Independent Office of Evaluation
Rwanda Country Programme Evaluation
National Roundtable Workshop
29 September 2011 - Kigali, Rwanda
1
Rwanda Country Programme Evaluation
• Covers 10 years of strategy and operations (COSOP
2002, 2007), with focus on past 6 years: 5 projects and
9 technical assistance grants
• Mixed sources:
 Comprehensive desk review;
 Mini-survey of impact in one project
 Field visit of projects and selected grants
 Interviews in the capital
 Thematic roundtable discussions
2
Three levels of analysis
C. Performance of the COSOP
(strategy)
B. Performance of non-lending
activities
(knowledge management,
partnerships, policy dialogue)
Overall
Partnership
Performance
A. Performance of the portfolio
(project-level analysis)
Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 3 =
moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory; 5 =
satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory
3
IFAD- Rwanda Cooperation Highlights
Total projects :
14 (since 1981)
Total cost:
US$ 345 m
IFAD lending:
US$ 187m h.c. loans & grants (54%)
Gov. funding:
US$ 47m (14%)
Co-financing
US$ 111m (32%)
Co-financiers:
AfDB, UNCDF, UNDP, BSF, OFID,
Desjardin International, DFID, Gov. of
Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, WFP,
others
Technical Assist. 9 (4 Regional + 5 Country-Specific)
Grants
Estimated value for Rwanda: US$1.7m
4
Country Context
• High GDP growth since 1994 , also in agriculture since 2007
• High population density.
• GoR rural development strategies:
(i) raise agriculture productivity
(ii) diversify into export crops
(iii) non-farm economy (target: 2m non-farm jobs by 2020)
• Improved policy and regulatory environment, tight
monitoring of implementation
5
Evolution of IFAD’s interventions
• 1981-1992: food crop intensification , soil protection
• Mid 1990s: settling returnees, infrastructure, non-farm
employment
• 2002 COSOP: cash crops, support to decentralisation
• 2007 COSOP three strategic objectives:
(i) raise opportunities and income of the rural poor;
(ii) Strengthen organisations of the rural poor
(iii) Vulnerable groups included in social, economic
transformation
6
2000-2010 portfolio investment shares (%)
50
43%
45
40
35
30
19%
25
16%
20
11%
10%
15
10
5
0
agriculture and
infrastructure
support to
rural finance,
NRM
(buildings, roads, grassroots org, private business,
water supply) central and local
vocational
governments
training
project
management
costs
Projects’ main focus
1. PDRCIU = infrastructure + agr. 4. PAPSTA = agriculture & NRM
2. PDCR = cash crops
5. KWAMP = agriculture & NRM
3. PPPMER = rural enterprises
7
Portfolio performance
(selection)
• Highly relevant to national sub-sector strategies
• Well adapted to the context and recognised good practices.
Exceptions: (i) PDRCIU over-complicated design; (ii) rural
finance (subsidised credit lines)
• Effective at increasing crop yields and protecting watersheds
• Mixed: export crops (weak cooperatives); non farm
employment: apprenticeship programmes effective , many
weak micro enterprises, insufficient attention to agriculture
value addition activities
• Generally efficient , exception PDRCIU. Good project
implementation & disbursement pace, improving over time
8
Portfolio performance
(cont.)
• Strong impact on incomes and food security
• Mixed for environment (protection measures vs. risks of
contamination, biodiversity loss)
• Institutions: devolution of project planning and managerial
authority to districts still lagging
• Mixed sustainability prospects: project well embedded in
national subsector programmes, smart subsidies
• But subsidised credit lines in rural finance, weak and
indebted cooperatives, fragile micro and small enterprises
9
Portfolio analysis
(cont.)
Satisfactory IFAD performance
• Good responsiveness to evolving national context,
introduction of direct supervision and country presence.
But risk of duplication of work: value added?
Satisfactory Government performance
• Strengthened policy environment and improved
management, proactive portfolio monitoring
• Formalisation of informal economy and of rural finance
initiatives without transition phase may lead to the
demise of emerging grassroots organisations
10
“Non-lending” activities
• Good knowledge management within and between IFAD
projects (SRI, watershed development) but limited capture of
external experiences
• Limited policy dialogue to bring project experiences to higher
level. No influence in rural finance policy (2007 COSOP)
• GoR not always benefiting from IFAD’s experience (SME policy,
coffee strategy)
• Partnership development mainly at project level but
insufficient for the purpose of policy dialogue and up-scaling
innovations
11
COSOP (strategy) Performance
• Objectives, sub-sectors highly relevant to country
context
• But did not address adequately emerging challenge of
handling food crop surpluses (post harvest and
processing)
• Overall effective at household level
• Mixed effectiveness at institutional level (district capacity
building , rural finance, cooperative development)
• Limited progress towards compliance with Paris
Declaration so far
12
General Assessment
C. COSOP performance
Satisfactory: 5
B. Non-lending activities
Moderately Satisfactory: 4
Overall
Partnership
Performance
Satisfactory: 5
A. Performance of the
portfolio
Satisfactory: 5
Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 3 =
moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory; 5 =
satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory
13
Conclusions
 Valuable portfolio of projects. Ratings are above IFAD
averages. Improving performance, thanks to:
(i) stronger national policy and institutional environment;
(ii) better IFAD follow-up (direct supervision, country office)
 Partnership is essentially “project-based”. Less focus on
institutional development and policy dialogue, knowledge
management and partnerships
 Challenges in rural finance, cooperative development,
support to local governments require programmatic support
14
Recommendations
1. Need for programmatic, institutional and policy
support in local government, rural finance, and
cooperative development
2. Move towards a more strategic GoR-IFAD partnership
that relies on national accountability systems
3. Support sustainable natural resources development and
agricultural value chains (farm & non-farm jobs)
15
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
 PLENARY (initial observations)
 3 WORKING GROUPS
 FINAL DISCUSSION (afternoon)
16
Group 1
Aligning local agricultural development interventions to the
decentralisation process as basis for a programmatic approach
1. Would it be feasible to work based on District Agricultural
Development Plans, formulated and implemented by Districts
with guidance from MINAGRI?
2. With deepening of decentralisation, what will be the role of the
umurenge in implementing support interventions? How do we
develop their capacity for their future roles?
3. Who will eventually be the owner and financier of new local
agricultural institutions such as CCIs and CLGSs, created by
PAPSTA & KWAMP? Will these institutions only be a feature in
these project areas or introduced nationally?
17
Group 1
Is there scope for a programmatic approach in supporting
cooperatives?
1. Should we have a thematic programme on cooperative
development – or should we continue supporting
cooperatives ad hoc as a means of achieving targets in subsector programmes (coffee, post-harvest)?
2. As basis for a programmatic approach, would it be desirable
and possible for GoR and DPs to develop a consensus on a
“national government strategy for cooperative
development”?
3. At a lower level of ambition, would it be possible for DPs and
others to apply common methodologies in their support for
cooperatives – e.g. common national training modules?
18
Group 1
Harmonising and aligning support for rural and
agricultural finance
1. Should we concentrate our support on implementation of the
recent Rural and Agricultural Finance Strategy (and a possible
future SACCO sustainability strategy)?
2. Does GoR consider it desirable to continue having small rural
finance/credit components in sub-sector and area-based
programmes?
19
Group 3
Supporting agricultural/food value chains based on
Public-Private Partnerships
1. Why have there been insufficient private investments in the
more advanced stages of processing and marketing of food
commodities?
2. What can be done to better attract private companies into
agribusiness in food commodities?
3. In the absence of sufficient private-sector response, can and
should Government and cooperatives fill the gap?
20
Group 2
Can and should IFAD rely more on national fiduciary systems,
freeing resources for a more strategic programme
management approach?
1. Where does double-control of procurement and financial
management processes provide useful checks and balances
that justify the delays and IFAD’s human resource
investments?
2. While GoR and its fiduciary systems ultimately are
responsible for the proper use of proceeds from IFAD
loans/grants, what are the appropriate roles and tasks of
IFAD staff?
21
22
Working groups
• Starting now
• Lunch break
• Resuming at 1.30pm and finishing 3:30pm
• Elect a group chair
• 1 Rapporteur assigned to each group to present key
discussion points in the afternoon plenary 3.45pm
• Discuss key recommendations (see guiding questions)
23
Group 1
• Theme: Towards more programmatic
approaches and institutional support in
the areas of local government, rural
finance and cooperative development
• Location: This room (podium side)
24
Group 2
• Theme: The way towards a more
strategic programme management
and reliance on national systems
• Location: This room (rear side)
25
Group 3
• Theme: Agricultural value chain
development through private-public
partnerships
• Location: IHEMA room
26