to see where the dividing line was (Blink et al., 2020: 35; Int_1, 12 with GIZ; Int_13 with donors).
Currently, it is clearer that SEDIN focuses on private sector development and the demand-side of the labour
market. The synergy of SEDIN with other SEDEC modules (and with German DC in Nigeria in general) has im-
proved, particularly with SKYE. The latter focuses on the supply side of the labour market and on technical and
vocational skills. There is synergy between its activities and those of SEDIN (GIZ, 2022: 3; Int_9, 11, 12, 25
with GIZ; Int_13 with donors; Int_17 with partner organisations). Nonetheless, some activities are jointly under-
taken with other modules in the cluster. SEDIN organised the national employment conference jointly with
SKYE and the Migration for Development Programme, while SKYE and SEDIN have worked together to pro-
vide training and in the organisation of job fairs, job centres and job placement (INT_1, 9, 11, 12 with GIZ;
Int_13 with donors; Int_17 with partner organisations). Management meetings are held to coordinate the clus-
ter. There is a whole cluster team working on the topic of A2F and there is exchange at manage-
ment level on the topic of the enabling environment for employment and employment promotion (Int_1 with
GIZ).
Another aspect of internal coherence concerns NICOP, which is jointly financed by the EU and GIZ. NICOP
was initially an add-on to existing SEDIN activities. However, it has been fully integrated within the SEDIN pro-
ject since 2021 (GIZ, 2020). Initially, the project monitored some additional NICOP indicators. However, it was
not always clear whether the target values set for the SEDIN indicators included the target values for NICOP or
whether the latter were additional to the pre-existing target values (Blink et al., 2020: 33). This issue was
solved with the formulation of new outputs and indicators in 2020. There is coherence between the focus of
NICOP and that of SEDIN as a whole and there was also synergy in terms of the approach, implementation
-based approach, while NICOP works with tools that
SEDIN created in the past (Int_4, 9, 11 with GIZ).
multi-level, multi-actor and multi-sector approach has fostered the coordination and coherence of ac-
tivities at federal, state and local level and has proven to be a good basis for the upscaling of activities. Ex-
change of experience on policy and other matters between stakeholders of SEDIN and other modules is an im-
portant element of the project (cf. GIZ, 2021: 22) In this sense, SEDIN can really be seen as an example for
work on policy matters that is integrated within a more comprehensive approach that goes beyond the project
as such.
Finally, another element of internal coherence concerns consistency with the international and national norms
and standards to which German development cooperation is committed. It has been confirmed that SEDIN (as
36
part of the DC programme) is internally coherent in this sense (Int_13 with donors; GIZ and KfW, 2021: 26).
The key approach is inclusiveness/leaving no one behind and respecting international rights (cf. EU-GIZ, 2021:
3940). The project is inclusive given its targeting of poor and vulnerable groups, such as migrants/IDPs and
people living with disabilities. It takes care to avoid unintended discrimination.
It can be concluded that SEDIN III had some shortcomings in terms of internal coherence in the first years but
currently has quite a high degree of internal coherence. Coherence dimension 1 Internal Coherence scores
37 out of 50 points.
Coherence dimension 2: External Coherence
The project complements and supports the Nigerian G. The overall responsibility for
coordinating the implementation of the national MSME policy rests with SMEDAN. The National Council on
MSMEs also plays an important role in formulating and coordinating the implementation of policies on MSME
development. Together, they coordinate activities with government institutions, the private sector, and local and
international development partners, such as GIZ (SMEDAN, 2021: 9798, 104). Through SEDIN, GIZ supports
the development of MSMEs in Nigeria and collaborates with SMEDAN and other partners at federal, state and
local level in the field of MSME development. Once or twice a year, there are talks between BMZ and the Nige-
rian Government. The government to policy reforms is considered a risk for the project. How-
ever, the project can identify which policies need attention and this could be discussed in talks with the govern-
ment (Int_13, 14 with donors). SEDIN III has a largely demand-driven partner approach and there is a lot of de-
mand from the federal states. Some stakeholders would prefer GIZ to cover all 36 states (Int_22 with partner
organisations). However, this is difficult to achieve and probably not very effective and efficient. Instead, BMZ
and GIZ like to work with reform-oriented states (Int_13 with donors).
and alignment of donor activities with the objectives of the National Policy on MSMEs (SMEDAN, 2021: 104).
GIZ is the most important partner for the EU in Nigeria and the collaboration goes beyond the NICOP compo-
nent under SEDIN. Coordination currently takes place as part of the Team Europe initiative. GIZ and more
generally German DC aligns its bilateral policy to the priorities of the Nigerian Government, which is repre-
sented by the FMBNP as the political partner. The EU does the same and the national priorities of Nigeria also
guide the cooperation between the EU and the Government of Nigeria (Int_13, 14 with donors).
. However, there is not much
direct collaboration between GIZ and other donors, because there is limited overlap in terms of the states and
sectors in which donors are active (GIZ, 2021, 2022; Int_1, 11, 7 with GIZ; Int_19 with donors). Previously,
there was some collaboration with a UK Department for International Development (DFID) programme in Plat-
eau, Niger and Ogun states. The national employment conference was held in partnership with the Interna-
tional Labour Organization (ILO). NICOP has also collaborated with other donors (Int_9 with GIZ; EU_GIZ,
2021). Currently, there is some exchange with the World Bank regarding activities in Ogun. There is collabora-
tion with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in the area of migration and (initial) collaboration
with the Dutch Centre for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries (CBI) in the area of shea (GIZ,
2022: 4; Int_11, 36 with GIZ). GIZ does not collaborate intensively with other donors in the context of SEDIN III.
However, there is a donor working group on private sector development for the exchange of information on do-
nors in this field. The group is currently co-chaired by GIZ and the World Bank (Int_9, 11, 25 with
GIZ; Int_13, 19, 59 with donors). There still appears to be scope for improvement in the exchange of infor-
mation.
The design of SEDIN III is that activities within the workstreams are implemented in collaboration with national
partners. A largely demand-driven selection of specific project activities is used, provided that these activities fit
in with the general set-up and approach of SEDIN. Sometimes, use is made of existing partner systems and
37
structures for implementation. The project has for example collaborated with government agencies in the
area of improving the instruments and the system for promoting and facilitating investments in states. It has
worked with MFBs to improve their systems. There are also cases where the partners make use of systems
developed by the project. For instance, the project has set up (or is setting up) systems for alternative dispute
resolution called multi-door courthouses (GIZ, 2022; Int_7, 9 with GIZ; Int_29 with other stakeholders). In terms
of common systems for M&E, learning and accountability, the project sometimes uses existing national
systems, but often sets up its own system (sometimes in collaboration with national partners). These are then
used by partners (Int_11, 23 with GIZ; Int_60 with universities and think tanks). In the case of modular training,
for instance, GOPA developed a COBOL M&E system, which is now used by training providers. Similarly, the
Federal University of Technology, Minna (FUTMINNA) uses the SEDIN M&E system. This has influenced the
M&E of SEDIN activities in which the university participates (Int_54 with GIZ; Int_60 with universities and think
tanks).
little actual collaboration on the ground with other donors. It appears that limited use is made of existing na-
tional systems, but that work is done to improve existing systems or to set up and use new systems.
Coherence dimension 2 External Coherence scores 30 out of 50 points.
Methodology for assessing coherence
Table 8: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: coherence
Coherence: assessment
dimensions
Basis for
assessment
Evaluation design and
empirical methods
Data quality and
limitations
Internal coherence
Results model/matrix,
module objective indica-
tors, SDGs, assessment of
synergies with a logframe
NICOP component, draft
German DC programme
on sustainable economic
development in Nigeria;
other TC modules within
SEDEC, such as SKYE
Evaluation design:
The analysis follows the
analytical questions from
the evaluation matrix and
addresses the evaluation
question from one of the
evaluation stakeholder
groups.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, inter-
views
The documentation is rea-
sonably complete and of
good quality.
External coherence
Results model/matrix, as-
sessment of synergies
with national partners and
other donors activities; as-
sessment of use of exist-
ing structures and sys-
tems; RBM data
Evaluation design:
The analysis follows the
analytical questions from
the evaluation matrix.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, inter-
views
Limited information on na-
tional partners and other
donors activities and sys-
tems.
38
4.4 Effectiveness
This section analyses and assesses the effectiveness of the project. It is structured according to the assess-
ment dimensions and evaluation questions in the GIZ project evaluation matrix (see Annex).
Summarising assessment and rating of effectiveness
The assessment of effectiveness considers four dimensions (Table 9).
Table 9. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: effectiveness
Criterion
Assessment dimension
Score and rating
Effectiveness
Achievement of the (intended) objectives
20 out of 30 points
Contribution to achievement of objectives
23 out of 30 points
Quality of implementation
15 out of 20 points
Unintended results
15 out of 20 points
Overall score and rating
Score: 73 out of 100 points
Rating: Level 3: moderately
successful
The effectiveness analysis had to be done separately for SEDIN III.a (20172020) and SEDIN III.b (2021) be-
cause of the restructuring of the project, which led to new outputs and new output and outcome indicators. The
intended outputs and outcomes were partly achieved in both sub-periods. For SEDIN III.a, the hypotheses on
the contribution to the intended outcome of support for MFBs and the development of digital platforms that pro-
vide business-relevant information to MSMEs are partly confirmed. In comparison, for SEDIN III.b, the hypothe-
sis on for the provision of training in financial
and economic literacy and entrepreneurship skills is fully confirmed. The same holds for the hypothesis con-
cerning the contribution of support for , as
measured by the new indicators. The reorganisation of the project team into the current workstreams facilitates
the steering and implementation of planned activities. It also improves the results achievement at output level
and, indirectly, at outcome level. The project has had some negative unintended effects, but also positive ones.
For example, it has had positive effects on students and staff related to the participation of universities in pro-
ject activities.
In total, the effectiveness of the project is rated Level 3: moderately successful, with 73 out of 100
points.
Analysis and assessment of effectiveness
This section presents an analysis and assessment of the effectiveness of SEDIN III in terms of the four assess-
ment dimensions listed in Table 9. It addresses the analytical questions in the evaluation matrix. The main data
sources used consist of project documentation (such as the progress reports, a survey report of April 2020 and
RBM data) and interview and e-survey data gathered for the evaluation (see Table 12).
39
Effectiveness dimension 1: Achievement of the (intended) objectives
This sub-
15
The analysis is
separate for SEDIN III.a (20172020) and SEDIN III.b (as of 2021), because of the change in outputs and in
output and outcome indicators after the project restructuring at the end of 2020.
Analysis of SEDIN III.a
• The outcome indicators for 20172020 as listed in GIZ (2020b) were:M1: 20,000 MSMEs in selected sec-
tors with access to financial services improved their business performance (increase in turnover by 30%
each and/or creation of one net additional full-time job).
• M2: 60% of 810 MSMEs (of which 30% are women-owned) in selected sectors with access to business
services increased their disposable income by 20%.
• M3: 50% of the 100 start-ups supported by the project (including returnees) in selected sectors with access
to business services confirm that their MSMEs are still in existence one year after they were founded.
• M4: 40% of the supported 800 MSMEs in selected agricultural value chains employ an additional 20% of
seasonal workers.
• M5 (additional NICOP indicator): 60% of the supported 20,000 MSMEs in the additional selected agricul-
tural value chains increased their turnover by 25% each.
All baseline values (in 2016) were zero. The progress report of 2020 shows actual values for 2019 or early
2020 (GIZ, 2020b). Some of these values were corrected that is, made comparable to the target values of the
indicators on the basis of data presented in a survey report of April 2020 (GIZ 2020d). The (corrected) values
were 12,569 for M1, 637 out of 810 (or 79%) for M2, 76% for M3 and 577 out of 800 (or 72%) for M4. The first
measurement of M5 was planned for Q4 of 2020. Monitoring of all the indicators was discontinued with the
change in the project. Given the values of the indicators, the evaluation team concludes that outcome indica-
tors 2 to 4 were fully achieved and that indicator 1 was partially achieved.
Regarding the achievement of outputs, a comparison was made between the actual and target levels of the
indicators presented in GIZ (2020b). Some of the actual values were corrected (i.e. scaled to the targeted num-
ber of MSMEs), using information from GIZ (2020d). Output A was largely achieved, as the actual value of
three out of four indicators exceeded the target value.
16
Outputs B and C were partly achieved, while none of
the indicators of Output D had reached their target level.
17
Analysis of SEDIN III.b
Table 10 shows the module objective indicators for the period since the restructuring of the project and some
adjustments to the actual values based on a recent update of RBM data (GIZ, 2022, 2022b). In most cases, the
adjustment of the actual value involved scaling of the indicator. The project considers that all the baseline val-
ues of the indicators are equal to zero. The number of 30,000 MSMEs supported by the project is a result of a
target of approximately 4,000 MSMEs supported per value chain that the project focuses on (Int_22 with part-
ner organisations; Int_24 with GIZ).
15
The evaluation question on the use of outputs will be addressed in the following sub-section.
16
The degree of achievement was actually more positive than expressed in Blink et al. (2020: 14), who observed that output indicator A2 was overachieved in 2020, but that
indicator A1 was not yet achieved.
17
For more details, see effectiveness dimension 2 and the section on efficiency.
40
Table 10: Assessed objective indicators for specific modules (outcome level)
cording to the (last change) offer
Assessment according to
SMART* criteria
Adjusted actual value of objective
indicator
Module objective indicator 1
(MI1): 15,000 of the 30,000 sup-
ported MSMEs, including farms,
4,500 of which are headed by
women, confirm that the entrepre-
neurial environment has improved.
Base value (2020): 0 MSMEs
Target value (2023): 15,000 of the
30,000 supported MSMEs, of which
4,500 are headed by women
Current value (2021): 60% of the 47
MSMEs surveyed confirm that their
business environment has im-
proved.***
Achievement in % (2021): unknown
The indicator is generally specific,
though it does not set a target value
for the number of farms among the
MSMEs. It is measurable, as nu-
merical targets are set and a base
value is given. It is relevant because
it concerns a condition for MSME
development. The target is consid-
ered achievable. It is to be achieved
in the period until the end of the pro-
ject. The indicator is therefore also
time-bound, though it does not
specify annual target values.
A recent update of RBM data indi-
cates that 20,591 out of 27,416
MSMEs confirm that the entrepre-
neurial environment has improved.
The adjusted actual value is:
20,591/27,416*30,000 = 22,531.
This is 150% of the target value of
15,000.
22% of the 22,531 MSMEs are
headed by women.
Module objective indicator 2
(MI2): 15,000 of the 30,000 sup-
ported MSMEs, including farms,
4,500 of which are headed by
women, have increased their reve-
nues by 5% each, adjusted for infla-
tion.
Base value (2020): 0 MSMEs
Target value (2023): Increase in
revenue by 5% in each of 15,000 of
the 30,000 supported MSMEs, of
which 4,500 are headed by women
Current value (2021): Increase in
revenue by 8% (adjusted for infla-
tion) in 9,272 supported MSMEs, of
which 3,227 were headed by
women****
Achievement in % (2021): 62%
The indicator is generally specific
but does not set a target value for
the number of farms among the
MSMEs. It is measurable, as nu-
merical targets are set and a base
value is given. It is relevant because
it concerns a condition for improving
the incomes of MSMEs. The target
is considered to be achievable. It is
to be achieved in the period until the
end of the project. The indicator is
therefore also time-bound, though it
does not specify annual target val-
ues.
A recent update of RBM data indi-
cates that the estimated number of
9,272 MSMEs that reported the in-
crease in revenues is based on a to-
tal of 30,664 MSMEs. The slightly
adjusted estimated number for the
30,000 supported MSMEs is there-
fore 9,071 MSMEs. The adjusted
achievement in % is
9,071/15,000*100% = 60%.
35% of the 9,071 MSMEs are
headed by women.
Module objective indicator 3
(MI3): 225 of the 1,500 supported
entrepreneurs, 68 of them women,
confirmed at the end of the project
that their MSME was still in opera-
tion.
Base value (2020): 0 MSMEs
Target value (2023): 225 of the
1,500 supported entrepreneurs, 68
of them women
Current value (2021): Target
achievement is measured at the end
of the project.
Achievement in % (2021): unknown
The indicator is generally specific,
but it is not clear how the 1,500 sup-
ported entrepreneurs were selected.
It is measurable, as numerical tar-
gets are set and a base value is
given. It is relevant because it con-
cerns continued operation of a se-
lection of the targeted MSMEs. The
target is considered to be achieva-
ble. It is to be achieved in the period
until the end of the project. The indi-
cator is therefore also time-bound,
though it does not specify annual
target values.
Module objective indicator 4
(MI4): 20,000 people, 6,000 of them
women, got into work or additional
employment.
Base value (2020): 0 people (no ad-
ditional employment)
Target value (2023): 20,000 people,
6,000 of them women
Current value (2021): 6,161 people,
360 of them women****
Achievement in % (2021): 31% (6%
for women)
The indicator is generally specific,
but only implicitly refers to additional
employment within MSMEs. It is
measurable, as numerical targets
are set and a base value is given. It
is relevant because it concerns em-
ployment generation by MSMEs.
The target is considered to be
achievable. It is to be achieved in
the period until the end of the pro-
ject. The indicator is therefore also
time-bound, though it does not
specify annual target values.
The number of 6,161 relates to
2020. An updated figure is 9,845
people. This number is 49% of the
target.
2,288 (23%) of the 9,845 people are
women.
41
cording to the (last change) offer
Assessment according to
SMART* criteria
Adjusted actual value of objective
indicator
* Source: GIZ Progress Report, 2021 (GIZ, 2021).
** SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound
*** As reported in GIZ (2022). Relates to the number of MSMEs in a pilot survey.
**** Relates to the extrapolated number of MSMEs, based on a sample.
The evaluation team concludes that project objective indicator MI1 was fully achieved overall (though not yet in
terms of the share of women-led MSMEs). Indicators MI2 and MI4 were partly achieved by the end of 2021.
The share of women-led MSMEs supported by the project that achieved MI2 is 70%, which exceeds the ob-
served overall share of 60%. Given the progress achieved so far, it is likely that the targets set for indicators
MI2 and MI4 will be met by the end of the project in 2023. Project objective indicator MI3 has not been meas-
ured yet.
18
The opinion in the latest progress report is that all the module objective indicators are achievable
within the remaining project implementation period (GIZ, 2022).
Figure 2 in Section 2.2 shows that there are two (additional) NICOP outcomes, on which progress is reported
to the EU. Indicators of the first NICOP outcome assessed in EU-GIZ (2021) are:
1. A total of 25,000 entrepreneurs are directly and indirectly supported in the selected value chains, and at
least 30% of them are women.
2. A total of 60% of supported entrepreneurs increase their reported income by 20% by 2022.
3. Supported beneficiaries make new/increased exports of 600 million naira by 2022.
4. Beneficiaries supported in A2F and/or investment access 500 million naira by 2022.
Baseline values were assumed to be equal to zero. EU-GIZ (2021) does not report an actual value for 2021 for
indicator 1. In contrast, EU-GIZ (2021: 13) reports that the actual value of indicator 2 was over 21,000 (22%
women) in July 2021. This amounts to 77% of the total of 27,416 entrepreneurs, which exceeds the target of
60%. It also reports that the actual value of indicator 3 was almost a quarter of the target set for 2022, while
indicator 4 had reached only 15% of the 2022 target. Hence, the evaluation team concludes that the first
NICOP outcome was partly achieved. No actual values of indicators were reported for the second NICOP out-
come.
To assess the degree of output achievement, the evaluation team compared the actual and target levels of out-
put indicators presented in GIZ (2022). Some of the actual values were corrected on the basis of recent RBM
data (GIZ, 2022b). Only Output 5 was fully achieved. Outputs 1 and 2 were partly achieved. Output 4 was not
yet achieved, but the actual value of two of its indicators was very close to the target level. None of the indica-
tors of Output 3 had reached their target level.
19
The latest progress report considers that all the output targets
can be met within the remaining period of implementation of the project (GIZ, 2022).
Effectiveness dimension 1 Achievement of the (intended) objectives scores 20 out of 30 points.
Effectiveness dimension 2: Contribution to achievement of objectives
This section assembles and assesses the contribution story. This is the fourth step in contribution analysis after
setting out the contribution problem, developing the theory of change (completed in Section 2.2) and gathering
evidence (completed above for outcomes). Table 11 presents four selected hypotheses for effectiveness de-
scribed in Section 2.2: A and C with respect to the results model prior to 2021 and 4 and 5 with respect to the
current results model. Their numbering follows the numbering of the outputs to which they refer. The first part
of each hypothesis concerns the link between one or more activities and the respective output, while the other
part concerns the link from that output to outcome. Hypothesis A focuses on the intended results of supporting
18
The end-of project target is 15% of MSMEs supported. GIZ (2021: 10) reports that 75% of a sample of MSMEs taken in 2020 still existed one year after their establishment. A
similar percentage was found in GIZ (2020d).
19
More details are included under effectiveness dimension 2 and in the section on efficiency.
42
MFBs. Hypothesis C is about the expected effect of (increasing capacity for) the provision of business services
to MSMEs. Hypothesis 4 concerns the intended effects of (enhancing capacity for) developing the compe-
tences of (potential) MSME owners and hypothesis 5 those of providing advice and support for MSME start-up
and development opportunities. Hypotheses A and 4 were chosen because they are also related to the activi-
ties of NICOP within SEDIN. The evaluation team selected Hypothesis C because of the partial overlap be-
tween the fields of activities related to the former Output C and the current Output 4. Hypothesis 5 was chosen
because it also concerns direct support for creating opportunities for particular groups, such as women and mi-
grants. These four hypotheses were also considered the most promising from the point of view of evaluability.
However, a general limitation is the limited number of observations for outcome and output indicators in recent
years.
An alternative explanation of more employment and/or higher incomes in MSMEs in the selected sectors
that was considered for all four results hypotheses is that the employment and income situation in selected
sectors changes in line with the general development of MSMEs in Nigeria. According to MSME surveys, there
were 41.5 million MSMEs in 2017 (with micro-enterprises making up 99.8% of the total), compared to 38.4 mil-
lion micro-enterprises in 2020 (Kale, 2019; SMEDAN-NBS, 2019, 2022: 136137). Micro-enterprises employed
56.5 million people in 2017. This number dropped to 51.7 million in 2020 (SMEDAN-NBS, 2022: 153). MSMEs
contributed 49.8% to GDP in 2017. In 2020, the contribution to GDP was 3.5 percentage points lower, as a re-
sult of the decline in the number of MSMEs and a small reduction in average monthly turnover. In comparison,
. The number of people employed in
MSMEs had increased to 61 million, up from 59 million in 2017 (SMEDAN-NBS, 2019: 7, 48; SMEDAN-NBS,
2021: 15, 22, 174). These figures suggest that small and medium-sized enterprises performed better than mi-
cro-enterprises in terms of employment. However, their performance in terms of remuneration must have been
poor as well to be consistent with the observed drop in the contribution to GDP. NBS reports real GDP growth
of 3.98% in 2021.
20
With an unchanged contribution of MSMEs/micro-enterprises to GDP in 2021, the number
of MSMEs/micro-enterprises or rather the income that they generate in 2021 would then also be almost 4%
higher than in 2020. However, the micro-enterprises were most affected by the Covid-19 pandemic that hit Ni-
geria and the associated lockdown. Therefore, an assumption of 4% growth may be too optimistic for them. It
may be more realistic to assume that the micro-enterprise sector had not yet recovered and did not generate
additional income and employment. That would be consistent with the observation in GIZ (2021) that economic
growth in 2021 (and following years) would be mainly driven by developments in the oil sector. It would also be
consistent with the projected growth of unemployment in 2021 and the observation that the labour-intensive
sectors were underperforming.
21
Table 11: Selected results hypotheses for effectiveness
Hypothesis A
(activity output outcome)
Encompasses
HO-A & HM-A
HO-A: If microfinance banks are supported to offer needs-based financial
products and services that are appropriate for the poor and for women in se-
lected sectors (activity A-A), this will improve the access to finance of
MSMEs in these sectors (O-A).
HM-A: If access to finance in selected sectors improves (O-A), this
will contribute to an improvement in their employment and income situation
(M).
Main assumptions
MFBs have the funds to provide finance to MSMEs (AO1-A). They have the
ability to assess credit risks of MSMEs (AO2-A) and are willing to provide fi-
nance to MSMEs (AO3-A). The sustainable promotion of MSMEs and em-
ployment remains a high priority for governments at federal and partner state
level (AM1).
20
https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/elibrary/read/1241137 [Accessed on 13 June 2022].
21
https://businessday.ng/business-economy/article/nigeria-unemployment-hit-35-in-2021-agusto-co/#:~:text=Nigeria's%20unemploy-
ment%20rate%20rose%20to%2035%20percent%20in%202021%2C%20according,rating%20agency%2C%20Agusto%20%26%20Co [Accessed on 13 June 2022].
43
Risks
(Potential) risks are the volatile security situation and the resulting limited ac-
cessibility of the project regions, political instability, deteriorating macroeco-
nomic framework conditions, the degree of stakeholder participation, corrup-
tion, a lack of funding of MFBs to provide finance to MSMEs, a lack of infor-
mation to assess the viability of MSMEs, a lack of capacity to assess credit
risks of MSMEs and a change in federal/state government priorities.
Alternative explanation
The employment and income situation of MSMEs in selected sectors
changes in line with the general development of MSMEs in Nigeria.
Confirmed/partly con-
firmed/not confirmed
The hypothesis is partly confirmed.
Hypothesis C
(activity output outcome)
Encompasses
HO-C & HM-C
HO-C: If digital platforms are developed that provide business-relevant infor-
mation for MSMEs in selected sectors (on, for instance, product registration
for trade) (A-C), this will improve these MSMEs' access to selected business
services (O-C).
HM-C: If access is improved to selected business services for MSMEs in se-
lected sectors (O-C), this will contribute to an improvement
employment and income situation (M).
Main assumptions
MSMEs have access to digital platforms (AO1-C) and the ability to use the
information on these platforms (AO2-C). The sustainable promotion of
MSMEs and employment remains a high priority for governments at federal
and partner state level (AM1).
Risks
(Potential) risks are the volatile security situation and resulting limited acces-
sibility of the project regions, political instability, deteriorating macroeconomic
framework conditions, degree of stakeholder participation, corruption, unrelia-
ble or no internet access, a lack of capacity to access digital information and
a change in federal/state government priorities.
Alternative explanation
The employment and income situation of MSMEs in selected sectors
changes in line with the general development of MSMEs in Nigeria.
Confirmed/partly con-
firmed/not confirmed
The hypothesis is partly confirmed.
Hypothesis 4
(activity output outcome)
Encompasses HO4 & HM4
HO4: If capacity is enhanced for providing (basic) training in financial and
economic literacy and entrepreneurship skills, also to women and mi-
grants/IDPs (A15A19)
(O4).
HM4: If competences are improved for economic participation and entrepre-
neurship of (potential) MSME owners, including women and migrants/IDPs,
in selected sectors (O4), this will allow them to initiate/undertake economic
activities that generate more income and/or employment (M).
Main assumptions
Private sector actors, especially MSMEs and smallholder farmers, show in-
terest and participate in the training and further education measures offered
(AO6). The sustainable promotion of MSMEs and employment remains a
high priority for governments at federal and partner state level (AM1).
Risks
(Potential) risks are the volatile security situation and resulting limited acces-
sibility of the project regions, political instability, deteriorating macroeconomic
framework conditions, degree of stakeholder participation, corruption, Covid-
19-related lockdowns, constraints on the demand side to participate in train-
ing that is offered, insufficient remaining time for SEA Hub to complete the pi-
lot phase, a lack of coordination of activities to strengthen or scale up the
supply of training courses and a change in federal/state government priori-
ties.
Alternative explanation
The employment and income situation of MSMEs in selected sectors
changes in line with the general development of MSMEs in Nigeria.
Confirmed/partly con-
firmed/not confirmed
The hypothesis is confirmed.
44
Hypothesis 5
(activity output outcome)
Encompasses HO5 & HM4
HO5: If support and advice is provided to (potential) MSME founders and en-
trepreneurs, including women and migrants/IDPs (A20A25), this will en-
hance their start-up and development opportunities (O5).
HM5: If entrepreneurial start-up and development opportunities are en-
hanced, especially for women and migrants/IDPs (O5), this will contribute to
an improvement in the employment and income situation of MSMEs (M).
Main assumptions
Private sector actors, especially MSMEs and smallholder farmers, show in-
terest and participate in the training and further education measures offered
(AO6). Providers of business and financial services are interested in further
developing their offer (AO7) and financial sector actors enjoy sufficient trust
of MSMEs and entrepreneurs (AO8). The sustainable promotion of MSMEs
and employment remains a high priority for governments at federal and part-
ner state level (AM1).
Risks
(Potential) risks are the volatile security situation and resulting limited acces-
sibility of the project regions, political instability, deteriorating macroeconomic
framework conditions, degree of stakeholder participation, corruption, Covid-
19-related lockdowns, constraints on the demand side to follow up the advice
that is provided, a lack of collateral, a lack of trust, unreliable or no internet
access, a lack of capacity to access digital information, a lack of clarity about
what MSMEs themselves want, a lack of interest to provide support services
and a change in federal/state government priorities.
Alternative explanation
The employment and income situation of MSMEs in selected sectors
changes in line with the general development of MSMEs in Nigeria.
Confirmed/partly con-
firmed/not confirmed
The hypothesis is confirmed.
Hypothesis A: If MFBs are supported to offer appropriate needs-based financial products and services
in selected sectors, this will improve access to finance in these sectors, which will indirectly
contribute to an improvement in their employment and income situation.
Activity A-A concerns support for 15 MFBs to increase their loan portfolios and the number of loans (50% of
which were granted to women-owned MSMEs) by an average of 5% per year. It aimed to build capacity in new
loan product development and provision of financial literacy, in cooperation with the Central Bank of Nigeria
(CBN) through training institutes. It furthermore provided information on public and private finance options. The
focus of the intervention was institutional and operational strengthening of MFBs (cf. Blink et al., 2020: 15).
MFBs were selected on the basis of performance and the possibility of group lending to foster sustainable ex-
pansion, improved portfolio and risk management, and the strengthening of internal controls and fraud preven-
tion. The strategy of group lending made it possible to reach a larger number of borrowers with a demand for
smaller loans. At the same time, it reduced the groups risk exposure. MFBs were trained repeatedly (Int_4, 12
with GIZ).
45
The Indicators related to O-A that were monitored by the project are:
• A.1: 15 MFBs increase their loan portfolio X and the number of loans Y (50% of which are granted to
women-owned MSMEs) by an average of 5% per year.
• A.2: eight organisations use the financial literacy materials developed by the project in their training pro-
grammes.
• A.3: 80% of 1,000 owners of MSMEs confirm that they have received the information they consider neces-
sary to access public or private sector financing.
• A.4: 100,000 MSMEs, potential business founders and young people (including returnees from Germany
and third countries and internally displaced persons), 30% of whom are women, have become financially
literate.
Regarding indicator A.1, available evidence shows that the loan portfolios of the 15 funded MFBs grew from
2.8 to 3.6 billion naira from 2017 to 2019. The number of outstanding loans increased from 45,143 to 61,655 in
the same period (GIZ, 2020b: 10). Hence, the average annual growth rates were 14% and 17%. The proportion
of women loan recipients remained constant at 62% (GIZ, 2020b: 10). The GIZ appraisal report 2020 asserted
that 16 out of 17 activities under Output A were completed, nine as scheduled and seven with delays. The re-
port
terms of the aggregate number of disbursed loans and the ratio of loans to women-led MSMEs, the achieve-
ment of loan portfolio growth depends on whether inflation (at double-digits since 2016 in Nigeria) is accounted
indicator A.2 was set at zero. The results matrix shows that
the actual number of organisations that used the training materials in 2019 was twice the targeted number
(GIZ, 2020: 10). The project developed and institutionalised a comprehensive financial literacy training package
involving 500 trainers from more than 30 organisations. It furthermore developed a digitised e-platform (Sabi-
MONI
creasing the outreach through translation into local languages and disseminated through blended learning ap-
et al.: 16b). Concerning indicator A.3, 649 out of 800 MSME owners confirmed that they had
received the information they considered necessary to access public or private sector financing. This was 81%
of the target. Finally, indicator A.4 was nearly met. By the end of the reporting period, 97,496 final beneficiar-
ies, including 119 returnees and 42% women, had improved their basic financial skills. At the same time, 7,824
people were trained as multipliers. The appraisal report noted that the project had reached a large number of
beneficiaries, but it remained unclear whether participants subsequently were indeed able to increase their ac-
cess to or use of financial services (Blink et al., 2020: 17).
Regarding the key assumptions, the reported results suggest that availability of funds (AO1-A) was not a limi-
tation for the MFBs. They were able to assess the credit risks (AO2-A) and were willing to lend to MSMEs
(AO3-A). However, in interviews, doubts were expressed about the validity of the second and third assumption
(e.g. Int_24 with GIZ). Potential risks are indeed that the MFBs lack funding to lend to MSMEs and that MFBs
have a lack of information to assess the viability of MSMEs and a lack of capacity to assess the credit risks of
MSMEs.
The second part of the hypothesis states that if MSMEsin selected sectors is improved (O-
A), this will contribute to an improvement in their employment and income situation in these sectors (M). As
mentioned above, only 12,569 (62.8%) of the target of 20,000 MSMEs had improved their performance at the
end of 2019. The GIZ progress report 2020 explained that this number was based on a sample and pointed out
ved loans of the supported 15 microfinance banks (MFBs) from 2017
to 2019, 29,234 MSMEs (20.7%) increased their turnover, however, only 12,569 MSMEs (8.9%) increased their
SMEs (59%) employed an additional 20% seasonal workers, while the number of seasonal
jobs created is 5,316 and the number of full-time jobs created is 835 during the period.
that support for MFBs contributed to the module objective, but perhaps less than expected. It is possible that
MSMEs that received loans from supported MFBs were different from those that received other support from
the project. For this reason, the support for MFBs may have been less effective. In interviews and in the latest
46
progress report, it has been mentioned that there is currently a referral system for MSMEs. This means that if
they are selected for support for one component, they can be referred for support in another component (GIZ,
2022: 8; Int_1, 11 with GIZ). This information relates to the current situation and suggests that such a mecha-
nism did not exist before.
The risk of a change in federal and/or state government priorities does not appear to have arisen. Hence the
main assumption AM1 was valid. The alternative explanation is that the employment and income situation of
MSMEs in selected sectors changed in line with the general development of MSMEs in Nigeria. As indicated
earlier, employment in MSMEs increased between 2017 and 2020, while monthly turnover of MSMEs declined
somewhat on average. It is possible that the improved performance (in terms of turnover and/or employment)
of some MSMEs that were indirectly supported by the project though support for MFBs is indeed a result of the
project. However, it is also possible that this is (partly) a result of the general development of the MSME sector.
Coupled with the apparent lack of a referral system in the earlier years of SEDIN III, the evaluators are inclined
to conclude that hypothesis A is partly confirmed.
Hypothesis C: If digital platforms are developed that provide business-relevant information to MSMEs
in selected sectors (on, for instance, product registration for trade), this will improve these ac-
cess to selected business services and will indirectly contribute to an improvement in their employ-
ment and income situation.
Activities in the area of output C include consulting services and training on the registration of products with the
ECOWAS Trade Liberalisation Scheme (ETLS), support for developing innovative business ideas into feasible
business plans that enable MSMEs to gain access to new customers, and the development of digital platforms
that provide business-relevant information to MSMEs (GIZ, 2016). The indicators related to O-C that were mon-
itored by the project are:
• C.1: 30% of 50 MSMEs have received advice on product registration (or certification of registered prod-
ucts) with the ETLS or advice on certification with standard organisations.
• C.2: 300 MSMEs supported in the start-up phase, 30% of which are run by women (including returnees
from Germany/third countries), have developed quality-assured business plans.
• C.3: six supported organisations offer MSME start-up courses.
• C.4: 8,850 MSMEs in selected sectors obtain business-relevant information through the use of digital plat-
forms.
The baseline values of the indicators were set to zero. The results matrix shows that for indicator C.1, eight
out of 15 MSMEs had completed the certification by 2019, with the expectation that the other MSMEs would
have their certificates before the end of the term. In addition, a start-up course was initiated and institutional-
ised by three organisations two in Ogun and one in Niger (Blink et al., 2020: 24). The GIZ 2020 progress re-
port stated that eight MSMEs supported by the project had registered products with the ETLS. Regarding indi-
cator C.2, the report noted that 130 MSMEs, 50% of which are managed by women, had developed quality-
assessed business plans at the end of the reporting period, as part of the Start-up Loop in which they partici-
Return-
ing to New Opportunities Pindicator C.3
ported 8 public, private and civil society training providers who run start-up courses partly on their own and
partly with further support from ts that the goal of six organisations has
been overachieved. However, the
complex training and coaching method must be adapted in order to ensure the institutionalisation and sustaina-
for indicator C.4 showed an overachievement of 82% because by 2019,
16,124 MSMEs had obtained the relevant (agricultural) information through the online platform or business
communication channel SME Line developed by the project. However, the institutionalisation of the platform
and the future maintenance of information content was a point of concern (GIZ, 2020b: 11).
47
Key assumptions underlying hypothesis HO-C are that the MSMEs can access the digital platforms (AO1-C)
and have the ability to use the information on these platforms (AO2-C). For this reason, obvious risks (or po-
tential risks) related to HO-C include unreliable or no internet access and a lack of capacity to access digital
information. The 2020 progress report did not point out such risks. However,
tual formats are limited by poor internet connections, especially in rural areas, and the availability of suitable
end-user devices among the target group. If virtual participation took place not from the office but from the
In terms of MSMEs to selected business services through the development of digital platforms that pro-
vide business-
demand for SME L
through the platform seemed relevant and an added value to the users. In addition, regarding the Start-up
Loop, they suggested that it should be linked
The (albeit small) 2019 survey on support for ETLS registration showed some examples of revenue increase
after registration, though mainly related to local sales in Nigeria. Employment effects were still very limited
(Nwosu, 2019).
The alternative explanation is that the employment and income situation of MSMEs in selected sectors sup-
ported by the project changes in line with the general development of MSMEs in Nigeria. In general, employ-
ment by MSMEs still increased between 2017 and 2020, so any employment generated by MSMEs that re-
ceived support in the area of digital platforms could also be partly a result of the general development of em-
ployment between 2017 and 2020.
The development of digital platforms that provide business-relevant information to MSMEs in selected sectors
(on, for instance, product registration for trade) activity (A-C) appears to have enabled improved access of
MSMEs in these sectors to selected business services (O-C). However, there is no solid evidence to confirm
the second part of Hypothesis C. For this reason, the evaluators consider Hypothesis C to be partly confirmed.
Hypothesis 4: If competences for economic participation and entrepreneurship are improved, this will
contribute to the generation of income and/or employment in MSMEs.
Activities A15A19 that are expected to result in Output 4 (O4) concern the development of competences of
(potential) MSME owners and the improvement of capacity and approaches to deliver training on economic and
financial literacy and entrepreneurship. They include activities regarding the Student Entrepreneurship Activity
Hub (SEA Hub), modular training based on adaptation of the earlier-developed SME Loop and Start-up Loop,
the online e-learning platform SME Sabi, the training of trainers and coaches, and institutionalisation of the pro-
vision of training.
The training in the SME Loop and Start-up Loop was initially offered face-to-face to final beneficiaries in the
focal states. However, after the restructuring of the project, training became partially or completely online.
NICOP explored alternatives to the original SME L
ticable during Covid--GIZ, 2022). Online training is offered by various partner organisations, in-
cluding the Federal University of Technology, Minna that co-developed and hosts the SME Sabi platform. Since
the restructuring, SME Loop and Start-up Loop training and coaching has used a modular, tailor-made ap-
proach. There are currently four modules Inspire, Create, Start and Scale (ICSS). One of the targets is to
-. However, in practice, what may be captured are enterprises
led but not owned by women (Int_11 with GIZ). The project has also provided training on alternative dispute
resolution, which is a faster and less costly way to resolve disputes than the legal process in conventional
48
courts and is linked to the establishment of multi-door courthouses (GIZ, 2020: 15; Int_2 with GIZ; Int_31, 51
with other stakeholders).
Training provider organisations have been capacitated to deliver entrepreneurship training sessions to the tar-
get groups, by training trainers and providing training providers with contents and modules. Prior to that, the
project had tried and assessed some training modules and methodologies. The NICOP team piloted some of
these modules and training methods (Int_10, 11, 16 with GIZ). In 2020/2021, NICOP continued with the provi-
sion of financial literacy training to farmers and MSMEs. The training exposed pa
-GIZ, 2021: 36). NICOP integrated financial literacy training into vari-
ous sessions of their Good Agricultural Practices/Farmer Business School and entrepreneurship skill develop-
ment programmes or provided separate financial literacy training in Kano, Kebbi, Lagos and Ogun. The aim
was to make MSME owners and small farmers finance and investment ready (EU-GIZ, 2021: 15, 17-18, 21,
36).
A GOPA team has been rolling out the modular entrepreneurship capacity building programme in Lagos and
Edo states since early 2021. Nine training provider organisations were assessed and selected as partners in
Lagos and Edo states (GIZ, 2021). Another GOPA team is responsible for rolling out the programme in Ogun,
Plateau and Niger, to be implemented by partner organisations in these states (Int_7, 16, 54 with GIZ; Int_29
-
modular training, there is a stage called the coaching period to give one-on-one tailor-made advice to the par-
ticipants. The coaching is sometimes face-to-face, but most of the time it is online. The training and coaching
are implemented by administratively capable partner organisations. Aftercare of programme participants is an
important element of the programme (Int_4, 54 with GIZ; Int_52 with other stakeholders; Int_55 with partner
organisations; Int_56 with donors; GIZ, 2022: 9).
In the case of entrepreneurship development training of returnees, psychosocial counselling is provided
throughout the training days. For those who still need it, psychosocial assistance is given during the follow-up
after the training (Int_56 with donors). Another target group is people living with a disability. For this group,
coaching was mostly done one-to-one in the office and adapted to the disability (Int_55 with partner
organisations).
SEA Hub also used the modular training content. The programme was started in Plateau, Niger, Ogun and Edo
states, where it had already reached over 19,000 secondary school students by 2020 and was going to be ex-
panded to Lagos State (GIZ, 2021). The FMoE started a pilot in 2021 to upscale the approach, covering 14 fed-
eral university colleges. Two teachers were trained from each college and then returned to their schools to in-
augurate the programme. The students are learning and enjoy the extracurricular programme, while teachers
also benefit from it (Int_16 with GIZ; Int_17 with partner organisations).
The indicators related to O4 that are monitored by the project are:
• 4.1: a representative sample confirms that 200,000 people (including returnees from Germany and third
countries and internally displaced persons), 60,000 of whom are women, have improved their basic eco-
nomic and/or financial literacy by an average of 20%.
• 4.2: 30,000 secondary school students, 9,000 of them women, have participated in measures to acquire
basic entrepreneurial skills.
• 4.3: 18,000 of the 30,000 (potential) MSME owners who were supported (including returnees from Ger-
many and third countries and internally displaced persons), 6,000 of whom are women, confirm that their
entrepreneurial skills have improved strongly or very strongly.
Indicator 4.1 reached 71% of its target in 2021, while the actual levels of indicators 4.2 and 4.3 in 2021 were at
99% and 95% of their target level.
22
Concerning indicator 4.1, an estimated 141,518 people (of whom 44%
22
Indicator 4.2 was on track, if the actual level is compared with the milestone of 25,000 participating students in March 2022 set in the 2021 progress report (GIZ, 2021).
49
were women and 1% returnees) had improved their basic economic and/or financial literacy by (at least) 20%
on average. The number of 141,518 people was substantially higher than the 99,294 people observed earlier
and referred to in GIZ (2021: 13). The total includes over 11,000 NICOP trainees (EU-GIZ, 2022d). Over
12,000 people who received basic financial literacy training improved their knowledge by 34% (GIZ, 2022). In
lighten, .. giving the farmers awareness on what to do (Int_37 with other stakeholders). In general, financial
literacy training is considered to be good training and has helped MSMEs to increase financial literacy and ac-
cess (additional) finance (Int_8, 9 with GIZ; Int_37 with other stakeholders; EU-GIZ, 2021: 38). Similarly, the
number of secondary school students participating in SEA Hub (indicator 4.2) had increased from 19,103 to
nearly 30,000, of which 59% were women and 1% returnees (GIZ, 2021: 13).
23
The number of (potential)
MSME owners trained in entrepreneurship skills (indicator 4.3) rose from 15,964 (potential) MSME owners
(including 5,301 women) to 17,086, of which 38% were women and 4% returnees.
24
NICOP reports that for en-
trepreneurship skills training, the share of women was 62% (EU-GIZ, 2021: 42). There is evidence that an
overwhelming majority of trainees rate their improvement in entrepreneurial skills as strong or very strong (GIZ,
2021: 14). The (near) achievement of the targets set for Output 4 is in line with the findings from the e-survey.
Almost all respondents consider that SEDIN III has contributed somewhat or highly to the development of en-
trepreneurial competences and financial literacy.
The main assumption that private sector actors are interested and participate in the training that is offered
seems to be valid. External factors and risks, such as Covid-19-related lockdowns, unreliable or no internet ac-
cess and a lack of capacity to access digital information appear to have played a role. However, digitalisation
helped to carry out part of the activities in a modified form. The security situation has limited the project some-
what in terms of training and coaching activities and the scaling-up of Sea Hub (Int_17 with partner organisa-
tions). Despite these risk factors, it is plausible that activities A15A19 contribute to the achievement of Output
4.
According to Figure 2 in Section 2.2, O4 is expected to contribute to the achievement of outcome indicators
MI2MI4 with regard to increased revenues, continued operation and employment generation of MSMEs sup-
ported by the project. In terms of employment generation, there is evidence that training has been helpful for
starting a business or getting employed (Int_53, 55 with partner organisations). The e-survey results also sug-
gest that SEDIN III contributes to employment generation in MSMEs.
Success stories have been reported for Niger State in the cosmetics value chain, among others. Knowledge
obtained by (especially) women entrepreneurs from training on new processing techniques in the shea butter
sector in Niger has led to increased sales (also abroad) and has generated jobs. In Plateau State, entrepre-
neurs in the potato value chain who received entrepreneurship and financial literacy training now keep records
and know what price to negotiate to cover their costs. This way, they receive higher prices and incomes, while
some entrepreneurs have managed to expand their business. Similarly, digital marketing training in Edo State
(Int_2, 10 with GIZ; Int_34 with civil society and private actors; Int_60 with universities and think tanks). NICOP
Mid-term data collection results reveal that significant percentages of female partici-
pants have applied financial literacy training to improve yields and income through more efficient money man-
-GIZ, 2021: 42). These examples are in line with the
e-survey finding that SEDIN III is perceived to have contributed (a lot) to the generation of MSME incomes.
Entrepreneurship training of returnees helps them to reintegrate through setting up a business. In Lagos and
Edo, approximately 1,000 (mainly young) returning migrants have been trained through the Create and Start
modules. At the end of the training, the beneficiaries pitch their proposed business to (microfinance) banks
23
The period covered in the report is April 2020 to March 2021.
24
EU-GIZ (2022) reports a total of 15,303 NICOP trainees, including 4,731 women.
50
They already develop their business plans while in the training. They already know better which organisation to
approach in case they need (more) access to finance. Maybe the bank that came around during the training
gives the retur
Participation in SEA Hub has led to several interesting initiatives by secondary school students. It changes the
mindset of students and has resulted in several successful entrepreneurial activities. An example is the case of
a student who started to produce shoes, opened a shop in Abuja and currently employs 20 people, allowing
him to pay his university studies (Int_11, 16 with GIZ; Int_17 with partner organisations; Int_32 with other stake-
holders).
An alternative explanation for more employment and/or higher incomes in MSMEs in the selected sectors
is that their employment and income situation develops in line with the general development of MSMEs in Nige-
ria. However, the (albeit somewhat limited) evidence of enhanced entrepreneurial competences and successful
cases of employment and income generation of MSMEs in selected sectors are not in line with the (likely) gen-
eral development of MSMEs in 2021 and of microenterprises in particular. In combination with the partial
achievement of the relevant output and outcome indicators, this evidence leads to the conclusion that it is plau-
sible that the project has made a difference to the MSMEs that are supported. Without the project, (potential)
MSME owners would not have developed their entrepreneurial competences to the same extent. Conse-
quently, they would have less capacity to successfully undertake employment and income-generating activities.
The enhanced competences for economic participation and entrepreneurship (O4) thus appear to have allowed
(potential) MSME owners to initiate or undertake economic activities that improve the employment and income
situation in selected sectors (M). The main assumption about the link between output and outcome listed in Ta-
ble 11 also seems to hold. In one interview,
with partner
organisations). It can therefore be concluded that Hypothesis 4 is confirmed. However, a caveat of the analysis
is that the assessment is based on observed values for indicators MI2 and MI4 only.
Hypothesis 5: If start-up and development opportunities for (potential) MSME founders and entrepre-
neurs are enhanced by means of the provision of support and advice, this will contribute to the genera-
tion of income and/or employment in MSMEs.
There is some overlap between the coaching component of the Start and Scale modules of current modular
training and coaching, and activities A20A25 that are expected to contribute to the achievement of Output 5
(O5). For instance, modular training and coaching is expected to contribute to outputs 4 and 5. One of the ac-
tivities undertaken by the project is the coaching of start-ups or MSMEs that want to expand their activities.
This is done as part of the Start and Scale modules (Int_11, 54 with GIZ; Int_53, 55 with other stakeholders).
Coaching is also provided to develop business plans, which are needed to register enterprises, or to create
strategies for growth and development. In terms of advice on business registration, the project held sensitisa-
tion sessions on business registration during a trade fair in Edo, and distributed formalisation guides to MSME
owners. The project also helped to set up virtual one-stop shops, which make it easier for business owners to
register their enterprise (Int_2, 7 with GIZ; Int_49 with other stakeholders). Registration/formalisation is often a
prerequisite for obtaining access to finance and for improving
ised, you have access to markets, you have access to finance, you have access to all the opportunities which
that help (potential)
MSME founders and owners to access finance involve putting them in contact with finance providers. This
could apply to bank loans and other innovative sources of finance (see also EU_GIZ, 2021). SEDIN helped to
establish or improve the market relation with off-takers, for example, for potato farmers in Plateau State and for
farmers and processors in Oyo, Ogun and Kaduna (EU-GIZ, 2021: 22; Int_1, 8, 36 with GIZ; Int_34, 37 with
civil society and private actors).
51
The degree of achievement of Output 5 is monitored on the basis of the following three indicators:
• 5.1: 1,500 potential MSME founders (including returnees from Germany/third countries and IDPs), 450 of
whom are women, confirm that they have registered their business with competent official bodies in the
partner countries, on the basis of business plans drawn up with the help of the project.
• 5.2: 500 supported entrepreneurs (including returnees from Germany/third countries and IDPs), 150 of
whom are women, confirm that they have opened a bank account and/or completed a loan application pro-
cess.
• 5.3: The advisors of 250 supported entrepreneurs (including returnees from Germany/third countries and
IDPs), 75 of them women, confirm that the entrepreneurs have taken measures to increase their turnover
and/or employment.
The target levels set for these indicators have already been achieved. They are substantially overachieved in
the case of indicators 5.2 and 5.3. For these two indicators, the targeted share of 30% women has also been
met: the actual shares are 42% and 50%. Concerning indicator 5.1, approximately 1,000 of 10,000 project
beneficiaries (in Lagos and Edo) are said to be registered/formalised (Int_54 with GIZ). The high actual level of
indicator 5.2 is also a result of the over 4,600 beneficiaries (of whom 45% are women) who have been sup-
ported by NICOP to improve access to finance and investment opportunities (EU-GIZ, 2022). For example,
non-interest micro loans have been provided to 254 MSMEs in the leather sector (EU-GIZ, 2021: 38). Accord-
ing to recent RBM data (GIZ, 2022b), 4,258 project beneficiaries (including 2,991 NICOP beneficiaries) im-
proved their access to financial services.
25
GIZ (2021: 13) furthermore reports that 387 MSMEs, including
smallholder farms, were supported to enter into contracts with buyers of their agricultural products and to make
their market connections contractually secure. The e-survey results suggest that SEDIN III has generally con-
tributed to MSMEs' registration and an improvement in their access to finance. Regarding indicator 5.3, GIZ
(2021: 14) explains that partner organisations were empowered as advisors of MSMEs supported by the pro-
ject. Currently, the advisors of over 1,100 supported entrepreneurs confirm that measures have been taken to
increase turnover and/or employment. Approximately half of the entrepreneurs have been supported in drawing
up growth plans (GIZ, 2022b).
As mentioned earlier, assumption AO6 seems to hold. Assumption AO7 also seems to be valid. Providers of
business and financial services are interested in further developing their offer (cf. EU-GIZ, 2021: 10; GIZ, 2021:
14; Int_50 with partner organisation). Assumption AO8 is that MSME owners have sufficient trust in financial
service providers. Partial evidence suggests that this assumption is valid (see EU-GIZ, 2021: 38). The afore-
mentioned external factors and risks, among which Covid-19-related lockdowns and insecurity stand out, have
hampered planned activities. In several cases, they have led to alternative
(mainly digitalised) modes of implementation. Nonetheless, it is plausible that activities A20A25 have contrib-
uted to the achievement of Output 5 as measured by the actual level of its indicators. Therefore, the first part of
the hypothesis, HO5, can be confirmed. According to the results model displayed in Figure 2, O5 is subse-
quently expected to contribute to the achievement of outcome indicators MI2MI4. Concerning employment
generation in MSMEs (indicator MI4
trainees to participants
of the Scale module (the MSMEs that have been in business for longer) led to the employment of Inspire train-
ees by some of these MSMEs (Int_55 with implementing organisation; GIZ, 2022: 8). An example of upscaling
and employment generation is So Fresh in Lagos, where support to expand the business increased employ-
with other stakeholders). Part HM of Hypothesis 5 is also supported by the finding of observed employment
and income generation by project beneficiaries in the cassava sector in Ogun (Int_37 with civil society and pri-
vate actors). Regarding indicator MI2, NICOP activities with smallholder farmers concerning market linkages
and registration have been reported to be revenue-generating for these farmers (Int_4 with GIZ). These exam-
25
The number of NICOP beneficiaries is thus smaller than the over 4,600 reported in NICOP (2022).
52
ples are in line with the e-survey results that SEDIN III is considered to have contributed (a lot) to the genera-
tion of employment and incomes in MSMEs. The survey respondents tend to be a bit less optimistic about SE-
in the employment and income situation of women and migrants/IDPs.
Whereas the project does not yet measure indicator MI3, the survey results (and the example of the cassava
sector in Ogun) suggest that SEDIN III contributes to the continued operation of MSMEs.
There is thus some evidence that enhanced start-up and development opportunities for (potential) MSME
founders and entrepreneurs (O5) have resulted in an improved employment and income situation of MSMEs in
selected sectors (M). As explained earlier, the alternative explanation for higher employment and/or incomes
generated by MSMEs supported by the project is not plausible because of the continued general poor perfor-
mance of the MSME sector in Nigeria in 2021 in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis. Intermediate results such as
business plans, company registration, growth and development strategies, and access to finance may need
more time to translate into employment and income generation in MSMEs. Emphasising the limitations of the
analysis (including the lack of monitoring data for MI3), the evaluators cautiously conclude that Hypothesis 5 is
confirmed.
Overall, the results of the analysis indicate that the effectiveness in terms of dimension 2 has increased with
the restructuring of the project. The analysis also indicates that a gradual roll-out of project activities (such as
SEA Hub and Inspire, Create, Start and Scale modular training) to other states appears to be an effective strat-
egy. Effectiveness dimension 2 Contribution to achievement of objectives scores 23 out of 30 points.
Effectiveness dimension 3: Quality of implementation
This section assesses the quality of the steering and implementation of the intervention in terms of the achieve-
ment of objectives and the participation of partner organisations in these processes. It addresses the additional
evaluation question in Table 2 about the focus on non-federal level and the roll-out to other states. The assess-
ment is made on the basis of project documentation and interview results.
The project started to be implemented in three states (Niger, Ogun and Plateau). It was gradually expanded to
Lagos and Edo. Initially, the focus was on activities in the states. Relatively few project activities were under-
taken at the federal level. One reason for this is the way that legislative powers in Nigeria are distributed be-
tween the federal government and the states. Most things are decided and implemented at state level. As part
of Output B, the project was going to establish strategic steering committees at the level of the federal states
(GIZ, 2020: 14). Regarding the first years of SEDIN III, Blink et al. (2020: 34-35) identified the lack of a steering
structure with involvement of (federal-level) partners and counterparts as a weakness of the steering and im-
plementation of the project. They pointed out that the Federal Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Plan-
ning political partner was not involved in the implementation or steering of SEDIN, while other fed-
eral-level public actors (such as FMITI, CBN and SMEDAN) were occasionally involved in implementation, but
not in steering the project.
With the restructuring of the project in 2020, but also partly as a result of Covid-19-related restrictions, there
was a (slight) shift towards federal-level activities. In addition, new states were added. With the new LED com-
ponent there was more focus on local (government) level activities within the partner states. This resulted in
new collaborations with state/local level partners and renewed/strengthened collaboration with federal-level
partners such as SMEDAN, CBN and the FMoE. However, the project is still mainly focused on the non-federal
level.
The project documentation does not provide explicit references to the key results of Capacity WORKS or on
and annual progress reports identify the envisaged activities or areas of activity. Specific activities are planned
53
as part of work packages in operational plans. They are implemented with the involvement of
consultants and partner organisations and in cooperation with stakeholders. Officers in Abuja are responsible
for coordination of the workstream activities and coordination with staff and consultants in the state
offices. Regular management meetings are held for planning, monitoring progress and quality assurance.
In the implementation of (modular) training, GIZ does not train the final beneficiaries itself. The project provides
training through partner organisations in the partner states, in collaboration with consultants. It has a proper
-building organisations, organisations that
are more in touch with ou
modular training is coordinated by consultants who also sit in the GIZ offices. There is clear communication be-
tween the GIZ officers and the consultants, to ensure that the right people are going to be trained. The project
gives trainer training (refresher) courses and provides organisations with the module contents. Some key or-
ganisations also contribute to developing content (Int_1, 11 with GIZ; Int_60 with universities and think tanks).
This seems to be an effective mode of implementation, because this way the project can reach a large number
of final beneficiaries. In addition, collaborating with partner organisations in the roll-out of the programme has
the advantage that the partners can better reach specific target groups, such as returning migrants and people
with disabilities. This is
-made so that it better addresses the
training and coaching needs of the target beneficiaries. The gradual implementation operating in two states
and in a pilot phase in three other states also seems effective. It provides learning opportunities for the roll-
out to other states (cf. GIZ, 2022: 8).
Similarly, SEA Hub has been gradually expanded. It is currently present in 11 states of Nigeria (GIZ, 2022: 8).
The gradual up-scaling of the activity and expansion of its coverage to federal university colleges also provided
learning opportunities. SEA Hub is implemented in collaboration with FMoE, state-level ministries of education
and schools (including federal university colleges). To expand SEA Hub, the project and national partners set
up a technical working group (GIZ, 2021: 16; Int_17 with partner organisations). In a similar vein, a technical
working group was set up for activities on recycling with support (Int_57 with universities and think tanks).
In terms of learning and innovation, various fora have been organised for the exchange of experiences at state
and local level, the exchange between states and the exchange of experience in the area of access to finance
(GIZ, 2021: 13).
The reorganisation of the project team into the current workstreams is the result of a process of learning and
innovation. The reorganisation is considered logical and an improvement on the previous organisational struc-
puts of the project. This facilitates the steering and implementation of the project activities planned by the
workstreams. As expected, the reorganisation improves the results achievement at output level, and indirectly
at outcome level.
In terms of results-
ners (or directly from MSMEs through surveys). The project management and component leaders hold tech-
nical output/output monitoring meetings and geographical meetings (with the state coordinators).
26
These meet-
ings are internal and do not involve the participation of Nigerian partners. The project management also holds
regular meetings with the NICOP team (GIZ, 2021a). NICOP itself reports that there is an (informal) pro-
gramme management and coordination committee to align its activities with FMITI and that steering committee
meetings were held in which FMITI and other Nigerian partners were represented (EU-GIZ, 2020: 42). How-
ever, in general, there appears to be scope for more participation of federal partners in the steering and imple-
mentation of
26
Interestingly, the e-survey results indicate that most respondents have been involved in implementing SEDIN III, but almost half of the respondents have little or no involve-
ment in monitoring.
54
were retained after the project restructuring. Systematic monitoring of unintended (positive or negative) results
is also lacking.
The implementation of the project appears to be sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges that it faces,
some of which are related to the security situation. The following citation gives an example of adapta-
students, high school students and offering entrepreneurship trainings, where the schools were shut down be-
cause of security risks and we had to put a plan in place for materials to be delivered to the teachers, who
In spite of some shortcomings and scope for improvement, the evaluation team considers that the quality of
implementation of SEDIN III is quite good. Effectiveness dimension 3 Quality of implementation scores 15
out of 20 points.
Effectiveness dimension 4: Unintended results
A light form of outcome harvesting was used to identify possible unintended results of the project. This was
done by reviewing some key project documents and asking open questions about unintended positive or nega-
tive results in the interviews conducted with project stakeholders and beneficiaries. Some unintended results
identified by the project team in the inception workshop/interviews were that smallholder farmers had received
training on good agricultural practices. They applied this training to different crops and were indirect beneficiar-
ies who benefited from the project activities unintendedly. Other examples were the move to the use of hybrid
formats that some partners took over, the unplanned establishment of online dispute resolution mechanisms,
and some SEA Hub participants who generated resources to finance their education through their business ac-
tivities. There were some unintended short-term negative effects on employment due to increased competitive-
ness through innovation. The project team did not give information on whether and how risks and unintended
negative results in the context of conflict, fragility and violence are monitored. In general and as mentioned
above, the project does not systematically monitor unintended results. Generally, the progress reports do not
refer to unintended (or unforeseen or unexpected) results. An exception is the reference in 2019 pro-
gress report to considerations to avoid unintended discrimination of NICOP beneficiaries in the context of the
do-no-harm approach (EU_GIZ, 2019: 37). The project proposal also identified the discrimination of women as
an unintended effect that the project wants to avoid, given that it is designed to ensure full respect of human
rights (GIZ, 2016: 14). Likewise, the 2018 change offer refers to this unintended effect. However, it also men-
tions the avoidance of any unintended effects that exacerbate the conflict (GIZ, 2018: 17).
Various unintended results were identified in interviews conducted in the evaluation phase. For example, in the
training of female entrepreneurs who co-own and lead a business, most other co-owners are trained (and sen-
sitised) as well (Int_11 with GIZ). Another unintended result is that due to insecurity challenges in states such
as Kaduna, Kano and Kebbi, this rea-
son, the project developed a model where local actors deliver the support. Therefore, the insecurity challenge
and the Covid challenge have led to some innovation being deployed in the project management (Int_4 with
GIZ). Similarly, crises and security issues in Plateau stalled some of the activities. However, the Plateau State
Microfinance Development Agency (PLASMIDA) tried to stay connected with the MSMEs that were supported
by using digital technology to reach out to them, for example in the case of training (Int_29 with other stake-
holders). Furthermore, an unintended result is related to the fact that A2F is not just about financial literacy, in-
formation sharing and awareness creation, but also about leveraging funds. The leverage of funds requires
technical support, which is considered an indirect attainment or unintended benefit of the project (Int_26 with
other stakeholders). Another unintended effect is that other organisations (such as the Norwegian Refugee
Council and the Safer World Foundation) have become interested in collaboration with PLASMIDA, as a result
of the training and capacity building by GIZ and the collaboration with GIZ (Int_29 with other stakeholders). An
of the Federal University of Technology, Minna (FUTMINNA) is
55
that the capacity building of the university staff affected research, which is now more focused on MSME needs.
In addition, university students benefited from the stronger focus on entrepreneurship in the curriculum (Int_60
with universities and think tanks). Similarly, the support of (plastic) waste recycling in Lagos has had the unin-
tended consequence of benefitting the community of students of the three universities that the project is engag-
ing with. This was achieved through the structure of the Circular Lagos Innovation Challenge,
27
which is also
supported by GIZ (Int_57 with universities and think tanks).
In conclusion, while the project has had some negative unintended effects, it has also yielded several positive
results that were not intended. The project documents occasionally report unintended results. However, sys-
tematic documentation of unintended effects is lacking, which hampered the assessment. A possible limitation
of the analysis above is that there may be a bias in the interview results. Effectiveness dimension 4 Unin-
tended results scores 15 out of 20 points.
Photo 2: Session of a training course (Source: project)
27
https://circularlagos.com/event-category/challenge//
56
Methodology for assessing effectiveness
Table 12: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: effectiveness
Effectiveness: assess-
ment dimensions
Basis for
assessment
Evaluation design and
empirical methods
Data quality and
limitations
Achievement of the (in-
tended) objectives
Results model/matrix,
module objective indica-
tors, NICOP logframe, se-
lected results hypotheses
(Adjusted) objective indi-
cators for 20172020;
(adjusted) objective indica-
tors for 2021 in Table 10,
including assessment of
whether the objective indi-
cators are SMART*; addi-
tional NICOP objective in-
dicators
Evaluation design:
Part of the contribution
analysis. Addresses an
additional question from
one of the evaluation
stakeholder groups.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, analy-
sis of monitoring data
The quality of the reporting
is reasonably good, but
some adjustments of indi-
cators were necessary to
achieve data consistency.
The reformulation of the
output and outcome indi-
cators limits the number of
observations that can be
considered.
Data collected through in-
terviews are not likely to
be representative. The se-
curity situation in Nigeria
limited the choice of pro-
ject sites for field visits
during the evaluation
phase.
Contribution to achieve-
ment of objectives
See Table 11.
Evaluation design:
Contribution analysis
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, stake-
holder interviews, e-survey
(n=33)
See above.
Quality of implementa-
tion
Assessment of the quality
of the steering and imple-
mentation of the project.
Evaluation design:
No specific evaluation de-
sign. Addresses the addi-
tional evaluation question
in Table 2.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, stake-
holder interviews
Thematic organisational
chart and the document
Meeting Structure SEDIN
and Cluster explain how
the project is set up, which
types of meetings take
place and who participates
in the meetings.
Unintended results
Review of documents on
safeguards and gender
and other relevant docu-
ments.
Stakeholder views.
Evaluation design:
Light version of Outcome
Harvesting (open ques-
tions about unintended
positive or negative results
asked in interviews).
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, stake-
holder interviews
Documents provide a first
inventory of (potential) un-
intended results. Data col-
lected through interviews
are not likely to be repre-
sentative. The security sit-
uation in Nigeria limited
the choice of project sites
for field visits during the
evaluation phase.
* SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound
57
4.5 Impact
This section analyses and assesses the impact of the project. It is structured according to the assessment di-
mensions included in the GIZ project evaluation matrix in the Annex and listed in Table 13.
Summarising assessment and rating of impact
Table 13. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: impact
Criterion
Assessment dimension
Score and rating
Impact
Higher-level (intended) development changes/results
20 out of 30 points
Contribution to higher-level (intended) development re-
sults/changes
24 out of 40 points
Contribution to higher-level (unintended) development
results/changes
24 out of 30 points
Impact score and rating
Score: 68 out of 100 points
Rating: Level 3: moderately
successful
poor sections of the
pected contribution of the project to the achievement of SDG 1 (poverty reduction) and SDG 8 (decent and sus-
tainable employment), among others. A review of project documentation (such as the proposal, change offers
and progress reports) and an analysis of interview, e-survey and secondary data sources leads to the conclu-
firmed. The assessment was hampered by limitations in monitoring data and the fact that SEDIN III is not yet
completed. However, it is concluded that the project has had some positive unintended impact and has been
successful in trying to avoid negative unintended higher-level results.
In total, the impact of the project is rated Level 3: moderately successful, with 68 out of 100 points.
Analysis and assessment of impact
This section presents the analysis and assessment of the impact of SEDIN III in terms of the three assessment
dimensions listed in Table 13. It addresses the analytical questions in the evaluation matrix in the Annex. The
main data sources for the assessment consist of project documentation, interview and e-survey data gathered
for the evaluation, and secondary data sources. Use is made of insights from the literature on how support for
MSMEs impacts higher-level development indicators.
Impact dimension 1: Higher-level (intended) development changes/results
The identification of selected higher-level intended development changes/results since the start of the project is
based on relevant project documentation (including the module proposal), the results model shown in Figure
2.2 and secondary data sources.
28
Figure 2.2, this encompasses the expected contribution of the
project to, among others, SDGs 1 and 8. SDG 8, as measured by target 8.5, states: By 2030, achieve full and
productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with
disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.arget 1.1 of SDG 1 concerns the eradication of
28
An indicator system to monitor higher-level results/changes only came into effect with the DC programme in March 2022.
58
extreme poverty, whereas target 1.2 is formulated as:
women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.
of the Government of Nigeria was to lift 100 million people from poverty by 2030 (FMFBNP, 2021), which was
even more ambitious than reducing poverty by 50%.
Concerning target 8.5, the only SDG indicator with more recent observations is indicator 8.5.2 (the unemploy-
ment rate). This indicator is (inversely) related to the fifth DC programme indicator of the recently approved pro-
gramme Training and Sustainable Growth for Decent Jobs in Nigeria of German DC with Nigeria (see GIZ,
2022: 2 and Annex 1). The rate of unemployment doubled from 14% to 28% in the years 20162019 and rose
further to 33% in 2020 (FMBNP, 2021: 23, Table 1-1). Youth unemployment stood at 42% in the fourth quarter
of 2020.
29
There are indications that unemployment remained high in 2021. NBS and the World Bank (2022)
report that the share of people in Nigeria aged 15 to 64 years who were working was 70% in February 2021,
compared to 85% just before the Covid-19 pandemic started to hit Nigeria and 88% at the end of 2020.
30
There
are also indications that, in general, the employment that has been generated since then is more vulnerable.
The World Bank, for instance, observes that after the Covid--scale, non-farm
enterprise activities in retail and trade, the revenues of which remain precarious.
31
The availability of (recent)
data at the national level is already challenging. However, it is no surprise that there are no observations for the
unemployment rate among the population living in the parts of the country where the project is concentrated, let
alone among the poor and vulnerable population living in those parts. The project itself does not monitor such
data.
Regarding target 1.2, NBS (2020) estimated the incidence of consumption poverty at 40% in 2019, using the
upper level of a national poverty line. Comparable estimates for earlier years are not available, because of a
change in the estimation method. According to another estimate (referred to in the 2019 Progress Report), the
extreme poverty rate (captured in target 1.1) stood at 46.6% at the end of 2018 (GIZ, 2019: 10). World Bank
estimates for 2018 of extreme and general consumption poverty are 39% and 71%, respectively, meaning that
over 80 million people lived in extreme poverty and another 50 million in moderate poverty. According to World
Bank simulations, the number of poor would be some 10 million higher in 2022.
32
The World Bank figures coin-
cide with estimations and forecasts of the World Poverty Clock.
33
The latter reports an extreme poverty inci-
dence of 38% in 20172018 and of 39% in more recent years, with a high concentration of poverty in rural ar-
eas. It also reports a rise in the extreme poverty headcount rate in rural areas from 49% in 2016 to 53% in
2021. This is in line with the observation in the second Voluntary National Review on SDG progress that in past
d the northern zones, while the situation in the southern zones
-SDGs, 2020: VIII).
Changes in poverty cannot be identified for the (potential) MSME owners supported by the project and the
other members of the households of which they form part, let alone for employees of the targeted MSMEs. The
project does not monitor this. However, it is foreseen that the income and employment generated by the
MSMEs contribute to poverty reduction in the geographical areas where the MSMEs operate. The project tar-
gets the poor and vulnerable population. However, due to a lack of data it is impossible to identify changes in
poverty among these population groups. The aforementioned observation in OSSAP-SDGs (2020: VIII) could
mean that the incidence of poverty among the groups targeted by the project has increased, rather than having
remained the same or even decreased.
Impact dimension 1 Higher-level (intended) development changes/results scores 20 out of 30 points.
29
https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/ [Accessed 24 June 2022].
30
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/689131618261387146/pdf/Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Nigerian-households-10th-Round-Results.pdf. The rate was higher than in
Covid-19.
31
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/nigeria/overview [Accessed 23 June 2022].
32
https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/poverty/987B9C90-CB9F-4D93-AE8C-750588BF00QA/AM2020/Global_POVEQ_NGA.pdf
33
See https://worldpoverty.io/ [Accessed 23 June 2022].
59
Impact dimension 2: Contribution to higher-level (intended) development results/changes
This section assesses whether and how the intended outcome of the project (M) employment and income
generated by MSMEs in selected sectors contributes to the achievement of selected SDGs (full, sustainable,
decent employment and poverty reduction), as shown in Figure 2.2. Table 14 presents the two results hypothe-
ses HI1 and HI2. The assessment focuses on the impacts in terms of SDGs 1 and 8. This is because the pro-
ject proposal (GIZ, 2016) and the draft DC programme (GIZ, 2021) mention these two SDGs as an impact to
which the project is expected to contribute. The assessment is based on a review of project documentation,
interviews with stakeholders and beneficiaries, e-survey results on perceptions about the expected contribu-
tions to selected SDGs, secondary data and insights from the literature. It was emphasised in the inception re-
port that the available information may not be sufficient to really assess the plausibility of the formulated results
hypotheses.
Table 14: Selected results hypotheses for impact
Hypothesis 1
(outcome impact)
HI1: If MSMEs generate more employment and income (M), this will contrib-
ute to the achievement of target 8.5 of SDG 8 (by 2030, achieve full and pro-
ductive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for
young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal
value).a
Main assumption
The employment conditions of additionally employed people satisfy minimum
standards in terms of safety, remuneration, absence of child labour, etc.
Risks
(Potential) risks are the volatile security situation, political instability, deterio-
rating macroeconomic framework conditions, not all minimum labour stand-
ards being satisfied, and employment generated not being sustainable.
Alternative explanation
Other developments and interventions lead to an increase in decent work.
Confirmed/partly con-
firmed/not confirmed
Partly confirmed
Hypothesis 2
(outcome impact)
HI2: If MSMEs generate more employment and income (M), this will contrib-
ute to fighting poverty, or more specifically, to the achievement of targets 1.1.
and 1.2 of SDG 1 (by 2030, eradicate extreme poverty and, by 2030, reduce
at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in
poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions).b
Main assumption
Additional employment and income generated by the targeted MSMEs create
or imply income earning opportunities for poor households that help these
households to escape from poverty.
Risks
(Potential) risks are the volatile security situation, political instability, deterio-
rating macroeconomic framework conditions, additional income not (suffi-
ciently) reaching poor households, no translation of additional income into
higher consumption, and Covid-19-related lockdowns having a poverty-in-
creasing effect.
Alternative explanation
Other developments and interventions lead to a reduction of the poverty inci-
dence.
Confirmed/partly con-
firmed/not confirmed
Partly confirmed
a) https://nigeria.un.org/en/sdgs/8
b) https://nigeria.un.org/en/sdgs/1
Hypothesis 1: If MSMEs supported by the project generate more employment and income, this will con-
tribute to the achievement of full and productive employment and decent work for all.
The latest project progress report mentions the recently approved German DC programme in Nigeria, which
However, the report does not show any evidence of contribu-
tions to the
60
employment, despite the fact that SDG 8 is one of the key sustainable development goals to which the project
is expected to contribute. An exception is EU-GIZ (2021: 18), which refers to the experience of demonstration
plots for inclusive business in the g
ployment. One reason that the reports hardly or not at all refer to decent employment creation could be that the
project is not yet completed. Another likely reason is that the project itself does not monitor results beyond the
outcome level. Nonetheless, various stakeholders have expressed that the creation of sustainable and decent
employment is conside
other stakeholders). It has been noted that the project definitely contributes to SDG 8, but that many factors
play a role. There are also legal aspects involved in decent employment and these vary from state to state in
Nigeria. The project is considered to have good possibilities and a good network to address the most urgent
issues. However, the difficulty in reaching federal level to address the main challenges is considered a weak
spot (Int_13 with donors). The differences between the states in terms of opportunities to create decent em-
ployment was taken into consideration in the selection of the value chains. In Plateau State, for example, the
Niger and the project continues to focus on the cassava value chain in Ogun, though now more specifically on
processing. Increases in yield resulted in higher incomes of cassava growers and processors in Ogun. Labour-
ers are said to be paid very well, while the sector discourages the involvement of children in the work (Int_9,
10, 36 with GIZ; Int_37 with civil society and private actors). The project has also incorporated the issue of child
labour in its monitoring forms and sensitises participants on this issue during training sessions (Int_11 with
GIZ). Another example of support for the creation of decent employment is that the Lagos State Employment
Trust Fund (LSETF) provides business entry guides to people who want to start a business. These guides were
(Int_50 with other stakeholders). The interview results are in line with the statement in a recent United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)
so
substantial agreement among the e-survey respondents that SEDIN III has contributed (somehow or highly) to
employment more often as moderate than the contribution to employment generation in MSMEs in general.
The related correlation coefficient is equal to 0.47.
The main assumption underlying Hypothesis 1 that is mentioned in Table 14 may not be fully satisfied. This
means that not all employment generated by the MSMEs supported by the project captured by indicator MI4
can be considered decent employment. There is the risk that this may occur. Another potential risk that
threatens sustainable employment is the volatile security situation. In some reported instances, MSMEs could
not continue their operations due to insecurity (e.g. Int_24 with GIZ). However, in general, it is unlikely that this
risk prevails in the case of the MSMEs that have actually created employment.
The alternative explanation in Table 14 is that there are other developments and interventions that lead to an
increase in decent employment. Before Covid-19, positive general developments, even in terms of decent jobs,
were noted. Unemployment was dropping in Nigeria. However,
worse. The employment and income generation in MSMEs in selected sectors as a result of the project (as evi-
denced by the change in indicator MI4) appears to have mitigated somewhat the negative impact of Covid-19
on (decent) employment.
Solid evidence on the link between outcome M and the achievement of SDG 8 is lacking. One interviewee also
Therefore, it is
61
difficult to draw a firm conclusion regarding the plausibility that the employment and income generation in
MSMEs supported by the project has contributed to the achievement of SDG 8. For this reason, it is safer to
conclude that Hypothesis 1 is only partly confirmed.
Hypothesis 2: If MSMEs supported by the project generate more employment and income, this will con-
tribute to fighting poverty.
A lack of job opportunities is considered one of the causes of high poverty levels.
34
The appraisal report of
The Office of the
Senior Special Assistant to the President on SDGs (OSSAP-SDGs,
subsistence and small-
tions in terms of market access and processing, storage and transportation facilities. SEDIN III is addressing
these limitations. Therefore, it is contributing to employment and income generation in MSMEs and, indirectly,
to reducing poverty. The 2021 NICOP progress report men
-GIZ, 2021: 28).
The 2019 progress report explains that achievement of the module objective contributes to national implemen-
tation of the 2030 Agenda and particularly to SDG 1. However, it suggests a lack of progress in terms of pov-
erty reduction (GIZ, 2019: 10, 12). Poverty increased in 20202021 as a result of the Covid-19 crisis. The 2020
and 2021 reports do not make clear whether the project helped to avoid a sharper rise in poverty (GIZ, 2020,
2021). The most recent progress report points at poverty-increasing factors (spreading insecurity, instability
and inflation), but does not indicate whether there is any mitigating effect of SEDIN III on poverty in Nigeria
(GIZ, 2022).
There is partial and perhaps somewhat anecdotal evidence that the project has contributed to poverty reduc-
ivate actors). Another observation is that the project contributes to the re-
duction of poverty through the creation of decent jobs and improvement of value chains in specific sectors
(Int_13 with donors). Likewise, employment and income generation for returnees through entrepreneurship
training is considered to contribute to diminishing poverty (Int_56 with donors). The project took the observed
urban-rural and north-south differences in poverty incidence into account in its design and in the analyses of
which sectors and activities it should support. Support for creating or improving local markets, strengthening
market associations and improving the business enabling environment in general is seen as a means to help
reduce poverty through the stimulation of economic activities (INT_1, 10 with GIZ; Int_13 with donors;
Int_28 with final beneficiaries; Int_29, 30 with other stakeholders; Int_37 with civil society and private actors).
The interview results are largely in line with the e-survey results. Half of the e-survey respondents think that the
project contributes a lot to poverty reduction. Another 40% think that the contribution is moderate. These opin-
ions on the contribution to poverty reduction are moderately correlated with the extent that the respondents
think that the project helps MSMEs to generate employment ().
The main assumption underlying the supposed link between additional employment and income generation by
the targeted MSMEs and poverty reduction is that poor households benefit from the achievement at the out-
come level. However, there is a risk that the poor households are not reached. It is difficult to assess whether
the assumption holds in the case of Nigeria, but insights from academic literature suggest that most house-
the development of MSMEs (Diwakar and Shepherd, 2022). Nursini
(2020) presents other evidence for the potential of MSMEs to contribute to poverty alleviation. Similarly, the
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA, 2022: 5) refers to the contribution of
MSMEs to poverty reduction through the creation of jobs and income.
34
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/nigeria/overview [Accessed 23 June 2022]; https://www.un.org/development/desa/socialperspectiveondevelopment/issues/employ-
ment-and-decent-work.html [Accessed 29 June 2022].
62
Another risk that can play a role is insecurity, which has been mentioned as one of the factors that affects the
holders). Despite this risk (and other risks mentioned in Table 14), there are indications that the project is posi-
tively contributing to poverty reduction. More accurately, it is contributing to mitigating a rise in poverty, given
the general increase of poverty in Nigeria in recent years due to other factors (such as Covid-19 and the deteri-
oration of the macroeconomic framework conditions). It is logical that these other developments cannot be al-
ternative explanations of any poverty reduction. Targeted support by the government in the area of taxation
and transfers, and interventions by other (donor) organisations appear to have prevented an even larger rise in
to the poverty situation in Nigeria in recent years. However, as in Hypothesis 1, the evidence is not strong
enough to conclude that Hypothesis 2 is fully confirmed.
In general, Impact dimension 2 Contribution to higher-level (intended) development results/changes scores
24 out of 40 points.
Photo 3: Federal Ministry of Education (Source: evaluators)
Impact dimension 3: Contribution to higher-level (unintended) development results/changes
The assessment is based on a review of project documentation and stakeholder interviews. Project progress
reports and other relevant project documentation hardly refer to higher-level unintended development results.
This is possibly related to the fact that the project only monitors results at output and outcome level. For this
reason, in its monitoring system it does not conduct any assessment of risks in connection with unintended re-
sults at the impact level. Some references are more indirect. For example, the 2021 progress report explains
that the waste recycling value chain was selected in Lagos (GIZ, 2021: 16). A higher-level result that was not
foreseen at the start of SEDIN III is that the selection of this value chain is likely to have a positive impact in
terms of the environment (Int_57 with universities and think tanks; GIZ, 2022: 12). The project does not monitor
such unintended ecological results or the synergy between development dimensions.
63
There are no indications that the project has had negative (unintended) or escalating effects on the conflict situ-
-GIZ, 2020: 50; EU-GIZ, 2021: 39).
It is very careful to make sure that the do-no-harm approach is strictly adhered to in project activities and to
avoid unintended discrimination (cf. EU-GIZ, 2019: 37; GIZ, 2021: 20; Int_9 with GIZ; Int_13 with donors) or
(EU-GIZ, 2021: 39). For example, in the case
of training of returnees/IDPs, both returned migrants/IDPs and the local population participate in the training
courses that are provided. This avoids tensions between population groups. A positive and potentially deesca-
lating (unintended) high-level result of the training provided to returning migrants/IDPs is that it contributes to
their reintegration into society. Therefore, it can be seen as a contribution to the facilitation of safe and orderly
migration and mobility of people, or SDG target 10.7 (Int_54 with GIZ). Another positive (unintended) result of
training (of vulnerable youth in particular) is that it has likely contributed to reduced numbers of young people
who end up in criminal activities, because of their enhanced opportunities to engage in productive economic
activities. This is said to partially address the problem of insecurity (Int_31 with other stakeholders). Further-
for the improvement of local markets also seems to have had positive unintended
results. One is that many people who are currently unemployed, including graduates, visit the markets in
ble in the ma
(Int_38 with civil society and private actors).
The assessment is hampered by limitations in terms of monitoring data and the fact that SEDIN III is not yet
completed. With this caveat in mind, the evaluators conclude that the project seems to have had some positive
unintended impact and has been successful in trying to avoid negative unintended higher-level results. Impact
dimension 3 Contribution to higher-level (unintended) development results/changes scores 24 out of 30
points.
Methodology for assessing impact
Table 15: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: impact
Impact: assessment di-
mensions
Basis for
assessment
Evaluation design and
empirical methods
Data quality and
limitations
Higher-level (intended)
development
changes/results
Indicators for selected
SDGs (especially poverty
reduction and generation
of decent work)
Existing SDG monitoring
reports
Insights from scientific lit-
erature on the impact of
similar interventions
Evaluation design:
The analysis follows the
analytical questions from
the evaluation matrix; no
specific evaluation design
applied.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, analy-
sis of monitoring data, in-
terviews, project site visits
Limited data availability.
The project does not moni-
tor results beyond the out-
come level and even the
monitoring of outcome is
limited. The project is not
yet completed; more time
may be required for the
impact to materialise.
Not all data from external
secondary data sources is
comparable over time.
Data collected by means
of interviews is limited and
perhaps anecdotal. The
security situation in Nigeria
limited the choice of pro-
ject sites for field visits
during the evaluation
phase.
Contribution to higher-
level (intended) develop-
ment results/changes
Results hypotheses HI1
and HI2 (see also Table
14)
Evaluation design:
Contribution analysis.
Empirical methods:
document analysis, analy-
See also above.
Limited possibilities for tri-
angulation with insights
from scientific literature.
64
4.6 Efficiency
This section analyses and assesses the efficiency of the project by adopting a follow-the-money approach. It is
structured according to the assessment dimensions in Table 16 and analytical questions in the evaluation ma-
trix (see the Annex).
Summarising assessment and rating of efficiency
Table 16. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: efficiency
Criterion
Assessment dimension
Score and rating
Efficiency
Production efficiency (Resources/Outputs)
45 out of 70 points
Allocation efficiency (Resources/Outcome)
20 out of 30 points
Efficiency score and rating
Score: 65 out of 100 points
Rating: Level 4: moderately
unsuccessful
The efficiency analysis had to be done separately for SEDIN III.a (2017-2020) and SEDIN III.b (2021) because
of the restructuring of the project. Data limitations the absence of end-2020 commitment data hampered the
analysis of the first sub-period. Staff and consultants accounted for three quarters of the actual project cost of
SEDIN III.a and 62% of the total (actual and committed) cost of SEDIN III.b. A total of
was over-
arching in the sense that it could not be allocated to specific outputs. The relatively large shares of overarching
cost reflect the difficulty of allocating ex-post the cost to the outputs. This is due to a lack of data and institu-
tional knowledge, especially regarding the first years of the project. The change of project director also played
a role in this. There were some problems in allocating staff months to specific outputs. Nonetheless, taking the
outputs could have been better had the resources been allocated differently. With the data caveat, the analysis
of allocation efficiency suggests that the cost-effectiveness was lower in the early years of the project than in
2021. Depending on the outcome dimension that is considered for SEDIN III.b, the average project cost per
Impact: assessment di-
mensions
Basis for
assessment
Evaluation design and
empirical methods
Data quality and
limitations
sis of monitoring data, in-
terviews, project site visits,
using insights from scien-
tific literature
The strength of the evi-
dence is limited.
Contribution to higher-
level (unintended) devel-
opment results/changes
Review of relevant docu-
ments
Stakeholder views
Evaluation design:
Light version of Outcome
Harvesting.
Empirical methods:
Interviews, document anal-
ysis
Documents provide a first
inventory of (potential) un-
intended results/changes,
but limitations in terms of
monitoring data.
Project is not yet com-
pleted; more time may be
required for the impact to
materialise.
Data collected through in-
terviews are not likely to
be representative.
65
successful MSME would range from EUR 757 to EUR 1,979. The average cost per additionally employed per-
son is calculated to be EUR 1,732. Considering that in most cases only selected outputs are expected to con-
tribute to a particular outcome dimension, the calculated amount could be even lower. The analysis suggests
that outcome achievement could have been better with alternative resource allocation. In terms of efficiency,
the project is considered moderately unsuccessful, although close to moderately successful. Notably, not all
the costs classified as overarching are overhead costs and a sign of inefficiency.
In total, the efficiency of the project is rated Level 4: moderately unsuccessful, with 65 out of 100
points.
Analysis and assessment of efficiency
The evaluators used the GIZ Efficiency Tool to analyse and assess the production and allocation efficiency of
SEDIN III. They also addressed the relevant questions in the evaluation matrix. The restructuring of the project
and accompanying changes in outputs and monitoring indicators, assumed to be effective as of 1 January
2021, forced them to do a separate analysis of SEDIN III.a and SEDIN III.b. Data that the project provided for
the use of the tool include RBM data, two cost commitment reports, human resources data and information on
the cost and days of consultancy input into the project, also covering NICOP (see Table 17). The analysis of
SEDIN III.a is hampered by a lack of data on commitments on 31 December 2020 and is based on actual cost
only.
Efficiency dimension 1: Production efficiency
The analysis and assessment of the production efficiency adopts a follow-the-money approach and compares
the degree of output (indicator) achievement with the cost incurred. This approach was chosen as it is the
standard approach that GIZ decided to adopt for efficiency measurement in CPEs (GIZ, 2019c: 2).
Analysis of SEDIN III.a
The actual project cost incurred between April 2017 and December 2020 amounted to approximately EUR 21
million. Three quarters of that amount related to the involvement of experts, of which almost half comprised the
cost of third-party personnel (including travel costs). Participant-related costs of training made up 5% of the to-
tal actual project cost. At the same time, 17%, 11%, 26% and 23% of the total was destined to the achievement
of the official outputs AD. The remaining 23% were overarching costs. The efficiency analysis compares the
output-specific cost with the degree of indicator achievement. The actual 2019 (or early 2020) values of the
output indicators were taken from the progress report of April 2020. These are the most recent observations for
the old indicators, since the 2021 and 2022 progress reports give values for the new indicators only. As ex-
plained in the section on effectiveness, some values for 2019 (or early 2020) were adjusted. The (adjusted) ac-
tual values are assumed to represent tc
ciency Tool indicate that observations for actual values were lacking for several output indicators. Some other
indicators were (over)achieved or their actual level was close to the target level. Progress was still limited for
yet other indicators. The was the case for two of the five indicators related to Output D. None of the outputs
were fully achieved, which suggests that there was limited scope to increase efficiency. Perhaps some of the
However, there were other outputs on which the NICOP team reported to the EU. Since NICOP was an add-on
cated to activities related to the achievement of these outputs. Notably, at the end of 2020 there were commit-
ments and a remaining budget (residual funds in the Efficiency Tool) though their size is unknown and a
remaining period of implementation of one and a half years. It is possible that the targets would have been met
with the use of the resources, had the project not been restructured.
66
Analysis of SEDIN III.b
The total actual and committed project costs were approximately EUR 17 million in 2021. Project staff and con-
sultancy costs each comprised 30% of the total cost, while another 2% concerned GIZ head office staff. Hence,
the cost of involvement of staff and external experts was 62% of the total cost somewhat higher than found
for a GIZ project in Ghana (see Karkoschka and Olwenyi, 2021: 51). The proportion was higher for actual cost
only (65%), but still lower than the corresponding proportion in 20172020. The procurement of materials and
equipment made up 9% of the total cost in 2021. Participant-related cost of training accounted for 3% of the
total. A criticism of the high involvement of seconded experts and international consultants means that a large
part of the resources for technical assistance flows back to the EU (Int_14 with donors).
According to the calculations in the Efficiency Tool, approximately half of the project cost was associated with
the achievement of the five official outputs O1O5 of the project especially O4 and O5 while the remainder
(49%) were overarching costs.
35
The share of 49% is much higher than found in another CPE of a GIZ project
on inclusive business (Arens et al., 2021: 48, 50). It also compares unfavourably with the share of 23% for
20172020. However, the latter was calculated for actual cost only. The proportion of overarching cost and
commitments was especially high for the involvement of consultants in 2021, while the actual cost of the con-
sultancy contracts in 20172020 could be fully assigned to the specific outputs.
36
The results model presented
in Figure 2 includes the two additional outputs NICOP-O1 and NICOP-O2. All the activities A1A25 are as-
sumed to contribute to the achievement of these two outputs. No separate budget was allocated for this pur-
pose. However, it is possible that the inclusion of these two indicators in the results model makes it more diffi-
cult for the project staff to assign the use of the budget to specific outputs. As a consequence of this, a larger
part ends up in the category of overarching cost.
The values of the output indicators were taken from the latest progress report and recent RBM data provided
by the project staff. The values are assumed to represent the situation at the end of 2021, as they appear to be
c
tors have already surpassed their target level. The actual level of several others is close to the target. Progress
is still limited for yet other indicators, such as various indicators related to O2 (concerning LED) and O3 (related
to value chain development).
A comparison of the degree to which targets are met and the cost involved gives an indication of efficiency. Ac-
cording to calculations in the efficiency tool, 12% of the cost (or just over EUR 2 million) is dedicated to activi-
ties in the area of O5. The indicators of O5 have an overachievement of at least 25%. Assuming a linear rela-
tionship between expenditure and indicator achievement, O5 would still have been achieved with a 20% lower
budget allocation (amounting to approximately EUR 0.4 million).
37
At the same time, O3 has the largest degree
of underachievement of its indicators. Currently, 9% (or EUR 1.6 million) is dedicated to O3. With a reallocation
of EUR 0.4 million from O5 to O3, amounting to a quarter of the current budget allocation to O3, the actual level
level. Indicators 3.2 and 3.3 would be at 42% and 23% of their target level. The effect of reallocation could be
even greater if additional resources had been disproportionately reallocated from activities related to the indica-
tors of Output 5, such that the actual value of all these indicators would be at 100% of the target level. Indicator
concerning Output 3. However, the amount reallocated to activities related to indicators 3.2 and 3.3 would have
been insufficient to raise the value of these indicators to their target level. Conversely, dividing the financial re-
35
The shares for outputs 1 to 5 are 5%, 8%, 9%, 16% and 12%. The data provided on the cost of involvement only concern the consultancy fees and not the full
value of the contracts. Using a parameter derived from data of a consultancy contract in SEDIN III.a, an attempt was made to approximate the full value of the consultancy
contracts in 2021. However, this would only result in a 4 percentage point lower share of overarching costs in 2021 45% instead of 49%.
36
Calculation on the basis of data provided by the project team yielded a total that was slightly higher than the value according to the cost commitment report. The latter was
allocated to outputs according to the proportions calculated on the basis of the data that were received.
37
An implicit assumption is that the budget is equally split among the activities related to achievement of each of the three output indicators.
67
sources dedicated to the achievement of Output 3 by the number of MSMEs that are successful in terms of in-
dicators 3.13.3, yields average costs per successful MSME ranging from EUR 145 to EUR 587.
38
These fig-
ures are in the same order of magnitude as those calculated for the GIZ project in Ghana (Karkoschka and Ol-
wenyi, 2021: 52).
In general, reallocation so that there is no overachievement of targets would be insufficient to reach the target
level of all other indicators that currently do not reach their target level. Reaching all the target levels could
have been feasible had a larger part of the overarching cost been focused on specific activities related to the
that the share of overarching cost currently 49% of the total should be smaller. At the same time, the pro-
ject is not yet completed and focused use of the residual funds could help to realise these outputs in the re-
maining period of project implementation. In consultation with project staff, the shares of the residual funds as-
signed to the outputs 15 in the Efficiency Tool were tentatively assumed to be equal to the calculated actual
shares in 2021. Notably, the remaining budget calculated by the tool excludes the recently approved additional
budget increase of EUR 6.22 million. GIZ (2022: 2) suggests that that increase will be accompanied by higher
target levels of the output indicators.
The evaluation team concludes that the production efficiency of SEDIN III.b could have been higher with an
alternative assignment of resources among outputs and with a smaller share of overarching costs. It further-
more concludes that the assessment of SEDIN III.a is seriously hampered by data limitations. The team recog-
nises that most costs not allocated to specific outputs were, in fact, somehow output related. However, it can-
not assume that the funds were used efficiently. Thus, due to a lack of information, the efficiency score is re-
duced.
Efficiency dimension 1 Production efficiency scores 45 out of 70 points.
Efficiency dimension 2: Allocation efficiency
The analysis and assessment of the allocation efficiency adopts a follow-the-money approach and compares
the degree of outcome (indicator) achievement with the overall cost incurred. This approach was chosen given
Analysis of SEDIN III.a
Until 2021, the progress in achieving the module objective was monitored on the basis of five outcome indica-
tors. Indicator M1 was partly achieved. Indicators M2M4 were overachieved, while no actual values were
measured for indicator M5. Regarding indicator M2, 637 MSMEs increased their disposable income by 20%, as
compared to a target of 486. Given the accumulated actual cost of EUR 21 million, the average project cost per
successful MSME was thus approximately EUR 33,000. Similarly, the number of start-ups that remained in
business was 79 (compared to the target of 50 for M3). Hence, the average cost per successful start-up was
approximately EUR 266,000. In terms of the number of MSMEs that generate additional (seasonal) employ-
ment indicator M4 the actual cost per MSME is approximately EUR 36,000. As mentioned before, a caveat
of the analysis is the lack of commitment data, as a result of which the calculations were made on the basis of
actual cost only.
Analysis of SEDIN III.b
As of 2021, four new outcome indicators are monitored. Indicator 1 is overachieved. Indicators 2 and 4 are
partly achieved, while indicator 3 is not measured yet. Details were discussed in the section on effectiveness.
The adjusted actual value of MI1 is 22,531 MSMEs that confirm an improvement in their entrepreneurial envi-
ronment, compared to a base value of zero. The average project cost per MSME that is successful in terms of
38
The calculation would yield higher averages with a better ex-post allocation of costs to the outputs and smaller share of costs classified as overarching.
68
outcome dimension 1 is then EUR 757. Similarly, the average cost in terms of MI2 is EUR 1,979. The averages
of the cost per MSME are much lower than calculated for SEDIN III.a, but the indicators are unfortunately not
comparable. MI4 relates to additional employment generation. The figure for 2021 is 9,845 additionally em-
ployed people. Given the base value of zero, the average project cost per additionally employed person is
EUR 1,732.
As outputs 1 and 2 are supposed to contribute to the achievement of MI1, it is also possible to compare the ac-
tual level of that indicator with the resources destined to these outputs. This results in an average allocated
cost of EUR 97 per successful MSME. As all five outputs are expected to contribute to MI2, the average allo-
cated cost is EUR 953 per MSME with at least the targeted increase in revenue. Similarly, it is expected that
outputs 35 contribute to the achievement of MI4. The corresponding average allocated cost is EUR 655 per
additionally employed person.
It is not surprising that the averages are much higher for outcome indicators 2 and 4 than for indicator 1, as the
activities in the field of outputs 35 are more intensive in terms of use of expert days than those related to out-
puts 1 and 2. It is not known exactly what the relative contribution of the various outputs is to the realisation of
a specific outcome indicator. The -try to achieve re-
sults at the outcome level is not known either. For outcome dimensions 2 and 4, it could be more cost-effective
to shift resources from activities related to Output 5 (which is overachieved, given the current target levels of
the output indicators). This could be done by either scaling down all those activities or shifting the focus to less-
expensive activities or modes of implementation of activities (for example, more online and less on-site activi-
ties). However, GIZ (2022: 5) explains that the additional commitment of EUR 6.22 million was also requested
for an increase of the output indicators. This was considered necessary to achieve the outcome indicators in
the period until the new end date of the project. Consequently, there may be little or no scope for scaling down
existing activities to the benefit of others.
Another question is whether focusing on the selected states is cost-effective and whether it would be possible
to cover more states without spreading the resources too thinly. The project decided to focus on reform-ori-
ented states (Int_13 with donors). Given the resources that are spent, it is more likely that the project achieves
its objectives in these states than in other states. Nonetheless, GIZ and EU see the project as an example for
other states. Dedicating more resources to fostering the exchange of experience in the project states with other
states could be a cost-effective approach that does not lead to spreading the resources too thinly.
The evaluators conclude that the use of the project resources of SEDIN III.b is largely appropriate for achieving
. However, there could be some cost-effectiveness gains by considering a shift away from
activities related to Output 5. In any case, the calculated cost per successful MSME is much lower than calcu-
lated for SEDIN III.a. However, unfortunately the indicators are not comparable. A caveat of the analysis of SE-
DIN III.a is the lack of commitment data. Although a part of overarching cost contributes to outcome achieve-
ment, it cannot be assumed that the funds were used efficiently. Hence, the efficiency score is also reduced
here due to lack of information.
Efficiency dimension 2 Allocation efficiency scores 20 out of 30 points.
69
Methodology for assessing efficiency
Table 17: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: efficiency
Efficiency: assessment
dimensions
Basis for
assessment
Evaluation design and
empirical methods
Data quality and
limitations
Production efficiency
(Resources/Outputs)
GIZ efficiency tool for data
collection and assigning
costs to project outputs,
using human resources
data and cost commitment
reports provided by the
GIZ project. These reports
were generated on 13 Jan-
uary 2022 (with actual
costs incurred in 2017
2021) and 2 May 2022
(with actual cost incurred
in 20172020).
The efficiency analysis for
20172020 is based on
data on actual cost only,
due to a lack of commit-
ment data.
The analysis of SEDIN
III.b is based on actual
costs incurred in 2021
(calculated as differential
actual costs in the two cost
commitment reports pro-
vided by the project) and
the commitments at the
end of the year (approxi-
mated from the commit-
ments on 13 January 2022
the date on which the
project team generated the
cost commitment report for
20172021).
Evaluation design:
Follow-the-money ap-
proach, combined with lim-
ited benchmarking (of unit
costs). Additional question
from one of the evaluation
stakeholder groups also
addressed.
Empirical methods:
Application of efficiency
tool, interviews with key in-
formants
New outputs and new out-
put indicators were formu-
lated in 2020. Conse-
quently, there are no con-
sistent series of observa-
tions for the indicators
throughout the SEDIN III
implementation period.
The changes require sepa-
rate analyses for 2017
2020 and 2021. A requisite
for that is availability of
separate human re-
sources, consultancy input
and cost commitment data
for both sub-periods. Com-
mitment data for end-2020
are not available.
Few project staff members
have knowledge of and ac-
cess to finan-
cial data, which also limits
the collection and/or verifi-
cation of information by
means of interviews and
the triangulation of data
provided by the project
with data from interviews.
There are no observations
for end-2020 for the output
indicators AD; observa-
tions for 2019 (or early
2020) have been used in-
stead. There are no obser-
vations at all for actual lev-
els of the output indicators
A.1, B.2 and B.4. There
are no observations for
2021 for output indicator
2.2.
Allocation efficiency
(Resources/Outcome)
Achieved levels of the out-
come indicators relative to
terventions
Evaluation design:
Follow-the-money ap-
proach
Empirical methods:
Application of efficiency
tool, interviews with key in-
formants.
See above.
The outcome indicators
were also changed in
2020. Separate analyses
for the two sub-periods
were hampered by data
limitations regarding com-
mitments.
70
Efficiency: assessment
dimensions
Basis for
assessment
Evaluation design and
empirical methods
Data quality and
limitations
There are no observations
for end-2020 for the old
outcome indicators; obser-
vations for 2019 (or early
2020) have been used in-
stead. There are no obser-
vations at all for the old
outcome indicator 5 and
for the new outcome indi-
cator 3.
Cost of experts and volunteers were partially assigned to the outputs on the basis of the disaggregated human
resources data provided by the project. The cost of consultancy input was assigned on the basis of values of
consultancy months dedicated to activities related to the outputs. In consultation with key project staff, the allo-
cation of the categories of personnel costs of experts and volunteers was used as a basis for assigning travel
expenses (cost item 2), procurement of materials and equipment (item 3), instrument financing (item 4), partici-
pant-related costs (item 5) and other direct costs (item 6). Weighted averages were calculated for the propor-
tions of personnel costs of experts and volunteers (items 1.1.1 to 1.1.6) that were assigned to each of the out-
puts and the overarching cost. These weighted-average proportions were subsequently applied to the actual
cost for items 2 to 6 in the case of SEDIN III.a and to the sum of actual and committed costs for items 2 to 6 in
the case of SEDIN III.b.
4.7 Sustainability
This section analyses and assesses the sustainability of the project. It is structured according to the assess-
ment dimensions and evaluation questions in the GIZ project evaluation matrix in the Annex.
Summarising assessment and rating of sustainability
Table 18. Rating of OECD DAC criterion: sustainability
Criterion
Assessment dimension
Score and rating
Sustainability
Capacities of the beneficiaries and stakeholders
15 out of 20 points
Contribution to supporting sustainable capacities
23 out of 30 points
Durability of results over time
35 out of 50 points
Sustainability score and rating
Score: 73 out of 100 points
Rating: Level 3: moderately
successful
Beneficiaries and stakeholders of SEDIN III have developed their capacity to sustain positive results of the pro-
ject, such as the capacity for advocacy work. Institutional and human resources for local government policy de-
sign and implementation have improved. However, there is a need for stronger involvement of state govern-
ments and for informing the political partner about what is done in the states. To sustain the positive results
and avoid negative results, the project has worked with various developmen
collaborations with new partners to embed sustainability and gender inclusion in all interventions. Evidence
suggests that the project and its partners have taken some actions that can contribute to the durability of re-
sults over time, but more is needed to build capacity and strengthen the resilience of the partners to continue
the activities and achieve results.
71
In total, the sustainability of the project is rated Level 3: moderately successful, with 73 out of 100
points.
Analysis and assessment of sustainability
This section presents an analysis and assessment of the sustainability of SEDIN III in terms of the three as-
sessment dimensions listed in Table 18. It addresses the analytical questions in the evaluation matrix (Annex).
The methodology for the assessment is presented in Table 19. The data sources for the assessment consist of
project progress reports and interview and e-survey data gathered for the evaluation.
Sustainability dimension 1: Capacities of the beneficiaries and stakeholders
There is evidence that beneficiaries and stakeholders of SEDIN III have developed their capacity to sustain the
positive results. For example, business associations and CSOs have (enhanced) capacities for advo-
cacy work and to follow-up on policy reforms and the enacting and implementation of laws. Similarly, LGA
councils have improved institutional and human resources for local government policy design and implementa-
tion, which is measured by scorecards (see e.g. GIZ, 2022: 10; Int_9 with GIZ; Int_27, 53 with other stakehold-
ers). In Plateau State, needs assessments conducted on request of local communities have helped to create
ownership of a local economic development plan. This is expected to contribute to the achievement of SDGs
and the creation of local government revenue-creating systems (Int_25 with GIZ). Likewise, in Ogun, a survey
was conducted among members of the chamber of commerce to assess their needs and in Lagos and Plateau
(among other states), training provided with support from SEDIN was based on a needs assessment (Int_33,
53 with other stakeholders; Int_39 with civil society and private actors). In general, it has been emphasised that
knowledge or empowerment of people, including empowerment in the use of digital tools, is important for sus-
taining results (Int_ 8 with GIZ; Int_27, 53 with other stakeholders; Int_40 with civil society and private actors).
At the same time, it has been observed that there is insufficient involvement of the state governments and that
GIZ has to see how it can better engage the beneficiary states (Int_15 partner organisations). The political part-
ner FMFBNP is insufficiently informed about what is done in the states. For this reason, the project started with
sector dialogues to bring stakeholders together (Int_1, 25 with GIZ). In terms of M&E, there appears to be
scope for improvement and closer engagement of the stakeholders in data collection and monitoring (Int_15
with partner organisations; Int_29, 33 with other stakeholders). This is in line with the e-survey result that half of
the respondents have little or no involvement in the monitoring of SEDIN III.
Sustainability dimension 1 Capacities of the beneficiaries and stakeholders scores 15 out of 20 points.
Sustainability dimension 2: Contribution to supporting sustainable capacities
The previous sections have made clear that not all expected results of SEDIN III have materialised. To the ex-
tent that positive results have been achieved for the beneficiaries and stakeholders, the question is how the
project has contributed to sustaining them and to avoiding as much as possible any negative results through
the creation of capacity and ownership and the strengthening of resilience of beneficiaries and stakeholders.
To ensure the sustainability of results, the project has increasingly aimed to strengthen the performance of in-
stitutional intermediaries (GIZ, 2019b: 24). Similarly, EU-
forged collaborations with new partners to embed sustainability and gender inclusion in all i
viewed NICOP staff consider that working very closely with private sector companies and the business model
idea is fundamental for sustainability and that inclusive approach and collaboration with donors and
development partners are very important for sustainability (Int_4 with GIZ).
SEDIN has facilitated the reform processes of which the private sector and public sector are the drivers. To
achieve sustainable results, the project team emphasised the importance of enacting laws to ensure that re-
forms are backed by legislation. The team emphasised the creation of capacity within the private sector and
72
CSOs, to continuously follow up on the reforms and the enacting and implementation of laws. The project also
aims to foster private sector advocacy through CSOs to try to stimulate economic activities and create more
employment. It hopes that the reform processes become more sustainable with the involvement of CSOs and
by stressing links between social and economic issues. For example, with the help of GIZ, the network of busi-
ness associations in Plateau State that carries out advocacy has built capacity and systems. This enables it to
continue its work when the support ends (Int_7, 9 with GIZ; Int_35 civil society and private actors).
According to the 2020 progress report, there were areas, such as MFB funding and the institutionalisation of
the earlier-developed online platform SME Line and the SME Loop, where sustainable solutions had not yet
been found (GIZ, 2020: 14). SME Line was discontinued. As explained before, the SME Loop led to the devel-
opment of the SME Start-up Loop. One of the training provider organisations made clear that in partnership
hem to sustain results,
especially with the Start--
up Loop were transformed into a modular training course. The modular approach to training was adopted to
make training more tailor-made and to obtain more sustainable results (GIZ, 2020: 12). The development of
digital platforms started prior to Covid-19 but boosted by the Covid-19-related restrictions
institutionalising the projects services and making
(2021: 16) explains that in the context of the Covid-19 crisis, the project was looking for further possibilities for
training on e-commerce (in Edo) aims to build the resilience of MSMEs in terms of access to new markets in
the wake of the pandemic (GIZ, 2022: 9). The project has also encouraged local marketers to make their busi-
ness digital for safety purposes. It
of local markets addresses issues of insecurity and creates safer environments for (vulnerable) people, in par-
ticular women, to (continue to) sell their products (INT_28 with final beneficiaries; Int_34, 38 with civil society
and private actors; Int_53 with other stakeholders).
Finally, the project activities through the Returning to New Opportunities Programme commission related to re-
turning migrants/IDPs have contributed to building the resilience of this disadvantaged and vulnerable popula-
tion group. They have facilitated their reintegration process (Int_11, 54 with GIZ; Int_55 with partner organisa-
tions; Int_56 with donors; GIZ, 2022: 12).
Sustainability dimension 2 Contribution to supporting sustainable capacities scores 23 out of 30 points.
Sustainability dimension 3: Durability of results over time
The context in which SEDIN III operates has been volatile, mainly because of the insecurity in Nigeria, the re-
strictions related to Covid-19 and the macroeconomic situation. The risks that MSMEs in Nigeria faced in 2020
were perceived as not being really different from those they face now, but they were at different levels. With the
upcoming elections, there is currently a risk in terms of stakeholder availability related to the campaigns (Int_24
with GIZ). The context may influence the positive results of SEDIN III that have been achieved so far. The pur-
pose of the project was to build capacity and strengthen the resilience of its partners to continue the activities
and achieve
capacities of our partners, either public or private, to be able to deliver those things themselves. We try not to
do it for them and so we try to develop their capacity, so that when we are no longer available, they will be able
to conti
ownership and resilience were created and that results will be sustained over time.
In various instances, trainees have become trainers for the same or other programmes, or they have become
advocators and now prioritise actions (EU_GIZ 2021: 17, 20; Int_11 with GIZ; Int_29 with other stakeholders;
Int_38, 43 with civil society and private actors; Int_55 partner organisations). Other factors contributing to sus-
73
tainability that have been identified are having systems in place and corporate buy-in (Int_32 with other stake-
holders). As expressed in the case of advocacy work in Plateau S
that when GIZ is not here, we are still here and the knowledge and the competencies and the systems we have
civil society and private actors).
One of the additional questions in Table 1 concerns the existence of a post-intervention or sustainability plan.
Various interviewees explained that they have such a plan in place (e.g. Int_2 with GIZ; Int_32 with other stake-
holders; Int_55 with partner organisations). However, other stakeholders do not yet have such a plan or con-
sider that the conditions for sustainability are still deficient (Int_28 with final beneficiaries; Int_40 with civil soci-
ety and private actors). In comparison, over half of the e-survey respondents think that the results of SEDIN III
will be very sustainable. Most other respondents are of the opinion that they will be sustainable to some extent.
The opinions on the degree of sustainability are somehow correlated with those on the creation of conditions
for the sustainability of SEDIN III results (=0.56).
In terms of institutional sustainability, it is questioned whether SEDIN should have established a separate pro-
ject implementation unit within the key implementing partner organisation. Such a set-up could have fostered
the involvement of that partner in the implementation. However, there is no guarantee that this set-up would
have positively affected the durability of results. The current set-up with a central project office in Abuja and
offices in most of the states where the project is active seems to work well.
Another aspect related to the durability of results is the financial sustainability of the project activities. With re-
spect to training and coaching, there are examples of providers who have tried to determine the willingness to
pay for their services. For example, regarding the SME Loop, EU-GIZ (2020: 24) notes that it is anticipated that
business model for training and coaching (Int_11, 54 with GIZ; Int_55 with partner organisations). Hence, there
are indications that at least a part of the training and coaching that SEDIN provides may be financially sustaina-
ble beyond GIZ the project.
Photo 4: Multi-door courthouse at Ogun Trade Fair (Source: evaluators)
For obvious reasons, the evidence is not exhaustive. However, the evidence presented above suggests that
the project and its partners have taken some actions that can contribute to the durability of results over time.
Sustainability dimension 3 Durability of results over time scores 35 out of 50 points.
74
Methodology for assessing sustainability
Table 19: Methodology for assessing OECD DAC criterion: sustainability
Sustainability: assess-
ment dimensions
Basis for
assessment
Evaluation design and
empirical methods
Data quality and
limitations
Capacities of the benefi-
ciaries and stakeholders
Capacity of beneficiaries
and stakeholders to sus-
tain results, ownership of
results, identification of
risks and assessment of
resilience to overcome
future risks. The exam-
ples looked at are digitali-
sation and modularisation
of training, capacity build-
ing of training provider or-
ganisations and private
sector involvement in ac-
tivities.
Evaluation design:
The analysis follows the
analytical questions
from the evaluation ma-
trix.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, in-
terviews
Existing information not
fully up to date.
Interviews not likely to be
representative.
Contribution to support-
ing sustainable capaci-
ties
See above.
Assessment of how the
-
up and the provision of
training and awareness-
raising activities contrib-
ute to enhancing sustain-
able capacities of stake-
holders.
Evaluation design:
See above.
Additional question
from an evaluation
stakeholder also ad-
dressed.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, in-
terviews, e-survey
See above.
Durability of results over
time
Context, reaction of pro-
ject to risks and potential
for durability of the re-
sults, influence of contex-
tual factors, existence of
a post-intervention or
sustainability plan, as-
sessment of conditions
for durability of results
over time, with a focus on
institutional, financial and
technical aspects.
Evaluation design:
See row above.
Empirical methods:
Document analysis, in-
terviews, e-survey
See above.
75
4.8 Key results and overall rating
SEDIN III is rated as moderately successful, with an overall score of 72 (see Table 20). A strength of the pro-
ject is that its objectives are well-aligned with those of the national policies and Ger-
man DC with Nigeria, -level, multi-
sector and multi-actor approach. Activities at state and local level are complemented by activities at the federal
level. The project involves public and private partners, and ci
results and their sustainability.
The project suffered from some weaknesses, such as limited integration of the access to finance and NICOP
component and overlaps with other TC modules. These weaknesses were addressed in the restructuring of
SEDIN III in 2020. This resulted in a more internally coherent approach and better integration of the
components. The restructuring also led to the selection of new value chains on which the project focuses. This
can be considered a strength, because the selection was demand-driven and reflects the desire to move away
from primary production. At the same time it is a weakness because the project started to support other
MSMEs and potential entrepreneurs, meaning that the initial results of the earlier efforts may get lost. A down-
side of the restructuring is the complete change of output and outcome indicators that the project monitors. An-
other weakness of the project is that it does not monitor progress beyond the outcome level. In spite of this, the
project appears to contribute to the achievement of some sustainable development goals and addresses the
needs of poor and disadvantaged groups in Nigeria.
Photo 5: Promoting waste recycling in Lagos State (Source: evaluators)
76
Table 20. Overall rating of OECD DAC criteria and assessment dimensions
Evaluation criteria
Dimension
Max
Score
Total
(max.100)
Rating
Relevance
Alignment with policies and priorities
30
27
86
Level 2: suc-
cessful
Alignment with the needs and capac-
ities of the beneficiaries and stake-
holders
30
27
Appropriateness of the design*
20
16
Adaptability response to change
20
16
Coherence
Internal Coherence
50
37
67
Level 3: moder-
ately successful
External Coherence
50
30
Effectiveness
Achievement of the (intended) objec-
tives
30
20
73
Level 3: moder-
ately successful
Contribution to achievement of objec-
tives
30
23
Quality of implementation
20
15
Unintended results
20
15
Impact
Higher-level (intended) development
changes/results
30
20
68
Level 3: moder-
ately successful
Contribution to higher-level (in-
tended) development re-
sults/changes
40
24
Contribution to higher-level (unin-
tended) development re-
sults/changes
30
24
Efficiency
Production efficiency
70
45
65
Level 4: moder-
ately unsuc-
cessful
Allocation efficiency
30
20
Sustainability
Capacities of the beneficiaries and
stakeholders
20
15
73
Level 3: moder-
ately successful
Contribution to supporting sustaina-
ble capacities
30
23
Durability of results over time
50
35
Mean score and overall rating
100
72
Level 3: mod-
erately suc-
cessful
77
Table 21: Rating and score scales
100-point scale (score)
6-level scale (rating)
92100
Level 1: highly successful
8191
Level 2: successful
6780
Level 3: moderately successful
5066
Level 4: moderately unsuccessful
3049
Level 5: unsuccessful
029
Level 6: highly unsuccessful
Overall rating: The criteria of effectiveness, impact and sustainability are
knock-out criteria. If one of the criteria is rated at level 4 or lower, the over-
all rating cannot go beyond level 4 although the mean score may be higher.
5 Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Key findings and factors of success/failure
The project documentation does not provide evidence that SEDIN III pursues a bindingly communicated strat-
egy agreed with the partners. Nor does it give evidence of explicit references to other key results of Capacity
WORKS. Standard instruments of the GIZ Capacity WORKS management model, such as a capacity develop-
nate
knowledge, create awareness and build capacity and resilience. This is considered the right approach for ob-
taining durable results. SEDIN III has been successful in adopting this approach, but more needs to be done in
this area. Its approach to pilot activities in one or more federal states, before rolling them out to other states
has shown to be effective. A finding that is relevant for other projects in the sector is that there is currently syn-
ergy with other modules of the SEDEC cluster. Given its component focused on policies and improving the
framework conditions for MSME development and its embedding in SEDEC, SEDIN can be seen as an exam-
ple of a project that works on policy matters in a more integrated way, beyond the project as such.
SEDIN III is managed from a central GIZ project office in Abuja, with delegated management by the heads of
the GIZ offices in federal states where the project is being implemented. Specific activities are planned as part
of work packages in operational plans of the workstreams and implemented with the involvement of consultants
and partner organisations and in cooperation with stakeholders. Officers in Abuja are responsible for the coor-
dination of workstream activities and the coordination with staff and consultants in the state offices.
Regular management meetings are held for planning, monitoring progress and quality assurance. As in the
predecessor project, there was initially limited involvement of FMFBNP the political project partner in plan-
ning and coordination processes and none in steering. Other federal-level public implementing partners (such
as FMITI, CBN and SMEDAN) were not involved in steering the project. Since 2021, twice a year, a sector dia-
logue is conducted with all German programmes, FMFBNP as the Nigerian political partner and all relevant
partners at federal level as the steering structure for the sector, with direct input for the government negotia-
tions between Nigeria and Germany.
78
Two major factors influenced the project results. One was Covid-19, which was a major external factor that dis-
rupted the implementation of SEDIN III. Many activities were delayed, but the project also managed to change
the mode of implementation of several activities from face-to-face to online or hybrid implementation formats.
The lockdown also provided an opportunity to learn. During the lockdown in 2020, more time was devoted to
conducting studies, which provided a solid basis for the implementation of activities later on. This shows that
taking sufficient time for the planning of activities is important. A second major factor is the restructuring of the
project at the end of 2020 on the basis of the appraisal of SEDIN III carried out earlier that year. This evaluation
rated the project overall as moderately successful. The rating reflects the degrees of performance in the first
years and after the restructuring. The project has scored well on relevance since its inception, because the
module objective addresses the key identified issue of insufficient employment and income generation opportu-
nities for a rapidly growing labour force in Nigeria. This module objective was not changed. In terms of other
evaluation criteria, the performance was generally better after the restructuring of the project than in the first
years of SEDIN III.
The analyses of selected results hypotheses indicate that it was more plausible that the project activities con-
on the
links between activities and
for MFBs and its support for the development of digital platforms that provide business-relevant information to
MSMEs. In contrast, the hypotheses on tfor the
provision of training in financial and economic literacy and entrepreneurship skills and the more direct support
for start-ups and growth of existing MSMEs are fully confirmed. In terms of higher-level development results,
firm conclusions cannot be drawn on erty reduction
and the creation of decent and sustainable employment. Lack of monitoring beyond outcome level and lack of
adequate baseline data hampered the analyses. As mentioned above, major external factors that influenced
both the (effectiveness and impact) results of SEDIN III and the general development of the MSME sector in
Nigeria were insecurity in the country (related to the conflict situation and to criminal activities) and, as of 2020,
Covid-19. The political context also played a role. Nonetheless, the project seems to have managed to mitigate
to some extent the influence of these external factors, by shifting towards remote implementation methods and
by trying to employ deescalating factors.
The analyses based on the GIZ Efficiency Tool were hampered by data limitations. With this caveat in mind,
the results of the analyses suggest that there is scope for increasing the efficiency of the project by reallocating
resources to activities aimed at realisation of the outputs that currently have the largest degree of undera-
chievement. However, this would mean a shift away from activities that have been found to be effective. At the
same time, it is important to consider that achievement of a specific official output should not be seen in isola-
tion, given the complementarities of the respective outputs. Currently, overarching costs constitute a large pro-
portion of the project cost, so there is also scope for dedicating resources more specifically to particular out-
puts.
79
Findings regarding 2030 Agenda
The principles on which the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development focuses are those of universality,
shared responsibility and accountability, the interplay of economic, environmental and social development, and
inclusiveness. SEDIN III contributes to the 2030 Agenda and aims to adhere to the above principles.
Universality, shared responsibility and accountability
The hypotheses regarding the contribution of SEDIN III to the achievement of SDGs 1 and 8 are partly con-
firmed. There is some evidence that MSMEs supported by the project have made a positive contribution of im-
proved outcome to the reduction of poverty. More accurately, supported MSMEs may have contributed to
avoiding a more pronounced worsening of the poverty situation in the context of a deteriorating macroeconomic
situation, partly caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, some evidence suggests that the employment
and income generation by MSMEs supported by the project has had a mitigating effect on the employment situ-
ation in Nigeria. There are examples of the creation of opportunities of decent and sustainable employment for
wards the use of existing systems and structures for the implemen-
tation of its activities. Reasons for this are that there have been only a few instances of concrete collaboration
on the ground with other donors (because of limited overlap in terms of sectors and federal states) and partner
structures that were either non-existent or considered inadequate. The project itself often built structures (in
collaboration with national partners) that were then used. This also holds for shared systems used for monitor-
ing, learning and accountability.
Interplay of economic, environmental and social development
of sustainable development, with access to finance and gender as cross-cutting issues. More recently, the pro-
ject has moved further towards the incorporation of environmental concerns, through the (demand-driven) se-
lection of (plastic) waste recycling as a value chain in which the project is active and the inclusion of the circular
economy in its approach. The selection of the waste recycling value chain was not intended in the design of the
project and the (expected) environmental results can therefore be seen as an unintended impact. Exploiting
opportunities for converting waste into wealth implies a positive interaction between social, economic and envi-
ronmental results of the project.
Inclusiveness/leave no one behind
In its design and in practice, SEDIN III adheres to international and national norms and standards to which Ger-
man DC is committed. This also concerns the participation and support of the poor population and vulnerable
groups such as migrants/IDPs and people living with disabilities. SEDIN III focuses on women and youth. Spe-
reached to some extent.
The project documentation hardly reports on unintended results. Systematic monitoring of unintended (positive
or negative) results is lacking. Interviewees referred to potential negative short-term employment effects of in-
novations promoted by the project. Examples of positive unintended effects that were given include people be-
yond the group of intended beneficiaries who benefited from project activities, the establishment of online dis-
pute resolution mechanisms that were not planned, SEA Hub participants financing their education through
business activities that they engage in, the engagement of university students through the structure of the Cir-
cular Lagos Innovation Challenge, and training (of vulnerable youth in particular) that enhances opportunities to
engage in productive economic activities, making it less likely that people end up in criminal activities.
80
One example of building the resilience of disadvantaged groups to which the project contributed is the training
and coaching of returning migrants/IDPs. This helped them to reintegrate into society and to establish busi-
nesses. Training on e-commerce makes (vulnerable) MSME owners less dependent on sales in physical mar-
kets, which is especially relevant in the wake of the Covid-for
local markets addresses issues of insecurity and creates safer environments for (vulnerable) people, in particu-
lar women, to (continue to) sell their products.
Findings regarding follow-on project (if applicable)
This is not applicable.
5.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings of this evaluation, the evaluation team proposes the following recommendations.
Findingsince the restructuring of the project than in the
first years of implementation.
Recommendation: GIZ project team and relevant head office staff should continue with the current set-up and
approach of the project and the selection of value chains and take that as a basis for a follow-up project.
Finding: The implementation of pilot activities before rolling out interventions to other states has shown to be
successful.
Recommendation: GIZ project team and relevant Nigerian partners should continue with this approach in the
remainder of SEDIN III and in any follow-up project.
Finding: Federal partners had limited participation in the steering and implementation of the project. Recom-
mendation: GIZ project management and key Nigerian partners should establish mechanisms for better coop-
eration and more participation of the partners in steering and implementation, for example by inviting Nigerian
partners to management meetings. However, twice a year since 2021, a sector dialogue is conducted with all
German programmes, FMFBNP as the Nigerian political partner and all relevant partners at federal level as the
steering structure for the sector, with direct input for the government negotiations between Nigeria and Ger-
many.
Finding: SEDIN III has predominantly focused on the integration of economic and social dimensions of sus-
tainable development, but more recently it has moved to further incorporation of environmental concerns.
Recommendation: The GIZ project team, relevant head office staff and Nigerian partners should continue with
this and look for further areas of the environmental dimension of sustainability that can reinforce results in the
economic and social dimensions. This could be similar to what is currently being done in the area of waste re-
cycling in Lagos state.
Finding: There is scope for improving the efficiency of the project.
Recommendation: The GIZ project team should address the issue of a large share of overarching project cost
and allocate the budget more specifically to activities related to the envisaged outputs of the project. In addi-
tion, the project team should reallocate resources that are currently output-specific and focus the resources
more on activities in the area of outputs that have the largest degrees of underachievement. Nonetheless, any
budget reallocation should take into consideration the synergies between outputs. There should be some de-
gree of flexibility in the implementation of operational plans.
Finding: Data shortcomings in the results and commitment data have hampered the evaluation.
Recommendation: The GIZ project team should retain and continue to monitor some of the indicators in case
of a substantial change in results model during its implementation or for a follow-up project. In this
81
way, it remains possible to assess changes over a longer implementation period. The team should also con-
sider collecting baseline and endline surveys among the project beneficiary population (also concerning
higher-level development results), to have a more solid basis for contribution analysis. It should systematically
monitor unintended (positive or negative) results. Finally, the project team should store end-of-year cost and
commitment data throughout the implementation of a project.
Finding: SEDIN III can be seen as an example of a project that works on policy matters in a more integrated
way, beyond the project as such.
Recommendation: GIZ head office should showcase SEDIN III as input for the design of similar projects in
other GIZ partner countries.
82
List of references
GIZ standard project documents
GIZ (2016): Project Proposal.
GIZ (2017a): Change Offer – March 2017.
GIZ (2017b): Change Offer – October 2017.
GIZ (2018a): Change Offer – August 2018.
GIZ (2018b): Project Progress Report, April 2017 – March 2018.
GIZ (2019): Change Offer – 2019.
GIZ (2019b): Project Progress Report, April 2018 – March 2019.
GIZ (2020): Change Offer – November 2020.
GIZ (2020b): Project Progress Report, April 2019 – March 2020, April 2020.
GIZ (2021): Project Progress Report, April 2020 – March 2021, April 2021.
GIZ (2022): Project Progress Report, April 2021 – March 2022, 17 May 2022.
Other GIZ project documents
GIZ (n.d.): Stakeholder Maps.
GIZ (2014): PCA Matrix 2014.
GIZ (2015): Summary/Overview PCA Table for SEDIN Programme, Nigeria MONITORING, 23 July 2015.
GIZ (2016a): SEDIN Programme Evaluation, PowerPoint Presentation of Programme Evaluation Mission, 03
19 May 2016.
GIZ (2016b): Project Evaluation: Summary Report. Nigeria: Pro-poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in
Nigeria, (PN 2012.2208.2), GIZ Corporate Unit Evaluation.
GIZ (2018c): German Development Cooperation with Nigeria DC Programme: Sustainable Economic Develop-
ment. Reporting on the TC Module Broad-based Growth and Employment Demand, Project number
2012.2208.2.
GIZ (2018d): PCA Matrix 2018.
GIZ (2019c): Measuring Efficiency in GIZ’s Central Project Evaluations, GIZ Corporate Unit Evaluation, April
2019.
83
GIZ (2020c): Gender Analysis. Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in Nigeria Programme (SE-
DIN).
GIZ (2020d): Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in Nigeria Programme – SEDIN: Survey on SE-
DIN Results in View of MSME Indicators, Final draft, April 2020.
GIZ (2021a): Meeting Structure SEDIN and Cluster, PowerPoint document.
GIZ (2021b): Results Matrix, Excel document.
GIZ (2021c): Draft Proposal for Sustainable Development Programme.
GIZ (2021d): Wirkungslogik für ein Modul. Breitenswirksame Wachtums- und Beschäftigungsförderung in Nige-
ria, Phase III in Nigeria, Projektnummer 2016.2120.0.
GIZ (2022a): Kostenträger-Obligo Bericht, January 2022.
GIZ (2022b): RBM data (March 2022), Excel document.
GIZ (2022c): Kostenträger-Obligo Bericht, May 2022.
GIZ (2022d). GIZ CPE Annotated Evaluation Report (2022-08), August 2022.
GIZ-EU (2019): Nigeria Competitiveness Project (NICOP) – 1st Annual Progress Report: August 2018 – July
2019, Prepared for the European Union, Contract No. FED/2018/397-180, Abuja, Nigeria, September 2019.
GIZ-EU (2020): Nigeria Competitiveness Project (NICOP) – 2nd Annual Progress Report: August 2019 – July
2020, Prepared for the European Union, Contract No. FED/2018/397-180, Abuja, Nigeria, September 2020.
GIZ-EU (2021): Nigeria Competitiveness Project (NICOP) – 3rd Annual Progress Report: August 2020 – July
2021, Prepared for the European Union, Contract No. FED/2018/397-180, Abuja, Nigeria, September 2021.
GIZ-EU (2022a): Progress of implementation of the Nigeria Competitiveness Project (NICOP) for the SEDIN
evaluation, PowerPoint presentation, 14 January 2022, prepared by the NICOP Team.
GIZ-EU (2022b): NICOP Contributions to SEDIN Logframe, PowerPoint presentation, 14 January 2022, pre-
pared by the NICOP Team.
GIZ-EU (n.d.): Indicative Logframe Matrix.
Further references
Arens, D., Richter, J., and Raetzell, L. (2021): Central Project Evaluation Inclusive Business Action Network
(iBAN), Project number 2015.6256.0, Evaluation report on behalf of GIZ, November 2021.
Bauer-Wolf, S., Henrich, F., Janus, H., Roxas, M.J., and Schäfer, G. (2013): Programme Progress Review SE-
DIN Programme. Preliminary Findings and Recommendations, Abuja: 7 June 2013, PowerPoint presentation.
Blink, D., Kienlein, T., Sindlinger, M., and Reichert, C. (2020): Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment
in Nigeria (SEDIN), Appraisal Report, Berlin: BBJ Consult AG.
84
BMZ (2018): Development Policy 2030. New Challenges – New Solutions. BMZ Strategy Paper, Federal Minis-
try for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Division for Political Analysis and Planning, [online]
https://www.bmz.de/resource/blob/23770/71cf4bb9fee375d369a42c1abf29b64d/strategiepapier452-10-2018-
data.pdf [October 2018].
BMZ (2021): Evaluierung der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit: Leitlinien des BMZ, Bundesministerium für wirt-
schaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, [online] https://www.bmz.de/re-
source/blob/92884/08507d1204d093141b5f00bf5cbb8db7/bmz-leitlinien-evaluierung-2021.pdf [26 January
2022].
Diwakar, V., and Shepherd, A. (2022): Sustaining Escapes from Poverty, World Development, 155: 116,
[online] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105611 [29 June 2022].
Federal Republic of Nigeria (2017): National Employment Policy [online] https://www.ilo.org/africa/countries-
covered/nigeria/WCMS_619096/lang--en/index.htm [31 January 2022].
FMFBNP (2021): National Development Plan (NDP) 2021–2025. Volume 1, Abuja: Federal Ministry of Finance,
Budget and National Planning, [online] https://nationalplanning.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/NDP-2021-
2025_AA_FINAL_PRINTING.pdf [31 January 2022].
Faniyi, A. (2016): SEDIN Gender Analysis by the Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment (SEDIN)
Programme in Collaboration with Small & Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN),
Abuja, April 2016.
GIGA (2020): Nigeria: Brief Political Economy Analysis (PÖK). November 2020, German Institute for Global
and area Studies (GIGA)/Leibniz Institute of Global and Area Studies.
Human Rights Watch (2019). World Report of 2019. Events of 2018, [online] https://www.hrw.org/world-re-
port/2019 [30 January 2022].
Kale, Y. (2019): Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) National Survey 2017, Abuja: National Bureau
of Statistics.
Karkoschka, O and Olwenyi, M. (2021): Central Project Evaluation develoPPP.de Strategic Alliance: Farmers
as Entrepreneurs in Uganda, Project number 12.1003.8-400.1, Evaluation report on behalf of GIZ, July 2021.
MBNP (2017a): Economic Recovery & Growth Plan 2017–2020, Abuja: Ministry of Budget and National Plan-
ning, Federal Republic of Nigeria [online] https://www.nipc.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Economic-Re-
covery-Growth-Plan-2017-2020.pdf#viewer.action=download [31 January 2022].
NBS (2020): 2019 Poverty and Inequality in Nigeria – Executive Summary, Abuja: National Bureau of Statistics,
[online] https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/download/1092 [26 January 2022].
National Collateral Registry (n.d.): Access to Loans Made Easy, Abuja: National Collateral Registry, Central
Bank of Nigeria.
Nursini, N. (2020): Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and Poverty Reduction: Empirical Evidence
from Indonesia, Development Studies Research 7(1): 153166, DOI: 10.1080/21665095.2020.1823238.
85
Nwosu, C.E. (2019): Report on Assessment of ETLS Approach and Impact of SEDIN’s Support to MSMEs un-
der the ETLS.
OSSAP-SDGs (2020): Nigeria – Integration of the SDGs into National Development Planning. A Second Volun-
tary National Review, Abuja: The Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on SDGs
(OSSAP-SDGs), June 2020, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16757.29928 [11 February 2022].
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD DAC) (no date): Evaluation Criteria, OECD
DAC, [online] www.oecd dac.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm [11 Febru-
ary 2022].
Salawu, F. (2020): Gender Analysis for Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in Nigeria Programme
(SEDIN), May 2020.
Sauer, A-K., and J. Röthlisberger (2019): Gender Analysis. Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in
Nigeria Programme (SEDIN), April 2019.
SMEDAN (2021): National Policy on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Abuja: Small & Medium Enterprises
Development Agency Nigeria, [online] https://www.smedan.gov.ng/images/PDF/MSME-National-Policy.pdf [1
February 2022].
SMEDAN-NBS (2019): MSME Survey 2017, Abuja: Small & Medium Enterprises Development Agency Nigeria
& National Bureau of Statistics, [online] https://www.msmehub.org/nbs-smedan-national-survey-on-micro-
small-and-medium-enterprises-msmes-2017/ [13 June 2022].
SMEDAN-NBS (2022): 2021 MSME Survey Report, Abuja: Small & Medium Enterprises Development Agency
Nigeria & National Bureau of Statistics, [online] https://smedan.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2021-
MSME-Survey-Report_1.pdf [11 April 2022].
Uduka, I.K. (2020): Context Analysis and the Integrated Peace and Conflict Analysis (iPCA) for Pro-Poor
Growth and Promotion of Employment in Nigeria Programme – SEDIN, May 2020.
UNDESA (2022): Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) and their Role in Achieving the Sus-
tainable Development Goals, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, [online] https://sus-
tainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26073MSMEs_and_SDGs.pdf [30 June 2022].
86
Annex: Evaluation matrix
OECD DAC Criterion Relevance - Is the intervention doing the right things? (max. 100 points)
a devel-
opment intervention are consistent with the (global, country and institution-specific) requirements, needs, priorities and policies of
beneficiaries and stakeholders (individuals, groups, organisations and development partners). It also identifies the ability of the
apt to a change in circumstances. "Relevance" is assessed in relation to 1) the time of the intervention
design1 and 2) from 2.
Assessment di-
mensions
Filter -
Project
Type
Evaluation ques-
tions
Clarifications
Basis for As-
sessment / Eval-
uation indicators
Evaluation De-
sign and empiri-
cal methods
Data sources
Data Quality and
limitations
Data Quality
Assessment
(weak, moder-
ate, good,
strong)
Alignment with pol-
icies and priorities
Standard
To what extent are the in-
aligned with the (global,
regional and country spe-
cific) policies and priori-
ties of the BMZ and of the
beneficiaries and stake-
holders and other (devel-
opment) partners? To
what extent do they take
account of the relevant
political and institutional
environment?
strategies and BMZ sector
concepts
work for the project (e.g. na-
tional strategies including the
national implementation strat-
egy for Agenda 2030, regional
and international strategies,
sectoral and cross-sectoral
change strategies, in bilateral
projects especially partner
strategies, internal analytical
framework e.g. safeguards and
gender4
sign at the (national) objectives
of Agenda 2030
Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs)
the different policies, priorities
(especially in case of contra-
dictions)
Results model/ma-
trix, module objec-
tive/programme indi-
cators, SDGs, BMZ
country strategy, na-
tional strategies
Document analysis,
analysis of monitoring
data, interviews and
(telephone) survey
among stakeholders
Project proposal;
Change Offer 2020;
Draft BMZ Programme
Sustainable Economic
Development in Nigeria;
National Employment
Policy 2017; NERGP
2017-2020; NDP 2021-
2025; Political Economy
Brief Analysis; inter-
views with project staff
and stakeholders at pol-
icy level
The various reports al-
ready contain quite a lot
of information needed
for the analysis.
Given the fact that some
data were collected with
another goal in mind,
the evaluators may
need to complement
those data with light
monitoring data availa-
ble in the project to vali-
date the secondary
data.
good
and Fragility
To what extent was the
(conflict) context of the
project adequately ana-
lysed and considered for
the project concept?
Peace and Conflict Assess-
ment (I)PCA, Safeguard Con-
flict and Context Sensitivity
documents
(Conflict) context as-
sessment
Document analysis,
interviews
iPCA report; Context
analysis report; Project
proposal; Change offer
2020; interviews with
key project staff and
stakeholders
Same as above.
good
Alignment with the
needs and capaci-
ties of the benefi-
ciaries and stake-
holders
Standard
To what extent are the in-
aligned with the develop-
ment needs and capaci-
ties of the beneficiaries
and stakeholders involved
(individuals, groups and
organisations)?
holders such as civil society
and private sector in the de-
sign of the measure
Direct target groups
(FMITI and other im-
plementing partners)
and indirect target
groups (beneficiar-
ies)
Document analysis,
analysis of monitoring
data, interviews and
(telephone) survey
among stakeholders
iPCA report; Gender
analysis for Pro-Poor
Growth and Promotion
of Employment in Nige-
ria (SEDIN); interviews
with project staff and
stakeholders at policy
level
Same as above.
moderate
and Fragility
How were deescalating
factors/ connectors5 as
well as escalating factors/
dividers6 in the project
context identified and
considered for the project
concept (please list the
factors)?7
(Integrated) Peace and Conflict
Assessment
(Conflict) context as-
sessment
Document analysis,
interviews
iPCA report; Context
analysis report; Project
proposal; Change offer
2020; interviews with
key project staff and
stakeholders
Same as above.
moderate
87
and Fragility
To what extent were po-
tential (security) risks for
(GIZ) staff, partners, tar-
get groups/final benefi-
ciaries identified and con-
sidered?
(Security) risk as-
sessment
Document analysis,
interviews
iPCA report; Context
analysis report; Project
proposal; Change offer
2020; interviews with
key project staff and
stakeholders
Same as above.
good
Standard
To what extent are the in-
geared to the needs and
capacities of particularly
disadvantaged and vul-
nerable beneficiaries and
stakeholders (individuals,
groups and organisa-
tions)? With respect to
groups, a differentiation
can be made by age, in-
come, gender, ethnicity,
etc?
vantaged groups (in terms of
Leave No One Behind, LNOB)
human rights and gender as-
pects
risks
Specific target
groups (women, mi-
grants/IDPs)
Document analysis,
analysis of monitoring
data, interviews and
(telephone) survey
among stakeholders
iPCA report; Gender
analysis for Pro-Poor
Growth and Promotion
of Employment in Nige-
ria (SEDIN); Project pro-
posal; Change offer
2020; interviews with
project staff and stake-
holders at policy level
Same as above.
good
Appropriateness of
the design3
Standard
To what extent is the in-
priate and realistic (in
terms of technical, organi-
sational and financial as-
pects)?
day's perspective and in view
of the available resources
(time, finances, partner capaci-
ties)
changes in the framework con-
ditions
of framework conditions and
strategic reference frameworks
and with possible overloading
Appraisal report
2020; Change offer
2020; Progress re-
ports
Document analysis,
analysis of monitoring
data, interviews and
(telephone) survey
among stakeholders
Appraisal Report 2020;
Change Offer 2020;
Progress reports; inter-
views with project staff
and stakeholders at pol-
icy level
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent is the in-
ciently precise and plausi-
ble (in terms of the verifia-
bility und traceability of
the system of objectives
and the underlying as-
sumptions)?
Assessment of the (current) re-
sults model and results hypoth-
eses (theory of change, ToC)
of the actual project logic:
ments and outputs in relation
to the project objective to be
achieved
results hypotheses
ity of the selected system
boundary (sphere of responsi-
bility)
potential influences of other
donors/ organisations outside
the project's sphere of respon-
sibility
and plausibility
of assumptions and risks for
the project results
cofinancing (if
any) integrated into the overall
concept of the project and
what added value could be
generated for the ToC/project
design?
ToC, results
model/matrix, SDGs,
BMZ country strat-
egy, national strate-
gies
Document analysis,
analysis of monitoring
data, interviews and
(telephone) survey
among stakeholders
Change Offer 2020;
Progress reports; inter-
views with project staff,
staff of other donors and
national stakeholders at
policy level
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent is the in-
on a holistic approach to
sustainable development
(interaction of the social,
tions (synergies/trade-offs) of
the intervention with other sec-
tors in the project design - also
with regard to the sustainability
dimensions in terms of Agenda
ToC, results
model/matrix, syner-
gies with other mod-
ules of the GDC,
Document analysis,
analysis of monitoring
data, interviews and
(telephone) survey
among stakeholders
iPCA report; Gender
analysis report; Environ-
ment & Climate Assess-
ment; BMZ Country
strategy; progress re-
ports; interviews with
Same as above.
moderate
88
environmental and eco-
nomic dimensions of sus-
tainability)?
2030 (economic, ecological
and social development)
BMZ country strat-
egy, national strate-
gies
project staff and stake-
holders at policy level
Adaptability re-
sponse to change
Standard
To what extent has the in-
tervention responded to
changes in the environ-
ment over time (risks and
potentials)?
project including change offers
(e.g. local, national, interna-
tional, sectoral changes, in-
cluding state-of-the-art sectoral
know-how)
change offers; old
and new results
model/matrix, mod-
ule objective indica-
tors
Document analysis,
interviews with key
stakeholders
Appraisal Report 2020;
Change Offers; pro-
gress reports; interviews
with project staff and
stakeholders at policy
level
Same as above.
moderate
(1) The 'time of the intervention design' is the point in time when the offer/most recent modification offer was approved.
(2) In relation to the current standards, knowledge and framework conditions.
(3) The design of an intervention is usually assessed by evaluating its intervention logic. The intervention logic depicts the system of objectives used by an intervention. It maps out the systematic relationships between the individual results levels. At the time an
intervention is designed, the intervention logic, in the form of a logical model, is described in the offer for the intervention both as a narrative and generally also on the basis of a results framework. The model is reviewed at the start of an evaluation and adjusted to
reflect current knowledge. Comprehensive (re)constructed intervention logics are also known as "theories of change". In GIZ the 'project design' encompasses project objective (outcome) and the respective theory of change (ToC) with outputs, activities, TC-
instruments and especially the results hypotheses as well as the implementation strategy (e.g. methodological approach, Capacity Development (CD) strategy). In GIZ the theory of change is described by the GIZ results model as graphic illustration and the narrative
results hypotheses.
(4) In the GIZ Safeguards and Gender system risks are assessed before project start regarding following aspects: gender, conflict, human rights, environment and climate. For the topics gender and human rights not only risks but also potentials are assessed. Before
introducing the new safeguard system in 2016 GIZ used to examine these aspects in separate checks.
(5) Deescalating factors/ connectors: e.g. peace-promoting actors and institutions, structural changes, peace-promoting norms and behaviour.
(6) Escalating factors/ dividers: e.g. destructive institutions, structures, norms and behaviour.
(7) All projects in fragile contexts, projects with FS1 or FS2 markers and all transitional aid projects have to weaken escalating factors/dividers and have to mitigate risks in the context of conflict, fragility and violence. Projects with FS1 or FS2 markers should also
consider how to strengthen deescalating factors/ connectors and how to address peace needs in its project objective/sub-objective.
OECD DAC Criterion Coherence - How well does the intervention fit? (max. 100 points)
l as with international norms and stand-
ards. Internal coherence addresses the synergies and division of tasks between the intervention and other interventions of German development coopera-
cooperation adheres. Exter-
nal coherence and interna-
ign as well as to the results it achieves.
Assessment di-
mensions
Filter - Pro-
ject Type
Evaluation questions
Clarifications
Basis for Assess-
ment / Evaluation
indicators
Evaluation Design
and empirical meth-
ods
Data sources
Data Quality and lim-
itations
Data Quality
Assessment
(weak, moder-
ate, good,
strong)
Internal coherence
Standard
Within German develop-
ment cooperation, to what
extent is the intervention
designed and imple-
mented (in a sector, coun-
try, region or globally) in a
complementary manner,
based on the division of
tasks?
project takes the necessary
steps to fully realize synergies
within German development
cooperation
Results model/matrix,
module objective indi-
cators, SDGs, BMZ
country strategy
Document analysis; inter-
views
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports; Draft BMZ
Programme Sustainable
Economic Development in
Nigeria; interviews with
project staff and stake-
holders at policy level
Documentation is reason-
ably complete and of good
quality.
Given the fact that some
data were collected with
another goal in mind, the
evaluators may need to
complement those data
with light monitoring data
available in the project to
validate the secondary
data.
good
Standard
To what extent are the in-
struments of German de-
velopment cooperation
(Technical and Financial
Cooperation) meaningfully
account projects of different
German ministries
Results model/matrix,
module objective indi-
cators, SDGs, BMZ
country strategy
Document analysis; inter-
views
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports; Draft BMZ
Programme Sustainable
Economic Development in
Nigeria; interviews with
Same as above.
good
89
interlinked within the inter-
vention (in terms of both
design and implementa-
tion)? Are synergies lever-
aged?
project staff and stake-
holders at policy level
Standard
To what extent is the in-
tervention consistent with
international and national
norms and standards to
which German develop-
ment cooperation is com-
mitted (e.g. human
rights)?
Results model/matrix,
module objective indi-
cators, SDGs, BMZ
country strategy
Document analysis; inter-
views
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports; Draft BMZ
Programme Sustainable
Economic Development in
Nigeria; interviews with
project staff and stake-
holders at policy level
Same as above.
good
External coherence
Standard
To what extent does the
intervention complement
and support the partner's
own efforts (principle of
subsidiarity)?
Mapping of SEDIN III
activities and partners'
own efforts
Document analysis; inter-
views
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports; Draft BMZ
Programme Sustainable
Economic Development in
Nigeria; National Employ-
ment Policy 2017; NDP
2021-2025; interviews
with project staff and na-
tional stakeholders at pol-
icy level
Potentially limited infor-
mation on national part-
activities and systems
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the in-
implementation been co-
ordinated with other do-
synergies be achieved
through cofinancing (where
available) with other bilateral
and multilateral donors and
organisations and how did co-
financing contribute to im-
proved donor coordination?
Results model/matrix,
assessment of syner-
gies with the EU-co-
financed NICOP com-
ponent and other do-
nors' activities
Document analysis; inter-
views
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports; Draft BMZ
Programme Sustainable
Economic Development in
Nigeria; interviews with
project staff and repre-
sentatives of other donors
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the in-
designed to use existing
systems and structures (of
partners/other donors/in-
ternational organisations)
for implementing its activi-
ties? To what extent are
these systems and struc-
tures used?
project is taking the necessary
steps to fully realize synergies
with interventions of other do-
nors at the impact level
Assessment of use of
existing structures and
systems; data RBM
system
Document analysis; inter-
views
Progress reports; Draft
BMZ Programme Sustain-
able Economic Develop-
ment in Nigeria; interviews
with project staff, national
stakeholders and repre-
sentatives of other donors
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent are com-
mon systems (together
with partners/other do-
nors/international organi-
sations) used for M&E,
learning and accountabil-
ity?
Assessment of use of
existing structures and
systems; data RBM
system
Document analysis; inter-
views
Progress reports; Draft
BMZ Programme Sustain-
able Economic Develop-
ment in Nigeria; interviews
with project staff, national
stakeholders and repre-
sentatives of other donors
Same as above.
moderate
90
OECD DAC Criterion Effectiveness - Is the intervention achieving its objectives? (max. 100 points)
'Effectiveness' refers to the extent to which the intervention has achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives (at outcome level), including any differential
results across beneficiary and stakeholder groups. It examines the achievement of objectives in terms of the direct, short-term and medium term results.
Assessment di-
mensions
Filter - Pro-
ject Type
Evaluation questions
Clarifications
Basis for Assess-
ment / Evaluation
indicators
Evaluation Design
and empirical meth-
ods
Data sources
Data Quality and lim-
itations
Data Quality
Assessment
(weak, moder-
ate, good,
strong)
Achievement of the
(intended) objec-
tives1
Standard
To what extent has the in-
tervention achieved, or is
the intervention expected
to achieve, the (intended)
objectives as originally
planned (or as modified to
cater for changes in the
environment)?
project objective indicators
(agreed with BMZ)
or additional indicators are
needed to adequately reflect
the project objective
Results model/matrix,
module objective indi-
cators, NICOP log-
frame, selected re-
sults hypotheses
Design: Contribution anal-
ysis; Methods: document
analysis; analysis of moni-
toring data; interviews;
project site visits
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); monitoring
data; interviews with
stakeholders and benefi-
ciaries; survey among se-
lected key stakeholders
Limited observations for
new indicators; data qual-
ity moderate
moderate
and Fragility
For projects with FS1 or
FS2 markers: To what ex-
tent was the project able to
strengthen deescalating
factors/ connectors?
Assessment of
deescalating factors
Methods: document analy-
sis; analysis of monitoring
data; interviews
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); monitoring
data; interviews with
stakeholders and benefi-
ciaries; survey among se-
lected key stakeholders
Limited observations for
new indicators; data qual-
ity moderate
moderate
Contribution to
achievement of ob-
jectives
Standard
To what extent have the
intervention’s outputs been
delivered as originally
planned (or as modified to
cater for changes in the
environment)?
Results model/matrix,
module objective indi-
cators, NICOP log-
frame, selected re-
sults hypotheses
Design: Contribution anal-
ysis; Methods: document
analysis; analysis of moni-
toring data; interviews;
survey; project site visits
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); monitoring
data; interviews with
stakeholders and benefi-
ciaries; survey among se-
lected key stakeholders
Limited observations for
new indicators; data qual-
ity moderate
moderate
Standard
To what extent have the
delivered outputs and in-
creased capacities been
used and equal access
(e.g. in terms of physical,
non-discriminatory and af-
fordable access) guaran-
teed?
Results model/matrix,
module objective indi-
cators, NICOP log-
frame, selected re-
sults hypotheses
Design: Contribution anal-
ysis; Methods: document
analysis; analysis of moni-
toring data; interviews;
survey; project site visits
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); monitoring
data; interviews with
stakeholders and benefi-
ciaries; survey among se-
lected key stakeholders
Limited observations for
new indicators; data qual-
ity moderate
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the in-
tervention contributed to
the achievement of objec-
tives?
tivities, TC-instruments and
outputs of the project (contribu-
tion-analysis as focus of this
assessment dimension and
minimum standard, see anno-
tated reports)
without the project? (usually
qualitative reflection)
Results model/matrix,
module objective indi-
cators, NICOP log-
frame, selected re-
sults hypotheses
Design: Contribution anal-
ysis; Methods: document
analysis; analysis of moni-
toring data; interviews;
survey; project site visits
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); monitoring
data; interviews with
stakeholders and benefi-
ciaries; survey among se-
lected key stakeholders
Limited observations for
new indicators; data qual-
ity moderate
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the in-
tervention contributed to
the achievement of objec-
tives at the level of the in-
tended beneficiaries?
Results model/matrix,
module objective indi-
cators, NICOP log-
frame, selected re-
sults hypotheses
Design: Contribution anal-
ysis; Methods: document
analysis; analysis of moni-
toring data; interviews;
survey; project site visits
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); monitoring
data; interviews with
stakeholders and benefi-
ciaries; survey among se-
lected key stakeholders
Limited observations for
new indicators; data qual-
ity moderate
moderate
91
Standard
To what extent has the in-
tervention contributed to
the achievement of objec-
tives at the level of particu-
larly disadvantaged or vul-
nerable groups of benefi-
ciaries and stakeholders?
(These may be broken
down by age, income,
gender, ethnicity, etc.)?
Results model/matrix,
module objective indi-
cators, NICOP log-
frame, selected re-
sults hypotheses
Design: Contribution anal-
ysis; Methods: document
analysis; analysis of moni-
toring data; interviews;
survey; project site visits
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); monitoring
data; interviews with
stakeholders and benefi-
ciaries; survey among se-
lected key stakeholders
Limited observations for
new indicators; data qual-
ity moderate
moderate
Standard
Which internal factors
(technical, organisational
or financial) were decisive
for achievement/non-
achievement of the inter-
vention’s intended objec-
tives?
project's sphere of responsibil-
ity / system boundary. The pro-
ject is implemented jointly by
GIZ and the official partner(s).
Assessment of pro-
cess of project imple-
mentation
Methods: document analy-
sis; analysis of monitoring
data; interviews; survey;
project site visits
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); interviews
with stakeholders and
beneficiaries.
Limited observations for
new indicators; data qual-
ity moderate
moderate
Standard
Which external factors
were decisive for achieve-
ment/non-achievement of
the intervention’s intended
objectives (taking into ac-
count the anticipated
risks)?
project's sphere of responsibil-
ity / system boundary. The pro-
ject is implemented jointly by
GIZ and the official partner(s).
Assessment of pro-
cess of project imple-
mentation
Methods: document analy-
sis; analysis of monitoring
data; interviews; survey;
project site visits
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); interviews
with stakeholders and
beneficiaries.
Limited observations for
new indicators; data qual-
ity moderate
moderate
Quality of imple-
mentation
Standard
What assessment can be
made of the quality of
steering and implementa-
tion of the intervention in
terms of the achievement
of objectives?
What assessment can be
made of the quality of
steering and implementa-
tion of, and participation in,
the intervention by the
partner/executing agency?
Capacity Works considera-
tions:
- Results-oriented monitor-
ing (RoM / WoM) is estab-
lished and used, e.g. for evi-
dence-based decisions, risk
management. Data are dis-
aggregated by gender and
marginalised groups. unin-
tended positive and negative
results are monitored. Conflict-
sensitive monitoring and ex-
plicit risk-safety monitoring are
particularly important for pro-
jects in fragile contexts.
- A bindingly communicated
strategy agreed with the part-
ners is pursued
- Involvement and cooperation
of all relevant actors (including
partners, civil society, private
sector)
- Steering: decisions influenc-
ing the project's results are
made in time and evidence-in-
formed. Decision processes
are transparent.
- Processes: Relevant change
processes are anchored in the
cooperation system; project-in-
ternal processes are estab-
lished and regularly reflected
and optimised.
- Learning and innovation:
There is a learning and innova-
tion-friendly work culture that
promotes the exchange of ex-
perience; learning processes
are established; context-spe-
cific adjustments are possible
Assessment of pro-
cess of project steer-
ing and implementa-
tion
Methods: interviews, docu-
ment analysis
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); interviews
with stakeholders and
beneficiaries.
Interviews may not be rep-
resentative; data quality
poor/moderate
moderate
92
Unintended results
Standard
To what extent can unin-
tended positive/negative
direct results (social, eco-
nomic, environmental and
among vulnerable benefi-
ciary groups) be ob-
served/anticipated?
level, but for the analysis the
unintended effects can also be
included on the output level
Assessment of unin-
tended effects
Design: Outcome harvest-
ing; Methods: interviews,
document analysis
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); interviews
with stakeholders and
beneficiaries.
Interviews may not be rep-
resentative; data quality
poor/moderate
moderate
and Fragility
To what extent was the
project able to ensure that
escalating factors/ dividers
have not been strength-
ened (indirectly) by the
project? Has the project
unintentionally (indirectly)
supported violent or 'divid-
ing' actors?
Assessment of esca-
lating factors
Design: Outcome harvest-
ing; Methods: interviews,
document analysis
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports; iPCA); inter-
views with stakeholders
and beneficiaries.
Interviews may not be rep-
resentative; data quality
poor/moderate
moderate
Standard
What potential bene-
fits/risks arise from the
positive/negative unin-
tended results? What as-
sessment can be made of
them?
were already mentioned and
monitored in the design phase
Risk assessment
Design: Outcome harvest-
ing; Methods: interviews,
document analysis
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); interviews
with stakeholders and
beneficiaries.
Interviews may not be rep-
resentative; data quality
poor/moderate
moderate
and Fragility
To what extent have risks
and unintended-negative
results in the context of
conflict, fragility and vio-
lence5 been monitored
(context/conflict-sensitive
monitoring) in a systematic
way?
Monitoring of risks
and unintended re-
sults associated with
conflict,
Design: Outcome harvest-
ing; Methods: interviews,
document analysis
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports; iPCA); inter-
views with stakeholders
and beneficiaries.
Interviews may not be rep-
resentative; data quality
poor/moderate
moderate
Standard
How has the intervention
responded to the potential
benefits/risks of the posi-
tive/negative unintended
results?
positive results at the
outcome level have been moni-
tored and set in value
Assessment of risks
and unintended re-
sults
Design: Outcome harvest-
ing; Methods: interviews,
document analysis
Relevant documents (e.g.
Change Offer 2020; Pro-
gress reports); interviews
with stakeholders and
beneficiaries.
Interviews may not be rep-
resentative; data quality
poor/moderate
moderate
(1) The first and the second evaluation dimensions are interrelated: if the contribution of the project to the objective achievement is low (2nd evaluation dimension) this must be considered for the assessment of the first evaluation dimension also.
(2) Risks in the context of conflict, fragility and violence: e.g. contextual (e.g. political instability, violence, economic crises, migration/refugee flows, drought, etc.), institutional (e.g. weak partner capacity, fiduciary risks, corruption, staff turnover, investment risks) and
personnel (murder, robbery, kidnapping, medical care, etc.).
93
OECD DAC Criterion Impact (higher-level development results) - What difference does the inter-
vention make? (max. 100 points)
Based on recognisable higher-level development changes (at impact level), the criterion of "higher level development results (at impact level)" relates to
the extent to which the intervention has already produced significant positive or negative, intended or unintended results at the overarching level (contribu-
tions to the observed changes) or is expected to do so in the future. This includes any differential results across different stakeholders and beneficiaries.
This criterion refers to the results of the development intervention.
Assessment
dimensions
Filter -
Project
Type
Evaluation questions
Clarifications
Basis for Assess-
ment / Evaluation
indicators
Evaluation Design
and empirical meth-
ods
Data sources
Data Quality and
limitations
Data Quality
Assessment
(weak, mod-
erate, good,
strong)
Higher-level
(intended)
development
changes1
Standard
To what extent can the higher-level de-
velopment changes (social, economic
and environmental dimensions and the
interactions between them) to which the
intervention will/is designed to contrib-
ute be identified/foreseen)? (Specify
time frame where possible.)
posal for suggested impact
and program objective in-
dicators (program pro-
posal), if it is not an indi-
vidual measure
sessment: program objec-
tive indicators, identifiers,
connection to the national
strategy for implementing
2030 Agenda, connection
to SDGs
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, selected
hypotheses
Design: Contribution
analysis; Methods: docu-
ment analysis; analysis
of monitoring data; inter-
views; survey; project
site visits
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries;
survey among selected key stake-
holders
The project does not
monitor results be-
yond the outcome
level. Dependence
on external second-
ary data, which may
not be complete and
comparable over
time.
moderate
Standard
To what extent can the higher-level de-
velopment changes (social, economic,
environmental dimensions and the inter-
actions between them) be identi-
fied/foreseen at the level of the intended
beneficiaries? (Specify time frame
where possible.)
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, selected
hypotheses
Design: Contribution
analysis; Methods: docu-
ment analysis; analysis
of monitoring data; inter-
views; survey; project
site visits
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries;
survey among selected key stake-
holders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent can higher-level devel-
opment changes to which the interven-
tion will/is designed to contribute be
identified/foreseen at the level of partic-
ularly disadvantaged/vulnerable groups
of beneficiaries and stakeholders?
(These may be broken down by age, in-
come, gender, ethnicity, etc.) (Specify
time frame where possible.)
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, selected
hypotheses
Design: Contribution
analysis; Methods: docu-
ment analysis; analysis
of monitoring data; inter-
views; survey; project
site visits
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries;
survey among selected key stake-
holders
Same as above.
moderate
Contribution
to higher-
level (in-
tended) de-
velopment
changes
Standard
To what extent has the intervention
achieved its intended (original and,
where applicable, revised) development
objectives?
be assessed in Dimension
1 Question 1, the contribu-
tion to impact is assessed
in Dimension 2, Question 1
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, selected
hypotheses
Design: Contribution
analysis; Methods: docu-
ment analysis; analysis
of monitoring data; inter-
views; survey; project
site visits
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries;
survey among selected key stake-
holders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the intervention
achieved its (original and, where appli-
cable, revised) development objectives
at the level of the intended beneficiar-
ies?
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, selected
hypotheses
Design: Contribution
analysis; Methods: docu-
ment analysis; analysis
of monitoring data; inter-
views; survey; project
site visits
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries;
survey among selected key stake-
holders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the intervention con-
tributed to higher-level development
changes/changes in the lives of particu-
larly disadvantaged or vulnerable
groups of beneficiaries and stakehold-
ers that it was designed to bring about?
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
Design: Contribution
analysis; Methods: docu-
ment analysis; analysis
of monitoring data; inter-
views; survey; project
site visits
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries;
Same as above.
moderate
94
(These may be broken down by age, in-
come, gender, ethnicity, etc.).
strategies, selected
hypotheses
survey among selected key stake-
holders
Standard
Which internal factors (technical, organi-
sational or financial) were decisive for
achievement/non-achievement of the in-
tervention’s intended development ob-
jectives?
the project's sphere of re-
sponsibility / system
boundary. The project is
implemented jointly by GIZ
and the official partner(s)
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, selected
hypotheses
Design: Contribution
analysis; Methods: docu-
ment analysis; analysis
of monitoring data; inter-
views; survey; project
site visits
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries;
survey among selected key stake-
holders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
Which external factors were decisive for
the achievement/non-achievement of
the intervention’s intended development
objectives?
the project's sphere of re-
sponsibility / system
boundary. The project is
implemented jointly by GIZ
and the official partner(s).
tivities of other actors or
other policies, framework
conditions, other policy ar-
eas, strategies or interests
(German ministries, bilat-
eral and multilateral devel-
opment partners)
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, selected
hypotheses
Design: Contribution
analysis; Methods: docu-
ment analysis; analysis
of monitoring data; inter-
views; survey; project
site visits
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries;
survey among selected key stake-
holders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the intervention
achieved structural or institutional
changes (e.g. for organisations, sys-
tems and regulations)?
Structure, institutional
aspects
Design: Institutional
analysis; Methods: docu-
ment analysis; interviews
Relevant documents (e.g. progress
reports; reports); project monitoring
data; SDG indicator data; inter-
views with stakeholders and bene-
ficiaries; survey among selected
key stakeholders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent did the intervention
serve as a model and/or achieve broad-
based impact?
-up is a con-
sciously designed process
to anchor changes in or-
ganisations and coopera-
tion systems (e.g. con-
cepts, approaches, meth-
ods) to generate broad im-
pact
-
up, horizontal scaling-up,
functional scaling-up or a
combination of these2
tential and reasons for not
exploiting it
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, selected
hypotheses
Methods: document
analysis; analysis of
monitoring data; inter-
views
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries;
survey among selected key stake-
holders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
How would the situation have devel-
oped without the intervention?
tion, quantitative ap-
proaches welcome
Qualitative counter-
factual analysis/re-
flection
Methods: Interviews,
document analysis; pro-
ject site visits; using in-
sights from scientific lit-
erature.
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
stakeholders and beneficiaries
Limited possibilities
to conduct inter-
views
weak
Contribution to
higher-level
(unintended)
development
Standard
To what extent can higher-level, unin-
tended development changes (social,
economic and environmental dimen-
sions and their interactions, taking into
account political stability) be identi-
fied/foreseen? (Specify time frame
where possible.)
Review of relevant
documents.
Stakeholder views.
Design: Outcome Har-
vesting and (potentially)
contribution analysis.
Methods: document
analysis; analysis of
monitoring data; inter-
views
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports; Political Economy Brief
Analysis); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
key stakeholders
Same as above.
moderate
95
changes
and Fra-
gility
To what extent did the project have (un-
intended) negative or escalating effects
on the conflict or the context of fragility
(e.g. conflict dynamics, violence, legiti-
macy of state and non-state actors/insti-
tutions)? To what extent did the project
have positive or deescalating effects on
the conflict or the context of fragility
(e.g. conflict dynamics, violence, legiti-
macy of state and non-state actors/insti-
tutions)?
Review of relevant
documents.
Stakeholder views.
Design: Outcome Har-
vesting and (potentially)
contribution analysis.
Methods: document
analysis; analysis of
monitoring data; inter-
views
iPCA report; Context analysis re-
port; interviews with key project
staff and stakeholders
There may be limita-
tions to collecting in-
formation by means
of interviews be-
cause of the sensi-
tive nature of the
topic
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the intervention
brought about foreseeable/identifiable
unintended (positive and/or negative)
higher-level development results?
were already known in the
design phase
ment of risks in connection
with (unintended) negative
or (not formally agreed)
positive results at the im-
pact level in the monitoring
system has been carried
out (e.g. use of 'compass')
or counteract the risks/
negative effects/ trade-
offs3
framework conditions for
negative results and the
project's reaction to them
potential (not formally
agreed) positive results
and synergies between the
ecological, economic and
social development dimen-
sions have been monitored
and exploited
Results model/matrix,
module objective,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, selected
hypotheses, risk as-
sessment, framework
conditions
Design: Outcome Har-
vesting and (potentially)
contribution analysis.
Methods: document
analysis; analysis of
monitoring data; inter-
views
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
key stakeholders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the intervention con-
tributed to foreseeable/identifiable unin-
tended (positive and/or negative)
higher-level development results at the
level of particularly disadvantaged or
vulnerable groups of beneficiaries and
stakeholders? (These may be broken
down by age, income, gender, ethnicity,
etc.)
Results model/matrix,
module objective,
SDGs, BMZ country
strategy, national
strategies, identifica-
tion of disadvantaged
and vulnerable
groups of beneficiar-
ies and stakeholders
Design: Outcome Har-
vesting and (potentially)
contribution analysis.
Methods: document
analysis; analysis of
monitoring data; inter-
views
Relevant documents (e.g. Change
Offer 2020; Progress reports: SDG
reports); project monitoring data;
SDG indicator data; interviews with
key stakeholders and beneficiaries
Same as above.
moderate
(1) The first and second assessment dimensions are interrelated: If the project's contribution to achieving the objective is small (2nd assessment dimension), This must also be taken into account when evaluating the first assessment dimension.
(2) Risks, negative effects and trade-offs are separate aspects that should be discussed individually at this point.
96
OECD DAC Criterion Efficiency - How well are resources being used? (max. 100 points)
This criterion describes the extent to which the intervention delivers results in an economic and timely way (relationship between input and output, outcome and impact
production efficiencyallocation
efficiencys achieved (project/development objective; outcome/impact level) by the inter-
es.
Assess-
ment di-
mensions
Filter -
Project
Type
Evaluation questions
Clarifications
Basis for
Assess-
ment / Eval-
uation indi-
cators
Evaluation Design and
empirical methods
Data sources
Data Quality and
limitations
Data Quality
Assess-
ment
(weak, mod-
erate, good,
strong)
Production ef-
ficiency
Standard
How are the intervention’s inputs (finan-
cial, human and material resources) dis-
tributed (e.g. by instruments, sectors,
sub-interventions, taking into account
the cost contributions of partners/exe-
cuting agencies/other beneficiaries and
stakeholders etc.)?
of costs, agreed and provided partner contribu-
tions
planned costs and actual costs (with compre-
hensible justification, changes are certainly de-
sirable for increased efficiency)
Output indica-
tors, input data
Design: Efficiency analysis;
Methods: analysis of pro-
ject's financial data in rela-
tion to results indicators; in-
terviews
Progress reports; Cost
Commitment Report; hu-
man resources (HR) data;
interviews with selected
stakeholders
Only a small part of the
project cost can be as-
signed to specific out-
puts; financial and HR
data refer to the period
since the start of the
project, whereas the
new outputs were for-
mulated in 2020; the ba-
sis for accounting for in-
kind national contribu-
tions may be inade-
quate.
weak
Standard
inputs (financial, human and material
resources) been used economically in
relation to the outputs delivered (prod-
ucts, investment goods and services)?
If possible, refer to data from other eval-
uations in a region or sector, for in-
stance.
and use of the follow-the-money approach as
evaluation design (may be combined with other
high-quality approaches)
tivities as well as TC instruments (personnel in-
struments, financing, materials and equipment)1
compared to possible alternatives with a focus
on the minimum principle (use of comparative
data if available)
benchmarks in order to achieve its effects eco-
nomically
project with focus on economically use of re-
sources and cost risks
appropriate proportion to the costs of the out-
puts
Output indica-
tors, input data
Design: Efficiency analysis;
Methods: analysis of pro-
ject's financial data in rela-
tion to results indicators; in-
terviews
Progress reports; Cost
Commitment Report; HR
data; interviews with se-
lected stakeholders
Same as above.
weak
Standard
outputs (products, investment goods
and services) have been increased
through the alternative use of inputs (fi-
nancial, human and material re-
sources)? If possible, refer to data from
other evaluations of a region or sector,
for instance. (If applicable, this question
adds a complementary perspective*)
* This case is always applicable in the
technical cooperation (TC), please an-
swer the question bindingly
and use of the follow-the-money approach as
evaluation design (may be combined with other
high-quality approaches)
tivities as well as TC instruments (personnel in-
struments, financing, materials and equipment)1
compared to possible alternatives with focus on
output maximisation (use of comparative data if
available)
sources and shifts between outputs for output
maximisation
maximise outputs
gn
phase and regularly during the implementation
of the project with focus on output maximisation
(with comprehensible justification, changes are
Output indica-
tors, input data
Design: Efficiency analysis;
Methods: analysis of pro-
ject's financial data in rela-
tion to results indicators; in-
terviews
Progress reports; Cost
Commitment Report; HR
data; interviews with se-
lected stakeholders
Same as above.
weak
97
certainly desirable for increased efficiency)
sources, under the same conditions and with the
same or better quality
Allocation ef-
ficiency
Standard
By what other means and at what cost
could the results achieved (higher-level
project objective) have been attained?
Outcome indi-
cators
Design: Efficiency analysis;
Methods: analysis of pro-
ject's financial data in rela-
tion to results indicators; in-
terviews
Progress reports; Cost
Commitment Report; HR
data; interviews with se-
lected stakeholders
Same as above. Also a
limitation for the assess-
ment of allocation effi-
ciency is that the four
defined outcome indica-
tors reflect different di-
mensions of the in-
tended outcome and
cannot be added to
each other.
weak
Standard
To what extent compared with alter-
native designs for the intervention
could the results have been attained
more cost-effectively?
activities as well as TC-instruments in compari-
son to possible alternatives with focus on mini-
mum principle (use of comparative data if avail-
able)
-
outcome relation and alternatives as well as
cost risks
ns are proportionate to
the costs for the outcome of the project
Outcome indi-
cators
Design: Efficiency analysis;
Methods: analysis of pro-
ject's financial data in rela-
tion to results indicators; in-
terviews
Progress reports; Cost
Commitment Report; HR
data; interviews with se-
lected stakeholders
Same as above.
weak
Standard
To what extent compared with alter-
native designs for the intervention
could the positive results have been in-
creased using the existing resources?
(If applicable, this question adds a com-
plementary perspective*)
* This case is always applicable in the
technical cooperation (TC), please an-
swer the question bindingly
and activities as well as TC-instruments com-
pared to possible alternatives with focus on
maximising the outcome (real comparison if
available)
the outputs in such a way that the maximum ef-
fects in terms of the module objective are
achieved
-
outcome relation and alternatives
isation of possibilities for
scaling-up
cofinancing) have been
raised: Effects on input-outcome ratio (e.g. via
economies of scale) and the ratio of administra-
tive costs to total costs
nation and complementarity within German DC
are sufficiently avoided
Assessment of
potential con-
sequences for
outcomes in
case of alter-
native alloca-
tion of re-
sources
Design: Efficiency analysis;
Methods: document and data
analysis; interviews
Progress reports, inter-
views with selected
stakeholders
Same as above.
weak
98
OECD DAC Criterion Sustainability - Will the benefits last? (max. 100 points)
The 'sustainability' criterion relates to continued long-term benefits (at the outcome and impact level) or the probability of continued long-term benefits taking into
account observed or foreseeable risks over time, particularly after assistance has ended.
Assessment
dimensions
Filter -
Project
Type
Evaluation questions
Clarifications
Basis for
Assessment
/ Evaluation
indicators
Evaluation Design
and empirical meth-
ods
Data sources
Data Quality and
limitations
Data Quality
Assessment
(weak, mod-
erate, good,
strong)
Capacities of
the beneficiar-
ies and stake-
holders
Standard
To what extent do the beneficiaries
and stakeholders (individuals,
groups and organisations, partners
and executing agencies) have the
institutional, human and financial re-
sources as well as the willingness
(ownership) required to sustain the
positive results of the intervention
over time (once assistance has
drawn to a close)?
jects primarily address final beneficiaries, whose
resilience to crises and recurring shocks is to be
strengthened. The focus for TDA projects is thus
often on the resilience of final beneficiaries and/or
at least the continuity of the measure (see expla-
nation in dimension 3) (clarification in the inception
phase of the evaluation).
Assessment of
indicators or in-
dication of ben-
eficiaries and
stakeholder ca-
pacity to sus-
tain results and
ownership of
results
Design: Sustainability
analysis with focus on in-
stitutional and capacity-
building aspects; Meth-
ods: document analysis
and interviews
Progress reports; inter-
views with project staff
and stakeholders at
policy level
Existing information
may not be up to date
Interviews may not be
representative.
moderate
Standard
To what extent do the beneficiaries
and stakeholders (individuals,
groups and organisations, partners
and executing agencies) have the
resilience to overcome future risks
that could jeopardise the interven-
Identification of
risks and as-
sessment of re-
silience to over-
come future
risks
Methods: risk analysis
and assessment of risk
mitigation strategy, inter-
views
Progress reports; inter-
views with project staff
and stakeholders at
policy level
Same as above.
moderate
Contribution
to supporting
sustainable
capacities
Standard
To what extent has the intervention
contributed to the beneficiaries and
stakeholders (individuals, groups
and organisations, partners and ex-
ecuting agencies) having the institu-
tional, human and financial re-
sources as well as the willingness
(ownership) required to sustain the
positive results over
time and to limit the impact of any
negative results?
learning experiences
proaches, methods and concepts in the partner
system
-on project, check to what ex-
tent the results of the evaluated project are taken
up; the anchoring of the effects in the partner's or-
ganisation should be pursued independently of a
follow-on project, since sustainability should be
achieved even without donor funds
jects primarily address final beneficiaries, whose
resilience to crises and recurring shocks is to be
strengthened. The focus for TDA projects is thus
often on the resilience of final beneficiaries and/or
at least the continuity of the measure (see expla-
nation in dimension 3) (clarification in the inception
phase of the evaluation).
Capacity and
ownership for
sustaining posi-
tive results/lim-
iting impact of
any negative
results; learn-
ing from experi-
ence
Design: Sustainability
analysis with focus on in-
stitutional and capacity-
building aspects and
ownership; Methods:
document analysis and
interviews
Progress reports; as-
sessments of organi-
sational change, inter-
views with selected
stakeholders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the intervention
contributed to strengthening the re-
silience of the beneficiaries and
stakeholders (individuals, groups
and organisations, partners and ex-
ecuting agencies)?
Assessment of
resilience of
beneficiaries
and stakehold-
ers
Methods: document
analysis and interviews
Progress reports; inter-
views with project ben-
eficiaries and stake-
holders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent has the intervention
contributed to strengthening the re-
silience of particularly disadvan-
taged groups? (These may be bro-
ken down by age, income, gender,
ethnicity, etc.)
Assessment of
resilience of
disadvantaged
groups
Methods: document
analysis and interviews
Progress reports; Gen-
der analysis reports;
interviews among peo-
ple in disadvantaged
groups
Same as above.
moderate
99
Durability of
results over
time
Standard
How stable is the context in which
the intervention operates?
Assessment of
the (stability of
the) context
Methods: context analy-
sis, interviews
Progress reports;
iPCA; Political Econ-
omy Brief Analysis; in-
terviews with key
stakeholders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent is the durability of
the intervention’s positive results in-
fluenced by the context?
long-
term stability of the results and description of the
reaction of the project to these
Assessment of
how the project
reacts to risks
and potentials
for long-term
stability of the
results
Methods: document
analysis and interviews
Progress reports;
iPCA; Political Econ-
omy Brief Analysis; in-
terviews with key
stakeholders
Same as above.
moderate
Standard
To what extent can the positive (and
any negative) results of the inter-
vention be deemed durable?
use of the results by partners and beneficiaries can
be foreseen
the durability, longevity and resilience of the effects
(outcome and impact)
projects in the field of Transitional
Development Assistance (TDA), at least the conti-
nuity of the measure must be examined: To what
extent will services or results be continued in future
projects (of GIZ or other donors/organisations) or
their sustainability ensured? (Clarification in the in-
ception phase)
Assessment of
influence of
contextual fac-
tors
Methods: document
analysis and interviews
Progress reports;
iPCA; Political Econ-
omy Brief Analysis; in-
terviews with key
stakeholders
Same as above.
moderate
100
Predecessor projects
Assessment
dimensions
Evaluation questions
Basis for As-
sessment / Eval-
uation indicators
Evaluation Design and em-
pirical methods
Data sources
Data Quality and
limitations
Data Quality
Assessment
(weak, mod-
erate, good,
strong)
Impact of the
predecessor
projects
Which results were envisaged at the impact level of the predecessor
project and which were achieved?
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators
Methods: interviews, document
analysis
Evaluations of predecessor projects. Interview with
staff also involved in predecessor projects: "Project
German development cooperation with Nigeria Joint
Programme Proposal (JP) for the DC Programme
Sustainable Economic Development in Nigeria, TC
measure "Broad-based Growth and Employment De-
mand PN 2016.2120.0: Project appraisal of the "Pro-
Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in Nigeria
(SEDIN)" 2020
Interviews may not be
representative; data at
impact level not moni-
tored; limited access
to documentation on
predecessor projects;
data quality poor/mod-
erate
moderate
Which results of the predecessor are still visible today at impact
level?
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDG monitoring
Methods: interviews, document
analysis
Same as above.
Same as above.
moderate
Which results of the predecessor are only visible today at impact
level?
Results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDG monitoring
Methods: interviews, document
analysis
Same as above.
Same as above.
moderate
How were changes in the framework conditions handled over time
(including transition between different projects)? Which decisions in
previous projects influence the impact of the predecessor as well as
the current project until today? How?
Review of proposal,
results model/matrix,
module objective/pro-
gramme indicators,
SDG monitoring
Methods: interviews, document
analysis
Same as above.
Same as above.
moderate
What were factors for success / failure for the impact of the prede-
cessor?
Assessment of suc-
cess and failure fac-
tors
Methods: interviews, document
analysis
Same as above.
Same as above.
moderate
Sustainability
of the prede-
cessor pro-
jects
Which results were envisaged at the outcome level of the predeces-
sor project and which were achieved?
Results model/matrix,
module objective in-
dicators, monitoring
data
Methods: interviews, document
analysis
Same as above.
Same as above.
weak
Which results at outcome level (and important outputs) are still pre-
sent or have been further developed by the partners? (without exter-
nal funding vs. with external funding)
Results model/matrix,
module objective in-
dicators, monitoring
data
Methods: interviews, document
analysis
Same as above.
Same as above.
weak
How were the results of the predecessor anchored in the partner
structure?
Review partner struc-
ture
Methods: interviews
Same as above.
Same as above.
weak
How were changes in the framework conditions handled over time
(including transition between different projects)? Which decisions in
previous projects influence the sustainability of the predecessor and
the current project until today? How?
Influence previously
introduced changes
on sustainability
Methods: interviews
Same as above.
Same as above.
weak
101
Disclaimer:
This publication contains links to external websites. Responsibility for the content of
the listed external sites always lies with their respective publishers. When the links
to these sites were first posted, GIZ checked the third-party content to establish
whether it could give rise to civil or criminal liability. However, the constant review of
the links to external sites cannot reasonably be expected without concrete indication
of a violation of rights. If GIZ itself becomes aware or is notified by a third party that
an external site it has provided a link to gives rise to civil or criminal liability, it will re-
move the link to this site immediately. GIZ expressly dissociates itself from such
content.
Maps:
The maps printed here are intended only for information purposes and in no
way constitute recognition under international law of boundaries and territories.
GIZ accepts no responsibility for these maps being entirely up to date, correct
or complete. All liability for any damage, direct or indirect, resulting from their
use is excluded.
102
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Registered offices
Bonn and Eschborn
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 32 + 36
53113 Bonn, Germany
T: +49 228 44 60-0
F: +49 228 44 60-17 66
Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 15
65760 Eschborn, Germany
T: +49 6196 79-0
F: +49 6196 79-11 15
E: info@giz.de
I: www.giz.de
