1
Evaluation Objectives
 Assess the performance and impact of IFADsupported operations in Nepal;
 Assess the IFAD-Government partnership; and
 Generate findings and recommendations that can
inform the next COSOP (planned in 2013).
2
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 1999-2012
 Included analysis of conflict and fragility
(using WDR-2011 methodology) Conflict and
Fragility (using WDR-2011 methodology)
3
Evaluation Process
 December 2011
 Jan-Feb 2012
 March-April 2012
 May-July 2012
 Sept-Oct 2012
 November 2012
 January 2013
 Feb-March 2013
Point
Preparatory Mission,
Desk Review
Main Evaluation Mission,
Report Writing
Discussion and Feedback
Presentation at the Board
National Roundtable
Workshop
Agreement at Completion
Point (ACP)
4
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 Programme
 Total 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
6
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
7
IFAD-Supported Projects Timeline
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 Programme
TC
8
9
Main Findings
Portfolio 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
priorities
 At the same time, modalities and resources for working in
conflict were not specified
 Underestimated challenges of low capacity at local
government level
13
Main Findings
(Cont.)
Program Management
 Lack of continuity: 8 Country Programme Managers
(CPMs) in 10 years, all Rome-based
 Positive development: appointment of CPC in 2007
 Inadequate resources for programme management
in conditions of institutional weakness and fragility
 Fragmentation of programme implementation
(multiple implementing agencies, large areas)
 Lack of coordination with donor partners – generally
fragmented ODA for agriculture and rural
development
14
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 programme management
15
Main recommendations
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
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