I. Basic Project Data

Project Completion Report Validation Sunamganj Community Based Resource Management Project People's Republic of Bangladesh Date of validation by IOE: October 2016

I. Basic project data

Approval (US$ 000’) Actual (US$ 000’) Region Asia and the Pacific Total project costs 34,285.00 31,505.35 IFAD loan and Country Bangladesh percentage of total 21,973.00 (64%) 27,243.21 (86.5%) Loan number 567-BD Borrower 4,464.00 (13%) 3,624.24 (11.5%) Type of project Agricultural Other institution, (subsector) Development TBD 7,545.00 (22%) 0 Financing type IFAD loan Cofinancier 2 0 Lending terms* HIGH_CON Cofinancier 3 0 Date of approval 12/09/2001 Cofinancier 4 0 Date of loan 303.00 637.90 signature 14/12/2001 Beneficiaries 637.90 (2%) (0.9%) (2%) Date of effectiveness 14/01/2003 Other sources 0

Number of Direct 135,000HH 143,032 total HH Loan 14/11/2001 beneficiaries (revised to 90,000 (direct: 93,619HH, amendment at MTR) indirect: 49,413HH) Loan closure extensions - Nigel Brett; Country Thomas Rath; programme Hubert Boirard managers (current) Loan closing date 30/09/2014 30/09/2014 Hoonae Kim Regional (current); director(s) Thomas Elhaut Mid-term review April 2007 IFAD loan The PCR reports two Project disbursement at figures: 97.99% and completion Adolfo Patron project completion 98.95%, GRIPS report reviewer Martinez (%) 100% Project completion report quality Fabrizio Felloni; Date of the project control panel Michael Carbon completion report 21/05/2014 Source: Appendix 4 of the Project Completion Report. * GRIPS, Investment Project Portfolio, Total Financing, Approved INVPR.

II. Project outline 1. Introduction. The Sunamganj Community-Based Resource Management Project (SCBRMP) was designed under a flexible lending mechanism and was implemented in three phases: phase 1 from January 2003 to December 2007, phase 2 from January 2008 to December 2010, and phase 3 from January 2011 to March 2014. The project was approved by IFAD’s Executive Board on 12 September 2001 and the IFAD loan became effective on 14 January 2003. The project completion and closing date were set at 31 March 2014 and 30 September 2014 respectively. The Mid-term Review (MTR) of the project was carried out in 2007. The total project cost was initially estimated at US$34.29 million, but it was revised to US$26.74 million during the MTR and to US$31.86 million by the second phase review in 2010. The project targets were reduced during the MTR because, as mentioned in the MTR report, cofinancing through Department for International Development did not materialize as originally planned. 2. Project area. The Sunamganj district has an area of 3,768km2 and comprises around 2,820 villages. The region is located in a deep flood plain that remains inundated by monsoon rain water for more than six months a year. The situation is further exacerbated by flash floods caused by pre-monsoon rain in the Meghalaya basin of India. The project area suffers from poor communication, dependence on one crop (boro rice) and open water fishing, it has no control over natural resources, and very limited non- crop income opportunities, which makes life for the poor very challenging. Additionally, there is limited access to safe water, sanitation, primary education and health services, high incidence of diseases, very low literacy rates and very poor health conditions. 3. The project covered all 11 upazilas (sub-district) of the Sunamaganj district, covering various upazilas in different project implementation years. The SCBRMP project intensity of activities varied within the sub-districts according to: level of the poverty, opportunity for development of agriculture and livestock sectors, and feasible location opportunities for specific project interventions. (IFAD, 2014). 4. Project goal, objectives and components. The project aimed at increasing the assets and income of 135,000 households (revised to 90,000 at MTR). 5. The main objectives of the project where: (i) increase the assets and income of 90,000 households (revised from 135,000 at MTR) by developing self-managed grass-roots organizations to improve their access to primary resources, employment, self- employment and credit; and (ii) support the development of an institutional base to replicate the project approach in other areas of Bangladesh. 6. Components and activities:  Component 1– Infrastructure development: The objective was to provide employment to the poorest population groups to mitigate seasonal food shortages, as household food stocks are low before planting1. The activities under this component were identified through the village organizations, prioritizing their infrastructure needs and facilitate processing their demands, the infrastructure projects identified, after project approval, were: (a) construction of community (village) roads to connect villages with mainstream road network; (b) construction of village protection walls to protect villages from wave action; (c) construction of multi-purpose village centers that served as: seed storage, flood shelter, trainings, meeting, social gathering and other activities; (d) building of submergible dam and buried pipes for the irrigation network; (e) installation of water sealed ring latrines to promote hygienic environment for the community; (f) installation of tube-wells and distribution of SONO water filters for Arsenic free drinking water; and (g) employment of rural poor in infrastructural construction and maintenance for increased income.

1 Report and Recommendation of the President for the Sunamaganj Community-Based Resource Management Project, IFAD, 2001

 Component 2 – Community fisheries development: The major objective of this component was to provide the poor with access to benefits of fishery resources on a sustainable basis. The main activities were: (a) transfer of beels2 to poor fishers; (b) improvement of productivity of beels through various technology and management practices such as: re-excavation, establishment of fish sanctuaries, and set up of boundary pillars; (c) development of beel users groups (BUGs); and (d) plant saplings of swamp trees in and around some beels.  Component 3 – Agriculture and livestock development: The objective of this component was to promote crop and livestock production to increase the income and enhance the scope of food security in the communities. The main activities where: (a) agriculture - identification of crops for field trails, demonstration of new or improved field crops and horticulture, participatory demonstrations trials, training and technology promotion; and (b) livestock - introduction on livestock to some upazilas, vaccination and de-warming campaigns, artificial insemination centers, and technical support and trainings.  Component 4- Microfinance: The objective was to deliver savings and credit services at the village level, based on the South Asian Poverty Alleviation Project methodology, policies and procedures3. To do so, the project created credit organizations (COs), which are village-based saving and credit groups, as an institutional platform for savings development and credit mobilization, the programme also trained auditors and regularly audited the COs. The Bangladesh Krishi Bank (BKB) provided loans and facilitated credit within the CO members.  Component 5- Institutional support: The objective was to develop a project management system and support the creation of a viable and sustainable institution to replicate the project. The institutional arrangements for the proposed project were based on three important considerations: (i) limitations in staffing of the ministries in Sunamganj; (ii) severe limitations in communications, which add to the cost of delivering services to beneficiaries; and (iii) the need for effective operational autonomy. To overcome these weaknesses, a project management unit was set up in Sunamganj, and project offices were set up in upazilas to coordinate project activities with the different government agencies. 7. Target group. At project design (2001), it was estimated that out of the 285,530 rural households (98 per cent of the Sunamgaj district total), 51 per cent had no land and were wage dependent and 35 per cent were small/marginal farmers owning less than 1 ha. The Project Completion Report (PCR) states that over 86 per cent of the area’s population constitutes the IFAD target group, hence, around 246,000 households were eligible to benefit from the project. 8. The project aimed at directly reducing poverty and improving living standards of 135,000 households, however, this number was reduced to 90,000 at MTR, given that “despite the efforts of Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) (implementing agency) and IFAD, it has not been possible to secure such co-financing, and this means it will be necessary to reduce the future cost of the project by reducing the target number of credit organizations from 4,500 to 3,000 covering only nine of the 11 upazilas of the district, and reduce the target number of water bodies from about 600 to 300” (IFAD, 2007).

2 A seasonally flooded permanent or semi-permanent water body located within a river floodplain and connected to the river by a natural system of drainage channels (or khals); equivalent to a lake and a very important fish habitat. 3 The objective of the South Asian Poverty Alleviation Project was to help the disenfranchised overcome their poverty through social mobilization at the grassroots level. The project resources were used to promote group formation, train village specialists and managers, provide seed capital for revolving funds and microcredit, share the cost of infrastructure construction, and to assist in policy formulation and monitoring and evaluation. (UNDP, 2007)

9. Financing. When the project was approved, the total project cost was estimated at 34.3 million US$, of which IFAD would finance 22 million US$ (IFAD, 2001). At MTR (2007), the project total cost was revised and reduced to 26.74 million given that no co-financier had been identified. In 2010 the cost was further revised and increased to 31.86 million US$, the second revision concluded on the following cost breakdown: IFAD loan of US$27.53 million, government counterpart financing of US$3.68 million and beneficiaries in kind or cash contribution of US$0.64 million. The PCR states that the budget was revised twice once in November 2007 and in October 2010. Table 1 Project costs* Funding source Planed Percentage of Actual Percentage of Disbursement Expenditure total (%) expenditure total (%) rate (%)

IFAD 27,532.70 86 27,243,210 86 98.9

National 3,684.80 12 3,624,240 12 98 Governments

Beneficiaries 637,900 2 637,900 2 100

Source: Project completion Report 10. Regarding the project component cost, Table 2 shows the approved project budget allocations and the actual disbursement by component. Large budget readjustments were made after the MTR in 2007 and right after completion of the project’s second phase in 2010. The assessment of the changes is further analyzed in the efficiency chapter. Table 2 Component costs

Approved a Actual b Approved (%) Actual (%)

Infrastructure Development 5,652,000 17,779,350 16 56.43

Fisheries Development 8,153,000 3,762,100 24 11.94

Agriculture and Livestock Dev. 2,288,000 1,515,770 7 4.81

Micro-Finance 10,048,000 1,704,660 29 5.41

Institutional support 8,143,000 6,747,730 24 21.41

Source: a: Report and Recommendation of the President (2001); b: Project completion Report (2014). 11. Project implementation. The project was divided into three phases – the first of five years and then two of three years each. The loan agreement states that phase 1 would be implemented from January 2003 to December 2007, and during this period supervision was carried out by UNOPS from 2003 to 2006; then by IFAD which initiated direct supervision from 2007 onwards. 12. The overall responsibility for the project was assumed by LGED, and the project was under the overall guidance of an Inter-Ministerial Project Steering Committee4. The project management unit implemented the project, however, most of the project staff was stationed at Sunamgaj district in one of the nine established Upazila Management Units. The Upazila Management Units were responsible for implementing and monitoring all project activities in the community, and were responsible for the overall activities of the project. The project, at its peak activities had 188 staff members.

4 Headed by the Secretary, Local Government Division, Ministry of Local Government Rural Development and Cooperatives.

13. To implement the agriculture and livestock and fisheries project components, the project had a number of Memorandum of Understanding with technical line agencies such as the Department of Agricultural Extension, the Department of Livestock Services, the Department of Fisheries, and the Department of Forestry. In addition, it also entered into agreements with research agencies such as the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, the Bangladesh Forest Research Institute and others for research and training services. 14. The project included as partners; the Bangladesh Krishi Bank as the provider of credit to the CO members, and The WorldFish5 which acted as independent monitor of fish production and beel ecology and produced independent research reports on fisheries development. 15. At mid-term review the project had shown little progress and had only disbursed 16 per cent of the approved loan. This was due to a slow start and the fact that the initial years focused on the organization and development of the various project offices to implement the project. Additionally, the project status report from 2004 and 2005 classified the project’s PAR value as “Actual Problem”6. However, from 2006 onwards the disbursements improved and the PAR and other related project ratings significantly improved. 16. In phase 2 (January 2008 to December 2010) under the supervision of IFAD, the IFAD allocation increased from 22 million to 24.9 million US$ and significantly improved the disbursement rate from 16 per cent at mid-term review to 62 per cent (IFAD, 2010). Upon completion of phase 2, the project showed significant progress, and had largely reached its physical targets, with four years remaining. 61 per cent of the total project cost in the Development Project Proposal had been spent, and 62 per cent of the IFAD loan of US$25 million was disbursed. The recommendations of the first phase review and supervision missions where all implemented. This improvement is also recognised in the supervision missions and the project status report ratings. 17. Phase 3 was implemented from January 2011 to March 2014, with the loan closing in September 2014, with no project extensions. The project component results are further explained in the delivery of outputs chapter. 18. Intervention logic. The project followed a two-pronged strategy: reduce vulnerability; and create business and income generating opportunities. For example, on one hand, activities such as the community infrastructure, village protection walls, tube-wells for safe water, sanitary latrines and animal health service where designed to reduce social and financial cost and strengthen human, social and physical capacities; and, on the other hand, microcredit, crop and livestock development, submersible dams and buried irrigation systems, access to beels and associated training and capacity building activities were expected to increase the income of beneficiaries. Some activities had complementary benefits. For example, road construction provided access to markets and other facilities and increased farm prices, reduced transportation cost and encouraged more investments. The strategy promoted sustainable development through long term economic opportunities, trainings, graduation progress and flood resilient infrastructure. Delivery of outputs Component 1 - Infrastructure 19. Table 3 presents the quantitative targets and achievement of the infrastructure development component.

5 The WorldFish is an organization specialized in fisheries and aquaculture, that is part of the CGIAR group. 6 Project Status Report online database, IFAD.

Table 3 Outputs and achievements of Component 1 [April 2014] Description Units MTR Revised Achievement % achieved targets plan 7(DPP) at revised (DPP) Tube wells No. 3,000 2,595 2,595 100 Sono filter No. - 1,261 1,261 100 Village protection cum road work km. 220 350 352.152 101 Village protection wall km - 5.00 6.30 126 MVC No. 53 29 29 100 Latrine No. 70,000 78,406 78,406 100 Submersible dams No. - 3 3 100 Buried pipe No. - 8 8 100 Source: Project Completion Report (IFAD, 2014) 20. The project design was approved with no specific targets for the infrastructure component, targets were set at different stages of the project. The MTR report does not include a clear table with the infrastructure targets, however, the annual report for (2008-2009) presents the component targets set at MTR. The PCR shows the targets revised in the Development Project Proposal, however such targets are almost identical to the project achievements. The biggest difference from the achievements to the MTR targets, is with regard to the Multipurpose Village Centers. Some of the issues that led to the reduction of the targets identified in the annual report (2009) were: unavailability of contractors, problem in mobilizing the materials, and unavailability of suitable land for constructions. 21. The formation of Labour Contracting Societies (LCS) groups and Infrastructure Management Committees was at the core of implementation of this component. The project planned on forming 423 Infrastructure Management Committees and training for 3,966 Infrastructure Management Committee members, which has been completed. The target for LCS formed was 5,176 which had been formed by June 2014. Additionally, the project trained 77,253 LCS members on infrastructure implementation process against target of 34,665 members, a 223 per cent achievement against the target. Among the LCS members, 52 per cent were female and 48 per cent were male. (IFAD, 2014) Component 2 - Fisheries Development 22. The project completed the re-excavation earthworks in 242 beels, constructed 40 beel connecting roads of about 16 km, re-excavated 69 beel connecting canals of about 67 km, established fish sanctuaries in 50 beels, set up boundary pillars in 118 beels, and planted 250,000 saplings of swamp trees in and around 115 beels. (IFAD, 2014) 23. The project target was to include 9,500 men and women in BUGs and it reached 95 per cent of the target with a 25 per cent participation of women members. The project used rigorous Participatory Rural Assessment techniques to identify and target the poorest families within the fisher community. BUGs have been formed for 265 beels, and the remaining will be passed over to the next IFAD funded project (Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project). The BUG members did all the earthworks through re- excavation of beels and khals (tidal channels) and other physical activities for which they were paid wages from the project (similar to the LCS approach). Through beel re- excavation work about 426,081 labour-days of employment were generated during the project period. All proposed activities of the fisheries component of the project have been accomplished with 80-100 per cent implementation outputs. However, the achievement in beel demarcation and the establishment of fish sanctuaries has been low.

7 Source: Annual Report (2008-2009) Community Based Resource Management Project, LGED.

24. As part of the monitoring of this fisheries development, the WorldFish monitored the fish catch, gears, and biodiversity of fishes in 60 beels. Producing yearly reports and developed two printed manuals on fish and gear diversity. Component 3 - Agriculture and Livestock 25. This component was implemented in collaboration with the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Department of Agricultural Extension, and Department of Livestock Services. Table 4 shows the major activities, targets and achievements. Table 4 Major activities under agriculture and livestock development component Description Project MTR Achievement % achieved to design Target MTR targets Targets Field trials/demonstration of rice varieties 2,000 2,056 102 Field demonstration of oil seeds, other field crops and 1,000 1,440 144 veg 7,380 Field trials/demonstration of fruits 64 62 97 Demonstration of poultry and livestock 3,300 3 404 103 Demonstration of food processing technologies 1,200 1,206 100 Number of persons trained on crops, fruits/veg etc. 31,500 30,555 97 Number of persons trained on poultry and livestock 32,414 39,500 38,002 96 Number of persons trained in food processing 9,000 9,200 102 Number of livestock vaccinated 314,978 Number of paravets/ vaccinators/ advance farmers 1419 trained Source: Project Completion Report (IFAD, 2014) 26. As stated in the completion report “although the project was designed to focus on producers and production technologies in this component, preliminary value chain development was taking place through demonstration of new products/technologies...”, even though it is a positive aspect that the project identified new areas of interest and developed those areas, the agriculture and livestock component was extremely broad, the targeting for the number of selected interventions is not clear and such a diversity of activities is time exhausting with little focus on sustainable interventions. The following IFAD project in Bangladesh (Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project) learned from the SCBRMP agriculture and livestock activities and had a narrower focus on livelihood protection with a value chain approach. (IFAD, 2015) Component 4 - Microfinance 27. The project formed 2,995 COs out of the revised target of 3,000. Regarding the number of members, 2,145 COs were composed of women members and 850 COs with men members, with a total of 86,737 members (61,543 women and 25,194 men), achieving 96 per cent of the target for member enrolment. At April 2014 all 2,985 COs graduated (and 10 COs dropped out) meaning the COs repaid all loans and distributed their savings and operating profits from their loan program to individual members. 28. Cumulatively, 84,091 CO members were trained. A total of 122.3 million BDT (Bangladesh Taka) was mobilized from the CO members for savings, accounting for 101 per cent against the target of BDT 121.4 million. The value of loans extended to CO members from the savings was BDT 126.9 million, and around 70 per cent of the lending went to women. The total value of lending from the project credit funds, that is, from BKB to CO members was BDT 227.1 million, representing a turnover rate of 2.5 for the value of credit funds extended to BKB. During implementation, it was revealed that BKB was not well equipped to provide financial services to the poor, farmers and COs, and it was considered to drop this component of the project, and at the same time, self-help group type lending had other difficulties: lack of experienced and educated managers, low recovery rate, cash in hand due to distance of banks from the groups, etc. At MTR,

the project considered to either stop microcredit or continue CO managed activities. It was decided to keep the line of credit to BKB at the same level and allow CO members to continue their activities until project closure, however the target was reduced from 4,500 to 3,000 COs. Even though the project managed to achieve the component revised targets, this activity will not be considered in the scaled up project (Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project) given the above mentioned difficulties. III. Review of findings A. Core criteria Relevance 29. Policy Relevance. The IFAD Country Strategic Opportunities Paper (COSOP) of Bangladesh, which was active at the time of the project design, dates back to December 1999, and it comprised two thrusts:  Promoting self-managing grass-roots-based community organizations to create and sustain viable and cost-effective institutions and empower the rural poor.  Emphasize the promotion of people’s institutions as opposed to governmental and non-governmental institutions. 30. The COSOP strategy also mentions that the thrusts will be complemented by improving access to the poor to: (i) financial and other services; (ii) resources, including land and licensing arrangements; and (iii) increase access to resources by sensitizing the communities. Thus, the two project main objectives along with the five project components are in line with the Bangladesh 1999 COSOP strategy. 31. Relevance to national needs. The Bangladesh National Strategy for Poverty Alleviation gives priority to agricultural and rural development. The mentioned strategies are: “(i) increase employment both through labour intensive infrastructure development and microenterprise development; (ii) develop rural institutions with the assistance of NGOs; (iii) improve technical skills to improve on-farm production and ensure better access of the poor to production means; (iv) expand irrigation; (v) promote women’s participation in rural development; and (vi) involve communities in development.” (see IFAD COSOP, 1999). The project components (labour intensive infrastructure development, fisheries development, crop and livestock production, microfinance, and institutional support) were in line with the national strategy. 32. Relevance to the rural poor. The remoteness and poor communications of the district and associated lack of services exacerbate the vulnerability of the poor that live in the Sunamganj region. Lack of physical infrastructure and the poor state of roads and embankments that erode further every year, are some of the factors that aggravated the fragile situation of the poor. In addition, in 2001, donors were virtually absent of the region, the government presence was limited and even though there were non- governmental organizations, they had a limited outreach. 33. The target group identified by the project had limited access to the benefits of the available resources such as beels and agricultural land. In addition, the poor had limited access to savings and credit facilities. To address this livelihood constrains, the project beneficiaries participated in: credit and savings groups; water-body rehabilitation and management groups; demonstration and trainings in livestock and agricultural practices; and construction of rural infrastructure and maintenance groups. All in all, the project components were relevant to the needs of the rural poor. 34. Relevance of design. SCBRMP’s design was originally based on the structure of a UNDP project (South Asian Poverty Alleviation Project) that promoted village level development by organizing villagers (poor and non-poor) in grass-roots (village level) organizations, the design and objectives of the project where robust and adequate. The slow start of the project activities and given that some of the quantifiable objectives were over-ambitious, led to a downward revision during the MTR. The argument for reducing the targets proposed in the MTR report was the reduction of the initial funding.

However, the devaluation of the Bangladesh currency to the Special Drawing Rights led to an offset of the initially approved allocation. Hence, the reason for downgrading the targets is more likely to be related to a slow project implementation and to the overambitious targets set at project design. In addition, the design of the project activities was very broad and complex, this complexity had the disadvantage of leaving little time or space for sustainable results, for example, after the latrine installation there was no follow up strategy hence many of the latrines were not properly maintained resulting in the beneficiaries returning to the old methods. 35. Targeting. The project target beneficiaries included poor households comprising of landless poor, and small and marginal farmers holding no more than 2.5 hectare of land. The MTR report (Annex A) attests to the efforts made to include poor and very poor men and women from the community in the project activities. It documents the application of participatory rural assessment tools to provide baseline information in most villages, although with some inconsistencies. For example, there were gaps in the identification of women-headed households and the poorest within villages. 36. The SCBRMP was well aligned with the COSOP and the countries priorities, responding to the rural poor population pressing needs, and the two project objectives were highly relevant. However, the project targets were too optimistic and some of the project components like the agriculture and livestock activities design were unclear. Based on the above considerations, the PCRV rates relevance as satisfactory (5), which is one point below the self-rating by PMD. Effectiveness 37. Effectiveness is the extent to which the project's objectives were attained in both qualitative and quantitative terms. The effectiveness chapter assessed the four project component specific objectives:  Infrastructure development: Provide employment to the poorest population groups to mitigate seasonal food shortages. The project created LCS which were then hired to work in the many infrastructure development components of the project, such as the road work, multipurpose village centres, installation of latrines and others. The LCS provided jobs to 77,253 poor women (68 per cent) and men (32 per cent).  Fisheries Development: Provide the poor with access to the benefits of fishery resources on a sustainable basis. The project created BUGs. The members of these groups participated in the manual work to improve the situation of most of the 293 beels, which access was then transferred to the BUGs. This component directly benefited 9,025 men and women.  Crop and Livestock Production: Promote livestock and crop production to enhance the cash incomes of the poor. The component reached its target by achieving more than 7,380 demonstrations and 30,000 people trained. In addition, 314,000 animals were vaccinated, 107,000 de-wormed, and artificial insemination centres ensured the achievement of this components objective.  Microfinance: Deliver savings and credit services at the village level, through setting up village-based COs. The 2,995 created organizations mobilized a total of US$1.5 million8 as savings, and US$4.5 million12 as loans to their 86,737 members (70 per cent women 30 per cent men). All the COs went through a graduation process. 38. The grass root organizations created by the project: LCSs, BUGs, and the COs were crucial for the achievement of the project objectives.

8 122.3 million BDT and 354.35 million BDT, 1 US$=79 BDT [June 2014; at PCR].

39. All in all, the overall effectiveness of the SCBRMP is rated as satisfactory (5), which is the same as the PMD rating. Efficiency 40. The SCBRMP had initial setbacks; a slow start with 14 months lag between the loan signing to effectiveness, and a slow disbursement with only 13 per cent of IFAD loan disbursed at MTR equivalent to 52 per cent of the phase 1 allocation. The supervision report of 2004 states that the slow rate of financial progress is not unusual, given the preparation needed in the initial years in setting up offices, recruitment and training of staff (UNOPS, 2004), however, the slow start did affect the projects overall achievements. After MTR the project turned into a strong performer. The project completed the implementation and achieved the revised physical targets, without any extension. Apart from the setback of not finding a cofinancier, all the initially stablished partners of the projects had excellent disbursement rates: 98.95 per cent IFAD loan; 98.36 per cent Government; and, 100 per cent of beneficiaries. The total project disbursement rate was 98.9 per cent (US$31,505,350). 41. The PCR does not include the internal rate of return for the programme, which is highly unsatisfactory. Table 5, shows the cost allocation and share by project component, it is clear that the main investment was made on infrastructure, which was not fully envisaged at project design. The micro finance component had the biggest financial reduction and the change is attributed to the limited capacity of the cooperating bank (BKB), which was unable to adequately staff its branches in Sunamganj. The PCR mentions that “the low efficiency of the Bangladesh Krishi Bank (BKB) is due to its difficult procedures and inherent difficulty of running microfinance in Bangladesh following the self-help group model”. Another component that had a significant budget reduction was the Fisheries Development. The road construction budget benefited from these reductions and its budget increase is justified given that it was one of the most successful activities in phase 1. Table 5 Cost allocation and actual disbarments by project component. US$ ‘000 (%) Component Approved (project Actual disbursement Difference design 2001) (PCR 2014)

Infrastructure 5,652 (16.5) 17,779 (56.43) +12,126 (+30%) Development

Fisheries Development 8,153 (23.8) 3,762 (11.94) -4,391 (-11.9)

Agriculture and livestock 2,288 (6.7) 1,515 (4.81) -773 (-1.9) Development

Micro-Finance 10,048 (29.3) 1,704 (5.41) -8,344 (-23.9)

Institutional support 8,143 (23.9) 6,747 (21.41) -5,934 (21.5)

Total 34,285 (100) 31,509 (100) -2,776 Source: (IFAD, 2001) (IFAD, 2014) 42. Project cost per household. At project completion, 93,319 households directly benefited from the project. With a final project cost of US$31.509 million, the unit cost of the project was US$337.6 per household. A review of other community based projects in the Asian and the Pacific Region show that the project cost per household of the SCBRMP is lower than the revised projects. 43. The relatively high management cost (16 per cent of total project cost) was due to the project duration, diversity of activities that require various technical skills with the project management unit, difficult terrain that required multiple upazila offices and travel expenses, and close supervision of communities. 44. Taking into consideration the complicated geographical situation of the project where monsoon floods the area for six months, the project showed a good planning and

organization to avoid any extensions. IFAD and partners managed to disburse close to 100 per cent of the resources, even though, the disbursements where very low from project approval to MTR. The project component costs differ greatly from project design and the change in project components budget line requires better explanation, and the PCR should have included an internal rate of return. Taking the above into consideration, the PCRV rates the efficiency of the project as moderately satisfactory (4), which is one point below PMD. Rural poverty impact 45. Overall, the project completion report states that the project reached 143,032 households, of which 93,619 households were direct beneficiaries. Given the nature of the project, the target population varied according to the different project components, however the PCR states that “About 10 per cent of the 93,619 households are categorized as landless and about 89 per cent are marginal farmers with less than 2.5 acres of land and 1 per cent in other categories. Among the individuals receiving support, 49.5 per cent were women”. 46. Through the IFAD grant Innovation for Mainstreaming Initiative, the Multidimensional Poverty Assessment Tool (MPAT)9 was tested in the SCBRMP to assess the project’s impact (March 2013). The MPAT sampled 480 households from the project area and 128 households from nearby districts, Netrokona and Habiganj, as a control for comparison. Out of 10 groups of indicators used for all three districts (Sunamganj, Netrokona and Habiganj), the SCBRMP showed a positive impact on four groups of indicators: (i) domestic water supply; (ii) education; (iii) housing, clothing & energy; and (iv) gender and social equality (IFAD, 2014). In addition, the WorldFish survey also showed impact results in terms of increased fish catch, fish diversity, and a decrease10 of households’ expenditure on food items over the project years. 47. According to the second edition of the IFAD evaluation manual, the four impact domains in areas of priority for rural transformation promoted by IFAD are:  Household incomes and assets. The WorldFish conducted an impact assessment with 125 sample households from within 25 BUGs. The BUG members have earned profits on selling of large fish catch on an average from Tk. 12,000 to Tk. 27,000 per year. The project in-house study reported that the average income of the BUGs increased by 180 per cent in 2013, when compared with the baseline year. This increased income shows that the BUGs increased the ability of beneficiaries to seek better living over the assessed period. The PCR assessed the impact of the project by comparing the Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project RIMS (Results and Impact Management System) baseline, that covered the Sunamganj region and other four districts. However, given the lack of an assessment of the household conditions before the SCBRM project, the data in the PCR does not provide comparable information to assess the projects household and income assets impact, outside of the BUG beneficiaries.  Human and social capital and empowerment, the community-based fisheries management approach brought a visible change in the social dynamics. All BUGs now sit together in monthly meetings and discuss various issues of common interest. The democratic practice to select office bearers of the BUGs through direct voting process helps to build a congenial atmosphere in the rural society. Regarding sanitation, at project completion, in 2014, around 88 per cent of households in the project area had a latrine, with 73 per cent having an unhygienic latrine and only 17 per cent a hygienic latrine. In 2006, 90 per cent of households had a latrine of which 28 per cent had a hygienic latrine. The sanitation situation

9 MPAT provides data that can inform all levels of decision making by providing a clearer understanding of rural poverty at the household and village level. The MPAT implementation in the SCBRM program provided the project staff with local survey data on food security, water supply, and housing that were not previously available. 10 Of about 20.8 per cent.

deteriorated between 2010 and 2014, given that in 2010, 98 per cent had latrines of which 35 per cent where hygienic. The PCR justify that “This might be explained by the fact that the project met its targets for sanitation just after the MTR. Improved latrines might have not been properly maintained, causing people to revert back to the original system.”  Food security and agricultural productivity. Around 30 per cent of households reported not having experienced a hungry season, which represents a slight improvement over the baseline, with 19 per cent of households reported having had food shortages for 5-6 months and another 16 per cent for more than six months, in the one year before the survey. However, given that the comparison is between two years and without a comparison group, it is not clear to what extent these changes can be attributed to the project. Overall, there have been improvements in terms of chronic and acute malnutrition and underweight with children under 5. Chronic malnutrition decreased by 16 per cent between 2006 and 2014, acute malnutrition by 10 per cent and underweight by almost 20 per cent. However, there is a caveat in attributing these changes to the project given the absence of a comparison group.  Institutions and policies. Besides the BUGs gatherings, the PCR impact assessment does not mention the institutional and policy impact of the project. However, the document review found that the positive results on the gender component of the project given that the project director played an important role on writing the gender strategy of the implementing agency (Local Government Engineering Division) (IFAD, 2014). 48. The impact assessments of SCBRM that include the multi-dimensional poverty assessment tool and the WorldFish survey show mixed results. Some components do show an impact on aspects such as income and housing conditions of some of the rural poor served by the project, but the impact assessments do not show strong evidence to suggest that there was a significant impact to all the households studied. While improvements have been achieved in terms of the fisheries household income, the impact on asset ownership, and nutrition remains rather unclear and there is little evidence to suggest that the impact was homogenous throughout all the project beneficiaries. The PCR rates this criteria as moderately satisfactory (4) and the PCRV maintains this score. Sustainability of benefits 49. The main project activities that provided assistance for the sustainability of benefits were those in support to grass root organizations (BUGs, COs and LCSs). However, the main source of income for these organizations came from the project labour intensive activities and some of these activities ensured a stronger sustainability than others. The main question is whether the trainings and LCSs will continue to contribute to a sustainable improvement of the life condition of the women and poor after SCBRMP. The Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project has provided support to the BUGs and to some of the LCSs after SCBRMP was completed. Beyond IFAD interventions the demand for a workforce will decrease. The sustainability of some of the project components is unclear. 50. A major project concern is related to the access rights to the beels by the BUGs. Given that the government provided access rights until 2019, beyond that date it is not clear whether the BUGs will continue to have access right to the beels. The mixed results reported in the project impact assessments for some components raise sustainability concerns. 51. The diversity of project components complicates the sustainability for all the project activities with clear examples seen even before project completion. Taken the above into consideration the sustainability of benefits is rated as moderately satisfactory (4) which is one rating below the self-evaluation by PMD.

B. Other performance criteria Innovation and scaling up 52. Innovation. The project introduced a number of innovations:  Formation of BUGs for community-based water resources management was an innovation that ensured the secured access to the water bodies for income generation through increased production and sustainable management.  Submersible dams. While this practice had been used in Bangladesh, the project improved their design reducing their construction and maintenance cost.  Construction of village roads using cement concrete blocks. The quality of the roads is not inferior to the reinforced cement concrete, however the cost was around 20 per cent lower. The cement concrete blocks are also flood resistant.  Plantation of flood tolerant trees. By planting the Hizol and Koroch trees along the periphery of the beels and open water bodies have developed nursery for swamp forest trees.  Agriculture innovations. The project introduced crops such as: low input Binasail rice (BINA-7, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute BRRI-46, 33 and 29) and a number of vegetables. In addition, the project also introduced a low-cost incubation system for ducks11. 53. Scaling up. The Japan International Cooperation Agency has put substantive funds forward to scale up infrastructure and beel management approaches of SCBRMP under the Haor Flood Management and Livelihood Improvement Project and its Climate Adaptation and Livelihood Protection Sub-project. 54. The IFAD project Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project will scale up a number of components of the SCBRM project, for example, the implementation structural approach, the construction of submersible roads using cement concrete blocks by Labour Contracting Society members along with the buried pipe irrigation project, and the beel management practices will be continued and expanded. This new IFAD project is around five times larger than the SCBRMP. The National Government increased its cofinancing 8-fold (from US$4 million to US$32 million), while IFAD has increased its financing from US$22 million to US$71 million. The Spanish Fund will also co-finance US$30 million. The programme performed well in building local capacity and replicating the project in other areas of Bangladesh. The SCBRMP implementing agency, LGED, will be the leading implementing agency for the Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project. 55. PMD gives the project a highly satisfactory (6) rating for innovation and scaling up, and the PCRV maintains the score. Gender equality and women’s empowerment 56. Through the grass-root organizations the project managed to include 52,532 (68 per cent) women members in the LCSs; in the 2,995 COs formed under the project, 2,145 were for women and their membership accounted for 71 per cent of the total beneficiaries, the number of woman borrowers from CO savings was 14,852 and from project credit line was 15,842, accounting for 72.4 per cent and 66.1 per cent of total membership respectively. Additionally, the project has trained a total of 34,795 farmers in agricultural and livestock production, of which the proportion of women trainees were 26,240 (75 per cent), and a total of 1,429 advanced farmers have been intensively trained as livestock vaccinators, of which 60 per cent are women. The Fisheries Development component benefited 9,025 people of which 25 per cent where women members, the case study of the BUGs also states that women played an active role in the project, “they constructed nets and gear, sorted the large catch according to species

11 Low-cost sand and paddy-husk incubators

for value addition, and assisted in the post-harvest processing, perseveration and marketing of the catch.” (IFAD, 2014) 57. Women also comprised 75 per cent of the implementation monitoring committee members, increasing their voice in community decision-making. In recognition of the project achievements, the project won the first IFAD Gender Award for the Asia region in 2013. 58. In addition, lessons learned from the project were taken up by the local government’s Engineering Department and the SCBRM Project Director was selected to lead a team responsible for updating the department’s gender strategy. 59. The gender focus of the project is rated by the PCR and the PCRV as highly satisfactory (6). Environment and natural resources management 60. The project had a great diversity of components, hence the impact on the environment differs from activity to activity. Many of the project components ensured a proper environmental sustainability through responsible resource management, some of the positive examples are: latrine installation, access to safe drinking water, beel development, and swamp tree plantation. In addition,l the construction of the village roads took measures to avoid potential negative environmental impact by constructing on the existing roads, and protecting trees and other vegetation. 61. The best example of the natural resource management practices introduced by the project was the biodiversity in project managed beels. The WorldFish organization was a project partner and part of the activities carried out included the introduction of mola broodfish in sanctuaries (endemic species of the region), closed fishing seasons, fishing gear regulations, and market linkages for small fish commercialization. The monitoring of selected beels showed that Fish biodiversity also increased from 88 to 133 species as a result of the project interventions. (IFAD, 2014) 62. Recognising the benefits of some of the programme components to the environment and natural resource management, and taking into consideration the diversity of activities, the PCRV rates this component as satisfactory (5) which is one score below the PMD self- rating. Adaptation to climate change 63. Bangladesh experiences different types of natural disasters almost every year, and because of global warming and climate change, the disasters impact has intensified. Such disasters include: flash floods, cyclones and storm surges, salinity intrusion, extreme temperatures and droughts. In addition, the project region is particularly hazardous, because of its poor drainage, vulnerability to flash floods, and wave action induced erosion. 64. Two components of the project directly addressed some of the challenges faced by climate change: (i) infrastructure development (tube wells, village protection walls, submersible dams and buried pipes), helped the communities to have access to water in the dry season and also protected selected villages from flash floods; and (ii) fisheries development (plantation of flood tolerant trees, and increase of fish biodiversity), the plantation of flood tolerant trees helps to prevent, to some extent, the damages caused by storms and floods; the inclusion of native fish species increases the possibility that some may be more resilient to changes in the water salinity. However, the above mentioned activities had a modest impact given its limited budget allocation, for example the village protection walls only benefited 21 villages out of the 1,090 villages covered by all the SCBRMP activities12.

12 The PCR appendix 5 “Actual physical progress” states that the project at the output level covered 1,090 villages.

65. At the time of project design, selected project components where innovative and positively focused on the issues that Bangladesh is currently and will face due to climate change. Nevertheless, these activities did not directly impacted a big percentage of the project direct beneficiaries. The PCRV rates this component as moderately satisfactory (4). The PCR did not rate this component. C. Overall project achievements 66. The project activities have positively responded to the needs of the target groups through the formation of grass-root organizations, and by the various project activities. Even though the project had a slow start, the results demonstrate that the necessary measures were taken into consideration to deliver the expected results. The IFAD direct supervision provided key assistance to the project. In addition, the project has been highly gender sensitive and environmentally responsible. Trainings and other capacity building sessions took place that contributed to the sustainability of the project activities.

67. While recognising the success of the project, the PCRV considers that the SCBRMP could have had more impact and enhanced sustainability prospects by having a better focus on a narrower set of activities. The overall achievements of the Sunamaganj Community Based Resource Management Project are rated satisfactory (5). D. Performance of partners 68. IFAD. IFAD approved this loan under the Flexible Lending Mechanism that “enabled timely implementation and innovation” (IFAD, 2014). IFAD conducted at least one supervision mission per year as well as additional implementation support missions for both management and technical support to this complex project. For the first phase of the project, UNOPS was the direct project supervisor, however, for phase two and three (2007-2014) IFAD supervised the project directly. After a low project start in the first phase, the project developed, progressed and showed good results. The PCR mentions that the project management appreciated the smooth disbursements and technical support provided by IFAD. Given the project results and the positive improvement of the project performance after IFAD directly supervised the project, the performance of IFAD is rated as satisfactory (5), same as the PMD self-rating. 69. Government. The responsibility for project implementation was assumed by LGED. The Project Management Unit was stationed at LGED head office but most of the project staff were stationed in the implementing areas to directly implement and supervise project activities, called Upazila Management Units, each of the nine units were in charge of the implementation and monitoring of all activities in their upazila. Having such a decentralized management does have its challenges, for example, as stated in the MTR the “M&E needs a complete review, revision of indicators, and validation.” This issue was addressed in the following years achieving a proper M&E system and producing a number of reports13. 70. The Government effectively disbursed 98 per cent of the established amount, and the average project status report “Acceptable Disbursement Rate” is 4.15 with only three out of the fourteen rated below four. 71. Government line agencies. To implement the agriculture and livestock and fisheries components, the project entered into a memorandum of understanding with a number of technical line government agencies and research institutes, the project strongly benefited from the collaboration and work of all the specialized agencies where in cases they also provided cost savings, as they charge lower rates than private trainers. 72. All in all the PCRV rates the government performance as satisfactory (5), this rating coincides with the PMD rating.

13 i) Impact study on livelihoods of BUG members; ii) completion of one cycle of fish catch and bio-diversity monitoring study; iii) KAP survey on the impact of Accounts and book-keeping training for CO managers/assistant managers; and iv) quick impact study on LCS members engaged in block road construction. (IFAD, 2010)

IV. Assessment of PCR quality Scope 73. It mostly follows the PCR guidelines and provides detailed and quantitative information on most of the project activities and results. In addition the annexes include relevant information of some of the projects components, however not all the project activities are thoroughly explained, and the PCR does not include an internal rate of return exercise, which is an expected and important component of a PCR. However, given the vast number of project components and activities, the PCR explains with a lot of detail of some activities but very little of others, for example, the construction of village walls, the multipurpose village centres, and the submersible dams lack details on the village selection criteria, material used, the role of the labour contracting societies and lessons learned. The PCR scope is rated moderately satisfactory (4). Quality 74. The PCR contains robust data and analysis, including detailed annexes that expand the information on selected project components. The PCR has benefited from consistent and good quality reports throughout the project life cycle. Additionally, two impact assessments were done, one by the IFAD grant (the multi-dimensional poverty assessment tool) and the other by WorldFish. However, the data presented in the impact chapters is not detailed and robust enough to have a clear picture of the project impact, And in addition, the PCR does not include an assessment of internal rate of return. 75. The PCR process was sound and appropriately consultative. It included the following steps: i) review of relevant documents such as mission reports, MTR, impact studies produced by the project and its partners, and other documents prepared for the project components; ii) meetings with leaders of CO and BUGs, beneficiaries, and partner representatives (WorldFish, Department of Livestock Services, Department of Fisheries, and Department of Agricultural Extension); iii) visited project activities in four upazilas; and iv) stakeholder workshops, of which the findings are shown in the appendix 8 of the PCR. All in all, The PCRV appreciates the detailed and inclusive processes and activities conducted for the PCR. The quality of the PCR is rated satisfactory (5). Lessons 76. The PCR mentions important lessons from the project activities, providing positive advice on how to improve certain components. For example, it mentions the importance of a policy support to provide access rights of the water bodies to the BUGs, and the importance of the LCS for the infrastructure development components. Lessons learned from issues such as the failure to find a cofinancier were not mentioned and could have provided important lessons on how to prevent such situations in the future. Additionally, as mentioned in the assessment of impact in the PCR, the “improved latrines might have not been properly maintained, causing people to revert back to the original system”, the PCR could have included more information of this experience in order to know how such situations can be avoided. The lessons in the PCR are rated as moderately satisfactory (4). Candour 77. The PCR presents stronger and weaker aspects of implementation. However, the weaker ones could have been further explained. The issue of the complex design and the components that had mixed results (e.g. the sanitation component) could have been given more attention in the PCR. On this basis the candour of the PCR is rated as moderately satisfactory (4).

V. Final remarks and lessons learned Final remarks 78. As IFAD evolves and learns from its practice, projects like the SCBRMP provide many lessons learned both positive and negative that can help IFAD achieve its overall objective. 79. The best known project achievements are the project innovations, the success of scaling up project components to a national level and the gender inclusion. However, the weakest aspect was the over complexity of the project design leading to mixed impacts for some of the project components that had an unclear sustainability after the project targets were achieved. 80. The PCR mentions that the loan was approved under the Flexible Lending Mechanism and that it enabled timely implementation and innovation. However, the 2007 IFAD self- assessment of the Flexible Lending Mechanism concludes that “the introduction of a new lending instrument to meet the longer-term development needs of some of IFAD’s Member States has met with only limited success. It has also shown that the benefits originally envisaged were not always realistic....” Additionally, the second recommendation of the self-assessment was to not approve any further project using the FLM. Given the interesting findings of the self-assessment, the PCR could have included more detailed information of the pros and cons of the FLM mechanism given that the SCBRMP was one of the 20 projects approved under the FLM. 81. The PCR could have also benefited from better explaining the limitations and issues related to finding of a cofinancier. Lessons learned 82. The Community Based Resource Management Project refers to the collective use and management of resources in rural areas by a group of people. This type of project has the advantage of building local leadership, while keeping people involved and empowered. In addition, it helps diversify financial resources thus reducing the vulnerability of the beneficiaries to external shocks. This type of project also faces challenges, as they are long term commitments, with often slow starts and setbacks; and in addition, the circumstances must be right for people and organizations to learn and benefit. People must have the desire to take up new ideas and learn new skills, and organizations must be ready and willing to reform their institutional structures to meet the needs of the people they serve. 83. Project design. While the diversification of project activities can ensure a stronger community development, the project learned that cooperating with other institutions such as the WorldFish can provide critical knowledge and assistance to ensure good practices and a positive outcome of such activities. A high diversification of project activities limits the depth of results. However, positive cooperation can ensure sustainable results and provide added knowledge and assistance to the diverse project activities. 84. Among the many innovative components, the creation of BUGs that helped to ensure access to beels for the poor fisheries has generated positive results. It has empowered the beneficiaries while providing financial and nutritional benefits to their families. It has also improved the participatory decision making procedures that helped the management of BUGs. 85. The Flexible Lending Mechanism was approved in 1998 the reason was based on a recognition of two necessary preconditions to achieve better effectiveness and impact in the grass-roots projects: (i) decentralize decision-making processes to the local level…; and (ii) adopting an appropriate participatory process involving all stakeholders. It was also recognized that the grass-root organization projects “took more time than usual and required a different approach for design and implementation”. Over the years, IFAD realized that this lending mechanism had some disadvantages, given that there was a

lack of precise definitions of in-house roles and responsibilities that resulted in a lack of detailed and cumbersome procedure to implement the FLM. IFAD overcame these complexities by introducing: (i) direct supervision; (ii) country presence; and (iii) quality enhancement/assurance. In the case of the SCBRMP such measures were effective and helped the project to improve the slow start in order to achieve its results.

Annex I

Definition and rating of the evaluation criteria used by IOE

* Criteria Definition Mandatory To be rated

Rural poverty impact Impact is defined as the changes that have occurred or are expected to occur in the lives of the rural poor (whether positive or negative, direct or X Yes indirect, intended or unintended) as a result of development interventions. Four impact domains  Household income and net assets: Household income provides a means of assessing the flow of economic benefits accruing to an individual or group, whereas assets relate to a stock of accumulated items of No economic value. The analysis must include an assessment of trends in equality over time.  Human and social capital and empowerment: Human and social capital and empowerment include an assessment of the changes that have occurred in the empowerment of individuals, the quality of grass-roots organizations and institutions, the poor’s individual and collective No capacity, and in particular, the extent to which specific groups such as youth are included or excluded from the development process.  Food security and agricultural productivity: Changes in food security relate to availability, stability, affordability and access to food and stability of access, whereas changes in agricultural productivity are No measured in terms of yields; nutrition relates to the nutritional value of food and child malnutrition.  Institutions and policies: The criterion relating to institutions and policies is designed to assess changes in the quality and performance of institutions, policies and the regulatory framework that influence the lives No of the poor. Project performance Project performance is an average of the ratings for relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of benefits. X Yes Relevance The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, institutional priorities and partner and donor policies. It also entails an assessment of project design and coherence in achieving its objectives. An assessment X Yes should also be made of whether objectives and design address inequality, for example, by assessing the relevance of targeting strategies adopted. Effectiveness The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were X achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative Yes importance. Efficiency A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, X Yes etc.) are converted into results.

The likely continuation of net benefits from a development intervention Sustainability of benefits beyond the phase of external funding support. It also includes an X Yes assessment of the likelihood that actual and anticipated results will be resilient to risks beyond the project’s life. Other performance criteria

Gender equality and The extent to which IFAD interventions have contributed to better gender women’s empowerment equality and women’s empowerment, for example, in terms of women’s access to and ownership of assets, resources and services; participation in X Yes decision making; work load balance and impact on women’s incomes, nutrition and livelihoods. Innovation and scaling up The extent to which IFAD development interventions: (i) have introduced innovative approaches to rural poverty reduction; and (ii) have been (or are likely to be) scaled up by government authorities, X Yes donor organizations, the private sector and others agencies. Environment and natural The extent to which IFAD development interventions contribute to resilient resources management livelihoods and ecosystems. The focus is on the use and management of the natural environment, including natural resources defined as raw X Yes materials used for socio-economic and cultural purposes, and ecosystems and biodiversity - with the goods and services they provide. Adaptation to climate The contribution of the project to reducing the negative impacts of climate change change through dedicated adaptation or risk reduction measures X Yes

Annex I

* Criteria Definition Mandatory To be rated

Overall project This provides an overarching assessment of the intervention, drawing upon achievement the analysis and ratings for rural poverty impact, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability of benefits, gender equality and women’s X Yes empowerment, innovation and scaling up, as well as environment and natural resources management, and adaptation to climate change. Performance of partners  IFAD This criterion assesses the contribution of partners to project design, X Yes execution, monitoring and reporting, supervision and implementation  Government support, and evaluation. The performance of each partner will be assessed X Yes on an individual basis with a view to the partner’s expected role and responsibility in the project life cycle. * These definitions build on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management; the Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation agreed with the Evaluation Committee in September 2003; the first edition of the Evaluation Manual discussed with the Evaluation Committee in December 2008; and further discussions with the Evaluation Committee in November 2010 on IOE’s evaluation criteria and key questions.

Annex II

Rating comparison a

Programme IOE Project Management Completion Report Net rating Department (PMD) Validation (PCRV) disconnect Criteria rating rating (PCRV-PMD)

Rural poverty impact 4 4 0

Project performance

Relevance 6 5 -1 Effectiveness 5 5 0 Efficiency 5 4 -1 Sustainability of benefits 5 4 -1

Project performanceb 5 5 0

Other performance criteria

Gender equality and women's empowerment 6 6 0 Innovation and scaling up 6 6 0 Environment and natural resources management 6 5 -1 Adaptation to climate change n.a 4 n.a

c Overall project achievement 6 5 -1

d Performance of partners

IFAD 5 5 0 Government 5 5 0

Average net disconnect -0.40 a Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 3 = moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory; 5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory; n.p. = not provided; n.a. = not applicable. b Arithmetic average of ratings for relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of benefits. c This is not an average of ratings of individual evaluation criteria but an overarching assessment of the project, drawing upon the rating for relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability of benefits, rural poverty impact, gender, innovation and scaling up, environment and natural resources management, and adaptation to climate change. d The rating for partners’ performance is not a component of the overall project achievement rating.

Ratings of the project completion report quality PMD rating IOE PCRV rating Net disconnect

Candour 4 Lessons 4 Quality (methods, data, participatory process) 5 Scope 4

Overall rating of the project completion report 4.25

Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 3 = moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory; 5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory; n.p. = not provided; n.a. = not applicable.

Annex III

Bibliography

BANGLADESH BUREAU OF STATISTICS. (2013). BANGLADESH POPULATION AND HOUSING CENSUS 2011. Foreign-Aided Projects Audit Directorate. (2010). The Accounts of "Comunity Based Resource Managment Project" . IFAD. (1999). Bangladesh Country Strategic Opportunities Paper. IFAD. (2001). SUNAMGANJ COMMUNITY-BASED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECT. Rome. IFAD. (2006). Community-based natural resource management, How knowledge is managed, disseminated and used . IFAD. (2007). Mid Term Review SCBRM project. IFAD. (2007). Self-assessment of the Flexible Lending Mechanism. IFAD. (2008). Multidimensional poverty assessment tool (MPAT). Retrieved from IFAD: https://www.ifad.org/en/topic/tags/mpat/2792300 IFAD. (2010). Second Phase Review Mission Report (Sunamganj Community Based Resource Management Project). IFAD. (2010). Second Phase Review Mission Sunamganj Community Based Resource Management Project – BD 567. IFAD. (2014). Project Completion Report (SCBRMP). IFAD. (2015). Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project/ Climate Adaptation and Livelihood Protection Sub-project Supervision Report. IOE. (2016). People's Republic of Bangladesh Country Programme Evaluation. IOE. (2006). Bangladesh Country Programme Evaluation. UNDP. (2007). Evaluation of UNDP’S Second Regional Cooperation Framework For Asia and The Pacific 2002-2006. UNOPS. (2004). Supervision Report. Sunamaganj Community Based Resource Management Project. Bangkok. UNOPS. (2005). Supervision Report: Sunamaganj Community Based Resource Management Project. Bangkok.