Vietnam Country Programme Evaluation Presentation to the Evaluation Committee during their country visit to Viet Nam, 22 May 2013

IFAD – Viet Nam Cooperation Highlights Total projects : 11 (since 1993) Total cost:US$ 350 m IFAD lending: US$ 257 m h.c. loans (%) Gov. fundingUS$ 48 m (%) Co-financingUS$ 21 m (%) COSOPs1996, 2003, 2008 Grants18 country grants for a total value of US$ 5.1 m 11 global & regional grants for a total of US$ 11.2 m 2

Country Programme Evaluation  Covers 17 years of strategy and operations (three COSOPs), eleven projects/programmes approved since 1993; six ongoing  Use of internationally-recognized evaluation criteria and a six-point rating scale  Three building blocks: (i) project portfolio; (ii) non-lending activities; and (iii) COSOP performance (relevance and effectiveness) Process: Main Steps  Inception workshop: 15 December 2010  Desk review report: May 2011  Main mission: March 2011  Preparation of evaluation report: April-October 2011  Report finalized and national round-table workshop held in November 2011  Agreement at completion point signed: March

Country Context  Major structural economic reforms led to sustained and broad-based economic growth  Recently classified as lower middle-income economy  Strong performance of agriculture sector; has been a solid contributor to overall growth; market-oriented policies create economic opportunities for the majority of the poor  However, progress in poverty reduction is lagging in some regions of rural areas and among ethnic minorities 4

Portfolio Performance  Overall performance is satisfactory, including in comparison with other countries/regions  Relevance: high level of ownership; timely interventions; priority areas relevant to IFAD’s comparative advantage and to rural poverty reduction; value chain development still at piloting stage  Effectiveness: good achievements in agriculture production, gender equality and women’s empowerment and support to ethnic communities; weaker performance in microfinance and microenterprise components. Multi province projects also limits effectiveness  Efficiency is satisfactory, investment projects having been completed in a timely and cost-effective manner 5

Portfolio Performance (cont.)  Overall rural poverty impact is satisfactory. However, lack of systematic and strategic approach to natural resources/environment and sustainability;  Performance of partners (IFAD and Government) is satisfactory:  IFAD: Direct supervision and implementation support positive, and out-posted CPM leading to good results;  Government: Solid commitment of provincial governments and promotion of effective participation of line ministries; good support by central government, but there are opportunities for the provision of more counterpart funds. 6

Performance of Non-lending Activities  Overall moderately satisfactory;  Good evidence of policy impact. However, policy dialogue has been mainly limited to the provincial level;  Knowledge management is still work in progress, but with valuable learning resources/themes for project staff; and  Success in partnering with provincial and local governments for implementation, but more systematic and strategic approach needed for partnerships with other stakeholders (in particular IFIs, and the private sector). 7

COSOP Performance  The relevance of the COSOPs is satisfactory. Design in line with evolving context and COSOP of 2008, which emphasized the importance of smallholders’ links to the market, partnerships with the private sector, and strengthened policy dialogue and knowledge management; and  Effectiveness is moderately satisfactory. Objectives substantially achieved but lagged in terms of livelihoods promotion for ethnic minorities; the approach to natural resources management lacks strategic coherence. 8

Key Conclusions  Government of Viet Nam/IFAD partnership positive overall;  New shift to a greater market-oriented focus has been effective, although a number of important challenges remain such as participation of the private sector and access to rural finance;  Sustainability of benefits needs improvement;  Pathways for scaling up successful innovations need to be more strategically defined and pursued;  Non-lending activities need to be more strategic and adequately resourced and followed up: in particular, more policy dialogue at the central level; and grants to fill specific knowledge gaps. 9

Main Recommendations  A strengthened pro-poor market-oriented approach  More realistic geographic coverage  A more favourable credit environment for smallholders  Closer partnerships with multilateral organisations and private sector  Increased counterpart funding from the Government  A strategic approach to the conservation of natural resources 10