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

2008 Nigeria: Evaluation of status of implementation and progress achieved in the rural component of the water supply and sanitation sector reform progress


Executive summary


The European Commission (EC) and the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) agreed in December 2004 to support the implementation of the “Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Reform Programme” (WSSSRP). The overall objective of the WSSSRP is to contribute to poverty eradication, sustainable development, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals related to water. The specific objective of the WSSSRP is to increase access to safe, adequate and sustainable water and sanitation services in the six focal states of Anambra, Cross River, Jigawa, Kano, Osun and Yobe.


The global objective of the evaluation is to “assess the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the rural component of WSSSRP, give recommendations for the improvement of its implementation for the remaining 2.5 years of the programme and estimate what can be achieved within this time frame.”

Specific objectives include 1. review of the rural component-review the organisational andmanagement structure of UNICEF WSSSRP team 2.review the linkages between the rural component as implemented by UNICEF and the other components of the WSSSRP projecs, notably the Federal Programme Implementation Unite and the State Programme Implementation Units 3. review the linkages among the UNICEF implementors with the relevant State and Local Government authourities 4. examine the performance of the rural part of the programme compared to the objectives defined in the Financing Agreement and TOR of the Contribution Agreement and reasons for any difference 5. assess the coordination, monitoring and the review of the UNICEF Abuja team with the UNICEF State representatives in the 6 focal states plus the 2 states with Guinea worm eradication actions 6. examine the quality of information management and the effectiveness of the visibility given to the programme 7. examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of stakeholder participation in the programme and the appropriateness of technology options supported by the programme 8. assess the spending of the financial resources as compared to the expenditures foreseen and the allocation for different parts of the programme.  The original logical framework matrix and the updated one should be annexed to the report 9. assess the number and expertise of the project staff forseen under the Contribution agreement vis-a-vis the technical administrative project workload and their capacity to implement the project. 10. identify new factors or changes influencing the needs, the effectiveness and sustainability of the programme outputs and advise on how to address such changes.


The rural water supply and sanitation component of the programme under result 4 is implemented by UNICEF through a four-year Contribution Agreement signed in July 2005. In addition, in Cross River, Kebbi and Gombe States, UNICEF works towards eradicating guinea worm in 21 communities in 5 Local Government areas. It also provides support for the National Water Resources Institute (NWRI) in Kaduna. UNICEF implements the programme in the 8 focal States through WASH onsultants that are supported by four field offices (A-D) and the UNICEF HQ in Abuja.

Findings and Conclusions:

The design of the WSSSRP rural component appears to be relevant with the identified (and emerging) needs of the populations of the rural communities, with the water sector and sanitation policies and strategies promoted by the FGN, while being adequately responsive and flexible. At the design level of the programme however, one of the main assumptions made, namely the commitment of the FGN to implement the agreed cost sharing formula and to elaborate  rresponding administrative and disbursement procedures did not yet materialise; this has created serious delays in the programme implementation.

In general it is felt that coordination is working better at field level. However, it is unclear how and how often the state level programme information with regard to the overall status of implementation, approaches, technical solutions adopted, problems encountered, etc., is shared between the different FOs. The CA does not specifically quantify the inputs of the key staff.

The overall performance of the rural component after 2.5 years is judged to be rather poor even if the several reasons, external and internal, for the accumulated delays are accounted for. The evaluation is made at two levels: a) at the level of activities that contributed to the results; and b) at the level of the results actually achieved. An assessment of the degree of achievement at activity level after 2.5 years of implementation shows the average weighted overall progress was around 23% and that out of a total of 46 current activities 8 activities were completed, which represents just 17.3% of the activities undertaken. The reported achievements are consistent with the current expenditure rate of the rural component of just 25% provided by the appraisal of the spending.


FMAWR should urgently materialise its commitment to provide its financial contribution to the programme/States, as per the agreed cost sharingformula.
• A focal person should be designated among the senior staff of the FMAWR to liaise and to coordinate with the rural and the urban/small towns components of the programme, to ensure technical supervision by the technical line ministry.

NPC/NAO Sshould put in place an efficient M&E system to closely monitor on a permanent basis the programme execution against agreed targets and benchmarks (external monitoring TA may be required for an initial year, under a FWC).
• Should increase the number of staff in charge of the overall supervision of the Contract.

EU Delegation should be ready to make an amendment to the original Financing Agreement, to approve a time extension, if allowed by the EC regulationsby end of 2010, on the basis of a reallocation between the budget headings/lines (overall budget kept the same).
• Should proceed with an initial extension of the Contribution Agreement for one (1.5 years).
• Should be more actively involved in the M&E of WSSRP activities, jointly with the NAO.

PMU PMU should as a matter of urgency finalise the draft Guidelines for administrative and disbursement procedures and to disseminate it to the states for their final comments and agreement.
• Should be more involved on the dissemination of the information related to the rural component.

Federal/States should agree on the final “Guidelines for administrative and disbursement procedures” document and to produce without delays all required project-related documentation, based on agreed procedures. Should ensure that local contractors are paid in time aiming to avoid potential social conflicts and a negative impact on private sector participation in Government funded activities.

RWASSAs should be given addtionall capacity building so that they would be institutionally strengthened as sustainable organisations aiming to ensure the replication of WSSSRP activities as a package, with the provision of the soft components as well.
• Should more actively build their capacities in close cooperation with the LGAs

UNICEF should develop an activity bar chart (GANTT) as a useful tool for a better visualisation of the prioritisation, timing and duration of the activities, the milestones and benchmarks, as well as tracking on a permanent basis the actual results. In practice, it may be very well the case that for all focal states activities will be the same, but the time frames might be different.

UNICEF should be manage the WES siuation as a “crisis management” where updated information should be readily available to make informed decisions. It should also ensure that state level programme information with regard to the overall status of implementation, approaches, technical solutions adopted, problems encountered, etc. should be better shared between the different FOs.

It is believed that with the recruitment of a Project Officer in charge of M&E that person will support also overall coordination and communication.

The meetings of WSSSRPs should be minuted and should always end in concrete decisions and a specific task for the person in charge for implementing the decisions, accompanied by a clear timeframe for the decision to be carried out, and all necessary follow up measures.


Full report in PDF

PDF files require Acrobat Reader.



Report information

New enhanced search