Interim evaluation

Agreement at completion point

Background and introduction

In 2008, the Office of Evaluation (OE) of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) conducted an interim evaluation of the Rural Development Programme for Las Verapaces (PRODEVER) in Guatemala. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with IFAD's Evaluation Policy and the approach paper agreed upon by the key evaluation stakeholders during the preparatory mission that took place in April 2008.

Among other important stages in the evaluation process, a mission visited the country from 30 April to 23 May 2008, including visits to the field. Upon completion of the main mission, at a meeting held on 22 May 2008, an aide-memoire was presented to introduce the main findings, to elicit initial feedback and gather stakeholder reactions. As the last stage in the evaluation process, on 18 March 2009, in Guatemala City, a workshop was held and inaugurated by Giddel Sazo, Deputy Executive Director of Cooperation and Local Development. This workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the evaluation results, including recommendations.

The agreement at completion point reflects the agreement between the Government of Guatemala (represented by the National Fund for Peace [FONAPAZ]) and IFAD's management (represented by the Latin America and Caribbean Division [PL]) on the evaluation's main findings and recommendations, as well as the commitment to adopt and implement them. Although OE facilitated the process, it is not a party to the ACP.

Main evaluation findings

Following the signing of the Peace Agreements in Guatemala at the end of 1996, the country's socio-economic context presented enormous obstacles and challenges to the Government of Guatemala in designing initiatives to promote rural development. Against this backdrop, PRODEVER was conceived as a pioneering programme to try out new modalities in response to the many needs of indigenous peoples and promote development in Las Verapaces.

PRODEVER has made a noticeable contribution to the development of Las Verapaces. In particular: it helped promote traditional commercial crops (particularly coffee, cardamom and cacao) and business organization processes, supported investment in collection centres and drying plants; and directly tied producers' groups to value chains and more advanced market links. To this end, PRODEVER forged strategic alliances with Agexport, FUNCAFE and Fair Trade to create new market opportunities. An innovation in this area was the production of typical textiles, which are highly valued in the market and highly relevant culturally. On the other hand, PRODEVER has been less effective in preserving the natural resource base, encouraging non-agricultural activities and improving food security. Nevertheless, environmental practices are currently being strengthened to restore soil fertility, mitigate and reverse environmental degradation, and strengthen environmental education in organizations at the primary, basic and diversified levels.

PRODEVER focused on the needs of a highly differentiated target population, and proposed to address an ambitious range of issues, all of them important, but which overtaxed the programme's implementation capacity.

Overall, the ratio of resources invested to results achieved has not been satisfactory owing to dispersion over too many (sub)components, implementing agency approval procedures poorly adapted to implementing multiple lines of activity, and the replacement of the entire programme team in February/March 2008. On the other hand, continuity in the project management and team from start-up in March 2002 until the end of 2007 was crucial to achieving PRODEVER's results.

An increasing economic dynamic was observed in Las Verapaces during programme implementation, to which PRODEVER made a substantial contribution in the form of training, technical assistance and investment in production and roads. The programme opened up new opportunities for raising sustainable incomes and contributed to reducing poverty among the target population. However, its impact differed with respect to each of the two target population groups served (those owning land and producing traditional commercial crops such as coffee and cardamom, and those with no land). The best results were achieved in the segment of landowning families, who achieved marked increases in their incomes within a relatively short period (two to three years). On the other hand, despite major efforts to promote training and literacy projects, support community investments, and promote awareness-raising campaigns in reproductive health and food security, the programme had less of an impact on more vulnerable target groups lacking resources. The evaluation points out that in order to obtain greater impact and reduce poverty among this second group of beneficiaries, different approaches, measures and methods are required, and PRODEVER did not clearly differentiate among them. In addition, a significantly longer period of time is required.

Within the post-conflict context of Las Verapaces, PRODEVER's participatory approach and social capital development were innovative elements. In addition, new technologies and production alternatives were introduced (fruit, tourism), tying production to more advanced links in the marketing chain. In this regard, the programme offers promising experiences that could be replicated. PRODEVER's main achievements in productive development, social organization (associations) and road infrastructure offer good prospects for sustainability without continuous support from an external programme.

The Government of Guatemala, through FONAPAZ, generally fulfilled its financial obligations and provided support for the programme and its team. Performance by the PRODEVER team was satisfactory, and was recognized as such by the Government. IFAD devoted major efforts to monitoring the programme closely, and facilitated an exchange on lessons learned and best practices with other projects in Guatemala and elsewhere in Latin America. In addition, IFAD had a notable influence on the setting of strategic guidelines on promoting rural development by MAGA, FONAPAZ and other agencies of the Government of Guatemala.

Recommendations agreed upon by the parties

Issue I.  Programme design

Recommendation 1.  Consider modifying the preparation of future programmes similar to PRODEVER by giving more of a voice to stakeholders active in the project area.

To this end, it is recommended, first of all, that national consultants be hired in the project area, together with an external consultant to act as a facilitator, in support of drafting proposals that meet IFAD requirements. Second, a campaign is needed to publicize the project/programme proposal in the area in advance, raising awareness and supporting regional and local counterparts on the project proposal and its implementation. Third, a better definition is needed of what an initial design should include and what should be left to the implementation stage (to avoid a design that is superseded by changes), to ensure sufficient flexibility in the project/programme design.

Responsible agencies:        IFAD and the Government of Guatemala would be responsible for implementing this recommendation, which would be reflected in future IFAD-funded operations in Guatemala.

Timeline:     Immediate

Recommendation 2.  Intensify the search for alternative ways to promote bottom-up savings and credit, to encourage the development of small financial markets adapted to the habits of potential community clients (savings and credit associations).

It is necessary to differentiate the approach in response to different financing needs of smallholders. On one hand, commercial credit needs to be developed at the same time as supporting forms of micro-savings and credit for various family and community purposes. On the other, community microfinance organizations already existing in rural communities neighbouring Las Verapaces could be expanded to the PRODEVER area (see RedFASCO). At the same time, other mechanisms should be considered (e.g. credit funds) for placements by intermediary financial institutions (PRODERQUI model).

Responsible agencies:        IFAD and the Government of Guatemala are responsible for implementing this recommendation for the programme following on PRODEVER in Las Verapaces, and in relation to future IFAD-funded operations in Guatemala.

Timeline:     Immediate

Issue II. Focus on different target groups requiring different methodologies

Recommendation 3.  Identify, from the outset, different approaches and methods to support different types of target groups: those who have the potential to lift themselves out of poverty through economic investments, and those living in extreme poverty without resources who need social assistance, at least initially.

To this end, approaches, objectives and strategies should be designed and adopted that are specifically adapted to the different target groups, as for instance under PRODENORTE. In that programme, approaches differentiated by level of development are applied: (i) a first approach, "development induction", addressed to persons and families living in extreme poverty and virtually without the means of production; and (ii) a second approach, "modernization of rural production", for families and associations with plantations of commercial crops, based on a strategy of business consolidation and market access for rural microenterprises.

Responsible agencies:        IFAD and the Government of Guatemala would be responsible for implementing this recommendation, which would be reflected in future IFAD-funded operations in Guatemala.

Timeline:     Immediate

 Recommendation 4.  Incorporate lessons learned under food security projects carried out by PRODEVER to improve interventions addressed to the country's poorest 45 municipalities, which have been prioritized by the Government of Guatemala.

The design of measures needed by different target groups should be differentiated by production system (commercial or subsistence), based on prior research, e.g. by local universities. It is also very important to define support options based on different areas and environmental conditions, and to consider prospects for improving and complementing forms of production already in place.

Responsible agencies:        The Government of Guatemala would be responsible for implementing this recommendation with IFAD support.

Timeline:     Immediate

Issue III.  Programme management

Recommendation 5.Include in IFAD's loan agreements a due diligence requirement with respect to the executing capacity of the implementing agency, evaluating requirements in terms of governance and administrative guidelines to be met by future projects and their degree of compliance to ensure smooth and successful implementation.

Due diligence is understood as the creation of a permanent team qualified to perform programme implementation, monitoring and evaluation, in accordance with recommendations and commitments under the Paris Declaration on ownership and alignment with State policy on rural development.

Responsible agencies:        The Government of Guatemala would be responsible for implementing this recommendation with IFAD support.

Timeline:     Immediate

Recommendation 6.  It recommended that a review be performed, together with FONAPAZ, of PRODEVER's current operating and financial capacity, including Government contributions, up to the programme's conclusion. In addition, consideration should be given to a review of the continuing components and subcomponents and those which are to be closed, to enhance the sustainability of supported structures. Also, the logical framework should be adapted and simplified. Finally, it is recommended that annual financial planning be established up to the programme's conclusion, including government contributions, with a view to reducing programme financial resources and therefore the number of staff, to ensure successful completion and the achievement of proposed objectives and goals.

Responsible agencies:        The PRODEVER project team and FONAPAZ are responsible for implementing this recommendation.

Timeline:     This recommendation is currently being implemented (since March 2009).

Issue IV.  Links with permanent local structures and scope of sustainability

Recommendation 7.  Establish closer links between programme initiatives and permanent structures now emerging in the area: municipalities, development councils and others at the communal, municipal and departmental levels.

To strengthen these links, it is necessary to take into account strategic planning by Government institutions on issues relating to the programme. Also, IFAD should offer technical support to the State institutions involved in rural development, according to their needs in this area. 

Responsible agencies:        FONAPAZ, IFAD and other Government institutions that promote or are involved in the decentralization process.

Timeline:     Immediate

Issue V.  Policy dialogue on rural development in the country

Recommendation 8.  It is suggested that policy dialogue be maintained and reinforced by setting an agenda agreed upon by the authorities, IFAD and other agencies, with periodic meetings and work plans that include a review of the application of the Government's rural development policies.

It is important to set up a rural development sector round table, to identify actors (national and potential cooperants) and prioritize actions. A sector development plan is also needed at the local level.

Responsible agencies:        National Council on Rural Development, FONAPAZ, Secretariat of Agrarian Affairs, MAGA and IFAD.

Timeline:     Immediate

Signed at Guatemala City.

Jairo Flores
Executive Director
FONAPAZ

Pedro Enrique Murguía Oropeza
Central America, México and the Caribbean Coordinator
Country Programme Manager for Guatemala, IFAD