Brazil Country Programme Evaluation Annual Country Visit of the Executive Board to the Federative Republic of Brazil Briefing session, 21 November 2016

IFAD – Brazil cooperation highlights Total number of approved loans: 11 (since 1980) Total value of portfolio: US$825 million IFAD loans: US$260 million; Counterpart funding (Contribution from Government and beneficiaries): US$497.4 million Cofinancing: US$67.6 million Ongoing projects: 6 CPE covers IFAD–Brazil partnership from 2008- 2015, inter-alia, eight projects, 2008 country strategy (COSOP) and country programme management

Projects included in Brazil’s CPE Map (to be included)

Main findings Relevance of the ongoing projects is satisfactory (targeted family farmers, women and youth) focused on community development, but face challenges to achieve effectiveness, such as delays in staffing of project management units and setting up M&E, under-estimation of time required for implementation. Overall achievement of two closed projects is satisfactory, for instance, in water management (conviver com o semi-arido) and crop production, women’s empowerment, and linking family farmers to the policy arena. Projects include essential non-agricultural activities, but the amount of funds allocated for smallholder agricultural activities is less prominent with reduced attention to agricultural productivity and food security.

Main findings (cont.) Efficiency is an area of challenge: financial management needs attention, and more timely disbursements (entry to force). Sustainability of benefits also needs attention with better exit strategies and better linkages to markets and to national programmes. Impact domain was satisfactory in the completed projects, but gender strategies need to be more fully developed and implemented in the on-going portfolio. Innovation took place in targeting and approaches (young local development agents) and scaling up in 2nd phase projects.

Main findings (cont.) Non-lending activities Good policy dialogue at sub-national and regional levels (e.g. Commission on Family Farming (REAF), less intensive with federal authorities and other development partners Partnership with non-governmental organizations/civil society, States, Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management and Ministry of Agrarian Development is very good. Limited partnerships with other federal agencies, multilateral and bilateral organisations, and private sector A number of initiatives have been put in place for knowledge management and SSTC, but much more needs to be done to respond to increasing demand and strengthen IFAD’s visibility

Main findings (cont.) Programme management Direct supervision is proving to be useful and appreciated, though vast geographic spread and high number of new operations poses challenges. Establishment of an in-country office in Salvador was a good initiative Rome-based Brazil Country Programme Manager is a constrain in making the required quantum leap forward. Good self evaluation system, but challenges in setting up M&E systems and application of Results and Impact Management System needs attention.

Main findings (cont.) General IFAD-Government partnership has been highly valued, reflecting mutual trust and cordial relations IFAD’s financing is comparatively small but crucial to the alleviation of Brazil’s rural poverty, especially at local level The evaluation shows marked improvement in performance since the last CPE in 2007

Main findings (cont) The country strategy Overall 2008 COSOP relevance is satisfactory, including good focus on knowledge sharing COSOP includes a useful results framework, but some indicators are hard to measure, and COSOP was not costed Areas where the COSOP could have been more explicit: market access, financial inclusion, and private sector engagement

Conclusions There have been decisive improvements since 2008, for example through the development of six new operations in a short period of time, but there is need for consolidation to ensure effectiveness Focus in the past on north-east region and non- agricultural activities has been appropriate, but insufficient attention to ‘agriculture’ and wider range of partnerships Performance in non-lending activities has improved, but they are still only moderately satisfactory

Conclusions (cont.) Good evolution in IFAD’s operating model, but further adjustments needed to bring added value Weaknesses in results measurement and M&E have been a cross-cutting aspect, though there are signs of recent improvement

Strategic recommendations Country strategy and projects to devote more explicit attention to smallholder agricultural activities, while continuing to pay attention to essential non-agricultural inputs for rural transformation. New COSOP should be costed. Strengthen resources allocation and activities relation to non-lending activities including South-South and triangular cooperation. Need for better balance between lending and non-lending activities, and out-posting of Brazil country programme manager to Brazil. 1 2 3

Performance against IFAD 9 priorities AREA OF REFORM PERFORMANCE Operational effectiveness Gender equality Climate Change Private sector Scaling up National M&E South-South & TC Satisfactory Institutional efficiency Project efficiency Decentralization Partnership Moderately satisfactory Financial capacity and management Financial management Additional resource mob Results management system Results reporting Impact evaluation