The evaluation process

IFAD’s Office of Evaluation has undertaken a country programme evaluation (CPE) in Mali, with three main objectives: (i) evaluate the quality of the strategy pursued by IFAD since 1997; (ii) assess the performance and impact of the operations carried out; and (iii) propose a series of conclusions and recommendations on which IFAD, upon completion of this exercise, will base a new strategy document (COSOP) for Mali. This new document will explicitly reference this agreement at completion point, as the culmination of the evaluation process.  

In March 2006, an appraisal report set forth the evaluation’s objectives, methodology and timetable. This evaluation has benefited from interactions with a core learning partnership that includes representatives of the Government, the project management units, IFAD’s Western and Central Africa Division and the Office of Evaluation. A mission visited Mali from 20 May to 23 June 2006. The resulting report benefited from several rounds of discussions with Government and IFAD officials. It was presented to IFAD’s Evaluation Committee on 8 December 2006. A national workshop took place in Bamako on 7 and 8 March 2007 to (a) discuss the main findings and lessons learned; and (b) prepare for drafting the agreement at completion point. The members of the Evaluation Committee and members of IFAD’s Executive Board took part in this event.

Pursuant to IFAD’s evaluation policy and procedures, the Office of Evaluation is responsible for the content of evaluation reports, which it presents independently to the Executive Board. The agreement at completion point sets forth the conclusions and recommendations and the actions agreed upon by consensus between the Government of Mali, represented by the Minister for Agriculture and the Food Security Commissioner; and IFAD, represented by the Programme Management Department.

Main evaluation findings

Since 1982, IFAD has approved 10 loans valued at approximately US$130 million, or US$260 million including contributions from the Government of Mali and other partners, in particular the West African Development Bank (BOAD) and the Belgian Survival Fund. For the most part, these operations were carried out in the Saharan and Sahelian areas, the most vulnerable in the country. In addition to loans, Mali has benefited from technical assistance grants through partnerships with research institutes such as the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). IFAD’s assistance represents only a small part of total aid dedicated to reducing poverty; consequently, IFAD can only make a qualitative difference, in particular through the innovative nature of its interventions.

The evaluation confirmed the relevance of the objectives pursued by IFAD’s operations in Mali, which are in line with public policies, the needs of the poor and IFAD’s institutional objectives. On the other hand, it revealed the presence of problems common to the various approaches adopted to achieve the objectives. These problems relate to: (i) defining project target groups; (ii) economic returns, which are often insufficiently studied; and (iii) the design of rural finance components. 

Effectiveness was considered satisfactory in terms of increasing irrigated surface area, building infrastructure in isolated areas, and providing basic health care and sanitation infrastructure. However, production interventions were not always supported by adequate efforts to improve access to upstream and downstream markets. On this point, the Government of Mali observed that – considering the characteristics of IFAD’s intervention areas – the strategy should not focus on high economic returns but rather on meeting basic economic needs, after which attention could be given to marketing and market issues.¹ Support for grass-roots organizations has been provided through specific training courses, functional literacy programmes and various types of advisory assistance rendered by external providers. The effectiveness of this approach, however, has been limited by a fragmentation of tasks among multiple operations, each specializing in a specific function or area.

With respect to impact on rural poverty reduction, the overall results are significant in terms of improving food security and conditions for health and hygiene. They are, however, limited vis-à-vis two other objectives of the country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP): increasing household incomes and creating a sustainable process of participatory development at the village level. Impact has been significant when the interventions have been integrated and concentrated geographically. The Zone Lacustre Development Project – Phase II illustrates this, operating within a well-defined territory with components that work together in synergy (e.g. irrigation, health centres and drinking water in the same communities). On the other hand, when the operations have been dispersed (averaging one microproject per village over a vast territory) and have not been implemented in an integrated way, their impact has been limited. The Sahelian Areas Development Fund Programme is such a case, with problems arising mainly in connection with institutional arrangements.

The sustainability of project achievements is threatened by the weakness of peasant organizations, a sometimes fluid definition of responsibility for infrastructure maintenance, and limited study of economic returns for productive microprojects (such as stores, shops, soap and dye units, platforms and village irrigated perimeters). The lack of specialists in project management units has also affected the quality of achievements and jeopardized their sustainability. Inadequately formulated rural finance components are the cause of many problems with financial feasibility and institutionalization. Measures in support of sustainability are often not taken until the end of projects, leaving little time for transition.

The programme’s capacity for innovation has limits. The two innovations contributed by the programme are a demand-driven approach and technical assistance grant activities. However, the evaluation has pointed up the limitations inherent in an open, demand-driven project paradigm, mainly the risk of fragmentation and limited attention to markets. The technical assistance grants have yielded interesting results, and have led to partnerships among researchers, developers, technical services and peasants. Despite these results, achievements remain confined to a small number of villages and farmers, limiting dissemination and replication. This is attributable to the weak linkages between research and extension, but also between loan and grant activities, in addition to the lack of a strategy on capitalization and dissemination.

Recommendations agreed by the partners

IFAD’s new strategic thrusts in Mali

The purpose of the new COSOP is to define IFAD’s strategic position in Mali in the form of a results-based country programme that justifies the kinds of intervention planned. The country programme will be consistent with Mali’s development strategies, in particular: Mali 2025, the Strategic Framework for Growth and Poverty Reduction, the Master Plan for Rural Development, the Agricultural Orientation Law and provisions on decentralization. In this context, the participants agreed on a number of major points. 

Summary of major points of agreement

• IFAD’s interventions should continue to centre around vulnerable areas in the Sahelian strip and the Sahelian-Saharan region, where IFAD benefits from experience and a comparative advantage. Targeting will be both geographical and social, based on national information systems on poverty and food security.

• IFAD favours an integrated, sector-based approach that takes into account all the needs and constraints faced by local populations (in water, health, education, etc.) and is incorporated into local and regional development and food security plans, which must operate as a gateway for all activities. This integrated approach calls for strengthening partnerships, taking care to increase resources and to hone skills in sectors where IFAD lacks a comparative advantage.

• Considering that IFAD’s intervention areas in Mali suffer from structural food deficits, interventions must be oriented first of all to putting in place production infrastructure that will reactivate production and meet food needs, and then lay the groundwork for a more economic approach by promoting value chains that take into account activities upstream and downstream of production (inputs, equipment, processing, marketing and consultative frameworks).

• Support for peasant and professional organizations will be based on building their capacity to provide technical and economic services to their members and on peasant representation in local development dialogue.

• Coordination among the various actors will be improved by intensifying policy dialogue, mainly on agricultural policy (national and international), value chain development and advisory assistance services. This dialogue will be facilitated by strengthening IFAD’s representation in Mali. It would also be advisable to strengthen linkages with local and regional steering and consultative structures.

Proposed timetable

These recommendations should be taken into account in the COSOP and new projects.

Partners concerned

The Government of Mali and IFAD, in collaboration with their technical and financial partners.

Building capacity to promote innovation

IFAD needs to acquire a systematic approach to build its capacity for innovation (technical, institutional and organizational). Innovation will be promoted through better knowledge management and by developing partnerships with actors in the innovation process (agricultural research, extension services, organizations, peasants), each of whom may create or pass on innovations. The procedure for loan operations could take place in five phases: (i) systematically analysing needs; (ii) seeking available alternatives (within or outside IFAD projects and making use of local know-how); (iii) implementing small-scale pilot experiences; (iv) capitalizing on results; and (v) publicizing achievements to facilitate dissemination.

Summary of major points of agreement

• IFAD must ensure better articulation between loans and grants, both in the COSOP and at every project stage (design, planning and evaluation). Responsibility for implementing this should be clearly identified during the design of investment projects, and the projects should be sufficiently flexible to take on future innovations (for instance, through specific provision of financing).

• Exchange of information among partners should take place in the form of workshops, working groups or other specific consultative mechanisms, in order to identify innovations, evaluate operations under way and programme new activities (loans and grants). The policy dialogue unit should be one of the actors facilitating this process of exchange and capitalization.

• Seven priority areas for innovation have been identified: (i) training and advisory assistance for peasant organizations and family farms; (ii) land security; (iii) sustainably increasing the productivity of agriculture, broadly defined (crop-farming, livestock breeding, forestry and fishing); (iv) reducing vulnerability to climatic vagaries and sustainable management of natural resources; (v) rural microfinance; (vi) promoting public-private partnerships; and (vii) the gender approach.

• In all operations, mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation of innovations should be developed systematically.

• Improvements are needed in the area of consultation, information exchange and coordination among all those involved in innovation, in particular beneficiaries of technical assistance grants in research institutions.

Proposed timetable

These recommendations should be taken into account in the COSOP and new projects.

Partners concerned

The Government of Mali and IFAD, in collaboration with national and international research institutions, peasant organizations and other donors.

Strengthen steering and implementation of operations

It is crucial to strengthen the capacity for strategic and operational steering of operations in order to improve their effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.

Summary of major points of agreement

The strategic steering of operations will be strengthened by:

• Decentralizing IFAD’s presence through a technical field office in Mali.

• Systematizing joint IFAD/cooperating institution missions and designating the cooperating institution as the sole level of technical and financial management.

• Strengthening technical skills of project management units, following the actions identified, so that they may better steer and manage interventions. Training and exchanges between teams for different projects should be provided for project start-up.

• Streamlining public procurement procedures to expedite project implementation.

• Developing strong results-based monitoring and evaluation mechanisms(tools and expertise). Social and economic impact on households should be evaluated in a professional manner beginning at the design phase and using an objective baseline throughout all stages of evaluation. The monitoring and evaluation tools provided for by IFAD (Results and Impact Management System [RIMS]) should be adapted to the specificities of each operation. Statistical work could be entrusted to specialized Malian organizations, which would enable them to be linked to the national poverty monitoring and analysis mechanism. Local collectivities and peasant organizations could be supported in contributing to the production and analysis of monitoring and evaluation information.  

Proposed timetable

• These recommendations should immediately be reflected in the COSOP and new projects.

• Projects under way should be adapted quickly to the proposed system (RIMS), particularly in setting up methodology and baselines.

Partners concerned

The Government of Mali and IFAD, in collaboration with specialized institutions.

---

1/ The Government’s observations are presented in Appendix 2 to the main body of the report.