1 / 12

IFAD – Uganda Cooperation 1997-2011 Country Programme Evaluation

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)?. Undertaken by IFAD’s Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE)

tatum
Download Presentation

IFAD – Uganda Cooperation 1997-2011 Country Programme Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

  2. What is a Country Programme Evaluation (CPE)? Undertaken by IFAD’s Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE) Assessment of the performance of project portfolio, non-lending activities and Country Strategic Opportunities Programme (COSOP) Provides input to formulation of next COSOP Comprises desk work, self-assessments, extended field mission (July 2011), peer review, comments by stakeholders, revisions, audit trail Very comprehensive and useful self-assessments received from MoFPED, ESA and PIUs Final stage: NRTW, Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) and publication & communication

  3. Portfolioexecuted by Government and supported by IFAD loans/grants 14 projects supported by 16 loans and one BSF grant Total approved IFAD lending US$294 million ~ 21% of total project costs First 5 loans (1981-94) supported projects initiated and supervised by the World Bank Nine projects, since 1997, supporting 4 areas: local government executed agriculture and rural development, two tandems: DDSP-DLSP, AAMP-CAIIP vegetable oil sub-sector: one tandem VODP 1 & 2 agricultural advisory services & research: NAADS and ATAAS rural finance - RFSP

  4. IFAD’s Portfolio 1998 -2012 covered by the CPE- continuity since 2003 - Country Office COSOP COSOP CPE

  5. Findings - selected A group of rural poor assisted by DSLP to get land titles

  6. Context – one puzzling finding Can we trust agricultural GDP data?

  7. Performance of Government executed portfolio Relevant designs but since 2006 issues of adapting to policy changes Effectiveness moderately satisfactory but recent challenges Improvement in some efficiency indicators Rural poverty impact assessed moderately satisfactory, best for household income and assets Sustainability is a serious issue Innovations are few and scaling up is limited

  8. Performance of non-lending activities 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”. Knowledge management neglected till recently where major investments have been made 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. Country grants overall relevant and effective

  9. COSOP Performance Relevant 1998 and 2004 COSOPs, but some strategic re-orientations since 2006/07 conflict with IFAD policies, e.g. on Rural Finance Many relevant elements, but only VOPD, applying a value chain approach, ensures effective coherence Lending pipeline 2004 COSOP not realised ($18 m for agri marketing/processing programme and $25 m for integrated community development in northern Uganda) 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) Policy dialogue agenda largely defined in terms of IFAD’s disagreement with government and no budget for policy work No regular COSOP reviews and revisions

  10. Overall, the partnership is assessed as moderately satisfactory

  11. Recommendations 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 Replicate experiences from VODP – value chain approach and PPP – and apply to other sub-sectors/commodities (dairy, animal feed industry ? ?) Define realistic and joint policy agenda, and identify/allocate resources required for its implementation Improve project results – ensure synergies, capacity development, environmental management, sustainability, scaling up Functional/workload analysis to determine staff requirements and division of labour in IFAD’s country programme management

  12. 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

More Related