cosop review
DESCRIPTION
Cosop Review by Dr. Hari Upadhyaya presented during IFAD Annual Portfolio Review December 3, 2012; 13:15-15:15 hrs; Ministry of Finance, Singha DurbarTRANSCRIPT
Annual Review2012
Country Strategic Opportunities Program
(COSOP)
Mission Objectives
Track progress and impact on development effectiveness
Assess the relevance of SOs to the current context
Examine the appropriateness of strategies and approaches for achieving the SOs
Examine the adequacy of institutional support and implementation arrangements
Draw conclusions and recommendations
Methodology
Literature review
Interviews with related government, non-government, private sector agencies, project staff and beneficiaries
Field visits
Country Context
Demography: 26 million people, 83% ruralEconomy: Low HDI, low income, slow growing,
changing income structure (farm income 28%)Poverty: Reduced to 25% (rural 28%), highest
incidence in FW and mountains, and among dalits, HH headed by agricultural wage workers
Drivers of poverty gains: Remittance, connectivity, urbanization, commercial agriculture
Agriculture: Small, traditional, cereal-dominated, low-productivity and rain-fed farming
Forestry: 39%, ¼ CFUG managed, LHFPolicy environment: TYIP, NAP, ADS
IFAD Country StrategiesCOSOP 2000: Guided by 9th Plan, strategic thrust
on sustainable livelihoods and social justice in remote, isolated and disadvantaged area of Mid and FW
COSOP 2006: Fully aligned with 10th Plan with three strategic objectives: (i) increased access to economic opportunities, (ii) improved community infrastructure and services, and (iii) reduced gender, ethnic and caste-related disparities
Crosscutting: Local governance and peace building
Relevance of SOs: Still relevant in the current context
Projects Covered by the Review
Project Effective closing
WUPAP 2003 2014
LFLP 2005 2014
PAF II 2008 2012
HVAP 2010 2017
ISFP - -
Project CoverageCountry-specific grant projects
implemented during the COSOP period: LLP, COCIS, SEEP, PPLP and HVAP-IB
Actual coverage of the projects as of Dec 2011 was about 153,000 HH (3% of rural HH) against the planned coverage of 232,900 HH (5% of all rural HH) in 42 districts
Impact on PovertyPoverty Headcount Ratio by Regions
Region NLSS 1995/96
NLSS 2003/04
NLSS 2010/11
Eastern 39 29 21
Central 33 27 22
Western 39 27 22
Mid-western 60 45 32
Far-western 64 41 46
Nepal 42 31 25
Impact on SOs SO I: Increased access to economic
opportunities(i)% increase in volume and value of agricultural,
livestock and forestry outputs(ii)% increase in trade flows to/from project areas(iii)Increased incomes from HV commodities
SO II: Comm. infrastructure and services improved
(i)Availability of rural infrastructure and services(ii)Involvement of NGOs, CBOs and private sector
Impact on SOs (contd..)
SO III: Gender, ethnic and caste-related disparities reduced
(i)Participation of DAGs in local decision making and governance increased
(ii)Higher standards of health and education among women and DAGs
Crosscutting: Local governance and peace building
(i)Progress in achieving sustained reconciliation and reconstruction process
(ii)Inclusiveness and transparency of local governance
Project RatingsJune 2012
WUPAP LFLP PAF II HVAP
Fiduciary Aspects
4.3 4.2 4.3 3.8
Implementation progress
4.4 4.3 4.5 4.1
Outputs and outcomes
3.8 3.6 4.0 4.0
Sustainability 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.0
Overall Portfolio RatingsCPE, Nov 2012
Relevance 4Effectiveness 4Efficiency 3Impact on rural poverty 4Sustainability 3
Overall portfolio 4
Non-lending activities 3
Status of Implementation of Agreed Actions and Recommendations
WUPAP (Dec 2011): All, except one, of the agreed actions implemented
LFLP (June 2012): Some completed, some on-going and some are planned
PAF II (June 2012): Planned, some work initiated
HVAP (June 2012): Majority implemented, some are in process and some yet to start
Log-frame revisedSupport to private traders under VC fund
Changes in Nepal Projects Over the COSOP Period
Reorientation of strategic thrust and sectoral commodity focus
More sharply focused targetingIncreased emphasis on knowledge
managementRIMS started in LFLP and WUPAPSIMES developed and partially
operationalized in projects
Key Conclusions/IssuesTargeting (economic efficiency,
social/geographic)Knowledge managementCOSOP management and communicationCapacity buildingPolicy feedbackProject design and flexibilityMonitoring indicators (e.g. RIMS from Projects)Partnership strategyEnvironment and climate change
RecommendationsAdopt a two-pronged Program strategy and inclusive
targetingAdopt a clear and simple policy agenda and support
national debate, forums and advocacy on key policy issues
Support capacity building of COs, PMU and frontline technical staff
Establish and equip a single Country Support OfficeImprove monitoring indicators and internalize SIMESSupport NGO/regional grants for action research to
improve adaptation and resilience to climate changeImprove partnership strategy and harmonization of
approaches with other donor programs