Background and introduction

IFAD's independent Office of Evaluation conducted the final evaluation of the Rural Development Project for the Northeastern Provinces (PRODERNEA) in Argentina in 2008.

The project evaluation process followed the guidelines set forth in IFAD's Evaluation Policy and the concept paper agreed upon with key evaluation partners at the outset of the process. It is worth mentioning the importance of this evaluation results not only in relation to the project, but also as an input to the evaluation of the overall programme supported by IFAD in Argentina scheduled for 2009.

The evaluation process included, among other important stages in the evaluation process, a mission to the country in July 2008 that included visits to the field. Upon completion of the mission, on 1 August 2008, a meeting was held in Buenos Aires to present an aide-mémoire introducing the main preliminary findings of the evaluation, in order to ensure a first level of feedback and gather stakeholder reactions. As the last stage in the evaluation process, a learning workshop was held on 15 December 2008 in Buenos Aires, inaugurated by the new Under Secretary for Rural Development and Family Farming, Mr Guillermo D. Martini, which offered the opportunity to discuss the main evaluation findings and recommendations.

The agreement at completion point (ACP) reflects the agreement between the Government of Argentina and IFAD Management (represented by the Latin America and the Caribbean Division, [PL]) on the main evaluation findings and the recommendations as well as the commitment to adopt and implement the latter. The ACP incorporates input received during discussions at the workshop that took place on 15 December in Buenos Aires. The Office of Evaluation is not a party to the ACP, although it facilitated the process leading up to it.

Main findings

PRODERNEA represents the continuation of efforts undertaken in the north-east by the Programme of Credit and Technical Support for Small Producers in North-east Argentina (PNEA), the first programme devoted to smallholder farming in the region. The implementation of the project was strongly marked by an extremely variable social, economic and political environment, including a deep-seated economic and financial crisis that unfolded in 2001, various development approaches, and highly diverse national and sectoral policies, all of which generated an unfavourable environment for rural development. Despite the above the project achieved most of its objectives- although with some limitations- and produced a number of complementary results and positive externalities in relation to the institutionalization and enhanced visibility of the smallholder farming sector

The original project design was relevant within the socio-economic context prevailing in Argentina in the mid-1990s, which was characterized by a predominantly liberal vision in which the State fulfilled a compensatory role. On the other hand, the project's complexity and inherent implementation problems were not given sufficient consideration in the course of design and implementation. The project called for five implementing units (four provincial and one national coordinating unit –UNC–), each with its own human and material resources, together with a highly diversified and complex network linking all the institutions, regulatory frameworks and actors involved. This situation led to an initial delay in project implementation as the provinces were incorporated gradually, as well as cost increases and extensions in deadlines.

The reorientation process that began in 2003 showed an appropriate degree of flexibility and responsiveness, modifying aspects that were not fully functional in a new socio-economic and public policy context. Within this new framework, the project evolved and helped establish a more nuanced and comprehensive vision of rural development.

The project as a whole achieved most of its objectives, albeit with limitations as to scope and varying results in terms of meeting quantitative targets for each component.¹ With respect to the credit component, lending exceeded the targets set post-reorientation. However, the approach adopted by PRODERNEA did not contribute to ensuring sustainable access to financial services for the rural poor population. In addition, institutional sustainability was not achieved, since the credit fund was not institutionalized. In this regards it is worth noting that the lack of a policy on rural finance is a major constraint on the development of financial services in the country. Technologies disseminated through the production support services were economically viable and appropriate for smallholder production. Services provided focused on aspects of production and to a lesser degree on commercialization, despite the major challenges in this area. Participation by private technical assistance providers is limited. The project efficiency was affected by the initial delay in implementation that caused project completion to be extended from June 2004 to June 2007, which increased the share of administrative costs, to the detriment of resources earmarked for beneficiaries.

The project had a positive impact on improving the incomes and assets of the family producers assisted, and on food security as a result of higher farm production. An improvement was also observed in living conditions for indigenous communities benefiting from the project, including access to basic services (electricity, water) and improved food security (although this continues to be precarious). In addition, despite certain deficiencies in participation mechanisms, the beneficiaries maintained leadership in identifying projects, and the project's social acceptance was high.

Beyond the results obtained (which were limited by the modest relative magnitude of investment in a country as large as Argentina), this project is notable for its contribution in mobilizing assets – social, financial, physical – and leveraging investment by the public and private sectors. PRODERNEA was successful in raising the visibility of family smallholder production in a country characterized by an extraordinarily entrepreneurial agriculture sector. In addition it was successful in supporting the formulation of specific policies reflecting the importance of family production at the national level. This activity, which centred on project actions by the national coordinating unit, took place in various ways: fostering national debate, supporting activities in connection with Argentina's participation in the Specialized Meeting on Family Agriculture (REAF) and backing the National Family Agriculture Forum (FONAF). The latter two activities took shape as of 2004. One very important impact to which this effort contributed was the creation in March 2008 of the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development and Family Agriculture within the Secretariat of Agriculture and Fisheries of Argentina (SAGPyA).

In addition, PRODERNEA successfully introduced and consolidated institutional proposals that represented innovations for Argentina. The project promoted provincial management combined with parallel national management (UNC/SAGPyA), improving the climate for relations between the central government and the provinces – which initially was not conducive to collective action. Other innovative experiences included the adoption of new instruments such as linkages with regional economic producers' organizations and with commercial and agro industrial chains, as well as public-private experiences in providing services to beneficiaries.

The project carried out a significant systematization effort and generated a large volume of participatory evaluations, which have contributed to fostering a culture of dialogue and learning among participants in the region, and served as a platform for important policy dialogue. On the other hand M&E activities were not implemented as a continuous activity and its value was limited as a management tool.

The indigenous people component, in the context of public action in the north-eastern provinces, represents a valuable and unique differentiation directed to highly vulnerable social groups in rural areas, as well as an alternative to a traditional welfare-based approach. The results have been positive, in terms of social capital as well as the profile and recognition of indigenous people as economic agents and interlocutors for provincial governments. Nevertheless, the project as formulated did not give sufficient consideration to the critical degree of poverty in terms of the unmet basic needs of communities, and limited attention was paid to indigenous culture. Unlike the efforts dedicated to policy dialogue on family agriculture, no action was taken by the project to influence specific public policy on indigenous people.

Project implementation did not make a positive contribution to environmental conservation or to raising an environmental awareness in order to create conditions for demand for sustainable development policy in the future. This, in a region of highly complex climate conditions, exposed to an expanding agricultural frontier under threat by persistent natural resource management practices working against conservation.

Recommendations agreed upon by the parties

Recommendation 1.  Negotiate a framework agreement at the national level, within which specific projects will be negotiated with each jurisdiction.
In large countries with federal constitutional structures such as Argentina, additional review is needed for any future project proposals calling for decentralized implementation in the provinces. More in-depth consideration needs to be given to the impact of gradually incorporating the provinces over time, as naturally occurs, and to the specificities and autonomies involved in different administrative and political jurisdictions. Each of the projects under the framework agreement would be negotiated with the provincial authorities accompanied by explicit statements of political intent to implement them by stakeholders. Also, operating regulations – beyond general guidelines – should be established in the course of each specific negotiation process.

IFAD and the Government of Argentina would be responsible for implementing this recommendation, which would be reflected in the new Country Strategic Oopportunities Programme (COSOP) and future IFAD-funded operations in Argentina

Recommendation 2.  Strengthen social capital through partnerships among various economic actors in rural development, as a strategic thrust for development policies and projects. It is important to transcend the bounds of family farming to encompass the development of all relevant territorial actors. The following elements should be integrated in rural development: supporting the consolidation of existing local and regional organizations; linking producers and the entire rural population with virtuous commercial and industrial value chains; linking producers with all public and private services providing support for production and a better quality of life for rural society.

SAGPyA should implement this recommendation with support from IFAD, both for projects under way and for future IFAD-supported operations

Recommendation 3.  Promoting dialogue, research and design of sound rural finance policies in Argentina. Some processes under way such as the policy discussion on rural finance around REAF initiatives provide an opportunity for dialogue in this regard. IFAD, in particular, should support such discussion and policy-making processes, identifying success factors in other countries and facilitating exchanges with other projects. In addition, important lessons can be drawn from successful experiences in the country, such as the Social Capital Fund (FONCAP) and the examples of cooperatives receiving funding from PRODERNEA in Misiones.

The Government of Argentina should lead the implementation of this recommendation with IFAD support, within the framework of platforms for dialogue such as REAF or others.

Recommendation 4.  Strengthen the rural technical assistance services system able to provide holistic responses to the producers' demands. To this end it is recommended, first of all, expanding the range of technical services -beyond the current concentration on aspects of production- to include multi-disciplinary teams with experience in areas such as marketing, commercialization and organizational strengthening, making sure the continuity of the technical assistance is guaranteed throughout the process. Second, it is necessary to support initiatives to develop or strengthen inter-institutional partnerships with public and private organizations, such as for example the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) and others. Third, it is important to promote the development of institutional frameworks that promote cooperative contracting of private technicians, with the collaboration of public authorities when necessary, particularly at the project organization and start-up stages.

The Government of Argentina would be responsible for implementing this recommendation with IFAD support.

Recommendation 5.  Design and implement differentiated and specialized projects to improve living conditions for the indigenous population. These projects should be independent of those targeted to commercially-oriented family farmers, leading to effective affirmative action. Such projects should be designed and implemented by multidisciplinary technical teams trained to work with indigenous people, in participatory initiatives under the leadership of social actors that focus on improving the lives of the target groups. It is also necessary a consistent institutional framework that provides for advocating and developing policies that meet the needs of beneficiaries.

The Government of Argentina should implement this recommendation, with IFAD support, in future IFAD-financed operations.

Recommendation 6.  Environmental sustainability should play a central role in rural development strategy. The challenge associated to a larger pressure on natural resources (water, soil, vegetation) as a consequence of the expansion of the agricultural frontier, more intensive production methods, and a limited environmental awareness is a key issue that needs to be addressed beyond the possibilities of individual projects. This situation calls for policy dialogue at local, provincial and national levels focusing on sustainability.

The Government of Argentina should lead implementation of this recommendation, with IFAD support, within the framework of platforms for dialogue such as REAF and others.

---

1/ The target set for number of beneficiaries of technical assistance and credit was not met. However, the target set for the amount of credit and number of projects under the Indigenous Communities Support Fund (FACA) was exceeded.