The aim of this interim evaluation report is to analyze the performance of the Regional Programme of Training in Rural Development (RPTRD) during its second period of implementation, drawing lessons from this experience.

The Programme's second phase started late in 1992. A Technical Assistance Grant (TAG 155) amounting USD700,000 was approved by IFAD for its implementation through the National University of Tucuman - Argentina, with contributions from the European Union - EU (USD 1,200,000) and the National Counterpart Organizations - NCO - (USD 1,133,000) and UNDP (USD100,000). The Programme was developed in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Peru.

The principal Programme area of intervention is training in rural development. Training events and activities are targeted, principally, to rural development technicians (extensionists). IFAD and EU project personnel, rural women, and peasant leaders. It was foreseen that Programme training activities would benefit, directly, 1,100 extensionists and peasant leaders; and 1,000 project workers. Until December 1995, the RPTRD had largely surpassed its original goals by reaching 3,212 participants in training events.

The Regional Programme of Training in Rural Development (RPTRD) has financed three types of training events in 1993-94 (courses, workshops, and internships) and five types in 1995 (same three plus seminars and travelling internships). About two-thirds of funds in 1993-94 were spent in "national" events benefitting 967 individuals, for a total of 11,594 participant-days (p-d). Some two-thirds of these vents took place in Argentina and Chile (in terms of individuals, p-d, and funds), followed in order of importance by Peru, Paraguay, and Bolivia. Regional events benefitted 458 individuals, for a total of 2,592 p-d. In 1995, national events continued to be the majority of activities (9,688 p-d), although the distribution by country changed somewhat. Less funds were spent in Argentina and Chile, and more in Bolivia (13.2% compared with 4.8% in 1993-94). The Programme continued to have few events in Peru and Paraguay. In spite of its regional nature, a little less than one third of the funds were spent in "regional" events, both in 1993-94 and 1995.

Direct training costs per participant-day (that is, including all counter-part funding) ranged from USD25.0 for events in Paraguay in 1993-94 to USD141.1 for regional events in 1995. This is worth noting, since these are low costs per p-d for training programmes of this nature. On average, the Programme contributed with 27.8% of the costs in 1993-94 and 35.8% in 1995. This represents an important achievement of the RPTRD, since it has been able to mobilize the equivalent of USD 2.6 for every USD1.00 financed in 1993-94 events, and USD1.8 in 1995. The administrative costs of the Programme (including all direct and indirect costs) were quite high. Of the USD700,000 donated by IFAD, 36.4% went to cover salaries of administrative staff, and an additional 36.9% corresponded to other administrative expenses. Furthermore, taking into account the cash and in-kind contributions of the NCOs, for every USD1.00 spent in training events, USD2.50 was spent in administrative costs financed by the IFAD grant, and USD0.75 was contributed by the NCOs. In sum, total training costs were on average USD100.08 per p-d (or USD600.45 per week), which is still well within reasonable margins for programmes of this nature. Nevertheless, these figures suggest that there is considerable room for efficiency improvements in the administration of the Programme.

Aside from the national distribution of funds from the Programme, each country viewed the role of the RPTRD in a different way. In Argentina, the Programme was instrumental in providing funds for well-designed courses and workshops for IPDERNOA (the local NCO) in agricultural extension for small farmers carried out by the national and provincial extension agencies. In Bolivia, the RPTRD had been a mechanism to share experiences amongst IFAD and the UE projects on issues related to the management of projects (through internships and practical workshops, with little need for an academic NCO, such as CIDES-UMSA. In Chile, most events were effectively promoted and/or carried out by GIA (the Programme's NCO), primarily in courses and workshops for a wide range of audiences, which combine both academic and practical aspects of training. In Paraguay, CPES is perceived as too academic by both IFAD/UE project staff and by the most active demandants of training events, which happen to be primarily advocacy groups supporting the initiatives of organizations of landless farmers (the young especially) on issues of national agricultural policy, access to land, the effect of Mercosur on rural incomes, and other "policy and rights" type of issues. In Peru, the local NCO - IIUR - is also perceived as too academic and therefore, as an inappropriate institution for responding to local demands and interests in relation to rural development.

Events supported by the Programme have received little or no monitoring and evaluation of their effects and impact. All NCOs are aware of this issue and have started to take some actions to get greater feedback from trainees and projects.

The main lessons of this second phase of the RPTRD are:

1. The Programme has been successful in focusing its activities on training events for the benefit of small farmers of the region. It is primarily a demand-driven programme, allowing it to finance a wide range of events suited to beneficiaries needs. It has been quite successful in mobilizing counter-part funding from a wide range of organizations (public, private, projects and others).

2. The Programme has revealed both the potential and the limitations of a demand-driven approach. On the one hand, the Programme has been effective in responding to an important set of demands. On the other, it has been fragmented in a wide range of offers which has constrained the development of areas of specialization. Although a demand-driven approach means an important step forward in comparison with supply-based scheme, it is important to go further in the design and implementation of an integrated demand and supply proposal.

3. The Programme's contribution to the formulation, evaluation and diffusion of innovative and participative training methodologies has been limited. In the future, it would be worthwhile to expand resources for developing this area as it could be of significant contribution for Programme effectiveness.

4. The Programme has proved to be a successful event-oriented proposal. Nevertheless, in order to respond to its ambitious objectives, a new strategy involving systematic and sequential training activities should be proposed. This would contribute to the purpose of promoting the development of human resources.

5. The Programme can significantly increase its efficiency by reducing administrative costs, providing more autonomy to NCOs in designing events and administering funds, and specializing in a more limited set of issues. However, as the Programme has demonstrated to be too centralized and most of the NCOs have shown little identification with Programme philosophy, the Programme institutional framework should be revised. The experience of similar training programmes (such as RUTA) and the experience of RTPD, show that an institutional frame with no pre-established NCOs could be more appropriate for future implementation.

Concerning the future, four possible institutional frameworks have been considered for a third phase: (i) regional foundation, with a rotating main office; (ii) regional foundation with a fixed main office; (iii) national autonomous foundations; and (iv) other decentralized institutional arrangement. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Foundations provide autonomy and some guarantee for continuity, but are complicated legal entities. Rotating main offices is democratic, but costly in financial and institutional memory terms. A national foundation (or other institutional framework) is more efficient, responds to local needs more effectively, but would have more difficulties in promoting a regional approach. The location of the Regional Programme should be decided according to the proximity to institutions with installed capacity and relevant experience in rural development training, taking also into account transport and communication costs.

The achievements of the Programme in the first two phases have been significant. There are no other similar initiatives in the region that come close to responding to the type of needs that RPTRD has been able to satisfy. Consequently, the Programme deserves continued funding from IFAD and the UE, but some important institutional adjustments are needed in order to increase its effectiveness. The point of departure for these adjustments is a clear re-definition of the TPTRD's objectives. This is imperative in order to clarify the value that IFAD places in the inherent trade-offs that exist in multiple-objective programmes such as this. Fewer and more realistic objectives will greatly facilitate the decision process as to what form the Programme should have in the future.

In order to promote the sustainability of a Regional Programme it would be convenient to develop a kind of trust fund which could be build-up with contributions from the institutions of the different countries that would be integrated in the Programme. This trust fund could be provided from the institutions' own funds and matching grants provided by the Programme, introducing an equity principle, e.g., that the relationship between "own funds" and "matching grants" would change according to the degree of poverty of the countries, so that institutions located in Argentina would have to provide a higher ratio of own funds to matching grants than Bolivian institutions; the relationship of these coefficients could correspond, for example, to that one between per-capita GDP of these countries or to the relationship between the rate of interest of IFAD's loans to these countries.