1. Annual Review 2011 Julian Abrams PART 2: PROJECT DELIVERY COSOP 2008 - 2012 IFAD Country Strategic Opportunities Programme

2. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery THERE WERE TWO ACTIVE PROJECTS WHEN COSOP WAS DESIGNED: The Community Based Rural Development Project in Kampot and Kampong Thom, implemented from 2002 to 2009; and The Rural Poverty Reduction Project in Prey Veng and Svay Rieng, implemented from 2003 to 2011.

3. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery ONE PROJECT WAS WAITING TO START The Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project (RULIP) in Kratie, Preah Vihear and Ratanakiri started in 2008 and is scheduled to finish in 2014. RULIP was designed before the COSOP was adopted.

4. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery TWO PROJECTS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED UNDER THE COSOP: The Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and Smallholder Development Project (TSSP) is a partnership with ADB. The project is planned for implementation in Banteay Meanchey, Kampong Cham, Kampong Thom and Siem Reap. Implementation has been delayed but is planned to begin in 2012. The Project to Support Agriculture Development and Economic Empowerment (PADEE) was initially designed in collaboration with World Bank but will now be funded by IFAD with some funds from other partners. PADEE will be implemented in Kampot, Kandal, Prey Veng, Svay Rieng and Takeo beginning in 2012.

5. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery SOME PROJECT ACTIVITIES FORESEEN IN THE COSOP DID NOT TAKE PLACE: The COSOP identified opportunities for various activities in partnership with other agencies in COSOP target provinces. These included: Collaboration with World Bank on Social Land Concessions in Kratie; Smallholder rubber development with AFD in the RULIP provinces; Partnership with ADB in Ratanakiri for eco-tourism.

6. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery CBRDP ACHIEVEMENTS: 165,575 direct beneficiary households Village Networks and Local Technical Committees established Agriculture training and demonstration in over 1000 villages 355km of rural roads, 765 drinking water points and over 1000 ha of crops irrigated 16,065 land titles issued Final cost about $US21million Closed with “Moderately Satisfactory” rating in December 2009

7. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery RPRP ACHIEVEMENTS: 50,400 direct beneficiary households (not including CIDF component). 1008 Livelihood Improvement Groups of poor farmers and 1008 Farming Systems Improvement Groups of medium-poor farmers LIG groups established Group Revolving Funds 168 Commune Extension Workers and 2,016 Village Extension Workers trained 600 Village Animal Health Workers trained and providing fee-based services 100 fish ponds and 5 lake refuges constructed 1,536 km of rural roads, 166 school classrooms, 323 km of irrigation canals and 82 water gates constructed by Commune Councils using CIDF funding Closed with “Satisfactory” rating in June 2010

8. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery RULIP ACHIEVEMENTS: By Mid-Term Review (2011) RULIP had reached 14,892 direct beneficiary households (66% of target). 358 LIG groups, 47 Most Vulnerable Family Groups and 228 Farming System Improvement Groups formed and trained All LIG and MVF groups have revolving funds High participation of women Mid-term review rated progress “Moderately Satisfactory” and made some recommendations for strengthening.

9. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVEMENTS: 6,700 Farmer Groups formed 1,575 Revolving Funds operational. GRF value increased... 11,973 On-farm demonstrations and field days 370,620 trainees 3,401 Commune Extension Workers and Village Animal Health Workers 45.6% of all trainees are women 27% of farmer groups have women in leadership positions 1,532 km of rural roads constructed or rehabilitated; 334 km of canals rehabilitated 768 domestic water points 429 fish ponds

10. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery SOME STRENGTHS OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, IDENTIFIED IN REVIEW MISSIONS: Strong pro-poor and gender equity focus; Effective targeting of interventions to the poor; High adoption rates for technologies taught through Farmer Field Schools Group Revolving Funds were able to increase their fund size by about 37% (in RPRP) Revolving Fund Groups found to be a highly cost-effective mechanism for agriculture extension; Some GRFs formed with IFAD support before 2003 still operating well five years after project support ended. Gender mainstreaming also found to be very effective (RPRP, RULIP)

11. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery SOME AREAS WHERE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WAS NOT SO STRONG: Too many different types of group: RULIP MTR recommended to focus mainly on the LIGs. Sustainability of the revolving funds: most groups still need support from CEW and Commune Council. RULIP MTR found high loan default rates in some groups. Some non land-based livelihood activities have low income generating potential (RULIP). Operation and maintenance of infrastructure is not strong enough to ensure sustainability (RPRP, CBRD). M&E systems monitor project outputs well but monitoring of outcomes and impacts has not been so strong.

12. C0SOP Review Report 2: Project Delivery SOME LESSONS LEARNED: Focus on IFAD areas of comparative advantage: livelihood support to poor rural people; Look for ways to improve sustainability of revolving funds, including links to the formal micro-finance sector; Ensure training materials are appropriate for the target group, and ensure high quality of training; Infrastructure is important but it is not an IFAD comparative advantage: seek partnership arrangements for infrastructure investments; Strengthen M&E systems including better impact monitoring, maybe through shared systems and capacity at program level.

13. Part 1: Relevance of the Strategic Approach End of Part 2: Project Delivery Part 3: Development Results