National Roundtable Workshop Maputo, 24-25 May 2010. Mozambique Country Programme Evaluation. IFAD. Office of Evaluation. Evaluation Objectives. Assess the performance and impacts of the IFAD funded activities
Assess the performance and impacts of the IFAD funded activities
Develop findings and recommendations that will assist the preparation of the new COSOP
Was IFAD’s country strategy in Mozambique designed (as expressed in IFAD interventions and formalized in the 2000 and 2004 COSOPs) to ensure highest possible rural poverty reduction impacts?
To what extent, was the country strategy implemented through projects and non-project activities and how did they perform?
What was the impact of IFAD’s country strategy and operations?
Standard Evaluation Criteria & Six-Point Rating Scale
Triangulation of Data
Desk reviews, interviews, self-assessment, country portfolio review,
One month of field work (Sept/Oct 2008)
Visits to the provinces of Cabo Delgado, Gaza, Maputo, Nampula, Niassa and Zambezia, to meet service providers, beneficiaries, community groups.
Discussions held with Government officials in Maputo and at provincial and local levels.
Mozambique: 22 million people; Prevalence of HIV/AIDS is increasing (16% of prime age group)
Mozambique had extremely low starting point but has sustained high rates of economic growth (8% p.a. since 1992), partly fuelled by mega-projects - GNI per capita about US$400 but in bottom part of HDI, and the Doing Business, Global Competitiveness and Corruption Perception Indices
Agriculture has the lowest sector share of the GDP but engages 80 per cent of the population.
Between 1997 and 2003, national poverty declined (69% to 54%). However, recent evidence suggests rising rural inequality and a less positive outlook for the poorest.
Budget for Agriculture is increasing but remains below the 10% New Partnership for Africa's Development target.
Total project cost: US$ 286.7 million
IFAD contribution 61% - US$ 175 million
9% of total IFAD lending to E.S. Africa
10 since 1982
Country-specific (US$ 316,000)
Regional grants covering Mozambique
(US$ 3.2 million)
CPE: 7 programmes over 16 years(1993-2009)
The 2000 COSOP was an internal document but an updated version including an addendum was presented to the EB in 2001; the addendum addressed the emergency following the floods and introduced for the first time the issue of HIV/AIDS
The 2004 COSOP was prepared in consultation with Government and national partners and is a fully public document
Since 1990s, overriding strategic goal: commercialisation of smallholder agriculture and artisanal fisheries – confirmed and emphasised in the COSOPs of 2000/01 and 2004
Commercialisation of smallholders supported by strategies to form groups and associations and linking them to input and output markets and rural finance
Emphasis on decentralised implementation – “promote partnerships between local authorities, communities, economic agents and other civil society stakeholders..”
Cautious to join PROAGRI with non-earmarked support
2001 – IFAD has no role in providing assistance to deal with emergencies
2004 – mainstreaming of gender and HIV/AIDS
2004 – paradigm shift
Overall, IFAD pursued relevant strategic goals and made the correct strategic choices, - evidence that households are more likely to move out of poverty when they engage in cash crop production, livestock and non-farm income generating activities.
Paradigm shift constitutes a challenge
Hesitance to provide non-earmarked support for PROAGRI justified, considering IFAD’s mandate and role
No targeting strategy
Non-lending activities mentioned but without plans and budget
Progress towards COSOP goals but still a long way to go
Portfolio objectives are highly relevant in terms of the needs of the rural poor, and GoM and IFAD policies.
The ASCAs and support for market linkages and farmers associations have made an important contribution to income and empowerment of the rural poor.
Social infrastructure, drinking water points and feeder roads have, overall, produced positive results and outcomes.
Important policy and institutional changes achieved in agricultural marketing and artisanal fisheries – combination of national policy components and field support is useful.
Efficiency has improved over time. Still large differences, often determined by service provider and partner. Superior when implementation managed by a full-time programme facilitation unit.
CPE ARRI 2002-07
Relevance 5 10096 similar
Effectiveness 4 80 74similar
Efficiency 4 80 65higher
Project Performance 4 80 86 similar
Poverty Impact4 80 69 higher
Innovation 480 72similar
Sustainability 3 40 48 similar
Partner: IFAD 4 67 54 higher
Partner: Gov 4 67 67 similar
Partner: CI 4 83 63 higher
Overall Achievement 480 74similar
*This comprises all ratings of 4 (moderately satisfactory), 5 (satisfactory) and 6 (highly satisfactory)
Portfolio Performance: Overall Ratings
Need for targeting and mainstreaming gender and HIV/AIDS in the country programme
Assumptions about the capacity of public and private sector partners have been too optimistic
The innovation promotion process remains unsystematic
Non-lending activities have primarily taken place within lending programme
Sub-optimal use of Technical Assistance Grant – grant envelope needed for planning and COSOP formulation
Country presence provides basis for policy dialogue, partnership development and harmonisation
Improve market participation by support to
increase surplus production and its value;
develop agribusiness SMEs, smallholders’ organisations and market linkages;
enhance access to finance
Ensure coordination between efforts in three areas, and select new value chains and areas based on market and agro-ecological potential
Define innovation agenda and dedicate adequate resources
Use Programme Units or dedicated task forces as temporary change process tools engaging in “search and find processes” during programme implementation (ref SBAFP)
Improve monitoring, knowledge management and policy advocacy to promote upscaling and replication
The Country Programme supports private sector development which often is best facilitated by private sector and civil society organisations
Explore options of engaging capable private and civil society organisations as partners and implementers of components and sub-components (including budget responsibility)
Strengthen country presence based on needs assessment considering resources required for direct supervision, policy dialogue, KM, harmonisation and partner development
Facilitate linkages and synergies between three focus areas: agric. production/fisheries, marketing/processing, and financial services
Improve planning and use of grants for enhancing effectiveness and impact of country programme and for promoting innovations and upscaling