Ensure the compact objectives (Section 1.2 & Section 1.3 of the compact agreement), logic diagrams, economic models and other communications about what the compact intends to do all align. There was not perfect alignment across these documents and analysis in the Jordan Compact, which created challenges for results measurement and reporting. a) The Jordan project logic diagram was unnecessarily complicated. Logical chains were detailed that were not likely to happen as a result of the investments or were beyond what the project designers were aiming for. As a result, the focus of the evaluation lost some clarity. b) In Jordan, the program objective was to “to increase the effective supply of water bavailable to the inhabitants of Zarqa Governorate”. The evaluation found this was achieved. However, the evaluation found that one of the WNP project objectives (“decrease certain costs that households in Zarqa Governorate incur to satisfy their subsistence water needs”) was not achieved. The project team states this was never an objective of the main project. This misalignment between the intended objectives and the compact agreement creates confusion in the focus of evaluation work and in the final results narrative of a compact and should be avoided on future compacts. c) The original compact language makes no reference to enterprises. However, later restatements of the objective began to refer to “households and enterprises” instead of “inhabitants of Zarqa Governorate” as the targeted beneficiaries. It is not clear why this shift in focus occurred. The evaluation surveyed enterprises, and found no impact on them, likely because it was never part of the project design. To avoid this in the future, is important that all communications about the compact state the Objective consistently.
Lesson Learned