1. Independent Office of Evaluation, IFAD 7-8 December, 2009

2. Information about the country programme Two country strategies (COSOPs): 2001 and 2005 23 projects since 1979 (nine ongoing) Total IFAD loans US$ 640m, total project costs US$ 1.9b, out of which USD$ 860m in counterpart funding Projects focused on tribal development, women’s empowerment, and micro-finance. Agriculture is a focus of the most recent projects Global and regional grants, as well as country specific grants 2

3. Evaluation Objectives Assess the performance and impact of Government – IFAD partnership Generate findings and recommendations that can serve as building blocks for the forthcoming India country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP) 3

4. Evaluation Methodology and Process Methodology Three building blocks: (i) assess project portfolio, (ii) non-lending activities; and (iii) COSOP performance Use internationally recognised evaluation criteria and use of a six point rating scale Process Inception workshop, February 2009 Desk review report, April Main mission, April – May Preparation of report National roundtable workshop and Agreement at Completion Point India CPE website: www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/country/pi/india/index.htm 4

5. Main Findings Portfolio Performance Generally better incomes and livelihoods for tribal people and women Positive performance in terms of household assets and incomes, human and social capital, natural resources management, income generation, and institutions and policies Very good achievements in gender mainstreaming Innovations and upscaling has been strong 5

6. Main Findings (cont) Portfolio Performance Efficiency of operations and sustainability not as good (multi-state projects and wide geographic coverage) Linkages to markets and role of private sector limited Little support to agriculture (crops, extension, research) Rapid turn over of project directors, and M&E has not been consistently strong 6

7. Main Findings (cont) Non-Lending Activities Good achievements in policy dialogue (SHGs, land titles to tribals, involvement of NGOs). Policy dialogue at national level insufficient Partnership good with Government of India and civil society/NGOs, but not as systematic with bi-lateral and multilateral organisations, private sector, and research/academic institutions Some good examples of knowledge management Non-lending activities constrained by limited resources and capacity COSOP performance Relevance and effectiveness of country strategy satisfactory There are issues with country presence 7

8. Overall Assessment CPE Ratings Portfolio Performance -5 Non-lending Activities -4 COSOP performance -5 Overall GOI and IFAD partnership - 5 (satisfactory) 8

9. Conclusions Government and IFAD partnership has produced significant results The evolving context and the consequences for partnership The importance of smallholder agriculture needs to be recognised Market linkages and private sector involvement have been insufficient 9

10. Conclusions (cont) Institution building has been good but more can be achieved Attention to upscaling has not been strategic Partnerships with central technical ministries and bi- lateral and multilateral organisations has been weak Country presence issues need to be addressed 10

11. Recommendations Give more priority to sustainable smallholder agriculture Reflect on geographic coverage and include smallholder farmers Launch a coherent knowledge programme Widen partnership with central government Increase loan size Strengthen country office 11