IFAD – Uganda Cooperation 1997-2011 Country Programme Evaluation

National Roundtable WorkshopCo-organized by the Government of Uganda and IFAD

Kampala, 12 July 2012

What is a Country Programme Evaluation (CPE)?

1. Undertaken by IFAD’s Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE)

2. Assessment of the performance of project portfolio, non-lending activities and Country Strategic Opportunities Programme (COSOP)

3. Provides input to formulation of next COSOP

4. Comprises desk work, self-assessments, extended field mission (July 2011), peer review, comments by stakeholders, revisions, audit trail

5. Very comprehensive and useful self-assessments received from MoFPED, ESA and PIUs

6. Final stage: NRTW, Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) and publication & communication

Portfolio executed by Government and supported by IFAD

loans/grants1. 14 projects supported by 16 loans and one BSF

grant

2. Total approved IFAD lending US$294 million ~ 21% of total project costs

3. First 5 loans (1981-94) supported projects initiated and supervised by the World Bank

4. Nine projects, since 1997, supporting 4 areas: i. local government executed agriculture and rural

development, two tandems: DDSP-DLSP, AAMP-CAIIP

ii. vegetable oil sub-sector: one tandem VODP 1 & 2iii. agricultural advisory services & research: NAADS

and ATAASiv. rural finance - RFSP

IFAD’s Portfolio 1998 -2012 covered by the CPE

- continuity since 2003 -

Projects

1998

1999

20

00

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

VODP VODP2

DDSP DLSP

NAADS ATAAS

AAMP CAIIP

RFSP

2018

COSOP COSOP CPE

Country Office

Findings - selected

A group of rural poor assisted by DSLP to get land titles

Context – one puzzling finding

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

10.8 8.4 8.7 7.2 5.8

0.5 0.1 1.3 2.5 2.1

UNHS II 2002/03

UNHS III 2005/06

UNHS IV 2009/10

Rural Poverty Incidence (P0) 42.7 34.2 27.2

Rural Poor in Million 9.31 7.87 7.1

Sources : GDP fi gures : UBOS and MOFPED. Poverty Figures : UBOS, Uganda National Household Surveys

Real GDP Growth Rates (%)

Total GDP

Agriculture, forestry and Fishing

Performance of Government executed portfolio

1. Relevant designs but since 2006 issues of adapting to policy changes

2. Effectiveness moderately satisfactory but recent challenges

3. Improvement in some efficiency indicators

4. Rural poverty impact assessed moderately satisfactory, best for household income and assets

5. Sustainability is a serious issue

6. Innovations are few and scaling up is limited

Performance of non-lending activities

1. Significant IFAD investment and participation in policy dialogue during early PMA period. Less inclusive policy dialogue processes after 2006. Agenda of 2004 COSOP defined in terms of “IFAD’s opposition to government policies”.

2. Knowledge management neglected till recently where major investments have been made

3. Partnerships with Government, World Bank and AfDB function well and useful partnerships with PSOs and CSOs have been developed. However, IFAD and AfDB need to make joint supervision of CAIIP.

4. Country grants overall relevant and effective

COSOP Performance

1. Relevant 1998 and 2004 COSOPs, but some strategic re-orientations since 2006/07 conflict with IFAD policies, e.g. on Rural Finance

2. Many relevant elements, but only VOPD, applying a value chain approach, ensures effective coherence

3. Lending pipeline 2004 COSOP not realised ($18 m for agri marketing/processing programme and $25 m for integrated community development in northern Uganda)

4. 4 months before expiry of PBA period 2007-2009, $37 m of the PBA remained uncommitted – last moment solution: supplementary loans/grants for DLSP (20 m) and CAIIP (17 m)

5. Policy dialogue agenda largely defined in terms of IFAD’s disagreement with government and no budget for policy work

6. No regular COSOP reviews and revisions

Overall, the partnership is assessed as moderately satisfactory

RATING Portfolio Performance 4 Non-lending Activities 4 COSOP Performance 4 Overall Government-IFAD Partnership 4

Rating Scale % of target achieved, or % of beneficiaries with positive change, or %....

6 Highly Satisfactory 90% and more (+ qualitative aspects) 5 Satisfactory 75%-89% (+ qualitative aspects) 4 Moderately Satisfactory 60%-74% (+ qualitative aspects) 3 Moderately Unsatisfactory 45%-59% (+ qualitative aspects) 2 Unsatisfactory 30%-44% (+ qualitative aspects) 1 Highly Unsatisfactory <30% (+ qualitative aspects)

Recommendations

1. Include major support for northern Uganda; either IFAD should join muti-donor support for PRDP2 or go alone with innovative programme in one or two districts, but aligned to PRDP2

2. Replicate experiences from VODP – value chain approach and PPP – and apply to other sub-sectors/commodities (dairy, animal feed industry ? ?)

3. Define realistic and joint policy agenda, and identify/allocate resources required for its implementation

4. Improve project results – ensure synergies, capacity development, environmental management, sustainability, scaling up

5. Functional/workload analysis to determine staff requirements and division of labour in IFAD’s country programme management

Three Key Themes for Discussion

Theme 1: Opportunities and challenges for developing public private partnerships in smallholder agriculture

Theme 2: Geographic and sub-sector options for future IFAD-Government partnerships, including IFAD’s contribution to regional integration

Theme 3: Strengthening results by developing a coherent and integrated country programme