For: Review Arab Republic of Egypt Country Strategy and Programme Evaluation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Document: EC 2017/99/W.P.5 Agenda: 6 Date: 28 September 2017 E Distribution: Public Original: English Arab Republic of Egypt Country strategy and programme evaluation Note to Evaluation Committee members Focal points: Technical questions: Dispatch of documentation: Oscar A. Garcia William Skinner Director Chief Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD Governing Bodies Tel.: +39 06 5459 2274 Tel.: +39 06 5459 2974 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Johanna Pennarz Senior Evaluation Officer Tel.: +39 06 5459 2558 e-mail: [email protected] Evaluation Committee — Ninety-ninth Session Rome, 26 October 2017 For: Review EC 2017/99/W.P.5 Contents Acknowledgements ii Executive summary iii Appendices I. Agreement at completion point II. Main report: Arab Republic of Egypt: Country strategy and programme evaluation i EC 2017/99/W.P.5 Acknowledgements This country strategy and programme evaluation was led by Johanna Pennarz, Lead Evaluation Officer of the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD (IOE), with contributions from Rima Al-Azar (social development specialist), Hamdi Ahmedou (IOE research analyst), Amor Bayouli (natural resource management/water for agriculture specialist), Nicholas Bourguignon (IOE research analyst), Sherine Mourad (strategy and institutional analyst), Racha Ramadan (poverty impact specialist) and Ann Wessling (rural finance specialist). IOE evaluation assistant Shaun Ryan provided valuable administrative support. The evaluation benefited from the comments of several IOE staff, who reviewed the draft approach paper and the draft final report. IOE is grateful to IFAD’s Near East, North Africa and Europe Division for its collaboration at various stages of the evaluation process. Appreciation is also due to the Government of Egypt, particularly the Ministry of Investment and International Cooperation, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation for their support in mobilizing stakeholders during the evaluation process. IOE is also grateful to the project staff at the Social Fund for Development and the On- farm Irrigation Development Project in the Oldlands for their cooperation and for providing essential information, which has made this evaluation possible. ii EC 2017/99/W.P.5 Executive summary A. Background 1. This is the second country strategy and programme evaluation (CSPE) of IFAD- supported operations in the Arab Republic of Egypt for the period 2005-2016. It covers the full range of IFAD lending and non-lending activities, including knowledge management (KM), partnership-building and policy dialogue, grants, and country programme and strategy management processes. Its objectives are to: (i) assess the results and performance of country strategic opportunities programmes (COSOPs) since 2006; and (ii) generate findings and recommendations for the upcoming COSOP in 2018. The CSPE country mission took place in October 2016 and visited eight governorates in Upper, Middle and Lower Egypt. B. Main findings 2. Relevance. The country programme revolved around two main themes: support for settlement in lands reclaimed from the desert in Lower (northern) Egypt; and support for productivity improvement in the old lands in the Nile Valley and Upper Egypt. 3. The portfolio presents a good focus on the governorates where rural poverty and unemployment are most acute. Following the recommendations of the last country programme evaluation (CPE), the country programme shifted its focus to the poorer governorates in Upper Egypt. Since 2006, a larger number of these governorates have received project support. However, the amount of funding allocated per governorate in Upper Egypt since 2007 has been similar to – and sometimes even lower than – funding in Lower Egypt. 4. The programme had an overall focus on smallholders, the landless, unemployed youth and women, but projects often did not have specific strategies for targeting these groups and their participation was not systematically monitored. Smallholders (usually with less than three feddans)1 were included as a target group in all the projects. The provision of micro-loans, which did not require collateral, enabled the landless to benefit. 5. Portfolio development was characterized by continuity and building on well-tested approaches. But despite the continuous flow of projects, lessons from successes and failures were not sufficiently documented or learned. Some shortcomings and mistakes were repeated over the period, and some good practices were not adopted in later projects. While the country programme focused consistently on relevant issues, the approaches to addressing them were at times unrealistic or lacked coherence. 6. Repeated shortcomings in project design included the lack of appropriate consideration to institutional responsibilities and coordination, and insufficient funding for capacity-building. Project design and start-up periods were often lengthy, undermining partners’ commitment and ownership. Given the complexity of the country context, IFAD should have focused on adequate analysis to inform the design and management of the country programme. 7. Effectiveness. Concentrated delivery of an integrated support package, including infrastructure, has made projects effective in the new lands. The approach to integrated farming systems research and extension, and the use of farmer field schools was highly effective. The main achievements of the country programme were: extensive outreach through agricultural extension; micro-loans and infrastructure; and the large number of community organizations established or strengthened. Additionally, the provision of irrigation and new cropping systems contributed to improved land and water management practices. 1 A feddan is a unit of area: 1 feddan (fd) = 0.42 hectares. iii EC 2017/99/W.P.5 8. Results could have been better if the main factors limiting project effectiveness had been addressed at the beginning, in particular: the time gap between design and implementation; slow start-up and implementation; and complicated institutional arrangements, resulting in coordination problems. A common issue was the poor performance of the rural credit components. Credit is a key mechanism for delivering benefits to smallholder farmers, and was therefore pivotal to project performance. However, disbursement of funds against credit components was often slow and behind targets. Allocated funds were not always fully disbursed, often due to external factors such as changes in the regulatory environment, limited local- level absorption capacity and internal management issues at the institutional level. 9. Insufficient funding for capacity development led to bottlenecks in the implementation of project activities at the community level. This ultimately limited the results of components including rural finance, irrigation and marketing. The portfolio supported a range of community-level organizations, but they often remained too weak to be effective. The lack of a coherent and long-term strategy for building the capacities of community organizations and insufficient allocation of funds to capacity-building greatly undermined the portfolio’s effectiveness. 10. Efficiency. Although overall disbursement rates were constant over the period, disbursements were slow and at times problematic. As a result, projects had to be extended beyond their original closure dates to allow more time for disbursement. 11. Management costs differed significantly between projects. The relatively lean coordination structure based in the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR) was efficient, with actual management costs lower than estimated at design. However, the trade-off was weaker effectiveness. MALR staff had insufficient time, resources and leverage to engage with other implementing partners in areas beyond the Ministry’s competencies, such as rural finance or irrigation. 12. Staffing issues negatively affected efficiency in particular through high staffing costs, high turnover of key staff and over-dependence on government staff. Some projects struggled to keep MALR staff in governorate project coordination units because of delayed salary and bonus payments. Staff in national project coordination units (NPCUs) work part-time on several projects. Projects using a more independent management model had more freedom to hire qualified professional staff from the labour market. 13. The move towards larger projects did not result in efficiency gains. Recent projects have a greater geographic spread, covering more governorates with higher management costs, contributing to higher costs per beneficiary. 14. Poverty impact. IFAD-supported projects positively impacted agricultural productivity, in particular through improved farming systems in the old lands, and improved water and land management practices in the new lands. Micro-lending enhanced productivity and enabled smallholder farmers to procure agricultural inputs and some productive assets, in particular livestock. However, increases in agricultural incomes were not confirmed, partly because of high inflation and increasing food prices during the period. Food availability appears to have improved, but there is no evidence that this led to greater food security. 15. In the new lands, settlement projects significantly improved human and social capital. However, with the limited role played by community-level organizations and the absence of an effective agenda to enhance participatory processes, smallholders were not significantly empowered and there was minimal impact