CPMT Meeting Ministry of FinanceMonday 3rd December 2012

IFAD Nepal Annual Portfolio Review

Portfolio

• 1979 - Integrated Rural Development Project (Sagarmatha)

• 1981 - Small Farmer Development Project• 1982 - Command Area Development

Project• 1986 - Second Small Farmer Development

Project• 1987 - Aquaculture Development Project• 1988 - Production Credit For Rural

Women Project• 1991 - Hills Leasehold Forestry And

Forage Dev Project• 1994 - Groundwater Irrigation & Flood

Rehabilitation Project• 1998 - Poverty Alleviation Project In

Western Terai

• 2003 - Western Uplands Poverty Alleviation Project

• 2005 - Leasehold Forestry And Livestock Programme

• 2008 - Poverty Alleviation Fund Phase II (DSF)

• 2010 - High-Value Agriculture Project In Hill And Mountain Areas

• 2013 - Kisankalagi Unnat Biu-Bijan Karyakram (Improved Seeds for Farmers Programme)

Closed LoansActive Loans

Timeline - overview

Integrated Rural Development Project

Small Farmer Development Project

Command Area Development Project

Second Small Farmer Development Project

Aquaculture Development Project

Production Credit for Rural Women Project

Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project

Groundwater Irrigation and Flood Development Project

Poverty Alleviation Project in Western Terai

Western Uplands Poverty Alleviation Project

Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme

Poverty Alleviation Fund Phase II

High Value Agriculture Project in Hill and Mountain Areas Kisankalagi Unnat Biu-Bijan Karyakram

IFAD working areas, main and recent projects

IFAD Disbursements in Nepal

Portfolio: Social Targetting – Active Projects

Projects

Districts

Households

Planned Actual

Western Uplands Poverty Alleviation Project (WUPAP) 11 115,000 82,180

Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme (LFLP) 22 44,300 61,004

Skill Enhancement for Employment Project (SEEP) 5 1200 1,244

Pro-poor Livelihood Promotion (PPLP) 5 5000 5,183

Local Livelihoods Program (LLP)

High Value Agriculture Inclusive Business Pilot Project (HVAP-IB) 1400 1,400

High Value Agricultural Project (HVAP) 10 66,000 6,000Kisankalagi Unnat Biu-Bijan Karyakram– seeds project 6 150,000

Total 382,900 157,011

Portfolio beneficiaries: Planned and Actual Coverage of Rural Households - Dec 2012

Annual Performance Based Ratings

Project Status Reports (PSR Ratings

5

3 3

2

4

3 3

4

3

44.6 4.8 4.8 4.9 5

4.44 4.2 4.2 4.3

0123

456

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Rat

ing

Nepal Regional average

c

Annual Performance Based Ratings

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4

4.25

4.5

4.75

5

2009 2010 2011 2012

PSR Ratings

APRWUPAPLFLPPAFHVAP

Country Programme Evaluation (CPE) Key Conclusions

• Overall positive and productive presence in the country,

- Relevant but overly ambitious country strategies

- At times poor program design and implementation

- Challenging country context – post-conflict

- Country dialogue weak due to frequent staff changes and lack of resources

• Need to diversify strategy, move away from “business as usual”

- Two-pronged approach

- Poverty reduction driven by remittances and migration

- Limited resources for program management

CPE Main recommendationsTo be used in Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) .

I. Strategic Partnership

- Paradigm shift: two-pronged approach, combining “basic needs” approach with high-value agriculture development focusing on developing profitable rural enterprises rather than aid-dependent groups

- Avoid geographic dilution, concentrate on fewer districts, and on road corridors for high value agriculture

- Factor in the conflict dimension in IFAD strategies and programmes

CPE Main recommendations (cont.)

II. Policy Dialogue

- Strengthen the link between policy dialogue and portfolio – include policy work in project budgets

- Agree with Government on joint policy dialogue agenda

- Improve cooperation with local and international partners through a better-targeted grant programme

CPE Main recommendations

III Operations and Program Management:

- Local context and implementation support: need more resources in fragile state context. Possible sources: grants, project financing.

- Class and caste-based interventions: Consider forming groups based on economic criteria, while making sure disadvantaged groups are included.

- Improve measuring and communicating impact of IFAD-supported operations.

- Align COSOP and PBA cycle management to avoid “last moment utilisation” of the PBA.

Thank You For Your Attention