Annual Review 2011 Julian Abrams PART 3: DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS COSOP IFAD Country Strategic Opportunities Programme

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness DIMENSIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS Evidence of improved livelihoods: Strategic Objective 1 Progress towards policy goals and improved capacity to support the rural poor: Strategic Objective 2 National Poverty Indicators Sustainability

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness HOW DO WE KNOW LIVELIHOODS HAVE IMPROVED? Progress towards Strategic Objective 1 is principally measured through periodic surveys known as RIMS surveys. Data from follow- up surveys is not yet complete enough for a full picture. However, if we know that: Beneficiaries adopted new technologies and new livelihood activities New technologies result in productivity increases These technologies and activities result in a real income gain Group and household assets have increased Food security has decreased and nutrition has improved Progress to gender equity and reduced domestic violence Then we can be confident of the effectiveness of the projects in improving the livelihoods of the beneficiaries.

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness NEW TECHNOLOGIES and PRODUCTIVITY RPRP Participatory Impact Assessment found 83% of LIG group members and 74% of FSI members adopted new technology Adoption of new technology under CBRD exceeded targets However, adoption rates in RULIP have been below target so far. The project is taking steps to improve this performance. RPRP farmers achieved 74% increase in rice yields, 80% increase in chicken production and 76% increase in pig numbers

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness EVIDENCE OF RETURNS ON INVESTMENT RPRP Project Completion Report included an assessment of benefit: cost ratios (BCR) of livelihood activities: Over 75% of activities supported had BCR > 4; The highest BCR were found for livestock activities and some off- farm activities; BCR for vegetable growing was more than 2 in most cases; BCR for rice growing was more variable with some losses BCR in 2010 were generally higher than in 2009

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness INCREASED INCOME AND ASSETS Livelihood activities supported under RPRP generated $US4.50 income for each $US1 spent on production Households reported a 79% increase in off-farm incomes CBRD found the assets of direct beneficiaries increased in value by 24% Group revolving funds in RPRP increased in value by 37%. Similar increases were found in older funds supported by IFAD before 2003 and still functioning Households reported reduced debts and paying lower interest (to the GRF) compared to borrowing from private money lenders.

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness FOOD SECURITY, NUTRITION AND GENDER RPRP beneficiaries reported 26% decrease in households experiencing food shortages for 3 months or more each year... and a 94% increase in LIG member households having year- round food sufficiency CBRD found evidence of reduced malnutrition The study of GRF group members found their food security had increased and their diets had improved Women’s participation and leadership increased and a decrease in domestic violence was reported

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness SOME WEAK AREAS Participatory Impact Assessment of CBRD found that women- headed households reported much lower increases in assets than other households National surveys (CDHS) and project surveys (RIMS) indicate that child malnutrition is not reduced significantly, even though overall poverty levels have reduced

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ARE EFFECTIVE Surveys of rural road investments (RPRP and CBRD) found reduced travel time and improved access to markets With some variation, irrigation investments generally resulted in satisfactory increases in yields and positive benefit : cost ratios (RPRP and CBRD)

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness BUT PERHAPS THE BEST INVESTMENT IS: World Bank’s Public Expenditure Review found BCR for extension at least as high as for infrastructure investments – and with potential to be much higher

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness NATIONAL INDICATORS From 1994 to 2007, poverty incidence fell by 0.4% annually. In 2007, about 29% of all households, but 35% of rural households, were poor. Estimates based on the Commune Database show poverty continuing to fall during the COSOP period. Rice yields have increased from 1.97t/ha in 2005 to 2.8t/ha in 2010 Commune Database shows year-on-year reduction in incidents of domestic violence However, figures on child malnutrition show no improvement from 2007 to 2010 (based on CDHS)

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness SUSTAINABILITY CAN BE AT MORE THAN ONE LEVEL Sustainability of development results can be at several levels: Sustainability of the improved livelihoods of the people and households who participated in the project Sustainability of the farmer groups and revolving funds Sustainability of increased institutional capacity Sustainability of physical infrastructure

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness SUSTAINABILITY OF IMPROVED LIVELIHOODS Beneficiaries reported improved success with their agriculture activities and increased and diversified incomes. These benefits should continue after the project is ended. However, the beneficiary families remain vulnerable and could fall back into poverty due to: External, climate-related shocks such as floods or droughts; Failure of crops or livestock production due to pest or animal disease; Internal problems such as ill health; Social problems including land disputes; Changes in the agricultural economy may not always favour the poor (e.g. mechanisation); The increased household assets and the revolving funds should assist the households to overcome challenges such as these.

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness SUSTAINABILITY OF REVOLVING FUND GROUPS At the close of RPRP, 831 of the 1,008 Livelihood Improvement Groups (LIG) were assessed as “fully mature” Overall, groups have increased the value of their funds and some groups have allowed new members to join However, most groups still need some external support (e.g. for bookkeeping and financial management) RULIP MTR found a high rate of loan defaults among some groups. The GRF study found that for mature groups, ongoing support from the Commune Council and the CEW is critically important.

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness SUSTAINABILITY OF INSTUTIONAL CAPACITY The projects have created networks of Commune Extension Workers, Village Animal Health Workers and Farmer Promoters. These are all local people whose increase expertise will continue to benefit the local community. The Village Animal Health Workers should be self-sustaining as they obtain an income from selling services to other farmers. However they may need ongoing support including a quality assured supply chain for animal medicines. RPRP attempted to develop Agriculture Extension Worker Associations of CEW with the idea that they would also become private business persons selling services to local farmers. However this model has only been moderately successful. It also implies a big change in the role of the CEW who are public extension service agents, not input suppliers.

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness POLICY CONTRIBUTION Outcome indicators for Strategic Objective 2 have been achieved or partially achieved: Government has designed and begun implementation of NP-SNDD; Planning guidelines for Provincial and District levels include pro-poor and pro-gender equity principles; Commune Councils report reduced incidence of domestic violence; Development budgets of Commune Councils increased by 87% from 2007 to 2011 despite ending of donor support. 90% of this is allocated to agriculture and rural development (but almost all for infrastructure) These results cannot be attributed directly to implementation of the COSOP. However, IFAD’s consistent engagement with the policy process and commitment to fund innovative development approaches have contributed to policy progress.

C0SOP Review Report 3: Development Effectiveness THE WAY FORWARD? Need to focus on nutrition as well as on linking poor farmers to markets Climate change will be a major challenge for poor farmers Importance of developing non land-based livelihood activities for land-poor households in the context of a changing agricultural economy (less demand for agriculture labour, more demand for agriculture services) Increase sustainability by moving to a programme-based approach

Part 1: Relevance of the Strategic Approach Part 2: Project Delivery End of Part 3: Development Results Thank You