Moldova Country Programme Evaluation
Overall, the country programme has made good achievements on the ground over the past decade. IFAD support has contributed to increased levels of agricultural production, development of viable rural enterprises and job creation in rural areas. One of the most impressive elements of the portfolio performance is its high efficiency, especially with a consolidated project implementation unit responsible for all IFAD-funded projects and a high degree of ownership by the Government.
On the other hand, progress has been limited in value chain development, microfinance for small and microenterprises, and in setting up a clear strategy for phasing out heavy reliance on the credit line approach. Moreover, it is important for the next country strategic opportunities programme to reflect the Fund’s comparative advantages and its approach to rural poverty reduction within the evolving country and sectoral context more explicitly.
Jordan Country Programme Evaluation
This is the first IFAD country programme evaluation (CPE) for Jordan since the Fund started its operations in the country in 1981. The evaluation has made it possible to assess the results and impact of IFAD-supported activities in the country, and has generated findings and recommendations that will inform the definition of future cooperation between IFAD and the Government of Jordan. In terms of results, the evaluation found, first, that IFAD-supported programmes have not achieved the overarching country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP) strategic objective of reaching the poor. The land-ownership-based soil and water conservation (SWC) investments supported by IFAD– while important from the point of view of natural resource management and increasing agriculture production, has been inherently unsuitable for reaching the poor in Jordan. Few of the IFAD target groups as defined in the COSOP (families earning less than US$2 per day) are land owners, or own only small plots.
Indonesia Country Programme Evaluation
This is the second country programme evaluation undertaken by IOE for Indonesia and it covers nine years of IFAD’s operations in the country (2004-2012). Overall, the IFAD portfolio in Indonesia has led to good achievements in social mobilization and gender equality, and to a marked progress in making investments for the enhancement of social infrastructure. The overall project portfolio achievement has been considered moderately satisfactory. At the same time, results related to on-farm and off-farm development and agriculture productivity enhancements have been limited: although these areas were included in project design, they did not get adequate attention during the implementation. Monitoring and evaluation systems have been constrained by insufficient capacity and are in need of improvement.
Madagascar Country Programme Evaluation
This country programme evaluation is the first carried out in Madagascar and it covers the period 2000-2012, the 2000 and 2006 country strategic opportunities programmes, six loans and seven grants. Throughout the period evaluated, IFAD’s activities have been relevant and highly effective in improving agricultural productivity and diversifying rural incomes through support to enterprises.
The country programme has brought about promising results in the development of agricultural value chains and partnerships between the public and private sectors. Despite the political crisis that hit the country in 2009, IFAD was the only one of the main donors in the agricultural sector not to suspend its cooperation.
On the other hand, two issues require more attention: consolidation of project results after their closure and environmental protection (erosion control measures, soil fertility conservation and reforestation).
Mali Country Programme Evaluation
IFAD started its operations in Mali in 1982 since when it has financed 12 projects. This country programme evaluation is the second carried out in the country and it covers the period 2007-2012. Despite the adverse situation experienced in Mali due to conflicts in the north since independence and a coup d’etat in March 2012, the cooperation programme between the Government of Mali and IFAD has generally improved since the first country programme evaluation (2007). The most promising aspects include the adaptation of projects to decentralization mechanisms and institution-building among local communities. In addition, interventions with regard to rural finance have been refocused in line with principles of sustainability and more fully mainstreamed into national strategies. In terms of efficiency and sustainability, the results are mixed and have been affected not only by lower rates of achievement of physical targets than anticipated and significant increases in implementation and management costs, but also by the conflicts in northern regions.
Nepal Country Programme Evaluation
This country programme evaluation covers over a decade of IFAD’s cooperation with Nepal (1999-2012). IFAD’s support during the evaluated period has concentrated on rural poverty alleviation through integrated agricultural and rural development programmes; leasehold forestry; and agricultural value chain development. Overall, the IFAD/Nepal partnership is assessed to be moderately satisfactory, considering improvements in the later part of the period evaluated. The IFAD-supported programme portfolio is rated moderately satisfactory mainly owing to recent improvements in support to leasehold forestry and the satisfactory performance of the IFAD-cofinanced Poverty Alleviation Fund. While the overall portfolio is relevant and many quantitative targets were achieved, sustainability and innovation were less successful, and IFAD-supported programmes had a very wide geographical and thematic spread. Rural finance was the least successful part of the overall portfolio
Uganda Country Programme Evaluation (2013)
This first country programme evaluation for Uganda covers the cooperation and partnership between IFAD and the Government of Uganda over the period 1998-2011Overall, the portfolio performance is assessed as moderately satisfactory, but with challenges of sustainability and in the provision of rural finance, which is essential for promoting better incomes and food security. IFAD’s main contribution has been in developing the vegetable oil subsector where support has been based on an innovative public-private partnership and a value chain approach. The evaluation underlines that this is indeed a far-reaching achievement. During the first part of the period covered by the evaluation, IFAD contributed considerable staff and financial resources to developing policies and partnerships. In the latter part, it also invested much time in policy dialogue but without being able to effectively persuade the Government to accept its views. With transition to direct supervision and implementation support, which is an important change in IFAD’s operating model leading to better results, less staff time is available for non-lending activities (knowledge management, policy dialogue and partnerships.
Yemen Country Programme Evaluation
The country programme evaluation looks at results achieved in the last 17 years (since the last CPE in 1992). Overall these have been positive, with IFAD making a significant contribution towards improving agriculture and rural development in some of the country’s poor, remote and least developed areas, and in gaining a solid reputation for specialized expertise and country experience. The evaluation found that IFAD has made a positive impact towards promoting participatory development and supporting social mobilization in rural areas. In many areas agricultural productivity has improved through enhanced irrigation systems, soil conservation, crop improvements, the diversification of production and the development of small-scale fisheries. Despite the challenges of a conservative society, IFAD has helped to empower women by providing them with economic opportunities and increasing their participation in community decision-making. However, IFAD had only limited success in enhancing poor rural households’ access to financial services, even though some progress has been made in establishing community-based savings and credit groups. Despite severe water shortages, relatively few investments have been made in improving surface water management. The country portfolio has also been affected by capacity constraints in government. Finally, despite the country’s large proportion of children and youth and high youth unemployment, few projects/programmes have focused on youth.
Viet Nam Country Programme Evaluation
IFAD-supported country programme in Viet Nam focused on support to decentralization, investment in small-scale infrastructure, market integration and microfinance. Satisfactory results were achieved in terms of impact on the incomes and assets of smallholders; increased human and social capital and empowerment, particularly for women; agricultural productivity and crop diversification; and efforts in capacity-building of institutions at the local level.
Despite some limitations related to policy dialogue with the Central Government, IFAD has had a satisfactory policy impact on the ground, based on experience in promoting decentralization, participation, land use and capacity building of farmers’ organizations. Limited attention was however given to addressing the challenges encountered in providing access to rural credit including in relation to the policy dialogue agenda.
The context in Viet Nam has changed significantly since IFAD started its partnership with the Government in 1993. Viet Nam’s newly acquired middle-income status will have important implications on IFAD’s role and focus in the country in the future. Reduced concessional funding, combined with increased vulnerability due to the effects of climate change and persistent poverty among ethnic minorities, could more severely affect the rural poor in most of the targeted provinces, thereby making the ongoing market-oriented programme shift even more challenging.
Ghana Country Programme Evaluation
Ghana is the largest recipient of IFAD’s loans and grants in the West and Central Africa region. Compared with past results the performance of IFAD-funded portfolio in Ghana has improved according to most evaluation criteria. Highlights of the portfolio are institutional development, support to local governance and agriculture technology transfer. Project efficiency will however need to be strengthened as, in several cases, start up and implementation have been slow. Gaps and flaws in design, coupled with supervision by cooperating institutions and lack of an IFAD country presence until 2010, also contributed to efficiency problems.
IFAD-supported interventions have been active in fostering innovative approaches in Ghana. These have included products (e.g. new saving products adapted to lower-income clients), technology (e.g. disease-resistant roots and tuber varieties), and processes (e.g. matching grants, farmers’ field fora extension models, agricultural value chain approaches). Many of these innovations would have benefited from sufficient pilot testing or a more detailed foresight analysis prior to being scaled up. Also, IFAD’s past tendency to scale up innovations country-wide without involving other donors has led to the risk of IFAD’s limited resources being scattered geographically. The opening of an IFAD country office in 2011 with an outposted country programme manager can provide better opportunities for developing partnerships, including for scaling up successful innovations.