Mozambique Country Programme Evaluation

1. National Roundtable Workshop Maputo, 24-25 May 2010 Mozambique Country Programme Evaluation IFAD Office of Evaluation

2. Evaluation Objectives Assess the performance and impacts of the IFAD funded activities Develop findings and recommendations that will assist the preparation of the new COSOP 2

3. Three Questions Was IFAD’s country strategy in Mozambique designed (as expressed in IFAD interventions and formalized in the 2000 and 2004 COSOPs) to ensure highest possible rural poverty reduction impacts? To what extent, was the country strategy implemented through projects and non-project activities and how did they perform? What was the impact of IFAD’s country strategy and operations?

4. Methodology & Process Standard Evaluation Criteria & Six-Point Rating Scale Triangulation of Data Desk reviews, interviews, self-assessment, country portfolio review, One month of field work (Sept/Oct 2008) Visits to the provinces of Cabo Delgado, Gaza, Maputo, Nampula, Niassa and Zambezia, to meet service providers, beneficiaries, community groups. Discussions held with Government officials in Maputo and at provincial and local levels. 4

5. Evaluation Context Mozambique: 22 million people; Prevalence of HIV/AIDS is increasing (16% of prime age group) Mozambique had extremely low starting point but has sustained high rates of economic growth (8% p.a. since 1992), partly fuelled by mega-projects - GNI per capita about US$400 but in bottom part of HDI, and the Doing Business, Global Competitiveness and Corruption Perception Indices Agriculture has the lowest sector share of the GDP but engages 80 per cent of the population. Between 1997 and 2003, national poverty declined (69% to 54%). However, recent evidence suggests rising rural inequality and a less positive outlook for the poorest. Budget for Agriculture is increasing but remains below the 10% New Partnership for Africa's Development target. 5

6. The Country Programme in Mozambique Total project cost: US$ 286.7 million IFAD contribution 61% - US$ 175 million 9% of total IFAD lending to E.S. Africa IFAD Loans 10 since 1982 IFAD Grants: Country-specific (US$ 316,000) Regional grants covering Mozambique (US$ 3.2 million) CPE: 7 programmes over 16 years(1993-2009) 6

7. IFAD COUNTRY STRATEGIES The 2000 COSOP was an internal document but an updated version including an addendum was presented to the EB in 2001; the addendum addressed the emergency following the floods and introduced for the first time the issue of HIV/AIDS The 2004 COSOP was prepared in consultation with Government and national partners and is a fully public document Since 1990s, overriding strategic goal: commercialisation of smallholder agriculture and artisanal fisheries – confirmed and emphasised in the COSOPs of 2000/01 and 2004 7

8. 2001 and 2004 COSOPs Commercialisation of smallholders supported by strategies to form groups and associations and linking them to input and output markets and rural finance Emphasis on decentralised implementation – “promote partnerships between local authorities, communities, economic agents and other civil society stakeholders..” Cautious to join PROAGRI with non-earmarked support 2001 – IFAD has no role in providing assistance to deal with emergencies 2004 – mainstreaming of gender and HIV/AIDS 2004 – paradigm shift

9. Assessment of 2001 and 2004 COSOPs Overall, IFAD pursued relevant strategic goals and made the correct strategic choices, - evidence that households are more likely to move out of poverty when they engage in cash crop production, livestock and non-farm income generating activities. Paradigm shift constitutes a challenge Hesitance to provide non-earmarked support for PROAGRI justified, considering IFAD’s mandate and role No targeting strategy Non-lending activities mentioned but without plans and budget Progress towards COSOP goals but still a long way to go 9

10. Portfolio Performance: Positives Portfolio objectives are highly relevant in terms of the needs of the rural poor, and GoM and IFAD policies. The ASCAs and support for market linkages and farmers associations have made an important contribution to income and empowerment of the rural poor. Social infrastructure, drinking water points and feeder roads have, overall, produced positive results and outcomes. Important policy and institutional changes achieved in agricultural marketing and artisanal fisheries – combination of national policy components and field support is useful. Efficiency has improved over time. Still large differences, often determined by service provider and partner. Superior when implementation managed by a full-time programme facilitation unit. 10

11. ASCAs – an encouraging example of innovation, upscaling and impact • Introduced not by design but during implementation of NAFP which experimented with different savings and credit models. • IDPPE together with CARE established 37 ASCAs which showed promising results • Upscaled to some 1,000 ASCAs by SBAFP and now the model in other RDPs • Impacts in terms of empowerment, women’s participation, household income and assets, food security • Members with good performance have accessed bank loans

12. Portfolio Performance: Shortcomings • Project designs overestimated capacity of public and private partners in remote areas and underestimated the time and resources required to develop self-sustainable grassroots institutions. Lacked adequate institutional assessment and mapping as a basis for making optimal partner choices. • Several innovations planned and agreed in design were abandoned as unrealistic while innovations emerged in implementation. • Disappointing results of efforts to raise crop yields (NADP) and challenges in promoting viable processing. – Nationally, very low agricultural value added per worker. • Sustainability presents particular problems outside the public domain (associations, agro-processing, SME finance in fisheries) but also in public animal health services, due to decentralisation. 12

13. % projects in satisfactory category * CPE ARRI 2002-07 Relevance 5 10096 similar Effectiveness 4 80  74similar Efficiency 4 80 65higher Project Performance 4 80 86 similar Poverty Impact4 80 69 higher Innovation 480 72similar Sustainability 3 40 48 similar Partner: IFAD 4 67 54 higher Partner: Gov 4 67 67 similar Partner: CI 4 83 63 higher Overall Achievement 480 74similar *This comprises all ratings of 4 (moderately satisfactory), 5 (satisfactory) and 6 (highly satisfactory) Portfolio Performance: Overall Ratings 13

14. Non Lending Activities • Policy dialogue (PD), knowledge management (KM) and partnership development linked to lending programme and not a free-standing “non-lending activity” . • PD opportunities for addressing issues outside the loan projects, neglected, partly because of resource constraints. • KM is weak. Insufficient efforts have been invested in capturing lessons of other development partners and programmes. • IFAD is developing important partnerships with private sector organisations… but need to identify grant resources to support their capacity development and advocacy activities. • Sub-optimal use of grants to enhance impact of lending programme

15. IFAD has developed a lead position in agricultural extension services and artisanal fisheries as well as an important role in rural finance and agricultural marketing Need for targeting and mainstreaming gender and HIV/AIDS in the country programme Assumptions about the capacity of public and private sector partners have been too optimistic The innovation promotion process remains unsystematic Non-lending activities have primarily taken place within lending programme Sub-optimal use of Technical Assistance Grant – grant envelope needed for planning and COSOP formulation Country presence provides basis for policy dialogue, partnership development and harmonisation Main Conclusions 15

16. Recommendation 1Maintain the current goal and strategic thrusts Improve market participation by support to increase surplus production and its value; develop agribusiness SMEs, smallholders’ organisations and market linkages; enhance access to finance Ensure coordination between efforts in three areas, and select new value chains and areas based on market and agro-ecological potential 16

17. Recommendation 2Develop and implement an innovation agenda adapted to realities in the field Define innovation agenda and dedicate adequate resources Use Programme Units or dedicated task forces as temporary change process tools engaging in “search and find processes” during programme implementation (ref SBAFP) Improve monitoring, knowledge management and policy advocacy to promote upscaling and replication 17

18. Recommendation 3Develop a targeting strategy • Relevant to support national frameworks if pro-poor • Area-based support needs to consider emerging regional differences in poverty incidence • Address challenges of involving poor households in value chains • Mainstream gender and HIV/AIDS issues in field support ddd 18

19. Recommendation 4Engage private and civil society organizations as component implementers The Country Programme supports private sector development which often is best facilitated by private sector and civil society organisations Explore options of engaging capable private and civil society organisations as partners and implementers of components and sub-components (including budget responsibility) 19 19

20. Recommendation 5Continue adjusting and strengthening IFAD’s new operating model Strengthen country presence based on needs assessment considering resources required for direct supervision, policy dialogue, KM, harmonisation and partner development Facilitate linkages and synergies between three focus areas: agric. production/fisheries, marketing/processing, and financial services Improve planning and use of grants for enhancing effectiveness and impact of country programme and for promoting innovations and upscaling 20 20