independent office of evaluation the gambia country programme evaluation 2015: main findings and...

Independent Office of Evaluation

The Gambia Country Programme Evaluation 2015:Main Findings and Recommendations

National Roundtable WorkshopBanjul, 3 December 2015


Total number of approved loans: 10 (since 1982)

Total value of portfolio: US$ 196.8 million

IFAD contribution: US$ 73.1 million; counterpart funding (contribution from Government and beneficiaries): US$ 24.1 million

Co-financing: US$ 99.5 million

On-going projects: 6

CPE covers IFAD – The Gambia partnership from 2004-2014, and looked at 5 projects, the COSOP 2003, and country programme management

IFAD – The Gambia cooperation highlights

- 2 -


Objectives

Assess the performance and impact of IFAD-supported operations in The Gambia

Generate conclusions and recommendations to enhance the effectiveness, rural poverty impact and sustainability and inform the preparation of the next COSOP for The Gambia

MethodologyCPE assesses: (i) project portfolio; (ii) non-lending activities including grants and SSTC; (iii) performance of the COSOP

A variety of data collection methods used and triangulation; pre-planned field visits to purposively selected sites

Evaluation objectives/methodology

- 3 -


Preparatory phase (December 2014): approach paper and preparatory mission

Desk review (January-March): preparation of desk review notes, identification of hypotheses and issues to explored in the course of the evaluation

CPE main mission (April 2015): a multidisciplinary team of experts visited all current projects and held a wrap up mission in Banjul

Analysis, report writing and peer review (May-September)

CPE national roundtable workshop (December 2015)

Evaluation process

- 4 -


General

IFAD-Government partnership has been highly valued, reflecting mutual trust and cordial relations

IFAD supported interventions demonstrated a moderate performance, caused by among others lack of varied partnerships and unexpected staff turnover

Main findings

- 5 -


The country strategy The COSOP 2003 had provided a strategic framework, defining the context in which project designs were undertaken was clear, and highlighting the existing challenges.

The COSOP 2003 had been unofficially revised but never been approved or adopted (by IFAD or Government); after 12 years it was probably outdated

The COSOP did not comprise a detailed target strategy, taking into account characteristics of target groups and unequal distribution of poverty

Main findings (cont.)

- 6 -


The project portfolio

The interventions were all found relevant, on water management, crop production and rural finance. An additional focus on climate change is already planned

A large number of outputs was achieved, but an integrated approach was lacking. Support to value chain development was planned but hardly implemented

The introduction of the CPA enhanced understanding, but linkage between projects was virtually absent

.


- 7 -


The project portfolio The interventions helped women to increase their

economic empowerment, but no effort was made to decrease drudgery

Rural poverty impact was varying and better in upland than in lowland areas

Though there has been increasing focus on sustainability over the years, it was still found compromised in all projects


- 8 -


Non-lending activities In policy dialogue, IFAD focused on microfinance policy,

integrated watershed management and master plan for the lowlands

Knowledge management was sub-optimal

Partnership was with a limited number of Ministries and NGOs were seen as service providers (although rarely used)

Though focus of grants was relevant, they had very little linkage with the project portfolio


- 9 -


Programme management

Establishing CPCU brought improvement to coordination and implementation, but lack of full engagement of donors hampered its effectiveness

Staff turnover decreased effectiveness and efficiency and deleted institutional memory

Though slow improvement seem, still challenges in setting up M&E systems and application of RIMS – particularly for outcome and impact


- 10 -


The selected targeting approach led to some better off villages being covered whilst poorer remote villages did not receive support in any of the projects

The type of infrastructure provided by PIWAMP did not encourage ownership for the hard work needed and short life span. Nema infrastructure is more sturdy but too sophisticated for communities to maintain and costly for maintenance

Sustainability in rural finance was compromised; only few VISACAs are stable and the V-Apex needs support to become a viable institution

Five main conclusions

- 11 -


Major focus on rice as crop and lack of value chain development support hindered beneficiaries to achieve full profitability or sustainability

If IFAD had consider a wider and more diversified partner group, this could have positively contributed to the quality of implementation

Five main conclusions (cont.)

- 12 -


Three strategic recommendations

- 13 -

1

2

3


Agreement at Completion Point 2015

Final CPE report published 2016

Discussion in IFAD Evaluation Committee 2016

Discussion in IFAD Executive Board 2016

Next steps in the CPE

- 14 -


Thank you very much for your attention

- 15 -

independent office of evaluation the gambia country programme evaluation 2015: main findings and...

Documents