Independent Office of Evaluation The Gambia Country Programme Evaluation 2015: Main Findings and Recommendations National Roundtable Workshop Banjul, 3 December 2015

Independent Office of Evaluation  Total number of approved loans: 10 (since 1982)  Total value of portfolio: US$ 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 , and looked at 5 projects, the COSOP 2003, and country programme management IFAD – The Gambia cooperation highlights - 2 -

Independent Office of Evaluation 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 Methodology  CPE 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 -

Independent Office of Evaluation  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 -

Independent Office of Evaluation 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 -

Independent Office of Evaluation 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been unofficially revised but never been approved or adopted (by IFAD or Government); after 12 years it was probably outdated  The COSOP did not comprise a detailed target strategy, taking into account characteristics of target groups and unequal distribution of poverty Main findings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 -

Independent Office of Evaluation 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 . Main findings (cont.) - 7 -

Independent Office of Evaluation 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 Main findings (cont.) - 8 -

Independent Office of Evaluation 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 Main findings (cont.) - 9 -

Independent Office of Evaluation 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 Main findings (cont.)

Independent Office of Evaluation  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

Independent Office of Evaluation  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.)

Independent Office of Evaluation Three strategic recommendations IFAD must develop a new COSOP with potential rural poor beneficiaries and the Government of The Gambia prior to further financing, based on: lessons learned (including from this evaluation); including a suitable targeting strategy; and appropriate partnerships Sustainability should be enhanced by ensuring ownership from both Government and beneficiaries, related responsibilities into work plans also with communities Gender and women’s empowerment should be properly addressed by conducting a gender analysis and decreasing drudgery by adapting interventions to gender needs 1 2 3

Independent Office of Evaluation  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

Independent Office of Evaluation Thank you very much for your attention