Background

In 2007/2008, IFAD's Office of Evaluation (OE) conducted a Country Programme Evaluation (CPE) in The Sudan. The main objectives of the CPE were to: (i) assess the performance and impact of IFAD's strategy and operations in The Sudan; and (ii) develop a series of findings and recommendations that would serve as building blocks for the preparation of the new IFAD results-based country strategy and opportunities programme (RB-COSOP) for The Sudan. The COSOP would be formulated by the Near East and North Africa Division (PN) of IFAD in close collaboration with the Government of The Sudan.

This Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) includes the key findings and recommendations contained in the CPE. It also benefits from the main discussion points that emerged at the CPE national roundtable workshop, organized in Khartoum on February 25-26, 2009. This ACP captures the understanding between the IFAD management (represented by the Programme Management Department) and the Government of The Sudan (represented by the Ministry of Finance and National Economy) on the core CPE findings, and their commitment to adopt and implement the evaluation recommendations contained in this document within specified timeframes.

The main CPE findings

The Sudan Country Programme brought hope to the most deprived populations following a period of conflict in some areas, and much needed support to state governments and localities where few other donors existed. It provided them with hands-on-experience in innovative areas such as the newly formed CDCs. IFAD has assisted in the introduction of improved agricultural practices, seed varieties and livestock which have enhanced incomes, food security and nutrition. There has been emphasis put on enhancing extension services at the lower administrative levels, and even at village level for some extension staff and service providers like paravets and midwives. There has been an increase in the establishment and improvements of local organizations, training in health care, nutrition, hygiene, especially through the recruitment of female extension staff. The provision of micro-finance to generate enhanced economic activities has increased local economic activities, albeit not always on a sustainable basis.

Community and rural infrastructure (e.g. El Obeid-Bara road) have also improved access to markets. IFAD remains today's largest donor in the Agriculture sector in the country, making the Fund a major partner in the current period of rising agricultural commodity and food prices.

The Evaluation notes that components to strengthen rainfed agricultural services are explicitly present in only two out of the five ongoing IFAD projects, but subsumed under different components in all projects. The Evaluation also found that little technical innovation has been developed by research institutions that could be adopted by beneficiaries. Nevertheless, farmers are already beginning to experiment themselves in some areas such as more intensified use of manure.

They could be assisted with technical advice for on-farm trials, with pastoralists assisted with corral systems for manure collection. A renewed focus on agricultural development raises the challenge of the most suitable targeting strategy for IFAD operations.

The evaluation found that the vast geographic coverage of IFAD activities in The Sudan raises coordination concerns and does not generate sufficient synergies within/across programmes. Greater geographic concentration could be sought to foster agricultural productivity and market linkages, while facilitating project supervision and overall programme management. The diverse agricultural environment in The Sudan is at once a challenge and an opportunity in this regard.

The CPE notes that IFAD missed an opportunity to more systematically follow-up on policy issues notably at the Federal level. The Fund's policy dialogue efforts concentrated mainly at the project level. It is expected that the establishment of a country presence in The Sudan since 2005, will strengthen IFAD's engagement in the policy arena at the national level.

Project sustainability, which has been identified as a key weakness since The Sudan Country Portfolio Evaluation of 1994, requires broader efforts beyond the simple scope of project activities. The Evaluation found hard-earned gains in projects are threatened with loss when projects come to an end and there are no prospects for follow-up with internally generated resources. The solution that consists in phasing out the external (IFAD) contribution during the period of implementation often proved unrealistic, because it takes much more time (in the range of 15-20 years) to reach results that are sustainable. Hence, an important aspect of sustainability is continuity of support to avoid the degeneration and possible loss of good results and assets. At the same time, situation of donor-dependency should be avoided.

The CPE also found that institution building through projects has been one of IFAD's strong points in The Sudan and has demonstrated its appropriateness and relevance for rural poverty reduction. However, the model demands substantial resources, especially at the State/Locality and programme management levels where over 70 per cent of institutional support funding has gone and where institutional and operational linkages are still weak. The model is also based on a number of assumptions that have been found to be optimistic, such as growth of locality government revenues as projects raise agricultural productivity and hence incomes of the farmers (and the private sector more generally) who not only would pay more taxes, but also have capacity to pay for most of the services they require. Community organizations visited which were established or supported by the programme appeared to be still in need of additional capacity building to attain self-reliance.

The CPE rated the overall performance of IFAD portfolio in support of the Government of The Sudan as moderately satisfactory. The CPE notes that The Sudan portfolio performance compares favourably with the average performance of projects implemented in similar country groups.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1:  Agriculture as a Key Sector of Intervention

The Evaluation recommends that IFAD further address the root causes of smallholder low productivity by focussing more on agriculture in the next COSOP. Localities where basic services and infrastructure that have proved to support labour productivity and market access are available could be favoured. In today's environment of rising prices, the issues of value-chain marketing and market access require more consideration than these issues received in the past. IFAD could also build on current efforts such as the decentralised agricultural extension services which have been beneficial to smallholders. Land tenure, traditional rainfed cultivation, overgrazing and livestock should continue to be addressed. However, consideration should be given to pursuing these in a more focused and systematic manner to ensure greater integration and synergies in these areas.

Recommendation 2:  Promoting pro-poor agricultural innovations

Notwithstanding the programme's good performance in the areas of rural finance or institutional innovations, the Evaluation recommends that IFAD redouble efforts in promoting pro-poor agricultural innovations. These have been weaker than innovations in the other programme components. A more systematic approach to replication and scaling up of agricultural innovations should also be developed. In particular, Government and IFAD will identify, test and replicate technological packages that constitute an adaptation to climate change such as technologies for increased soil fertility, herd and range management in drought affected areas, cost effective environmental conservation, energy efficient agro-processing. The main benefits sought from technological innovations are stabilized yields in the rainy season and increased income in the dry season.

Recommendation 3: Scaling up policy dialogue

Building on project-level policy dialogue initiatives that are currently being pursued, the division should scale up agricultural policy dialogue to the national level. This could be done by presenting a limited set of strategic themes for dialogue in the forthcoming Sudan COSOP which are the most relevant to the new strategic orientations. Policy dialogue on these strategic themes could then be enhanced and sustained through the life of the next COSOP through the regular follow-up and analysis mandated in the RB-COSOP framework, including annual workshops and the mid-term review exercise. Regularly revisiting dialogue on policy issues also presents the potential to establish a more transparent partnership and consultation mechanism, making it possible to better engage with national and local level authorities, civil society and the wider donor community. The end result would be a more holistic country programme and, ultimately, more sustainable development impact.

Recommendation 4: Tackling Sustainability

The Evaluation recommends that the next COSOP ensure sustainability is incorporated in the broad framework of the strategic elements of the Country Programme in terms of design (e.g. clarity of exit strategies), and partnership (e.g. stakeholder ownership) at the outset of the new country programme. Also, recognizing the contextual realities of The Sudan, where conflict over natural resource is an integral part of the daily reality of farming and pastoral communities, Government and IFAD should develop their capacity in disaster preparedness and quick response. As part of this, the projects would develop the capacity of the field staff in conflict prevention as integral component of its programmatic interventions in The Sudan in order to enhance sustainability. Furthermore, the Fund's assistance to the state owned banks such as the Agricultural Bank of Sudan (ABS), which resulted in a major change in its rural finance policy, should be pursued if gains achieved are to be further enhanced and sustained.

Proposed timeframe to implement recommendations 1-4

The recommendations will be taken into account in formulating the new results-based COSOP and new operations in The Sudan.

Key partners to be involved

Government of The Sudan, the concerned technical and financial partners at both the federal and state levels, civil society organizations, private sector and IFAD, will be involved in implementation.

Agreement at Completion Point signed in Khartoum - February 2009 by

• Mr.  Eltayeb Abu Ganaya
  Undersecretary, MOFNE
• Mr. Nadim Khouri
  Director, Near East and North Africa Division, IFAD