Greater clarity around development problems can help identify the appropriate solution and increase the efficiency of an intervention. CBRLM aimed to overcome environmental degradation and the low productivity of cattle in the NCAs. In other words, the intervention intended to address multiple problems with complex root causes; and as a corollary, the intervention set out to achieve multiple intervention-level objectives. The evaluator reported that the intervention cost approximately $12,500 to implement per participant even though participants ultimately did not experience positive economic impacts, making this a very inefficient use of program funds. The Agriculture Project objective was (in part) to increase the total value added from livestock in the NCAs. Perhaps this could have been achieved without all of the various components or intervention-level objectives of CBRLM. As one example, women’s empowerment was an objective written into the CBRLM Terms of Reference. The primary means for accomplishing that was a “Small-Stock Pass-on Scheme,” which was considered time-intensive even though it was not a primary focus of the intervention, and CBRLM ultimately was unsuccessful in improving women’s empowerment. Success in this area likely would have required a more concerted effort but it is unclear whether the lesson from this lack of impact should be a greater focus on women considering the project objective was to improve the total value of livestock in the NCAs rather than something pertaining to gender. Instead of layering this complexity onto the program, there might be more effective and efficient ways of accomplishing both the project objective and improving women’s economic empowerment even if they entail separate solutions. The Namibia Compact was developed before MCC introduced the Constraints Analysis and Root Cause Analysis that are both key features of MCC’s current compact development process. These processes are intended to help focus compact design on the most critical development problems (i.e., binding constraints to economic growth) and a strategy for addressing them efficiently. It is possible that MCC’s newer development processes would have resulted in a different set of solutions to address livestock value in the NCAs, farmer livelihoods, or gender-related outcomes, which may have ultimately been more efficient both in terms of lower costs per participant but also in successfully delivering benefits, including to women.
Lesson Learned