We’re building a new UNICEF.org.
As we swap out old for new, pages will be in transition. Thanks for your patience – please keep coming back to see the improvements.

Evaluation database

Evaluation report

2010 Mozambique: Evaluation of the EU Water Facility Programme (EC-UNICEF Partnership)

Author: Ernst & Young. Institution: UNICEF. Partners: Government of Mozambique, European Commission

Executive summary


“With the aim to continuously improve transparency and use of evaluation, UNICEF Evaluation Office manages the "Global Evaluation Reports Oversight System". Within this system, an external independent company reviews and rates all evaluation reports. Please ensure that you check the quality of this evaluation report, whether it is “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Almost Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory” before using it. You will find the link to the quality rating below, labelled as ‘Part 3’ of the report.”


Under the European Water Facility (EUWF), the European Commission and UNICEF signed a four year programme Contribution Agreement on July 2006 targeting water, sanitation and hygiene in eight vulnerable rural and peri-urban areas of Safala and Zambezia provinces, in Mozambique. The final evaluation was part of the Programme Monitoring and Evaluation framework, which was draw up jointly by the Government of Mozambique, UNICEF and the European Commission at the beginning of the programme.


The main objective of the study is to evaluate the EU Water Facility WASH Programme, in particular its performance, and to draw lessons learned for similar programmes in Mozambique.


The evaluation was carried out through a combination of desk review, personal interviews, focus group discussions and direct observation in the field. The evaluation team visited two out of four districts and three out of four municipalities in the project areas to assess in depth the different aspects of the projects results.

Findings and Conclusions:

The project was highly relevant. Regarding the efficiency of its implementation, both the programme set and the implementation procedures were adequate for achieving the programme objectives. The programme was particularly strong in delivering results in terms of infrastructure provision in the target areas, exceeding in all cases targets set for infrastructure provision and number of people covered by the action. With regards to the programme impact, it shows potential to have a great impact on the living conditions of selected population although the evaluation teams considers that it is too early to make judgements on this issue. As regards of its sustainability, there is high probability that the benefits provided by the programme will continue after its termination, however, that is a challenge for all stakeholders involved in the programme, mainly water management committees local service providers and local authorities.


Better coordination of monitoring and evaluation activities, especially at central level counterpart; Prioritize WASH activities on peri-urban areas, which seem to be neglected in the majority of interventions; Increase the direct support provided to the counterparts in order to ensure a more closed implementation of the planned activities; improve information flows about the programme among the stakeholders; share lessons learned with other provinces in order to disseminate best practices implemented by the programme; improve the articulation with other complementary programmes to harmonize the interventions at all levels.

Lessons Learned (Optional):

New result-based contract management process for drilling of boreholes was successful in reducing the cost per borehole and ensured quality of infrastructure; (ii) The establishment of Water Committees requires more consideration in terms of follow-up training and monitoring; (iii) there is a need for more flexibility during the project implementation, taking into account the changes in the context and the dynamism of the sector; (iv) rural and peri-urban areas have different characteristics and specifications and future interventions need to be more geographical focuses for a better definition of intervention models; (v) the coordination process among implementation partners at central and provincial level should be defined and shared in advance to accommodate potential administrative constrains, (vi) provinces, municipalities and districts have shown the capacity to manage directly funds allocated by the project and (vii) the school sanitation clubs established by the programme had good results mobilizing the communities on sanitation and hygiene promotion issues.

Full report in PDF

PDF files require Acrobat Reader.



Report information

New enhanced search