1
Evaluation Objectives
Assess the performance and impact of IFAD-supported operations in Nepal;
Assess the IFAD-Government partnership; and
Generate findings and recommendations that can inform the next COSOP (planned in 2013).
22
Evaluation Methodology
Assessment of three pillars of the partnership: (i)Project portfolio (ii) Non-lending activities; and (iii) COSOPs and country program management
Internationally recognised evaluation criteria and a six point rating scale
Evaluation period 1999-2012Included analysis of conflict and fragility
(using WDR-2011 methodology) Conflict and Fragility (using WDR-2011 methodology)
33
Evaluation Process
December 2011 Preparatory Mission, Jan-Feb 2012 Desk Review March-April 2012 Main Evaluation Mission, May-July 2012 Report WritingSept-Oct 2012 Discussion and FeedbackNovember 2012 Presentation at the
BoardJanuary 2013 National Roundtable
Workshop Feb-March 2013 Agreement at
Completion Point (ACP) Point
44
Country Context Low-income country (GDP per capita US$ 642)
Difficult political situation: internal armed conflict since 1990’s, fragile peace since 2006
Population concentrated in rural areas – approximately 83%
Moderate economic growth (3.5% in 2011)
Economy dominated by agriculture (< 33% of GDP), employing more than 33% of population. Low yields and constraints on land (only 25% cultivable).
Human Development Index ranking 157 out of 187 countries
Strong gains in poverty reduction (from 42% in 1996 to 25% in 2011), mainly driven by remittances (22% of GDP) and migration. Yet poverty remains severe with malnutrition and food insecurity. Unequal progress across gender, ethnicities and regions.
Among most assisted countries in the world (US$ 1,080 million disbursed by multilateral and bilateral donors in fiscal year 2010/2011). ODA to Nepal has almost doubled since 2006.
5
IFAD Country ProgrammeTotal IFAD lending: US$146m; total portfolio
cost US$363m, out of which USD$ 55m in counterpart funding)
Two country strategies (COSOPs):
I. 2000 COSOP: supporting “sustainable livelihoods and social justice” in remote, isolated and disadvantaged areas of the Mid- and Far-Western Regions
II. 2006 COSOP: (i) increased access to economic opportunities – focus on growth nodes; (ii) community infrastructure and services; and (iii) greater inclusion of disadvantaged groups
66
IFAD Country Programme (cont.)
13 projects since 1978 (four on-going). 7 country specific grants (US$ 2.8m) and 32 regional grants (US$ 32.2m)
Main thematic areas of the portfolio: leasehold forestry; rural finance; infrastructure development; support for agriculture (crops and livestock); and agricultural value chain development.
Cross-cutting themes: gender equality and social inclusion (GESI); income-generating activities; and social development
77
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
Improved Seeds for Farmers ProgrammeTC
IFAD-Supported Projects Timeline
8
9
Main FindingsPortfolio Performance
Overall relevant objectives and thematic focus, in line with GON priorities. Negative role of exogenous factors: armed insurgency and weak institutional capacity.
Gender equality and social inclusion aspect in IFAD projects generally improved over time.
Design issues: geographic dilution (43 districts) and complexity (too many components and implementing agencies) in the context of severe institutional fragility.
Visible improvements on most aspects of portfolio in recent years, but sustainability remains a big issue (e.g. project-supported community groups)
10
Main Findings (cont.)Portfolio Performance (cont.)
Leasehold Forestry – new concept of forest management; effective (but costly) mechanism for poverty reduction, community development and forest regeneration
Rural development (incl. community development, infrastructure, agriculture) – positive contributions in terms of group formation, income generation and community infrastructure development (PAF) but less so in PAPWT and WUPAP
Rural finance – ad hoc approach, the least successful part of the portfolio. Micro-finance (Grameen Bank model) efforts unsuccessful.
11
Main Findings (cont.)Non-Lending Activities
Policy dialogue agenda relevant, but very ambitious, lacked specific objectives and not supported by adequate resources.
Knowledge management (in 2006 COSOP) mainly through grants program. Some valuable studies financed (e.g. ICIMOD). Visible improvement during last year.
Partnership strategy overall relevant, but few concrete examples of co-financing (PAF, bilateral TA, ADS).
Significant grant resources mobilized (total 39 grants, incl. regional). Some very effective (LLP), but regional grants had modest synergies with country programme.
12
Main Findings (Cont.)
COSOP Performance
Overall, positive contribution: project pipeline implemented, but policy dialogue did not materialize.Strategic objectives relevant and in line with development prioritiesAt the same time, modalities and resources for working in conflict were not specifiedUnderestimated challenges of low capacity at local government level
13
Main Findings (Cont.)
Program ManagementLack of continuity: 8 Country Programme Managers (CPMs) in 10 years, all Rome-basedPositive development: appointment of CPC in 2007Inadequate resources for programme management in conditions of institutional weakness and fragilityFragmentation of programme implementation (multiple implementing agencies, large areas)Lack of coordination with donor partners – generally fragmented ODA for agriculture and rural development
14
Key ConclusionsOverall 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 programme management1515
Main recommendationsI. 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
16
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
17
Main recommendations (cont.)
III Operations and Program Management:
Local context and implementation support: need more resources in fragile state context. Possible sources: grants and 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.
18
Thank you
19