Introduction

During the period 12 – 30 September 2005, IFAD's Office of Evaluation (OE) fielded an Evaluation Mission (EM) to Mozambique in order to undertake the necessary field work for the project evaluation of the Niassa Agricultural Development Project. In Maputo, the EM met with the National Directorate for Promotion of Rural Development (DNPDR), now under the Ministry of Planning and Development (MPD), which at the national level currently is responsible for project coordination. Meetings were also held with national sector stakeholders and donors. During 15-24 September, the EM worked in Niassa Province with the Project Facilitation Unit (PFU), relevant provincial directorates, involved NGOs, and the district administrations and communities in Lichinga and Sanga Districts. A meeting and a workshop were organised with the NADP Steering Committee and key stakeholders in Niassa Province to present and discuss its preliminary findings of which some were based on estimates and limited data. Subsequently, an aide memoir was prepared in order to present and discuss the findings with central government at a debriefing meeting in Maputo organised by DNPDR.  

The Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) is an understanding between IFAD and the Government of Mozambique (GOM). It illustrates the evaluation partners' understanding of the evaluation's findings and recommendations, and their commitment to adopt and implement them.

The main evaluation findings

Overall, NADP has been moderately unsuccessful. However, the support for secondary and feeder roads and for community initiatives has been moderately successful. Within the community initiatives component the support for water points has been successful and provided significant benefits for some 43 000 persons. The support for rehabilitating the primary road from Lichinga to Cuamba achieved only half of the target, and the rehabilitation works were inadequate. The Agricultural Support Services component contributed to improved capacity of extension services (SPER) and agricultural research (EAL) which undertook many activities and produced several outputs with the support of NADP. However, the many efforts did not result in any noticeable increase in food crop yields and production. An initiative to promote produce and input trade and marketing did not achieve the intended results.

The reasons why the support for agriculture failed to produce the envisaged impact need further analysis. One explanation could be that there were no functioning markets, neither for inputs and tools which farmers were recommended to use, nor for the produce in case farmers should have a surplus for sale. Another explanation could be that most farmers considered their traditional practice of shifting cultivation as the optimal choice given the abundance of land in the area. They therefore had no demand for intensifying their production, and therefore no demand for the inputs recommended. Finally, it is possible but far from certain that better impact would have been obtained if the participatory approaches of the NADP design had been applied, including the establishment of 300 Village Extension Guides.

The overall modest rating can partly be explained by unrealistic targets in the project design against which the achievements have been compared. The design overestimated the population of the target districts, and thus the target group, by about 100 per cent. At the same time, the design underestimated the challenges of working in an area with negligible institutional and human capacity within the public and private sector. As a consequence, the assumptions about performance and benefits were unrealistic. The problems of defining the assumptions and context correctly were largely due to the extreme uncertainty that prevailed during the period in which the project was designed.

In spite of a modest overall rating, NAPD has been an important project. At the time, NAPD was the first major intervention in Niassa and it had a pioneering role, paving the way for others to follow. NADP, together with other support, has made an important contribution to the development of the capacity in Niassa's public and private sectors from a very negligible base. And, NADP has positively changed the daily life of many households through its support for water points, roads, and rehabilitation of education and health facilities.

Recommendations agreed upon by all partners

Inception reviews should be implemented when projects are designed in situations of extreme uncertainty (such as post-conflict and post-emergency) to assess the validity of design assumptions and the design itself and to introduce the needed design modifications early in the implementation period. It is unusually difficult to forecast the project context when designing a project at the end of or just after a conflict (or emergency), where the situation is fluid, volatile and uncertain. When "normalcy" returns, the reality may change dramatically within a short period of time (1 year), making some of the project assumptions and part of project design irrelevant.  The time from project approval to Mid-Term Review is normally four to six years, depending on the elapsed time from approval to effectiveness, and this is too long to wait for adjusting design to the changed realities. For this type of situations with extreme uncertainty, it is recommended that IFAD considers introducing an early inception review. The review would be done jointly with the government and have the mandate to recommend the design changes required. Preferably it should be done when the project management team is on board and has had some time (say six months) to assess the situation and the project design.

This recommendation also has relevance to the Government when dealing with emergency situations following natural calamities which unfortunately hits Mozambique occasionally.

Projects in remote areas need to be managed and coordinated locally and the feasibility and problems of doing so need careful assessment at the design stage. During NADP's first five years, implementation was managed and coordinated from Maputo which negatively influenced performance. This was contrary to the design but considered necessary for a number of unexpected practical reasons. Therefore, it is important to assess the obstacles already at the design stage and include measures to reduce the obstacles in the design (special employment conditions, communication facilities etc.).  

In remote areas with limited human and institutional capital, considerable investments in capacity development are required during the early implementation phase, and repeat-training is needed to bring new staff on board. These needs are significantly higher in multi-sector projects with many implementation partners. Though NADP had an adequate budget for training it was not utilised, and too little was done initially to define implementation rules and procedures and to train the many partners. In post-conflict and post-emergency situations, there is a natural urge to deliver something on the ground quickly, and there may be a tendency to jump into implementation without first establishing the foundation for doing so. Therefore, the effort to develop capacity and systems need to be intensive but brief. Subsequently, when implementation had started, staff in the PFU and the partner agencies changed frequently, and much more should have been done to organise repeat-training in order to bring new staff on board. Such investments may be considered as "delivery costs" and for a multi-sector project in a remote area working with numerous institutions with limited capacity, these costs are considerable but necessary for achievement of impact. It is recommended that a firm commitment should be made at inception by all, including Government, to avoid as much as possible high turn-over in key staff.

Since 1994, IFAD has obtained more grant resources for supporting the portfolio and the partner countries. In a future project similar to NADP, it would be relevant to use grants to support capacity development and the provision of close guidance and support, in particular during the initial stage.

The capacity of District Administrations has improved significantly over the project period, and if NADP were to be implemented today, District Administrations could serve as implementing agencies for many of the NADP supported activities, while the provincial government would have the overall implementation responsibility. A District Administration of 2006 is completely different from a District Administration of 1994. With some support, most district administrations would today be capable of implementing many of the NADP activities. As compared to the current management from a provincial directorate in Lichinga town, this would bring management closer to the beneficiaries, with a number of consequential benefits.

Finally, in a possible future area-based multi-sector project, IFAD and GOM may consider to assign the overall implementation responsibility to the provincial government, instead of a national line agency, but with the Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Planning and Development providing general oversight and serving as the official national counterpart.

An effective approach to raising agricultural productivity, production and incomes in sparsely populated remote areas has not been identified. This is a frustrating experience as a major effort was invested in this objective. It remains for discussion why the efforts had limited impact and what could have been done differently to ensure the achievement of this important objective.

NADP's support for developing private commercial activities has not achieved its objectives. Effective approaches for how government/donors may support and facilitate development of commercially viable activities in the private agribusiness sector is required.