IfadIoeAssetBanner

Islamic Republic of Mauritania: Poverty Reduction Project in Aftout South and Karakoro

10 September 2013

Interim evaluation

The core learning partnership and the users of the evaluation

The interim evaluation of the Poverty Reduction Project in Aftout South and Karakoro (PASK) had a double objective: to meet IFAD's commitment to report on the results and impact of operations financed with Member States and partners; and to help project partners learn from experience in order to prepare and implement other development interventions in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. The evaluation focused on five issues: (i) project performance (relevance, effectiveness and efficiency); (ii) project impact on rural poverty; (iii) sustainability; (iv) innovation, replication and scaling up; and (v) the performance of IFAD and its partners.

The evaluation took place in four major stages: (i) preparation (review of documents, preparatory mission and detailed self-evaluation); (ii) main evaluation mission, from 7 October to 3 November 2008, followed by an extraordinary meeting in December 2008 at the Ministry of Housing, Urban Affairs and Land Use Management (MHUAT); (iii) analysis of data gathered and preparation of this report (including several cycles of consultation on the draft report); and (iv) conclusion of the evaluation (draft agreement at completion point, final learning workshop gathering all partners in Nouakchott on 26 April 2010, and signature of the agreement by the Government and IFAD). A core learning partnership on the evaluation was formed, including the Government, IFAD and the main partners, to provide guidance and observations on the main evaluation outputs and promote the use of its results and recommendations.

In accordance with IFAD's Evaluation Policy, this agreement at completion point was prepared with the help of the Independent Office of Evaluation by the West and Central Africa Division and the Government of Mauritania. This action-oriented document presents the main evaluation findings and outlines ways of implementing the recommendations.

Main evaluation findings

Institutional framework and project financing. Envisaged as an important instrument for implementing a strategic framework for poverty reduction, PASK was designed for a period of seven years at a total estimated cost of US$22.93 million. It is financed mainly by an IFAD loan (49.4 per cent of the total estimated cost), contributions from the Government of Mauritania (34.6 per cent, or US$7.94 million, of which US$6.1 million under the HIPC 1 programme), a loan from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) (15.2 per cent) and beneficiary contributions (0.8 per cent). At start-up, the project was placed under the oversight of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Poverty Reduction and Integration; then, as of May 2007 – following presidential elections – under the Ministry of Decentralization and Regional Planning; and in September 2008, under MHUAT. The cooperating institution providing project supervision for IFAD and OPEC is the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). PASK covers a 25,600 square kilometre area, and the beneficiaries comprise most of the area's rural population.

Main achievements. In terms of development of local capacities, the project has obtained the following results: (i) design of 100 per cent of the target set for community development plans and priority action plans under the initial objectives; (ii) implementation of an information, education and communication programme covering health care, schooling for girls, families' and women's rights, and citizenship – these campaigns have reached 4,000 people (82 per cent of them women) in more than 200 villages, thus meeting 133 per cent of the planned objective; and (iii) preparation of a literacy programme in partnership with the ministerial department concerned, and a training of literacy trainers programme covering about 12,300 persons (that is, more than 88 per cent of the initial objective) with 287 literacy trainers.

Basic infrastructure development was an important component of the project, with programmes to improve road access and to rehabilitate and install community infrastructure (wells, boreholes, dikes and weirs). The programme to build and rehabilitate social and economic infrastructure with HIPC funds yielded significant results: 12 town halls, 6 multi-purpose buildings, 14 health care clinics, 224 schoolrooms and 152 latrines are now in operation. Incomes have been improved and diversified through: (i) support to women's market gardening cooperatives, with 460 new members trained and modest amounts of agricultural inputs and tools provided; (ii) the supply of wire netting and barbed wire; (iii) 55 veterinary assistants trained and equipped with veterinary kits; and (iv) support for 30 microprojects, which have primarily benefited women and young people.

Project relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. In terms of relevance, the PASK objectives were fully responsive to the needs of poor rural people living in the project area and aligned with the policies and strategies of the Government and IFAD. The project applied an integrated development strategy with a participatory approach at both community and communal levels. This mixed participation approach was accompanied by a social approach to promote cooperation, community organization, individual and collective capacity-building, and the development of social and economic services; and a technical approach to improve physical capital and skills development. The focus on literacy teaching as one way of empowering the rural poor was particularly appropriate. However, PASK design weaknesses included an imperfect knowledge of the project area's strengths and constraints and an inappropriate allocation of project resources, both in terms of geographical and socioeconomic objectives and of specific constraints and challenges. Accordingly, the evaluation judged the relevance of the project as moderately satisfactory (score of 4 2).

Project effectiveness was rated moderately unsatisfactory (score of 3) as it varied according to the specific objective (SO) considered. As the above results demonstrate, PASK showed moderately satisfactory effectiveness in strengthening local organizational and management capacities (SO1) and improving living conditions for rural people, notably in terms of access to basic social infrastructure (SO3). On the other hand, effectiveness was unsatisfactory for the specific objective related to building and strengthening the foundations for sustainable economic growth (SO2) as a result of partial and limited improvement in access to the area, which was attributable to the limited resources allocated to the project and the debatable quality of works. The project's effectiveness on the objective to increase and diversify the incomes of the most vulnerable population groups (SO4) was also considered unsatisfactory, mainly because of the lack of initiatives to take advantage of the opportunities available up to 2007 to design and implement the financial services subcomponent (which had the effect of postponing the start-up of the income-generating activities programme) and the low level of allocated resources.

The project's efficiency was considered moderately unsatisfactory (score of 3), primarily for the following reasons: recurrent expenses were 70 per cent higher than projected in the approach paper and 45 per cent higher than determined during the mid-term review; and the investments made did not produce a noticeable increase in the incomes of people living in the project area.

Impact. It is too early to quantify the project's impact at present. Most activities will bear fruit only in the long term (capacity strengthening, structural and demonstration activities). Here again, results are mixed. The project's impact on incomes and household assets is considered moderately unsatisfactory given that, at this stage, there is no overall improvement that can be attributed directly to the project. Impact on agricultural production and food security was on the whole unsatisfactory. Support to women's cooperatives and technical supervision provided by specialized partner operators did contribute to an improvement in production, but this is not easily quantifiable.

On the other hand, in the field of human resources and empowerment, impact was highly satisfactory. Indeed, at this stage, the impact of the project lies fundamentally in the social transformation of the environment at both collective and individual levels. The project has encouraged open-mindedness and better social integration of the different communities within their communes, strengthened community solidarity by promoting and supporting grass-roots organizations, and enhanced cooperation by supporting community cooperation committees. PASK support for communes has contributed to strengthening the decision-making capacities of municipalities, so that communal institutions in the project area are distinctly more dynamic than those not taking part. The project has thus contributed to the emergence of a citizenship culture. PASK has also helped reinforce the national process of decentralization through institutional support to communes, training of local elected officials, establishment of community cooperation committees, and recruitment of community development officers. In short, the project impact overall is considered satisfactory (score of 4).

Sustainability. Since it is too early to determine the degree of project sustainability, this criterion has been evaluated largely through research and analysis of indicators that are either favourable or unfavourable. The impact of the project on agricultural production and household incomes is limited. The new social dynamic oriented towards increased participation by rural communities, women and civil society is considered likely to last and even improve in the future. The dynamism observed among communal structures (town councils and community cooperation committees) and the consistent strengthening of their capacities thanks to PASK are likely to reinforce the sustainability of project achievements. However, despite these favourable elements, the sustainability of agricultural production and household incomes is uncertain owing to limited economic viability and tenuous impact. As a result, the evaluation considers the sustainability of project achievements moderately unsatisfactory (score of 3).

Performance of partners. Despite the alternation of several oversight authorities since project start-up, government support for the project has been steady (good mobilization of HIPC funds at more than US$7 million). Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that the Government allowed the project coordination and management unit to be sited in Nouakchott, which is one day's travel by road from the project area, in spite of numerous recommendations made by UNOPS and IFAD. The project team has made laudable efforts at project execution considering the challenging context and weaknesses in project design. However, its location in Nouakchott has detracted from effectiveness at all levels (planning, implementation, work inspection and monitoring), which has significantly affected project performance. In short, in view of the foregoing, the overall performance of the Government has been moderately unsatisfactory (score of 3). IFAD shares responsibility with the Government for weaknesses in project design.

Furthermore, IFAD has lacked responsiveness on certain key issues (cf. its reservations on the start-up of the income-generating activities/financial services subcomponent despite relevant suggestions made by UNOPS).

However, IFAD's performance (score of 4) has progressively improved since the mid-term review in 2006. As planned, UNOPS provided project supervision, often by mobilizing the same teams, which translated into an incremental improvement in its knowledge of the project and the performance of its teams. Supervision missions led to several suggestions and relevant recommendations (score of 4). OPEC made a substantial contribution by cofinancing the rural roads subcomponent and showed flexibility in agreeing to make the changes proposed by that programme and certain amendments to the loan agreement, including its extension at the suggestion of the Government, the project coordination and management unit and UNOPS.

However, the specificities of this donor and its organizational and management models do not allow for true engagement on the ground, with the consequences which follow. Thus, taking into account these specificities, the performance of OPEC is considered moderately unsatisfactory (score of 3).

In conclusion, the overall performance of the project is rated moderately unsatisfactory (score of 3), primarily for the following reasons: weaknesses in project design and problems with implementation have restricted its efficiency and impact, particularly in terms of strengthening economic infrastructure and improving and diversifying the incomes of the disadvantaged populations targeted. However, the decision to finance PASK did have a significant effect on other donors and on the Government, leading to the development of other projects in the challenging and impoverished area of Aftout South and Karakoro.

Main recommendations of the evaluation

In view of the persistence of poverty in all its dimensions in Aftout and Karakoro, the evaluation recommends the development of a second phase for this project. However, to ensure that such a second phase will have a significant impact on rural poverty, the evaluation makes three important recommendations based on lessons learned from project experience.

Recommendation 1 (IFAD, Government): Appropriate resources should be allocated to the design of a possible second phase of the project to allow for an in-depth analysis of specific strengths, weaknesses and threats concerning vulnerable rural populations in the project intervention area. At the same time, during the course of implementation, the project should benefit from additional supervision resources and technical support proportionate with its complexity and the difficulty of intervention conditions. In particular, IFAD should take into consideration the following aspects:

  • Allocation of appropriate resources for the project development process, taking into account the difficulties and complexity of the target zone – which would justify the allocation of sums substantially higher than the IFAD average.

  • At the same time, supervision and technical support during the period of project implementation have to take into account institutional capacities and available human resources. If warranted by the analysis performed during project development, IFAD should consider the possibility of allocating substantial amounts to supervision to ensure the support necessary for proper project execution.

Recommendation 2 (Government, IFAD): A possible second phase of the project will have to ensure a better match between objectives and project execution modalities, with special attention to the following aspects:

  • From the outset, promotion of a solid partnership with the appropriate ministerial departments, to ensure the articulation and integration of project activities with their respective sectoral programmes; and with other partners to provide additional technical and financial support, primarily in connection with infrastructure (rural roads, health care and drinking water).

  • Concentration of the area of project intervention and better targeting of the poorest villages to enhance and integrate with local interventions, to maximize the project impact on one hand, and attenuate logistical pressures and reduce project management costs on the other. This concentration will be all the more necessary in building and operationalizing the partnership recommended above within the framework of a traditional project in such an extensive area.

The introduction of concrete mechanisms 3 for coordination, exchange and integration with other development projects in the area or in bordering regions, primarily those of the IFAD programme, promoting the convergence of different stakeholders around the community development plan.

The involvement of deconcentrated State technical services as privileged strategic partners: for the strengthening of local capacities at start-up; and for project implementation and enhancement of learning after project completion.

In line with legislation on land use planning, improve the competitiveness of infrastructure by grouping localities to build a critical mass of populations and promote the pooling of resources.

Promotion of communal project ownership, primarily for inter-community activities.

Recommendation 3 (Government, IFAD): Refocus the project on its economic objectives – which constitute essential elements of poverty reduction – by promoting the area's water and agropastoral potential in an optimum and sustainable way, and by consolidating the experience in promoting income-generating activities launched during this first phase, while ensuring effective coordination with crop and livestock development strategies and sustainable management of natural resources. The practical measures to be taken in this regard should include:

Improvement and promotion of available knowledge on the area's potential (studies by PASK, achievements of other projects, a new study to be carried out on surface water management and development, etc.).

Preparation of strategies and programmes adapted for the integrated development of agriculture, animal husbandry and sustainable management of the area's natural resources with the involvement of populations and the technical services concerned.

Mobilization of adequate financial resources for the implementation of these programmes, particularly through a local investment fund responsible for supporting local initiatives identified for the development of these sectors.

Consistent organizational and technical support to producer organizations through appropriate programmes of research and development, training, mentoring and monitoring, while promoting crop and livestock diversification and related promising subsectors. In this regard, a specific linkage should be created with IFAD's Value Chains Development Programme for Poverty Reduction (ProlPRAF).

Improved methods for preparation, selection, implementation and management of income-generating activities to move towards greater accountability and improved economic viability of private initiatives. This programme should maximize the opportunities offered by integrated agricultural development and support the promotion of promising subsectors.

Promotion and dissemination of technical and technological innovation, improving the performance of crop and livestock production systems by developing local potential.

Improvement of rural livelihoods by promoting rural housing, introducing and disseminating technologies that make use of local materials and developing alternative energy sources.


1/ Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative.

2/ Scores were assigned on a scale from 1 to 6 (6 = highly satisfactory; 5 = satisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory; 3 = moderately unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 1 = highly unsatisfactory).

3/ Beyond the formal exchanges practised within the framework of orientation and monitoring committees.

 

 

 

Sierra Leone Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Profile #142-2019)
Madagascar Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Profile Issue #145-2020) – French
Impact evaluation of the Food Security and Development Support Project in the Maradi Region in Niger (Issue #141 - 2019) – French
Impact evaluation of the Food Security and Development Support Project in the Maradi Region in Niger (Profile issue #141 - 2019) – English
Profile: 2019 Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD operations
Corporate-level evaluation on IFAD’s Engagement in Pro-poor Value Chain Development (Issue #139-2019)
Mexico Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Profile Issue #138-2019) - Spanish
Sri Lanka Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #137-2019)
Republic of Kenya: Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #136-2018)
Impact Evaluation of the Smallholder Horticulture Marketing Programme in Kenya (Issue #135-2018)
Profile: Tunisia Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #133-2018) - French
Profile: Tunisia Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #133-2018) - English
Ecuador Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #144-2020) - Spanish
Burkina Faso: Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #135-2018) - French
Honduras: Betting on Rural Development (Issue #7 - 2002) - English
Panama: This land is our land (Issue #6 - 2002) - Spanish
IFAD thematic study on rural finance in China (Issue #3 - 2002)
Impact evaluation of the Jharkhand-Chhattisgarh Tribal Development Programme (Issue #106 - 2015)
Evaluation profile: Republic of Turkey Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #111 - 2016)
India - Building peace: what role for development? (Issue #9 - 2003)
Evaluating IFAD's Country Programme in Sri Lanka (Issue #5 - 2002)
Tunisia: tuning in to farmers' needs (Issue #22-2004)
Breaking New Ground: Leasehold Forestry in Nepal (Issue #18 -2004)
Agricultural innovation: defining IFAD's role (Issue #20-2004)
Benin: Staying out of poverty (Issue #23 - 2004)
Boosting food security for poor farmers (Issue #17 - 2004)
IFAD gets closer to the ground (Issue #47 - 2007)
The Gambia Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #109 - 2015)
Evaluation profile, Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation Democratic Republic of the Congo (French)
Evaluation profile, Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation Democratic Republic of the Congo - (English)
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #108 - 2015)
Evaluation synthesis on IFAD’s support for environment and natural resource management (Profile issue #117 - 2016)
Making a difference in Mali: performance and innovation (Issue #49-2008)
Community-driven development for rural poverty reduction (Issue #55 - 2008)
Ghana: Rooting for poor farmers (Issue #21 - 2004)
Striving for sustainability and equity (Issue #14 - 2004)
Ensuring Realistic Design: Learning from Experiences in Niger (Issue #48 - 2007)
Namibia: Better livelihood opportunities (issue #12 -2003)
Nicaragua Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #123-2017) - Spanish
Ethiopia: Providing poor people living in rural areas sustainable access to financial services (Issue #75 - 2011)
Rwanda: Smallholder Cash and Export Crops Development Project (Issue #79-2011)
Interim evaluation of IFAD's Bokeo Food Security Project (Issue #4 - 2002)
Philippines Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #120-2016)
Evaluation Profile Viet Nam Banking on the poor? (Issue #1-2002)
The right ingredients for Making Sustainable Impact (Issue #70 - 2010)
Bridging the Digital Divide (Issue #8 - 2002)
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: Unleashing the entrepreneurial talent of rural household (Issue #61 - 2009)
Lao People's Democratic Republic Supporting community initiatives to replace shifting cultivation (Issue #78 - 2011)
Remarkable impact. Will it last? Pakistan: Dir Area Support Project (Issue #53 - 2008)
Republic of the Philippines: Indigenous Peoples' Self-determination and Drive to Succeed (Issue #50 - 2008)
Rapid Change in China’s Qinling Mountains (Issue #67 - 2010)
Philippines: Banking on Grameen. Is it Viable in the Philippines? (Issue #13-2003)
Dominican Republic: South Western Region SmallFarmers Project, Phase II (Issue # 80 - 2011)
Marenass is our project (Issue #15 - 2003)
Setting up a rural credit system in post-soviet Georgia: a rocky road to follow (Issue #45 - 2007)
Romania: Apuseni development project (Issue #58-2009)
Republic of Yemen: Raymah Area Development Project (Issue #72 - 2010)
Corporate-level evaluation on IFAD’s financial architecture (Issue #132-2018)
Evaluation profile: Cambodia Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #128-2018)
Angola: Focus on small-scale family farming (Issue #131-2018) - Portuguese
Angola: Focus on small-scale family farming (Issue #131-2018) - English
Peru Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #130-2018) - Spanish
Panama: This land is our land (Issue #6 - 2002) - English
Morocco: Managing the 'commons' (Issue #11 - 2003)
Jordan: Tapping finite resources (Issue #10 - 2003)
Honduras: Betting on Rural Development (Issue #7 - 2002) - Spanish
Participation: from Words to Action (Issue #16 - 2004) - French
Participation: from Words to Action (Issue #16 - 2004) - English
The Community-initiated Agriculture and Resource Management Project (Issue #52 - 2008)
Cameroon Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #129-2018) - French
Cameroon Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation (Issue #129-2018) - English
Argentine Republic Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #73 - 2010) - Spanish
Argentine Republic Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #73 - 2010) - English
IFAD’s performance and impact in decentralizing environments: Experiences from Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda ( Issue #36 - 2005)
Profile: Evaluation Manual second edition
Supporting decentralized rural development (Issue #85 - 2012)
Ecuador Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #95 - 2014) - Spanish
Ecuador Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #95 - 2014) - English
Mali Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #87 - 2013) - French
Mali Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #87 - 2013) - English
Madagascar Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #90 - 2013) - French
Madagascar Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #90 - 2013) - English
Senegal Country Programme evaluation (Issue #97 - 2014)
Senegal Country Programme evaluation (Issue #97 - 2014) - French
Federative Republic of Brazil: Country Programme Evaluation - Profile (Issue #107 - 2015) - Portuguese
Federative Republic of Brazil: Country Programme Evaluation - Profile (Issue #107 - 2015) - English
Bangladesh Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #105 - 2016)
Nigeria Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #113 - 2016)
Evaluation profile (Issue #100 - 2014)
Evaluation profile: A strong partnership for rural poverty reduction (Issue #98 - 2014) - Chinese
Evaluation profile: A strong partnership for rural poverty reduction (Issue #98 - 2014) - English
Evaluation Profile: Rural poverty reduction in a middle-income country (Issue #51 - 2008)
Republic of Mozambique country strategy and programme evaluation (Issue #124 – 2017) - Portuguese
Republic of Mozambique country strategy and programme evaluation (Issue #124 – 2017) - English
Corporate-level evaluation on the IFAD Policy for Grant Financing (Issue # 99 - 2014)
Alleviating rural poverty in a fragile environment (Issue #89 - 2013)
Evaluating IFAD's Country Programme in Syria (Issue #2 - 2002)
Albania: Mountain Areas Development Programme (Issue #57 - 2008)
Ethiopia: Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #59 - 2009)
IFAD Replenishments Corporate-level evaluation (Issue #92 - 2014)
IFAD’s Support to Scaling Up of Results (Issue #125-2017)
Corporate-level evaluation on IFAD’s Decentralization Experience (issue #119 - 2016)
Enhancing partnerships in development: IFAD support to South-South cooperation (Issue #116-2016)
The Sudan: Country Programme Evaluation 2008/9 (Issue #62 - 2009)
Kingdom of Morocco: Country programme evaluation (Issue #54-2008)
Providing finance for commercial farming (Issue #94)
Impact evaluation of the Agricultural Support Project in Georgia (Issue #127 - 2017)
Tunisia: Integration Disintegrated (Issue #25 - 2004)
Argentina: Rural Development Project for the Northeastern Provinces (Issue #63 - 2009)
Going organic: an attractive alternative for small farmers? (Issue #19-2004)
Republic of Guatemala: Inducing development in a post-conflict setting (Issue #65 - 2009)
Brazil: A multi-dimensional approach to rural poverty reduction (Issue #77 - 2011)
Philippines: Helping indigenous people and the poor in upland, coastal and agrarian-reform lowland areas (Issue #65-2009)
Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Country programme evaluation (Issue #56 - 2008)
Seizing Strategic Opportunities for Rural Poverty Alleviation (Issue #91 - 2014)
India Country Programme Evaluation (#114 - 2016)
Effective Partnership between India and IFAD (Issue #68 - 2010)
Promoting commercial smallholder agriculture (issue #88 - 2013)
From reconstruction to growth in Rwanda (Issue #83 - 2012)
Tanzania's rural poor: Making it to market (Issue#81 - 2011)
Mozambique country programme evaluation: Developing capacity from scratch in rural areas (Issue #69 - 2010)
Successful integrated rural development in Madagascar (Issue #60 - 2009)
Impact Evaluation of Sofala Bank Artisanal Fisheries Project (Profile issue #122)
United Republic of Tanzania Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #103 - 2015)
Ghana Rural Enterprises Project, Phase II (Issue #82 - 2011)
Alleviating poverty through natural resources management (Issue #76 - 2011)
Ghana: Country Programme Evaluation Profile (2012)
Evaluation Profile République du Bénin Projet d'activités génératrices de revenus (PAGER)
Increased productivity of roots and tubers in Benin (Issue #71 - 2010)
Evaluation Synthesis on IFAD’s Engagement in Middle-Income Countries: Profile (Issue #96-2014)
Corporate-level evaluation on IFAD’s Performance-based Allocation System (PBAS) (issue #112 - 2016)
Profile: Corporate-level evaluation on IFAD’s engagement in fragile and conflict-affected states and situations (Issue #104-2015)
Plurinational State of Bolivia: Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #102 - 2015) - Spanish
Plurinational State of Bolivia: Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #102 - 2015) - English
Profile: Annual Report on the Results and Impact 2017
Profile: Annual Report on the Results and Impact 2016
Profile: Annual Report on the Results and Impact 2015
Profile: Annual Report on the Results and Impact 2014
Profile: Annual Report on the Results and Impact 2012
For inclusive sustainable growth – beyond asset transfer and skills training (Insights Issue #65-2021)
Sierra Leone: Bringing financial services closer to rural populations in Sierra Leone (Insight #56-2019)
La promotion de la microentreprise rurale: quel apport du FIDA? (Insight Issue #59-2020) – French
Ecuador: Fortaleciendo las oportunidades para los productores de pequeña escala en las transformaciones rurales del país (Issue 58-2020) – Spanish
Supporting Inclusive Commercialization of Agriculture in Nepal (Insight Issue #57-2019)
Mexico Apoyo a Comunidades, Ejidos y Pequeños Productores Rurales Pobres en la Gestión de Recursos Naturales y Adaptación al Cambio Climático (Insight Issue #55-2019)
Sri Lanka Partnerships between agribusinesses and smallholder farmers (Issue #54-2019)
Kenya: IFAD ’s support to smallholder agricultural value chains in Kenya (Issue #53-2018)
Tunisia: Innovative development approaches in Tunisia for rural poverty reduction (Issue #51-2018) - French
Burkina Faso: Accès effectif et durable des petits producteurs et ruraux pauvres burkinabè aux crédits offerts par des institutions de microfinance (Issue #52-2018) - French
Beyond the framework (Issue #1 - 2003)
Tunisia: Innovative development approaches in Tunisia for rural poverty reduction (Issue #51-2018) - English
Cameroon: Behind every data point there is a human story (Issue #49-2018) - English
Evaluation insight: Republic of Turkey - Addressing challenges in inclusive and sustainable development (Issue #40 - 2016)
Microfinance in Georgia and IFAD’s role in the sector (issue #47 - 2017)
Decentralized project implementation coordinated at the central government level (Issue #16 - 2011) - Spanish
Decentralized project implementation coordinated at the central government level (Issue #16 - 2011) - English
Country context and the impact of IFAD-funded activities (Insight - Issue #8)
Nigeria Country Programme Evaluation insight - Issue #42, 2016
Cambodia - Evaluation insight: Considerations when targeting the rural poor and using a group-based approach (Issue #48-2018)
Angola: A partnership for Farmer Field Schools in Angola (Issue #50-2018) - English
Angola: A partnership for Farmer Field Schools in Angola (Issue #50-2018) - Portuguese
Corporate-level Evaluation on IFAD Replenishments (Issue #28 - 2014) - English
Corporate-level evaluation on IFAD’s engagement in fragile and conflict-affected states and situations (issue #36 - 2015) - English
Grants in other international financial institutions: lessons for IFAD (Issue #32 - 2014 ) - English
Communautés pastorales de la région de Matam (#30 - 2014)
Cameroon: Behind every data point there is a human story (Issue #49-2018) - French
IFAD support for the development of rural enterprises in Viet Nam - work in progress (Issue #20 - 2012)
Ecuador: Challenges and opportunities in an evolving country context (Issue #27 - 2014) - English
Ecuador: Challenges and opportunities in an evolving country context (Issue #27 - 2014) - Spanish
Federative Republic of Brazil Country Programme Evaluation: Insight (Issue #37 - 2015) - Portuguese
Federative Republic of Brazil Country Programme Evaluation: Insight (Issue #37 - 2015) - English
The Philippines Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation - Knowledge management stimulates innovation and bridges the gap between grants and loan projects (Issue #45-2016)
Evaluation insights: Promoting private-sector partnerships in Zambia (Issue #33 - 2014)
Enseignements: Crises, conflits et développement rural dans le Nord du Mali (Numéro 22, mai 2013)
Evaluation insight: Crises, conflicts and rural development in the north of Mali (Issue #22 - 2013)
Evaluation insight: Support to the monitoring and strategic management of the programme and non-lending activities: lessons from the IFAD country programme in Madagascar (Number 25, October 2013)
Enseignements: Appui au suivi et à la gestion stratégique du programme et aux activités hors prêt: leçons du programme de pays du FIDA à Madagascar (Numéro 25, octobre 2013)
Evaluation insight: Better targetting of vulnerable populations (Issue #44 - 2016)
Enseignements: Pour un meilleur ciblage des populations vulnérables (Numéro 44, Octobre 2016)
Evaluation insight: Promoting innovations and scaling up impact (Issue #31 - 2014) - Chinese
Evaluation insight: Promoting innovations and scaling up impact (Issue #31 - 2014) - English
Evaluation insight: The role of IFAD in a middle-income country such as Brazil (Issue #5 - 2008)
Pastoral communities in Matam region (Issue #30 2014)
Mozambique: Rome-based agencies collaborating to improve nutrition in Mozambique (Issue #46 - 2017) - Portuguese
Mozambique: Rome-based agencies collaborating to improve nutrition in Mozambique (Issue #46 - 2017) - English
Agricultural commercialization in Nepal’s hills and mountains (Issue #24 - 2013)
Ethiopia Country programme evaluation: Using a programmatic approach to lending (Issue #38 - 2015)
The Gambia country programme evaluation IFAD’s targeting strategies in The Gambia (Issue #39 - 2015)
Delegation of authority is essential to a successful country presence (Issue #3)
Enhancing sustainability of development benefits in Sudan (Issue #11 - 2009)
Targeting and community development approaches: IFAD’s experience in Morocco (Issue #6 - 2008)
The potential of conservation farming for adaptation to climate change (Issue #28 - 2014)
Plurinational State of Bolivia - Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #34 - 2014) - Spanish
Plurinational State of Bolivia - Country Programme Evaluation (Issue #34 - 2014) - English
Brazil: System-building and leveraging state policies for the development of family agriculture (Issue #17 - 2011)
A Winning Development Strategy? (Issue #2 - 2003)
Operating in remote disadvantaged and conflict-affected areas of Pakistan (Issue #9 - 2008)
Small farmer poverty amidst Indonesia’s rising prosperity (Issue #26 - 2014)
Republic of India Country Programme Evaluation Innovative solutions to improve productivity of rainfed (Issue #43 – 2016)
Empowering women through self-help groups (Issue #13 - 2010)
What might agricultural interventions bring to tribal people? (Issue #12 - 2010)
Rural cooperatives substantially increase their outreach to the poorest rural people in partnership with IFAD (Issue #15 - 2011)
People’s Republic of Bangladesh Country Programme Evaluation: Policy engagement and strategic partnership for greater impact (Issue #41 - 2016)
Value chain development through public-private partnerships: opportunities and challenges for small farmers (Issue #23 - 2013)
Farm intensification, crop diversification and non- farming jobs in Rwanda (Issue #18 - 2012)
Working through an agricultural sector-wide approach and a project-modality - IFAD’s experience in Tanzania (Issue #35 - 2015)
Mozambique country programme evaluation: Improving the market participation of smallholders and artisanal fishers (Issue #14 - 2010)
Matching grants: a smarter way to subsidize rural finance? (Issue #19 - 2012)
Key elements for supporting the renewed focus on agricultural productivity and small-scale agricultural development in Nigeria (Issue #10 - 2009)
The demand-driven approach: advantages and risks (Issue #4 - 2008)
Infographic: Tunisia country strategy and programme evaluation
Infographic: CLE on IFAD's Performance-based Allocation System (2005-2015)
Infographic: CLE IFAD's decentralization experience
Infographic: Turkey Country programme evaluation
Infographic : Impact Evaluation of Sofala Bank Artisanal Fisheries Project
Infographic: Georgia Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation
Infographic: IFAD’s financial architecture - Corporate-level evaluation
Infographic Angola country strategy and programme evaluation – English
Infographic Angola country strategy and programme evaluation – Portuguese
Infographic: Cambodia Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation infographic
Infographic: Bangladesh Country Programme Evaluation
Infographic: Peru Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation - Spanish
Infographic: The Philippines Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation
Arab Republic of Egypt Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation - Infographic
Infographic: United Republic of Tanzania Country programme evaluation
Infographic: Nigeria Country programme evaluation
Infographic: Mozambique country strategy and programme evaluation - Portuguese
Infographic: Mozambique country strategy and programme evaluation - English
Infographic: Evaluaciòn de la Estrategia y el Programa en el País - Repùblica de Nicaragua (1999-2016)
Infographic: Ethiopia Country Programme Evaluation
Infographic: Impact evaluation of the Agricultural Support Project in Georgia
Infographic: IFAD’s Approach to Evaluation Capacity Development
Infographic: Democratic Republic of Congo Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation
Infographic: India Country Programme Evaluation
Infographic: IFAD’s Engagement in Fragile and Conflict-affected States and Situations - Corporate-level evaluation
Infographic: 2017 Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD operations
Approach paper: Georgia Country strategy and programme evaluation
Approach paper: Republic of Mozambique - Sofala Bank Artisanal Fisheries Project
Approach paper: Georgia - Agricultural Support Project
Approach paper: Non-lending Activities in the Context of South-South Cooperation - Evaluation Synthesis
Approach paper: Smallholder Access to Markets: Evaluation Synthesis
Approach paper: IFAD’s Support to Scaling Up of Results
Approach paper: IFAD’s Country-level Policy Dialogue
Approach paper: Building partnerships for enhanced development effectiveness – a review of country-level experiences and results
Approach paper - IFAD’s support to livelihoods involving aquatic resources from small-scale fisheries, small-scale aquaculture and coastal zones
Approach paper – IFAD’s Engagement in Fragile and Conflict-affected States and Situations
Morocco: Rural development project in the eastern middle atlas mountains (French version)
Georgia: Rural Development Programme for Mountainous and Highland Areas
The Philippines: Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme (RuMEPP)
Republic of India Country Programme Evaluation
Approach Paper The Republic of Turkey Country Programme Evaluation
The Philippines
Kingdom of Cambodia
brazil_cpe.pdf
Viet Nam: Pro-poor Partnerships for Agroforestry Development Project
Palestinian Authority Natural Resources Management Programme
Sri Lanka: Post -Tsunami Coastal Rehabilitation and Resource Management Programme
Republica de Perú: Fortalecimiento de mercados, diversificación de los ingresos y mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida en la Sierra Sur Evaluación de los Resultados de Proyecto
Nicaragua: National Agricultural Technology and Training Programme - Technical Assistance Fund
Maldives: Post-Tsunami Agriculture and Fisheries Rehabilitation Programme
Malawi: Rural Livelihoods Support Programme
Lesotho: Rural Financial Intermediation Programme
Republic of Ghana: Root and Tuber Improvement and Marketing Programme (RTIMP)
Approach paper: Democratic Republic of Congo Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation
Cambodia: Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project in Kratie, Preah Vihear and Ratanakiri
Republic of Mozambique
Laos: Northern Region Sustainable Livelihoods Through Livestock Development Project
Guyana: Rural enterprise and agricultural development project
Approach paper: Smallholder Access to Markets: Evaluation Synthesis
Approach paper: IFAD’s Support to Scaling Up of Results
Approach paper: IFAD’s Country-level Policy Dialogue
Approach paper: Building partnerships for enhanced development effectiveness – a review of country-level experiences and results
Approach paper - IFAD’s support to livelihoods involving aquatic resources from small-scale fisheries, small-scale aquaculture and coastal zones
Infographic: Evaluation synthesis report on IFAD's support to fisheries
Infographic: IFAD's Engagement with Indigenous Peoples - Evaluation Synthesis
ECG paper on Gender equality and development evaluation units
Evaluation synthesis brief
What Works for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment: A review of practices and results in IFAD
ESRs at a glance - French
Executive summary
Executive summary
Executive summary
Executive summary
Executive summary
Executive summary
Overview and FAO and IFAD Management's responses - Spanish
Overview and FAO and IFAD Management's responses - French
Overview and FAO and IFAD Management's responses - English
Executive summary
Executive summary
Executive summary
Executive summary
IFAD’s Support to Scaling Up of Results (Issue #125-2017)
Extract from the Agreement at Completion Point
Agreement at Completion Point
The Adoption of Organic Agriculture Among Small Farmers in Latin America and the Caribbean - Spanish
Ethiopia Country Porgramme Evaluation - Agreement at Completion Point
Nigeria Country Programme Evaluation - Agreement at Completion Point
Extract of Agreement at Completion Point: India Country Programme Evaluation
République du Sénégal: Projet de développement agricole dans le département de Matam (PRODAM) - Rapport d’évaluation intermédiaire
Rural Livelihoods Support Programme Agreement at Completion Point
Agreement at completion point

Related Publications

Related Assets

Related news

Related Assets

Related Events

Related Assets