Do Big Projects Deliver Effective Solutions in a Complex World? From Earth-eval Community

I have implemented and evaluated numerous programs aimed at building resilience. However, when measuring the impact of large projects, I often find that the intended outcomes are not realized. A recurring issue lies in the theory of change, which is frequently overly ambitious—expecting, for example, that a single day of training will lead to improved income or solve food insecurity. This points to deeper design flaws, particularly the lack of meaningful involvement of local communities in shaping these programs.

After conducting over 20+ studies globally, I’ve come to believe that the problem doesn’t lie solely with donors. On the receiving end, local actors sometimes view these efforts as just another "project" rather than a genuine opportunity, and thus fail to take full advantage of what’s offered.

 Evaluators, too, play a role—often producing reports that soften or overlook critical findings, rather than presenting an honest account of what the data reveal. It reminds me of an old Sanskrit fable: “ओष्ट्रनामे विवाहे देशु गीतं गायति गर्दभः, परस्परं प्रशंसतः—अहो रूपं, अहो ध्वनि:।”—"At the camel’s wedding, a donkey is invited to sing. Afterward, they praise each other: ‘What a beautiful voice!’ says the camel; ‘How handsome you are!’ replies the donkey.” This captures the tendency among donors and evaluators to complement each other, even when their efforts fall short of creating meaningful change in people’s lives.

I quick comment is the overhead cost to the donor in supervising projects, as a percent of the total value of the project, is less for large projects than for smaller projects. Thus, donors prefer the larger projects to keep their cost down, and assuming they are equally effective. I agree that larger projects are most likely less effective for the reasons stipulated. 

As per my experience, when large financial projects are spread across wide geographical areas and multiple themes, it becomes challenging to deliver the intended outcomes. In contrast, large projects that are intensively designed for compact geographical areas with high investment density tend to create stronger on-ground impact.

For example, in India, recent landscape transformation projects are being designed to interconnect social, environmental, and economic issues within a defined area. This integrated approach is fostering inclusive ecological ecosystems and driving better economic outcomes. Such models highlight the importance of focus, local relevance, and adaptive design in achieving sustainable development goals.

The effectiveness of large-scale projects in delivering value for money, particularly concerning food security, agriculture, and rural development, presents a multifaceted challenge. The definition of what constitutes a "large" project can vary significantly based on context and circumstances. For example, in some regions, projects exceeding USD 5 million may be considered large, while in more challenging environments, investments below USD 10 million could be seen as inadequate for driving impactful change. Through my evaluation work, I have encountered a variety of successes and challenges that might be relevant for this discussion.

1. Outreach Opportunities
The scale of a project significantly influences its ability to reach beneficiaries. Large projects often mobilize substantial resources from both domestic and international sources, enabling comprehensive interventions at scale that can lead to meaningful transformations within rural economies and food systems. 

2. Ability to deliver multiple benefits

Large-scale projects have the capacity to generate multiple advantages, as these interventions often aim to tackle various development challenges simultaneously. One example is the Programme for Improvement of Irrigation Systems in Afghanistan, implemented by the FAO. This initiative aimed to modernize the country's irrigation infrastructure, where over 70 percent was in disrepair, necessitating significant rehabilitation. The evaluation of this programme found that this intervention not only enhanced agricultural productivity and bolstered food security but also fostered local capacity building and promoted community participation in sustainable water management practices. The diverse benefits derived from the programme included:  
- Increased Agricultural Production and Productivity  
- Opportunities for Livelihood Diversification  
- Enhanced Food Security  
- More Equitable Water Distribution  
- Capacity Building for Farmers and Local Institutions  
- Community Engagement and Ownership  
- Environmental Benefits  

3. Long-Term Commitments
Large projects typically necessitate longer-term commitments, both financially and technically. Adequate resources and sustained technical support are crucial in converting initial investments into long-standing impacts. For instance, a partnership between a government agency and an international NGO to develop a sustainable farming initiative might span several years, allowing stakeholders to build trust and refine practices collaboratively. This time investment is essential for fostering deeper collaborations among development actors.

4. Innovation and Technology Transfer
Large-scale initiatives can effectively facilitate the introduction and dissemination of innovative agricultural practices and technologies, with adequate time and resources allocated for piloting and scaling up. For example, a large project could introduce precision agriculture techniques through workshops and demonstrations, empowering local farmers with new methods and tools that enhance productivity and reduce environmental impact. This is particularly vital in regions facing resource constraints, where specialized technical assistance can significantly uplift agricultural practices.

5. Infrastructure Development
Many successful agricultural and rural development projects have focused on the construction of essential infrastructure, such as roads, irrigation systems, and storage facilities. These infrastructures serve as foundational elements for enhancing market access and bolstering food security. For instance, a project that constructs new rural roads can significantly improve farmers' access to markets, enabling them to sell produce at better prices and reducing post-harvest losses.

6. Inefficiencies and Bureaucracy
However, one of the significant challenges that large projects face includes inefficiencies stemming from bureaucratic processes. Stringent preparatory requirements and increased scrutiny for large procurement contracts can result in delays, cost overruns, and a misalignment between project objectives and local needs. For instance, excessive bureaucracy in a large-scale agricultural initiative may hinder the procurement of necessary inputs, causing delays in implementation and increasing frustration among local stakeholders.

7. Alignment with Local Needs and Ownership
Another frequent challenge for large projects is the difficulty in fostering genuine local ownership. Decision-making often occurs at higher institutional levels, leading to inadequate engagement of local stakeholders in the planning and execution phases. This disconnect can result in projects implementing solutions that are misaligned with community contexts or priorities. For example, a large-scale irrigation project designed without local consultation might focus on cash crops that do not align with local subsistence needs, jeopardizing the project's sustainability once funding ends.

8. Measuring Impact
Evaluating long-term impacts presents its own set of challenges. Immediate outputs, such as the distribution of agricultural tools or construction of various infrastructures and facilities, are relatively easy to measure. However, assessing sustained changes in food security or rural livelihoods often requires extended timelines and a nuanced array of indicators. Implementing robust impact evaluations that include building baseline assessments and monitoring frameworks can enhance the assessment of impact. For instance, a project aimed at improving food security would benefit from multi-year evaluations to capture changes in dietary practices, agricultural resilience, and income stability.

Although large-scale projects have the capacity to significantly enhance food security, agriculture, and rural development, they frequently face major challenges. Careful assessment of their design, execution strategies, and involvement with the community is crucial to determine if they provide value for money and produce lasting benefits. The effectiveness of these initiatives ultimately relies on a dedication to learning, flexibility, and genuine partnership with local communities. Ongoing monitoring and adaptive project management, bolstered by quality evaluative work, can help optimize the positive effects of large-scale projects and ensure they address the needs of their intended beneficiaries.
 

In certain thematic areas, big projects are indeed effective at delivering effective solutions, particularly in emergency response, humanitarian aid, and large-scale infrastructure projects such as roads, railways, and major construction efforts.

However, in most other thematic areas, especially those relating to social development, big projects often struggle to achieve sustainable effectiveness. Examples include healthcare programs addressing Malaria, Tuberculosis (TB), and Universal Health Coverage (UHC), certain types of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) interventions, and Agriculture and food security initiatives. Despite their substantial financial resources, technical expertise, human resources, and capability to scale activities broadly, big projects frequently face challenges such as limited local context sensitivity, reduced community ownership, and difficulties in maintaining long-term sustainability.

In contrast, smaller projects implemented by local organizations, despite having fewer resources and a limited operational scope, demonstrate a notable advantage. They tend to be highly responsive to immediate community needs, deeply anchored in local knowledge and cultural practices, and foster strong community ownership and relevance. These small-scale projects possess an inherent flexibility and agility that allow rapid adjustments based on direct feedback from community members, significantly enhancing their overall sustainability and effectiveness in addressing complex and evolving social issues.

Therefore, while big projects play a crucial role in specific contexts, the complementary strengths of smaller, locally driven initiatives are indispensable for achieving sustainable solutions in the complex social domains of development.

What makes managing megaprojects so challenging? Technical difficulties, modifications to operating and design specifications, cost hikes, accountability issues, and new legislation are some of the causes. Project complexity typically rises with project size, and complexity can lead to uncertainty and an inability to predict the challenges, shifting circumstances, and unexpected possibilities that will arise after the project starts. In this essay, we contend that innovating during the project is one strategy to manage the uncertainties. Furthermore, we think that our recommendations apply to any long-term, large-scale initiatives, not simply those with enormous budgets.

Reflections on Large Projects and Evaluation Practices

Based on my experience working with over a dozen large-scale projects, I have observed several recurring design and implementation flaws that hinder their effectiveness. These projects often adopt global frameworks with minimal adaptation to the local context. As a result, they struggle to deliver contextually relevant solutions. They tend to be rigid, lacking the flexibility to respond to dynamic, unforeseen changes that arise during implementation. Moreover, they rarely make targeted efforts to address the unique needs of specific groups, leading to exclusion and inequity.

In essence, such projects are not well-grounded in local realities. Their internal structures often lack cohesion, and when internal coordination is weak, interagency collaboration suffers as well. They frequently fall short in terms of timely delivery, and extensions inflate project costs. Effectiveness is often compromised, and sustainability remains a significant concern—local resources and capacities are typically insufficient to maintain results once external support ends.

Regarding monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, these are predominantly top-down and rigid, relying heavily on quantitative methods. This approach often fails to uncover the root causes of success or failure and misses critical learning opportunities. Indicators are typically standardized and global, making them difficult for local stakeholders to understand or relate to—and sometimes irrelevant to local contexts. Community participation in M&E is usually minimal and superficial, and large projects struggle to address the diverse needs across all areas they influence.

To enhance evaluation effectiveness, I recommend the following:

• Use a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative insights.
• Co-create indicators with local stakeholders to ensure relevance and ownership.
• Focus on micro-macro linkages as well as horizontal and vertical partnerships.
• Adopt an iterative learning process that allows for course correction.
• Assess project design to ensure that inclusiveness is not just a principle but is operationalized through tools and metrics that capture who is left behind.
• Look beyond the logframe and examine real changes on the ground using participatory, in-depth evaluation tools.

Intentionality vs. Investments (intensions are very high but not matched with the investments) 
It’s striking how the intentions behind big projects often don’t align with the investments needed to make them effective. These projects, being resource-heavy, naturally attract the attention of those in power, but this creates governance challenges—issues like lack of transparency, exclusive leadership, and elite capture of resources—that hinder their effectiveness for those who need them most. The real struggle is getting power-holders to implement good governance and inclusivity, which severely impacts how these projects reach vulnerable groups on the ground.
• Limited investments in institutional capacities, mechanisms and monitoring for effective delivery: While these projects often have clear intentions—defined problem statements, objectives, outcomes, and indicators—these good intentions don’t always translate into appropriate actions. There’s a gap in institutional capacity and program-level execution. A major issue is the insufficient investment in strengthening the very institutions responsible for managing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating these projects. The lack of investment in their human resources, expertise, and effective mechanisms like robust monitoring and evaluation systems means that these projects often fail to capture the deeper, more meaningful outcomes, instead only measuring superficial outputs.

• Quality and quantity of investments in programs: Similarly, when it comes to reaching marginalized and vulnerable groups, the investment is equally insufficient. Resources at the community level are often not enough to allow these groups to fully access, participate in, or lead the projects. Furthermore, the quality of investments that do reach the ground level is frequently poor, with minimal or ineffective training and support for lasting change. This disconnect between high intentions and inadequate investments makes it difficult for large projects to live up to their potential.

Thoughtful and diverse contributions so far. Thank you all. 

It is clear that this question—Do Big Projects Deliver Effective Solutions in a Complex World? —has resonated deeply across contexts and disciplines.

Several key themes are emerging from the discussion. Below, I highlight and reflect on a few:

1. Adaptability and Flexibility: Large projects often operate within rigid frameworks that hinder their ability to adapt to evolving local contexts and needs. This lack of flexibility reduces their effectiveness and responsiveness on the ground.
2. Local Ownership and Participation: The sustainability and success of interventions are closely tied to the meaningful involvement of local communities in both design and implementation. Without genuine participation, projects risk missing the mark in addressing real needs.
3. Contextual Relevance: Projects tailored to specific, compact geographical areas with adequate investment density tend to achieve greater and more sustainable impact, compared to those that spread thin across multiple regions or themes.

Underlying many of these issues is a shared concern about, "overly ambitious theories of change, which often lack a clear and actionable theory of action—a crucial element for translating intent into measurable and meaningful outcomes," as highlighted by Ram. 

I was particularly moved by Lila’s reflection on how communities are often treated as passive recipients. This deeply resonates with my own experience from when I coordinated a project in another country, where similar dynamics were at play. Pramel’s example of high-impact, locally anchored work provides a compelling contrast to the challenges typically faced in large-scale, generalized interventions.

I look forward to hearing more of your insights as we continue unpacking these critical questions together. Your contributions are helping shape a more grounded and responsive approach to evaluating complex development challenges.

Innocent Chamisa- EvalforEarth CoP Coordinator.

Dear Colleagues, 

In general, projects (timed packages of activities designed to allow progress towards defined objectives) produce material objects (outputs) and (importantly) allow institutional interactions that may generate 'change' in how 'things including development are done'.

Project size is defined variably. Often, implementation duration and funding, as well as the material objects delivered (a big dam, a trunk road, bridge etc) is what is used to define size.

While small (duration, funding, and outputs generated) bring change, one has to determine impact in relation to what a project leverages or enables. Using Zimbabwe's recent jobless urbanisation, which has led to trunk services (in water, sanitation, road and transport, etc.) falling short of demand, BIG projects are needed. Big here relates to all three broad dimensions above.

Global complexity is often an elite claim to justify inequality. This can be seen in the refusal by rich members (individuals and states) of the global society to pay for climate change mitigation, adaptation, and transformation. This is an example of where big projects are needed in clean industrialisation, adapting livelihoods to climate change exigencies, among others.

In short, scale matters and it is those two aspects of what's materially delivered and transformative power of projects that it must be designed and evaluated.

Kudzai Chatiza (Mudombi) PhD.

Development Governance Institute www.devgov.inst.org

My experience with large projects has been more unfavorable than favorable. They often suffer from delays due to staffing issues, poor coordination, and slow decision-making. This leads to underspending, under-delivery, and potential time extensions (more staff and overhead costs) which impacts the project’s cost efficiency. Additionally, I often see project leads in large projects too invested in telling what they are doing (publicity of project activities - social media, workshops, etc.),  aiming to appease donors for future funding, rather than focusing on the project's ultimate outcomes. While this occurs in many projects, large ones have more resources for such distractions.  I agree with others that large projects often take a top-down approach, making them less responsive to local needs. While large projects attract political attention, I've seen political interests derail project approval and implementation. 

While the term "large project" is relative, depending on duration, size, and beneficiary distribution, I find large projects problematic when they involve too many components, leading to a lack of focus. In contrast, a modest project with a clear focus and a limited set of complementary interventions, I think is often more effective.

Finally, as development funding becomes scarcer under the current aid landscape, it is crucial to incorporate cost-effectiveness analysis into impact evaluations—an often overlooked element. 

Dear Ram,

I completely agree with your observations on the lack of local ownership and participation in top-down, large-scale projects. I believe the effectiveness of such initiatives largely depends on their nature. When a project is relief-oriented and aims for short-term outcomes, a top-down approach can be beneficial due to its efficiency, centralized resource pooling, and systematic coordination.

However, for development-oriented goals, large-scale projects often suffer from a lack of community ownership and participation. This is primarily due to two reasons: first, the design of these projects frequently fails to account for nuanced local needs and contextual specificities; second, beneficiaries often lack agency and intrinsic motivation to engage meaningfully.

Take microfinance programs for small farmers as an example. While they have proven successful in Bangladesh through models like Grameen Bank, large-scale implementation in China led to the collapse of hundreds of institutions and a surge in bad debt. One key reason is that the concept of microloans was not well embedded in the local mindset and cultural understanding. Many farmers perceived these loans as a form of aid, which resulted in low repayment rates.

In summary, interventions that rely heavily on human agency must be behaviorally informed, context-sensitive, and ideally co-designed with local actors. Understanding community needs beforehand is crucial for meaningful impact.

Regarding M&E systems, I find that they often fail to capture both the bottlenecks and the positive transformations occurring at the local level, especially when they rely solely on objective indicators. In-depth fieldwork—whether qualitative or mixed-method—is essential to explore the behavioral and psychological factors that drive or hinder change.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Cheers,

Zhiqi

From my experience working with big development organizations in East and Southern Africa, although most of their interventions are well-intentioned, big organizations often overlook the importance of developing pathways for retaining knowledge from their work and passing on that knowledge to local communities. The way human resources are engaged through contract employment is not designed to retain and maximize on knowledge generated. Due to the periodic contractual nature in which experts are hired, when a contract officer leaves s/he goes away with the acquired knowledge and expertise that is not written in operational procedures and templates. In cases where the contract officers were working farming communities, when the experts leave with their knowledge, farming communities go back to their ways of doing things based on their own relationships and knowledge preservation culture.

The fact that developmental frameworks by international organizations lack continuity is exacerbated by limited investment in capacitating communities and local stakeholders like chiefs and government departments to run on their own when the project ends.  Ideally, the role of development should be to empower communities so that they can add value to existing resources. Most development projects start with consultants, then activities are handed over to project staffed and the project ends with another set of consultants doing an evaluation. There is no room for transitioning the knowledge to communities. The same happens in government where people go with their tacit knowledge which is different from institutionalized community knowledge.

Please allow me to make some additional comments on the effectiveness of large vs. small scale projects.

First regardless of the size, how much development projects are more top-down impositions rather than a bottom-up appraisal of what the beneficiary really needs, and how this results in some major oversights that need to be addressed and over reliance on solutions mostly rejected by the beneficiaries.

Project Development Process

Most projects start with the donor who, since they have the money and discretion on how it is to be spent, control the project development process. Donors are also removed from the beneficiaries by 4 administrative layers. That are: 

1. Donor
2. Host country ministry
3. Implementing contractor
4. Beneficiary 

Development projects are usually initiated by the donor, often based on ideas that are socially desirable in the donor country, even if not well received in the donor country. Thus, largely imposed. The project concept is agreed upon by the host government at the ministry level with no input from the intended beneficiaries who are yet to be identified, because the beneficiary communities are yet to be identified.

This starts the million plus dollars and two plus year project development process, with only brief, perhaps one- or two-day, site visit to meet with selected potential beneficiaries. During this process most basic decisions on what project are going to do are made, and expatriate advisory staff identified to comply with such design. With that much up-front investment no one wants to learn the project is off target. This is true for both large and small projects with similar costs being incurred. These similar up-front costs are the primary reason for my original comment on relative overhead costs being similar for both large and small projects.

 Finally, the implementation contract is signed and staff fielded, so detailed unbiased interaction with beneficiaries is possible. However, what is left to decide. Perhaps some fine tuning, but too late for major adjustments in project design that would require substantial staffing adjustments. Thus, the participatory interaction has little choice but to lever the results to what has already been planned and make the best of it, with any reporting adjusted to proclaim the success of the project. This appeasement reporting is essential to ensure project extensions and future projects. However, it might have little impact on the intended beneficiaries.

Please review the following webpages for more details on the above concepts: 

• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/project-development-process-who-represents-the-smallholders/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/development-hierarchy-four-layers-of-isolation/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/appeasement-reporting-in-development-projects-satisfying-donors-at-the-expense-of-beneficiaries/

What has been overlooked

As mentioned at the beginning, the current smallholder development efforts as some major oversights that hinder the large-scale acceptance of innovations across smallholder communities. 

The underlying problem is participatory activities either at the beginning of a project or during an evaluation of an ongoing or conclusion of a project are only as good as the questions or criteria included in interviews or simply observed in the field. 

My biggest concern is the “Operational Feasibility” of innovations designed and promoted for the benefit of smallholder producers either to enhance production or enhance environmental issues of sustainability or resilience. The issue is that agronomists and environmentalists with their replicated small plot research methodology do a great job of determining what is physically possible but say nothing about the operational resources need to extend the results across an entire community. Who within the development projects is responsible to determine the labor requirements or access to contract mechanism required for an innovation to be implemented across an entire smallholder community in the timely manner to take full advantage of the innovations; how available are the operational resources within the community; and what are the rational compromises smallholders should undertake to adjust the innovations to their limited operational capacity? I think this concern falls into an administrative void between the bio-scientists developing technologies and the social scientists assisting in the implementation. Can someone step in and fill this void?? What would it take to identify the issue? Perhaps a simple field observation of the up to 8-week delay in crop establishment, and a few questions on to determine if it is a limited operational capacity and not an educational problem emphasizing importance of early planting or a risk management effort.

A large component of this could be “Dietary Energy Balance” that is the caloric energy we are compelling smallholder farmers to exert in complying with our promoted innovations vs. the caloric energy they have access to. How many of you acknowledged that most smallholders are poor and hungry, but do not factored diet as a major hinderance to agronomic implementation? If you expect smallholders to undertake a full day of diligent agronomic field work, they need a diet of 4000+ kcal/day. However, they are lucky if they have access to 2500 kcal/day which when you subtract 2000 kcal for basic metabolism leaves only 500 kcal/day for physical exertion to undertake the heavy manual field work. The 500 kcals would be good for only a couple hours of diligent effort, perhaps paced over a couple additional hours with reduced diligence. Thus, how many days will be required to put in the estimated 300-person hours required to manually till a hectare of crop land?? What will the potential yield reduction be by the time you have completed the basic crop establishment for a hectare?? Thus, what is the probability your efforts are compelling smallholder farmers to exert more caloric energy than they have access to?? If you are compelling farmers to exert more energy than they have access and someone asked the International Criminal Court in The Hague to review your work, what could be the dire consequences of such an inquiry?? 

While we love to show pictures of people hoeing land as being more picturesque, is it really possible to hoe your way out of poverty?? Or do such pictures represent deeply entrenched poverty?? Please note the projects are designed around entire communities and not just individual producers. Thus, while it is possible, and it is often done for demonstration purposes, to hire laborers to expedite crop establishment for a small demonstration area; it must be recognized that often hired laborers are other smallholder farmers opting for a day of casual labor at the expense of their own field operations. Thus, while making for a great demonstration it is not extendable throughout the entire smallholder community. Labor is very finite!!

Why have the operational limits not been identified decades ago?? What would it have taken in an initial diagnostic survey or later evaluation process to identify this? How about a simple field observation of the spread in timing? Or perhaps ask how many hours a workday constitutes? In Kenya the casual laborer day is only 5 hours, with no double shifts. When working in Madibera, Tanzania I noted in the morning the fields were full a people, but very few in the afternoon, although there was plenty of need to do. This observation stimulated my interest in dietary energy balance. Also, how about an inquire into how much maize or rice people retain for family use (200 kg of maize per adult), convert that to dietary calories and estimate on number of hours a person could healthily undertake agronomic field work?? Not complicated inquiries!! Can you separate a person loafing around the village in the afternoon being lazy needing some motivation or hungry needing a hearty meal? Do our extension activities, now emphasizing Farmer Field Schools, address or ignore the issue of operational feasibility? How often do they assume it is not a problem and lack of acceptance related to the limited formal education of many smallholder producers and thus having difficulty in learning the technology? That is badgering smallholders with information they have a basic understanding of, but not the resources to take advantage of!!  

If the key to development is to enhance the operational capacity for smallholder producers and reduce the dietary energy deficit, how critical is it to enhance access to contract mechanization for smallholder communities?  Are there any other alternatives? I can’t think of any! What are the examples of how mechanization has impacted smallholder production and economic well-being of smallholder producers? The best example would be the shift from water buffalo to power tillers for paddy production throughout the rice producing areas of Asia now some 30 – 40 years ago. However, the impact is poorly documented because it was mostly done independently from the development effort. My best guess is it halved the paddy establishment time, expanded the land area individual farmers could manage, comfortable allowed for annual double cropping rice in irrigated areas, and when small combines were introduced allow for 5 crops every 2 years. All of which greatly enhanced the economic well-being of the smallholder rice producers and provide the rural labor surpluses that fueled the Asian Tiger Economies allowing them to become food security with ample export potential. Thailand being primary example and not the worlds leading exporter of rice. 

Didn’t this reduce the external assistance for agriculture development in rice producing countries over the past couple decades? 

The other example would be Egypt and much of the Middle East where most of the smallholder farmers have relied on privately owned and operated 65 hp tractors for over 40 years that I have observed starting in 1980, when on my initial assignment in Egypt. In the subtropical climate of Egypt these tractors operations had at least 220 annual workdays just tilling land and excluding extra hauling opportunities. That would be equivalent to the USA or EU work year when factoring in weekends, holidays and annual vacation days.

Given the above commentary I have a difficult time seeing any substantial reduction in poverty across smallholder communities without addressing facilitating access to appropriate mechanization. The real trick to how to do it, and how to develop the financial means for individuals to obtain and operate the equipment. Unfortunately, successful mechanization as discussed above can only be via private individual owner/operators. Any form of joint ownership via government mechanization units or cooperative results in the equipment being surveyed out of service with less than half the designed operating hours. Just look the line-up on out-of-service tractors in any ADP in Nigeria. Also, the owner/operator should be someone willing to drift out of direct farming to become a full-time mechanization service provider, as providing mechanization will be a conflict of interest with any continued farming activity. So how do we provide financing for both the original cost of the equipment and perhaps enough operating funds so the initial land preparation can be done on credit for an in-kind payment at harvest!!

Please review the following webpages for more details on the operational feasibility, dietary energy balance, and critical need for access to mechanization: 

• https://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/OperationalFeasibility.pdf
• https://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/BrinksDrudgery.pdf
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/calorie-energy-balance-risk-averse-or-hunger-exhasution/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/ethiopia-diet-analysis/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/affordability-of-improved-nutrition-while-optimizing-economic-opportunities/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/most-effective-project-enhancing-access-to-contract-mechanization-via-reconditioned-used-tractors/

What has been over relied upon

The development project imposition on smallholder communities that has been excessively relied upon by donors but rejected by farmers are farmers organizations such as the cooperative business model. These are the darling of development world heavily promoted by academia but having only limited acceptance in the USA and outright rejected in most smallholder communities, unless they are involved with some form of value added usually involving extensive mechanized processing such as milling of coffee beans to produce green coffee. 

While in the USA the cooperative movement had a major positive impact 100 years ago, its membership and market share have been trending down for decades so that the USDA, which promotes and monitors the USA cooperative movement, stopped monitoring and reporting membership and market share some 20+ years ago. When it stopped monitoring the market share was less than 20% and that included areas such as the cotton cooperatives in the Mississippi Valley having monopoly control over the marketing of cotton. When operating in a competitive environment with private dealers the market share was even less. Not really the best performance to compelling their use for developing countries.

However, despite the limited use in the USA, they have been mandated for use in development projects serving smallholder communities for nearly 40 years. This is based on the presumption that because they are farmer owned, they will have a competitive advantage providing the farmers with additional income, and the near vilification of private traders for trying to exploit the farmers, which could have some slander liabilities if pursued by the private traders. This is all done by edict without any documented analysis. Has anyone ever seen the cost of doing business comparison between a development project cooperative and competing private dealers? I have looked for this comparison for over 20 years and never seen any. But isn’t the first order of setting up a business analyzing the competition to make certain you have something beneficial to offer??

If someone took a close financial evaluation of the comparison between the development project cooperatives and private traders, it would be very difficult for them to develop a completive advantage simply because the sustainable overhead costs to operate a cooperative, even excluding the facilitating cost covering the donors’ inputs, are greater than the private traders profit margin. Part of this is because profit margins are held down by the limited buying power of the impoverished society they serve. This excludes the inconvenience of the consignment selling through the cooperative and delay between consigning goods to the cooperative and waiting for them to sell the goods before getting paid. This is in a society that prefers to hold their goods in their homes until it is necessary to sell them enroute to the market and need immediate cash to spend in the market for immediate needs before walking home. Sale volume being what the wife can carry on her head to market. I would venture that detailed analysis of  relying on cooperatives for marketing goods would force smallholder farmers deeper into poverty!!

The net result is, despite all the promotion, the smallholders wisely avoid the development compelled cooperatives like they have the plague!! Thus, such cooperatives are fortunate to attract 10% of the community members, and even those will side-sell the bulk of their production to the vilified private traders for cash. The cooperative market share in the community being served is a paltry 5% or less, for a net trivial impact on the community’s economy. Most of what is consigned to the cooperative is probably in-kind loan repayments. You would think the project would be embarrassed by this limited impact and do some massive overhaul of the approach, however the reporting claims them the salvation of the smallholders and for 40 years have continued to be the foundation of assistance. Such appeasement reporting will be high on annotations but low on basic business parameters that normally measure the success vs. failure of a business enterprise. This is necessary to encourage continued funding and additional projects, with no concern about enhancing the economic well-being of the smallholder producers. Such cooperatives collapse almost immediately once external support and facilitation ends. Probably before the last advisor clears the departure lounge for the flight home.

Again, please review the following webpages that go more in-depth on my reservation of development mandated cooperatives:

• https://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/USA-Cooperatives.pdf
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/farmers-organizations-and-cooperatives-is-there-a-competitive-adantage/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/loss-of-competitive-advantage-areas-of-concern/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/perpetuating-cooperatives-deceptivedishonest-spin-reporting/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/request-for-information-basic-business-parameters/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/vulnerability-for-class-action-litigation-a-whistleblowers-brief/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/financially-suppressed-economy-2/

Who is responsible for addressing and overcoming the limited effectiveness of development projects to assistance smallholder producers’ communities they are intended to serve?

From my perspective the failure of agriculture development programs to accurately identify the needs for smallholder communities and evolve programs to better serve their needs rest with the Monitoring & Evaluation effort. While M&E programs can do an excellent job documenting the activities of a project, the most important task is to guide future projects to better serve the intended beneficiaries. Given the degree to which, in both large and small projects, are by necessity more imposed on the communities than collaboratively developed with the community members, the M&E effort becomes the final voice for the beneficiaries and needs to accurately determine the degree the programs are appreciated and relied upon vs. mostly rejected. Unfortunately, too often the M&E effort become more a promotional effort to promote the projects regardless of true success or failure. The M&E analysis often concentrates on aggregate data that can provide some impressive numbers but are truly meaningless. Good for propaganda promotions but not guiding future projects. Instead, an aggregate analysis frequently entrenches projects that are failure and avoided by most intended beneficiaries. Often when the aggregate data converted into a percent of what could be possible the results are trivial as shone for the coffee cooperative in Ethiopia mentioned in one of the referenced articles. M&E is also the voice of the underwriting taxpayers to determine if their taxes are well spent or wasted. Thus, the M&E effort needs to be independent. 

Most of the issues mentioned above could have and should have been identified by a well-designed independent M&E program several decades ago and promoted some major adjustment in programs that would have resulted a much greater effective results leading smallholder communities to an enhance food security and lifestyle as enjoyed by their Asian paddy farming compatriots. A key to doing this could be establishing targets expressed as a percentage of potential for the various M&E criteria that would separate success from failure, and these targets might be close to what the interested underwriting taxpayers would find acceptable. This could be the percentage of farming families participating with an expectation of 60+% but a reality of only 10%, thus a total failure. Or percent market share in the community with an expectation again of 60+% but perhaps lucky to have 5% and thus a massive failure. Please note I have left the “L” out of the MEL as currently managed there is only limited learning other than how to deceive the beneficiaries and underwriting taxpayers.

A final couple of webpages for consideration:

• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/monitoring-evaluation-the-voice-of-the-beneficiaries/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/mel-impressive-numbers-but-of-what-purpose-deceiving-the-tax-paying-public/
• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/appeasement-reporting-in-development-projects-satisfying-donors-at-the-expense-of-beneficiaries/

With this I will close and thank those who took the time to sort all through my provocative commentary. I hope you appreciate it and provide thoughts for improving the design of future projects to better assist the poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability smallholder communities. I think the ideas in this analysis are more factual accurate than politically correct. I will end with a link to an article I wrote for a recent symposium here at Colorado State University reflecting on my 50+ years assisting smallholder communities. This will again be more factual accurate than politically correct as only an emeritus individual no longer beholden to the system can freely express.

• https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2023/03/Reflections.pdf 

Thank you,

Dick Tinsley

Dear Ram,

Thank you for initiating this insightful and important discussion.

Based on my experience, the answer to these questions is far from straightforward. As an evaluator, I have observed that the success of a project is heavily dependent on the context in which it is implemented. It is not uncommon for smaller projects to yield significant impact, while larger ones may fall short. Often, the determining factors are not merely the volume of funding but rather the skillset of the implementing teams and the enabling environment surrounding the project.

For example, I once analyzed a portfolio comprising both large-scale (multi-million euro) and small-scale (approximately 50,000 euro) projects. Interestingly, the smaller projects were typically focused on delivering market-scalable solutions and demonstrated a strong capacity to generate tangible results and compelling data, which in turn facilitated scaling. Conversely, the larger projects, often implemented through multi-stakeholder platforms, tended to prioritize coordination and harmonization efforts. These processes consumed substantial resources in decision-making and administrative overheads, and as a result, their actual outcomes were often diluted or obscured by multiple narratives and the diverse interests of various partners. In another case, I observed that relatively modest investments in infrastructure (around 20,000 euros) were sufficient to create tangible and visible benefits within local communities, gaining their strong applause. At the same time, larger projects leveraging extensive networks were able to amplify their impact by enhancing dissemination efforts across multiple channels. 

Regarding Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems, I believe a key area for improvement lies in strengthening the self-evaluation capacities and fostering a data-informed culture within project implementation teams. While some have dedicated M&E personnel, others do not, and evaluators are often brought in only when required to produce progress assessment reports. Ideally, continuous support from a MEL officer or some form of coaching should be provided from the project inception phase. In-depth studies of local needs and challenges for the project legitimacy are also the key. Furthermore, there could be more space created for collaborative learning and knowledge exchange among projects funded under similar thematic areas or regions. 

Best wishes,

Anna Maria Augustyn
 

I worked as Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist on USAID large scale project. The management style significantly influences the success of large projects. In the case of the FATA Livelihood Development Project, which had a budget of $750 million, the focus on micro-management led to overlooking the broader objectives. USAID's tolerance for this approach lasted two and a half years before they decided to terminate the project prematurely.

Key Factors Affecting Project Success:

Management Style: A top-down, micro-management approach can hinder innovation and responsiveness to local needs, ultimately affecting project outcomes.

Complexity of Large Projects: Large-scale initiatives often involve multiple stakeholders, making coordination and communication critical yet challenging.

Value for Money: Ensuring that funds are used effectively is a constant struggle, as the complexities of project execution can lead to inefficiencies and waste.

Sustainability: Projects must not only deliver immediate results but also create lasting benefits for the communities they serve, which requires careful planning and execution.

Stakeholder Engagement: Building strong relationships with local communities, government entities, and other partners is essential for achieving project goals and ensuring buy-in.