1. China Country Programme Evaluation Main Findings and Recommendations National Roundtable Workshop Beijing, 17 July 2014 Presentation by the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD

2. Evaluation Objectives  Assess the performance and impact of IFAD operations in China;  Assess IFAD–China Partnership ; and  Generate a series of findings and recommendations to serve as building blocks for the formulation of the next Results-Based China COSOP 2

3. Evaluation Methodology  Assessment of three mutually reinforcing pillars in the IFAD-Government partnership: (i) Project portfolio performance; (ii) Non-lending activities (policy dialogue, knowledge sharing, partnership building and grants); (iii) Country strategy (COSOP) performance  Internationally recognized evaluation criteria, with a six point rating scale (with 1 being the lowest score and 6 the highest) 3

4. Process  Prep aratory phase (Jan-May 2013): Approach paper, preparatory mission, and search for national consultants  Desk review (May-Aug 2013): Preparation of CPE desk review reports, an Issues Paper to capture main findings based on the desk review, thematic papers on selected key topics, and self-assessments by IFAD Management and Government of China  Country work phase (Aug–Sep 2013): The evaluation team met partners and stakeholders in Beijing, and visited IFAD financed projects in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and Gansu Province  Main report writing and peer review (Oct 2013-May 2014): Draft final report submitted to IFAD Management and Government 4

5. IFAD – China Cooperation Highlights  Total number of approved loans: 27 (since 1981)  Total IFAD Commitment: US$ 775 m  Counterpart funding (Contribution from Government and beneficiaries): US$ 1 billion  Co-/parallel financing: US$ 100 million  On-going projects: 7  CPE covers IFAD – China partnership from 1999-2013,inter-alia,13 approved projects, 3 COSOPs, and country programme management 5

6. IFAD country strategies 1999 COSOP: A joint WFP/IFAD strategy with a main focus on food security giving special attention to households with high risk of falling back into poverty 2005 COSOP: Two strategic thrusts: access and innovation Prioritizing rural finance, agricultural production, demand- driven models for technology transfer and agricultural marketing 2011 Results-Based COSOP: This most recent COSOP is aligned to the 12 th Five-year Plan. It reiterated the 2005 COSOP priorities, emphasising value chain development, south-south cooperation, knowledge management and introducing a new support priority- rural farm and non-farm micro and small enterprises (MSEs) 6

7. Selected Main Findings General  IFAD-GOC partnership has been highly valued, reflecting mutual trust and cordial relations  IFAD’s financing is comparatively small but crucial to the alleviation of China’s rural poverty, especially at local level 7

8. Selected Main Findings (cont.) Portfolio Performance The portfolio performance is satisfactory (5) Rural poverty impact is satisfactory, with most important contribution being in households income, food security and agricultural productivity Areas in need of improvement (rated as 4 ) are: (1) human/social capital and empowerment;(2) institutions and policies; and (3) innovation and scaling up. Provision of rural finance. 8

9. Selected Main Findings (cont.) COSOP Performance Overall COSOP performance is satisfactory Strategic objectives are relevant and in line with government policies and development priorities Rural-urban migration and the evolution of socioeconomic rural landscape were not sufficiently taken into accounts in COSOPs and project design Effectiveness in providing rural financial services was weak. 9

10. Selected Main Findings (cont.) Programme Management Establishment of ICO in 2005, with 3 professional staff as of 2013, and direct supervision since around 2008 Rome-based China Country Programme Manager Disbursements slow as compared to other IFIs and there are opportunity for greater use of country systems Good attention to results measurement and evaluation 10

11. Selected Main Findings (cont.) Non-lending Activities Knowledge Management was weak in the past, but is being strengthened, especially since 2011 Partnership with MOF, NDRC and provincial and local authorities strong. Less strong with MOA, and multilateral and bilateral organisations Policy dialogue good at provincial level, but there are opportunities for more dialogue at national level 11

12. Key conclusions Overall the China – IFAD partnership has been satisfactory China-IFAD partnership is mutually beneficial IFAD has a critical role to play to support Govt. to reduce rural poverty through loan-funded projects Attention has been given in recent years to knowledge sharing and south-south co-operation, but more can be achieved 12

13. Main Recommendations Strengthen knowledge cooperation linked to adequate levels of lending Enhance south-south and triangular cooperation Added focus on scaling up innovations for wider impact on rural poverty reduction 13

14. Main Recommendations (cont.) Strengthened partnerships with multi-laterals/bi- laterals and other national level institutions Out-posting the China CPM to Beijing by 2015 Targeting the portfolio in a changed rural context 14

15. Next Steps Finalise CPE ReportEnd July Agreement at Completion Point End August Discussion in Evaluation CommitteeNovember Discussion in Executive Board 2015 15

16. Thank you! 谢谢 16