1. National Roundtable Workshop Nairobi 8 June 2011 Republic of Kenya Country Programme Evaluation Independent Office of Evaluation

2. The Country Programme Two country strategies (COSOPs): 2002 and 2007 15 projects since 1979 Total IFAD loans US$175 million, total counterpart funding US$72 million, total project cost US$378 million CPM out posted in Nairobi and direct supervision since 2007 2

3. Evaluation Objectives Assess the performance and impact of IFAD-supported activities in Kenya; and Generate a series of findings and recommendations to serve as building blocks for the formulation of the forthcoming Kenya results-based COSOP 3

4. Evaluation Methodology and Process Methodology Three building blocks: (i) assess project portfolio, (ii) non-lending activities; and (iii) COSOP performance Use internationally recognised evaluation criteria and a six point rating scale The CPE covers around a ten year period since 2000 Process: Main steps Inception workshop, October 2009 Desk review report, November 2009 Main mission, February-March 2010 Preparation of report, April-November 2010 Post – CPE mission, January-February 2011 Report finalised and national roundtable workshop, June 2011 Agreement at Completion Point, June 2011 4

5. Main Findings General Small scale agriculture is mainstay of Kenya’s economy Government and IFAD share a common vision of promoting agriculture as a vehicle for improving rural incomes The partnership was at a very low in the 1990s, but major efforts were deployed in the 2000s to rebuild a comprehensive portfolio Project performance Project performance has been satisfactory in terms of relevance and rural poverty impact, and moderately satisfactory in terms of effectiveness, sustainability, innovation/scaling up, and gender 5

6. Main Findings (2) Performance in terms of natural resources management and environment conservation, community development, and over time, commercialization and income generation has been good Project efficiency however is moderately unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons Government performance has improved in the past few years, but over the ten year period was moderately unsatisfactory Bulk of operations in past ten years have mainly covered high- to medium- potential areas The sub-sector coverage has been wide-ranging, causing several challenges 6

7. Main Findings (3) Non-lending activities Discernable achievements are visible in knowledge management for better performance Partnership with Government and NGO/civil society has been good, but less so with multinational and bilateral aid organizations There are some recent examples of policy engagement, which however remains limited COSOP IFAD’s Kenya country presence and regional office are positive initiatives, needing however further streamlining Synergies across the country programme are insufficient 7

8. Recommendations Expand coverage to ASALs and define narrower set of sub-sector priorities Build on IFAD’s bottom-up, participatory approaches, while emphasising ‘ farming as a business’ to improve incomes Define priority areas for innovation and strengthen capacities for scaling up 8

9. Recommendations (2) Ensure deeper synergies of activities across the country programme Determine the role of IFAD in strengthening government performance Allocate the required resources to the country office to enhance its effectiveness 9