responsibilities to plan, budget, implement and monitor public basic service delivery” than where it
is currently placed.
(C) Indicators where there will be measurement issues and concerns 2.7. At least half of the joint action plans developed under ESAP2 are gender
sensitive and address needs and concerns of women at project end.
3.4 The number of women organizations and networks (e.g. iddirs) in the project
woredas that demand an improvement of basic public services has increased by
50% at project end.
(D) Consider replacing Specific Objective 5 on SAIPs with an Objective more directly concerning Sustainability efforts (including activities towards SA-FTA linkage) As ESAP2 continues, issues of sustainability and institutionalization will become increasingly important.
This was a subject addressed at the MTR with all key stakeholders (Government/COPCU, donors,
SAIPs/CSOs). It is becoming clear that the SA-FTA linkage will be an important element in linking
better the ‘demand-side’ activities that is the focus of ESAP2 with the ‘supply-side’ reform efforts such as
FTA, which are driven also by MoFED.
Currently, Objective 4 within the Logframe (“Citizens and citizen groups are aware of their
responsibilities to plan, budget, implement and monitor public basic service delivery”) captures the
progress ESAP2 is making in preparing citizens to better participate and engage with FTA. There may be
a possibility following the discussions at the MTR, the creation of the new Technical Group within
MoFED and the further discussion on the FTA-SA Linkage Report prepared with the Government for
ESAP2 to distil some key activities specifically fostering such a linkage to be monitored within the
Logframe. For instance, the participation of PFM/FTA teams in ESAP2 trainings and capacity building
as well as their presence in interface meetings that focus on participatory budgeting or PETS is being seen
as important indicators to ensure coordination going ahead. The Project Logframe may try to
accommodate this better.
The ESAP2 Logframe is already long in the numbers of it indicators it currently comprises. In order to
keep the Logframe succinct, there is also the suggestion that present Objective 5 (“Increased capacity of
SAIPs to empower citizens and citizen groups on using SA tools, approaches and mechanisms”) be
reconsidered. Much of the indicators and activities within this objective are captured elsewhere in the
Logframe since trained and effective SAIPs are the key interim outputs for Objectives 2, 3 and 4 or, stated
differently, SAIPs are the mobilizers for the awareness of public basic service providers becoming
responsive, awareness of citizens to demand better services and for citizens to be aware of their
responsibilities to participate in the plans, budget and implementation of basic services. Output 5.3
currently has a set of indicators that may be reconsidered, since the basis for their measurement is left
unclear (e.g. all SAIPs have pertinent action plans) and may be assumed as an essential part of the
implementation process which will not change at the MTR or at the End-line.
