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.