1. Rwanda Country Programme Evaluation National Roundtable Workshop 29 September 2011 - Kigali, Rwanda 1 Independent Office of Evaluation

2. Rwanda Country Programme Evaluation Covers 10 years of strategy and operations (COSOP 2002, 2007), with focus on past 6 years: 5 projects and 9 technical assistance grants Mixed sources:  Comprehensive desk review;  Mini-survey of impact in one project  Field visit of projects and selected grants  Interviews in the capital  Thematic roundtable discussions 2

3. Three levels of analysis A. Performance of the portfolio (project-level analysis) B. Performance of non-lending activities (knowledge management, partnerships, policy dialogue) C. Performance of the COSOP (strategy) 3 Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 3 = moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory; 5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory Overall Partnership Performance

4. Total projects :14 (since 1981) Total cost:US$ 345 m IFAD lending:US$ 187m h.c. loans & grants (54%) Gov. funding:US$ 47m (14%) Co-financingUS$ 111m (32%) Co-financiers:AfDB, UNCDF, UNDP, BSF, OFID, Desjardin International, DFID, Gov. of Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, WFP, others Technical Assist. Grants 9 (4 Regional + 5 Country-Specific) Estimated value for Rwanda: US$1.7m 4 IFAD- Rwanda Cooperation Highlights

5. Country Context High GDP growth since 1994, also in agriculture since 2007 High population density. GoR rural development strategies: (i) raise agriculture productivity (ii) diversify into export crops (iii) non-farm economy (target: 2m non-farm jobs by 2020) Improved policy and regulatory environment, tight monitoring of implementation 5

6. Evolution of IFAD’s interventions 1981-1992: food crop intensification, soil protection Mid 1990s: settling returnees, infrastructure, non-farm employment 2002 COSOP: cash crops, support to decentralisation 2007 COSOP three strategic objectives: (i) raise opportunities and income of the rural poor; (ii) Strengthen organisations of the rural poor (iii) Vulnerable groups included in social, economic transformation 6

7. 7 Projects’ main focus 1. PDRCIU = infrastructure + agr. 4. PAPSTA = agriculture & NRM 2. PDCR = cash crops 5. KWAMP = agriculture & NRM 3. PPPMER = rural enterprises

8. Portfolio performance (selection) Highly relevant to national sub-sector strategies Well adapted to the context and recognised good practices. Exceptions: (i) PDRCIU over-complicated design; (ii) rural finance (subsidised credit lines) Effective at increasing crop yields and protecting watersheds Mixed: export crops (weak cooperatives); non farm employment: apprenticeship programmes effective, many weak micro enterprises, insufficient attention to agriculture value addition activities Generally efficient, exception PDRCIU. Good project implementation & disbursement pace, improving over time 8

9. Portfolio performance (cont.) Strong impact on incomes and food security Mixed for environment (protection measures vs. risks of contamination, biodiversity loss) Institutions: devolution of project planning and managerial authority to districts still lagging Mixed sustainability prospects: project well embedded in national subsector programmes, smart subsidies But subsidised credit lines in rural finance, weak and indebted cooperatives, fragile micro and small enterprises 9

10. Portfolio analysis (cont.) Satisfactory IFAD performance Good responsiveness to evolving national context, introduction of direct supervision and country presence. But risk of duplication of work: value added? Satisfactory Government performance Strengthened policy environment and improved management, proactive portfolio monitoring Formalisation of informal economy and of rural finance initiatives without transition phase may lead to the demise of emerging grassroots organisations 10

11. “Non-lending” activities Good knowledge management within and between IFAD projects (SRI, watershed development) but limited capture of external experiences Limited policy dialogue to bring project experiences to higher level. No influence in rural finance policy (2007 COSOP) GoR not always benefiting from IFAD’s experience (SME policy, coffee strategy) Partnership development mainly at project level but insufficient for the purpose of policy dialogue and up-scaling innovations 11

12. COSOP (strategy) Performance Objectives, sub-sectors highly relevant to country context But did not address adequately emerging challenge of handling food crop surpluses (post harvest and processing) Overall effective at household level Mixed effectiveness at institutional level (district capacity building, rural finance, cooperative development) Limited progress towards compliance with Paris Declaration so far 12

13. General Assessment A. Performance of the portfolio Satisfactory: 5 B. Non-lending activities Moderately Satisfactory: 4 C. COSOP performance Satisfactory: 5 13 Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 3 = moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory; 5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory Overall Partnership Performance Satisfactory: 5

14. Conclusions  Valuable portfolio of projects. Ratings are above IFAD averages. Improving performance, thanks to: (i) stronger national policy and institutional environment; (ii) better IFAD follow-up (direct supervision, country office)  Partnership is essentially “project-based”. Less focus on institutional development and policy dialogue, knowledge management and partnerships  Challenges in rural finance, cooperative development, support to local governments require programmatic support 14

15. Recommendations 1. Need for programmatic, institutional and policy support in local government, rural finance, and cooperative development 2. Move towards a more strategic GoR-IFAD partnership that relies on national accountability systems 3. Support sustainable natural resources development and agricultural value chains (farm & non-farm jobs) 15

16. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION 16  PLENARY (initial observations)  3 WORKING GROUPS  FINAL DISCUSSION (afternoon)

17. Group 1 Aligning local agricultural development interventions to the decentralisation process as basis for a programmatic approach 1.Would it be feasible to work based on District Agricultural Development Plans, formulated and implemented by Districts with guidance from MINAGRI? 2.With deepening of decentralisation, what will be the role of the umurenge in implementing support interventions? How do we develop their capacity for their future roles? 3.Who will eventually be the owner and financier of new local agricultural institutions such as CCIs and CLGSs, created by PAPSTA & KWAMP? Will these institutions only be a feature in these project areas or introduced nationally? 17

18. Group 1 Is there scope for a programmatic approach in supporting cooperatives? 1.Should we have a thematic programme on cooperative development – or should we continue supporting cooperatives ad hoc as a means of achieving targets in sub- sector programmes (coffee, post-harvest)? 2.As basis for a programmatic approach, would it be desirable and possible for GoR and DPs to develop a consensus on a “national government strategy for cooperative development”? 3.At a lower level of ambition, would it be possible for DPs and others to apply common methodologies in their support for cooperatives – e.g. common national training modules? 18

19. Group 1 Harmonising and aligning support for rural and agricultural finance 1.Should we concentrate our support on implementation of the recent Rural and Agricultural Finance Strategy (and a possible future SACCO sustainability strategy)? 2.Does GoR consider it desirable to continue having small rural finance/credit components in sub-sector and area-based programmes? 19

20. Group 3 Supporting agricultural/food value chains based on Public-Private Partnerships 1.Why have there been insufficient private investments in the more advanced stages of processing and marketing of food commodities? 2.What can be done to better attract private companies into agribusiness in food commodities? 3.In the absence of sufficient private-sector response, can and should Government and cooperatives fill the gap? 20

21. Group 2 Can and should IFAD rely more on national fiduciary systems, freeing resources for a more strategic programme management approach? 1.Where does double-control of procurement and financial management processes provide useful checks and balances that justify the delays and IFAD’s human resource investments? 2.While GoR and its fiduciary systems ultimately are responsible for the proper use of proceeds from IFAD loans/grants, what are the appropriate roles and tasks of IFAD staff? 21

22. 22

23. Working groups Starting now Lunch break Resuming at 1.30pm and finishing 3:30pm Elect a group chair 1 Rapporteur assigned to each group to present key discussion points in the afternoon plenary 3.45pm Discuss key recommendations (see guiding questions) 23

24. Group 1 Theme: Towards more programmatic approaches and institutional support in the areas of local government, rural finance and cooperative development Location: This room (podium side) 24

25. Group 2 Theme: The way towards a more strategic programme management and reliance on national systems Location: This room (rear side) 25

26. Group 3 Theme: Agricultural value chain development through private-public partnerships Location: IHEMA room 26