Transcript Dias nummer 1

IFAD – Uganda Cooperation 1997-2011
Country Programme Evaluation
National Roundtable Workshop
Co-organized by the Government of Uganda and IFAD
Kampala, 12 July 2012
What is a Country Programme Evaluation (CPE)?
1.
Undertaken by IFAD’s Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE)
2.
Assessment of the performance of project portfolio, non-lending
activities and Country Strategic Opportunities Programme
(COSOP)
3.
Provides input to formulation of next COSOP
4.
Comprises desk work, self-assessments, extended field mission
(July 2011), peer review, comments by stakeholders, revisions,
audit trail
5.
Very comprehensive and useful self-assessments received from
MoFPED, ESA and PIUs
6.
Final stage: NRTW, Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) and
publication & communication
Portfolio
executed by Government and supported by IFAD loans/grants
1.
14 projects supported by 16 loans and one BSF grant
2.
Total approved IFAD lending US$294 million ~ 21% of total
project costs
3.
First 5 loans (1981-94) supported projects initiated and
supervised by the World Bank
4.
Nine projects, since 1997, supporting 4 areas:
i. local government executed agriculture and rural
development, two tandems: DDSP-DLSP, AAMP-CAIIP
ii. vegetable oil sub-sector: one tandem VODP 1 & 2
iii. agricultural advisory services & research: NAADS and
ATAAS
iv. rural finance - RFSP
IFAD’s Portfolio 1998 -2012 covered by the CPE
- continuity since 2003 Country
Office
VODP
VODP2
DDSP
DLSP
NAADS
ATAAS
AAMP
CAIIP
RFSP
COSOP
2018
COSOP
CPE
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
Projects
Findings - selected
A group of rural poor assisted by DSLP to get land titles
Context – one puzzling finding
Real GDP Growth Rates (%)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
Total GDP
Agriculture, forestry and Fishing
10.8
8.4
8.7
7.2
5.8
0.5
0.1
1.3
2.5
2.1
UNHS II UNHS III
2002/03 2005/06
UNHS IV
2009/10
Rural Poverty Incidence (P0)
42.7
34.2
27.2
Rural Poor in Million
9.31
7.87
7.1
Sources : GDP figures : UBOS and MOFPED. Poverty Figures : UBOS, Uganda National Hous ehold Surveys
Performance of Government executed portfolio
1.
Relevant designs but since 2006 issues of adapting to policy
changes
2.
Effectiveness moderately satisfactory but recent challenges
3.
Improvement in some efficiency indicators
4.
Rural poverty impact assessed moderately satisfactory, best
for household income and assets
5.
Sustainability is a serious issue
6.
Innovations are few and scaling up is limited
Performance of non-lending activities
1.
Significant IFAD investment and participation in policy
dialogue during early PMA period. Less inclusive policy
dialogue processes after 2006. Agenda of 2004 COSOP
defined in terms of “IFAD’s opposition to government
policies”.
2.
Knowledge management neglected till recently where
major investments have been made
3.
Partnerships with Government, World Bank and AfDB function
well and useful partnerships with PSOs and CSOs have been
developed. However, IFAD and AfDB need to make joint
supervision of CAIIP.
4.
Country grants overall relevant and effective
COSOP Performance
1.
Relevant 1998 and 2004 COSOPs, but some strategic re-orientations
since 2006/07 conflict with IFAD policies, e.g. on Rural Finance
2.
Many relevant elements, but only VOPD, applying a value chain
approach, ensures effective coherence
3.
Lending pipeline 2004 COSOP not realised ($18 m for agri
marketing/processing programme and $25 m for integrated
community development in northern Uganda)
4.
4 months before expiry of PBA period 2007-2009, $37 m of the PBA
remained uncommitted – last moment solution: supplementary
loans/grants for DLSP (20 m) and CAIIP (17 m)
5.
Policy dialogue agenda largely defined in terms of IFAD’s
disagreement with government and no budget for policy work
6.
No regular COSOP reviews and revisions
Overall, the partnership is assessed as
moderately satisfactory
Portfolio Performance
Non-lending Activities
COSOP Performance
Overall Government-IFAD Partnership
Rating Scale
6
5
4
3
2
1
Highly Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
Moderately Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Highly Unsatisfactory
RATING
4
4
4
4
% of target achieved, or % of beneficiaries with
positive change, or %....
90% and more (+ qualitative aspects)
75%-89%
(+ qualitative aspects)
60%-74%
(+ qualitative aspects)
45%-59%
(+ qualitative aspects)
30%-44%
(+ qualitative aspects)
<30%
(+ qualitative aspects)
Recommendations
1.
Include major support for northern Uganda; either IFAD should
join muti-donor support for PRDP2 or go alone with innovative
programme in one or two districts, but aligned to PRDP2
2.
Replicate experiences from VODP – value chain approach and
PPP – and apply to other sub-sectors/commodities (dairy,
animal feed industry ? ?)
3.
Define realistic and joint policy agenda, and identify/allocate
resources required for its implementation
4.
Improve project results – ensure synergies, capacity
development, environmental management, sustainability,
scaling up
5.
Functional/workload analysis to determine staff requirements
and division of labour in IFAD’s country programme
management
Three Key Themes for Discussion
Theme 1: Opportunities and challenges for
developing public private partnerships in
smallholder agriculture
Theme 2: Geographic and sub-sector options for
future IFAD-Government partnerships, including
IFAD’s contribution to regional integration
Theme 3: Strengthening results by developing a
coherent and integrated country programme