Interim Evaluation1
The Core Learning Partnership and the users of the evaluation
The Office of Evaluation (OE) of IFAD conducted an Interim Evaluation
of the Quang Binh Agricultural Resources Conservation and Development
Project (ARCDP) as per requirement of the IFAD Evaluation Policy prior
to the initiation of a formulation process for the development of a second
phase project. The evaluation mission visited Viet Nam between February
29 and March 31, 2004. The mission held the wrap-up meeting in Quang Binh
province and later in Hanoi on March 31, which was also attended by the
formulation mission, in order to ensure that the findings of the evaluation
would be useful for the design of a second phase project. The draft evaluation
report, including the draft Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) were distributed
in mid-May 2004 and a final evaluation workshop was organized on June
1 to discuss the recommendations deriving from the evaluation and to finalize
the ACP. The ACP illustrates the evaluation partners’ understanding
of the evaluation recommendations, and their proposal to adopt and implement
them.
The Core Learning Partnership (CLP) comprises representatives of IFAD
(PI and OE), the representatives of the Ministry of Planning and Investment,
the Provincial People’s Committee and the co-financier UNDP, the
UNOPS Portfolio Manager, and the Project Director and Deputy Director.
The Interim Evaluation process involved extensive interaction with these
partners and others, and the findings of the IE Mission were presented
and discussed at wrap-up meetings at provincial and national level, held
respectively in Dong Hoi on March 22, 2004 and in Hanoi on March 31, 2004.
The draft ACP was presented at a workshop in Hanoi on June 1, 2004, and
thereafter finalised.
The main evaluation findings
The design and objectives of the ARCDP matched the overall strategies
of IFAD as expressed in the Country Strategic Opportunities Paper (COSOP)
of 1996 as well as the Government of Vietnam’s poverty alleviation
policies as expressed in the HEPR and CPRGS. However, a number of areas
needing improvement were noted:
Interlinkages between components, participation and sustainability.
the targeting of all communes in the province combined with the number
of components led to rather scattered interventions which entailed a lack
of physical/geographical focus and therefore the absence of a strong and
recognizable project identity. The PRAs conducted by the project were
mostly activity-specific in nature and each component of the project was
implemented without proper linkages either with other components of the
project or with other poverty alleviation programmes. This sectoral approach,
and the absence of coordination mechanisms, not only resulted in the disjointed
implementation of schemes but also put unwarranted pressures on the communities
in terms of their time and resources. For most components, the process
became stalled after the completion of activities and there were no ongoing
arrangements for regular interaction with project beneficiaries. With
each department responsible for planning and implementing their respective
sectoral components, the participatory process did not allow any scope
for integrated village development planning and implementation.
Poverty focus. The poverty focus of the project
was weak. The main reasons for this were a lack of precision in project
design, a tendency to predetermined activities in certain key components
and the weakness of the credit component. The result was that only in
specific instances were the poorest households targeted, for example in
the plantation and maintenance of trees in the sandy areas, while in most,
the impact on the poorest relied on the assumption that benefits would
accrue to all households of the communities concerned, as with roads,
markets, irrigation works and agricultural extension.
Policy dialogue. The evaluation mission encountered
limited knowledge of IFAD even among senior officials of donor-funded
programmes, and concluded that more needs to be done in developing synergies
with other poverty projects through policy dialogue and partnership building.
Supervision. The mission concluded that UNOPS carried
out the supervision missions as stipulated but the infrequency of field
visits, the lack of prompt follow-up and changes in personnel are serious
constraints. Problematic issues such as credit, participatory processes
and targeting were repeatedly highlighted in supervision reports, but
remained unresolved for long periods. For more prompt and effective follow-up,
enhancement of the supervision arrangements between IFAD and UNOPS are
necessary.
Recommendations agreed upon by all partners
The Evaluation Mission concludes that a second phase of the ARCDP
would constitute a constructive use of IFAD resources in Vietnam, on the
following grounds: (a) the poverty rate in the province is still high
(around 20%) and there are communities in remote inland areas and in the
sandy zone of the coast suffering from food insecurity, lack of employment
opportunities and basic amenities such as reliable water supplies; (b)
many of the ARCDP interventions seem incomplete, especially in the sphere
of capacity building and training, in which a start has been made but
continuing efforts are necessary to consolidate the investments to date.
Modifications of project design will be necessary in Phase II in order
to meet the priorities recommended in the COSOP of 2002, which can be
summarised as follows: (i) project components should be linked and mutually
reinforcing; (ii) designs need to be flexible enough for modification
during implementation in response to changes in the operating environment;
(iii) all project components and activities should be implemented across
all project sites, not selectively targeted to individual districts and
communes; (iv) project design should aim at simplicity, with fewer components
and activities. The design of ARCDP did not fully accord with these prescriptions,
particularly in regard to the successful integration of components and
the desirability of the implementation of all activities across all project
sites.
Strategic issues
-
The recent measures enabling the issue of property titles jointly
to husband and wife should be actively propagated through mass organisations
such as the Women’s Union. This was an issue highlighted in
2001 the then OE/PI Vietnam Country Programme Review-cum-Evaluation;
-
The arrangements for supervision and loan administration need improvement
and continuity so as to provide for more regular support and prompt
follow-up; and
-
Further resources should be allocated to promote IFAD’s influence
on policy dialogue, better cooperation with other development organizations
and follow-up on implementation issues.
Follow up: IFAD/PI
Design issues
-
Activities under Phase II should focus on a more restricted number
of communes, principally those located in the disadvantaged coastal
regions and in the remoter hilly regions of the interior. This would
in turn facilitate better integration between activities and provide
a stronger pro-poor focus in terms of targeting. Follow up: second
phase project;
-
Specific, achievable and measurable objectives need to be set for
each component and activity of the project. Follow up: second phase
project;
-
Project-specific institutions should be created at grassroots level
only when essential and the relations between existing institutions
and the project-specific institutions should be clearly articulated.
The project should aim to strengthen existing institutions and mass
organisations in terms of awareness, capacity and transparency and
their role in participatory processes should be formalised. Follow
up: second phase project;
-
The rural credit component requires thoroughly redesigning to take
into account existing sources of credit, prevailing interest rates,
and realistic incentives for the financing institutions. Special provisions
may be necessary for remote communes in hilly areas. Follow up:
second phase project;
-
The allocation of CDF resources should be based on clearly established
criteria such as village-size and the number of poor households, and
institutional capacity of the Community Development Boards. Follow
up: second phase project, Province;
-
Small enterprise and market information systems should be established
to help farmers and fishermen market their products without recourse
to middlemen. Follow up: second phase project, Province;
and
-
For women in rural areas, there should be support for on-farm and
off-farm employment opportunities and the introduction of labour saving
technologies. Follow up: second phase project, Province;
Management and capacity building
-
Effective M&E and Management Information Systems must be put
in place, with clarification of decision-making functions and information
needs at various levels, and matching reporting procedures. Reports
should be disseminated electronically, and M&E systems should
also be digitalized. Computer terminals should be located at each
TIU/DIU office and at each commune to be served by the project, and
terminals should be linked to a wide area network. A database should
be designed for the PCU and the technical departments, including appropriate
database access system and security mechanisms. Follow up: second
phase project, Province;
-
The second phase of the project should consider the full-time employment
of technical staff from relevant departments rather than allocating
project-related responsibilities to be carried out on a part-time
basis. Follow up: second phase project;
-
Field-based Community Facilitators (CFs) should be directly employed
by the project. Follow up: second phase project;
-
PRA exercises should be carried out by specially recruited and trained
teams under the guidance of the CFs and should not be sectorally-based.
Follow up: second phase project;
-
Further investment is required in the capacity building and outreach
of the various line agencies, particularly with regard to the extension
services for agriculture and aquaculture, and to equipment and skills
in the new environmental department, DONRE. Follow up: second
phase project; and
-
For sustainable training and capacity building, two measures are
required: the creation of archives of training manuals and other documentation
for reference and re-use; the institutionalization of training within
departments as an ongoing and regular activity. Follow up: second
phase project, province;
Recommendations by component
-
The costs of the construction of roads and other infrastructure must
be strictly monitored and controlled. The project should consider
tarring inter-commune roads from the outset to avoid ongoing maintenance
costs. Infrastructural improvements should be part of an overall plan
and not stand-alone interventions. Follow up: second phase project,
Province;
-
Training for equitable and sustainable water management must be provided.
Follow up: Province;
-
For the establishment of an effective agricultural extension service,
further training is required, as well as the careful screening of
personnel in terms of motivation and suitability. Specific aims for
extension services should be set and monitored to ensure that these
services meet the needs of farmers. Follow up: second phase project,
Province;
-
Afforestation of the sand dunes should be community-based and the
targets should match community needs not (necessarily) follow an overall
‘checkerboard’ plan. The experience of villagers in afforestation
should be exploited by the project through involving the communities
in setting the targets and planning the activity. New plantations
should be included under existing forestry protection schemes to provide
a direct incentive to villagers to protect them. Follow up: second
phase project, Province; and
-
The major efforts to promote income generation in the coastal communities
should concentrate on small-scale activities. In view of the initial
investment costs, shrimp farming is an inappropriate activity for
poor households unless sustainable group-based initiatives can be
designed. Follow-up: second phase project;
Recommendations discussed but without a firm conclusion
-
IFAD should develop active partnerships with ADB in general.
In this regard the Fund should ensure close synergies between the
new IFAD phase II project in Quang Binh Province and the ADB programme
under implementation in the province. PI was not in agreement
with this recommendation, arguing that ADB provides an overwhelming
input to the province and that IFAD shouldn’t work in the same
communes as ADB does. However, PI agreed to share experiences with
ADB on the two different programmes;
-
‘In the 'model' villages, financial management by the village
has been permitted but only on an ad-hoc basis. If the Government
is serious about encouraging/permitting village-level management of
CDF funds, the necessary legislative amendments will need to be put
in place.’ It was pointed out that the arrangements for the
‘model’ villages are exceptional, and that commune-level
authorities will normally be the investment owner;
-
Technical Assistance appointments should be made on a short-term
basis with very specific conditions in terms of tasks and objectives;
local consultants should be preferred wherever possible.’ It
was emphasised that the international TA of the second phase project
provides a significant degree of flexibility in project implementation
and is necessary for the implementation of the challenging decentralized
approach;
-
‘The linking of savings and credit groups to credit institutions
requires the building of the necessary skills and disciplines and
the successful management of intra-group loans before bank loans are
sought.’ Based on experiences in Ha Tinh, further problems
concerning the sustainability of credit groups were highlighted, in
particular the reluctance of the Social Policies Bank to take over
the groups from the Womens Union after project closure; and
-
Regarding the overall strategy of the ARCDP (see section 2 above),
it was pointed out that it lacked any reference to natural disaster
control, an issue of particular importance in a province subject to
severe cyclonic conditions.
1.The ACP reflects an understanding among
the following evaluation partners: Asia and Pacific Division of IFAD,
UNOPS, the Government represented by the Ministry of Planning and Investment,
the Provincial People’s Committee, the Project Implementation Staff
and UNDP. OE facilitated the ACP process.
