Preamble

This Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) is based on discussions and deliberations of the partnership of the findings and recommendations of the Country Programme Evaluation (CPE) report of May 2004. It gathers the key recommendations that the concerned partners have agreed to integrate in the preparation of the future Country Strategic Opportunities Paper (COSOP).

It has been drafted on the basis of a first discussion of the report's recommendations at the National Workshop on the CPE, on the 13th – 14th May 2004, followed by an exchange of points of view by mail. It was finalized on the 17th February 2005 at the margin of the Governors' Meeting.

The Core Learning Partnership for the CPE consisted of representatives of the Beninese authorities (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fishery (MALF), Ministry of Finance, local government and decentralized agencies), the NGO community, farmers' organizations and various development partners, as well as IFAD's Western and Central Africa Division and Office of Evaluation

The essential stages of the CPE were the preparation of the approach paper, a preparatory assessment of the projects, self-assessments by the projects and the CPE mission itself, which was carried out from 12th November to 3rd December 2003. The final stage, the National Workshop on 13th 14th May 2004 in Cotonou, brought together about a hundred representatives of the aforementioned partners.

Principal findings of the CPE

The CPE found, first and foremost, that the IFAD programme in Benin is a good programme which is yielding good results and have a real impact on poverty, and that it fully deserves to be continued. However, it raised questions regarding the sustainability and scope of some activities.

A. Dialogue, partnership and participation

Partnership in formulating the COSOP. The ultimate objective of IFAD's programmes and projects is to contribute to the reduction of rural poverty, in particular by increasing the incomes of the poor parts of the population; assuring their food security; facilitating their access to capital, production technologies and natural resources; and enabling the poor to pursue their own development. The CPE noted that the 1997 COSOP was, generally speaking, in line with the policies of Benin, but that it had been prepared in a rather unilateral manner and that it had remained a little-known document among the Beninese partners. In late 2002, the IFAD Executive Board approved a procedure for the preparation of COSOPs through a participatory process that involves all stakeholders in the country in question, the aim being to ensure ownership of the COSOP by the country's authorities. IFAD also defined the policies that it intends to follow in various sectors. In recent years, the Beninese authorities, too, have articulated policies on the development of agriculture, livestock and fishery and on poverty reduction (Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper – PRSP).

Strategic partnerships and policy dialogue. As important as IFAD may be in Benin, is only one element amongst numerous other development activities. As a general policy, IFAD seeks to establish strategic partnerships in two ways, i.e. through enhancing the effectiveness of operations through a better coordination among the parties involved and through sharing of positive experiences (successful innovations), and secondly by fostering dialogue on development policies in its role as an advocate for the poorest. The CPE noted that a number of admirable initiatives have been undertaken by the heads of the IFAD project management units, but that much more remains to be done. The CPE also pointed out that the development policy dialogue requires a more sustained effort. Moreover, as dialogue implies a will to convince and an openness to be convinced by the partner, just as it requires flexibility and the ability to adapt activities in accordance with the outcome of the dialogue. In other words, it means raising the question of a stronger and more permanent presence for IFAD in Benin and also of a more prominent role for the Beninese authorities in coordinating external aid, as well as methods for adapting activities.

Flexibility and risk management. IFAD programmes and projects are of considerable scale and run for relatively long periods, which is in the nature of things. However, the strategic partnerships, coordination, adaptation of policies within the framework of dialogue and acquired experience mean that the programmes and projects may need to be implemented differently than originally envisaged. The CPE found that there was some flexibility in implementation. Furthermore, as IFAD seeks to promote innovation through the introduction of new techniques, methods and approaches to development, it is prepared to take the risks inherent in any innovative undertaking and to deal with any problems that may occur as a result. The impression gained during the CPE was that IFAD leaves the management of such risks or problems to its collaborators, who more or less assume them along with their own risks. In the same way, the CPE found that the project supervision attached major importance to quantitative aspects, with too little attention to qualitative, innovative and strategic aspects. However, the CPE noted with satisfaction that the project managers were aware of this and appeared very open in this respect. These issues arise mainly due to IFAD's relations with cooperating institutions, entrusted with the project supervision and loan administration.

Participation by beneficiaries. The CPE affirmed that the sustainability of the activities carried out by a development project is largely a function of the extent to which the beneficiaries take ownership of the project. Achieving this ownership will be all the easier the more closely the beneficiaries are involved in the formulation and follow up of the activities. Actual operational participation by beneficiaries has improved steadily since the 1997 COSOP. An effective participation of the major partners is noted at different stages of the project cycle.

Helping the poor to manage their own development

Targeting of beneficiaries. In keeping with its mandate, IFAD strives to help reduce rural poverty. IFAD projects in Benin apply two methods, which appear to have borne fruit. One is "self-targeting", whereby the project attracts the target group "automatically", in that it is the only group to be interested in what the project has to offer. The Financial Services Associations (FSAs) is a good example, inasmuch as it is the poor and poorest who stand to benefit, individually or collectively, from becoming members and utilize the loan services. However, it seems that the young (both sexes) are not well targeted at present through this method. In the other targeting method, the project facilitator in the village identifies, in consultation with the community, who will participate in the project activities. This targeting method seems to have yielded good results, although the outcome depends on the facilitator's "people skills" and on relations within the village. Indeed, this form of targeting can be misused by the social power relationships when the local leaders make themselves the spokespeople for the village and designate the beneficiaries. It also sometimes happens that efforts to promote the advancement of women create tensions within families or communities because the increased autonomy that they enjoy is not consonant with the traditional view of gender roles. It seems necessary to undertake a social intermediation effort within the community to improve the condition of the rural women.

Collective sensitization and individual achievement. It is obvious that only a method of collective sensitization of the target groups to the project or programme objectives will make it possible to reach a large number of people. The same is generally true for training activities aimed at a group. However, the CPE noted that this collective approach was also being used to encourage beneficiaries to form self-development groups (also called "production groups"), which then require considerable guidance and institutional support in view of enabling them to become economically viable entities – which does not appear to be realistic in a number of cases. This extension of the collective approach into production activities has proved neither effective nor efficient, as the beneficiaries appear to have been much more interested in individual or family production activities. As a result, credits obtained for a group, for example, have later been divided up among the group members to finance individual production.

Participation and/or ownership? The IFAD projects use the "faire-faire approach" ("Do-Do"), under which the project employs service providers to closely guide and instruct the beneficiary groups, and it contracts services providers (NGOs, private entrepreneurs, etc.) to carry out the activities of the programme, all in a more or less participatory manner. With the "faire avec approach" ("Do with") the project uses service providers to support beneficiary populations, helping them learn to take and carry out decisions (including handling the contractual relations). The activities in the programme are seen as a framework from which populations can identify those that meet their needs, decide which they can do themselves and which ones not, and who to call on for help on the latter ones. This approach obviously places more responsibility on the beneficiaries and is more conducive to beneficiary ownership than the faire-faire approach, but it is also more demanding. The CPE found that the project managers are aware of this, but that they perhaps lack experience in dealing with these rather delicate issues. Indeed, the gradual introduction of the approach requires a certain amount of caution and a solid method that will safeguard against a facile populism. It implies a transfer of skills and therefore of powers, and the knowledge needed to utilize them effectively must be acquired and strengthened through practice. It is a learning process that must take place in order to lay a solid foundation for management at the local level. Thus, the two approaches must co-exist for quite some time.

Offering economically viable alternatives. The CPE noted that the income-generating activities (IGA) were not always sufficiently profitable to ensure a decent standard of living for families and that the local markets were easily saturated. These activities would benefit from inclusion in a production chain (filière) approach wherein producers could forge ties with other stakeholders downstream. Where land is scare, poor farmers who develop their production and increase their farmland risk doing so at the expense of those who are even weaker, who will be obliged to give up farming. The same holds true in the fishing sector. The only solution, especially in the southern part of the country, is to promote alternatives to agriculture and fishing per se.

IFAD's mandate in a holistic approach to development

Coordination and synergy. Effective rural development often requires complementary activities at the limit of the mandate of the organization concerned. It may choose to expand its scope of action to address these needs, or it may try to borrow expertise from other organizations, at the least possible cost. Organizations must fit their field of action into a larger whole to avoid re-creating what already exists. The inverse is also true. Two examples will serve to illustrate this point. First, in order for IFAD projects to place more emphasis on achieving functional literacy among beneficiaries, should IFAD develop its own teaching methods and materials, or should it utilize those that others have already developed in Benin? Second, IFAD has acquired significant experience with FSAs as a means of making microcredit available to the local communities; should other organizations develop relatively similar models or should they borrow IFAD's experience?

Creating linkages. Thanks to the activities of the IFAD projects (IGA and rural microfinance through FSAs, e.g.) some beneficiaries have managed to climb out of poverty and are no longer really poor. However, while they are no longer part of the target population, they still need financial or organizational support, albeit perhaps of a different nature, to enable them to continue progressing. A similar problem arises when projects intervene only on certain activities at a specific stage of the production chain (filière) solving some problems but also creating others (e.g. promotion of cassava growing and processing, which is rapidly thwarted by the limited absorption capacity of the local market).

A programme or a set of projects: a certain centralization. The four IFAD-supported projects currently under way in Benin form a coherent whole and exhibit many similarities. They basically have the same development objectives, and similar components if in varying ratios. Thus, the four individual operations can be considered as a coherent support program to the government's program. However, certain management tools are not at all similar, in part due to the fact that the cooperating institutions are different, which a programmatic approach to management difficult. They are also in line with the Poverty reduction strategy adopted by the Beninese authorities. The next COSOP could follow the same line.

Support for decentralization. The decentralization and creation of municipalities are proceeding in Benin. The legal and regulatory framework has been established, and elections taken place. But the political and administrative authorities at municipal level are still rather weak when faced with their duties. The municipality (and the villages that comprise it) could become the level at which the various external aid activities agencies should be coordinated through the development and implementation of a municipal development plan. The project coordination units have begun to study this issue.

The recommendations

The CPE report and the recommendations it contained have been discussed in depth during the National Workshop.

Dialogue, partnership and participation

Partnership in developing the COSOP

The next COSOP for Benin, which will remain an IFAD policy document, will be consistent with the decision by the Executive Board in late 2002. Its general focus on the reduction of rural poverty will be maintained, and it will focus in particular on the linkages to the PRSP and the general agricultural policy documents approved in recent years by Benin, with a view to ensuring ownership of the document by the Beninese authorities. The COSOP will be prepared by means of a participatory process, involving all concerned Beninese stakeholders.

Any IFAD general, sectoral or regional policy documents with a bearing on on-going projects should be disseminated in a targeted manner, through a communication effort adapted to the national context.

Strategic partnerships and policy dialogue

The effort to form strategic partnerships with the other donors in Benin, and not only with the cooperating institutions, should be continued to avoid duplications and make best use of the existing resources, all in a re-invigorated spirit of collaboration and coordination. The coordination should be beneficial to all parties, and it should also make the role of public institutions easier. IFAD should sensitize its project managers, as well as its staff and consultants, to this need. Furthermore, it should be attempted to establish institutional and/or organizational mechanisms to allow the Partnership to be effective.

IFAD's presence in Benin should be stronger and more permanent to ensure its participation in development policy dialogue and its role as an advocate for the poor. A solution is needed that will also enable increased coordination with other development partners (the idea of a national IFAD representative in Benin has been proposed). The project coordinators should be encouraged to participate more actively in policy dialogues in their respective fields of action.

Flexibility and risk management

The IFAD should examine its current management practices to determine if they provide a suitable framework for managing flexibility, innovation and risks, and for making adjustments when needed. In particular, the decisions taken in this regard should be better documented.

Projects reporting should devote more attention to the analysis of the qualitative, innovative and strategic aspects, and cooperating institutions should do the same. IFAD should examine how to give more precise guidance and establish minimum standards for the supervision that would be part of the mandates entrusted to cooperating institutions.

Participation by beneficiaries

The next COSOP should present clear guidelines on the various aspects involved in strengthening beneficiary participation in formulating and implementing the programme. They should be developed following an examination of the experience gained and the different approaches employed under the projects of IFAD and other cooperation agencies and should indicate how experiences are to be recorded as part of a learning process.

Helping the poor to manage their own development

Targeting of beneficiaries

IFAD should enter into a dialogue with authorities and rural stakeholders in order to establish a strategy for those that grow out of the target population. They should then receive ongoing support in order to keep them out of poverty (see also para. 27/31).

If the young remain a target group, the activities proposed to them must meet their concerns, if they are to have any chance of generating interest.

The next COSOP should reflect IFAD's general policies with regard to women and should present approaches to the promotion of women that consider the difficulties they face.

Collective sensitization and individual achievement

The collective approach should be continued for activities that lend themselves to it (e.g. sensitization, extension and training) in order to reach as many people as possible. The approach and its operational modalities should be carefully examined, with full recognition of the importance of the individual initiative in certain activities (e.g. production).

Participation and/or ownership?

A study of suitability and feasibility of the "faire avec" approach, which gives the beneficiaries greater responsibility, should be undertaken as part of the formulation of the next COSOP, with the aim of identifying areas of intervention that might benefit from this approach and determining what support would be needed by project staff in order to apply it effectively. If the COSOP recommends this approach, it should be introduced gradually into existing projects and monitored closely so as not to lose the effectiveness achieved by the project management units.

Offering economically viable alternatives

The drafting of the next COSOP should be the based on a strategic reflection aimed at, on the one hand, determining how to increase the profitability of the IGAs through a filière approach (vertical production chain) and what alliances to foster for that purpose. And on the other hand, how to promote activities that are not land-dependent (small-scale livestock with zero grazing techniques, processing of agricultural and fishery products, crafts etc.), which can provide a decent family income that does not rely on the availability of land or on fishing activities. Pressure on the land must be decreased just as land rights must be secured.

IFAD's role in a holistic approach to development

Coordination and synergy

IFAD should focus its activities on a limited number of areas and address as many needs as possible, without attempting to cover all the rural development needs of the poor which it cannot do. This is why coordination of activities, strategic alliances and policy dialogue should receive increasing emphasis in the future.

Thus, the rural microfinance system (FSAs), for example, should be extended, reinforced by a modest umbrella structure which would ensure personnel training, establish the rules for the conduct of business, monitor the financial viability of the FSAs, would form alliances with other systems pursuing the same goals and applying similar methods, offer linkages with other institutions for its members who need larger amounts of credit and be an advocate for microfinance among the national entities responsible for overseeing savings and lending systems. The ultimate goal is a system that will gradually achieve institutional autonomy and economic viability. IFAD support should be assured throughout this period of reorganization and consolidation.

Creating linkages

When IFAD decides, for reasons of practicality or expertise, to limit its scope of action, it should offer linkages to other institutions that can address the needs that it cannot meet.

A strategy should be devised, for example, to assist those individuals amongst the poorer whose success lifts them out of the target groups: additional support, up to a certain point, through IFAD projects and/or the establishment of linkages to other institutions.

Further, the IGAs based on improved agricultural production, small-scale livestock or fishery could, for example, be incorporated in more profitable production chains that integrate processing and marketing. It could link the local level with the national level, and alliances should be forged with the various actors at the different points of the chain, so allow IFAD projects to focus on one part of the chain. Closer collaboration should be established with farmers' organizations, by geographic area and by sector of production.

A programme or set of projects: a certain centralization

The next COSOP should emphasize national projects/programmes rather than area based ones. Stronger centralization through one single national programme encompassing all IFAD interventions is likely to run up against a number of difficulties and complicating factors that would entail more problems than solutions. National projects/programmes are more conducive to consistency and strategic coordination, each addressing a dimension of rural poverty in a specific and professional way.

To facilitate comparisons and choose, based on experience, the most rational and least costly solutions, all projects should adopt uniform guidelines for budgetary allocation of expenditures by category and sub-category. IFAD should devise a means of standardizing the project accounting, regardless of which institution carries out supervision.

Monitoring and evaluation units are necessary for every project/programme, and their work is very useful for purposes of supervision and information. Nevertheless, with a view to ensuring rational and economical use of resources, their work program and the periodicity thereof should be examined to determine whether it is addressing real needs.

But also support for decentralization

A process of strategic reflection should be undertaken on the linkage between project activities and the development of municipalities in Benin, as well as on the support that might be provided to a certain number of municipalities in which there is a particularly strong project presence, in order to help them establish and implement their development plans and strengthen coordination among the various stakeholders involved.