COSOP IFAD Country Strategic Opportunities Programme Final Review Supreme National Economic Council

Cambodia became a member of IFAD in First Project 1996 (APIP with World Bank) Six project have disbursed $US62 million Key partner is MAFF. Other partners include MoWA, MRD and MoWRAM and NCDDS Since 1998, all IFAD sub-national activities through decentralised systems More than 10% of poor households in Cambodia have participated directly in an IFAD project. 2COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review IFAD IN CAMBODIA

Strategic Objective 1: Sustainable Improvement of the Livelihoods of rural poor men and women in the project areas through community empowerment, productivity improvement and improved access to assets, productive resources, rural services, rural infrastructure and markets. Strategic Objective 2: Promoting deconcentration, decentralisation and local governance for pro- poor agricultural and rural development through building linkages between the D&D framework and agriculture and rural development and institutional support for evidence-based pro-poor policy making. 3COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

Provinces with high rates of poverty; opportunities for agriculture development and no existing major agriculture Prey Veng, Svay Rieng, Kampot and Kampong Thom had active projects Kratie, Preah Vihear and Ratanakiri about to start RULIP 5 other provinces identified as targets 4COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review TARGET PROVINCES

5COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review TARGET BENEFICIARIES COSOP target beneficiaries were: Poor households with small land holdings; Landless people who want to learn non land- based livelihood activities (e.g. livestock raising); Women and women-headed households. COSOP projects all used participatory wealth- ranking systems to select target beneficiaries. COSOP did not use the ID-Poor methodology directly.

6COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review ACTIVITIES COSOP projects generally included a common set of activities focused on groups of small farmers. Group activities include: Training in land-based and non land-based livelihood activities; and Financial support through Group Revolving Funds to enable investments in new technology or new livelihood activities CBRD and RPRP projects also had important rural infrastructure components. RULIP (starting 2008) and PADEE (starting 2012) do not include infrastructure, although the TSSP project, in partnership with ADB (also starting in 2012) includes infrastructure

7COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review CROSS CUTTING ACTIVITIES All COSOP projects included support to women through gender mainstreaming and women’s livelihood activities, in partnership with MoWA; COSOP projects supported agriculture extension through the Provincial Department of Agriculture and the District Agriculture Office, and through networks of Commune Extension Workers, Village Animal Health Workers etc.

8COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review DECENTRALISATION COSOP project activities at sub-national level were implemented through decentralised systems. Until 2011, project coordination and management at provincial level was led by PRDC-ExCom. In 2011, the ExCom role was taken over by the Provincial Administration. This process went smoothly. However, the decentralisation programme itself is evolving, with an increasing emphasis on functions and services delivery, rather than on project implementation.

The Community Based Rural Development Project in Kampot and Kampong Thom, implemented from 2002 to 2009; and The Rural Poverty Reduction Project in Prey Veng and Svay Rieng, implemented from 2003 to COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Two Projects Active When COSOP Was Designed:

The Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project (RULIP) in Kratie, Preah Vihear and Ratanakiri started in 2008 and is scheduled to finish in RULIP was designed before the COSOP was adopted. 10COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review One Project Was Waiting to Start:

The Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and Smallholder Development Project (TSSP) is a partnership with ADB. The project is planned for implementation in Banteay Meanchey, Kampong Cham, Kampong Thom and Siem Reap. Implementation has been delayed but is planned to begin in The Project to Support Agriculture Development and Economic Empowerment (PADEE) was initially designed in collaboration with World Bank but will now be funded by IFAD with some funds from other partners. PADEE will be implemented in Kampot, Kandal, Prey Veng, Svay Rieng and Takeo beginning in COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Two Projects Designed Under COSOP:

The COSOP identified opportunities for various activities in partnership with other agencies in COSOP target provinces. These included: – Collaboration with World Bank on Social Land Concessions in Kratie; – Smallholder rubber development with AFD in the RULIP provinces; – Partnership with ADB in Ratanakiri for eco- tourism. 12COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Some Foreseen Activities Did Not Take Place

165,575 direct beneficiary households Village Networks and Local Technical Committees established Agriculture training and demonstration in over 1000 villages 355km of rural roads, 765 drinking water points and over 1000 ha of crops irrigated 16,065 land titles issued Final cost about $US21million Closed with “Moderately Satisfactory” rating in December COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review What the CBRDP Achieved:

50,400 direct beneficiary households (not including CIDF component) Livelihood Improvement Groups of poor farmers and 1008 Farming Systems Improvement Groups of medium-poor farmers LIG groups established Group Revolving Funds 168 Commune Extension Workers and 2,016 Village Extension Workers trained 600 Village Animal Health Workers trained and providing fee-based services 100 fish ponds and 5 lake refuges constructed 1,536 km of rural roads, 166 school classrooms, 323 km of irrigation canals and 82 water gates constructed by Commune Councils using CIDF funding Closed with “Satisfactory” rating in June COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review What RPRP Achieved

By Mid-Term Review (2011) RULIP had reached 14,898 direct beneficiary households (100% of target). 358 LIG groups, 47 Most Vulnerable Family Groups and 228 Farming System Improvement Groups formed and trained All LIG and MVF groups have revolving funds High participation of women Progress with implementing recommendations of Mid-Term Review 15COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review What RULIP Has Achieved So Far

6,700 Farmer Groups formed 1,575 Revolving Funds operational. GRF value increased... 11,973 On-farm demonstrations and field days 370,620 trainees 3,401 Commune Extension Workers and Village Animal Health Workers 45.6% of all trainees are women 27% of farmer groups have women in leadership positions 1,532 km of rural roads constructed or rehabilitated; 334 km of canals rehabilitated 768 domestic water points 429 fish ponds 16COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Summary Outputs

Strong pro-poor and gender equity focus; Effective targeting of interventions to the poor; High adoption rates for technologies taught through Farmer Field Schools Group Revolving Funds were able to increase their fund size by about 37% (in RPRP) Revolving Fund Groups found to be a highly cost- effective mechanism for agriculture extension; Some GRFs formed with IFAD support before 2003 still operating well five years after project support ended. Gender mainstreaming also found to be very effective (RPRP, RULIP) 17COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Some of the Strengths …

Too many different types of group: RULIP MTR recommended to focus mainly on the LIGs. Sustainability of the revolving funds: most groups still need support from CEW and Commune Council. RULIP MTR found high loan default rates in some groups. Some non land-based livelihood activities have low income generating potential (RULIP). Operation and maintenance of infrastructure is not strong enough to ensure sustainability (RPRP, CBRD). M&E systems monitor project outputs well but monitoring of outcomes and impacts has not been so strong. 18COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review … and some Not-So-Strongs:

Targeting poor households through wealth ranking was generally satisfactory, but roll-out of ID poor casts doubt on the validity of using a “similar but different” technique Strategy results in selection of only one section of the community and may be counter-productive if farmers with most potential are excluded. Low take-up of extension messages may be related to selection of target group Rural poverty is a diverse phenomenon and households move in and out of poverty. Too narrow a focus on one group identified by one targeting method may not be appropriate 19COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Lessons Learned: Targeting

COSOP project experience with infrastructure investment was very mixed Weak operation and maintenance arrangements are a particular concern Future focus could be on using returns from productive infrastructure to finance O&M (e.g. commercial irrigation) 20COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Lessons Learned: Infrastructure

With the rapid changes in the rural economy, efficient learning, knowledge sharing and linking to policy and action are essential In particular, it is important to identify the most promising innovations for scaling up 21COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Lessons Learned: Knowledge

Project management has tended to focus too much on delivery of physical outputs and not sufficiently on strategic outcomes Management needs improved focus on the interdependence of different outputs to achieve results, and on identifying the need to adjust strategy when necessary 22COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Lessons Learned: Management

There has been a rapid evolution of the context in which COSOP projects are implemented. This can lead to some elements of project design being “outdated” before the project is complete Areas of rapid change include: – Improved communications – New emphasis on commercial agriculture – Modernisation and mechanisation of agriculture technology – Evolving decentralisation policy of the RGC 23COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Evolving Situation

Improvement of transport infrastructure at strategic and local levels have brought markets closer to Cambodian farmers Prices for commodities (rice, cassava) largely determined by global markets Farmers have telephones – a huge change since COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Evolving Situation: Markets

Driven in part by changes elsewhere in the economy, labour costs have risen and labour shortages have emerged in some areas Rapid adoption of mechanisation: tractors replacing draught animals; use of harvesting machinery etc 25COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Evolving Situation: Technology

There has been a huge expansion in the volume and reach of credit through formal institutions (MFI) Some institutions have developed products tailored to the rural poor 26COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Evolving Situation: Rural Credit

During the COSOP period, the RGC has established sub-national councils and administrations at Province and District levels A main thrust of decentralisation forms is now on the service delivery capacity of the SNA, especially at District level Using SNA to deliver projects through parallel financial and administrative systems (the “ Seila” model) may no longer contribute much to the progress of these reformsl 27COSOP 2008 – 2012 Final Review Evolving Situation: Decentralisation

THANK YOU ! For more information: