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