BangladeshCountry Programme Evaluation

National Round-table WorkshopDhaka, 7June 2015

Outlinei. Introduction

ii. Evaluation objectives, methodology and process

iii. Main findings

iv. Conclusions

v. Recommendations

About the Country Programme

30 projects since 1979 (5 on-going)

• 3 country strategies (COSOPs): 1999, 2006, 2012

• Total project costs US$ 1,7 billion ; IFAD loans US$ 673.9 million; US$ 366 million in national counterpart funding

• Lending terms: Highly Concessional

• Programme focus: Pro-poor rural infrastructure, microcredit, agricultural development, access to natural resources, value chains, access to markets

• Grants: US$ 3.9 million (plus regional grants)

Evaluation Objectives•Assess the performance an impact of IFAD-

supported operations in Bangladesh

•Generate findings and recommendations to enhance the country programme’s overall development effectiveness

•Provide relevant information and insight to inform the formulation of the future COSOP by IFAD and the Government

Evaluation Methodology and Process

A. Methodology

•Assess three mutually reinforcing pillars of partnership

• Project Portfolio

• Non-lending activities (policy engagement, KM, and partnerships)

• COSOP performance

•Evaluation Period 2004-2014

•Internationally recognized evaluation criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability) and a six point rating scale

•Triangulation of evidence from various sources (Desk review, interviews, direct observation)

Evaluation Methodology and Process

B. Process

Inception Phase – preparatory mission, June 2014

Desk review June-Sept 2014

Main mission in Bangladesh Sep- Oct 2014

Report preparation Dec 2014- Mar-2015

NRTW 7 June 2015

C. Evaluation Team

Mix of international and national independent experts (agriculture, rural institutions, infrastructure, microenterprise development, gender)

Projects covered by the CPEProject Name Board Approval Effective Closing %

Disb

Criteria covered by the CPE

1.Microfinance and Technical Support Project (MFTSP)

10-Apr-03 20-Oct-03 30-Jun-11 95% Full criteria

2.Microfinance for Marginal and Small Farmers Project (MFMSFP)

02-Dec-04 29-Jun-05 31-Dec-11 97% Full criteria

3. Market Infrastructure Development Project in Charland Regions (MIDPCR)

13-Dec-05 22-Sep-06 31-Mar-14 92% Full criteria

4. Sunamganj Community-Based Resource Management Project (SCBRMP) (3 phases)

12-Sep-01 14-Jan-03 30-Sep-14 98% Full criteria

5. Finance for Enterprise Development and Employment Creation Project (FEDEC)

12-Sep-07 08-Jan-08 30-Sep-14 98% Full criteria

6. National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP)

13-Dec-07 25-Mar-08 30-Jun-15 85% Full criteria; selected issues on impact and sustainability

7. Participatory Small-scale Water Resources Sector Project (PSSWRSP)

15-Sep-09 06-Nov-09 30-Jun-18 18% Relevance (full) Effectiveness and Efficiency (partial)

8. Char Development and Settlement Project IV (CDSP)

22-Apr-10 09-May-11 31-Dec-18 34% Relevance (full) Effectiveness and Efficiency (partial)

9. Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project - Climate Adaptation and Livelihood Protection (HILIP/CALIP)

15-Sep-11 18-Jul-12 31-Mar-21 16% Relevance (full) Effectiveness and Efficiency (partial)

10.Coastal Climate Resilient Infrastructure Project (CCRIP)

10-Apr-13 28-Jun-13 31-Dec-19 7% Relevance

Implementation period of IFAD-supported projects covered by the CPE

Coverage

Country Strategy

• Guided by three COSOPs: 1999, 2006, 2012

• Focus on rural infrastructure, inland fisheries, agriculture, markets, microfinance and gender

• Innovation, scaling up, sustainability and common property resources management has permeated through IFAD's strategy in the country.

• The current COSOP (2012-2018) will support the Sixth Five Year Plan’s goal of diversifying agriculture towards higher value-added production to promote commercialization and raise farm incomes.

• It focuses on the adaptation of rural livelihoods to climate change and the scaling up of successful approaches

• Country Office was formally set up in Dhaka in 2011 hosted by WFP and staffed by a Country Programme Officer (CPO)

Portfolio Performance: Relevance

Strong Portfolios relevance to national poverty alleviation strategies and IFAD’s mandate .Major relevance dimensions are:

•Support and services to undertake on-farm and off-farm income generation activities ; •Increased availability of agricultural technologies to small farmers-thereby boosting agricultural productivity, incomes and employment.•Livelihood improvement of the targeted beneficiaries and rural poverty reduction

Portfolio Performance: Relevance

•Focus on rural credit , micro and small enterprise relevant to strategic context of Bangladesh.

•Attention to the most fragile environment areas in the country and building and

•Much needed infrastructure in remote and inaccessible areas inhabited by the poorest in the country

Portfolio Performance – Effectiveness

Agriculture Research, Extension and Productivity :• IFAD Support contributed to revitalising agriculture

technology system, policy initiatives and supporting agriculture research and links to the extension system.

• Technology and extension advances in agriculture through other portfolio projects in partnership with MoA at operational level. (47 new technologies adopted by 1.2 million farmers)

• Establishment of common interest groups and strengthening of supply chains has yielded positive results. Productivity increase from 14 to 52%

Portfolio Performance – Effectiveness

Micro and Small-scale enterprise development, access to markets and value chains

• Enterprise development achieved good results in terms of improving incomes of poor households

• The combination of technical advice, business support and rural finance has been successful in stimulating enterprise development

• Investment in rural infrastructure, particularly rural roads has contributed to improving access to markets

• More attention and facilitation support needed for market entry and forward linkages

• Substantial shift towards a value chain approach but require more market analysis and adequate resources for the required interventions

Portfolio Performance – Effectiveness

Rural Financial Services• Strong and continued involvement with the

microfinance sector produced good results :▫ assisted the rural poor in livelihood development and

enterprise growth.

▫ broadening of rural finance products (e.g. seasonal credit and micro-insurance) is valuable and needs to be continued

• There remains a gap in the availability of funds for micro-enterprises, semi-commercial agriculture, agri-enterprise and value chain-related credit, particularly in remote rural areas

Portfolio Performance – Effectiveness

Rural Infrastructure Development Largest share of IFAD financing (51% across all

projects) Overall, infrastructure investments are functional, are

serving the rural population well and targets have been met

Community Organizations: Group formation generally worked effectively Provision of training, credit or capital goods for

improved livelihoods The group modality brought multiple benefits

including improving access to natural resources, markets and improved rights

Portfolio Performance – Effectiveness

Environmental assets and sustainable development• Securing a sustainable resource base for poor rural

communities has been notable; particularly in fisheries and forestry and fragile environments

• Improving the access of the poor to natural resources, titling and fisheries leases has been critically important

• Training in community-based natural resource management through user groups has led to improved practices and substantial benefits

• Sustainability of the gains achieved is still tenuous and needs continued support

Impact on Poverty

Overall the portfolio under review demonstrated having a positive contribution to rural poverty alleviation, in particular, with respect to increases in rural household income and assets :

-In NATP household net income increased up to 47% for marginal farmers, 31% for small farmers and 23% for medium farmers .- In MFMSFP the income of member households went up 63% in nominal terms,-In FEDEC, the nominal increase in net income for a two year period (mid-term to end of project ) was 34%. - In FEDEC total employment increased from 2,248 in 2009 to 2,809 in March 2014 which impacted on household income•Alongside income and productivity increase, the portfolio is also contributing to the building/ strengthening of social capital and empowerment of the beneficiary target groups and in particular to the promotion of gender equality and women empowerment.

Portfolio Performance (cont)

• Sustainability (4): Strong ownership by government and stakeholders. But limited revenue budget for O&M. Sustainability of BUGs not guaranteed. Institutional support not strong for MSMEs.

• Innovation and Scaling up (5): Deliberate attempt to pursuit innovation in several areas (agriculture technologies, microfinance ,community-based resource management, infrastructure). Many examples in the programme of scaling up.

• Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (5): Significant contribution. Gender considerations mainstreamed into all IFAD operations. Larger attention to youth needed.

Non-lending Activities

• Knowledge Management (4): Little awareness of IFAD’s rich country, regional, and global knowledge among project and other development professionals. Knowledge is not systematically captured and shared.

• Partnerships (4): IFAD country presence deserves strengthening to deepen IFAD’s engagement and contribution in country based policy and strategy processes, enhance its visibility as well as develop its information gathering and processing capabilities.

• Policy Dialogue (4): Focus of IFAD-GoB relationship remains operations based , with limited repercussion at policy level.

COSOP Performance

• Portfolios under all three COSOPs demonstrated strong relevance to national poverty alleviation strategies and were consistent with IFAD’s mandate

• Overall performance of the COSOP is rated as satisfactory although its effectiveness is rated as moderately satisfactory

• Synergies between lending and non-lending activities have been limited

• All three component of non-lending activities deserve more attention to reach COSOP expectations

CPE Overall assessment ratings

Assessment Rating

Portfolio Performance 5

Non-lending activities 4

COSOP Performance 5

Overall IFAD-Government Performance 5

Conclusions Strong, long standing partnership

Significant contribution to rural poverty reduction & substantial value to the country

Areas of priority attention and future investment: Agriculture, Rural credit, Environmental management and climate change

Requirements for long term sustainability and scaling up not sufficiently in place.

Insufficient broad-based institutional partnerships & limited convergence/interface with GOB

Limited knowledge management and visibility of the programme

Recommendations

1. Stronger focus on agriculture. Strengthening investment in extension and research, supply chain development, intensification, diversification, livestock, and inland fisheries

2. Access to credit should remain a priority for the IFAD portfolio in Bangladesh. Support capacity development and more specific products and services (debt management, technology, business and marketing capacity development).

3. Environmental protection as a priority in the face of emerging challenges. Careful assessment of the potentials and risks through environmental assessment processes. Pursuit of environmental objectives and risks mitigation.

Recommendations (cont).

4. Broadening policy and institutional support for the programme. Engage more proactively with the Ministries at the central level. Opportunity to be a partner in wider national policy processes.

5. Further investment in Knowledge Management. Develop thorough KM strategy including plan for specific knowledge products.

6. Enhancing IFAD presence and capacity in the country including out-posting the Bangladesh CPM