Final Sudan CPE Report 150909

Document Sample
Final Sudan CPE Report 150909 Powered By Docstoc
					                Document of the
International Fund for Agricultural Development




            Republic of The Sudan

        Country Programme Evaluation




               September 2009
              Report No. 2060-SD
                                  EVALUATION TEAM

Overall responsibility          Mr Luciano Lavizzari, Director, Office of Evaluation (OE)

Lead evaluator                  Mr Paul-André Rochon, Senior Evaluation Officer

Evaluator                       Mr Luigi Cuna, Evaluation Officer

                                Ms Mary Netto, Evaluation Assistant, OE
Administrative support
                                Ms Monique Mizrahi, Evaluation Assistant, OE

                                Mr Ashwani Muthoo, Senior Evaluation Officer, OE
Peer Reviewers                  Mr Abdelmajid Benabdellah, Senior Evaluation Officer, OE
                                Mr Miguel Torralba, Evaluation Officer, OE
                                Mr Jakob Grosen, Consultant, External Peer Reviewer



    Consultants Team Members    Mr Lawrence Elly Achiba Eturu, Institutions

                                Mr Abubakr Mohammed Hussein, Microfinance

                                Ms Tamador Ahmed Khalid, Gender and Community-driven
                                Development

                                Ms Liz Kiff, Agriculture

                                Mr Salah Rouchiche, Infrastructure and Natural Resource
                                Management

     Local consultants          Dr. Omer Egemi, Mr. Khalid Abd-Elghafar Ali Mohamed and Dr.
                                Abdullah A. Ahmed, all Sudanese consultants based in Khartoum,
                                assisted the mission as resource persons on land use, road
                                engineering, irrigation engineering, and conflict issues.




                                   Photo on cover page:
                               Harvest time in North Kordofan
                                Source: IFAD Photolibrary
                                    Republic of The Sudan

                                Country Programme Evaluation


                                       Table of Contents


Abbreviations and Acronyms                                                               iii
Map 1. The Sudan in Africa                                                                 v
Map 2. All IFAD-financed Interventions Covered by the Evaluation (1994-2008)             vii
Map 3. IFAD-financed Ongoing Interventions Covered by the Evaluation as of Dec 31, 2007 ix
Map 4. IFAD-financed Closed Interventions Covered by the Evaluation as of Dec 31, 2007    xi
Foreword                                                                                xiii
Executive Summary                                                                        xv
Agreement at Completion Point                                                           xxi


I.     INTRODUCTION                                                                       1
       A.  Rationale and Background                                                       1
       B.  Evaluation Objectives and Methodology                                          2

II.    THE COUNTRY CONTEXT                                                                5
       A.  The Economy and Policy Environment                                             5
       B.  Agricultural and Rural Sector                                                  7
       C.  Key Challenges of Rural Poverty                                                9
       D.  Government Strategies for Poverty Reduction                                   10
       E.  External Assistance                                                           10

III.   QUALITY OF THE COUNTRY STRATEGY                                                   11
       A.  Introduction to the Country Strategy in The Sudan                             11
       B.  Analysis of the 2002 COSOP                                                    11
       C.  Resources and Capacity for Strategy Development and Implementation            17
       D.  Overall Quality of the Country Strategy                                       17

IV.    PERFORMANCE AND IMPACTS                                                           19
       A.  Description of the IFAD-assisted Programme Assessed by the CPE                19
       B.  Performance Assessment: Relevance, Effectiveness and Efficiency               21
       C.  Rural Poverty Impact                                                          27
       D.  Sustainability                                                                32
       E.  Innovation, Replication and Scaling Up                                        35
       F.  Gender                                                                        36
       G.  Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)                                            37
       H.  Non-lending Activities                                                        38

V.     PERFORMANCE OF IFAD AND ITS PARTNERS                                              41
       A.  Overall Performance Assessment                                                44

VI.    CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                                                   45
       A. Conclusions                                                                    45
       B. Recommendations                                                                48




                                               i
APPENDICES

1.     The Sudan Projects Portfolio                                                      49
2.     The Sudan CPE Framework                                                           51
3.     Group A Project Performance Ratings                                               55
4.     Main Lessons Learned at Completion of Group A Project                             61
5.     List of IFAD Technical Assistance Grants for The Sudan                            67
6.     IFAD-supported Programme 1997-2007 – Specific Project Objectives                  71
7.     Projects in The Sudan portfolio rated by the CPE                                  73
8.     Bibliography                                                                      75
9.     Approach Paper                                                                    79

BOXES

1.    In Synthesis – The Country Context                                                 11
2.    In Synthesis – Quality of the Country Strategy in the Sudan                        19
3.    Lessons Learned from Group A Projects                                              20
4.    Key Characteristics of the VDCs/CDCs                                               24
5.    In Synthesis - Relevance, Effectiveness and Efficiency                             27
6.    In Synthesis: impact domains                                                       32
7.    In Synthesis: sustainability, innovation, TAGs                                     38
8.    In Synthesis: Non-Lending Activities                                               41
9.    In Synthesis - Performance of the Partners                                         44

FIGURES

10. Agriculture Sector Contribution to Gross Domestic Project                             6
11. The Sudan Oil Outlook 1980-2004                                                      14

TABLES

1.    The Sudan CPE Project Groups 1994-2008                                              3
2.    Development Expenditure (Million Sudanese Dinars, [SDD])                            9
3.    Summary of the Country Strategy                                                    18
4.    Summary of Assessed Programmes/Projects                                            19
5.    Distribution of IFAD financing by Project Components                               20
6.    Ratings of CPE-Related Projects – Performance Criteria                             27
7.    Midwives Activities in SKRDP (2001-2007)                                           29
8.    Effects of Bara-El Obeid Road on Key Performance Indicators                        31
9.    Ratings for Overarching Criteria                                                   36
10.   Summary of Five Reviewed Grants                                                    37
11.   Ratings for Non-project Activities                                                 41
12.   Ratings of CPE-related Projects – Performance of Partners                          43
13.   Summary of The Sudan Country Programme Evaluation Ratings                          44


ANNEXES (*)

1.    Physical Infrastructure, Natural Resources Management and Environment
2.    Community Development Empowerment and Gender Mainstreaming
3.    Agricultural Sector Review
4.    Evaluation of Institutional Performance
5.    Evaluation of Financial Services Component



(*)      Annexes are available from IFAD’s Office of Evaluation (evaluation@ifad.org).

                                                     ii
                       Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABS         Agricultural Bank of Sudan
ARRI        Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD Operations
BIRDP       Butana Integrated Rural Development Project
CCI         Community Capability Index
CCU         Central Coordination Unit
CDCs        Community Development Committees
CI          Cooperating Institution
CIF         Community Initiative Fund
CLP         core learning partnership
COSOP       country strategic opportunities programme
CPA         Comprehensive Peace Agreement
CPE         Country Portfolio/Programme Evaluation
CPIA        Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Index
CPO         Country Presence Officer
DFID        Department for International Development of the United Kingdom
EU          European Union
FAO         Food and Agriculture Organization
FPO         Field Presence Officer
GAS         Gash Agricultural Scheme
GDP         Gross Domestic Product
GoS         Government of The Sudan
GSLRP       Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project
HUAs        Hafir Users’ Associations
IDP         Internally Displaced Persons
IFAD        International Fund for Agricultural Development
IPM         Integrated Pest Management
IsDB        Islamic Development Bank
JAM         Joint Assessment Mission
LETs        Locality Extension Teams
MARF        Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries
MDGs        Millennium Development Goals
MOAF        Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
MOFNE       Ministry of Finance and National Economy
MOIWR       Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources
MRB         Federal Ministry of Roads and Bridges
NENA        Near East North Africa
NKRDP       North Kordofan Rural Development Project
NMCC        Nuba Mountains Cotton Corporation
NPIRP       Northern Province Irrigation Rehabilitation Project
NRM         Natural Resources Management
ODA         Official Development Assistance
OE          Office of Evaluation
OPEC        Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
PBAS        Performance-Based Allocation System
PCUs        Programme Coordination Unit
PMUs        Programme Management Unit
PN          Near East and North Africa Division of IFAD
RDS         Rural Development Score
RIMS        Results and Impact Management Systems
RUAs        Range Users Associations
SDD         Sudanese Dinars
SKRDP       South Kordofan Rural Development Programme
SOS Sahel   Save Our Souls Sahel
SPLM        Sudan People Liberation Movement
TAG         Technical Assistance Grant

                                 iii
UN      United Nations
UNDP    United Nations Development Programme
UNOPS   United Nations Office for Project Services
VBDs    Village Boards of Directors
VDCs    Village Development Committees
WFP     World Food Programme
WSRMP   Western Sudan Resources Management Programme
WUA     Water Users Association




                           iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
                                             FOREWORD


IFAD has had an uninterrupted presence in The Sudan since 1979. The Fund has to date funded 15
projects for a total cost of US$ 558.6 million, with over 70% of this amount mobilised through
government counterpart funding and co-financing by the Islamic Development Bank. IFAD remains
one of the few financial institutions with a substantial and high profile presence in agriculture and
rural development in The Sudan. The Fund’s operations in the period evaluated (1994–2007) were
guided by the 1994 Country Portfolio Evaluation and the 2002 country strategic opportunities
programme (COSOP) which reinforced the focus of IFAD’s interventions in rainfed farming areas.
The Fund’s assistance over this time period was aimed essentially at institutional support, agricultural
services, women empowerment, rural financial service, and natural resources management.

The 2002 COSOP is one of the first strategic documents in The Sudan advocating development and
increasing livelihood security as key instruments for ensuring peace and prosperity in war affected
areas. In addition, the need for greater support to rainfed areas for effective rural poverty reduction is
a major positive feature of the COSOP which includes land tenure and local development as key
sector for intervention. There are however, some gaps in this document, such as its unfocussed policy
dialogue agenda which contrasted with the principle of selectivity that should guide the country
strategy supported by IFAD. Also, the issue of poor sustainability of IFAD-supported activities was
not clearly mainstreamed in the Strategic Objectives.

The evaluation found that overall IFAD’s operations in The Sudan have achieved moderately
satisfactory results, despite challenges encountered during implementation. The Sudan Country
Programme brought hope to largely marginalized populations following a period of conflict in some
areas, and much needed support to state governments and localities where few other donors existed. It
provided them with hands-on-experience in innovative areas such as the newly formed Community
Development Committees. Emphasis was put on enhancing extension services at the lower
administrative levels, and even at village level for some extension staff and service providers like
paravets and midwives. Also, community and rural infrastructure have improved access to markets.
Performance however fell short in some areas. The evaluation found that the complex integrated rural
development approach adopted in the IFAD-supported programme is poorly adapted to the Sudanese
context, given the country’s fragile environment worsened by protracted civil strife. Also, the
overstretched and scattered nature of the interventions increased the amount of resources needed to
generate results.

IFAD’s focus in The Sudan has been on the rainfed farming areas, on which most of the rural poor
depend for their livelihood. The evaluation concluded that higher results could have been achieved
through a better balance between the agricultural and other sectors of intervention. The evaluation
recommends the continuation of IFAD support to the Government through its engagement in the
disadvantaged rainfed areas, but with a renewed focus on agriculture as a key sector of intervention
and redoubling efforts in promoting pro-poor agricultural innovations.

The evaluation report includes an Agreement at Completion Point which summarizes the main
findings of the evaluation and sets out recommendations agreed upon by the Government of The
Sudan and IFAD together with proposals as to how, when and by whom the recommendations should
be implemented.




                                           Luciano Lavizzari
                                     Director, Office of Evaluation


                                                   xiii
xiv
                                       Republic of The Sudan

                                  Country Programme Evaluation


                                         Executive Summary


                                        I. INTRODUCTION

1.     Evaluation objectives, methodology and process. The Office of Evaluation (OE) of the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) undertook the Country Programme
Evaluation (CPE) in The Sudan with the following main objectives: (i) assess the performance and
impact of IFAD country programme in The Sudan; and (ii) formulate a series of findings and
recommendations to serve as building blocks for the preparation of the next Country Strategic
Opportunities Programme (COSOP) for The Sudan. This CPE includes ten IFAD operations that were
still ongoing at the time of the evaluation or were designed after the 1994 Country Portfolio
Evaluation.

2.    In November 2007, a preparatory mission was conducted to discuss with The Sudan authorities
the evaluation approach, methodology and process. The main mission was undertaken from 27 January
to 25 February 2008, and worked with beneficiaries, the Government of The Sudan (GoS), civil
society and development partners in Khartoum. Four projects were visited [North Kordofan Rural
Development Project (NKRDP), South Kordofan Rural Development Programme (SKRDP), Western
Sudan Resources Management Programme (WSRMP) and Gash Sustainable Livelihoods
Regeneration Project (GSLRP)]. In compliance with the IFAD Evaluation Policy, a Core Learning
Partnership (CLP) was established. A national roundtable workshop was organised in The Sudan on
February 25-26 2009 to discuss the main learning issues emerging from the evaluation.

3.    Economy and poverty context. Despite its rich endowment of natural resources, The Sudan
remains a low-income and food deficit country. In 2005, The Sudan ranked 147 out of 177 countries
on the Human Development Index. This was below Madagascar but higher than Kenya. Poverty was
exacerbated by the harsh policy and institutional environment, the prolonged wars and its dramatic
consequences on the livelihoods of the rural poor. Poverty is presumed to be higher in the rural areas
due to low agricultural productivity and high unemployment. The Sudan is characterized by high
inequality, including among regions, gender and socio-economic groups. The economic growth
experienced by The Sudan in recent years has not significantly benefited the poor.

4.     The development of the oil sector in the late 90s resulted in double digit GDP growth rates and
significant expansion of the federal government revenue. However, the boom in the oil sector masks
the importance of the agricultural sector: it is estimated that about 70 per cent of The Sudan’s
population derive their economic livelihood from agriculture. The appreciation of the Sudanese
currency exchange rate due to increased international demand for oil products negatively affected
agricultural exports due to their high cost at export. Nevertheless, agriculture still accounts for about
80 per cent of non-petroleum exports.

5.     Development spending in the agricultural sector increased substantially in recent years. The
irrigated sector received most of these investments, while the rainfed crop and livestock sectors, on
which most of the rural poor depend for their livelihood, received the least. This imbalance is being
addressed under the current strategy for agricultural development – the Green Mobilisation. In 2003,
the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper for 2004-2006 was presented which provided for higher
assistance to rainfed areas and rural poverty. The Joint Assessment Mission of 2004 reaffirmed the
importance of an equitable distribution of national wealth to restore peace in the country.




                                                   xv
                        II. THE COUNTRY STRATEGY IN THE SUDAN

6.    Approximately 30 per cent of the poor in the Near East and North Africa region live in The
Sudan, making this country a priority for IFAD, both at the global and regional level. The presence of
IFAD in The Sudan began in 1979 and has been uninterrupted despite the country’s long running
conflict. To date, IFAD has funded 15 projects for a total cost of US$558.62 million of which 38 per
cent were IFAD loans.

7.     The 2002 Sudan COSOP was prepared at a time when the country’s prospects for re-engaging
the international aid community appeared promising and when most donors focused on humanitarian
rather than development aid. In this context, the IFAD COSOP can be considered one of the first
strategic and innovative documents in The Sudan which explicitly recognised the linkage between
development and peace. Furthermore, the COSOP recognised the multiple elements affecting human
vulnerability including access to natural resources and financial assets, food security, gender equity,
education, health care and peace. The key innovative element of the COSOP is that it is the first
strategic document in The Sudan to expressly call for the linkage between development and peace as
well as for greater support to the rainfed areas for effective poverty reduction.

8.     The 2002 COSOP continued consolidating the orientations established in the 1994 Country
Portfolio Evaluation. Three strategic thrusts were established: (i) support for the livelihood strategies
of the target groups; (ii) empowering men and women to fully participate in the development process;
and (iii) promoting good local governance. The overall goal of the COSOP was to: “improve living
conditions of 3 million rural poor in rainfed agriculture areas, particularly in central-west and eastern
regions”. These strategic objectives were aligned to the IFAD regional strategy and Government
general development priorities. They included a strong focus on gender, provided the basis for
promoting women’s access to decision making and for institutionalising community-based service
delivery mechanisms. Livestock development was prioritised as the key strategy for supporting the
livelihoods of the rural poor although the environmental consequences of livestock expansion were not
examined. The COSOP identified geographic niches for IFAD intervention in central-west and eastern
regions. These areas are among the poorest in The Sudan and are characterised by poor infrastructure
and weak administrative institutions.

9.    The COSOP complied with the IFAD requirements and standards of the time. It was however
elaborated in a context of lack of information on key poverty data and a high level of uncertainty about
the future of the country. The COSOP was unclear on how innovative solutions to rural poverty
reduction were expected to be replicated or up-scaled. An overambitious and unfocussed set of policy
dialogue issues were established: setting such an unfocused agenda for policy dialogue cannot be
considered as a useful framework for strategic direction. It contrasts with the principle of selectivity
that should guide IFAD operations aimed at maximizing rural poverty reduction impacts. The
contribution of grants, partnership building activities and knowledge management to the delivery of
the IFAD strategy was insufficiently analysed. It should however be noted that at the time in which
The Sudan COSOP was designed, the corporate policies on grants, partnership and knowledge
management were not yet approved.

10. As in the case of most pre-2006 COSOPs, The Sudan COSOP was open-ended with respect to
the pipeline. The COSOP established that in order to comply with the IFAD’s strategic niche and
proposed thrusts in The Sudan, area-based rural development projects would represent the majority of
projects in the IFAD portfolio. The evaluation expresses its reservation on the extent to which area-
based integrated rural development projects constituted the most appropriate intervention modality in
The Sudan. In particular, in a context characterised by limited institutional capacities and a volatile
policy environment, a more focused approach could have been more appropriate. Although criteria for
project selection were listed, these were not actually applicable in a context characterised by lack of
poverty data. Some degree of open-endedness and flexibility was nevertheless required in order to
respond to country volatility and uncertainty.




                                                  xvi
11. At the time of COSOP formulation, IFAD was the only funding development agency with a
substantial presence in The Sudan, along with the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) and the Arab
Fund. At the same time, the Sudanese government was benefiting from rising oil earnings. This
constituted an exceptional situation of great opportunity for the Fund in The Sudan. Although the
COSOP recognised the marked improvement in the growth rate of the economy starting in the early
90s and the prospects for increasing oil exports, it did not sufficiently analyse how IFAD-financed
operations could benefit from The Sudan’s improving economic perspective. In particular, the COSOP
did not sufficiently capitalise on the Fund’s privileged status in The Sudan and how this could be used
through policy dialogue for promoting further investments in its ongoing projects in rainfed areas

        III. PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS OF IFAD-SUPPORTED OPERATIONS

12. Portfolio performance. IFAD-funded projects scored as moderately satisfactory with regards to
relevance. The projects were relevant to the needs of The Sudan’s poor and were aligned to the
country’s national policies and institutional context. However, conflict issues were not sufficiently
addressed during design. Design flaws were also found in terms of under-financing of natural
resources compared to the magnitude of the problem; dependence on unidentified co-financiers for
priority activities; and overoptimistic expectation on implementation preparedness and management
capacity of partner stakeholders.

13. The effectiveness of IFAD-funded projects in The Sudan has been moderately satisfactory. In
the NKRDP, beneficiaries experienced improvement of their production capacity. These achievements
were possible through initiatives of support for extension workers, demonstrations and technical
training. Positive effects on women empowerment were achieved through nutrition, literacy classes
and increased women participation in community groups. The establishment of Locality Extension
Teams (LETs) was an important result of IFAD programmes. Effectiveness of projects was however
negatively affected by implementation un-preparedness, weak institutional capacity, and lack of
coordination among key stakeholders.

14. Efficiency has been moderately unsatisfactory. Overall, the overstretched and scattered nature of
the interventions increased the amount of resources needed to generate results. The complex
administrative structure, problems of coordination and complex management boards also affected
efficiency.

15. The rural poverty impact of the IFAD country programme is rated moderately satisfactory.
Important achievements were noted in terms of higher endowment of physical assets of rural poor
households, agricultural productivity, and improved capacity of grassroots organisations in planning
and management, and women empowerment. IFAD-funded programmes also contributed to orient
policy and institutions in better servicing the rural poor, especially through support to land and water
governance. In contrast, effects on market access were rated moderately unsatisfactory due to the fact
that this domain was not treated in a systematic manner. The impact of the IFAD Country Programme
on environment was also rated moderately unsatisfactory: despite the good results achieved with
awareness raising campaigns and initiatives for rangeland and pasture protection, the evaluation noted
the high exposure to environmental risks including land erosion and livestock overgrazing.

16. Sustainability was found to be a continuing problematic area for IFAD operations in The Sudan.
This is due to the fragile and volatile environment, weak execution capacities and recurrent conflicts.
The assumption that the revenue base of locality governments would increase sufficiently to take over
responsibility for project activities proved unfounded. In this context, it is unlikely that State
Governments will be able to consolidate most of the successes of the IFAD supported projects,
particularly those related to sustaining rangeland rehabilitation and improvements. At the same time,
the evaluation found a high degree of social ownership which constitutes an important supporting
factor for sustainability.

17. The performance of non-lending activities was moderately unsatisfactory. The Fund did not
grasp the opportunities for policy dialogue to augment overall development effectiveness at a time
when IFAD remained the only international financial institution in the country. Its sphere of influence

                                                 xvii
at policy level was mostly limited within the scope of project activities. Policy dialogue was limited,
partly because IFAD allocated few resources and efforts for the purpose and partly because of a lack
of a more permanent country presence (until 2005). However, IFAD established good relations with
ministries and institutions both in the federal and state governments. Its privileged status facilitated
partnering with GoS officials both with national and state authorities and notably at project level.
IFAD has no significant partnership with international financial institutions except for the IsDB in the
NKRDP. Better coordination among the Kordofan programmes and other projects active in the region
would have been beneficial in reducing duplication of efforts. The mechanisms in place for knowledge
generation, management and dissemination were not adequate: although some knowledge sharing
events have taken place among projects, there have been few systematic efforts to document IFAD’s
experiences on a periodic basis, or to mobilize relevant learning and experiences from other countries
in the region or elsewhere. Impact studies have been undertaken in the SKRDP for assessing the
effects of project operations.

18. The performance of partners. Through its operations, IFAD has supported the national
decentralisation process by working with local communities to sustain the livelihoods of the rural poor
and strengthening local governance. The Fund’s privileged status facilitated partnering with GoS
officials, both with National and State authorities and notably at the project level. Since 2005, IFAD has
introduced a field country presence in The Sudan which has significantly contributed to its visibility, and
is providing some benefits to non-lending activities. So far, the Fund has effectively undertaken direct
supervision in one project (NKRDP). Direct supervision will be extended to all other recent projects
in The Sudan in 2009. While the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) performed well
in the supervision of fiduciary and operational aspects, supervision missions gave more limited ttention
to the follow-up and assessment of certain technical aspects of project implementation. Government
performance has generally been as satisfactory as could be expected within the limitations imposed by
its capacity constraints.

19. The table below provides the average score of the evaluation ratings expressed on a 6 point scale
where 6 corresponds to highly satisfactory whereas 1 to highly unsatisfactory. These scores are
benchmarked against the 2002-2006 Annual Report on the Results and Impact of IFAD Operations
(ARRI)1 ratings (for example, the 88 per cent under relevance means that 88 per cent of the projects
evaluated by The Sudan CPE had a moderately satisfactory or better rating).

                 Summary of the IFAD-supported Projects and Programmes in the Sudan
Criteria                                 Rating     Score    Per cent of Satisfactory Projects   2002-2006 ARRI
Core Performance Criteria
   Relevance                               MS         4                     88                         96
   Effectiveness                           MS         4                     50                         72
   Efficiency                              MU         3                     50                         66
Aggregate Portfolio Performance            MS         4                     50                         84

Overall Impact                             MS         4                     33                         65

Other Performance Criteria
Sustainability                             MU         3                    33                          45
Innovation                                 MS         4                    100                         68
Overall Project Portfolio Achievement      MS         4                     50                         67

Partner Performance
    IFAD                                   MS         4                     66                         51
    Co-operating Institution               MS         4                     50                         64
    Government                             MS         4                     33                         67
MS = Moderately Satisfactory      MU = Moderately Unsatisfactory.




1
     The ARRI aims to provide a consolidated picture of the results, impact and performance of IFAD projects
each year:

                                                    xviii
20. Though the portfolio performance ratings in Table 13 are lower when compared to the Annual
Report on the Results and Impact of IFAD Operations (ARRI) ratings, the IFAD portfolio in support of
the GoS efforts has nonetheless been moderately satisfactory overall2. Similarly, the performance of
partners has also been moderately satisfactory. The Sudan Country Programme brought hope to largely
marginalized populations following a period of conflict in some areas, and much needed support to state
governments and localities where few other donors existed.

                                           IV. CONCLUSIONS

Agriculture as a Key Sector of Intervention

21. Though the Fund’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) contribution in support of The
Sudan’s rural poverty reduction efforts may seem modest relative to total ODA, IFAD is still the largest
donor in the agriculture sector, making the Fund a major partner in the current period of rising
agricultural commodity prices. The Evaluation notes that the agricultural sector budget, which had
declined to low levels in 2001, has since regained its former position of 2000 (45 per cent of total
development expenditure). However, the irrigated sector received most of these investments, while the
rainfed crop and livestock sectors, on which most of the rural poor depend for their livelihood, received
the least. The CPE also indicates that components to strengthen rainfed agricultural services are
explicitly present in only two out of the five ongoing IFAD projects, but subsumed under different
components in all projects. Components to strengthen agricultural services in ongoing projects received
19 per cent of IFAD financing. This is less than institutional support (27 per cent) or community
development (20 per cent) components, which are present in all five projects. Considering that
smallholder agriculture in The Sudan generates economic growth that builds peace and reduces poverty,
a key lesson of this CPE is that IFAD strategy and activities in The Sudan could further address the root
causes of smallholder low productivity by focussing more on agriculture.

Promoting Pro-poor Agricultural Innovations

22. The Evaluation found that though the programme had performed moderately satisfactorily with
regards to rural finance or institutional innovations [e.g. development of Community Development
Committees (CDCs) in project areas], little technical innovation has been developed by research, under
the impulse of IFAD and GoS, to be adopted as technical packages by the projects. More support to
research is needed. For example, the evaluation found that farmers are already beginning to experiment
themselves with more intensified use of manure and could be assisted with technical advice for on-farm
trials, with pastoralists assisted with corral systems for manure collection. Where innovative models for
development are adopted within IFAD projects from previous Non Governmental Organisation (NGO)
experience in the field (as with stock route demarcation in WSRMP from Save Our Souls Sahel, and
village CDCs that have a similar structure and purpose to Village Development Committees (VDCs),
that first emerged from CARE’s 30 year experience in the area), greater emphasis and resources are
required to support further adaptation and evolution of the innovation.

Scaling Up Policy Dialogue

23. The COSOP did not capture the privileged status of IFAD at the time of its preparation in 2002,
when IFAD remained among the few funding development agencies in The Sudan. There was a missed
opportunity for IFAD to systematically follow-up on policy issues at the national level. The Fund’s
sphere of influence remained mostly constrained within the project scope. Lack of real country presence
and little engagement on higher national level policy issues reinforced the narrow role of policy dialogue
initiatives undertaken by the Fund during implementation of the Country Programme.

24. Most results at policy level have taken place within the project context. This comprises measures
to improve access to land and water resources, the development of community organisations, or the
promotion of gender equity. This is considered a positive characteristic of IFAD in The Sudan and

2
    Overall portfolio achievement reflects the combined assessment of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, rural
poverty impact, sustainability and innovation.

                                                      xix
should be used for building forthcoming institutional and policy change objectives in the Results-Based
COSOP. They also attest to IFAD’s ability to influence policy, an aptitude which could well be exercised
beyond the project context.

Tackling Sustainability

25. The Evaluation confirmed that project sustainability, which has been identified as a key weakness
since the Portfolio Evaluation of 1994, requires broader efforts beyond the simple scope of project
activities. The COSOP did not provide a comprehensive strategy for ensuring sustainability of IFAD-
financed activities. Some IFAD-financed operations, such as increased livestock development, have
translated into additional concerns. These tend to introduce substantial changes over a short time period
in fragile environments with a weak carrying capacity, often resulting in adverse environmental effects.

26. Despite laudable efforts, there has been a gap between the IFAD intent in the 2002 COSOP
seeking to promote conflict resolution as well as peace-building and outcomes on the ground. In
addition, the fragile and volatile environment, weak implementation capacities and recurrent conflicts
increase the exposure of existing project benefits to risks that may hinder the continuation of benefits
after completion of IFAD support.

                                     V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Agriculture as a Key Sector of Intervention

27. The Evaluation recommends that IFAD further address the root causes of smallholder low
productivity by focussing more on agriculture in the next COSOP. Localities where basic services and
infrastructure that have proved to support labour productivity and market access are available could be
favoured. In today’s environment of rising prices, the issues of value-chain marketing and market access
require more consideration than these issues received in the past. IFAD could also build on current
efforts such as the decentralised agricultural extension services which have been beneficial to
smallholders. Land tenure, irrigated cultivation, overgrazing and livestock should continue to be
addressed. However, consideration should be given to pursuing these in a more focused and systematic
manner to ensure greater integration and synergies in these areas.

Promoting Pro-poor Agricultural Innovations

28. The Evaluation recommends that IFAD redouble efforts in promoting pro-poor agricultural
innovations. These have been weaker than innovations in the other programme components. The Fund’s
focus on agricultural innovation should be realised within projects through allocation of greater resources
for suitable staffing, links to relevant research organisations and to undertake adaptive research
components. A more systematic approach to replication and scaling up of agricultural innovations should
also be developed. In particular, technical innovations need to be developed by research, under the
impulse of IFAD and GoS, and be adopted as technical packages by the projects. Greater practical
support to innovation in the agricultural sector should be given both at research level and in support to
farmer’s own experimentation and innovation.

Scaling up Policy Dialogue

29. Building on project-level policy dialogue initiatives that are currently being pursued, the division
should scale up agricultural policy dialogue to the national level. This could be done by presenting a
limited set of strategic themes for dialogue in the forthcoming Sudan COSOP, which could include, inter
alia, such themes as: Agricultural Pro-poor Innovation, Partnership and Sustainability. Policy dialogue
on these strategic themes could then be enhanced and sustained through the life of the next COSOP
through the regular follow-up and analysis mandated in the RB-COSOP framework, including annual
workshops and the mid-term review exercise. Regularly revisiting dialogue on policy issues also presents
the potential to establish a more transparent partnership and consultation mechanism, making it possible
to better engage with national and local level authorities, civil society and the wider donor community.


                                                    xx
The end result would be a more holistic country programme and, ultimately, more sustainable
development impact.

Tackling Sustainability

30. The Evaluation recommends that the next COSOP ensure sustainability is incorporated in the
broad framework of the strategic elements of the Country Programme in terms of design (e.g. clarity of
exit strategies), and partnership (e.g. stakeholder ownership) at the outset of the new country
programme. Also, recognizing the contextual realities of The Sudan, where conflict over natural
resource is an integral part of the daily reality of farming and pastoral communities, IFAD should include
the capacity building of the field staff in conflict prevention and disaster management as an integral
component of its programmatic interventions in The Sudan in order to enhance sustainability.




                                                   xxi
xxii
                                       Republic of The Sudan

                                  Country Programme Evaluation


                                  Agreement at Completion Point


                                           A. Background

1.    In 2007/2008, IFAD’s Office of Evaluation (OE) conducted a Country Programme Evaluation
(CPE) in The Sudan. The main objectives of the CPE were to: (i) assess the performance and impact of
IFAD’s strategy and operations in The Sudan; and (ii) develop a series of findings and
recommendations that would serve as building blocks for the preparation of the new IFAD results-
based country strategy and opportunities programme (RB-COSOP) for The Sudan. The COSOP would
be formulated by the Near East and North Africa Division (PN) of IFAD in close collaboration with
the Government of The Sudan.

2.    This Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) includes the key findings and recommendations
contained in the CPE. It also benefits from the main discussion points that emerged at the CPE
national roundtable workshop, organized in Khartoum on February 25-26, 2009. This ACP captures
the understanding between the IFAD management (represented by the Programme Management
Department) and the Government of The Sudan (represented by the Ministry of Finance and National
Economy) on the core CPE findings, and their commitment to adopt and implement the evaluation
recommendations contained in this document within specified timeframes.

                                     B. The Main CPE Findings

3.     The Sudan Country Programme brought hope to the most deprived populations following a period
of conflict in some areas, and much needed support to state governments and localities where few other
donors existed. It provided them with hands-on-experience in innovative areas such as the newly formed
CDCs. IFAD has assisted in the introduction of improved agricultural practices, seed varieties and
livestock which have enhanced incomes, food security and nutrition. There has been emphasis put on
enhancing extension services at the lower administrative levels, and even at village level for some
extension staff and service providers like paravets and midwives. There has been an increase in the
establishment and improvements of local organizations, training in health care, nutrition, hygiene,
especially through the recruitment of female extension staff. The provision of micro-finance to generate
enhanced economic activities has increased local economic activities, albeit not always on a sustainable
basis. Community and rural infrastructure (e.g. El Obeid-Bara road) have also improved access to
markets. IFAD remains today’s largest donor in the Agriculture sector in the country, making the Fund a
major partner in the current period of rising agricultural commodity and food prices.

4.     The Evaluation notes that components to strengthen rainfed agricultural services are explicitly
present in only two out of the five ongoing IFAD projects, but subsumed under different components in
all projects. The Evaluation also found that little technical innovation has been developed by research
institutions that could be adopted by beneficiaries. Nevertheless, farmers are already beginning to
experiment themselves in some areas such as more intensified use of manure. They could be assisted
with technical advice for on-farm trials, with pastoralists assisted with corral systems for manure
collection. A renewed focus on agricultural development raises the challenge of the most suitable
targeting strategy for IFAD operations.

5.    The evaluation found that the vast geographic coverage of IFAD activities in The Sudan raises
coordination concerns and does not generate sufficient synergies within/across programmes. Greater
geographic concentration could be sought to foster agricultural productivity and market linkages,
while facilitating project supervision and overall programme management. The diverse agricultural
environment in The Sudan is at once a challenge and an opportunity in this regard.


                                                 xxiii
6.     The CPE notes that IFAD missed an opportunity to more systematically follow-up on policy issues
notably at the Federal level. The Fund’s policy dialogue efforts concentrated mainly at the project level.
It is expected that the establishment of a country presence in The Sudan since 2005, will strengthen
IFAD’s engagement in the policy arena at the national level.

7.    Project sustainability, which has been identified as a key weakness since The Sudan Country
Portfolio Evaluation of 1994, requires broader efforts beyond the simple scope of project activities. The
Evaluation found hard-earned gains in projects are threatened with loss when projects come to an end
and there are no prospects for follow-up with internally generated resources. The solution that consists in
phasing out the external (IFAD) contribution during the period of implementation often proved
unrealistic, because it takes much more time (in the range of 15-20 years) to reach results that are
sustainable. Hence, an important aspect of sustainability is continuity of support to avoid the
degeneration and possible loss of good results and assets. At the same time, situation of donor-
dependency should be avoided.

8.    The CPE also found that institution building through projects has been one of IFAD’s strong
points in The Sudan and has demonstrated its appropriateness and relevance for rural poverty
reduction. However, the model demands substantial resources, especially at the State/Locality and
programme management levels where over 70 per cent of institutional support funding has gone and
where institutional and operational linkages are still weak. The model is also based on a number of
assumptions that have been found to be optimistic, such as growth of locality government revenues as
projects raise agricultural productivity and hence incomes of the farmers (and the private sector more
generally) who not only would pay more taxes, but also have capacity to pay for most of the services
they require. Community organizations visited which were established or supported by the programme
appeared to be still in need of additional capacity building to attain self-reliance.

9.    The CPE rated the overall performance of IFAD portfolio in support of the Government of The
Sudan as moderately satisfactory. The CPE notes that The Sudan portfolio performance compares
favourably with the average performance of projects implemented in similar country groups.

                                         C. Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Agriculture as a Key Sector of Intervention

10. The Evaluation recommends that IFAD further address the root causes of smallholder low
productivity by focussing more on agriculture in the next COSOP. Localities where basic services and
infrastructure that have proved to support labour productivity and market access are available could be
favoured. In today’s environment of rising prices, the issues of value-chain marketing and market access
require more consideration than these issues received in the past. IFAD could also build on current
efforts such as the decentralised agricultural extension services which have been beneficial to
smallholders. Land tenure, traditional rainfed cultivation, overgrazing and livestock should continue to
be addressed. However, consideration should be given to pursuing these in a more focused and
systematic manner to ensure greater integration and synergies in these areas.

Recommendation 2: Promoting Pro-poor Agricultural Innovations

11. Notwithstanding the programme’s good performance in the areas of rural finance or institutional
innovations, the Evaluation recommends that IFAD redouble efforts in promoting pro-poor agricultural
innovations. These have been weaker than innovations in the other programme components. A more
systematic approach to replication and scaling up of agricultural innovations should also be developed.
In particular, Government and IFAD will identify, test and replicate technological packages that
constitute an adaptation to climate change such as technologies for increased soil fertility, herd and
range management in drought affected areas, cost effective environmental conservation, energy
efficient agro-processing. The main benefits sought from technological innovations are stabilized
yields in the rainy season and increased income in the dry season.



                                                   xxiv
Recommendation 3: Scaling Up Policy Dialogue

12. Building on project-level policy dialogue initiatives that are currently being pursued, the division
should scale up agricultural policy dialogue to the national level. This could be done by presenting a
limited set of strategic themes for dialogue in the forthcoming Sudan COSOP which are the most
relevant to the new strategic orientations. Policy dialogue on these strategic themes could then be
enhanced and sustained through the life of the next COSOP through the regular follow-up and analysis
mandated in the RB-COSOP framework, including annual workshops and the mid-term review exercise.
Regularly revisiting dialogue on policy issues also presents the potential to establish a more transparent
partnership and consultation mechanism, making it possible to better engage with national and local level
authorities, civil society and the wider donor community. The end result would be a more holistic
country programme and, ultimately, more sustainable development impact.

Recommendation 4: Tackling Sustainability

13. The Evaluation recommends that the next COSOP ensure sustainability is incorporated in the
broad framework of the strategic elements of the Country Programme in terms of design (e.g. clarity
of exit strategies), and partnership (e.g. stakeholder ownership) at the outset of the new country
programme. Also, recognizing the contextual realities of The Sudan, where conflict over natural
resource is an integral part of the daily reality of farming and pastoral communities, Government and
IFAD should develop their capacity in disaster preparedness and quick response. As part of this, the
projects would develop the capacity of the field staff in conflict prevention as integral component of
its programmatic interventions in The Sudan in order to enhance sustainability. Furthermore, the
Fund’s assistance to the state owned banks such as the Agricultural Bank of Sudan (ABS), which
resulted in a major change in its rural finance policy, should be pursued if gains achieved are to be
further enhanced and sustained.

Proposed Timeframe to Implement Recommendations 1-4

The recommendations will be taken into account in formulating the new results-based COSOP and
new operations in The Sudan.

Key Partners to Be Involved

Government of The Sudan, the concerned technical and financial partners at both the federal and state
levels, civil society organizations, private sector and IFAD, will be involved in implementation.

Agreement at Completion Point signed in Khartoum

On 28 February 2009 by


Mr. Eltayeb Abu Ganaya, Undersecretary, MOFNE


and


Mr. Nadim Khouri, Director, Near East and North Africa Division, IFAD




                                                   xxv
xxvi
                                             Republic of The Sudan

                                    Country Programme Evaluation


                                                 Main Report


                                        I.       INTRODUCTION

                                   A.    Rationale and Background

1.     Approximately 30 per cent of the poor in the International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD) Near East and North Africa region live in The Sudan, making the country a priority for IFAD,
both at the global and regional level. IFAD’s presence in The Sudan began in 1979 and has since been
uninterrupted despite the country’s long running conflict which has taken a terrible toll in terms of loss
of human life, population displacement, and destruction of infrastructure and social fabric in the war
affected areas.

2.     IFAD has to date funded fifteen projects for a total cost of US$558.62 million of which
US$211.63 million (about 38 per cent of the total amount) were IFAD loans1. This represents 13.3 per
cent of total IFAD lending in the Near East and North Africa Division and makes The Sudan the
country with the highest lending amount in the region. IFAD development assistance to The Sudan is
relatively modest compared to overall Official Development Assistance (ODA), representing
approximately 0.6 per cent of total ODA between 1994 and 2005. This is largely due to the significant
amount of humanitarian aid The Sudan received during this period. Although the relative ODA
amount is modest, IFAD was for the period under review, and still is today, the largest donor and
development partner in the agricultural sector: in 2006, IFAD funding represented 38 per cent of the
total active agricultural development portfolio in The Sudan. The long standing support of the Fund to
the Government’s rural poverty reduction efforts has over time conferred IFAD a privileged status
compared to other donors.

3.    Strategic programming of IFAD operations started in 1981 when the first General Identification
and Programming Mission was fielded, following IFAD’s two first loans to The Sudan which co-
financed projects initiated by the World Bank2. While in the first half of the 1980s IFAD's assistance
was largely focused on the rehabilitation of the irrigated farming sector, from the mid-1980s onwards
the emphasis gradually shifted towards developing the traditional rainfed farming sector.

4.     It should be noted that IFAD lending to The Sudan was interrupted in the 1995-1999 period due
to difficulties faced by the Government of The Sudan (GoS) in servicing IFAD loan repayments. This
coincided with the period of isolation during which the presence of the international development
community in the country was severely limited.

5.    The 1994 Country Portfolio Evaluation provided lessons and recommended directions for the
future cooperation of IFAD with The Sudan. It noted some positive though temporary results in a
context of general economic decline. Significant problems of sustainability were highlighted. It was
noted that the relatively modest IFAD disbursements were spread over large geographical areas and

1
    Appendix 1 summarizes key data for the 15 projects that comprise the IFAD financed projects in The
Sudan.
2
     The Southern Region Agriculture Project (1979) and New Halfa Irrigation Rehabilitation Project (1980). A
Special Programming Mission visited The Sudan in 1986 and issued a report in 1988. Meanwhile, a second GIM
was fielded in 1987 and a third in 1989/90. Each of these three GIMs identified two projects that were
subsequently developed and approved. The third GIM identified two irrigation projects: the Northern Province
Irrigation Rehabilitation Project - Phase 2 (approved in 1992) and the White Nile Agricultural Services Project
(approved in 1993). In addition to these eight loans, two loans supporting follow-up activities on World Bank
projects2 were approved in 1985 and 1986.

                                                      1
that this dilution hindered achievement of significant impact. For this reason, it was recommended to
concentrate IFAD interventions “in one, or at most two regions”. In order to target the poor it was
recommended that IFAD move away from Nile-irrigated agriculture and concentrate on rainfed
areas/agriculture in Kordofan and Darfur. Given the centralistic and top-down institutional traditions,
the Country Portfolio Evaluation also recommended adopting grass-roots participatory approaches in
The Sudan to enhance participation of the poor, by bringing design and implementation decisions
down to the level of beneficiary communities.

6.     The two Kordofan projects3 which were approved once IFAD resumed lending to The Sudan in
1999 were implemented in rainfed farming areas characterized by a higher level of poverty than the
irrigation farming areas. This marked a significant departure from the irrigated farming sector
approach which had mostly characterized IFAD lending in The Sudan till then. The Kordofan projects,
which aimed at improving livelihoods, fostering improved gender balance and strong local
governance, were quite successful in their early implementation periods. This positive development
influenced the design of the IFAD strategy in The Sudan being developed at that time.

7.     In 2002 the first Country Strategic Opportunities Programme (COSOP) reinforced the focus of
IFAD’s interventions in rainfed farming areas. Options for consolidation of the portfolio in rainfed
areas of central-west Sudan (Gash) were also included. Strategic priorities of IFAD included
supporting the livelihood strategies of target groups, empowering both men and women to fully
participate in the development process, and promoting good local governance. During this period the
Sudanese economy was undergoing profound transformations with oil output increasing rapidly
following the start-up of the Greater Nile Oil Project in 1999. Furthermore, the country was also
involved in major political and social developments in terms of the ongoing peace negotiations and
launching of the poverty reduction programmes.4

                           B.   Evaluation Objectives and Methodology

8.     The main objectives of this Country Programme Evaluation (CPE) are to: (i) assess the
performance and impact of IFAD’s overall country programme in The Sudan; and (ii) formulate a
series of findings and recommendations that would serve as building blocks for the preparation of the
new COSOP for The Sudan.

Evaluation Scope and Focus

9.    This CPE covers IFAD operations that were still ongoing or designed after the 1994 Country
Portfolio Evaluation which evaluated projects completed prior to that year. In order to ensure
continuity, this evaluation encompasses ten projects during the 14 year period between 1994 and
2008.5 In this way, the Evaluation ensures that the entire period since the beginning of IFAD activity
in The Sudan in 1979 has been included in evaluations.

10. The ten projects covered by this CPE can be considered in four distinctive groups as indicated in
Table 1. Maps 2, 3 and 4 at the front of the report locate these projects in The Sudan.

      •    Group A includes five projects designed and approved before the 1994 Country Portfolio
          Evaluation and closed before the 2002 COSOP. The sample of the three most recent projects
          was selected. These included: the Southern Roseires Agricultural Development Project
          (SRADP), evaluated by the Office of Evaluation (OE) in 1997, the Phase II Northern
          Province Irrigation Rehabilitation Project (NPIRP) and the White Nile Agricultural Services

3
    The North Kordofan Rural Development Project (NKRDP, declared effective in 2000) and the South
Kordofan Rural Development Programme (SKRDP, effective in 2001).
4
      Please see paragraph 27, Republic of The Sudan COSOP, 2002, EB2002//76/R.11 as well as Chapter III of
this report.
5
    The Southern Sudan Livelihoods Development Project (SSLDP) approved by the IFAD Executive Board in
September 2008 was not included in this analysis as indicated in the CPE Approach Paper.

                                                    2
               Project (WNASP). These three projects were desk reviewed to assess whether their strengths
               and weaknesses were taken into account in later projects and the 2002 COSOP. They have
               also been rated for Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability.

        •      Group B comprises two projects designed after the 1994 Country Portfolio Evaluation but
               before the 2002 COSOP: the North Kordofan Rural Development Project (NKRDP) and the
               South Kordofan Rural Development Programme (SKRDP). They were still ongoing at the
               time of CPE and were mid-term reviewed6. These projects were visited during the CPE
               mission.

        •      Group C includes two projects designed after the 2002 COSOP that have been ongoing for
               a few years only: the Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project (GSLRP) and the
               Western Sudan Resources Management Programme (WSRMP). During evaluation, special
               attention was given to assess their design and performance. Both projects were the subject of
               a desk review and field evaluation.

        •      Group D comprises the Butana Integrated Rural Development Project (BIRDP) that was
               only recently approved. Although the loan has been declared effective, project
               implementation had not begun at the time of the evaluation. For this project, only relevance
               at design was assessed.

                            Table 1. The Sudan CPE Project Groups 1994-20087
                       Group A                 Group B                    Group C                  Group D
    Total                  5                       2                          2                        1
    projects

    Projects      • NPIRP 1987-1998     • NKRDP 2000 -             • GSLRP 2004 -             • BIRDP 2007 -
    evaluated                             ongoing                    ongoing                    just started
                  • SRADP 1992-
                    2000                • SKRDP 2001 -             • WSRM 2006 -
                                          ongoing                    ongoing
                  • WNASP 1995-
                    2002


11. In light of the Fund’s lending which was interrupted from 1995 to 1999, and in order to be
pertinent to the current IFAD programming in The Sudan, notably with regards to the development of
the new COSOP, the CPE focuses mainly on IFAD interventions related to the 2002 COSOP. These
include Group B, C, and D projects which represent a transition for IFAD from support focussed on
irrigated/semi-mechanised to rainfed farming, as well as a major change in the overall approach to
addressing rural poverty in The Sudan. These projects are multi-sectoral with a focus on integrated
rural development in areas of traditional rainfed farming, except the GSLRP which promoted
agricultural development within the framework of a spate irrigated scheme. Group B, C, and D
projects are all either closely aligned to the 2002 COSOP as in the case of NKRDP and SKRDP or
were designed after the COSOP, which makes them more pertinent to the current IFAD programming
in The Sudan. Considering that Group A projects were closed between six to eight years ago, and the
limited time and resources available for the evaluation, Group A projects were not included in the field
visits but analysed through a desk review (See Appendix 3).




6
    The NKRDP was mid-term reviewed in 2004. The SKRDP, which is financed by a Flexible Lending
Mechanism loan, was reviewed at the end of the first phase in order to asses the conditions for activating the
second phase in 2005.
7
      The table shows for each project its duration, starting from the year in which the loan was declared effective
to its completion date or status at time of evaluation.

                                                         3
Methodology

12.    The CPE applies OE’s evaluation methodology and addresses three overarching questions:

       (i)    Did IFAD pursue the right country strategy, that is, was it designed to ensure the highest
              possible rural poverty reduction impacts?
      (ii)    To what extent was the country strategy effectively implemented through projects and
              non-lending activities (such as policy dialogue, partnerships, and knowledge sharing) and
              how did they perform?; and
      (iii)   What was the impact of IFAD’s country strategy and operations?

13. In answering these questions, IFAD’s current standards and policies were considered, as per
standard practice in the evaluation of international development programmes. The Sudan CPE
Framework is presented in Appendix 2, and provides not only the logic of the evaluation but also the
CPE building blocks, namely: the quality of the country strategy; operational performance of the
strategy (through projects and non-projects); and rural poverty impacts of the country programme.

14. In dealing with the three key questions, the CPE attempts to address the issue of
attribution/contribution.8 The CPE has also made use of the self-assessment instruments and analysis
available at country and project level which include inter alia Project Status Reports, Country
Programme Issue Sheets, Mid-Term Reviews (for NKRDP and SKRDP) and a 2002 COSOP internal
self-assessment.

15. The programme’s performance has been assessed in Chapter IV on three criteria as follows:
(a) relevance: assessed against: (i) IFAD’s and GoS’s policies and objectives, (ii) the rural poverty
context and needs of rural communities, and (iii) the realism of the design approach; (b) effectiveness:
assessed in terms of the extent to which projects objectives were achieved and contributed to the three
strategic goals of the COSOP – i.e. improving livelihood strategies of the poor; empowering men and
women to participate fully in the development process; and fostering good local governance; and
(c) efficiency: assessed in terms of the use of resources to deliver given outputs/outcomes to achieve
the stated project objectives.

16. IFAD defines rural poverty impact as the changes in the lives of the poor intended or
unintended -as they and their partners perceive them at the time of the evaluation- to which IFAD has
contributed. The following impact domains have been considered: (i) physical assets, (ii) financial
assets, (iii) food security, (iv) social capital, (v) human capital, (vi) agricultural productivity,
(vii) institutions and services, (viii) markets, and (ix) environment and common resource base. Two
overarching factors were analysed, namely: sustainability and innovations. The performance of key
partners (IFAD, GoS and co-operating institutions) was also evaluated. Performance of partner co-
financers is not included in this CPE as co-financing only materialised with the Islamic Development
Bank (IsDB) for the El Obeid-Bara road in NKRDP. A six point scale was used for assigning ratings
against each evaluation criteria: a rate of 6 corresponds to highly satisfactory whereas 1 to highly
unsatisfactory.

17. The evaluation findings are based on the following sources: (i) first-hand data obtained during a
four-week country mission9, which worked directly with beneficiaries, agencies of the GoS, civil
society and development partners in Khartoum and visited four projects (NKRDP, SKRDP, WSRMP
and GSLRP); (ii) technical advice provided by local Sudanese consultants in land use, road
engineering, irrigation engineering and conflict issues; (iii) a desk review of existing documents (from


8
    In line with international practices (e.g. WB-IEG CAE Methodology), this evaluation assumes that
development impact can not be always attributed specifically to the discrete interventions of an individual
organisation; however, a plausible association can be established between the common work of several
developing partners and the observed development results.
9
    The CPE preparatory mission was conducted in November 2007 and the main four-week mission in
February 2004.

                                                    4
IFAD, co-financiers and Cooperating Institutions (CI), Government reports, project management
reports, studies and databases prepared by international organisations); and (iv) key informant and
focus group discussions conducted during the main mission. During this latter mission, the Ministry of
Finance and National Economy (MOFNE) chaired an initial meeting as well as the wrap-up meeting
with other key ministries10, the Agricultural Bank of Sudan (ABS) and various stakeholders. Separate
follow-up meetings were held with these and other Ministries, donors, and numerous Non
Governmental Organisations (NGOs) under the umbrella of The Sudan Council of Voluntary
Agencies.

18. The CPE takes into account that the five projects from Group B, C and D were at different
stages of implementation at the time of the Evaluation and that these projects have not been subject to
completion assessments. Therefore, the WSRMP and the BIRD which are not yet at a stage where
their performance and impact indicators can be properly assessed are rated for relevance only.
However, the evidence of progress to date in key evaluation indicators and in poverty impact of the
NKRDP, SKRDP and GSLRP have provided the evaluation with a satisfactory basis of data for the
CPE and allowed these projects to be included in the assessment.

19. A Core Learning Partnership (CLP) was formed comprising: the MOFNE, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry (MOAF), Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources (MOIWR), South and
North Kordofan State Government, Butana Development Agency; and the Office of the First Vice
President. The CLP also included the IFAD project coordinators, members of the IFAD regional
division and the Country Presence Officer (CPO). CLP partners commented on the draft approach
paper and on the draft evaluation report. They also provided inputs towards the preparation of the
agreement at completion point (ACP).

20. A national workshop was organised in The Sudan on February 25-26, 2009 by OE in close
collaboration with Near East and North Africa Division of IFAD (PN) and the GoS. The purpose of
this workshop was to facilitate sharing and exchange of views on key evaluation issues flagged in this
CPE. The workshop provided inputs for preparation of the Agreement at Completion Point (ACP).

                                II.    THE COUNTRY CONTEXT

                           A.    The Economy and Policy Environment

21. Today, as in 1994 and 2002 when IFAD developed its strategic visions for the country, The
Sudan remains a low-income and food deficit country, despite its rich endowment in natural resources.
The HDI in 2005 for The Sudan was 0.526, which corresponds to a rank of 147th out of 177 countries.
This was below Madagascar (0.54) but higher than Kenya (0.521). The per capita Gross National
Income in 2006 was US$800. Economic growth continued to be strong in 2007 with GDP increasing
by over ten per cent driven by the oil sector. The Sudan’s economy remains plagued by serious
problems resulting from poor economic management and civil strife. These have had serious
implications for the well-being of the population and diverted substantial resources away from
development.

22. Following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in January 2005, power
sharing between the North and South was introduced through the Government of National Unity
(GNU). Under this arrangement the National President appoints the state governors in consultation
with the Presidential Council which comprises the President, the First Vice President (who is also the
President of South Sudan), and the Second Vice President. Each state has also a Unity Government
headed by a Governor who appoints state ministers whose number is determined according to the
requirements of the individual state. The Sudan’s governance structure thus includes two governments
and two parliaments from the federal to the state level. The balance of power at the Federal and state
level is a reflection of the strength of the political parties. In the North the National Congress Party
(NCP) is the majority partner, while in the South it is the Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM).

10
     These include: MOAF: (Internat. Cooperation Dir.), MOIWR, MARF: (Ministry of Animal Resources and
Fisheries), MEUD: (Ministry of Environment and Urban Development).

                                                   5
The overall political, social, economic, and security environment is highly volatile and this is
confirmed by the Failed States Index, which has ranked The Sudan as one of its top three states at risk
of failure for the past four years. In particular, The Sudan is regarded as a conflict-prone country due
to its long history of civil war in the South, as well as other domestic conflicts in the western and
eastern parts of northern Sudan, which have their origin in unresolved competition over resources
(especially between herders and farmers).

23. As shown in Figure 1, over the last ten years contribution to GDP from the agricultural sector
has decreased by some ten percentage points, while contribution by industry has almost doubled
largely due to the booming oil sector. Contribution by the service sector has remained fairly constant,
showing a small decline due to the reduction in private services, which have been largely compensated
by similar increases in government services. In addition, remittances of The Sudan nationals working
abroad significantly contribute to national revenue. Although no hard figures are available, the impact
of remittances is evident in terms of increase in real estate investments in Khartoum.

               Figure 1. Agricultures Sector Contribution to Gross Domestic Project (GDP)*
     % contribution to GDP
         60.00%


         50.00%


         40.00%

                                                                                         Agriculture
         30.00%                                                                          Industry
                                                                                         Services

         20.00%


         10.00%


          0.00%
                     1998    1999    2000     2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006
                                                     Year


    * Factor Cost (constant 1981/82 prices)
    Source: Ministry of Finance and National Economy.

24. The discovery of oil in the 1990’s and its significant impact on total exports mask the continued
importance of agriculture in The Sudan. Despite its declining share of GDP, agricultural production
and exploitation of renewable natural resources form the basis of economic livelihood for about 70 per
cent of the country’s estimated population of 36.2 million (2005). Agriculture provides employment to
the majority of the work force and, in addition to the main food commodities, contributes 60 per cent
of raw materials to agro-industries. Agricultural products make up about 80 per cent of non-petroleum
exports. Agricultural exports are mostly of sesame, livestock and meat, cotton, Gum Arabic and
smaller amounts of sugar, molasses, sorghum and groundnuts.

25. The Sudan started to emerge as a major oil producing country in 1998/1999 (Figure 2): oil
production rose steadily since the completion of the export pipeline that runs from Central Sudan to
Port Sudan. At the time of COSOP preparation in 2001-2002, production was 187 000 barrels per day.
Oil exports rose from zero in 1998 to 81 per cent of total exports in 2004, rising further to 91 per cent
in 2006 (US$5.1 billion). The rapid growth in the oil sector resulted in double digit GDP growth rates
and significant expansion of the revenue of the federal government. The increased international
demand for oil products resulted in the appreciation of the Sudanese currency exchange rate which
negatively affected agricultural exports due to the rising cost of exports. During the period 2000-2004,
The Sudan also experienced a dramatic decrease in livestock exports due to the ban imposed for public
health reasons. In contrast, exports of groundnuts, vegetable oil and sesame markedly increased.



                                                        6
26. Little data is available on the impact of food price increases in The Sudan’s agricultural sector.
However, high food prices are likely to cause further hardships to internally displaced persons and
other food-buyers. At the same time, the potential benefits of high prices should also be acknowledged
considering The Sudan’s high agricultural potential and subject to the capacity of the country to
successfully compete in international markets

27. The Sudan’s recent economic growth has not significantly benefited the poor. Development
spending has lacked concentration in the areas or sectors which would most improve conditions for
poor people. The devastating effects of wars and conflicts on the infrastructure and communication
facilities are reflected in the logistical challenges of rural service delivery for both humanitarian and
developmental needs. The signing of the CPA in January 2005 opened opportunities for The Sudan to
address the underlying causes of the conflict, and lays out the parties’ vision and commitment to
accelerating development. These included, amongst others: (i) a power sharing agreement which
provided for an autonomous government for Southern Sudan, as well as a share for Southern Sudan in
the national Government, and to vote in six years on whether to remain joined with the North or
become independent: (ii) a wealth-sharing agreement in which the two sides agreed to share equally
the revenue from the country’s oil production; and (iii) the security protocol which provided for two
armed forces with joint integrated units that would become the nucleus of a future national army.
Although the provisions of the CPA are now under implementation, progress is slow and in certain
instances protracted.

                                  B.    Agricultural and Rural Sector

28. Agricultural and natural resources base of The Sudan is substantial. The Sudan covers an
area of 2.5 million km2 which is endowed with a rich variety of natural resources, vegetation types and
landscapes. The country is drained by the Nile River and its tributaries, which provide significant
potential for irrigated agriculture and are important for transportation. Estimates of the cultivable area
range between 84 and 105 million hectares, or 34-42 per cent of the country. The Sudan has the largest
irrigated area in Sub-Saharan Africa that contributes to 64 per cent of the crop production11.

29. The Sudan's agricultural sector has performed below its potential. The sector represents a
mixture of subsistence farming and the production of crops for export. Crop cultivation has
traditionally been divided between a modern, market-oriented sector comprising mechanised, large-
scale irrigated and rainfed farming (mainly in Central Sudan), while subsistence farming follows
traditional practices carried out in parts of the country where rainfall or other water sources were
sufficient for cultivation. A dramatic drop in cultivated area was experienced during the early 2000s
due to the failure in marketing policies and lack of adaptation to new technologies. The potential for
agriculture outside irrigated areas is largely determined by rainfall levels. Rainfed mechanised farming
has continued to produce most sorghum and short-fibre cotton.

30. Livestock. The Sudan has a large livestock population (estimated at 138 million heads for North
Sudan in 200612) which has been growing rapidly. The livestock herds, which include camels, sheep
and goats (raised in desert and semi-desert zones) and cattle (bred in the medium rainfall savannah and
in the Upper Nile flood plain) are owned mainly by pastoral and agro-pastoral groups. Livestock is
raised under semi-nomadic and nomadic systems with traditional movements occurring between wet
and dry season grazing areas. The livestock sector is exposed to several risks including decreasing
pasture as a result of drought and desertification, the expansion of crop growing, the shortage of cattle
routes and lack of water for animals. Limited veterinary services and inadequate activities for breed
improvement also negatively affect livestock sector performance.

31. Rangeland degradation due to overuse of already fast shrinking range and pasture resources is
the most prominent environmental problem associated with the livestock husbandry in The Sudan. The
three most negative factors affecting rangelands include: (i) overstocking of rangelands through the

11
     The Sudan National Food Security Action Plan (2007) GNU and GOSS with assistance of FAO.
12
     Ministry of Animal Resources (2006) Statistical Bulletin for Animal Resources, Issue No. 14.

                                                       7
explosive growth of livestock numbers, particularly in Central Sudan; (ii) major reduction over several
decades in the total area of available rangeland due to expansion of farming and desertification and
(iii) widespread deterioration of rangelands following recurrent drought spells, climatic change, and
extensive annual range, pasture and woodland burning.

32. Climate change. According to the 2007/08 Human Development Report13 climate change will
have consequences that extend far beyond agriculture. Climate models for Northern Kordofan in The
Sudan indicate that temperatures will rise by 1.5oC between 2030 and 2060, with rainfall declining by
five per cent. Possible impacts on agriculture include a 70 per cent drop in yields of sorghum. This is
against the backdrop of a long-term decline in rainfall that, coupled with overgrazing, has seen deserts
encroach in some regions of The Sudan by 100 kilometres over the past 40 years. The interaction of
climate change with ongoing environmental degradation has the potential to exacerbate a wide range
of conflicts, under-mining efforts to build a basis for long-term peace and human security.

33. Land is the means for survival and social reproduction, a source of individual and tribal pride, a
general relationship between social groups and also a constant source of potential exploitation and
conflict. Prior to 1970, communal title to rural land, though undocumented, was generally accepted at
local level. Local chiefs assigned land for use. Long-term use rights could then be inherited, though
land could not be sold. In some areas fallowed land retained use rights. In 1970 the Unregistered Land
Act made all untitled land the property of the state (over 98 per cent of all land at the time). The
People’s Local Governance Act (1971) took the authority away from the traditional land management
systems. Nationalisation of land allowed allocation of large tracts during the 1980’s for mechanised
farming, many under World Bank initiatives in line with national objectives of large scale crop
expansion. Mechanised farming initiatives have since been identified as causing disruption in
traditional livestock migratory routes and water use, in consequence disrupting the previously often
tense, but successfully negotiated, symbiotic relationship between small farmers and nomadic people.
Nationalisation of land also eroded communities’ sense of responsibility for land and contributed to
land degradation and over grazing practices.

34. Today, inadequate rural land tenure is identified as a key constraint to the development of more
productive land use and sustainable land use systems, and is an underlying cause of many
environmental problems and a major obstacle to sustainable land use, as farmers have little incentive
to invest in and protect natural resources. It is therefore encouraging that the CPA of January 2005 and
the Interim National Constitution (INC) provide an impetus for a more socially-informed land tenure
policy and appropriate changes to legislation. Specifically, the CPA calls for the incorporation of
customary laws and the establishment of four Land Commissions to arbitrate claims, offer
compensation and recommend land reform policies.

35. National priorities with regard to agriculture and natural resources. Recent government
policies as expressed in the 25 Year Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS, 2004-2027) and the
Medium Term Economic Programme (MTEP, 2004-2009), give agricultural development a high
priority. The ADS identifies increasing agricultural incomes and employment, promoting food
security, poverty reduction, increasing agricultural exports and strengthening linkage with other
sectors as its main objectives. A set of macroeconomic and sector policies have been adopted as a
prerequisite for the success of the strategy. These policies revolve around improved incentives to
producers, improvement in institutions and improved investment environment. The MTEP pays
special attention to the agricultural sector with an emphasis on the traditional rainfed sector and
promotes the integration of activities related to crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry, rural industries and
the environment.




13
    UNDP Human Development Report 2007/08: Fighting Climate Change – Human Solidarity in a Divided
World.

                                                     8
                      Table 2. Development Expenditure (Million Sudanese Dinars, [SDD])
   Sector                                            2000   2001     2002     2003     2004     2005
   Agriculture                                       12.0   11.5     11.4     38.8     89.5     93.8
   Transport & Roads                                 4.7    4.0      3.8      8.8      20.1     34.7
   Social sector                                     2.8    7.3      1.3      5.6      13.0     14.0
   Water                                             1.9    1.5      1.1      1.3      7.2      0.7
   War affected areas                                2.2    2.2      3.6      4.9      9.1      -
   Total                                             23.6   26.5     21.2     59.4     138.9    143.2
   Total for all sectors                             52.2   76.0     103.1    185.2    310.9    297.8
   Expenditure in agriculture and food security as   45     35       21       32       45       44
   per cent of total development expenditure
 Source: Ministry of Finance and National Economy

36. In recent years, the agricultural sector budget, which had declined to low levels in 2001 (see
Table 2), regained its former position. The irrigated sector received most of these investments, while
the rainfed crop and livestock sectors, on which most of the rural poor14 depend for their livelihood,
received the least. This imbalance is being addressed under the current strategy for agricultural
development, the Green Mobilization15 whose objectives include achieving food security and reducing
poverty by 50 per cent by 2010.

                                C.     Key Challenges of Rural Poverty

37. The Sudan is one of the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Per capita income was US$340
in 2001 and now is estimated at US$640 (2005) in Northern Sudan. In Southern Sudan, the average
annual GDP per capita is estimated at US$100, well below the average of Sub-Saharan Africa16. Poverty
in The Sudan is mainly a rural phenomenon concentrated in the west (Darfur and Kordofan), in eastern
regions such as in Red Sea Hills, and in war-affected areas in the central and southern regions. Rural
poverty closely depends on agricultural development. Factors limiting agricultural development are
lack of technical knowledge within the communities, weak extension and veterinary services, poor
access to productive assets and recurring conflicts. Rural poverty is also reflected by the high levels of
unemployment, especially for youth.

38. The adult illiteracy rate remains close to 40 per cent and 17 per cent of children under five are
underweight. The Sudan is characterized by high inequality among regions, gender and groups
although no figures on inequality are available. Very low levels of income and purchasing power
(which may worsen due to increase in food price), disruptions associated with conflict and weak
economic infrastructure, have inhibited economic activity. Many households have few or no assets,
while even those with assets have often been unable to leverage their own resources to participate in
the market.

39.    One of the most adverse impacts of conflicts in The Sudan has been the population displacement
resulting in the largest population of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the world. The majority of
the estimated four million IDPs have a livelihoods based on agriculture, but most of these groups lost
all their assets or were stripped of them when they fled their homes. Most IDPs remain exposed to
extreme conditions and depend on low paid day work in seasonal employment and emergency
assistance. A second important vulnerable group in The Sudan are women, who suffer from
discrimination in economic and public spheres of life.


14
    The IFAD Strategy Framework 2007-2010 considers the poor as small farmers, landless people, labourers,
herders/nomadic pastoralists, subsistence fisher folk, etc. The COSOP 2002 implies that the rural poor are
concentrated in the traditional rainfed sector.
15
    The Green Mobilization (GM) 2007-2010. Prepared by High Advisory Committee, November, 2006.
Khartoum.
16
      Source: PN poverty assessment.

                                                     9
                       D.   Government Strategies for Poverty Reduction

40. The government launched a poverty reduction programme in 1992 as part of its 10-year
Comprehensive National Strategy for Economic Development. However, two main factors reduced the
resources available for poverty reduction at the time: (a) Government expenditure towards
development programmes was reduced substantially in the 1990’s mainly due to the fact that the civil
war in the south claimed most of the resources, and (b) the withdrawal of most traditional donors
further reduced the availability of resources. Starting in 2000, the substantial increase in government
revenue following the commercial exploitation of oil enabled the government to allocate a significant
and increasing amount of resources for development and poverty reduction as shown in Table 2.

41. A pilot poverty reduction programme was launched in 2001 as a first step in the process of
improving long-neglected rural social services. At the end of 2003, the Government presented an
Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (IPRSP) for 2004-2006. The key objective of the IPRSP
was to promote economic growth through rural development and to improve service delivery through
decentralization. The IPRSP introduced major elements for Government resource allocation with
higher public assistance to the rain-fed areas and privatization of the irrigated sector which have high
implication for rural poverty reduction. After a Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) in 2004, the
“Framework for Sustained Peace, Development and Poverty Eradication” was released in April 2005
which had important policy and strategic significance for restoration of peaceful conditions and
programmes for poverty reduction. The main objectives stated in this document were (i) to improve
governance and create a decentralized governmental system that allows for community-driven
recovery and an important role for civil society and independent media; and (ii) a more equitable
distribution of the national wealth and public resources to improve access to education, healthcare, and
water and sanitation in underdeveloped regions.

                                     E.   External Assistance

42. In the early 1990s, many donors suspended aid to The Sudan in the wake of the civil war and
loan repayment problems. As a result, the average yearly ODA declined from US$1.76 billion during
the period 1979-1991 to US$0.36 billion during 1995-2001. IFAD remained one of the few financial
institutions with a long-standing and substantial presence and high profile in rural development in The
Sudan, along with the IsDB and the Arab Fund. Much of the development efforts during this time have
been adversely affected by the civil war between the North and the South. Hopes were high when the
CPA was signed in January 2005. However, the Darfur conflict and humanitarian tragedy has since
overshadowed the CPA.

43. The implementation of a sound Poverty Reduction Strategy is a necessary condition for the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) to allow concessional lending and
Highly Indebted Poor Countries debt relief to The Sudan. The resumption of the IMF and WB lending
is however linked to either payment of the loan services or the cancellation of the debt. For the
cancellation of the debt, The Sudan needs external support. The international community has also
linked potential future support with the progress on the CPA between northern and Southern Sudan
and the resolution of the Darfur conflict. Most recent support has had humanitarian purposes, and as
such most aid goes to Southern Sudan. Other multilateral donors like the WB and the European Union
(EU) are beginning to re-emerge in the country following the CPA.

44. Donors have strongly supported the CPA through the JAM, which became the basis for multi-
sector collaborative work in technical and policy analysis, and for building consensus and finalizing
projections of The Sudan’s financing gap. The Multi-Donor Trust Funds were established after the
Oslo Donor Conference in April 2005, with an initial pledged amount of US$508 million; one fund
supports the Government of National Unity, primarily in the reconstruction and development of war-
affected and marginalized areas in the Northern states, and another supports the Government of
Southern Sudan for its recovery and development programmes.

45. Debt sustainability. The Sudan’s debt threatens its development prospects. Total external debt
is estimated at US$28 billion in 2007 representing 60 per cent of GDP. The World Bank is currently

                                                  10
working with the IMF on the question of arrears and debt relief in coordination with a debt support
group being led by the United Kingdom, to ensure that the country’s debt does not hinder the flow of
funds from international lenders and donors.

                                   Box 1. In Synthesis – The Country Context
• The Sudan accounts for 30 per cent of the poor in Near East North Africa (NENA) Region. IFAD remains
  one of the few financial institutions with a long-standing presence and high profile in The Sudan rural
  development. Many donors left in the mid 1990s.
• During past decade The Sudan has benefited from GDP increases of over ten per cent. Agriculture forms the
  basis of economic livelihood for some 70 per cent of the country’s population, despite its declining share of
  GDP (32 per cent in 2007). Exchange rate appreciation linked to oil production is negatively affecting
  agricultural exports.
• The agricultural sector budget, which had declined to low levels in 2001, received 45 per cent of total GoS
  development expenditure in 2005.

             III.     QUALITY OF THE COUNTRY STRATEGY IN THE SUDAN

                              A.     Introduction to the Country Strategy

46. This section assesses whether IFAD designed the right country strategy to ensure the highest
possible rural poverty reduction impacts. In September 2002, IFAD approved its first COSOP for The
Sudan. Prior to this, IFAD did not have a fully articulated strategy for The Sudan. Between 1994 and
2002 country programming was broadly guided by project experience and by the 1994 Country
Portfolio Evaluation produced by OE. The strategic orientations emerging from this evaluation were,
inter alia (i) to make further assistance to The Sudan more concentrated geographically and focused in
scope; (ii) to seek synergies with other projects during project design; (iii) to emphasize sustainable
development based on private investment and the involvement of farmers' groups; (iv) to ensure a
more dynamic management of the portfolio by IFAD while enhancing policy dialogue with the
Government; and (v) to make future project design and implementation more participatory to ensure
more effective implementation and sustainability.

47. The 2002 Sudan COSOP was prepared at a time when the country’s prospects for re-engaging
the international aid community appeared promising and when most donors focused on humanitarian
rather than development aid. In this context, the IFAD COSOP recognised the linkage between
development and peace. Furthermore, the COSOP recognised the multiple elements affecting human
vulnerability including access to natural resources and financial assets, food security, gender equity,
education, health care and peace. Several IFAD Board members expressed support to both the
timeliness and content of the COSOP17 which renewed much needed development assistance as The
Sudan was emerging from a state of conflict.

                                    B.   Analysis of the 2002 COSOP

48. The 2002 COSOP was elaborated in a context of lack key poverty data and a high level of
uncertainty about the future of the country. Given the uncertainties and volatile situation at the time, it
can be argued that the COSOP could only provide an overall general and flexible frame that left
sufficient room for taking strategic decisions according to the emerging situations18. If the current
standards of COSOP established in the Guidelines for Results-Based COSOP are considered19, the
COSOP is characterised by important gaps from a strategic and programming perspective. It should
however be acknowledged that the 2002 COSOP complies with the IFAD requirements and standards

17
     Including Annex I, titled “Development and Peace-Building”, which addressed Board Members’ concerns
with regard to the enabling environment when approving the SKRDP in September 2000.
18
     In contexts characterised by high uncertainty, provisions for COSOP updating and renewal in order to
adjust to changing circumstances are needed. This is established in the Guidelines for Results-Based COSOP
which the new IFAD Country Programme in The Sudan will be aligned to.
19
     See EB 2006/88/R.4 Agenda Item 5a.

                                                      11
of the time. Also, the financial resources allocated to COSOP preparation at that time (US$15 000 per
COSOP exercise) actually hindered the possibility of making the COSOP a results-based strategic
document.

Strategic Objectives

49. The COSOP proposed three main strategic thrusts, which can be considered the strategic
objectives of the COSOP:

      (a) Support the livelihood strategies of the target groups by improving the productive capacity
          of households, by promoting an enabling institutional environment, and by giving a
          prominent place to livestock development;

      (b) Empower men and women to fully participate in the development process, by promoting
          decentralisation, empowerment of the rural poor, women’s access to decision making at
          local level and women’s self-help groups; and

      (c) Promote good local governance, by introducing grassroots processes leading to self-reliance,
          sustainable natural resources management (NRM) models, and improved accountability and
          gender equality as crucial elements in the resolution of civil conflicts.

50. These objectives/thrusts of the COSOP are aligned to IFAD regional strategy and Government’s
general development priorities. In order to address the issue of sustainability as recommended in the
1994 Country Portfolio Evaluation, the COSOP relied on participation to foster effective
implementation and sustainability. Nevertheless, a more comprehensive IFAD strategy was required to
fully address the longstanding sustainability issue, especially given the difficult socio-economic
environment in which the country programme was implemented.

51. The first objective favoured livestock-based rural development activities and gave a less
prominent role to other sources of income of the rural poor such as agro-processing and non-farm
activities. This Strategic Objective complies with the relevance of livestock development for
households living in rainfed area. Nevertheless, the potential environmental consequences on
rangelands and pastures were not addressed in the COSOP. In addition, the issue of livestock
marketing and the constraints affecting sale of livestock products were not incorporated.

52. The second objective includes a strong focus on gender issues and women empowerment, and
provides the basis for promoting women’s access to decision making. The COSOP also points out the
need to develop synergies between the IFAD Country Programme and the Programme of Action to
Reach Rural Women in Near East and North Africa in order to support gender mainstreaming and
create linkages with resource organisations.

53. The third objective which is a necessary complement to the second thrust has a very wide scope
ranging from governance to NRM and conflict resolution. Strengthening of both governance
institutions and civil society is identified in the COSOP as a crucial factor affecting The Sudan peace
and development prospects. The focus of IFAD interventions on local governance provided the entry
point for IFAD contribution to the national decentralisation process. The initiatives of IFAD
programmes aimed at strengthening the capacities of Locality Extension Teams (LETs) are also
attached to this strategic thrust. This evaluation however found that COSOP expectation of
sustainability (self-reliance) proved unrealistic given the difficulties in revenue generation faced by
local communities and the constraints that affected the decentralisation process.

Targeting

54. The overall goal of the COSOP is defined as: “Improve living conditions of 3 million rural poor
in rainfed agriculture areas, particularly in central-west and eastern regions”. The targeting of
traditional rainfed areas is highlighted several times in the COSOP, including in Annex III where the


                                                  12
criteria for future project selection are presented, stating that the target group should have a
“livelihood based on traditional20 rainfed agriculture and livestock”.

55. The need for greater support to rainfed areas for effective rural poverty reduction should be
considered a major positive feature of the COSOP. This is in line with the recommendations extended
in the 1994 Country Portfolio Evaluation. This concept was later reflected in the IPRSP and the Green
Mobilization strategy.

56. However, this appears to be an IFAD view which was not fully shared by the GoS. Footnote
number 16 of COSOP document indicates that Government had reservations concerning the
geographic concentration of IFAD-supported initiatives, thereby requiring a compromise approach
which, while safeguarding the focus on rainfed areas, made it possible to include interventions in both
the eastern and central-west regions (particularly for flood irrigation rehabilitation)21. This leaves the
impression that at the time of COSOP design IFAD already accepted to depart from its preferred
strategy.

57. According to the COSOP, selection of project areas should be based on “incidence and severity
of poverty; number of poor households who would benefit”. Three aspects of poverty are mentioned
without indicating which one(s) would have priority in selection of project area. The appropriateness
of such criterion is unclear due to lack of data and absence of an official poverty line. Based on an
IFAD-funded 2001 poverty assessment study, the COSOP presents a comparison between the irrigated
and traditional rainfed sub-sectors which highlight the constraints affecting rainfed areas 22 including
droughts, crop failures, limited access to credit services, thin marketing systems, poor social and
economic infrastructure and out-migration. The COSOP does not, however, offer clear guidelines and
directions on how these constraints may be addressed within IFAD-financed operations.23

Portfolio Development

58. The COSOP established that in order to comply with the IFAD’s strategic niche and proposed
thrusts in The Sudan, area-based rural development projects would represent the majority of projects
in IFAD portfolio. The extent to which area-based integrated rural development projects constitute the
most appropriate intervention modality in The Sudan is questionable, considering such initiatives are
complex, costly and often unsuccessful even in non-conflict areas. In particular, in a context
characterised by limited institutional capacities and a volatile policy environment, a simpler, more
focused approach could have been more appropriate.


20
     The word “traditional” is important in order to distinguish from large-scale mechanised rainfed farming
which has received government priority in allocation of resources. The “mechanised modern rainfed sector”
involves large farms and capital-intensive production systems.
21
      The COSOP states in footnote number 16: “While the Government supports the priority given to rainfed
and conflict-affected areas, it has some reservations about the idea of geographical concentration. After
negotiations, it has been agreed that equal importance will be given to the consolidation of the portfolio of
projects in the rainfed areas of central-west Sudan and to interventions in the eastern region, particularly flood
irrigation rehabilitation, and including the Gash, Tokar and Lower Atbara projects.”
22
      The issue of finding an appropriate balance in the support and efforts for irrigated versus rainfed areas is
also addressed in the 2003 Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) which is claimed to be a joint GoS/World
Bank document. The CEM notes that Government budget resources as well as formal agricultural credit have
almost entirely been allocated to development of publicly owned and capital intensive irrigation schemes. The
CEM suggests faster institutional reforms in the irrigation sub-sector which could release funds for raising the
low productivity in the rainfed traditional sector which is the main source of low income. Development of the
traditional rainfed sub-sector will require reforms of marketing systems and a broad rural development approach,
including investment in economic and social infrastructure. This approach is reflected in IFAD’s two Kordofan
rural development programmes.
23
     It should be noted that a lack of a clear portfolio pipeline was however, in line with the COSOP standards at
that time, whereby the thinking that COSOPs could be a programming document had not yet fully matured
within IFAD.

                                                       13
59. The COSOP is open-ended with respect to the pipeline as was the case in most pre-2006
COSOPs. This open-endedness and flexibility may be justified by the uncertainty and volatility at the
time. A flexible management of the programme was seen as a necessary approach in order to respond
promptly to any breakthrough in peace efforts that would open the way to interventions in the southern
region. Also, this could give the project design team enough flexibility to prioritise these poverty
indicators taking into account the size of loans and the overall development context of the
interventions. The COSOP mentions that the Gash River Flood Irrigation Project would be ready for
approval in 2003. It also notes that natural resource and rangelands survey in Kordofan may establish
the basis for developing projects to enhance livestock development and sustainable land use. In
addition, support for the southern region is mentioned in case of a breakthrough in the peace efforts.

60. The design of projects following the COSOP appears significantly influenced by the 1998
design of the NKRDP. The post-COSOP projects (GSLRP, WSRMP, and BIRDP) all have
components supporting community development, agricultural development services and infrastructure.
These favoured a somewhat standardised approach to IFAD programming in The Sudan even though
the three post COSOP projects differ in some aspects. In the case of WSRMP, GSLRP and BIRDP
components related to markets, value-chain, stock routes and local finance decentralisation differ from
the NKRDP and SKRDP model.

Policy Dialogue

61. At the time of COSOP formulation, IFAD was the only funding development agency with a
substantial presence in The Sudan, along with the IsDB and the Arab Fund. At the same time, the
Sudanese government was benefiting from rising oil earnings. This constituted an exceptional situation
of great opportunity for the Fund in The Sudan. Although the COSOP recognised the marked
improvement in the growth rate of the economy starting in the early 90s and the prospects for
increasing oil exports, it did not sufficiently analyse how IFAD-financed operations could benefit form
this improving national financial framework. In particular, the COSOP did not capitalise on the actual
privileged status of IFAD in The Sudan and how this could be used through policy dialogue for further
enhancing overall development effectiveness.

                                                     Figure 2. The Sudan Oil Outlook 1980-2004
                                       400
                                                                                                         Production
                                       350
                                                                                                         COSOP
            Thousand Barrels per Day




                                       300                                             Export pipeline
                                                                                        came online
                                       250

                                       200

                                       150

                                       100
                                                                        Consumption
                                       50

                                        0
                                             1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
            Source: EIA International Energy Annual 2004;                     Year
            Short Term Energy Outlook



62. The COSOP defines policy dialogue as the “readiness of partners to discuss all policy issues
relevant to rural poverty reduction coupled with the willingness to use investment projects to promote
or pilot policy reforms”. The COSOP directed IFAD to address a wide set of issues for policy reform:
macroeconomic and agricultural policy, access to financial markets, land-tenure and rural taxation
systems, market access, decentralisation, support to social services. This intended list was unrealistic
given the available resources and capabilities. It contrasts with the principle of selectivity and focus
that should guide IFAD strategy. IFAD’s privileged position in 2002 could have been used more
strategically to focus policy dialogue on a few selected strategic issues aimed at augmenting the


                                                                         14
overall development effectiveness of the Fund’s programme in The Sudan. This is confirmed by the
fact that ‘higher-level’ policy change objectives established by the COSOP could not be achieved24.

63. In contrast, important results at policy level have taken place mostly within the project context.
This comprises measures to improve access to land and water resources, development of organisations
for management of natural resources, fee-based community extension services, development of
community organisations, and promotion of gender equity.

64. This evaluation considers this to be a very positive characteristic of IFAD in The Sudan and
should be used for building forthcoming institutional and policy change objectives in the Results-
Based COSOP. They also attest to IFAD’s ability to influence policy, an aptitude which could well be
exercised beyond the project context.

65. The COSOP mentions natural resource degradation and the conflicts over natural resources, in
particular the conflicts between sedentary crop farmers and transhumant herders. The COSOP presents
ideas for land tenure reform and mentions that IFAD has a role to play in terms of contributing to
conflict resolution. The COSOP also advocates prioritising support for livestock development, without
elaborating on environmental consequences and potential issues of conflict.

66. In 2006, IFAD approved the BIRDP which basically is a “policy project” piloting new ways of
regulating access to land and water resources. While project initiatives will provide IFAD and
Government with valuable experiences on how to deal with access issues, more would probably be
required if IFAD is to be a lead dialogue partner at national level on these issues. The complexity and
importance of these could require substantial additional resources for IFAD engagement. Also, better
synergies should be created between grants for analysis and studies and policy dialogue objectives25.

Innovation Agenda

67. The key innovative element of the COSOP is associated with the fact that it is the first strategic
document in The Sudan to expressly call for the linkage between development and peace as well as for
greater support to the rainfed areas for effective poverty reduction.

68. Two thrusts for “project interventions and innovations” are presented, namely land tenure and
local government revenue.

69. Land tenure. In order to influence a shift in land-use patterns, the COSOP proposes a rationale
for land tenure to be discussed with the government and donor partners. This consists in the vesting of
formal land titles through community-based organisations which might be able to offer the title as
collateral for development financing. The COSOP suggests encouraging State government to offer
land under reasonable lease conditions. Finally, the COSOP also takes into account transhumant land
needs of pastoralists through demarcation of grazing land and stock-routes and leasing of grazing
rights. Although the COSOP does not explicitly refer to innovation, the model of local governance of
natural resources applied in the GSLRP is one of the major innovations of the IFAD Country
Programme.

70. The COSOP also suggests that the Government and IFAD enter into dialogue on the
introduction of legislation and procedures for institutionalising the use of community-based financing

24
     IFAD was expected to collaborate with IMF staff in analysis and strategy to ensure that a number of
desirable reforms including “those addressing the regulatory framework, fiscal measures, exchange rate,
taxation, including agricultural export taxes and zakat”. Expecting IFAD to generate wide-ranging policy
changes in areas outside agriculture policy was not suitable to IFAD’s position, experience and capacity.
25
     The IFAD-financed (with World Bank participation) study on the socio-economic causes of conflict in
Darfur goes in this direction. In particular, this study was intended to enhance IFAD understanding of traditional
resources management practices, hierarchy of customary rights and modes of escalation of natural resources
based conflicts. Unfortunately, due to security considerations in the Darfur region the research was not
completed.

                                                       15
models (sanduq) to improve access of the rural poor to credit. The proposed approach for shifting land
use pattern through microfinance by directing credit to “cash crop production where rainfall (or
irrigation) is suitable and to livestock and other cash-generating enterprises in arid, marginal cropping
areas” seems to contrast with IFAD’s Rural Finance Policy (2000), which recommends
administratively imposed targeting to be rigorously avoided. The COSOP is also concerned about the
loss of value of savings due to inflation in ongoing schemes supporting savings and loan associations
and proposes that: “the loss of value of financial assets requires the assistance of government and a
guarantee mechanism”. This would entail subsidy mechanisms which are against IFAD Policy.

71. State and local government revenue. The COSOP highlights that the decentralisation policy
has suffered major setbacks and achievements have been modest, in sharp contrast to the ambitious
targets. It is suggested that IFAD may influence revenue reform at state and locality level and an entire
annex is devoted to suggesting how IFAD may respond to the challenges of decentralisation and local
empowerment. With respect to rural taxation reform, the COSOP proposed “a link (to be established)
between the services provided to beneficiaries at the local government level (including utilities and
rural road maintenance) and user-pay revenues”. The taxation should also have a progressive nature.
Good governance is mentioned as a condition for the enforcement of the system. The COSOP
acknowledged the limited options available for IFAD to influence federal taxation policy.
Nevertheless, it identified opportunities for intervening with revenue reforms at state and local level
within the context of projects.

72. The COSOP is however unclear on how innovative solutions to rural poverty reduction are
expected to be scouted, tested, applied, replicated or up-scaled. It also insufficiently analyses the
contribution of grants, partnership building and knowledge management and policy dialogue activities
to the COSOP innovation agenda.

Partnership Strategy

73. In the COSOP, guidelines for development of partnerships with other development partners are
influenced by the uncertainty at the time about donors that might return in working with the rural poor.
A few partners who remained active during the period of international isolation were mentioned
(Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] Fund, IsDB, UN) while prospects for
new partnerships with the Department for International Development (DFID), EU and the World Bank
were indicated. Considering disappointing experiences in mobilising co-financing, e.g. for roads
components, and the hesitant position of these partners at the time of COSOP preparation, more
cautious expectations would have been justified. On the other hand, increased financial participation of
federal government, considering the increasing oil revenues, could have been highlighted.
Furthermore, given the strong and increasing role of China in the international cooperation of The
Sudan, the partnership opportunities with China (e.g. in rural infrastructure) should have been
explored. The COSOP gives considerable attention to development of strategic partnerships with
national and local NGOs who could become “agents of change”. It is mentioned that Government has
committed itself to working with NGOs as service providers. The COSOP mentions partnerships with
universities, cooperatives and native administrations for enhancing human and institutional capacities
at the local level. Though NGO experiences and approaches have been used in design of IFAD
projects, the cooperation with NGOs in the implementation phase has not materialised as intended.

Knowledge Management

74. In line with the IFAD standards at the time of The Sudan COSOP preparation, Knowledge
Management received limited attention in the COSOP and it is approached in a business-as-usual
manner with the following limited and general statements such as “project and portfolio reviews and
evaluations, in addition to training activities, form the basis for Knowledge Management activities”; or
“the implementation of the strategy will in the future be the main field for Knowledge Management
activities”. Nevertheless, several Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) have strong knowledge
management embedded in them. These include the KariaNet and the Programme for Action to Reach
Rural Women.


                                                   16
          C.   Resources and Capacity for Strategy Development and Implementation

75. Despite the limited resources for COSOP preparation, during 2001-2002 IFAD and GoS
invested considerable efforts in preparing the first COSOP) which took on board some of the
recommendations of the 1993/94 CPE. The COSOP preparation also benefited from a 2001 Country
Portfolio Review and numerous GoS-IFAD interactions including a Workshop on Strategy Options for
Poverty Reduction in The Sudan that was held in January 2002.

76. As it was normal at the time, the COSOP did not specify the activities, inputs and budget
(except for the lending frame) required for implementing the strategic directions and tasks. In other
words, the COSOP was not sufficiently seen as an instrument for planning/budgeting non-loan
resources such as TAGs and implementation support. Furthermore, there was no assessment of
whether IFAD had the human resources required for implementing the defined directions and tasks. It
was only after the COSOP that such resources were mobilised on an ad hoc basis and provided for
some of the tasks.

77. In terms of lending, the COSOP states that IFAD has a budget of US$60 million for three
projects to be approved during 2003-2006 which were expected to leverage additional US$25 million
in co-financing26. In the 2005-2007 Performance Based Allocation System (PBAS)-cycle, The Sudan
has been eligible for US$24 million which were allocated for the BIRDP. In 2006, the PBAS resource
allocation method was modified27. The deterioration of the International Development Assistance
Resources Allocation Index, the lower rural sector performance rating and the inclusion of the SKRDP
in 2007 as an actual problem project decreased the allocation for the period 2007-2009 to US$25.6
million, which negatively compared to the US$29.0 million allocated based on the 2006 Country
Scores. With this allocation, The Sudan is positioned as the second largest recipient of IFAD resources
in the Near East and North Africa Division. The implementation of the Country Programme also
benefited from the support of various TAGs.

78. Field presence has enhanced implementation support and knowledge management. In
December 2005, an IFAD CPO started work under the Field Presence Pilot Programme. The CPO has
been participating in supervision and design missions, providing backstopping to project teams and
generally enhancing the implementation support provided by IFAD28. The CPO has been instrumental
in implementing knowledge management initiatives, while the Government’s Central Coordination
Unit (CCU) will continue to play a crucial role in procurement and liaison. The operations of the field
presence have however been negatively affected by the limited financial resources available.

79. Implementation issues. The COSOP flags a number of issues including interruptions in GoS
loan repayments which have led to loan suspensions disrupting implementation. The 2007 Country
Programme Issue Sheet lists the following recurrent implementation issues: (i) insufficient and
delayed payment of counterpart funding, (ii) limited capacity of project management to coordinate
projects strategically, (iii) weak financial and procurement system, and (iv) lengthy resolution of
policy issues related to water management. Actions to overcome implementation constraints have
included: (i) close follow up with the Government through the CCU and the Field Presence Office
(FPO), (ii) establishment of regular knowledge sharing and trouble shooting meetings on a quarterly
basis among Programme Management Units (PMUs)/Programme Coordination Units (PCUs) and
(iii) peer assistance among projects.
                           D.   Overall Quality of the Country Strategy
80. Overall, the 2002 COSOP is assessed as moderately satisfactory (4). This rating takes into
account the positive elements of the COSOP in terms of clarity innovativeness in advocating
development and livelihood security as key instruments for ensuring peace and prosperity in war

26
     The COSOP allocation was developed before the introduction of PBAS.
27
     EB 2006/89/R.48/Rev.1.
28
    However, there appears to be a need for clarifying the respective roles and functions in implementation
support between the CPO and the CCU.

                                                    17
 affected areas. At the same time, the COSOP was unable to reconcile diverging views between IFAD
 and Government on crucial issues. In addition, setting an unfocused agenda for policy dialogue cannot
 be considered as a useful framework for strategic direction.

                                Table 3. Summary of the Country Strategy
  Quality Aspect of the
                              Score                                       Explanation
         Strategy
Understanding the key           4     The COSOP affirmed in a clear manner the multifaceted nature of development in
challenges to rural poverty           a context characterised by complex crisis. Due to lack of recent poverty data, the
reduction                             COSOP could not provide a comprehensive analysis of rural poverty. At the same
                                      time, due to the size and diversity of The Sudan, issues and obstacles required in
                                      depth area-specific or sub-sector analysis. For this reason, a comparison of poverty
                                      and social characteristics of rainfed and irrigation sub-sectors was prepared. The
                                      COSOP provides a detailed analysis of constraints faced by smallholders including
                                      credit constraints. Although the COSOP encompasses a strong political dimension,
                                      the policy factors hindering agricultural growth are not adequately analysed.
Analysis of IFAD’s target       4     The COSOP provided a qualitative analysis of the constraints faced by rural poor
group and its needs                   in irrigated and rainfed agriculture. The COSOP did not present an in-depth
                                      analysis of IFAD target groups due to lack of reliable socio-economic statistics. A
                                      differentiated analysis across relevant social groups (including differences between
                                      pastoral and non-pastoral communities) would have been more appropriate.
Relevance and clarity of        4     The proposed strategic objectives comply with IFAD’s global and regional
general objectives and                strategies, with some exceptions for targeting of rural finance services. They are
specific goals                        also broadly aligned to Government policies. The definition of targeted
                                      geographical areas does not safeguard against dilution of IFAD’s limited resources.
                                      The proposed exclusive concentration of the country programme on traditional
                                      rainfed areas is not accepted by Government.
Structure of strategy and       3     The COSOP identified one of three new projects for approval during 2003-2006 as
sequence of assistance                well as criteria for project selection. Some of these are unclear or not properly
                                      formulated. Except for gender, it is not specified how strategic directions regarding
                                      policy dialogue, innovation and knowledge management will be implemented.
Identification of partners      3     The COSOP emphasises partnerships with NGOs and other service providers for
and reinforcement of                  working with local communities. This is a bold and relevant step. Directions for
existing partnerships                 partnerships with international development partners are also relevant but impacted
                                      by the uncertainty about the future, and given experiences at the time, the COSOP
                                      raised too optimistic expectations.
Innovation, replication and     4     The main innovative element of the COSOP is the fact that it was one of the first
scaling up                            strategic documents in The Sudan advocating development and increasing
                                      livelihood security as key instrument for ensuring peace and prosperity in war
                                      affected areas. Issues of land tenure and local government revenue are identified as
                                      “opportunities for project intervention and innovation”. Focusing on a limited
                                      number of thrusts for innovation is a positive practice. However, the COSOP does
                                      not provide an explicit analysis for innovation scouting, testing and/or scaling up.
                                      Similarly, the COSOP does not specify how grants, partnership building and
                                      knowledge management activities are expected to contribute to the innovation
                                      agenda.
Policy dialogue                 3     The COPOP encompasses a strong policy dimension by including land tenure and
                                      local governance as key sector for intervention. However, the areas singled out for
                                      policy dialogue lack focus and selectivity. For most of the points on the policy
                                      agenda, there is little elaboration of IFAD position and underlying analysis. Also,
                                      the COSOP did not capture the privileged status of IFAD at the time of COSOP
                                      preparation when IFAD remained the only funding development agency in The
                                      Sudan. In addition, policy agenda was not well adapted to the evolving conflict
                                      situation in The Sudan.
Overall Score                    4
6=highly satisfactory; 5=satisfactory; 4=moderately satisfactory; 3=moderately unsatisfactory; 2=unsatisfactory;
1=highly unsatisfactory




                                                        18
                         Box 2. In Synthesis – Quality of the Country Strategy in the Sudan
 • The COSOP can be considered one of the first strategic documents in The Sudan advocating development
   and increasing livelihood security as key instruments for ensuring peace and prosperity in war affected areas.
 • The need for greater support to rainfed areas for effective rural poverty reduction is a major positive feature
   of the COSOP and is in line with the recommendations extended during the 1994 Country Portfolio
   Evaluation. Divergence of views between IFAD and Government, notably on the targeting policy, was not
   reconciled.
 • The COSOP encompasses a strong policy dimension by including land tenure and local development as key
   sector for intervention. However, other directions for policy dialogue were unfocused, contrasting with the
   principle of selectivity which should guide IFAD strategy. At the same time, the COSOP did not sufficiently
   analyse how IFAD-financed operations could benefit from the improving national financial framework.
 • The issue of poor sustainability of IFAD-supported activities was not clearly mainstreamed in COSOP
   Strategic Objectives. COSOP did not provide a vision on how grants, partnership building and knowledge
   management activities would contribute to the country innovation agenda.


                                  IV.       PERFORMANCE AND IMPACTS

                A.    Description of the IFAD-assisted Programme Assessed by the CPE

 81. This section assesses the extent to which the country strategy was adequately implemented
 through projects and non-project activities, and how the programme’s various interventions performed.
 The list of projects assessed by the CPE is given in Table 4. It consists of two sets of projects.

         • The first set comprises the older generation of projects closed for six to eight years at the
           time of this evaluation (Group A).
         • The second set comprises the Kordofan projects and the three projects designed after
           COSOP approval (Groups B, C and D).

 82. The findings of the desk review and Project Completion Reports (Pars) reveal that the lessons
 from the Group A projects were taken into account in the design of the two Kordofan projects and the
 subsequent 2002 COSOP (see Appendix 4 for details). This is confirmed in the GoS report on IFAD
 involvement in The Sudan29 which also confirms the link between old and new generation projects.
 However, implementation of these recommendations shows mixed results and several lessons learned
 are still applicable to the current generation of projects. Box 3 contains lessons from Group A Projects.

                             Table 4. Summary of Assessed Programmes/Projects
 Programme             Sector            Total        IFAD        Board         Loan         Loan       Loan       Percentage
      /                                  Cost          Loan     Approval Signature Effective-          Closing    Disbursement
   Project                              (US$m)       (US$m)                                  ness                   @ 6/2008
                                                       Older Projects – Group A
 SRADP          Agric. Development        14.65        10.38     02/10/90     19/11/90     10/01/92    31/03/00      100.0
 NPIRP-2        Irrigation                32.52        12.00     15/04/92     02/06/92     10/03/93    31/12/01      100.0
 WNASP          Irrigation                14.98        10.68     15/09/93     25/01/94     18/01/95    30/06/02      100.0
 Sub-total                                62.15        33.06                                                         100.0
                                                  Newer Projects – Groups B, C, D
 NKRDP          Rural Development         23.70        10.50     28/04/99     14/07/99     14/06/00    31/12/08      95.7
 SKRDP          Rural Development         39.62        17.87     14/09/00     26/09/00     12/02/01    30/09/11      74.9
 GSLRP          Agric. Development        39.00        24.90     18/12/03     27/01/04     12/08/04    31/03/13       61.8
 WSRMP          Rural Development         49.00        25.50     02/12/04     14/02/05     15/12/05    30/06/14      20.4
 BIRDP          Rural development         29.85       24.80      14/12/06     16/02/07     31/03/07    30/06/16      00.0
 Sub-total                               181.17       103.57                                                         56.95
 TOTAL                                   243.32       136.63
Source: Appraisal Reports, Reports of the President to the Executive Board, and Supervision Reports.
Note: Disbursement percentages are approximate as at June 2008.

 29
     Assessment of Challenges and Opportunities to Address Poverty and IFAD Involvement in The Sudan –
 Synthesis of Factors Affecting the Agricultural Sector, GoS January 2008.

                                                             19
                                 Box 3. Lessons Learned from Group A Projects
     Need for:
     • Flexible designs, with implementation responsive to target group priorities and conditions;
     • Geographical concentration to stimulate synergies, provide better implementation support and enhance
        impact;
     • Investment in marketing improvement to ensure higher profit margins for the producers;
     • Involvement of grassroots organizations in project design, planning and implementation, which implies
        strong and autonomous project management within a community-based development approach;
     • Provision of rural financing services to be oriented towards cash-earning activities and linking village-
        based savings and loans associations with the formal financial sector;
     • Reliance on a broad range of service providers, including NGOs and private firms;
     • Investment in livestock, income-generating activities and water infrastructure are economically
        profitable and reach out to the bulk of the rural poor and women.


83. While noting the lessons from Group A projects, this section mainly focuses on the projects
under Group B, C and D. Their ratings are complemented with ratings from Group A projects (see
Appendix 3) in order to provide an overall assessment of portfolio performance. As shown in Table 5,
almost half of IFAD financing of the ongoing projects is aimed at institutional support (27 per cent)
and community development (20 per cent) components, which are present in all projects. While
receiving 19 per cent of IFAD financing, agricultural services are explicitly present in only two out of
five projects although subsumed under different components in all projects. Rural financial services
and marketing related components are present in four out of five projects, but received a minor share
of total financing. NRM components account for nine per cent of total financing and are present in all
on-going projects; irrigation accounts for seven per cent, in one project; animal husbandry
development is six per cent in two projects. Two projects include rural roads components expected to
be financed mainly by non-IFAD sources.

84. The bulk of financing for the five on-going projects and programmes is provided by IFAD under
terms applicable to HIPC30. The SKRDP is financed under the flexible lending mechanism.
International co-financing, while intended for three out of five projects, has materialized in only one
project so far31. NKRDP and SKRDP are undertaken at state level. The GSLRP, BIRDP and WSRMP
are implemented at federal level. The SKRDP, GSLRP and WSRMP are supervised by United Nations
Office for Project Services (UNOPS) while NKRDP and BIRDP are directly supervised by IFAD,
with financial administration by UNOPS. All projects were taken over under IFAD direct supervision
in 2009.

                    Table 5. Distribution of IFAD financing by Project Components
                             Project Components                           Share of Financing

               Institutional support and project management                       27 %
               Community development & women                                      20 %
               Agricultural services                                              19 %
               Natural resources management                                        9%
               Financial services & marketing                                      9%
               Irrigation                                                          7%
               Livestock & rangeland development/utilization                       6%
               Rural roads                                                         3%
               Total                                                             100 %
             Source: The Sudan CPE Approach Paper, Appendix 1, Figure A2.



30
     After the adoption of the Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF), The Sudan’s new status in IFAD is that of
a “red light” Country, i.e. it qualifies for 100 per cent grants terms.
31
       The IsDB finances the road construction component in the North Kordofan Rural Development Project.

                                                        20
85. Technical assistance grants. IFAD also extended 20 TAGs for The Sudan during the period
under review (1994-2006). Six grants were exclusively allocated to the country, while 14 included The
Sudan but targeted the entire PN region or groups of countries in this region. The six country specific
grants add up to US$731 560 and were intended mainly for capacity building, policy dialogue and
project support. The 14 regional grants amount to slightly over US$14.2 million and were allocated
mainly for applied research and capacity building in diverse fields. Five TAGs were evaluated on a
sample basis with a view to assessing: (i) their contribution to creating and supporting innovations in
the context of IFAD’s Sudan programme, and (ii) their degree of synergy with loan-funded
interventions. The list of grants is in Appendix 5.

            B.    Performance Assessment: Relevance, Effectiveness and Efficiency

Relevance

86. Relevance to national policy and institutional context. IFAD projects represented important
means of support for the decentralization process, and the realization of elements of good local
governance such as participation and responsibility towards development. The IFAD programme
provided substantial and relevant support through project investments, technical assistance, and
operational support for institution building at the State and Locality levels. The underlying rationale of
the support has been to build the institutional capacity of the State and Localities to assist the rural
communities by providing the necessary services and technical back-stopping through multi-
disciplinary extension teams or development teams.

87. Relevance to concerns of conflict. IFAD’s involvement in The Sudan’s increasingly volatile
conflict environment raised questions among the Board related to security, outreach to the target
groups, and good governance. As previously mentioned, complex and costly integrated rural
development programmes may not be the most effective intervention modality in conflict areas. These
programmes have often proven unsuccessful due to their need for local institutional capacity and to
their complex component structure comprising numerous objectives. IFAD programme areas in The
Sudan have weak institutional capacities with volatile conflict environments. This compounded the
difficulties associated with achieving security, outreach, and good governance, often difficult to attain
even in peaceful environments. A simpler, more focused approach could have better addressed Board
concerns with regards to developing mechanisms for addressing conflict issues, thereby augmenting
overall programme relevance. Despite this general shortcoming, the IFAD programme contributed to
the peace building process in several ways, including provision of social services and addressing areas
of specific concerns of communities such as water and natural resources.

88. Relevance to rural poverty context and needs of the rural poor. The IFAD programme
stands out as relevant in the poverty context of The Sudan considering that there were no other
significant donors assisting agricultural sector in The Sudan. Village/Community Development
Committees (Village Development Committees [VDCs]/CDCs), users groups and self-supporting
institutions have been given a special place in all projects as focal points for provision of project
services and tools for participatory rural development. These organizations represent a practical
approach to engaging the rural communities in development activities, and they have been strong entry
points for IFAD interventions through a range of activities including extension services, education,
activities to promote the status of women, and financing of social infrastructure.




                                                   21
                                                        Improved green and concentrate fodders
                                                        used by farmers in Sheikhan locality
                                                        being displayed by the para veterinary
                                                        worker
                                                        Source: Elizabeth Kiff, CPE Mission

                                                      89. In terms of poverty targeting, the SKRDP, the
                                                      NKRDP and the WSRMP target areas with a high
                                                      concentration of the poor under traditional rain-fed
                                                      agriculture. Although the BIRDP covers five states
                                                      some of which may not be among the poorest in
                                                      The Sudan, it is focused in the catchments area
                                                      which has a high concentration of poor people. The
                                                      GSLRP, also located in an area with high
                                                      concentration of poverty, addresses the issue of
                                                      land tenure reforms in the Gash Delta, hence
                                                      promoting an important innovation for the rural
                                                      poor.32

                                                    90. The WSRMP was relevant to priorities of the
pastoralists and the farmers in terms of their relationship with herds. This programme included the
demarcation and management of the major stock routes under a participatory process involving fully
the nomadic tribes, together with the settled agro-pastoral communities. It could be considered part of
a conflict resolution strategy. The experience of the SKRDP also indicated the need for rangeland and
water resources management in order to enable participation of nomadic pastoralists in the
development process. The BIRDP embarks on a full-fledged natural resources’ management concept,
fixing the management modalities for community and open access rangelands. It provides an exit
strategy for the project, as it ensures that management interventions are not only sustained, but also
revised periodically. Notwithstanding efforts in WSRMP and BIRDP, more resources were required to
address the priorities of nomads and settled farmers.

91. From a gender perspective, the IFAD programme ensured representation of women in
community activities through a quota system. Granting women land user/land tenancy rights in the
Gash Delta area are among the initiatives to empower women. However, the Gash area has a complex
tribal and social context in which gender and power relations are set differently. This presents one of
the challenges for the GSLRP which was not sufficiently taken into account at design stage. The
project is therefore currently experiencing a slow mainstreaming of women participation as a result.
The use of participatory learning methods encouraged community mobilization and enhanced the
relevance of implemented activities to the needs of the target group.

92. Realisms of design. The lack of planned interventions for addressing human and animal water
needs was considered a design flaw in the NKRDP. The project is situated in an arid/semi-arid area
suffering from erratic rainfall and the effects of increased desertification, and the most pressing
concern of the least developed communities is access to water. With inadequate attention given to
household water resources, community mobilisation became more difficult and hindered the
introduction of other activities.33 A major design fault was the dependence on unidentified co-
financers to undertake priority activities related to water supply, health and education in SKRDP, and
to rural roads in SKRDP and WSRMP. The programme embraced large scale rural road components

32
     According to the baseline survey conducted in 2006 in GSLRP areas based on the Results and Impact
Management System (RIMS) methodology, one quarter of children have acute malnutrition, 48 per cent have
chronic malnutrition and 53 per cent are underweight. The area also shows high vulnerability to food insecurity
(78 per cent of the households).
33
     Project activities were also slowed and made more complicated by having to form partnerships with other
organizations such as WFP, State Chamber of Zakat and Sogia Charity Organization to provide water resources
for activities like nurseries (FN).

                                                      22
without assuring co-financiers’ commitment, and without involving them as partners in the
projects/programmes.

93. The NKRDP and GSLRP exhibited cases of significant under-financing compared to the
magnitude of the problems at hand. In NKRDP the interventions in NRM and utilization component
were significantly under-financed (US$0.8 million, four per cent of total project cost). The design and
subsequent corrective measures did not succeed in addressing the organizational and financial capacity
of implementing agencies (Ground Water and Wadi Directorate and State Water Corporation). In the
GSLRP, the design failed to target the full Gash river catchments’ system for more efficient flood
control, and did not reflect the full scale of the problems faced, related to Gash river control, spate
irrigation infrastructures, and mesquite34 eradication. Moreover, the GSLRP required high technical
competency (in engineering, hydrological expertise and agriculture) which was not available in the
programme area. It is an integrated scheme where success in any area is dependent on good and timely
implementation in all other areas, and there is no room for flexibility. Current implementation
constraints demonstrate the over-optimistic assumptions in terms of management capacity and
preparedness of partner authorities and project stakeholders.

94. Overall, the portfolio is rated as moderately satisfactory with regard to relevance. This
assessment is coherent with the average performance of Group A projects.

Effectiveness

95. Effectiveness is defined as the extent to which project objectives were achieved. In this section.
The strategic thrusts of the COSOP are used to classify the specific project objectives (these are
presented in Appendix 6). Only the NKRDP, SKRDP and GSLRP are analysed. The WSRMP was not
rated due to the short time elapsed from loan effectiveness. Nevertheless, it appears likely to achieve its
objectives if the current trend is sustained. Group A project ratings will be included at the end of this
section for the overall CPE portfolio effectiveness rating.

96. Effectiveness in supporting the livelihood strategies of the poor is assessed as moderately
satisfactory in NKRDP but moderately unsatisfactory in SKRDP and GSLRP. Evidence is available of
significant improvement in productive capacity of the poor in NKRDP. Productivity records for the
newly introduced varieties of millet, sorghum, groundnut, sesame in North and South Kordofan are
significantly higher for participating farmers than benchmark and previous area averages. In addition, the
coefficient of variation is lower, indicating that production is less variable. Increased reliability of
cropping is important for food security and suggests that the newly introduced varieties and cultural
practices have made cultivation more secure. Through the SKRDP in South Kordofan, both before and
after the ceasefire agreement, the programme contributed improved seed and tools as start-up pack
distributed in the former SPLM/A areas. These achievements have been made possible through
interventions in technical training both of staff and community-based para-extension workers,
dissemination of improved technologies, crop trials and demonstrations, animal treatments and
vaccinations.

97. The effects of IFAD operations on household livelihoods in terms of improved access to financial
assets appear negatively affected by the unsatisfactory performance of rural financial services. The
sustainability of village based rural financial services (sanduq) in the NKRDP is at risk. Also, in the
SKRDP, progress towards institutionalisation of rural financial services has been limited35.

98. Overall effectiveness was undermined by the characteristics of NKRDP and SKRDP design. The
NKRDP spread over a wide range of activities in a very broad area. Overoptimistic targets were
combined with insufficient inputs to generate the expected gains. Despite the above, the scope of the
NKRDP has not been reduced. The same view prevails for SKRDP despite the scaling down of some
targets. Although an excellent start had been made during the first phase of this programme, much

34
     Mesquite is a plant that colonises sandy soils to combat erosion.
35
     These issues are analysed under the section of the impact of IFAD operations on financial assets.

                                                        23
remained to be done and the achievements were fragile. In this regard, more focused interventions would
have ensured higher capacity to generate expected improvements in household livelihoods. Also,
component selectivity within the projects could also be tightened. The breadth of interventions within a
programme often leaves it vulnerable to policy and security risks.

99. Effectiveness in empowering men and women to fully participate in the development
process. Mobilization and animation techniques were used effectively in IFAD operations, firstly to
enhance the participatory process, and secondly to gain acceptance of the communities for the required
development effort. The VDCs/CDCs are structured to enhance the critical areas targeted by IFAD
interventions (see box 4) and have proved sound for the management and organizational issues in the
villages. The villagers are satisfied with the performance of the Village Boards of Directors (VBDs)
which they consider to be transparent and dynamic in community mobilization and follow up of project
implementation. This is regarded as an important step towards changed approach to village development,
and to recognition of the importance of the linkages required at all levels to realize sustainable
institutions.

100. Positive effects on women’s empowerment. Nutrition and literacy classes were conducted by
experienced staff from relevant departments (extension, adult education, nutrition, and reproductive
health departments). Success was enhanced by the local community’s acceptance of joint trainings and
also depended on the timing, location and length of activities and their financial abilities to contribute to
the activities. An impact survey of the NKRDP noted that women had taken on more active roles in the
VDCs in guiding community development, including participation in the sanduqs, adding community
forestry activities, and setting up adult education classes. The report also noted attitude changes among
the men, who had become more receptive to increased female participation in community affairs.
Women have also achieved greater access to credit and farm inputs, along with training and other
capacity building activities. The gender training programme was credited with initiating this progress.
Women’s decision to embark on community forestry activities was geared towards alleviating their fuel
wood gathering labour burden as well as towards protecting agricultural fields against sand
encroachment, while adult education classes were geared towards meeting women’s strategic needs of
increasing their relative power and decision-making.

                               Box 4. Key Characteristics of the VDCs/CDCs
  The VDC/CDC is structured to enhance the critical areas targeted by IFAD projects for poverty eradication.

                                                       CDC


                          Women              Social           Natural      Investment
                        Development         Services         Resources      (Sanduq)


  They are constituted from local interest groups that are directly elected by the population of the
  communities; these interest groups encompass the important areas of rural development, for instance,
  farmers, pastoralists, women, service providers, rural finance, investment. They have a legal basis; several
  states have laws regulating their activities, at least in theory. They have a common structure and
  implementation modalities; the “village board directorship” (VBDs) and the incorporation of village
  development agents and service providers within their structures gives them a business-like face.


101. Effectiveness in fostering good local governance. The performance of IFAD operations in
establishing CDCs, VDCs and resource users associations was moderately satisfactory although most of
these organizations required further support in order to achieve sustainability. About 58 per cent of those
established (10 in NKRDP and 14 in SKRDP) have demonstrated the potential to grow into strong local
institutions. More significantly, the basis for the link of local communities to the locality and state level
services has been established with coherent, multi-disciplinary teams that directly provide technical
services to communities through the VDCs/CDCs. After the peace agreement, the programme extended
and strengthened coordination of extension teams in the former SPLM/A areas (Rashad, Dalanj and
Kadugh Counties) with some training in conflict resolution. The contribution of the SKRDP to
promoting reform in water governance was constructive as an agreement was reached leading to a new

                                                       24
water law that devolves the management to rural communities contributing to the funding of assets. This
has set an example immediately followed by WSRMP for North Kordofan State.

102. Creating local level institutions is a major effort of the IFAD programme to empower people
towards good governance. The driving force has come from the projects and the perceived benefits that
the communities anticipate from them. The danger of being “directed” institutions rather than home
grown institutions, and hence the tendency for dependence on hand-outs from civil servants, is therefore
strong. Some interest groups in South Kordofan complained of lack of involvement in the formation of
CDCs, and there are dangers that the poor have been under represented in village boards. The
standardized structure throughout the project areas would suggest that the approach to the delivery of
service is directed from the state and localities, and not dictated by real demand from the grassroots. This
should, however, not be an issue of real concern now, given that the projects are opening opportunities
for the rural poor which they would otherwise not expect.

103. The establishment and training of LETs is an important achievement of the IFAD assistance.
Achievements vary in the projects. In the SKRDP, lack of synchronization of implementation modalities
between the states affected their effectiveness. In the GSLRP, after 40 months of implementation, key
stakeholders are not responding well to this challenge and the operation of the scheme is marked by lack
of clarity of roles and responsibilities. Operations of LETs have also been affected by the expansiveness
of their operational areas and the narrow professional linkage with other departments or units in the
locality governments. This has three consequences: firstly, they tend to be alienated from other
departments or units; secondly, they do not get adequate backstopping expected from the other
departments/units because the latter are resource-starved; and thirdly, they may draw resentment (and
reduced cooperation) from the resourced-starved units. The problems are exacerbated by lack of
sufficient resources at the locality governments where subsequently all the extension teams have to be
absorbed when the projects end. These are lessons from the narrow targeting of the extension teams,
which may need to be taken into account in future programmes.

104. Coordination problems affected the overall effectiveness of IFAD operations. This is partly due to
the unsatisfactory functioning and implementation of the decentralisation process within the country
governance structure. In the case of Kassala and South Kordofan, the MOAF has not fully decentralised
its extension cadre, which in turn impacted the effectiveness of the IFAD-financed LETs in SKRDP and
GSLRP. In general, the State has insufficient authority over the Localities. In addition, the
decentralisation policy has not been fully understood and some people have tended to use the process for
acquiring and controlling resources which were at the central level but now devolved to the state level.
Continuously changing policy with respect to decentralisation is one of the problems that have reduced
the effectiveness of institution building and governance. High turn-over of MoA key staff, together with
uncertainty over structure of organisation within the MoA were also problematic.

105. Overall, the portfolio is rated as moderately satisfactory with regard to effectiveness (see
table 6). This assessment is coherent with the average performance of Group A projects.

Efficiency

106. IFAD’s Sudan Country Programme is characterized by multi-component, scattered and poorly
accessible projects/programmes that target chiefly remote communities hence requiring high costs to
convert resources into results. In addition, limited geographic concentration of projects hindered the
capacity for IFAD to maximise synergies among various operations. In assessing the efficiency of IFAD
portfolio, the harsh social and institutional environment of The Sudan has been taken into account as
they make conversion of resources into results more challenging.

107. Institutional inefficiency has been a major source of programme poor performance.
Institutional efficiency in NKRDP and SKRDP has been affected by the addition of new administrative
units in project areas and the overall management of human resources including recruitment of new and
less experienced staff. High turn-over in MoA key staff in SKRDP together with uncertainty over the
structure of organisation within the MoA (which could affect staff location and position) impacted
negatively on extension teams’ performance and motivation with consequences for reduced efficiency in

                                                    25
operations. The range of disincentives have included lack of proper staff accommodation, which has
encouraged staff to live away from duty stations at the schemes; for instance, 95 per cent of the GSRLP
staff are reported to stay away from the scheme for lack of good accommodation. The meagre
performance of the SKRDP in terms of natural resources’ management is due to, among others, the poor
coordination and weak lines of communication with the State Range and Pasture Administration and the
local Forest National Corporation unit. This was exacerbated by the weak capacities of the project’s
Range Department Director, who was eventually replaced.

108. Coordination problems also arise from complex governance structures. Among these are the
inherently large and wieldy project boards and coordination committees such as the WSRMP Board that
comprises about 30 members representing a wide range of interests and the State Coordination
Committees. These loaded arrangements are prone to be inefficient and weakly linked with the
operational units. It should be acknowledged that the composition of this Board is not in line with the
project loan agreement and has not received no-objection from IFAD.

109. Technical and operational efficiencies varied in projects and components. In the GSLRP,
water containment and spreading structures and hafirs’36 rehabilitation were carried out according to
established technical norms and at lower cost than envisaged at design, while the first pastoralist
workshops were slightly above planned costs. The mesquite control and reforestation costs are
apparently higher than the planned costs, but it is important to keep in mind that manual mesquite
eradication on such a scale had not taken place before and that no local norms were available. Given the
success of the operation outside of the Gash Agricultural Scheme (GAS), and the fact that reforestation is
successful, one could argue that it was efficiently carried out. On the other hand, re-infestation by
mesquite identified in some areas of the GAS suggests poor efficiency. A need for land levelling has
been identified there in order to enable increased irrigation coverage with the available water. At present
there is considerable wastage and irregular irrigation due to undulating and silted fields.

110. Households benefiting from the animal production and rangeland component have reached 4 870
(5 400 planned) at a cost of US$340 per household, compared to US$979 envisaged at appraisal,
representing only 34 per cent of envisaged cost. NKRDP villagers appreciated the Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) worker’s activities as bringing drugs and advice in a more efficient way than village
traders.

111. Projects/components with high financial costs. The Gash river training operation requires huge
financial resources for completion as well as for regular operation and maintenance. Recurrent security
issues in the project area limited implementation competitiveness, as only few contractors were willing
to work in the region. Unforeseen complementary works in river training following flood events (in 2005
and 2007) added to the cost of the component. Though the GAS rehabilitation works are said to be
completed, most off-takes are far from fully operational and the area actually suitably irrigated is fairly
limited. River control civil works still face operational constraints chiefly related to the late release of the
annual operation and maintenance budget to the Gash River Training Unit.

112. Mesquite eradication in the GAS has been a costly operation when compared to the results
achieved. Mesquite, far from being eradicated from the GAS, seems to be spreading further and about 50
per cent of the area treated has been heavily re-infested due to inadequate management/follow up and a
lack of well tested technical packages under the difficult conditions of the Gash system. In NKRDP,
because they were realized on a cost recovery basis and financed through formal or informal credit,
interventions were generally carried out efficiently: water harvesting sites (1 397 Mk.); restocking
rangeland (5 896 Mk.); pasture seed distribution (181 tons); and water harvesting (1 051 Mk.). For the
rest of the activities financed by the project and/or partners, execution costs were slightly higher than
original estimates and ranged from 106 per cent to 122 percent.

113. Overall, the portfolio is rated as moderately unsatisfactory with regard to efficiency. This
assessment is in line with the average performance of Group A projects. Table 6 below presents the
ratings of Group A, B, C and D projects by performance criteria.

36
     Hafirs are traditional water retention facilities (large pools of water).

                                                          26
              Table 6. Ratings of CPE-Related Projects – Performance Criteria
                       Group A                 Group B             Group C                            Group D
CRITERIA
              WNASP SRADP NPIRP NKRDP SKRDP GSLRP WSRMP                                               BIRDP
Relevance       5          4        4        4          4        4          5                            5
Effectiveness   4          3        4        4          3        3
Efficiency      4          2        4        4          3        3
Overall
               4.3         3        4       4.0        3.3      3.3         -                              -
Performance



                        Box 5. In Synthesis - Relevance, Effectiveness and Efficiency
•    Overall, the IFAD portfolio in The Sudan was assessed as moderately satisfactory in terms of relevance.
     Programme was relevant to national policy and institutional context for poverty reduction. However, the
     complex integrated rural development approach adopted by the IFAD programme is poorly adapted to The
     Sudan context, given the fragile environment worsened by protracted civil strife. This limited the
     programme’s ability to effectively respond to conflict issues
•    The IFAD portfolio was moderately satisfactory in terms of effectiveness. It was moderately satisfactory
     in supporting the livelihood strategies of the poor whereas satisfactory in empowering full participation of
     women and men in development and fostering good local governance. Performance in supporting savings
     mobilization, credit supply and financial advice was moderately unsatisfactory.
•    Overall, the efficiency performance of the IFAD portfolio was moderately unsatisfactory. The
     overstretched and scattered nature of the interventions increased the amount of resources needed to generate
     results. Some activities were implemented in an efficient manner. In others, actual costs were higher than
     planned. Institutional efficiency was negatively impacted by the addition of new administrative units and
     overall management of human resources.


                                       C.    Rural Poverty Impact

114. This section assesses the impact of IFAD’s operations on rural poverty in The Sudan for the
following three projects: NKRDP, SKRDP and GSLRP. The projects in Group A were not rated for
project impact.

115. Physical assets. The programme impact on physical assets was moderately satisfactory. Important
results have been achieved by the NKRDP including increased livestock ownership. The impact study
undertaken by Project Management also shows that households that participated in the Project have a
better endowment of productive assets such as tractors and housing assets (i.e. refrigerator)37. Another
significant result has been the increased allocation of 3 to 3.6 feddans per farmer as a result of the land
reform in the GSLRP; previously poorer farmers had only 0.5 - 1 feddan for cultivation. In the NKRDP,
water harvesting structures (hafirs, hods and sowbats) increased availability of water for domestic and
livestock purposes; the increase in hand pumps and lining of wells improved water quality for domestic
purposes and the ease of collection both of which have had positive impact on health and hygiene.38
There were also improvements in rangelands and pastures, community tree plantings in the form of
shelterbelts, live fences and stabilized dunes. Land reclamation blocks and demarcated stock routes also
contributed to enhance endowment of physical assets at community level.




37
    NKRDP, Socio Economic Impact of Adoption of Project Interventions, by Salih Elagab Elsheikh, August
2008.
38
     In the GSLRP the capacity of hafirs increased by 30 000m3 between 2005 and 2006; the irrigated area
within the Gash scheme increased from 63 000 to 96 000 feddans between 2004 and 2006; and mesquite
eradication in hods resulted in higher and longer underground and surface water availability for animal and
human consumption, with good results on animal health thus improving livestock assets.

                                                       27
116. In GSLRP, animal health improvements have been reported, with reduction in average mortality
rate from seven per cent pre-project to 3.9 per cent in 2007, representing 44 per cent reduction (40 per
cent target). Improvement was also noted for epidemic (31.5 per cent incident reduced from
65.5 percent) and endemic diseases (16.3 per cent incidence reduced from 48.8 percent). Livestock
numbers recorded in 2007 showed large increases as compared to 2003; 45 per cent increase for sheep,
60 per cent for goats, 55 per cent for cattle and 25 per cent for camels. Some of the increase measured in
sheep and camels may be due to mass movements of nomads and transhumants. Livestock ownership
may be high due to constraints to exports experienced in 2007 due to outbreak of Rift Valley Fever,
leading to lower off-take levels and interruption of all exports to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States.
Initiatives undertaken by other actors (Plan Sudan, German Red Cross, and The Sudan Government) also
contributed to the above results.

117. Financial assets. Due to limited amount of data available, it is not possible to provide an
assessment of the extent to which the IFAD operations have affected the endowment of financial assets
of beneficiary households. It can however be hypothesised that household income has been positively
affected by the IFAD-financed activities aimed at improving agricultural and livestock production and
strengthening of income-generating activities, especially for women. This is confirmed in the impact
study conducted for the NKRDP which shows that project participants had a higher farm income
compared to the control group. The construction of the El Obeid-Bara road has positively contributed to
increased income of horticultural producers and market retailers. The impact of natural resources and
rangeland management interventions are of long term nature and may not generate impact on financial
assets in the short run.

118. The overall unsatisfactory assessment of IFAD contribution to household financial assets is due
mainly to the weak performance of rural financial services initiatives undertaken by IFAD. The NKRDP
provides a picture of high outreach capacity of sanduqs but limited prospects of self-sustainability39.
Furthermore, the declining repayment rate (from 82 to 72 per cent between 2004 and 2006) indicated the
difficulties faced by loan beneficiaries in income generation. In particular, the reduction in livestock
exports from the Kordofan region has had a negative impact on the income levels of the borrowers and
affected their ability to repay as the sanduqs portfolio for NKRDP was not diversified (with
approximately 63 per cent of the portfolio tied up in animal production). At the same time, between
January and November 2006 sanduqs lacked supervision due to an impasse between ABS and the
NKRDP regarding costs associated with supervision. In the SKRDP, external factors and the low level of
readiness of communities and institutions constrained the working of institutional arrangements hence
hindering the realisation of expected objectives.40 While the programme helped to re-establish ABS
branches and provided three mobile banking units in the programme area, it was ineffective in putting in
place necessary procedures and mechanisms for a successful launch of the rural finance services. Work
with communities for training and mobilisation also took more time than expected as they were not ready
to take up the micro-finance programme. The ABS was also not ready to develop the proper banking
procedures for such accounts with communities and make them operational.

119. The impact on Food Security was moderately satisfactory. A recent study undertaken in NKRDP
shows that the last few years were characterised by high rainfall variability and, in turn of land
productivity. It is estimated that project participants have, on average, a higher percentage of total food
consumption covered by food production compared to non-participants, which highlights a situation of
lower dependence on the market for access to food as well as a higher availability of food. In the
SKRDP, evidence is found of households benefiting from higher capacity to store food crops41. Impact
39
     Sanduq profits have been determined by the low cost of funds injected through the NKRDP grants and not
from maximizing revenues. Moreover, poor portfolio diversification (mostly concentrated in the livestock sector),
low repayment rate (declined from 82 in 2004 to 72 per cent in 2006) and weak management of delinquency are a
source of major concern. After project end in 2008, if the trend of poor repayment continues, the sanduqs will
gradually have less funds to disburse and the operational losses may wipe out the entire capital base in a short time.
40
    PN Division has indicated that in SKRDP the launch of microfinance was purposefully delayed to capitalise
on knowledge gained to date.
41
    SKRDP, Programme Interventions and Effect/Impact – The Household Impact Assessment Survey, by
Hassan Shakir Hassan.

                                                         28
on food security is a main objective of the GSLRP but so far limited results have been achieved: current
production is below potential due to problems of uneven water distribution, high weed incidence and
sub-optimal management.

                                                                 120. Social       Capital      impact      was
                                                                 moderately satisfactory. The establishment
                                                                 of the VDC/CDC and the general
                                                                 acceptance      by      communities        and
                                                                 government authorities of the system had a
                                                                 positive impact on social capital. Pastoralist
                                                                 and agro-pastoral communities feel
                                                                 empowered through devolution of water
                                                                 fees collection to Hafir Users’ Associations
                                                                 (HUAs) for water management, operation
                                                                 and maintenance. In the GSLRP, the
                                                                 problem of sustainability of the Water
                                                                 Users Associations (WUAs) and Range
                                                                 Users Associations (RUAs) and the lack of
                                                                 skills poses the risk of elite capture of land

Village para-health worker discussing with evaluation       allocation. Strengthening local level self-
team                                                        help organizations has thus increased their
Source: Elizabeth Kiff, CPE Mission                         capacity to exploit potential economic
                                                            opportunities to develop stronger links
with the markets and external partners. There have been significant changes in social cohesion and local
self-help capacity following empowerment and mobilization of both men and women to identify
development opportunities, priorities and planning by interest groups. This however did not succeed
among nomad tribes and agro pastoralists. In NKRDP, there is a high change in people’s organizations
capabilities which is reflected by the Community Capability Index (CCI), which has risen from 46 per
cent without the programme to 68.6 per cent with the programme interventions.

121. Human Capital impact was moderately satisfactory. Positive changes have been expressed by
communities that potable water provision contributed to health and environment – especially the reduced
physical and time burden on women. Primary schools and boarding houses have decreased dropouts
among students and reduced gender disparities in primary schools. Health cadres and facilities
contributed to improve general conditions including women’s reproductive health. Infant mortality rate
has decreased. There are positive results in building human capabilities through training across all
projects, especially the training of community health workers. Midwives’ activities in SKRDP generated
encouraging results data in terms of safe delivery and pregnant routine check-ups (see Table 7).

                     Table 7. Midwives Activities in SKRDP (2001–2007)
                               Y 2002 Y 2003 Y 2004 Y 2005 Y 2006                                 Jun. 2007
  Safe delivery                  84       647         2004    2199     2683                         910
  Pregnant routine check-up      65       470         2004    3949     5439                         2276
Source: SKRDP women activities report 2007; the drop in 2007 is due to the half-year time taken into account.

122. The overall impact on Agricultural Productivity is moderately satisfactory. A moderately
satisfactory rating was given to the NKRDP: significant increases in yields were obtained although these
cannot be considered sustainable. Evidence is also available of households in Bara and Umrawaba
benefiting from application of improved technologies that resulted in higher agricultural productivity.
However, there are concerns related to the sustainability of the process of seeds distribution. Seed banks
have initiated seed supply; however, these are reliant on project re-supply with certified seeds. Free
distribution of improved seeds undermines efforts to encourage institutionalization of seed banks within
villages. In SKRDP, however, these gains are not consolidated as there has been no institution of
certified seed production. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Habila seed multiplication unit has
been established and is in the process of being privatized.



                                                      29
123. In SKRDP, the impact survey conducted in 2006 found that adoption and application of
recommended practices and technologies was 36 per cent in field crops, 34 per cent livestock production
and 14 per cent in horticulture. Field demonstrations were found to have considerable impact, with
extension agents identified as the primary source of information for 60 per cent of farmers. Paravet
interventions reduced the recovery period for sick animals to less than a week in 98 per cent of cases.
Their activities also reduced high numbers of abortions and kid mortality from 75 per cent to only
seven per cent, which will have significant effect on productivity and returns from animal enterprises.
Village extension workers bringing IPM messages to the village increased awareness of water melon bug
campaigns to 90 per cent of households and participation in control of the pest to 76 per cent [where one
bag of sorghum is given for collection of one bag of bugs, through World Food Programme (WFP)].

124. IFAD operations had a moderately satisfactory impact on institutions and services. Three levels of
impact can be distinguished. The first is the community level, where institutionalization of the
VDC/CDC has had positive impacts. The establishment of Community Initiative Funds (CIFs)
represented an opportunity for the CDCs/VDCs to own manage and monitor development operations.
The GSLRP has had low institutional impact at the level of WUAs and RUAs. Due to the conditions of
high poverty in the area, water fees are perceived as high by beneficiaries and are not sufficient to
provide WUAs with resources needed to maintain their irrigation schemes and ensure their financial
sustainability.

125. The second is at locality level, where both the NKRDP and SKRDP have established and built the
capacities of LETs, which in the case of NKRDP are now being mainstreamed into local government
service. Service provision to communities was substantially improved by setting-up multidisciplinary
extension teams to carry out decentralized extension services, including on range improvement and water
management on a cost recovery basis. The impacts at the level of extension and programme management
have been successful: knowledge and skills have been transferred through training and practical on-job
operations in the fields of extension and project planning, monitoring, coordination and supervision.
However, the retention of the individual staff members is in question as several may opt to leave
following: (i) cessation of performance-based allowances that were used to top up salaries: (ii) better
paying opportunities with other donor-financed projects; and (iii) marriage (especially for young women
project staff).

126. The third level is the impact of IFAD operations at policy level. This includes the support provided
by the programme (i.e. GRSLP) in developing land tenure reforms, which are a vital component for the
livelihoods of the rural poor. A major change in microfinance policy has occurred at the Central Bank
and at the ABS, both of which have established separate Microfinance Departments with the influence of
IFAD. The sanduqs in NKRDP have generated a positive trend in profits, though this is unlikely to be
sustainable due to poor portfolio diversification, low repayment rate and weak management of
delinquencies.

127. Markets. The COSOP emphasises the need to invest in marketing improvement to ensure higher
profit margins for producers. Poor market channels and high storage losses, in part due to poor
infrastructure, are considered as a major constraint affecting the capacity of smallholders to escape rural
poverty42. The most relevant contribution of the IFAD Country Programme to agricultural marketing has
been through its contribution to the rehabilitation of the El Obeid-Bara road. Positive results have been
revealed in terms of increased efficiency of transportation and market access43.

128. The construction of the road led to a 50 per cent increase in produce transported from Bara to El
Obeid market and a 75 per cent decrease in transportation time to the market44 (Table 8). The
horticultural producers perceive the effect of the road as a real change in the way they do business. Their

42
    The avoidance of market failures requires considerable commitment on the part of the Government and the
support of reliable partners to finance rural roads; establish and maintain livestock disease-free zones; develop
market structures, including storage facilities; and foster competitive marketing services.
43
     2006, NKRDP PMU impact assessment study for the Bara-El Obeid road.
44
     Main findings of the PMU impact assessment study of the Bara-Rl Obeid road - Table 1.

                                                       30
products’ careful and better quality handling has reduced losses notably45. The good quality of products
reaching the marketplace enables producers to increase sales hence contributing to income. The
importance of investments in infrastructure and communication for market development is confirmed by
IFPRI research case studies46.

              Table 8. Effects of Bara-El Obeid Road on Key Performance Indicators
                       Indicators               Unit    Before After      Change
              Cultivated area/farmer                  Feddan          2         4         100 %
              (AVG) farm labourer                    Man-year         3         5          67 %
              Transportation time                    Minutes        130         40        - 69 %
              Fuel consumption/trip                   Gallon         5.5       2.1        - 62 %
              AVG vehicle breaks/month                 No.            7         2         - 71 %
              Traffic accidents/year                   No.            2         5         150 %
              AVG change in products prices            SDD         19 040     48 850      157 %

129. Apart from the infrastructure investment, the IFAD Country Programme in The Sudan had a
generally unsatisfactory impact on agricultural marketing. As mentioned above, issues of market access
have negatively affected the repayment capacity of NKRDP sanduq beneficiaries. In the SKRDP, the
initiative of pre-financing of rain-fed cotton marketing faced several implementation problems and did
not succeed in reaching expected objectives47. The GSLRP included a component of financial services
and marketing. Despite the name of the component, the project does not aim at directly addressing
market access issues. The WSRMP is the first operation of the Country Programme which includes the
objective of developing effective market chains and reducing the costs of marketing transactions,
enabling producers to negotiate better terms of trade for their products48. Due to the novelty of the
project, the effects of its operations could not be assessed during the evaluation. The same holds for the
BIRDP which includes a component aimed at supporting livestock marketing49.

130. Environment impact is moderately unsatisfactory. In both NKRDP and SKRDP, environmental
risks arise from livestock overgrazing, but important achievements have been realised through awareness
raising campaigns including for desertification control and for preservation of forest resources. The
change in the natural resource base was modest in NKRDP with about 10 000 feddans of range
restocked, 10 905 feddans of village woodlots and 6,054 feddans of compound live-fencing established
for the entire project area. A range management strategy for SKRDP area was completed in 2004 in the
context of the second phase of this programme which aims at fostering equitable communal range and
farmland management. These objectives were not however achieved due to the prolonged institutional
45
     IFAD-NKRDP: Deliveries and Effects/Impact of the Project (Draft) by Ibrahim El Dukheri, Oct. 2006.
46
     International Food Policy research Institute “Empowering the rural poor under volatile policy environments
in the N.E and N.A. region – Case Study Sudan, March, 2006.
47
     In theory, pre-financing of cotton marketing should have helped farmers realize parity prices and timely
production. The activity was applied for one single season and stopped. Some reasons for the discontinuation of
the financing operation included: firstly, failure of ABS to recover the pre-financing debts. It was reported that
farmers are evading repayment by transferring and/or selling to farmers who were not indebted to ABS or Nuba
Mountains Cotton Corporation (NMCC). Secondly, the State Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Wealth and
Irrigation decided to distribute the entire amount of cotton seed owned and stored by ABS to smallholders and
failed to recover the cost and repay ABS. This action induced ABS to withdraw from pre-financing cotton
marketing for seasons 2006/07 and the current season.
48
     The project aims at rehabilitating and equipping markets, forming market organisations at community level,
establishing apex organisation for helping small producers to access markets on better terms, supervise the
functioning of markets. A market information centre is also expected to be developed.
49
     In the BIRDP, the “Livestock and Marketing Development” component accounts for 16 per cent of total
project costs. The project aims at improving the livelihoods of livestock producers by improving the access and
bargaining position in the marketing of livestock. In particular, the following objectives are specified: (i)
improvement of market efficiency through better marketing practices and improved infrastructure, (ii) promoting
accountability among value chain stakeholders, (iii) improvement of marketing of milk to main urban centres
and (iv) improved management and use of surplus milk especially during the raining season when most livestock
herders move into Butana area.

                                                       31
vacuum that delayed arrangement for hafir management. In the WSRMP, important efforts for
environmental protection were undertaken through forest and rangeland protection activities and wildlife
programmes.

131. Environmental risks exist for the El Obeid-Bara road, particularly those resulting from design
defects which have caused road damage and initiation of erosion processes. In the GSLRP and other
projects, substantial increases in livestock numbers not matched at this stage by an equivalent increase in
range carrying capacity could constitute an exposure to potential overgrazing of rangelands. There is
serious risk that mesquite may spread through irrigation to new farmlands, should the eradication process
continue as it is. Some areas previously cleared of mesquites are being re-infested. Flood risks are
recurrent as verified by the 2005 and 2007 flood events of the Gash, and flood damage risks are high
particularly in the absence of a gauging station and a flood early warning system.

                                    Box 6. In Synthesis: impact domains
 Impact on the following domains was moderately satisfactory:
  • Physical Assets: improved access to water harvesting structures (hafirs); positive effects on livestock
    endowment; increased allocation of land to farmers through land tenancy reform.
  • Social Capital and Empowerment: institutionalization of VDCs/CDCs; improved capacity of planning,
    executing and managing development activities; positive effects on women empowerment.
  • Institutions and Policy: enhanced capabilities of extension services within government structure; land and
    water governance reform in the GSLRP; natural resources governance system (RLPC) in WSRMP.
  Impact on the following domains was moderately unsatisfactory:
  • Markets: positive effects with construction of El Obeid-Bara road, but no significant results through other
    initiatives (cotton, micro-enterprises).
  • Financial Assets: sanduq – innovation – positive impact with NKRDP but concern for sustainability;
    delays and unpreparedness in SKRDP; mobile bank in SKRDP but low disbursement.
  • Environment: awareness raising, improved range and pastures; but high exposure to environmental risk
    due to erosion and livestock overgrazing; in GSLRP, missed opportunity for a more comprehensive range
    management programme.



132. Taking into account all of the above factors relating to the three ongoing projects evaluated for
impact domains, the Evaluation rated overall CPE portfolio impact on rural poverty as moderately
satisfactory (4).

                                           D.    Sustainability

133. Sustainability has been a key issue since IFAD’s Sudan programme in 1981 and continues to be
problematic today. Overall country programme results are probably not sustainable. The fragile and
volatile environment, weak execution capacities and recurrent conflicts increase the exposure of project
benefits to risks that may hinder the continuation of benefits after completion of IFAD support. The high
level of social ownership is, however, factor that could contribute to sustainability: groups appeared well
organised, confident and showed good representation of women, particularly as members, but also with
some representation at committee level. Contributions by communities to initiatives financed under the
CIF indicate the actual commitment and ownership. In terms of social equity, nomads did not benefit
much from community development interventions undertaken so far. However, with the progressive
participatory demarcation of stock routes and the future mounting of range management schemes, there
remain good opportunities for providing the nomads with solid community development interventions
and incentives, thereby ensuring their empowerment, full cooperation and participation to a sustainable
range conservation and management process.




                                                      32
134. Technical sustainability. The IFAD programme contains substantial technical components,
especially in agriculture, infrastructure and range management. Their performance in terms of
sustainability was found to be generally low. Sustainability was weak for some of the mechanisms
intended to continue after programme closure (seed banks, certified seed production, financially viable
paravets and extension workers). However, the mechanisms identified to promote sustainability in the
agricultural sector are appropriate and with further consolidation and support, could prove effective. But
there are serious questions raised by some interventions supported by projects, such as chisel ploughing
on Garud soils50.

135. The current widespread practice of free distribution of improved seed, both as part of development
projects and as part of humanitarian assistance in war affected areas, tends to undermine efforts by
development projects to encourage the institutionalisation of seed banks within villages, local level
production of quality seed and sale of this seed both informally and through the certified seed system.
These and related concerns over traditional seed displacement, by widespread and long-term free seed
distribution, have been raised by other researchers.

136. Water fees are currently at UD$175 per feddan in the GSLRP, half the full cost recovery rate. This
is thought to be as high as can be levied until farmers begin to experience yield gains/potential of the
rehabilitated system. Any further increase in cost at present would be unsustainable and could jeopardize
the land reform process.

137. Post-project Institutional Sustainability was envisaged mainly at three levels: (i) at project
management levels by minimizing the permanent staff establishment of the PCUs to small but highly
skilled cadres supplemented with task forces and contracting; (ii) at Locality levels by planning for
moderate annual recurrent costs considered affordable by the Locality Councils and by raising Locality
revenues; and (iii) at the VDC/CDC levels by establishing CIFs through which communities would make
contributions towards construction and maintenance of social infrastructure. The evaluation found that
the capacity of the Locality Councils to generate revenue has not increased such that they could support
projects as they come to an end. The communities also have not built sufficient capacity for income
generation and hence rising incomes, which in turn would increase their capacity to meet most of their
needs through the market and also enhance their contribution to CIFs. The current reality on the ground
is that the CDCs/VDCs are far from attaining sustainability, and will require extended support, for say
three to five years after project closing to put them on a more sound footing financially.

138. At the project management levels, given the limited technical and financial capabilities, it is
unlikely that the State Governments will be able to consolidate most of the successes of the IFAD
supported projects, particularly those related to sustaining rangeland rehabilitation and improvements.
This is an important issue for the NKRDP, SKRDP and GLSRP. The assessment leads to the overriding
conclusion that IFAD’s underlying assumptions in institutional support in The Sudan, namely that the
revenue base of Locality governments would increase sufficiently to take over financial responsibility for
projects, needs to be revised. Within the decentralization process, an effective and transparent
mechanism for revenue transfer from the centre (federal) to the States and Localities was not enforced.
Although the COSOP envisaged local government revenue reforms, no specific plan of action was
incorporated in the programme.




50
     While opening these relatively rich soils for cultivation, the initially huge gains in productivity (200-400 per
cent increase in crop yields in the first year) quickly decline in the absence of rotation, organic matter, or
manure/ compost application. Tendency for compaction can increase after ploughing and the land in the absence
of rotation, or addition of soil ameliorants, can become even less productive.

                                                         33
139. Fiscal decentralisation had negative
consequences on the capacity of local
authorities to generate and mobilise the
financial resources needed to support the
investments undertaken through IFAD
operations. This particularly applies for the
decentralised LETs. With IFAD support,
they have contributed to adoption of
improved       farming     practices     and
technologies. However, as funding is
reduced at the end of IFAD assistance, their
activity is also rapidly being curtailed,
hence raising serious questions as to their
sustainability beyond project life.

140. The BIRDP, on the other hand, Community Development Committee Meeting
represents a different scenario to institutional Source: A. Hussein
building, with an institutionally independent
management organization – Butana Development Agency (BDA) which is established by Presidential
Decree and has a budget line to sustain the project’s activities after project completion. A budget line
does not, however, in itself guarantee that funds will be available in right amounts. This has been shown
to be the case of the Federal Ministry of Roads and Bridges (MRB) which manages the El Obeid-Bara
road. Although sustainability of this road should normally be assured through the line budget of the
Ministry, a specific budget for reparation, operation and maintenance of the road was not earmarked by
the concerned authorities since 2004, and because of the absence of operation and maintenance
mechanism under NKRDP and the MRB the road is, in the present state, unlikely to be sustainable.

141. The determinants of conflict in the IFAD Policy on Crisis Prevention and Recovery51 largely
apply to The Sudan where land is a major issue for rural communities. Current ethnic/tribal
polarization require addressing land issues within a framework that recognizes the intersection of land
and conflict in The Sudan if projects and programmes are to be sustainable. This is particularly
important considering that the next COSOP will span two key events in The Sudan which have the
potential of generating significant conflict: the Presidential election of 2009 and the National Unity
Referendum of 2011 in which the South will be consulted on possible secession.

142. IFAD operations under the 2002 COSOP sought to address the structural causes of conflicts in
South Kordofan. The central element in IFAD institutional support has been a consistent effort to
establish and develop simple, cost-effective and sustainable linkages between the local communities,
the Locality governments, the State authorities and the development programmes. However, the model
is increasingly being criticized for supporting institutional reform for natural resource management
based on the traditional Native administration system. This system is contested in The Sudan for being
non-democratic and therefore unsustainable, as new more representative administrative systems
emerge from the South following the CPA.

143. Environmental sustainability. Freshly reseeded pastures resulted in adequate range
improvement; but without compulsory deferred grazing mechanisms they cannot be durably established
and will not produce seed to regenerate forage species. This was not envisaged at the design stage. At
present, these improved pastures are freely grazed and can neither regenerate, nor produce seed for future
collection and broadcasting. Protecting these vital assets is crucial, as fodder outputs obtained from
combined water harvesting and reseeding can be equivalent to 50 times that of natural range. Such a
level of fodder production can, if sustained through proper conservation, utilization and management,

51
      The IFAD Policy on Crisis Prevention and Recovery defines violent conflicts situations as those in which
political instability leads to weak territorial control by government, accentuation of inequalities among various
regions or segments of the population, the emergence of widely differing ideologies, the formation of violent
groups within and outside the governance system and outbreaks of violence, with considerable loss of life,
displacement of persons, war crimes and significant damage to public and private property.

                                                       34
reduce significantly the animal pressure on surrounding pastures and range. However, techniques for
rangeland rehabilitation are costly compared to the likely economic returns. Unless sound management is
applied and controlled grazing is enforced where and when deemed necessary, benefits from rangeland
rehabilitation efforts will not be sustainable.

144. Natural resource management was a key consideration of the COSOP. However, only a small
portion of the portfolio (nine per cent) was allocated to this sector. Emerging experiences from NKRDP
and SKRDP were being incorporated into the formulation of a global, natural resources’ management
strategy for the two Kordofans. In the BIRDP, a full-fledged range management approaches with legal
enforcement of management regulations was applied. This aims at ensuring sustainability of
interventions while enabling the possibility for revision every two to four years.

145. The substantial livestock population increase achieved with IFAD’s operations cannot be sustained
given the poor state of rangelands. The substantial rise in livestock numbers constitutes a real exposure
to potential environmental risk. In order to mitigate risk of rangeland deterioration due to increased
animal populations, livestock marketing issues must be urgently resolved and animal off-take
mechanisms developed.

146. Hafirs and drinking water for livestock constitute major management tools for evenly distributing
livestock herds over range resources, both around settled communities and along stock routes used for
nomadic livestock migration. Devolving water management to WUAs has therefore been a major step
towards sustaining water use and water structures through entrusting agro-pastoralist and pastoralist
communities and their respective Localities with full executive and managerial responsibility over this
strategic resource. This achievement has been made possible thanks to the firm position adopted by
IFAD on the matter and is to be credited to the SKRDP, for all the consultation and coordination efforts
it has put in this lengthy process. While this agreement is being replicated by the WSRMP in North
Kordofan, no such agreement has yet been reached in Gash as farmers refuse to pay water fees due to
insufficient provision.

147. Overall, the portfolio was rated as moderately unsatisfactory for sustainability.

                           E.   Innovation, Replication and Scaling Up

148. The IFAD Country Programme in The Sudan has a good record of innovation. The adaptation of
the community participatory approach [initially piloted by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP)] and its scaling up into a village development board incorporating a village based extension
system and a sanduq microfinance model was an important innovation. In the NKRDP, the exit strategy
negotiated with the Bara and Um Rwaba Locality governments as well as with ABS allows the
replication of the sanduq models, which are in them an innovation. It is noteworthy that the SKRDP not
only replicated the VDC approach and its VBDs from NKRDP, but it elevated and up-scaled this to a
village-based and community-selected extension system intended to provide integrated socio-economic
services to the local communities. The choice and combination of sub-components has become an
institution building model that links local communities, the local governments, the state government, the
programme, and various interest groups, and is better sharpened in the SKRDP than the NKRDP and
later adopted by the Agricultural Revival Programme 2008-2011. Though this model requires
improvements, it has the potential to become the mechanism for real institutional change that benefit the
poor. The IFAD experience with this rural development model was useful in the peace negotiations
process (CPA). For instance, working with and incorporating the traditional tribal administrations was a
major factor in the successful re-integration of some communities that had been displaced by the war,
though the administrative changes resulting from the CPA indicate that undemocratic traditional tribal
administrations are being challenged by more modern structures emerging in the South and this is a
potentially replicable institutional role.

149. In the GSLRP, the institutional arrangements adopted in this project (devolution of land and water
management to users’ groups, and using investments in the GAS to support institutional reforms) are
new in the project area. However, this process is not new to The Sudan since it has been applied in the

                                                   35
reform of the Gezira Irrigation Scheme, the largest in the world. Despite the high potential for this
innovation, achievement of expected results has been hindered by un-preparedness of implementing
authorities and limited capacity of WUA to acquire the necessary skills. For this reason, the
consideration of the GSLRP model as a successful innovation cannot be confirmed.

150. In the WSRMP, innovation, replicability and scaling up were recognized and incorporated in the
programme at appraisal. This programme has therefore consciously taken strides towards building on
good practices and lessons learned from the on-going NKRDP and SKRDP, especially in the area of
supporting the decentralization process and scaling up the community institution building model for
sustainability. Furthermore, the WSRMP targets from the outset the challenging task of achieving the
participatory reconnaissance and material demarcation of the stock routes in the two Kordofan States.
The other innovative decision consists in establishing the Regional Land Policy Committee (RLPC) to
formulate a regional NRM strategy and related reforms.

151. In the SKRDP, the main innovations are associated with the range management component and
the creation of the HUAs and the agreement between HUAs, their respective Localities and the Ministry
of Rural Development and Water Resources on community water management devolution. The
innovative approach in NRM in the SKRDP consisted in launching a range management strategy study
to determine future intervention targets.

152. IFAD innovation agenda in The Sudan benefited from limited partnership with NGOs and other
development partners. Indeed the inclusion of an NGO in the design of WSRMP interventions has not
led to its inclusion in implementation as envisaged. The stock route demarcation interventions within
WSRMP were informed by the success of four stock routes demarcated by Save Our Souls Sahel (SOS
Sahel), in collaboration with the Range and Pasture Administration of the MoAAWI. While partnership
with SOS Sahel was envisaged at appraisal, project implementation did not appeal to SOS Sahel
participation. Replication and scaling up was found in the case of the EU funded The Sudan Productive
Recovery Programme as well as under the initiatives undertaken by the Multi-Donor Trust Fund on
Community Development. This is the key test of IFAD’s capacity to promote innovations. On the other
hand as illustrated by the agricultural and natural resources components, there is a low level of
innovation in agricultural activities displayed by current projects. There is also a lack of initiatives made
in village level processing, such as oil extraction, snack making, shelling of groundnuts, etc.

153. The overall portfolio has been rated moderately satisfactory (4) for innovation. Table 9 presents
the ratings for the two overarching criteria reviewed above.

                              Table 9. Ratings for Overarching Criteria
                             Group A                     Group
                                                          Group B                Group C
                                                           D
               WNASP SRADP NPIRP NKRDP SKRDP GSLRP WSRMP BIRDP
Sustainability   4     3     3     4     3     3     -     -
Innovation       -     -     -     5     4     4

                                              F.   Gender
154. Gender issues in the IFAD programme were mainstreamed into the institutional development
component. Except for the GSLRP where information on the breakdown of employment in the relevant
institutions by gender was not available, all projects have demonstrated strong gender sensitivity in
institutions. In the WSRMP women officers are well represented in senior positions in the state and
locality extension offices52. At the community level, women representation at CDCs is strong, from
30 per cent to 50 per cent in most cases in both WSRMP and NKRDP. The satisfactory performance is
attributed to a carefully orchestrated strategy on gender mainstreaming. However, as reported in the


52
     For instance, the North Kordofan State Coordination Unit is headed by a senior female officer, and the
Range and Natural Resources Management Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Wealth and
Irrigation (MAAWI) has strong female leadership.

                                                     36
UNOPS December 2007 Supervision Report, gender participation is still low in the GSLRP. The
employment of women staff in key positions is being promoted by Community Development Officers.

155. The programme has had a positive impact on the role of women in agriculture and food security.
Access to improved seeds and new agricultural practices by both men and women have improved their
yields and hence increased income. The introduction of female contact farmers as well as the farmer field
schools was an effective approach for improving agricultural practices and products and for enhancing
women economic empowerment. Social change is taking place within these communities through
changing attitudes of male farmers. Male farmers in some parts of SKRDP have acknowledged female
contact farmers, who constitute 40 per cent of farmers groups, and their good practices and were
receiving agricultural information from them. Thanks to the land reform process in GSLRP, women are
entitled to land rights, though in limited numbers.

                                                                   156. The programme has created a
                                                                   sense of consensus and solidarity
                                                                   among women groups and men. This
                                                                   social change in male attitude has also
                                                                   led IFAD to encourage women
                                                                   farmers in cash crop production
                                                                   especially in cotton purchase where
                                                                   women constituted 27.6 per cent of
                                                                   total beneficiaries and the total
                                                                   amount purchased by women in 2005
                                                                   was 14.9 per cent of the crop.




                                                                    New Girl’s school in South Kordofan
                                                                    Source: A. Hussein


                            G.    Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)
157. In addition to the loan portfolio, the CPE has reviewed TAGs that were implemented during the
evaluation period with a view to assessing: (i) whether they contributed to creating and supporting
innovations in the context of IFAD’s Sudan programme, and (ii) what was their degree of synergy with
loan-funded interventions. Given that there were twenty grants with activities solely or partly in The
Sudan, a sample of five TAGs was selected covering five thematic/sectoral areas for review, as
summarised in the Table 10. The overall performance of the five reviewed TAGs was moderately
unsatisfactory in terms of their contribution to the IFAD Programme in The Sudan (Table below). TAGs
494, 578 and 174 were, however, moderately satisfactory, while TAGs 723 and 296 were unsatisfactory.

                           Table 10. Summary of Five Reviewed Grants
  No.                       Thematic/Sectoral Areas                                 Assessment
 494     Reaching Rural Women in NENA                                          Moderately satisfactory
         Impact of agricultural trade liberalisation on small rural
 723                                                                           Unsatisfactory
         producers in NENA
 296     Management Training in Agriculture                                    Unsatisfactory
 578     Enhancing Food Security in the Nile Valley and the Red Sea            Moderately satisfactory
 174     Policy Dialogue on Land and Water Governance Reform                   Moderately satisfactory

158. TAG 578 provided support to ICARDA to enhance food security in the Nile Valley and Red Sea
Region. The focus crops included lentil and chickpea which are potentially important crops, or intercrops
in rainfed areas, providing nutritionally rich beans and some nitrogen fixation as legumes. However, the
results presented indicated that all four crops under investigation were grown under irrigated conditions;
yet irrigated agriculture is no longer the identified focus for IFAD interventions in The Sudan, as

                                                   37
identified by the country strategy paper in 2002. While findings may have some relevance to the GSLRP,
they will have little relevance neither to the majority of current projects based neither in the Kordofans
nor to the BIRDP. It is also unlikely that findings will be of relevance to up-coming projects, as the
rainfed focus continues to be the most relevant to the current priority issues of reaching the greatest
number of poor households (poverty reduction) and conflict resolution.

159. TAG IT 174 supported policy dialogue on land and water governance reforms in the Gash area.
The grant contributed substantially to creating and supporting innovations in the fields of empowering
farmer women to access land and of land tenancy reform through a model developed under joint IFAD-
Italian Government Partnership contribution in the GSLRP. This model demonstrated that negotiated
land reform is an essential instrument to promote more efficient and equitable distribution of land and
resources, and also holds important added value and high potential for replication especially when
viewed within the national and East Sudan contexts.

                                                 160. Grant 494 aimed to strengthen IFAD efforts to
                                                 empower both women and men, and was moderately
                                                 successful. The grant contributed to advocacy of IFAD
                                                 interventions in The Sudan through the support provided
                                                 to NKRDP and SKRDP respectively. There was a focus
                                                 on gender mainstreaming, and on institutionalization of
                                                 gender and women empowerment through the
                                                 development of the gender curriculum which has been
                                                 widely used within IFAD projects, and is demanded by
                                                 many local institutions. Participation of women in
                                                 SKRDP was ensured through this grant and other
                                                 approaches, enabling SKRDP to put forward the 30 per
                                                 cent representation for women at all levels of
                                                 management.

                                            161. Both TAGs 723 and 296 were unsatisfactory. In
                                            the latter, no management training in agriculture was
                                            under-taken in The Sudan and the TAG made little
                                            progress beyond identifying a National Host Institution.
                                            In the former, the issue of trade was outside the
                                            implementation scope of The Sudan Programme, and the
                                            study made little contribution to creating and supporting
                                            innovations and enhancing capacity building in the
 Women benefiting from solar pump          context of the programme. The degree of synergy of the
 Source: SKRDP Media and Communication
                                           TAG was poor as almost none of the interventions in The
 Unit                                      Sudan dealt with issues related to trade and its relation to
                                           poverty reduction. Some projects/programmes touched
upon improving the terms of trade in their implementation areas, but they have not made tangible
attempts to address trade related issues.

                          Box 7. In Synthesis: sustainability, innovation, TAGs
• Overall sustainability performance is moderately unsatisfactory. Despite strong social commitment,
  institutional sustainability is unlikely in the short to medium-term; lack of viable exit strategies in some
  projects adds to sustainability problems; sustainability issues also extend to technical and environmental
  aspects of the programme
• Innovation, replication, scaling up was moderately successful. However, partnership with NGOs was
  weak and little attention was given to innovative solutions for agricultural and livestock production.
• TAGs were moderately unsatisfactory overall; however, they were moderately satisfactory for food security,
  policy dialogue on land and water governance reforms, and for the programme to reach rural women.




                                                     38
                                   H.    Non-Lending Activities
Partnership Development

162. Partnership development was assessed as moderately unsatisfactory. In the two Kordofan projects,
partnership building was not sufficiently envisaged in the programme at appraisal, and insufficient effort
was made to engage other agencies during implementation. Better coordination between these two
programmes and other projects active in the area (by CARE) would help reduce duplication of efforts.
Also, more active participation of IFAD financed projects in the coordination working group
organised by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in South Kordofan would have proved
beneficial.

163. In the projects appraised after the COSOP, IFAD introduced a systematic analysis of potential
partnerships and complementarities or synergies in projects the Fund or other agencies implemented. The
aim was to identify a wide range of potential partners. The only partners identified by the analysis were
FAO, UNDP and other United Nations (UN) agencies, and international NGOs engaged in humanitarian
operations. There were nevertheless some successes, and efforts were made for Partnership
Development. The GSLRP has partnerships with NGOs and a Multi Donor Trust Fund for Community
Development. The design of WSRMP was inspired by experiences of two international NGOs related to
stock route development and conflict. Following the CPA, IFAD has re-established contacts with
potential future partners in the agricultural development sector including the FAO, the WB, the OPEC
Fund, the IsDB and the Arab Fund.

164. IFAD had no significant partnerships with international financial institutions except for the IsDB
financing of the El Obeid Bara Road under NKRDP. With the exception of IsDB, OPEC Fund, and a
few UN and bilateral agencies, major donors had suspended their operations in The Sudan during the
1990s and early 2000s. The absence of major donors denied IFAD the chance to partner in development
of infrastructure (for instance in SKRDP and WSRDP). Nevertheless, IFAD identified and designed
large project components being aware that other investors were absent. Furthermore, IFAD was
unsuccessful in influencing the government to allocate funds for road infrastructure even as substantial
oil revenues were flowing in GoS coffers.

165. Partnership with the Government at the Federal, State, Locality, levels has been moderately
satisfactory. While the established institutions have demonstrated strong commitments and have
actively engaged in their responsibilities, harmonization and coordination problems have been
significant in slowing down prospects for satisfactory performance. For example, State Coordination
Units have faced real challenges in harmonizing with the respective Project/Programme
Implementation Agencies, and between themselves, making the coordination work at the PCU
difficult. The issue is not the suitability or relevance of the established structures, but rather the
clarification, harmonization and acceptance of roles and responsibilities.

Knowledge Management

166. Knowledge management was moderately unsatisfactory. The COSOP identifies project and
portfolio reviews and evaluations as well as related training activities, and lessons learned from past
project experiences and their implications for future programme design, as forming the basis for
knowledge management activities that should be shared and disseminated.

167. The appraisal documents of the two Kordofan Projects detail lessons from previous IFAD
experience and identify lessons with particular significance for these projects. However, they do not
emphasize on disseminating lessons from the experience of the projects themselves. The GSLRP plans to
consolidate the experiences and results of earlier IFAD-supported projects in areas of rain-fed
agriculture. The Project document noted that the policy areas identified needed to be supported with
specific action research activities, and included these among the list of activities to be undertaken and
supported with short-term technical assistance. The WSRMP is envisaged as a two-phase programme of
eight years. The second phase of the Programme expects to build on the lessons learnt from the
establishment phase. The development of the natural resource management strategy is expected to be

                                                   39
undertaken in a close consultative process with the key stakeholders in order to share the knowledge
regarding the stock routes and ensure consensus.

168. Knowledge is an inherent element of the IFAD Sudan Country Programme, but there have been
few special mechanisms for systemising its generation, management and dissemination. There is
recognition that lessons and other knowledge should be shared and disseminated across the extensive
IFAD system (which includes governments, development institutions, NGOs, farmers, etc.) through
workshops and seminars, etc. TAGs had strong knowledge management components but they were not
effectively implemented for the most part. However, the North and South Kordofan projects are
members of KariaNet where there is some sharing of successful project experiences, learning from
IFAD’s lessons in The Sudan and elsewhere in the region as well as exchange visits and discussion on
key development issues and concepts.

169. The role of project Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system for knowledge management is also
taken into account. In the case of the SKRDP, impact studies have been undertaken for assessing the
effects of project interventions and extension staff was involved in data collection. While the vision of
M&E as an internal management function is acknowledged, independent assessment would have
provided more robust findings which are more appropriate from a learning point of view. In the NKRDP,
two Masters Theses were prepared by students from Kordofan University which provided useful
information on project results. Inviting and hosting students to undertake such studies would be an
excellent way for projects to monitor and further disseminate results. However, greater supervision is
required in order to ensure reliability of findings and tailoring the study to relevant issues for
management. In the WSRMP and GSLRP, baseline surveys were undertaken based on the sampling
method and questionnaires developed in the IFAD Results and Impact Management Systems (RIMS).
These constitute a good basis for impact assessment. However, further efforts are needed to integrate the
data generated with the RIMS survey with information more specifically related to project activities and
expected results.

Policy Dialogue

170. In the 2002 COSOP, policy dialogue was understood as “the readiness of partners to discuss policy
issues (…) coupled with the willingness to use investment projects to promote or pilot policy reforms”53.
According to this vision, policy dialogue initiatives in The Sudan do not aim at exerting high-level policy
influence outside the scope of investment projects.

171. This approach prevented IFAD from grasping the opportunities available at a time in which the
Fund remained as the only international financial institution in the country. Despite IFADs good
reputation in The Sudan, its sphere of influence at policy level was constrained and was limited within
the project scope. Lack of country presence and un-preparedness of IFAD to engage in high level policy
issues to enhance its country programme development effectiveness reinforced the narrow role of policy
dialogue initiatives undertaken by the Fund during implementation of the Country Programme. For
example, the PBAS could be strategically used for enhancing the interest of Government to engage in
dialogue on policy issues that influence the allocation of IFAD financial resources.

172. The scope for policy dialogue proposed in the COSOP does not sufficiently include sustainability
issues. Taking into consideration the particular social and institutional environment of The Sudan, post-
project sustainability necessarily requires a broader and longer term effort which goes beyond the simple
scope of project activities and may entail continued support following project completion. In this regard,
policy dialogue activities can be the instrument for sensitising and promoting the engagement of political
authorities in support of IFAD-financed operations after the conclusion of IFAD support. The overall
performance of IFAD in attracting government resources for supporting discrete project
activities/components during implementation through policy dialogue was unsatisfactory.

173. It should, however, be acknowledged that at the time of the COSOP formulation, policy dialogue
was a relatively new dimension of IFAD interventions. For this reason, the learning aspect of this

53
     See COSOP page 14; Paragraph 59.

                                                    40
evaluation should be emphasized and the experience of the current Country Programme can be used as a
basis for building the forthcoming strategy of policy and institutional change embedded in the RB-
COSOP. In particular, the linkage of policy change objectives with investment projects deserves special
attention. Policy dialogue should be considered as inherent in all the activities associated with the
management of the Country Programme. It needs to be most present during project identification design
and appraisal, and during loan negotiations where critical policy and institutional changes may be built
into or anticipated into the programme. At project implementation, the process of supervision and
reporting should highlight elements of policy dialogue. Finally, exit strategies are built through a policy
dialogue process. The experience with the Bara and Um Rwaba localities with the ABS for replicating
the sanduq model should be considered a notable achievement.

174. The policy content of the IFAD Country Programme is acknowledged. This particularly applies to
land tenure reform in the GSLRP, the water governance and management devolution in the Kordofans,
and the support to the decentralisation process which is incorporated in all projects although it
highlighted specifically in the NKRDP and SKRDP as well as WSRMP. The positive contribution of
IFAD to local institutions has been well supported by policy dialogue activities.

175. Finally, the important contribution of the IFAD Field Presence to the policy dialogue activities is
also acknowledged. The FPO has participated in several forums including the Multi Donor Trust Fund,
Darfur Donors Coordination Group, Avian Influenza UN/Donor Forum, the UN Expert Meeting and the
Joint Assistance Mission but the process has just started. As a result IFAD has contributed to the
formulation of the land and water policy, the Joint Donor Statement for Agriculture and Rural
Development and to redirection of some GoS resource allocation from irrigation to include rain-fed
agriculture.

176. The presence of a country representative today and the prospects of The Sudan Country
Programme Manager moving from Rome to Khartoum in 2009 are indications that IFAD may now be
on track to participating in more substantial policy dialogue. Sufficient resources also need to be
devoted for the field presence if it is to become effective.

                            Table 11. Ratings for Non-project Activities
                                  Non-Project Activity            Rating
                           Policy Dialogue                            3
                           Partnership                                3
                           Knowledge                                  3


                               Box 8. In Synthesis: Non-Lending Activities
•   Good partnership building with the GoS and at the community level; but IFAD had no significant
    partnership with international financial institutions or with NGOs.
•   Policy dialogue was undertaken almost wholly within the context of projects. Policy dialogue for
    sustainability should have received a more prominent role given the harsh social and institutional
    environment of The Sudan.
•   There was no systematic approach to knowledge generation, management and dissemination.

                    V.      PERFORMANCE OF IFAD AND ITS PARTNERS

IFAD’s Performance

177. Through its operations, IFAD has supported the national decentralisation policy by working with
local communities to sustain the livelihoods of the rural poor and strengthening local governance. In
particular, promoting local management of land and water rights has been an important trait of IFAD-
funded development projects. In the NKRDP and SKRDP, IFAD remained quite firm at policy level on
the matter of water management devolution and so far good results were achieved. Overall, good results
have been achieved in the following areas: development of grassroots institutions, land/water issues and
gender have generated valuable knowledge from which IFAD can benefit.


                                                    41
178. The role of IFAD in promoting innovative approaches to rural development is acknowledged.
IFAD replicated and scaled-up the community participatory approach initially piloted by UNDP,
promoted an innovative village-based microfinance system (sanduq) and applied in the GSLRP
institutional reform process. IFAD also demonstrated its capacity to make best use of lessons learned of
ongoing operations. For instance, the WSRMP and BIRDP aim at addressing the marketing constraints
that, in other projects, have significantly undermined household capacity to generate income. Similarly,
the BIRDP approach to natural resources and range management constitutes a departure from the lower-
key approach that characterised the NKRDP.

179. The Evaluation recognizes the merit of IFAD shifting from the irrigation farming sector which
characterised the first generation of projects, to rainfed areas in the Kordofan region. However, the Fund
did not grasp the full benefits that could have been derived from greater geographic concentration when
it chose to develop projects in Eastern Sudan.

180. The performance of IFAD in the design of loan-financed development initiatives has been mixed.
Overall, IFAD achieved timely project delivery as indicated by the average time from loan approval to
effectiveness (9.8 months), which is below the IFAD average for the period 2002-2007 (15.0 months)54.
However, the evaluation identified design faults in terms of dependence on unidentified co-financing
sources. The analysis conducted during the evaluation shows that approximately 14 per cent of total cost
of projects from 1999 to now depend on un-identified co-financers. This percentage should be compared
with a low four per cent in the PN region. The high share of project costs depending on unidentified co-
financers has generated significant implementation delays and lack of synergies across components.

181. Cases of projects with under-designed and underfinanced components were also found which had
negative implications for project implementation and effectiveness (such as in the SKRDP). The
undertaking of IFAD-financed operations in a context characterized by a weak social and institutional
setting was not sufficiently taken into account at the design stage.

182. IFAD has directly supervised the NKRDP. In this role its performance has been satisfactory both
in terms of project appraisal and follow-up of the implementation through supervisions. The direct
supervision of the NKRDP allowed IFAD to identify and enforce recommendations for better targeting,
implementation modality and negotiation of exit strategy for financial service operations.

183. According to the Country Working Paper prepared for the FPPP Corporate Level Evaluation
(CLE) undertaken by OE in 2006, the activities of the FP are contributing to IFAD visibility. At the same
time, the FPO assisted the design of IFAD-financed operations, provided implementation support and
played an active role in coordinating IFAD-financed activities. Due to the recent establishment of the FP,
its effect on the Country Programme is difficult to evaluate at this time. It is, however, noted that all non-
project activities appear to be benefiting from the FPO.

184. Overall, IFAD`s operational performance is rated as moderately satisfactory (4).

Government and its Agencies

185. The performance of the Government in contributing to implementation and results of IFAD-
financed operations varied from project to project. In NKRDP, except for the initial coordination
problems, government institutions – including federal, states, PMU and Locality – were strongly
committed to sustain project activities and successfully contributed to project implementation. In the
SKRDP, the performance of government institutions was affected by the general instability in the
administrative structure of South Kordofan State. According to UNOPS report, the high turnover of
senior government officials negatively affected project performance. At the same time, lack of
counterpart funding caused serious delays in implementation (as flagged in the 2007 Project Status
Report). It should be noted, however, that only SKRDP suffered from issues with availability of
counterpart funding. In the GSLRP, the Government has established the necessary implementation

54
     At the time of evaluation, the BIRDP was not declared effective. If this project is included in the analysis,
average effectiveness lag increases to more than 11 months which is still below IFAD average.

                                                       42
arrangements from a legal point of view. However, more needs to be done for ensuring adequate
management arrangements. UNOPS reports that the government at all levels (central and state) are
putting considerable efforts and consider the project among their high priorities. This is demonstrated by
the additional GoS financial inputs that have been injected in the area to address unforeseen difficulties
that were beyond the reach of the project. In the WSRMP, project institutions have demonstrated strong
commitments.

186. Harmonization and coordination problems adversely affected State Coordination Units, PIAs and
PCU. In general, the internal structures of state ministries and locality departments have not always
functioned harmoniously which has caused serious coordination problems for IFAD projects. In
particular, the long or extended lines of responsibilities that involve a complex system of inter-agency
relationship, especially in a context characterised by poor communication and extensive project areas
have added significantly to coordination and harmonization problems.

187. Government performance was unsatisfactory in securing resources for rural roads development. In
the SKRDP, co-financiers for the rural roads component were not secured at the beginning of the project.
However, the Government decided to launch an important road construction and rehabilitation
programme with a planned ring road linking all major towns in South Kordofan State. The SKRDP
anticipated but was unable to secure co-financiers for the social services component (education, health
and water supply). Failure to secure co-financiers for these vital services led to the restructuring of the
component.

188. Government’s satisfactory performance with relation to loan repayment servicing should also be
noted, as this had been a serious issue constraining implementation in the past, and was resolved with the
result that The Sudan portfolio has not been suspended for arrears in loan servicing for some time.

189. In sum, the Government and its agencies performed reasonably well under the circumstances,
warranting an overall rating of moderately satisfactory (4).

Cooperating Institutions

190. Though UNOPS supervision missions were regular and useful, they gave little precedence to the
follow-up and assessment of the natural resources and range management components. Indeed, little was
reported about interventions, constraints and issues related to range management, with the exception of
supervision report 2007 for WSRMP, thanks to the presence among the supervision team of an
international range management expert. The UNOPS missions have often included a gender and
community expert and the community component has always been highlighted. UNOPS advice and
recommendations were sound and relevant to the projects particularly to the community development
component. In terms of the agricultural component, there has been a lack of strong, relevant agricultural
experience among the review staff. Consequently constraints to implementation and opportunities in
agricultural development have been somewhat missed.

191. A suggestion by UNOPS that the development of services along the stock routes should not go
hand in hand with the demarcation process proved disadvantageous to nomad pastoralists. Indeed, while
the settled communities along the stock routes may have benefited from community development
interventions, nomad pastoralists have not yet been targeted specifically in terms of service development
which would have made it easier to negotiate compromises if necessary.

192. The performance of CIs in The Sudan is rated as moderately satisfactory (4) as presented in
Table 12.
                   Table 12. Ratings of CPE-related Projects – Performance of Partners
                                             Group B                Group C          Group D
                                        NKRDP SKRDP GSLRP WSRMP                       BIRDP
            IFAD                           5          3           4          -          -
            Cooperating Institution        -          3           4          -          -
            Government                     5          3           3          -          -
            NGO/Other                      5          4           -          -          -

                                                    43
                                Box 9. In Synthesis - Performance of the Partners
      •     IFAD and Partner performance was moderately satisfactory overall.
      •     Results achieved by the programme have generated knowledge from which IFAD can benefit for the
            upcoming COSOP.
      •     GoS and its agencies’ process of securing co-financiers is assessed as unsatisfactory.
      •     UNOPS supervision of projects is rated moderately satisfactory.
                                   A.    Overall Performance Assessment
 193. The table below provides the average score of the evaluation ratings expressed on a 6 point scale
 where 6 corresponds to highly satisfactory whereas 1 to highly unsatisfactory. These scores are
 benchmarked against the 2002-2006 Annual Report on the Results and Impact of IFAD Operations
 (ARRI)55 ratings (for example, the 88 per cent under relevance means that 88 per cent of the projects
 evaluated by The Sudan CPE had a satisfactory rating).

            Summary of the Sudan IFAD-supported Project and Programmes in the Sudan
 Criteria                                  Rating     Score     Per cent of Satisfactory Projects   2002-2006 ARRI
 Core Performance Criteria
    Relevance                               MS          4                      88                         96
    Effectiveness                           MS          4                      50                         72
    Efficiency                              MU          3                      50                         66
 Aggregate Portfolio Performance            MS          4                      50                         84

 Overall Impact                             MS          4                      33                         65

 Other Performance Criteria
 Sustainability                             MU          3                     33                          45
 Innovation                                 MS          4                     100                         68
 Overall Project Portfolio Achievement      MS          4                      50                         67

 Partner Performance
     IFAD                                   MS          4                      66                         51
     Co-operating Institution               MS          4                      50                         64
     Government                             MS          4                      33                         67
MS = Moderately Satisfactory     MU = Moderately Unsatisfactory.

 194. Though the portfolio performance ratings in Table 13 are lower when compared to the ARRI
 ratings, the IFAD portfolio in support of the GoS efforts has nonetheless been moderately satisfactory
 overall56. Similarly, the performance of partners has also been moderately satisfactory overall. The
 Sudan Country Programme brought hope to largely marginalized populations following a period of
 conflict in some areas, and much needed support to state governments and localities where few other
 donors existed. It provided them with hands-on-experience in innovative areas such as the newly formed
 CDCs. IFAD has assisted in the introduction of improved agricultural practices, seed varieties and
 livestock which have enhanced incomes, food security and nutrition. There has been emphasis put on
 enhancing extension services at the lower administrative levels, and even at village level for some
 extension staff and service providers like paravets and midwives. There has been an increase in the
 establishment and improvements of local organizations, training in health care, nutrition, hygiene,
 especially through the recruitment of female extension staff. The provision of micro-finance to generate
 enhanced economic activities has increased local economic activities, albeit not always on a sustainable
 basis. Community and rural infrastructure (e.g. El Obeid-Bara road) have also improved access to
 markets.

 195. Based on the analysis carried out in the 2006 ARRI, the performance of The Sudan portfolio
 compares favourably with the average performance of projects implemented in countries classified in

 55
      The ARRI aims to provide a consolidated picture of the results, impact and performance of IFAD projects
 each year.
 56
     Overall portfolio achievement reflects the combined assessment of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, rural
 poverty impact, sustainability and innovation.

                                                        44
the three lowest quintiles of Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Index (CPIA)57. Only 31 per
cent of projects implemented in the bottom three CPIA quintiles had an overall satisfactory project
achievement rating compared to 50 per cent of The Sudan portfolio. If the classification of countries
based on the Rural Sector Performance Assessment Score is considered, the performance of The
Sudan portfolio also compares favourably.58

                       VI.      CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

196. This section presents the CPE’s main conclusions and lessons learned, as well as the
recommendations of the Evaluation. The conclusions, lessons learned and their corresponding
recommendations are grouped under the following four themes: (a) agriculture as a key sector of
intervention for IFAD; (b) promoting pro-poor agricultural innovations; (c) scaling up policy dialogue;
and (d) tackling sustainability.

                                              A.    Conclusions

Agriculture as a Key Sector of Intervention

197. Despite its rich endowment of natural resources, The Sudan remains a low-income and food
deficit country. Approximately 30 per cent of the poor in the Near East and North Africa region live in
The Sudan. Over 50 per cent of The Sudan’s population lives below the one-dollar-a-day poverty line.
The economic growth experienced by The Sudan in recent years has not significantly benefited the
poor. Poverty is presumed to be higher in the rural areas due to low agricultural productivity and high
unemployment. Development spending has lacked concentration in the agriculture sector which would
most improve conditions for poor people. The development of the oil sector in late 90s resulted in
double digit GDP growth rates and significant expansion of the federal government revenue. However,
the boom in the oil sector masks the importance of the agricultural sector: it is estimated that about
70 per cent of The Sudan population derive their economic livelihood from agriculture and that
agriculture still accounts for about 80 per cent of non-petroleum exports.

198. Though the Fund’s ODA contribution in support of The Sudan’s rural poverty reduction efforts
may seem modest relative to total ODA, IFAD is still the largest donor in the agriculture sector, making
the Fund a major partner in the current period of rising agricultural commodity prices. The Evaluation
notes that the agricultural sector budget, which had declined to low levels in 2001, has since regained its
former position of 2000 (45 per cent of total development expenditure). However, the irrigated sector
received most of these investments, while the rainfed crop and livestock sectors, on which most of the
rural poor depend for their livelihood, received the least. The CPE also indicates that components to
strengthen rainfed agricultural services are explicitly present in only two out of the five ongoing IFAD
projects, but subsumed under different components in all projects. Components to strengthen agricultural
services in ongoing projects received 19 per cent of IFAD financing. This is less than institutional
support (27 per cent) or community development (20 per cent) components, which are present in all five
projects. Considering that smallholder agriculture in The Sudan generates economic growth that builds
peace and reduces poverty, a key lesson of this CPE is that IFAD strategy and activities in The Sudan
could further address the root causes of smallholder low productivity by focussing more on agriculture.




57
      The CPIA assesses the quality of the country’s present policy and institutional framework. Countries are
classified into five CPIA quintiles according to four main criteria: (i) economic management; (ii) structural
policies; (iii) policies for social inclusion and equity; and (v) public sector management and institutions.
Countries with the best CPIA ratings are in the first quintile and those with the worst in the fifth. The Sudan is in
the fifth.
58
     The Rural Development Score (RDS) is prepared by IFAD management. The average score is based on
individual scores across 12 parameters (policy and legal framework for rural organisations, access to land,
dialogue between government and rural organisations, etc). The Rural Sector Performance Assessment score
uses a six point rating scale. The Sudan’s RDS for 2005 was 3.99 and decreased to 3.85 in 2007.

                                                         45
Promoting Pro-poor Agricultural Innovations

199. The Evaluation found that though the programme had performed moderately satisfactorily with
regards to rural finance or institutional innovations (e.g. development of CDCs in project areas), little
technical innovation has been developed by research, under the impulse of IFAD and GoS, to be adopted
as technical packages by the projects. The Evaluation found this is the case in a number of areas
including agro forestry, sylviculture for fodder production, range management, forest management, sand
dune fixation, community forestry, soil fertility conservation and enhancement, etc. Where agriculture-
related innovation did occur, IFAD was not among the primary innovators. It appears that IFAD’s
corporate interest and focus on innovation needs to be better realised within projects, with provision in
design for suitable staffing in agriculture, links to relevant research, organisations and resources to co-
ordinate and lead adaptive research components. More support to research is needed. For example, the
evaluation found that farmers are already beginning to experiment themselves with more intensified use
of manure and could be assisted with technical advice for on-farm trials, with pastoralists assisted with
corral systems for manure collection. There is also a clear opportunity for linking TAGs more closely
with projects and for these to address strategic, practical production constraints in agricultural
production. A key issue for rainfed farming is maintaining and enhancing soil productivity to meet the
requirements of increasing cropping intensity. TAGs could usefully focus on this and similar
opportunities.

200. The similarity in project components between projects can discourage innovation leading to
missed opportunities, as was the case in agriculture components. While learning from experience and
replication of successful interventions is important, so is identification of local opportunities and
priorities. For example, in the Kordofan project areas, although the majority of cultivation is rainfed
there are significant opportunities for seasonal irrigation adjacent to water courses. These are already
being developed by farmers (particularly women) whose present system could be assisted by improved
water lifting devises and water delivery.

201. Where innovative models for development are adopted within IFAD projects from previous NGO
experience in the field (as with stock route demarcation in WSRMP from SOS Sahel, and village CDCs
that have a similar structure and purpose to VDCs, that first emerged from CARE’s 30 year experience
in the area), greater emphasis and resources are required to support further adaptation and evolution of
the innovation.

Scaling Up Policy Dialogue

202. The COSOP did not capture the privileged status of IFAD at the time of its preparation in 2002,
when IFAD remained among the few funding development agencies in The Sudan. There was a missed
opportunity for IFAD to systematically follow-up on policy issues at the national level. The Fund’s
sphere of influence remained mostly constrained within the project scope. Lack of real country presence
and little engagement on higher national level policy issues reinforced the narrow role of policy dialogue
initiatives undertaken by the Fund during implementation of the Country Programme.

203. IFAD’s Policy Dialogue Agenda should have been pursued at the national agricultural policy level
in addition to efforts within the project context. For example, exchanges with GoS on the question of the
impending Dutch disease since the 1990s oil find, and its impact on agricultural exports, could have been
discussed early on in the programme. Also, feeder road financing in SKRDP and the coordination
problems encountered in programmes/projects could have been addressed to boost project results and
overall IFAD development effectiveness. IFAD limited PD to the simple project structure and time
frame.

204. Most results at policy level have taken place within the project context. This comprises measures
to improve access to land and water resources, the development of community organisations, or the
promotion of gender equity. This is considered a positive characteristic of IFAD in The Sudan and
should be used for building forthcoming institutional and policy change objectives in the Results-Based
COSOP. They also attest to IFAD’s ability to influence policy, an aptitude which could well be exercised


                                                    46
beyond the project context. Recent success achieved with GoS interventions in rainfed areas since
opening of Field Office in 2005 eloquently demonstrate great potential of IFAD PD in The Sudan.

205. In 2006, IFAD approved the BIRDP which basically is a “policy project” piloting new ways of
regulating access to land and water resources. While BIRD and other projects will provide IFAD and
Government with valuable experiences on how to deal with access issues, more would probably be
required if IFAD is to be a lead dialogue partner at national level on these issues. The complexity and
importance of these could require substantial additional resources for IFAD engagement. Also, better
synergies should be created between grants for analysis and studies and policy dialogue objectives.

Tackling Sustainability

206. The Evaluation confirmed that project sustainability, which has been identified as a key weakness
since the Portfolio Evaluation of 1994, requires broader efforts beyond the simple scope of project
activities. The COSOP did not provide a comprehensive strategy for ensuring sustainability of IFAD-
financed activities. Some IFAD-financed operations, such as increased livestock development, have
translated into additional concerns over sustainability. These tend to introduce substantial changes over a
short time period in fragile environments with a weak carrying capacity, often resulting in adverse
environmental effects.

207. The Evaluation found hard-earned gains in projects are threatened with loss when projects come to
an end and there are no prospects for follow-up with internally generated resources. The solution that
consists in phasing out the external (IFAD) contribution during the period of implementation often
proved unrealistic, because it takes much more time (in the range of 15-20 years) to reach results that are
sustainable. Hence, an important aspect of sustainability is continuity of support to avoid the
degeneration and possible loss of good results and assets.

208. The central element in IFAD institutional support has been a consistent effort to establish and
develop simple, cost-effective and sustainable linkages between the local communities, the Locality
governments, the State authorities and the development programmes. However, the model is
increasingly criticized as unsustainable for supporting institutional reform for natural resource
management based on the traditional Native administration system. This system is increasingly
contested for being non-democratic, as new more representative administrative systems emerge from
the South following the CPA.

209. Nevertheless, the Evaluation found that institution building through projects has been one of
IFAD’s strong points in The Sudan and has demonstrated its appropriateness and relevance for poverty
reduction. However, the model demands substantial resources, especially at the State/Locality and
programme management levels where over 70 per cent of institutional support funding has gone and
where institutional and operational linkages are still weak. The model is also based on a number of
assumptions that have been found to be optimistic, such as growth of locality government revenues as
projects raise agricultural productivity and hence incomes of the farmers (and the private sector more
generally) who not only would pay more taxes, but also have capacity to pay for most of the services
they require. Community organizations visited which were established or supported by the programme
appeared to be far from attaining self-reliance. The state and locality governments are also unable to
generate their own revenues to meet their basic requirements. In addition, special attention should be
paid to rural finance portfolio diversification and management of delinquencies if current gains are to
be sustained.

210. Despite laudable efforts, there has been a gap between the IFAD intent in the 2002 COSOP
seeking to promote conflict resolution as well as peace-building and outcomes on the ground. In
addition, the fragile and volatile environment, weak execution capacities and recurrent conflicts
increase the exposure of existing project benefits to risks that may hinder the continuation of benefits
after completion of IFAD support.




                                                    47
                                      B.    Recommendations
211. Considering the GoS and IFAD’s shared vision of agricultural development in rainfed areas, as
well as the emerging opportunities and challenges facing The Sudan in the sector, the time is ripe to
develop a new COSOP. The CPE offers five overarching recommendations aimed at improving
IFAD’s development effectiveness in The Sudan.

Recommendation 1: Agriculture as a Key Sector of Intervention

212. The Evaluation recommends that IFAD further address the root causes of smallholder low
productivity by focussing more on agriculture in the next COSOP. Localities where basic services and
infrastructure that have proved to support labour productivity and market access are available could be
favoured. In today’s environment of rising prices, the issues of value-chain marketing and market access
require more consideration than these issues received in the past. IFAD could also build on current
efforts such as the decentralised agricultural extension services which have been beneficial to
smallholders. Land tenure, traditional rainfed cultivation, overgrazing and livestock should continue to
be addressed. However, consideration should be given to pursuing these in a more focused and
systematic manner to ensure greater integration and synergies in these areas.

Recommendation 2: Promoting Pro-poor Agricultural Innovations

213. Notwithstanding the programme’s good performance in the areas of rural finance or institutional
innovations, the Evaluation recommends that IFAD redouble efforts in promoting pro-poor agricultural
innovations. These have been weaker than innovations in the other programme components. A more
systematic approach to replication and scaling up of agricultural innovations should also be developed.
In particular, Government and IFAD will identify, test and replicate technological packages that
constitute an adaptation to climate change such as technologies for increased soil fertility, herd and
range management in drought affected areas, cost effective environmental conservation, energy
efficient agro-processing. The main benefits sought from technological innovations are stabilized
yields in the rainy season and increased income in the dry season.

Recommendation 3: Scaling Up Policy Dialogue

214. Building on project-level policy dialogue initiatives that are currently being pursued, the division
should scale up agricultural policy dialogue to the national level. This could be done by presenting a
limited set of strategic themes for dialogue in the forthcoming The Sudan COSOP which are the most
relevant to the new strategic orientations. Policy dialogue on these strategic themes could then be
enhanced and sustained through the life of the next COSOP through the regular follow-up and analysis
mandated in the RB-COSOP framework, including annual workshops and the mid-term review exercise.
Regularly revisiting dialogue on policy issues also presents the potential to establish a more transparent
partnership and consultation mechanism, making it possible to better engage with national and local level
authorities, civil society and the wider donor community. The end result would be a more holistic
country programme and, ultimately, more sustainable development impact.

Recommendation 4: Tackling Sustainability

215. The Evaluation recommends that the next COSOP ensure sustainability is incorporated in the
broad framework of the strategic elements of the Country Programme in terms of design (e.g. clarity
of exit strategies), and partnership (e.g. stakeholder ownership) at the outset of the new country
programme. Also, recognizing the contextual realities of The Sudan, where conflict over natural
resource is an integral part of the daily reality of farming and pastoral communities, Government and
IFAD should develop their capacity in disaster preparedness and quick response. As part of this, the
projects would develop the capacity of the field staff in conflict prevention as integral component of
its programmatic interventions in The Sudan in order to enhance sustainability. Furthermore, the
Fund’s assistance to the state owned banks such as the Agricultural Bank of Sudan (ABS), which
resulted in a major change in its rural finance policy, should be pursued if gains achieved are to be
further enhanced and sustained.


                                                   48
                                                                                  The Sudan Projects Portfolio
          Project Title          Loan              Sector       Dates                                                           Funding                 Status    International    Cooperating
                                  No.                                                                                                                             Co-financier      Institution
                                                              IFAD Board      Loan          Loan        Original     Loan        IFAD        Total
                                                               Approval      Signing    Effectiveness   closing     Closing      Loan       Project
                                                                                                                                 (US$        (US$
                                                                                                                                million)    million)
     Southern Region               20     Agricultural          27-Jun-79   11-Jul-79      14-Feb-80    30-Jun-84   30-Jun-85          15       54.8   Closed                           WB
     Agriculture Project                  Development
     New Halfa Irrigation          39     Irrigation            7-May-80     6-Jun-80      17-Feb-81    30-Jun-86   31-Dec-88      15.05      128.7    Closed                           WB
     Rehabilitation Project
     Northern Region              134     Agricultural          13-Sep-83    12-Nov-        19-Jul-84   31-Dec-90   31-Dec-93         10        23.1   Closed                           WB
     Agricultural                         Development                             83
     Rehabilitation Project
     Stock Route Project          155     Livestock             12-Sep-84     14-Nov-      18-Oct-85    31-Dec-90   31-Dec-92          6      19.64    Closed                           WB
                                          development                              84
     Western Savannah             181     Agricultural           6-Dec-85   16-Dec-85     27-Nov-86     30-Jun-92   30-Jun-94         10        43.6   Closed                           WB
     Project - Phase II                   Development
     Northern Province            304     Irrigation             3-Dec-86    9-Dec-86       7-Dec-87    30-Jun-94   30-Jun-98         9.5     28.76    Closed                           WB
     Irrigation Rehabilitation
     Project
49




     En Nahud Cooperative         448     Credit               30-Nov-88                   15-Mar-89    30-Jun-97   31-Dec-98         9.5       16.7   Closed                          UNOPS
     Credit Project
     Southern Roseires            268     Agricultural           2-Oct-90    19-Nov-       10-Jan-92    31-Mar-00   31-Mar-00      10.33      14.65    Closed    None                  UNOPS
     Agricultural                         Development                             90
     Development Project
     Northern Province            459 /   Irrigation            15-Apr-92    2-Jun-92      10-Mar-93    31-Dec-98   31-Dec-98         12      32.52    Closed    IsDEB&                 WB
     Irrigation Rehabilitation   SRS-32                                                                                                                          OPEC
     Project – Phase II
     White Nile Agricultural     SRS-36   Irrigation            15-Sep-93   25-Jan-94      18-Jan-95                30-Jun-02      10.68      14.98    Closed    Dom. Fin. Inst.       UNOPS
     Services Project
     North Kordofan Rural         501     Rural Development     28-Apr-99   14-Jul-99      14-Jun-00    31-Dec-08                   10.5        23.7   On        IsDB                  DirSup
     Development Project                                                                                                                               going
     South Kordofan Rural         544     Rural Development     14-Sep-00   26-Sep-00      12-Feb-01    30-Sep-11                  17.87      39.62    On        None                  UNOPS
     Development                                                                                                                                       going
     Programme
     Sustainable Livelihoods      630     Agricultural          18-Dec-03   27-Jan-04           2004    31-Mar-13                   24.9         39    On        None                  UNOPS
     Regeneration Project                 Development                                                                                                  going
     Western Sudan                655     Rural Development      2-Dec-04   14-Feb-05           2006    30-Jun-14                   25.5         49    On        None                  UNOPS
     Resources Management                                                                                                                              going
     Programme
     Butana Integrated Rural      717     Rural Development     14-Dec-06   16-Feb-07          2007?    30-Jun-16                   24.8      29.85    Approve   None                  DirSup/
     Development Project                                                                                                                               d                               UNOPS
     Total                                                                                                                        211.63     558.62




                                                                                                                                                                                                  APPENDIX 1
50
                                                                                          APPENDIX 2

                                      The Sudan CPE Framework
         Purpose                               Key questions1                                 Key activities

    Assess the            Did IFAD pursue the right country strategy, i.e., was it     COSOP review, desk
    quality of the        designed to ensure highest possible rural poverty            review
    country strategy      reduction impacts?
                                                                                       Self-evaluation by IFAD
                           • What resources were allocated? Could they have been
                                                                                       management/staff,
                             better used elsewhere than in The Sudan? This is not
                                                                                       discussion with cooperating
                             a valid question given the PBAS allocations and
                                                                                       institution officers
                             poverty incidence in The Sudan and the policy on
                             crisis prevention and recovery
                                                                                       Interviews with IFAD
                           • Did the COSOP identify and address the key
                                                                                       management/staff
                             challenges to reducing rural poverty?
                           • Was the COSOP articulated in a clear, focused and         In-country interviews with:
                             realistic way that provided guidance to operations?       key government officers,
                           • How well did IFAD perform in developing the               IFAD funded project
                             COSOP?                                                    managers/staff, civil society
                           • Was the COSOP coherent with the GoS’s strategies          representatives, research
                             and with IFAD’s strategic framework and its regional      institutions, IFIs/UN/Bilat.
                             strategy?                                                 organisations
                           • Assess the extent to which the main directions in the
                             country strategy complemented the strategies of other     Prepare a note with the
                             donors working in agriculture and rural development       assessment of the COSOP’s
                                                                                       quality, with particular
                                                                                       focus on its relevance,
                                                                                       triangulating the different
                                                                                       sources of information

    Evaluate IFAD’s       To what extent was the country strategy implemented          Loan and grant portfolio
    country strategy      through projects (loans and TAGs) and non-project            desk review
    implementation        activities (policy dialogue, partnerships, and knowledge
                          sharing) and how did they perform?                           Self evaluation by IFAD
                                                                                       management/staff and by
                           • Was the COSOP actually reflected in the design and
                                                                                       the GoS
                             implementation of operations?
                           • How did the operations perform?
                                                                                       Interviews with IFAD staff
                           • How well IFAD and its partners performed?
                           • Were IFAD’s business processes appropriate, for           In-country interviews with:
                             example, were adequate human and financial                key government officers,
                             resources made available by IFAD to achieve all the       IFAD funded project
                             main objectives of the Country Strategy?                  managers/staff, civil society
                                                                                       representatives, research
                                                                                       institutions, IFIs/UN/Bilat.
                                                                                       organisations

                                                                                       Assessment of data
                                                                                       reliability




1
     In addition to these key questions the CPE will refer to specific guiding questions for each section provided
in the CPE guidelines.


                                                       51
                         • What was the impact of IFAD’s country strategy and       Desk review of impact
    Assess the
                           operations?                                              studies and other
    impacts of
    IFAD’s strategy      • What impacts IFAD had in The Sudan and how               documentation from IFAD,
                           sustainable is it?                                       the projects and particularly
    and operations
                         • What innovations and actual (or potential) replication   from other IFIs
                           and scaling up have taken (or may take) place?           Self evaluation by IFAD
                         • Did the impact contribute to the achievement of          management/ staff
                           IFAD’s strategic objectives and to the MDGs?             Interviews with IFAD staff
                                                                                    In-country interviews with:
                                                                                    key government officers,
                                                                                    IFAD funded project
                                                                                    managers/staff, civil society
                                                                                    representatives, research
                                                                                    institutions, IFIs/UN/Bilat.
                                                                                    Organisations

                              Guiding questions for the Impact Domains

Impact domains:            Guiding questions

Physical assets            Did IFAD programme improve equitable access to productive resources
                           and technologies?
                           To What extent did IFAD interventions secure access for the rural poor to
                           income generating assets
Environment and            Were the community-base resources influenced by the actions of the poor
Common Resource            in different IFAD interventions?
Base                       To what extend did IFAD’s interventions contribute to the protection or
                           rehabilitation of natural resources and the environment (with a focus on
                           water resources and rangeland)?
Agriculture                What are the trends, among IFAD target groups, in terms of the changes in
productivity               cropping patterns (additional crop types and additional growing seasons);
                           what is the evolution of crop and animal productivity? How these changes
                           are seen across all farming households.
Social Capital and         To what extend did IFAD empower the poor to make their voices heard,
Empowerment                influence policymaking and gain access to social services?
                           How well did IFAD interventions help in building the poor’s collective
                           capacity in order to increase their capacities and their negotiation skills?
Institutions and           Did the existing institutions, policies and regulatory frameworks
Services                   significantly influence the lives of the rural poor?
                           To what extend did IFAD interventions contribute to increasing the degree
                           of decentralization?
Financial assets           To what extend did IFAD interventions contribute to increasing the
                           financial resource base of rural poor households and individuals?2
                           What impact did IFAD interventions have on securing financial services for
                           the rural poor? What were the improvements made by IFAD’s operations
                           on the institutional financial frameworks?
Markets                    To what extend did IFAD interventions improve the marketing of goods
                           and services, and the reduction of transaction costs to achieve favourable
                           market prices?
                           What are the main incentives/constraints faced by the target groups in
                           accessing the markets for agricultural inputs/outputs?
                           What is the evidence of effectively greater inclusion of target groups as a

2
     The agriculture and non agriculture resource base (diversification of income) and income flow in the dry
season.



                                                     52
                          result of IFAD interventions?
                          Are they any marketing practices that connect target groups to different
                          markets?
                          What are the key factors in terms of policies, business models, and
                          collective action that explain these practices?
                          To what extend did the added-value of on-farm transformation of
                          agricultural and animal husbandry products increase?

CPE’s Building Blocks

The first block concerns the quality of the country strategy itself: did it identify, understand, and
address the key challenges to reducing rural poverty, was it articulated in a clear, focused and realistic
way that also provided guidance to operations, and how well did IFAD perform in developing the
country strategy. The second block concerns the question whether the country strategy was actually
reflected in the design and implementation of operations, how operations performed (using the typical
performance criteria of relevance, efficiency, and effectives), and how well IFAD’s partners and IFAD
itself performed. The third building block focuses on results: what impact has IFAD’s strategy and
operation had, how sustainable is it, and what potential or actual replication and scaling up have taken
place. What did these achievements mean in terms of contributing to the attainment of IFAD’s
strategic objectives and to the MDGs, and what role did other partners play. Each building block is
explained in later the OE guidelines.




                                                   53
  Quality of             Operationalizing and         Impacts of IFAD’s Strategy and
  Country            Implementing IFAD’s Country                Operations
  Strategy                     Strategy

 COUNTRY                                              CONTRIBUTIONS OF OTHER
 CONTEXT             PARTNER PERFORMANCE              DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
                       Fulfilling Agreed Roles &
                              Commitments
                                                         DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
     Relevance &
     Significance




                                                            Contribution to MDGs
                                                         Addressing Key Challenges to
                                                           Rural Poverty Reduction


                          IFAD OPERATIONS
                    1. Design – Quality at Entry               ORGANIZATIONAL
     IFAD                                                       EFFECTIVENESS
                    2. Implementation
 STRATEGY                                                     Meeting IFAD’s Strategic
Clarity & Focus     3. Performance Assessment
                      • Relevance                                   Objectives
    Realism
                      • Efficiency
                      • Effectiveness
                                                            IFAD CONTRIBUTIONS
     Comparative
     Advantage




                                                                                                   Partners & Communicate
                                                      Outreach & Distribution




                                                                                                     REPLICABILITY &
                                                                                SUSTAINABILITY

                                                                                 Risk Assessment


                                                                                                        SCALING-UP
                                                                                   Key Factors
                                                            IMPACT
                                                             Domains

                                                             Gender
                       IFAD PERFORMANCE
                    Design & Implementation Support
                         Managing Partnerships
    IFAD               Innovation and Knowledge
 Performance                    Sharing
   Country




                                            54
                                                                                                                 APPENDIX 3


                                             Group A Project Performance Ratings

1.     The following performance ratings of the Group A Projects (White Nile Agricultural
Services Project, Southern Roseires Agricultural Development Project and Northern Province
Irrigation Rehabilitation Project) constitute a desk review performance assessment based on
findings from:

                     The Corporate-level Evaluation of Regional Strategies of the PN Division – Country
                     Working Paper for The Sudan;

                     Project Completion Reports prepared by the three projects; and

                     Mid-Term evaluation reports.

                                         WHITE NILE AGRICULTURAL SERVICES PROJECT
                                                         RATINGS




                                                                                                                                    Rating
                                                            WNASP
                                                     RATINGS JUSTIFICATIONS


                                                             Project performance


                 The WNASP was built around the provision of three key agricultural inputs: irrigation, extension advice and
                 credit. The project focused on capacity building, tenant organization, forest committees and women’s groups
                 as key aspects to its implementation approach. It was more targeted at pump irrigated large schemes rather
                 than at the poorest groups and while it had focus on tenants, its main concept of the target group came from
 Relevance




                 the schemes that were selected. The target group includes private pump scheme farmers, jirouf farmers and
                 hand irrigated farmers. Many targeted farmers operate more than on system. The project was designed to
                                                                                                                                     5
                 stimulate individual initiatives to increase productivity, improve water management, rehabilitate existing
                 productive capacity, introduce new technical packages, within viable farmer controlled schemes responsible
                 for their own technical, financial and managerial decisions. Focus on women through a significant
                 community forestry component, was a key aspect of project activities. WASNAP had a considerable focus
                 on extension training and capacity building for scheme management for both men and women. There was
                 little reference to strategic partnerships or to policy dialogue.


                 Out of 30 pump schemes, only 24 were rehabilitated. With regard to extension, 93 per cent of farmers
                 benefited from extension services. The performance of the Agricultural Development component was ranked
                 satisfactory (all outputs were realized), as was the training and capacity building component. The WID
                 component provided established 44 training centres in 23 schemes (over 3 000 women benefited from
 Effectiveness




                 training), facilitated women’s access to credit and established multipurpose cooperative groups. The PCR
                 reported great satisfaction with the WID activities and reported that overall, WID had been delivered
                                                                                                                                     4
                 successfully. The total area cultivated increased six folds from 5 752 feddans in 1996 to 35 064 feddans in
                 2001. The key objective of achieving viable tenant institutions responsible for their technical, financial and
                 managerial decisions was not fully attained after the government reversed its policy towards privatization.
                 The project made available to the farmers, through successive on-farm trials contracted to ARC, profitable
                 crop packages and rotational practices. The project was not able to target the Jirouf tenant farmers for lack of
                 funds.




                                                                     55
                     From the economical analysis of the project achievements, it appears that the project has attained its
                     financial, social and economic objectives; it has contributed to: poverty reduction; food security
                     enhancement; incomes’ increase. While the GoS policy1 towards privatization was reversed in the course of
                     the project, some irrigation schemes, which had been handed over to the farmer cooperative societies were
    Efficiency




                     found to be working extremely well 2 and to have served to empower the farmers through self decision-
                     making. However not all schemes were so well managed. The project has made available to the farmers,                4
                     profitable crop packages and rotational practices through successive on-farm trials by contracting ARC
                     researchers. The total benefit generated by the project has increased 6.2 fold, from US$452 000 in 1996 to
                     US$2 790 000 in 20013; the average benefit per feddan cultivated remained unchanged. Community forestry
                     faced constraints which affected its efficiency in the early stages (high plantation costs, unavailability of
                     irrigation water, animal damage to trees etc.).


                     The seed multiplication and improvement component resulted in a high adoption rate of improved seeds by
                     tenants. Research had a positive impact with regard to the introduction of improved crops, which resulted in
                     improved awareness and replicability. With regard to credit, WNASP strengthened substantially the
                     operating capacity of ABS and FCB branches4 which resulted in a wide coverage of beneficiaries and an
                     intensification and diversification of farmers’ activities. The cost-recovery and cost-effective features of
    Impact




                     group organization and group investment made expansion and financial self-sufficiency of project services
                                                                                                                                         5
                     possible on a large scale5. The project’s impact consists in substantial increase in area cropped, in crop
                     production as well as in crop diversification, all factors which contribute highly to food security. Water
                     availability, economy and efficient use have been substantially and durably improved. The most significant
                     impact of the project has been in enhancing access to irrigation water and improving irrigation efficiency.
                     The project reported an increase in the production of staple crops, especially in the irrigated area thanks to
                     the use of improved seed and practices.


                     The pump schemes were well rehabilitated, labourers trained for O&M; with an ample stock of spare parts
                     remaining, the rehabilitated pumps could last ten years. The decision taken GoS resume control over all
                     pump irrigated schemes reduced the likelihood of self-sustainability as it made tenants more dependent on
                     government involvement. Communities did however continue benefiting from increased irrigation water.
                     The tenants’ owned seed company is sustainable thanks to: tenants ‘awareness of the importance of
                     improved seeds; all rehabilitated schemes are shareholders of the company, which has its own processing
                     plant with the necessary facilities, a 500 feddan farm donated by MAAI, two vehicles,; and the company has
                     knowledgeable personnel in the field of seed production technology. Research booked good results in
                     improved crops introduction; Tenants’ awareness seems sustainable (high attendance in field demonstrations,
                     appreciable replication of positive results achieved through research). Research sustainability to be enhanced
                     by upgrading the Kosti-sub-research station to a well equipped and staffed research station. Although tenant-
    Sustainability




                     financed extension services were not created as planned, extension would be sustained by the White Nile
                     State under the Eylola Programme, resolution No. 46/2001. The community forestry achievements are good
                     assets for sustainability, but they would be difficult to fully sustain without a resource conservation and         4
                     management plan. Women loan portfolio for income-generating activities showed sustainable indicators
                     compared to agricultural credit for tenants. Sustainability of the project can be appreciated by the fact that it
                     has created a model easily replicable elsewhere in the country. The Agricultural Development programme
                     has a good potential to be sustainable given that the staff is well trained and come, for the most from the
                     agricultural extension administration. Credit: the sustainability of the WNASP established revolving fund
                     managed by the PFIs to reach the poor, has proven to be unsustainable as the powerful members of the group
                     had more access to credit then the needy poor. Many of the mechanisms established to sustain informal credit
                     delivery were not able to progress beyond the projects period. Many of the organizations established at
                     village level were weak and had limited or no impact on sustaining livelihoods. Irrigation infrastructure
                     appears to be the most durable of the project investments, while extension and financial services have proven
                     to be the most fragile. The topped up salaries and allowances are discontinued once projects are completed,
                     which results in staff exodus, which has been assessed to have a negative impact on the sustainability of the
                     project benefits and of the sustainability of the institutions established by the project.



1
     The decision issued by GoS to maintain all irrigated pump schemes under the control of the government
for an undisclosed period of time constitutes a major issue as it goes against the major objective of
establishing viable farmer-controlled enterprises.
2
     Corporate level evaluation of Regional Strategies of the PN Division Country Working Paper: The
Sudan.
3
     At the same time, the area cultivated increased also by six fold.
4
     In Kosti, El Dweim, Elgelina and Alkawaat.
5
     WNASP Completion report: Part 1 – Main Report, Khartoum, Dec. 2002.


                                                                          56
                                   SOUTHERN ROSEIRES AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
                                                         RATINGS




                                                                                                                                            Rating
                                                                  SRADP
                                                          RATINGS JUSTIFICATIONS


                                                                  Project performance

                      The SRADP’ opted for objectives at rather basic level compared with those outlined in the NENA Regional
                      Strategy6. It mentioned income and food security, rather than income diversification, SRADP identified clearly
                      the need for beneficiary participation but did not stress on empowerment of the poor, particularly women
      Relevance




                      empowerment. Natural resource management is not outlined in its objectives. All households in SRADP area
                      were expected to have incomes below the average GNP, and were therefore expected to belong to the IFAD                  4
                      target group. The SRADP assumed that the provision credit would lead to micro-enterprise development. The
                      construction of rural roads was referred to by the Mid-Term evaluation. Institutional support for a wide range
                      of partners was a key component in the project. There was no reference to either strategic partnerships, or to
                      policy dialogue in the SRADP.


                      The SRADP after facing constraints responsible for low achievements underwent minor revision in 01/1995
                      which may have been inadvertently detrimental to community empowerment 7. The project was not effective
                      targeting the poor and overall, those who have been given priority in allocation of semi-mechanised plots have
                      been the relatively better-off 8. The use of credit did not serve to diversify sources of beneficiaries’ incomes in
                      any significant manner, although this is also partly due to the difficult macro-economic situation, which eroded
                      income gains and increased input costs. There was little success with gender issues and the project performed
                      much below expectations. The institutional development objectives were underachieved. The expectation that
      Effectiveness




                      AGCU would manage the project as a private entity was not realized9 Despite some capacity building, the
                      Village Cooperative Societies lacked the strength to become a viable mechanism for the delivery of production
                      credit. The SRADP experienced problems with the use of rotational practices and the use of uncertified seed.            3
                      The demonstration plots established were reported to be unsuccessful. Procurement of farm machinery was
                      delayed by almost five years. In October 1998, 20 000 feddans of land had yet to be developed for semi-
                      mechanized farming. Beneficiary participation in semi-mechanised crop production declined systematically as
                      the targets became higher, partly due to delays in machinery delivery and civil unrest, but the most aggravating
                      factor was the weakness of the extension services. The latter was responsible for the fact that by the end of
                      1998, no substantial improvement in the traditional system of farming could be felt in the project area (Mid-
                      Term Evaluation Mission, October 1998. The contribution of the Agricultural Development Centres was rated
                      satisfactory.)


                      The extension system was reported to have a low efficiency and its presence in the field was considerably
                      diminished at the end of the project period. Beneficiaries failed to clear land for semi-mechanized farming; the
                      project decided to undertake land clearance on their behalf by contracting for bush removal. The rephrasing of
      Efficiency




                      the 110 HP tractors resulted in much accumulated delay, as the bulk of the machinery was only delivered
                      during the sixth year of the project existence. By the time of Mid-Term evaluation10 most funds had been                2
                      committed, but the project was far from having achieved its objectives and particularly those that would result
                      in sustainability (Mid-Term Evaluation Mission, October 1998). The full team of extension officers was only
                      in place since January 1997, i.e. five years after project start and in October 1998 no extension system had
                      been developed.




6
    Empowerment of the rural poor, Income diversification, Gender issues and Natural Resource
Management.
7
    Corporate level evaluation of Regional Strategies of the PN Division Country Working Paper: The
Sudan.
8
    Corporate level evaluation of Regional Strategies of the PN Division Country Working Paper: The
Sudan.
9
    Because the Executive Board did not give it room to exercise this control.
10
    October 1998.


                                                                    57
                       While yields of some crops did increase, their impact on income was not very significant. In implementing the
                       semi-mechanized farming component, the project achieved some impacts: Demonstration of the suitability of
                       the new mechanization technology; Creation of a high demand for technology by farmers; Successful
                       introduction of new improved good quality sorghum and sesame varieties which have demonstrated a high
      Impact

                       yield potential for the project area; Capacity to produce improved seed varieties with the project area11; Partial
                                                                                                                                                4
                       success in introducing new rotation. The animal population increased substantially (sheep 193 percent, goat
                       197 percent, cattle 140 percent). Pronounced increases in sorghum yields were reached from 1997 onward,
                       when prescribed base line conditions for semi-mechanized farming were put in place. While these impacts
                       have not been measured, they seem to be very promising, once farming practices have been fine-tuned.


                       According to the MTER (10/1998), the sustainability of all project activities is in serious jeopardy due to weak
                       management incentives, inadequate training and absence of social services. Serious threats to sustainability
                       arise from: Inappropriate land use; Inadequate application of crop rotation; Low credit repayments; lack of
                       passable tracks in such a remote area, which delay the rate of monetarization of the project area economy;
                       inadequacy of services, particularly extension; Many of the organizations established at village level were
      Sustainability




                       weak and had limited or no impact on sustaining livelihoods. The expectation that communities would be able
                       to pay and sustain the agriculture and livestock extension services were unrealistic and unsustainable. Many of
                       the mechanisms established to sustain informal credit delivery were not able to progress beyond the projects             3
                       period. The loan repayments rates12 were too low to sustain the credit operation, although, as highlighted
                       above, this was also due to the negative economic situation at the time. Project investments in extension and
                       financial services have proven to be fragile. The topped up salaries and allowances are discontinued once
                       projects are completed, which results in staff exodus, which has been assessed to have a negative impact on
                       the sustainability of the project benefits and of the sustainability of the institutions established by the project.
                       Furthermore, the deteriorating security situation in the project area further impacted the potential for
                       sustainability.




                             NORTHERN PROVINCE IRRIGATION REHABILITATION PROJECT - PHASE II
                                                      RATINGS




                                                                                                                                              Rating
                                                                    NPIRP
                                                            RATINGS JUSTIFICATIONS


                                                                    Project performance


                       The NPIRP (phase II) was very specifically focused towards the small farmer, including women. Indeed, the
                       main targets of NPIRP were small farmers whose individual holdings averaged less than on feddan, as well as
      Relevance




                       sharecroppers. It did include an element of community empowerment through the establishment of WUAs.
                       Their establishment was key for bringing forth beneficiary participation on a sustained basis. While food
                                                                                                                                                4
                       production and income generation were key objectives, income diversification was not targeted. The NPIRP
                       saw the need for infrastructure and was able to establish strategic partnerships with the IsDB and OPEC for its
                       financing. There was little reference to policy dialogue. NPIRP did not provide for micro-enterprise
                       development. Capacity building was not a key aspect of the NPIRP; however, it did support research.




11
     By establishing a semi-mechanized farm for AGCU.
12
     Ranging between 32-86 per cent for seasonal loans and 75-90 per cent for small ruminants loans applied
for by women.



                                                                      58
                       There was little commitment to the formation of WUAs13 and in the end, no WUAs were formed. The
                       women’s groups were formed without any actual participation and the forest committees established for the
                       purpose of managing the shelterbelts had little capacity to undertake the task. There was little implementation
                       of the planned gender activities. There was little success with protection of fertile cultivated land from sand
      Effectiveness


                       dune encroachment. Credit disbursed was much lower than targeted. The scope and outreach of off-farm
                       income diversification activities was a fraction of that envisaged. The project did strengthen the operating
                       capacity of the ABS in the project area. The project established and furnished state of the art research station     4
                       in Dongola and a research centre in Merowe, as well as a tissue culture laboratory in Khartoum. The initial
                       success realized in combating sand dune encroachment on farmland, was seriously reduced following the 1995
                       Council of Ministers Decree banning the use of mesquite. Demonstration plots, workshops, field days, farmers
                       training etc. had little impact in agricultural productivity, whose progress was linked to improved irrigation.
                       The NPIRP targeted its activities on the basis of the four main irrigation schemes, rather than on the basis of
                       poverty14.


                       The extension system was reported to have a low efficiency and its presence in the field was considerably
                       diminished at the end of the project period. The PCU’s performance was satisfactory. The most important
      Efficiency




                       component of the project (irrigation) had very experienced staff at its disposal, facilitating good and efficient
                       management. According to the Project Completion Report, the overall performance of the project was                   4
                       satisfactory, particularly with regard to: IFAD’s performance, Compliance with procurement procedure,
                       Performance of M&E system, Poverty focus in implementation, Quality of financial management, Project
                       management performance and achievement of physical targets.


                       The most significant impact of the project has been in enhancing access to irrigation water, thanks to the
                       rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure, which resulted in improved irrigation efficiency. The total irrigated
                       area increased by 144 percent, while total crop production increased by 185 percent. The impact of the
                       community organization efforts was not as widespread as expected. Agricultural support services which
      Impact




                       included adaptive research, extension and animal health have little contributed to agricultural production.
                                                                                                                                            3
                       According to the PCM, farmers’ incomes improved significantly. Increased forage production and the
                       restocking of dairy animals resulted in the production of 150 000 pounds of milk, thereby improving
                       substantially household nutrition. The contribution of agricultural research to the development of adequate
                       technical packages has been very meagre and considered highly unsatisfactory. Credit had only a limited effect
                       in reaching women and in improving their contribution to rural households’ incomes.


                       In the NPIRP area, communities continued benefiting from increased irrigation water after project completion.
                       The impact of adaptative research and extension on crop yields was rather limited and unsustainable. Many of
                       the organizations established at village level were weak and had limited or no impact on sustaining
                       livelihoods. Financial sustainability is an issue of concern for the NPIRP. Many of the mechanisms established
                       to sustain informal credit delivery were not able to progress beyond the projects period. Irrigation
                       infrastructure appears to be the most potentially durable of the project investments, while extension and
      Sustainability




                       financial services have proven to be the most fragile. However, proper and timely maintenance of the
                       irrigation infrastructure could be a critical issue because negligence and accumulated back-log of maintenance
                                                                                                                                            3
                       have in the past led to repeated rehabilitation of irrigation networks nationwide. However, considering that the
                       Merowe workshop been completed and all main canals and targeted secondary canals have been redesigned
                       and constructed to specifications, there is hope that sustainability is more likely. The agricultural support
                       services started to deteriorate immediately after project completion, due to budgetary constraints. The Forest
                       Committees could not sustain the protective shelterbelts due to lack of financial capacity. The topped-up
                       salaries and allowances were discontinued at projects completion, resulting in staff exodus, which negative
                       impacts on the sustainability of the project benefits and of the sustainability of the institutions established by
                       the project.




13
     The all important task of establishing WUAs was given to the Ministry of Irrigation.
14
    Corporate level evaluation of Regional Strategies of the PN Division Country Working Paper: The
Sudan.



                                                                     59
                SUMMARY PERFORMANCE RATINGS OF GROUP A PROJECTS
                                     WNASP      SRADP      NPIRP     PROGRAMME

                    Relevance           5          4          4               4
                    Effectiveness       4          3          4               4
                    Efficiency          4          2          4               3
                    Impact              5          4          3               4
                    Sustainability      4          3          3               3
                    PROJECT             4          3          4               4



From the indications above, one might conclude that WNASP and NPIRP were relevant projects,
particularly WNASP, which was designed to stimulate private initiative and was built around key
agricultural inputs such as: irrigation improvement and efficiency, adequate extension advice and
capacity building, and credit. The SRADP was less relevant as it did not opt for objectives as
outlined in the NENA Regional Strategy15. Moreover, it did not outline NRM in its objectives, but
participated in the destruction of natural resources through vast forest and shrub land clearing to
make place for new semi-mechanized farming schemes. It is the author’s opinion that this should
have never been approved for any IFAD supported project as there were sufficient existing semi-
mechanized agricultural schemes that required rehabilitation and improvement to target.

WNASP performed well particularly in terms of relevance, impact and sustainability. NPIRP
performed fairly particularly in terms of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. SRADP scored
lower on all aspects, particularly in terms of efficiency as it was plagued by managerial weaknesses
and external constraints.

While efficiency ratings must be kept in perspective (information insufficient or incomplete to
adequately appreciate efficiency), sustainability ratings remain a concern as this has been and still
is the case in most IFAD supported projects and programmes. Irrigation and other infrastructure
projects appear to be the most durable of IFAD’s investments, while agricultural extension and
financial services appear to be the most fragile. The agricultural support services of the NPIRP
started to deteriorate immediately after project completion. While most projects have been
successful in strengthening the ABS and in negotiating special terms with it, they have however
little say in ensuring that these conditions continue beyond the project life.




15
     Income diversification, people’s empowerment, particularly women, etc.




                                                   60
                                                                                           APPENDIX 4

                     Main Lessons Learned at Completion of Group A Projects

1.    Relevance of the Three Group A Projects

1. The Group A projects were formulated before the 1994 Country Portfolio Evaluation and were
closed before the 2002 COSOP for The Sudan. They belong to the period when IFAD’s activities in
The Sudan concentrated in high rural poverty areas and targeted the rehabilitation of the irrigated
farming schemes and the expansion of the semi-mechanized farming (SRADP).

2. WNASP: The White Nile Agricultural Services Project was found to be the most relevant of the
Group A projects. It was built around the provision of three key agricultural inputs, namely: Irrigation,
Extension Advice and Credit. The project focused on capacity building, tenant organization, forest
committees and women’s groups as key aspects to its implementation approach. It was more targeted
at pump irrigated large schemes rather than at the poorest groups and while it had focus on tenants, its
main concept of the target group came from the schemes that were selected. The target group included
private pump scheme farmers, jirouf farmers and hand irrigated farmers. Many targeted farmers
operated more than on system.

3. Focussing on women through a significant community forestry component was a key aspect of the
project activities. Also, WASNAP was very much focused on extension training and capacity building
for scheme management for both men and women. There was little reference to strategic partnerships
or to policy dialogue.

4. SRADP: The Southern Roseires Agricultural Development Project opted for objectives at a rather
basic level compared with those outlined in the NENA Regional Strategy1. It mentioned income and
food security, rather than income diversification. The SRADP identified clearly the need for
beneficiary participation but did not stress on empowerment of the poor, particularly that of women.
Natural resource management was not outlined in its objectives.

5. All households in SRADP area were expected to have incomes below the average GNP, and were
therefore expected to belong to the IFAD target group. The SRADP assumed that the provision of
credit would lead to micro-enterprise development. While the project area was very remote and
difficult to access, there was no reference to the need to construct rural roads. In fact this was referred
to by the Mid-Term evaluation. Institutional support for a wide range of partners was a key component
in the project. There was no reference to either strategic partnerships, or to policy dialogue in the
SRADP.

6. NPIRP: The Northern Province Irrigation Rehabilitation Project (phase II) was very specifically
focused towards the small farmer, including women. Indeed, the main targets of NPIRP were small
farmers whose individual holdings averaged less than on feddan, as well as sharecroppers. It did
include an element of community empowerment through the establishment of WUAs. Their
establishment was key for bringing forth beneficiary participation on a sustained basis. While food
production and income generation were key objectives, income diversification was not targeted. The
NPIRP saw the need for infrastructure and was able to establish strategic partnerships with the IsDB
and OPEC for its financing.

7. There was little reference to policy dialogue in NPIRP and the project did not provide for micro-
enterprise development. Capacity building was not a key aspect of the NPIRP; however, it did support
research by establishing and furnishing a state of the art research station in Dongola and a research
centre in Merowe, as well as a tissue culture laboratory in Khartoum.

1
     Empowerment of the rural poor, Income diversification, Gender issues and Natural Resource Management.



                                                    61
2.    Major Issues Identified Pertaining to Design of Group A Projects

8. The major issues pertaining to design, which were identified in the three completed projects that
have been analysed within this desk review, relate to the following:

9. S. Roseires ADP:
        Interventions planned: Ambitious quantitative and qualitative achievements projected, given
     the serious constraints that prevailed in the project area at the time of formulation and during
     implementation. More attention and weight ought to have been given to the many limiting factors
     that characterized the project area at the time (civil strife, lack of government facilities,
     remoteness etc.). Neither at appraisal nor at reformulation was there a specific land area assigned
     for the project activity in traditional agriculture.

10. N. Province IRP:
       Participation: Participation of beneficiaries in design and execution of project investments was
    implied but not included at the project feasibility level. The important task of establishing the
    WUAs was given to the Ministry of Irrigation, which proved to be counterproductive because the
    MOIWR had not had any experience with the concept nor with dealing with farmers. It was also
    started late in the project life, presumably due to the low priority assigned to the activity.

        Implementation: The responsibility for implementation of diverse physical components was
     bestowed upon the respective technical departments. Thus, while overall project coordination was
     assigned to the CCU, the various components had a special coordinator. Implementation
     particularly of the irrigation component was affected by the fact that many of the technical
     designs and specifications were completed during project preparation.

11. White Nile ASP:
        Interventions planned: The design of the irrigation structures was not optimal and scheme
     selection criteria were not clearly defined in the project documents; the forestry community sub-
     component experienced set-backs in the early stages. It has lacked a strategic approach and well
     defined physical objectives. Moreover, no management scheme has been formulated, which
     explains the protection problems experienced by the plantations.

3.    Main lessons and response from Group D project - BIRDP

12. Project design: Lessons learned:
       There is always a need to adopt flexible designs and scrutinise them closely;
       Geographical concentration and focused administrative boundaries,                   rather   than
    decentralization per se, are of help to implementation.

13. Butana IRDP response: The design approach to the BIRDP is flexible and provides continuity
with a neighbouring project. There is geographical concentration of the interventions within the
Butana ecological zone, even though the project falls in ten localities distributed within five States
(Khartoum, Gedaref, River Nile, Gezira and Kassala).

14. Scheme rehabilitation:
        More periodic reviews are needed to assess possible deviations and take corrective measures
     on time;
        Adequate grants should be available to start up activities, like inventory survey and feasibility
     studies before the start of rehabilitation.

15. Butana IRDP response: There is no provision for grants for start up activities; the appraisal report
proposes only a Mid-Term Review as an independent review, as well as detailed procedures for




                                                   62
internal reviews. The GoS agreed the option of direct supervision by IFAD, with UNOPS will be
providing financial administration services. IFAD will carry out the following:

16. Research:
       More research is needed in the fields of cash crop production, marketing and storage.

17. Butana IRDP response: Research is closely linked with extension and is determined on a
participatory basis, following the needs assessments of farmers; these needs would undoubtedly
include cash crop production, marketing and storage.

18. Extension:
       Extension needs to be based on participatory approach principles;
       Extension messages need to be relevant to the needs of farmers and should be delivered in
    time and suitable form.

19. Butana IRDP response: Basing extension needs on participatory approach principles has already
occurred at the design stage: five farming systems were proposed for improvement based on the
assessment of production constraints with farmers and technical extension staff; the relevance of
extension messages is taken care of under a three-level extension system approach involving a multi-
disciplinary public extension and research team, community organizations, and selective fee based
services delivered by community extension agents to guarantee effective poverty and gender outreach,
and farmers’ adoption of the technology and productivity improvement.

20. Participation:
       Beneficiary participation at design, execution and management stages should be carefully
    considered during the design phase and pursued with rigor during implementation so as to
    guaranty adequate operation, maintenance and sustainability;
       GoS and beneficiaries do not always fulfil their obligations towards the project;
       The participation of the beneficiaries should be stated in the project documents from the very
    beginning as a condition for eligibility to have the project services.

21. Butana IRDP response: Beneficiary participation at design, implementation and management has
been carefully and clearly considered at appraisal and steps have been proposed to pursue it with rigor
during implementation, particularly through close monitoring.

22. While the conditions for eligibility of beneficiaries to project services are not spelled out
in these terms, the project design has carefully defined the responsibilities of the community
organization in this regard.

23. Credit:
       Lending policies need to be flexible to overcome natural hazards;
       Project-supervised credit in a very volatile economic and institutional setting is not
    sustainable.

24. Butana IRDP response: The project will set up a CIF to provide, under a matching grant formula,
financing to groups to set up small scale productive enterprises. The project will finance on a cost
sharing basis (75 per cent of capital costs) a range of productive activities targeted particularly towards
poorer households and women. The range of eligible activities will be reviewed on an annual basis
based on the needs and ideas of productive enterprises emerging from the communities. In order to
ensure that the CIF can cover a larger number of beneficiaries, an in-kind fee payment will be
instituted. The community organization will be responsible for the collection of the in-kind fee
payment and allocation of the proceeds to new groups of beneficiaries.




                                                    63
25. Sustainability:
        To achieve sustainable results time and funds are needed, hence, projects need to be
     considered in a long-term perspective with several consecutive phases.

26. Butana IRDP response: With regard to sustainability the appraisal report considers an eight
year project duration adequate to achieve (on a sustainable basis) the following:

        The state legislation supporting the regulated access to the resources of the Butana is
     established;
        The community organizations responsible for the management of the range and water
     resources are established;
        The CCI in communities participating in the project increases by at least ten percentage points;
        The capacity of the locality is strengthened in the area of planning and budgeting for the
     development of the livestock sector and the enforcement of the rules of a regulated access to the
     Butana range and water facilities.

27. Infrastructure:
        The SRADP had a low output delivery, in part, due to the lack of passable tracks in such a
     remote area, which delay the rate of monetarization of the project area economy.

4.   COSOP 2002 Response to Lessons Learned From Group A Projects

28. The main lessons learned at completion of the Group A projects, that were taken up in the 2002
COSOP include the following:

         Adoption of flexible designs, with implementation responsive to target group priorities and
     conditions;
         Degree of geographical concentration to stimulate synergies between projects, facilitate
     implementation support and improve overall impact;
         Need to orient adaptive and applied research towards crops and activities relevant to the rural
     poor;
         Need to invest in marketing improvement to ensure higher profit margins for the producers;
         Involvement of grassroots organizations in project participatory design, planning and
     implementation, which implies strong and autonomous project management within a community-
     based development approach;
         Provision of rural financing services to be oriented towards cash-earning activities and linking
     village-based savings and loans associations with the formal financial sector;
         Reliance of a broad range of service providers, including NGOs and private firms, for
     provision of services to target groups;
         Investment in livestock, income-generating activities and water infrastructure are
     economically profitable and reach out to the bulk of the rural poor and women.

29. COSOP does not refer, as suggested by the lessons learned under the Group A projects, to the
need to consider projects in phases, in the long-term perspective to achieve project sustainability.
Despite the fact that rural road infrastructure or rather the lack of it, was identified in SRADP as a
cause of low project output delivery and as being responsible for the delay of the rate of
monetarization of the project area economy, there is no mention in the 2002 Sudan COSOP of rural
infrastructure, apart from suggesting that the Government should increase market access by
constructing rural infrastructure. Yet, Group B and C projects had very important infrastructure
components.

30. COSOP did, however, introduce new concepts and approaches, which prove with the practise to
be very important and valuable to the future success of IFAD’s investments in The Sudan. Among
these:



                                                   64
   The future orientation of IFAD in The Sudan will be to focus on areas of concentration of the
rural poor, in particular the traditional rainfed sector. IFAD aims also to:
   Focus on improving the productive capacity of rural households and on promoting an enabling
institutional environment;
   Empower both men and women to fully participate to the development process;
   Promote women’s access to decision-making at the local level to address their strategic needs
as a group;
   Promote policy dialogue to debate all policy issues relevant to poverty reduction and promote
policy reform, particularly as regards devolution of water and NRM to organized communities;
   Promote good local governance, accountability and gender equality etc.




                                            65
66
                                                                                                                           APPENDIX 5

                                                 List of IFAD-funded Technical Assistance Grants for The Sudan
                                          Grant
                                           No./                    Benefiting                                          SM        Closing   Amount
                                                    Recipient                    Programme name            Type
                                          Trust                    countries                                         approval     date      (US$)
                                          fund

                                                    The Sudan                   Assisting the Govt. of
     Small country grants (<US$200,000)




                                                                                                          Capacity
                                          717 H                    The Sudan    The Sudan to combat                  14-09-04              200 000
                                                                                                          Building
                                                      (FAO)                     desert locust

                                                                                Development of an
                                                                                MDG and rural
                                           797      The Sudan      The Sudan    poverty oriented                     25-Aug-05             100 000
                                                                                M&E system in the
                                                                                Federal MOAF

                                                                                Piloting Regulated
                                                                                Access to Range
                                           943      The Sudan      The Sudan    Resources in the                     20-12-06 30-04-08     133 560
                                                                                Butana Region, The
                                                                                Sudan
PN suppl. funds grant




                                                    The Sudan
                                                                                Programme of Action
                                                                                to Assist IFAD
    programmes




                                          JP 028    (co finances    NENA                                                                   48 000
                                                                                Projects to reach rural
                                                                                women in NENA
                                                    grant 494)

                                                                                North & South
                                          IT 162    The Sudan      The Sudan    Kordofan Rural                                             150 000
                                                                                Development

                                                                                Policy Dialogue on
                                          IT 174    The Sudan      The Sudan    Land & Water                                               100 000
                                                                                Governance Reform

                                                                                Red Palm Weevil IPM
                                                                                                                                 30-Sep-
                                           703        AOAD          NENA        Programme in Near                    28-06-04              200 000
                                                                                                                                   07
                                                                                East
     Small regional grants




                                                                                Thematic study on the
                                                                                impact of agricultural
                                                                                                                                 03-Mar-
                                           723        IFPRI         NENA        trade liberalisation on              08-10-04              190 000
                                                                                                                                   05
                                                                                small rural producers
                                                                                in NENA

                                                                                EO/EAD: Conference
                                                                                on the Governance of
                                                    Bibliotheca                 Natural Resources in
                                           864                      NENA                                             7-06-2006 31-05-07    50 000
                                                    Alexandria                  the NENA –
                                                                                Alexandria 3-5 July
                                                                                2006




                                                                                   67
                        List of IFAD-funded Technical Assistance Grants for The Sudan (continued)
                                                         Prog:amme
                                                         Establishment
                                                         NENA Africa             Capacity
                        296   NENAMTA      NENA                                                 06-12-94 30-06-07 3 000 000
                                                         Management              Building
                                                         Training in
                                                         Agriculture

                                                         Integration of Yemen
                                                                                 Capacity
                        391   NENAMTA      NENA          in NENAMTA                             04-12-97 30-J06-07 607 000
                                                                                 Building
                                                         Programme

                                                         Programme of
                               WOMEN                     Action to Assist
                                                                                 Capacity
                        494                NENA          IFAD Projects to                       03-05-00 30-06-06 763 723
                                                                                 Building
                                NENA                     reach rural women in
                                                         NENA

                                                       Prog. for Enhancing
                                         Sud., Egypt,
                                                       Food Security in the      Applied
                        578    ICARDA                                                           23-Apr-02 30-09-05 1 169 000
                                                       Nile Valley and the       Research
                                        Erit. Ethiopia
                                                       Red Sea

                                         Jord., Egypt,
Large regional grants




                                                      Marine Resources
                                                      Management                 Applied
                        579     FAO      Yemen, S.i                                             23-04-02 31-12-08 1 000 000
                                                      Programme in the           Research
                                        Arabia, Djib.
                                                      Red Sea
                                         Sud. Eritr.

                                                    Empowering the
                                         The Sudan, rural poor under
                                                                                 Applied
                        635     IFPRI     Tunisia, volatile policy                              11-12-02 30-06-06 931 000
                                                                                 Research
                                          Morocco environments in
                                                    NENA
                                                         Programme to
                                                         Develop a
                                                         Knowledge              Institutional
                        666     IDRC       NENA                                                 11-09-03 30-09-07 1 000 000
                                                         Generation and           Building
                                                         Sharing Network in
                                                         NENA, Phase I
                                        Moro., Jord. Comm.-based
                                         Egypt, Iraq, optimization of the
                                            Libya,    Management of
                                                      Scarce Water               Applied
                        690    ICARDA                                                           18-12-03 31-12-07 1 000 000
                                          S. Arabia, Resources in                Research
                                             Sud.     Agriculture in West
                                                      Asia and North
                                        Syria Tunisia Africa

                                                         Regional water
                                                         demand initiative       Applied
                        708     IDRC       NENA                                                 09-09-04 18-04-05 1 200 000
                                                         (WADIMENA 2004-         Research
                                                         2008)




                                                                   68
                                      Capacity-Building in
                                      Managing for Results   Capacity
    801       InWent        NENA                                         08-09-05            1 900 000
                                      and Impact             Building
                                      (CaMaRI)

                                      PN Regional
                                      Partnership
                                      Programme to
                                                                         14-12-06
                                      support the
    901       CGAP          NENA                                            (Not    22-12-22 1 200 000
                                      development of a
                                                                         effective)
                                      pro-poor rural
                                      financial sector in
                                      NENA


                       Summary of Selected Technical Assistance Grants

1. Grant 635: Empowering the Rural Poor

Programme/Project Coverage: NKRDP, SKRDP, WSRMP
Knowledge Management Content:
• Focus on policies aimed at devolving the responsibility for natural resource management to
   territorial communities at the local level.
• Grant was successful in providing a theoretical and methodological tool to measure and monitor
   empowerment and hence to better assess the impact of policies and institutional changes on levels
   of empowerment at the individual and collective levels.
• Three final workshops held in 2005, followed by a Policy Forum in July 2006 in Alexandria,
   which succeeded, among others, in disseminating and validating analytical tools and empirical
   findings based on the model.
• Assessed as moderately satisfactory (4) in the GSR.

2. Grant 494: Action to Reach Rural Women

Programme/Project Coverage: NKRDP, SKRDP
Knowledge Management Content:
• Specific objectives were: (i) greater ability of concerned IFAD, government and project level
   staff to analyse and address gender-related constraints and opportunities in the design and
   implementation of projects; and (ii) increased access by women members of the target group to
   resources required to increase economic productivity.
• Knowledge building component consists of setting up a strong documentation and dissemination
   base concerning technical approaches, and solutions tested.
• Activities of the programme of action were found to be loosely connected with the IFAD loan
   projects as well as with the activities initiated within the country programme.
      Assessed as moderately unsatisfactory (3) in the GSR.
• However, in NKRDP the grant was used to develop a gender training curriculum in Arabic; and
   to strengthen M&E systems in NKRDP and SKRDP.

3. Grant 296: NENAMTA

Programme/Project Coverage: All Programmes/Projects
Knowledge Management Content:
• Designed to improve the performance of agricultural projects and programmes in participating
   countries by building local managerial training capacity. Programme objectives are to train
   project and programme managers, senior staff and procurement officers in project management
   and to strengthen the training capacities of national institutions in the area of agricultural project



                                                 69
      management.
  •   In The Sudan the programme has not made much progress beyond identifying a National Host
      Institution.
  •   Assessed as unsatisfactory (2).

4. Grant IT162: Karia Net

Programme/Project Coverage: NKRDP, SKRDP
Knowledge Management Content:
• Overall goal is to improve the operations and outcomes of IFAD projects, to enhance the
   fulfilment of project objectives and to improve the livelihoods of IFAD project participants.
• Purpose is to strengthen the capacity of IFAD projects in the NENA region to share and
   communicate useful experiences, knowledge and information.
• The five components of the programme are: (i) strengthen information management systems and
   capacity for using information technology; (ii) develop capacity to document, share and manage
   knowledge; (iii) develop and strengthen relevant content and networking among IFAD
   programmes; (iv) identify and pilot innovative ICT mechanisms for involving rural communities
   in knowledge sharing; and (v) establish a functioning network supported by a Programme
   Coordination Unit.
• The North and South Kordofan Projects are members of Karinet. In SKRDP, for instance, the
   information and communication centre is doing a commendable job. Overall rating of the
   programme by GSR is moderately satisfactory (4).

5. Grant 578: Enhancing Food Security

Programme/Project Coverage: New Halfa Irrigation Project (Closed but outcome relevant to today’s
situation).
Knowledge Management Content:
• Overall goal was to improve food security and farm household incomes through development and
    transfer of improved technologies for enhanced productivity and yield stability in the Nile Valley
    and Red Sea region.
• Four of the crops are relevant to The Sudan, i.e. wheat, faba bean, chick pea and lentil.
• The project under which the grant was extended (New Halfa Irrigation Project) was closed a long
    way back.
• However, components are relevant to knowledge management – for instance, community based
    testing, validation, verification and distribution to farmers of new cultivars and associated
    technologies; participatory evaluation, selection and testing of new material and recommended
    production and pest management practices; and monitoring farmers perceptions and responses to
    improved germplasm and associated technologies.
• Assessed moderately satisfactory (4) in GSR.

6. Grant IT174: Policy Dialogue on Land and Water

Programme/Project Coverage: Gash SLRP
Knowledge Management Content:
• Overall goal of the Italian financial grant was to use IFAD’s catalytic role to build stakeholders’
   learning and commitment to affect the land reform policies. Land tenancy reform represents one of
   the major aspects of the GSLRP, which aims at improving agricultural productivity in the GAS.
• The grant made it possible to continuously monitor, analyse and interpret the process.
• A joint IFAD – Italy evaluation mission in July 2006 noted that the big strength of IFAD in the
   Gash area is its strong network of partners both at community level (WUAs & CDCs) and with the
   authorities.
• Assessed moderately satisfactory (4).



                                                 70
                                                                 IFAD Programme 1999-2007 – Specific Project Objectives
     Project                           Specific Objectives                                                      Level of Output/Outcome Achievements

     NKRDP     Increase the capacity of village communities for planning, executing     Community institutions: – 280 VDC (13 per cent outreach of all villages), but about 45 per cent
               and managing development schemes through training and on-the-job         functioning well (rated good) and 40 per cent average. Capacity of village communities for planning,
               experience, and through the provision of the technical or professional   executing and managing development schemes increased through training. Change in community
               assistance initially required;                                           capacity reflected by the CCI indicator which measured 68.6 per cent compared to 46 per cent without
               Establish, at local council and provincial levels, support systems to    project.
               assist communities in the development process with the emphasis on       Locality support systems: 10 multidisciplinary extension teams operating in 10 out of 12 RAUs in the
               economy and cost-effectiveness;                                          two localities of Bara and Um Ruwaba (83 per cent coverage); now fully integrated within the existing
               Foster communal natural resource management to support increased         locality management structures – their sustainability under critical strategic assessment by Government.
               and sustainable utilization through changes in policy and group          Communal resource management for range utilisation: – not successful given the privatisation of the
               agreements implemented at the local council and village levels; and      range, and application of cost recovery principles.
               Evolve sustainable participatory informal financial institutions for     Participatory sanduqs: 168 out of targeted 220 sanduqs established. Outreach: 11,404 households or 51
               savings mobilization, credit supply and financial advice, tied to the    per cent of target; 19,964 members or 29 per cent of target; 6,612 poor households or 45 per cent of
               formal banking sector.                                                   target; 1,515 women-head households or 46 per cent of target; very low and declining payment rates
                                                                                        (even though the system proved profitable, due to continued injection of project funds).
     SKRDP-    Establish more than 20 Locality Councils (now RAU,) and state-level      14 LETs based in 14 RAUs (formerly localities), fully functioning (each consisting of five offices)
     Phase 1   institutions with resources and cost-effective systems to assist rural   operating in five localities (formerly provinces).
               communities in improving their livelihoods.                              Adoption and application of recommended practices and technologies 36 per cent in field crops, 34 per
71




               Enhance productivity and incomes of individuals and groups from crop     cent in livestock production, 14 per cent in horticulture; extension agents identified as source of
               and livestock enterprises through the provision of a community-based     information for 60 per cent of farmers; neighbouring farmers for 16 per cent of farmers; and field
               extension service and technical and input support.                       demonstration for 16 per cent of farmers.
               Reduce the incidence of disease and mortality by establishing 220 of     In the absence of Co-financing of community priority needs in health, water supply and education,
               the planned 510 community-owned and managed potable water supply         SKRDP responded by establishing CIFs at community level, through which 35 educational facilities, 10
               and 200 basic health facilities.                                         health centres and 15 community centres were constructed. Collaboration with UNICEF and international
               Improve and maintain 484 km of the planned 634 km of rural roads so      NGOs helped to bridge gaps in social service provision.
               that communities have access to markets and public services.             The rural road programme was not achieved due to lack of co-financiers; but SKRDP completed the
                                                                                        survey of the roads.
     SKRDP-    Attain equitable communal range and farm land management over 88         Objectives of fostering equitable communal range and farmland management not yet achieved due to
     Phase 2   000km2 that will reduce conflict, through changes in land use policy     prolonged constitutional and administrative vacuum in the state that delayed arrangements for devolution




                                                                                                                                                                                                   APPENDIX 6
               and agreements between all groups involved and Locality Councils.        of water and hafir management. However, a comprehensive study for development of a range
               Develop sustainable rural credit services with the modalities for        management strategy for SKRDP has been completed which provides for a 5-Year Action Plan.
               participatory informal financial institutions in the form of more than   Rural finance objectives not yet achieved. Whatever had been done (lending) was entirely with ABS own
               260 sunduqs linked with the formal financial sector.                     resources and recoveries were very low. External factors (mainly conflict situations) constrained the
               Enable more than 260 rural communities to plan, implement and            working of the institutional arrangements intended to achieve the objectives.
               manage their own development activities and resolve group conflicts.     Target of 260 CDCs revised to 185; of which 161 were established and registered (87 per cent of target);
                                                                                        about 60 per cent are functioning well.
      GSLRP         Elaboration and maintenance of a shared vision of development               There is a strong consensus and support for the land re-allocation and WUA formation in the GAS;
                    Establishment of the related institutional arrangements appropriate to      however, planning for use of the GAS resources is done on a very sectoral basis and is alienating
                    the shared vision                                                           certain user groups, especially those downstream of the Gash.
                    Rehabilitation of water and other social infrastructure and water           On the legal front, establishment of institutional arrangements appropriate for the shared vision has
                    harvesting devices                                                          largely been achieved; but more efforts needed to ensure full buy-in of the GAS management.
                    Improvement of crop and livestock husbandry practices                       Rehabilitation of water and social infrastructure on-going; however, no agreement yet on the
                    Establishment of financial services and a community initiatives fund        devolution of water management to communities, hence GSLRP has halted the rehabilitation of hafirs.
                    Strengthening of State planning capacity.                                   On-farm demonstration of improved crop varieties initiated but damaged by desert locusts and work
                                                                                                stopped in 2006/07. Field days and ARC contracts moving at a slow pace.
                                                                                                A pilot project for extending rural financial services through WUAs so far demonstrated that the
                                                                                                WUAs were not ready to play the role of financial intermediaries; also, the irregular provision of water
                                                                                                for the mesgas is limiting crop productivity.
                                                                                                No progress has been made on strengthening state planning capacity as post of State Planning Advisor
                                                                                                has been filled.
      WSRMP         To promote the establishment of a natural resources governance              Regional Land Policy Committee has been established to be a forum for development of NRM
                    system that is equitable, economically efficient and environmentally        strategy, including reviewing the governance and management of natural resources and formulating
                    sustainable.                                                                necessary reforms.
                    To enable the development of effective market chains to produce             Approximately 3300 km of stock routes have been surveyed although only 865 km have been
                    added value that are accessible to women and men.                           demarcated.
                    To improve the livelihoods of rural poor male headed and female-            Very little progress on the development of effective market chains to produce value-added accessible
72




                    headed households and their access to productive and social services.       to men and women – limited to few studies; and training for trade points. No other activities have been
                    To strengthen capacity at state and interstate levels to manage regional    implemented to date.
                    natural resources in a way that is sustainable, gender and socially         To improve the livelihood of rural households, WSRMP is adopting the rural community approaches
                    equitable.                                                                  proven to be successful in NKRDP and SKRDP – WSRMP is expected to adopt the VDC/CDC
                                                                                                model. At present, about 30 CDCs have been registered (out of 100 communities benefiting from the
                                                                                                project).
                                                                                                Two workshops in conflict resolution were organised, one in North and the other in South Kordofan.
                                                                                                13 multidisciplinary extension teams have been formed and are operating, although the latest
                                                                                                supervision report indicates that their performance is weak.
                                                                                                Capacity for sustainable management of natural resources is being built through coordination between
                                                                                                the North and South Kordofan States.
      BIRDP         To establish a coherent and cost effective governance framework that       No results as the project as not yet been implemented.
                    ensures a regulated access to land and water resources of the Butana
                    To improve the access and bargaining position of women and men in
                    the marketing of livestock
                    To develop the capacity of community-based organizations to engage
                    in environmentally sound, socially and gender equitable development
                    initiatives.
     Source: IFAD The Sudan Programme 1999-2007 Performance Review and Summary of Key Issues, April 2007; Project Status Report December 2007; Mission Working Papers.
                                                              Projects in The Sudan Portfolio Rated by the CPE
                                                   Group A                       Group B               Group C         Group D                                   %
                                                                                                                                   Average        %
                                          WNASP SRADP           NPIRP      NKRDP     SKRDP       GSLRP     WSRMP       BIRDP                                Satisfactory
                                                                                                                                   Ratings   Satisfactory
                                          (closed) (closed)     (closed)   (ongoing) (ongoing)   (ongoing) (ongoing)   (ongoing)                            2006 ARRI1
     Performance
                 Relevance                    5          4          4          4            4       4          5          5          4.3         100            96
               Effectiveness                  4          3          4          4            3       3          -          -          3.5          50            72
                 Efficiency                   4          2          4          4            3       3          -          -          3.3         50             66
         Performance Aggregated              4.3         3          4         4.0          3.3     3.3                               3.7         50             84
     Impacts
              Physical Assets                 -          -          -          4            3       4          -           -         3.7         67             72
             Financial Assets                 -          -          -          4            3       3          -           -         3.3          33            64
              Food Security                   -          -          -          4            4       3          -           -         3.6          33            65
              Human Capital                   -          -          -          4            3       3          -           -         3.3         33             70
              Social Capital                  -          -          -          5            4       3          -           -         4.0          67            56
           Agric. Productivity                -          -          -          4            4       3          -           -         3.6          33            59
                Institutions                  -          -          -          4            4       4          -           -         4.0         100            52
                  Markets                     -          -          -          4            3       3          -           -         3.3          33            44
               Environment                    -          -          -          3            3       3          -           -         3.0          0             52
73




        Overall Impact Aggregated                                             4.0          3.4     3.2         -           -         3.5         33             65
     Overarching Factors
               Sustainability                 4          3          3          4           3        3          -           -         3.3         33             45
                Innovation                    -          -          -          5           4        4          -           -         4.3         100            68
     IFAD/Partners
                   IFAD                       -          -          -          5            3       4          -           -         4.0         66             51
             Co-op Institution                -          -          -          -            3       4          -           -         3.5         50             64
                Government                    -          -          -          5            3       3          -           -         3.7         33             67
         OVERALL PROJECT RATING              4.3         3          4          4           3.3     3.3                               3.7         50             67




                                                                                                                                                                           APPENDIX 7
     1
           The cohort of projects evaluated between 2002 and 2006 is taken into account.
74
                                                                                     APPENDIX 8
                                           Bibliography

Country Background
The Sudan Country Engagement Plan, United Kingdom DFID, 2005.
Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme, 2007/08
The Sudan Country Profile, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2006.
World Development Indicators, The World Bank, 2005.
Republic of The Sudan, Joint Assessment Mission, Framework for sustained peace, development and
      poverty eradication, 2005. Volumes 1, II and III.
EU relations with The Sudan: Country Overview, EU, 2007.
The EU - The Sudan Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme for the Period 2005-
      2007, EU, 2005.
Country Evaluation: The Sudan, United Nations Development Programme, 2002.
Agriculture Revitalization Programme, 2002-2006 and 2006-2010, GoS, excerpts.
Empowering the Rural Poor under Volatile Policy Environments in the Near East and North Africa
Region Research Project, International Food Policy Research Institute, The Sudan Case Study.
The Sudan Country Report, 2007-2008, EIU.
Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2004-2006, WFP, Background Paper, Khartoum Food Aid
      Programme, 6-8 June 2006.
Save the Children (UK) South Sudan Project: Water and Sanitation Project Review, Feb 2004, Tom
      Slaymaker, Water Policy Programme, Overseas Development Institute.
Country Programme Review, Main Report and Working Papers, IFAD NENA Division, Report No.
      1277-SD, June 2001 – Institutional Performance.
The IFAD Sudan Programme 1999-2007, A performance Review and Summary of Key Issues, Draft.
The Sudan Country Working Paper (FPPP) Desk Review and Country Visit, Dec 2006.
Corporate Level Evaluation of Regional Strategies of PN Division, CWP (The Sudan).
The Green Mobilization 2007-2010, High Advisory Committee, The Sudan, 2006. p117
South Kordofan Growth and institutional study – Synthesis Report, February 2008.


IFAD Policy and Strategy Documents
IFAD Evaluation Policy, OE, IFAD, April 2003.
Evaluation Manual: Methods & Practices, Underlying Principles, OE, IFAD, December 2005.
Evaluation Manual: Methods & Practices, CPE Guidelines, OE, IFAD, December 2005.
Rural Finance Policy.
Rural Enterprise Policy.
Targeting: Reaching the Rural Poor.



                                                 75
Sector-wide Approaches for Agriculture and Rural Development.
Operationalising the Strategic Framework for IFAD 2002-2006, Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective
      in IFAD’s Operations, Plan of Action 2003-2006. Approved by IFAD’s EB, April 2003
IFAD Policy on Crisis Prevention and Recovery, 18 August 2005.
Knowledge Management Strategy.
Innovation Strategy.
IFAD’s Strategic Framework 2007-2010.


OE Corporate Level Evaluations
Evaluation of IFAD’s Rural Finance Policy, September 2007.
Evaluation of IFAD’s Field Presence Pilot Programme, July .7.
IFAD’s Direct Supervision Pilot Programme, November 2005.
Supervision Modalities in IFAD Supported Projects, September 2004.
Regional Strategy of the PN Division.


IFAD Projects


North Kordofan Rural Development Project
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a Proposed Loan to the
      Republic of The Sudan for the NKRDP, IFAD, April 1999.
Re-Appraisal Report, Vols. 1&2, NKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, Main Report, May 1999.
Supervision Report, NKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, IFAD Fund, December 2007.
Mid-Term Review, NKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, IFAD Fund, August 2004.
Supervision Report, NKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, IFAD Fund, April 2006.
Deliveries and the Effect/Impact of the Project, Final Report, NKRDP, Republic of The Sudan,
      Ibrahim El-Dukheri, IFAD, October 2006.
Evaluation of the Rural Finance Component, NKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, Quality Finance
      International, January 2007.
Project Status Reports for years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Direct Supervision Pilot Project Evaluation – Draft March 2005.


South Kordofan Rural Development Programme
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a proposed financial
      assistance to the Republic of The Sudan for the SKRDP, IFAD, July 2000.
Appraisal Report, Vol. 1 Main Report and Appendices, SKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, June 2000.
Draft First Phase Review Report, SKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, May 2005 – Working Paper 5:




                                                76
Institutional Strengthening.
Supervision Reports, Sept 2005, 2006 and 2007
Project Status Reports for years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Interdepartmental Assessment Mission Report, SKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, July 2005. Report on
the Impact Evaluation Survey, SKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, 2007.
Annual report (2007) SKRDP, Republic of The Sudan, 2007.


Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project
Inception Mission, Aide-mémoire, October 2002.
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a proposed loan to the
      Republic of The Sudan for the Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project, IFAD,
      December 2003.
Appraisal Report, Main Report and Appendices, Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project,
      Republic of The Sudan, December 2003.
Report of the Follow up Mission, Gash Sustainable Livelihood Regeneration Project, Republic of The
      Sudan, July-September 2005.
Project Status Reports for Years 2006, 2007.
Supervision Report 2007 (UNOPS).
Report on the Follow up of the Land Registration Programme and Formation of Water Users’
      Associations, June-July 2005.
Report of the Follow up Mission, Gash Sustainable Livelihood Regeneration Project, Republic of The
      Sudan, May 2006.


Western Sudan Resources Management Programme
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a proposed loan to the
      Republic of The Sudan for the WSRMP, IFAD, December 2004.
Appraisal Report, Main Report and Appendices, WSRMP, Republic of The Sudan, December 2004.
Supervision Report, WSRMP, Republic of The Sudan, UNOPS Reports December 2007.
Project Status Reports 2006 and 2007.
Annual Performance Report, 2007 South Kordofan, WSRMP, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal wealth
      and Natural Resources, State Programme Co-ordination Unit.


Butana Integrated Rural Development Project
Appraisal Report, Vol. 1: Main Report and Annexes, Butana Integrated Rural Development Project,
      Republic of The Sudan, December 2006.
Project Status Report for year 2007.




                                                 77
IFAD partnerships
Partnership Agreement Italy-IFAD: Activities Financed Under Supplementary Funds from the
      Government of Italy to IFAD, Final Report 2001-2006, Zero draft, Resource Mobilization
      Division, External Affairs Department, IFAD, 2007.
Partnership Agreement Italy-IFAD 2001-2006, Case Studies in Niger, The Sudan and Guinea Bissau.




                                               78
                                                                                         APPENDIX 9

                                             Approach Paper

                            Country Programme Evaluation for The Sudan


                                      I.   Background and Rationale

1. The Office of Evaluation (OE) provides an independent assessment of IFAD’s operations and
policies and reports directly to the IFAD Board in discharging this responsibility1. This Approach
Paper focuses on OE’s first Country Program Evaluation (CPE) for the Sudan2. It provides
information and insights on the Evaluation early in the process. It also constitutes an opportunity for
stakeholders to understand the objectives of the CPE from the onset and agree on a timetable for the
Evaluation.

2. The evaluation will begin in the fourth quarter of 2007 and its findings will be presented to the
IFAD Evaluation Committee in the third quarter 2008. The CPE has the following two main
objectives: (i) assess the performance and impact of IFAD operations in the Sudan; and (ii) produce
building blocks for the preparation of the new COSOP for Sudan by the Near East and North Africa
Division (PN) following the conclusions of the evaluation3. The CPE will answer the following three
key questions:
      (a)    Was IFAD’s country strategy in Sudan designed (as expressed in IFAD interventions and
             formalized in the 2002 COSOP) to ensure highest possible rural poverty reduction
             impacts?
      (b)    To what extent, was the country strategy implemented through projects and non-project
             activities and how did they perform?
      (c)    What was the impact of IFAD’s country strategy and operations?

3. The CPE will also address COSOP compliance with IFAD corporate policies including policies
on Rural Finance, Rural Enterprises, Corruption, Private sector, SWAPs, and Targeting. The
Evaluation will consider whether allocations of the Performance-Based Allocation System (PBAS)
effectively satisfy development goals with regard to regional priorities. In addition, the CPE will
compare and contrast IFAD’s experiences in the Sudan to operational and performance features in the
PN region like field presence, direct supervision, innovation, rural finance, and experiences in
decentralized environments. For purposes of learning, the CPE process includes a number of
interactions, both within IFAD and with key stakeholders in Sudan. The Core Learning Partnership
(CLP)4 will produce the Agreement at Completion Point once the CPE is concluded. The CLP will
deepen stakeholder understanding of evaluation findings and recommendations and help determine
how to implement them.

4. This Approach Paper (AP) provides initial guidance for the Sudan CPE. It outlines the evaluation
process, methodology, the evaluation framework, and the timetable for the Evaluation. These
elements will be further defined as the CPE advances at IFAD Headquarters in Rome and in the Sudan


1
    OE’s Evaluation Policy may be viewed at: http://intradev:8015/evaluation/policy/new_policy.htm
2
     OE produced its last Portfolio Evaluation for Sudan in 1994. The CPE replaces the former Country
Portfolio Evaluations produced by OE.
3
    The 2002-2007 COSOP for Sudan is coming to a close, making the time ripe for a Programme Evaluation.
4
     The main role of the CLP is to produce a set of agreed upon recommendations and lessons learned, and an
understanding of the concrete follow-up actions that are required from the evaluation. An underlying assumption
is that CLP members will be exposed to learning experiences during the evaluation, which is a necessary
condition for them to provide an effective contribution to the process.



                                                   79
over the coming months. Stakeholder buy-in and participation (PN, Government, Beneficiaries, etc.)
will be essential in this regard.
                                           II. Country Context5

5. Situated in Northeast Africa, the Sudan is the largest country on the continent. Bordered by eight
other African countries (see map Annex 1), the Sudan has a varied geography with a land area about
half the total area of the territories of the 27 member states of the European Union.

6.   The Nile River and its two branches flow for more than 2,000 miles through the country, and are
extremely important for agriculture and transportation. In the North, there are deserts and mountains,
while the South is composed of swamps and forests. Approximately two-thirds of Sudan's population
are Arabic-speaking Muslims; the rest are Christians or practice traditional African religions. A huge
country, Sudan is truly multicultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious.

7. In 2006, Sudan’s population was estimated at 37 million, with an annual growth rate of 2.3 per
cent. About 59 per cent of the population lives in rural areas. Sudan’s economy is dominated by a
large agricultural sector employing 80 per cent of the work force and contributing 35 per cent of GDP,
but which is gradually decreasing because of growth in oil and manufacturing. Food security at the
national and sub-national level can be compromised by inter-annual and geographical variations in
agricultural output due to both natural and human causes, combined with serious distribution
problems. Economic growth continued to be strong in 2006 with overall real GDP increasing by
12 percent driven by the oil sector. However, the 12-month rate of inflation nearly tripled from
5.6 percent in 2005 to 15.7 percent in 2006 declining to 8 percent in 2007. Per capita income stands at
US$650. The country’s resources are drained by security expenditure and by a high external debt of
USD 28 billion in 2007 representing 60 per cent of GDP.

8. IFAD is one of the few financial institutions with a long-standing project presence and high
profile in the fight against rural poverty in the Sudan. The development efforts have been adversely
affected by the civil war between the North and the South. Hopes were high when a Comprehensive
Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed in January 2005 between the National Congress Party and the
Southern Sudan People’s Liberation Movement. However, another major conflict and humanitarian
tragedy erupted in the Western province of Darfur in February 2003. The conflicts and humanitarian
disasters are in part connected to, and aggravated by extreme weather conditions and droughts in
recent decades.

9. The recent oil discovery, production and export have created more optimism both in the north
and the south regarding the country’s economic development, although the available data by this time
is too scant to show the extent to which this has contributed to halt or reduce the spread of rural
poverty. However, the growing oil industry has contributed to a substantial increase in private
financial flows, which now substantially outweigh public aid flows.

10. Approximately 30 per cent of the poor in the NENA Region live in the Sudan. By the most
conservative estimates, about 59 per cent of Sudan’s population was living below the poverty line of
less than US$ 1.0 per day in 2002.6 The rate is presumed to be higher in the rural areas. The adult
illiteracy rate remains close to 40 per cent and 17 per cent of children under 5 are underweight for age.
Sudan is characterized by an extreme geographical variation in development, which is visible
especially in health and education. Poverty in Sudan is mainly a rural phenomenon. Rural poverty is
concentrated in the west (Darfur and Kordofan), in eastern regions such as in Red Sea Hills, and in

5
    Main sources for this section are: Human Development Report, UNDP, 2006; Sudan Country Profile, The
Economist Intelligence Unit, 2006; World Development Indicators, World Bank, 2005; Sudan Stabilization and
Reconstruction Country Economic Memorandum, World Bank, 2003; Republic of Sudan, Joint Assessment
Mission, Framework for sustained peace, development and poverty eradication, March 2005, Assessment of
Rural Poverty in the Near East and North Africa, IFAD, 2002.
6
    Recent quantitative information on actual poverty incidence is not available.



                                                    80
war-affected areas in the central and southern regions. The level of poverty is closely linked to the
strength of agricultural productivity, which is affected negatively by recurrent civil strife forcing
farmers away from their land, and disrupting cultivation and the flow of inputs. Other important
limiting factors to improved crop and livestock production have been the lack of adapted technical
knowledge within the communities, weak extension and veterinary services, and overall, poor access
to productive assets. These factors are exacerbated by very weak social services, poor access
infrastructure and to markets notably in conflict areas where malnutrition among children is of
concern. For example, the emergency threshold for Global Acute Malnutrition is 15 percent, but a
recent survey in the el-Geneina area of western Sudan found the rate among children under 5 years old
to be more than two percentage points above that threshold.

11. The majority of the estimated four million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Sudan have an
agricultural background, but most of these groups lost all their assets or were stripped off them when
they fled their homes. Most IDPs remain exposed to extremely adverse situations and depend on low
paid day work in seasonal employment and emergency assistance. A second important vulnerable
group in Sudan are women, who shoulder strenuous work burdens, and suffer from discrimination in
economic and public spheres of life - although the illiteracy rate, the women’s representation in locally
elected councils and women’s access to land is more widespread in Sudan than in some neighbouring
countries.

12. The government launched a poverty alleviation effort in 1992 as part of its 10-year
Comprehensive National Strategy for Economic Development (1992-2002). The government also
launched a pilot poverty reduction programme in 2001 as a first step in the process of improving long-
neglected rural social services. At the end of 2003, the Government presented an Interim Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper (IPRSP) for 2004-2006. The key elements of the IPRSP are to promote
economic growth through rural development and to improve service delivery through decentralization.
The IPRSP introduced major elements for Government resource allocation with higher public
assistance to the rain-fed areas and privatization of the irrigated sector. This is significant in terms of
Government expenditure and impact on rural poverty reduction. After a Joint Assessment Mission
(JAM) co-led by the World Bank and the United Nations during 2004, a report “Framework for
Sustained Peace, Development and Poverty Eradication” was released in April 2005. The main
objectives stated in this document are (i) to improve governance and create a decentralized
governmental system that allows for community-driven recovery and an important role for civil
society and independent media and (ii) a more equitable distribution of the national wealth and public
resources to improve education, healthcare, and water and sanitation access in underdeveloped
regions.

13. It is generally recognized that the implementation of a sound Poverty Reduction Strategy is
necessary to allow IMF and World Bank concessional lending and HIPC debt relief to Sudan. The
resumption of the IMF and World Bank lending is linked to either payment of the loan services or the
cancellation of the debt. For the cancellation of the debt, Sudan needs external support. The
international community has linked potential future support with the progress on the CPA between
northern and southern Sudan and the resolution of the Darfur conflict. During the last decade, many
donors suspended aid to Sudan in the wake of the civil war and loan repayment problems. The UN
organization remained the only development agency with a substantial presence in the country, along
with the Islamic Development Bank and the Arab funds. Most recent support has had humanitarian
purposes, and as such most aid goes to Southern Sudan, with long transport lines and high delivery
costs. Other multilateral donors like the World Bank and the European Union are beginning to re-
emerge in the country following the JAM of 2004 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, in early
2005.

14. The Multi-DonorTrust Funds (MDTFs) were established after the Oslo Donor Conference in
April 2005, with an initial pledged amount of $508 million; one fund supports the Government of
National Unity, primarily in the reconstruction and development of war-affected and marginalized
areas in the Northern states, and another supports the Government of Southern Sudan for its recovery
and development programs. The objectives of the MDTFs include supporting priority activities


                                                  81
identified by the JAM for pro-peace, pro-poor investments, while ensuring government ownership,
transparency and accountability in the use of MDTF resources. The MDTFs are administered by the
World Bank through two Technical Secretariats, one located in Khartoum for the MDTF-N, and the
other in Juba for the MDTF-S. It is expected that the MDTFs will be functional throughout the six
interim period.

15. The World Bank carries sole fiduciary responsibility for the MDTFs. All MDTF funding
proposals are subject to review and approval by MDTF Oversight Committees with representation
from the two Governments, the MDTF donors, the United Nations and the World Bank.

16. The CPE will carefully assess the overall Sudan country context (institutional framework, macro-
economic policies concerning agricultural and rural development, etc.) at the time of project design
but will also consider its evolution in making the final assessment about the results and impact of the
IFAD programme in the Sudan.

                                   III.   IFAD’s Strategy in Sudan

17. Prior to the first COSOP, approved in September 2002, IFAD did not have a fully articulated
strategy for Sudan. Between 1994 and 2002 country programming was broadly guided by project
experience. The CPE will determine the extent to which orientations from the 1993-94 Sudan Country
Portfolio Evaluation produced by OE also guided country programming. The strategic orientations
emerging from the country portfolio evaluation were inter alia (i) to make further assistance to Sudan
more concentrated geographically and focused in scope; (ii) to seek synergies with other projects
during project design; (iii) to emphasize sustainable development based on private investment and the
involvement of farmers' groups; (iv) to ensure a more dynamic management of the portfolio by IFAD
while enhancing policy dialogue with the Government; and (v) to make future project design and
implementation more participatory to ensure more effective implementation and sustainable results.

18. In 2002, the COSOP produced IFAD’s first strategy for Sudan. It sought to maintain
geographical concentration on areas with a high degree of rural poverty, in particular where the
traditional rainfed sector dominates. The CPE will assess the extent to which the COSOP was
developed through a participatory process. The document proposes three main strategic thrusts in the
country, namely: (i) to support the livelihood strategies of target groups through improving both the
productive capacity of rural households and an enabling institutional environment; (ii) to empower
both men and women to fully participate in the development process, with particular attention to
improving women’s access to decision-making at the local level; and (iii) to promote good local
governance by addressing structural causes of domestic conflicts. Policy dialogue is defined in the
COSOP as the readiness of partners to discuss all policy issues relevant to rural poverty reduction,
coupled with a willingness to use projects to pilot and promote policy reforms. Issues which IFAD
aims at advancing on the policy reform agenda are: (i) macroeconomic and agricultural policies;
(ii) enabling legal and institutional framework for the development of a community-based rural
finance system; (iii) land tenure and rural taxation; (iv) rural market development; (v) the legalization
and role of grass-roots organization in the context of the decentralization process; and (vi) the
development of social services, especially for women. Since the COSOP was launched in 2002, IFAD
has been contributing inter alia to the following areas in Sudan: irrigation; natural resources
management; road construction; animal production and rangeland management; marketing; women
focussed development; community development, local capacity-building and empowerment; and
basic social infrastructure. Details on IFAD`s strategy and operations in Sudan are provided in
Appendix 1.

19. PN has already begun its self-assessment of the 2002 COSOP in preparation for the 2008-2013
COSOP. A recent study produced for PN7 suggests options for the next COSOP include a strategy
aimed at helping Government focus on regulation and planning in agricultural development.
Alternatives to government service delivery in order to make program implementation more resilient

7
    The IFAD Sudan Programme 1999-2007: A Performance Review and Summary of Key Issues, 2007.



                                                 82
to unpredictable policy shifts could also be considered. A greater focus on capacity building efforts in
local government regarding Planning and Regulation may be another approach. OE plans to further
explore with PN the rationale behind these and other strategic approaches to the new Sudan program
based on findings of from the CPE. The self-assessment also provided a number of options with regard
to poverty targeting and livelihood improvement.

                                          IV.    Operations

20. Sudan is a priority country for IFAD, both at the global and regional level, ranking first in the PN
region in terms of total amount lent by IFAD, closely followed by Yemen and Egypt. Since IFAD
began operations in Sudan 1979, both ODA and IFAD aid flows to Sudan have fluctuated
significantly.

21. IFAD assistance to Sudan between 1994 and 2005 amounted to US$38.8 million (constant 2005
prices) or roughly US$3.15 million per year. This represents a little over 0.6 per cent of total ODA to
Sudan over the same period. As shown in Table 1 below, ODA to Sudan took a serious drop during
the nineties as a result of the withdrawal of most major bilateral and multilateral donors in the wake of
the escalating civil war. IFAD assistance also dropped in the early nineties (1992-1994) but remained
relatively stable after that even if no new loans were approved between 1994 and 1999. Total
ODA started increasing again from 2002 on to surpass the average of the eighties in 2005
(US$1.83 billion). IFAD assistance has also increased since 2002 (though not in equal proportions)
with the effectiveness of five new loans (see Appendix 1). According to FAO’s Statistical Yearbook,
total External Agricultural assistance to Sudan in 2003 was US$52 442 million, of which IFAD’s
proportion constituted 7%.

            Approach Paper-Table 1. Average yearly IFAD financing as compared
                                to total ODA to the Sudan
                                         1979-2005
                      Average IFAD financing per year     Average total ODA per year8
      Period
                               (million US$)                      (billion US$)

      1979-1991                            8.4                                    1.76

      1992-1994                           2.94                                    0.72

      1995-2001                           3.12                                    0.36

      2002-2005                           3.67                                    1.32

      2005                                4.07                                    1.83

        Source: www.oecd.org/dac/stats/idsonline

22. Since 1979, IFAD has financed 15 projects in Sudan, for a total loan amount of US$211.6 million
and with an estimated total project cost of US$569 million. These projects can be categorized in the
following two groups: Ongoing and Closed. Five projects were closed before the 1994 Country
Portfolio Evaluation; five other projects were designed before the 1994 CPE and closed before the
2002 COSOP. The ongoing projects include five projects designed after the 1994 CPE and one which
was recently approved in February 2007. The five most recent IFAD projects may be considered
newer generation projects in Sudan. Three projects are located in central Sudan and two projects are
located in the North-east of the country. The IFAD loan for the youngest project was approved in
December 2006 and signed in February 2007. Beginning with 2004, IFAD introduced a performance
based allocation system (PBAS) which determines the distribution of resources for project investment
within each regional division of the fund, based on three main parameters: (i) GNI per capita, (ii) size

8
    The European Commission and the World Bank are the two largest donors to Sudan.



                                                 83
of rural population, and (iii) an index of country performance.9 Sudan scores low in PN for the
composite index of performance compared to most other countries in the Region. The fifteen projects
since 1979 are presented in Table 2.

                     Approach Paper-Table 2. Sudan Project Groups 1979-2007
                                          (Total 15 projects)
                      Closed projects                              Ongoing Projects
     Closed          Designed before 1994 CPE         Designed after the   Recently approved
     before          And closed before 2002           1994 CPE and         under 2002 COSOP
     1994 CPE        COSOP                            ongoing
          5                        5                           4                     1

23. In addition, Sudan benefited between 1994 and 2006 from 20 TAGs through IFAD.10 Six grants
were exclusively allocated to the country, while 14 were aimed at the NENA sub-region as a whole or
several countries within the sub-region. The country specific grants (three IFAD “small country
grants” and three “supplementary funds grants”) add up to US$731,560 and were intended mainly for
capacity building, policy dialogue and project support. The 14 regional grants amount to slightly over
US$14.2 million and are allocated mainly for applied research and capacity building in diverse fields
in Sudan, as well as elsewhere in the Region.

                              V.     Evaluation Approach and Methodology

24. The Sudan Program Evaluation will cover IFAD operations that were still ongoing or designed
after the 1994 Country Portfolio Evaluation. In order to ensure continuity, the Sudan Program
Evaluation will encompass ten projects during the 13 year period between 1994 and 2007. In this way,
the Evaluation will ensure that the entire period of IFAD activity in Sudan since the beginning in 1979
has been covered by OE. The ten projects covered by this CPE can be considered in four distinctive
groups as indicated in Table 3 below:
        Group A includes five projects that were designed and approved before the 1994 Country
        Portfolio Evaluation and closed before the 2002 COSOP (see table A1, Appendix 1). The
        evaluation will assess whether strengths and weaknesses from these projects were identified
        and taken into account in later project design and the 2002 COSOP. It will further assess
        whether their design was revised to take into account the recommendations of the 1994 CPE.
        Performance and impact of selected project features, as well as partner and partnership
        performance for the post-1994 CPE period will be assessed only through a desk review in a
        sample of three projects in this group (one of which was evaluated by OE11). For this project
        group, the emphasis of the evaluation will be on learning.
        Group B is comprised of two projects12 that were designed after the 1994 CPE but before the
        2002 COSOP. They are still ongoing but were mid-term reviewed13. These two projects will
        be the object of a performance assessment as part of the Sudan programme under evaluation.
        Accountability and learning will receive equal attention. They will be the subject of both a
        desk review and field evaluation.


9
    In turn country performance includes an assessment, done by IFAD, of the policy, institutional environment
as well as the overall quality of IFAD’s portfolio. At present, the size of rural population has a weight of 45%.
10
     Table A2 in Appendix 2 summarizes all grants to Sudan through IFAD between 1994 and 2006.
11
     Tentatively these would include the Southern Roseires Agricultural Development Project (evaluated by OE
in 1997), the Northern Province Irrigation Rehabilitation Project – Phase 2 and the White Nile Agricultural
Services Project.
12
    The North Kordofan Rural Development Project (NKRDP) and the South Kordofan Rural Development
Programme (SKRDP).
13
      The NKRDP was mid-term reviewed in 2004 and the SKRDP, which is financed by an FLM, was reviewed
at the end of the first phase in order to asses the conditions for activating the second phase in 2005.



                                                    84
        Group C includes two projects14 that were designed after the 2002 COSOP and have been
        ongoing for a few years only. Special attention will be given to their design features and early
        performance assessment considering that these two projects both fall under the 2002 COSOP;
        the Western Sudan programme is about equal in USD-terms to both the North and South
        Kordofan programmes; and that Gash is approximately 50% disbursed. Both projects will be
        the subject of a desk review and field evaluation.
         Group D is comprised of one project15 that was only recently approved and was not started
        up yet. The evaluation will limit itself to assessing the project’s design for relevance.

                Approach Paper-Table 3. Sudan CPE Project Groups 1994-2007
                                    (Total 10 projects)
                 A                     B                   C                  D
     Designed pre- 1994 CPE Designed post 1994      Designed post   Recently approved
     and closed pre 2002     CPE but pre 2002       1994 CPE and    under 2002 COSOP
     COSOP                   COSOP                  ongoing
                 5                     2                    2                 1

25. In addition, Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) that were implemented during the evaluation
period will be considered by the CPE. The following two key evaluation questions related to TAGs:
would be (i) What was their contribution to creating and supporting innovations and enhancing
capacity building in the context of IFAD’s Sudan program? and (ii) What was their degree of synergy
with loan-funded interventions? Given there were twenty grants with activities solely or partly in
Sudan, a TAG sample will be developed covering four to five thematic/sectoral areas encompassed by
the TAGs using a sampling criterion by theme or sector of intervention. This criterion will be defined
jointly with stakeholders during the main mission..

26. The evaluation will fully assess IFAD’s strategy in Sudan, defined as the strategy inherent in the
design and implementation of IFAD interventions after the 1994 CPE, as well as how it was
formalized in the 2002 COSOP. The evaluation will pay special attention to important non-project
activities such as overall programme coordination, policy dialogue, partnership building efforts and
knowledge sharing. The CPE will address whether the country strategy has selected the right mix of
instruments, particularly the combination of projects and non-project activities, assess synergies and
review linkages between projects. Effort will be put in identifying specific approaches promoted by
IFAD in Sudan, particularly in comparison with those of other international organisations and NGOs
working in agriculture and rural development, as well as synergies achieved with other donors.

27. The internationally-recognized evaluation criteria the CPE will use to assess performance of
IFAD’s program in Sudan are relevance, effectiveness and efficiency as defined in the OE Evaluation
Manual. The impact of the strategy and interventions will be assessed taking into account the nine
“impact domains”16, and their corresponding indicators, with emphasis on those contributing to the
Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), and related directly to the key challenges to rural poverty
reduction in Sudan. Appendix 2 presents specific questions for these impact domains.17 The
evaluation will also pay a particular attention to sustainability of changes promoted by IFAD
interventions.


14
    The Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project and the Western Sudan Resources Management
Programme.
15
     The Butana Integrated Rural Development Project.
16
     The “impact domains” are mentioned in the CPE Guidelines and presented in some detail in IFAD’s “First
Principles” Evaluation Methodologies. They include: physical assets, food security, environment and common
resource base, human assets, social capital and empowerment, agriculture productivity, institutions and services,
financial assets, and markets.
17
     It also contains the CPE Framework and lists the questions that the evaluation aims to answer. The key
building blocks of the evaluation are presented in Annex 2 as well.



                                                    85
28. Furthermore, the CPE will assess the extent to which IFAD’s programme in Sudan has promoted
innovative approaches to rural poverty reduction that can be scaled up and replicated by others. The
evaluation will also assess the performance of IFAD and its partners, including the key institutions in
the government (at all administrative levels), co-operating institution(s), non-governmental and
community-based organisations involved in IFAD’s country programme, and others concerned.
29. The evaluation team will apply the evaluation criteria to the following specific issues particularly
relevant for the Sudan program:

       (a)    Improvement of women’s participation in local decision-making, and decreasing
              household work burden in order to free up time for income generating activities;
       (b)    Improvement of the productivity of and the incomes of smallholders;
       (c)    The impact of HIV/AIDS, ,malaria and the livestock diseases on the agricultural sector
              development;
       (d)    Targeting mechanisms and the scope of interventions;
       (e)    IFAD engagement in conflict prevention/peace-building efforts using a conflict
              prevention "lens" as per the DAC Guidelines Helping Prevent Violent Conflict; as well as
              IFAD’s Policy on Crisis Prevention (2005) and
       (f)    Selected IFAD business and management processes:
              - Project operating model: through local government institutions as opposed to private
                  sector, NGOs etc.; area-based as opposed to organization-based.
              - Project management structure: by “parallel” Project Coordination Units as opposed to
                  national or state government institutions.18
              - Project quality assurance at entry, human resources and administrative budget, KM
                  and procurement.
              - Project and program level M&E: quality of logical frameworks, use of M&E results
                  for management/coordination purposes etc.
              - Supervision arrangements in projects: by a Cooperating Institution or direct
                  supervision by IFAD.19
              - IFAD country presence20

30. The main evaluation criteria will be rated on a scale from 1 (highly unsatisfactory) to 6 (highly
satisfactory), allowing for summarizing, aggregation and comparison of assessments. Where relevant,
individual ratings will be given to projects and overall ratings will be attributed to the IFAD strategy.

31. The CPE will benchmark the IFAD program with what other donors have done in Sudan during
more or less the same period and what results they achieved. In the case of the Sudan CPE, this could
be done by reviewing interventions by UNDP21, CARE and FAO. Benchmarking against OE’s ARRI
data for all regions and for PN in particular will also be included.

32. In addition, the CPE will seek to assess what would have happened in the absence of the IFAD
programmes. It will be considered whether it would be worthwhile to construct a “counterfactual” (the
estimated situation at this point in the absence of IFAD’s support) based on the desk review and
fieldwork findings, against which the overall changes brought about by the programmes can be
assessed.


18
     This is related to the development aid harmonization efforts by the Government and donors.
19
    In the context of the Evaluation of Supervision Modalities in IFAD Supported Projects (2004), the North
Kordofan Rural Development Project (which is directly supervised by IFAD) and the South Kordofan Rural
Development Programme (which is supervised by UNOPS) were compared.
20
    Sudan was part of the sample of countries studied in the framework of the Field Presence Pilot Programme
Evaluation (2006-2007).
21
     A UNDP Country Evaluation for Sudan is available (2002).



                                                    86
33. The evaluation will combine and cross-check (“triangulate”) different sources of evidence. For
example, interviews will be held with the Director of PN, CPM for Sudan, the regional economist, the
previous CPMs present in IFAD, and the UNOPS portfolio manager. Appendix 3 sources of data
which could be used for covering the main criteria and issues of this evaluation. The data sources can
be grouped as follows:

       (a)    Documents, through an extensive desk review of country background information, data
              generated by the M&E systems of the projects including case studies, OE evaluation
              reports, project progress and supervision reports, mid-term reviews and completion
              reports, programme reviews by PN, etc.;
       (b)    Stakeholders’ knowledge and views, through surveys and interviews with government
              officers, project staff, implementing agencies, beneficiaries and partners22; and
       (c)    Visible evidence, through direct field observation of project results23.

34. A four-step approach is proposed in the collection of data (see Figure 1). The first step will
consist of a desk review of available reports and studies. This review will include documents such as
the COSOP, IFAD strategies and policies, design and appraisal reports, supervision and mid-term
review reports, M&E reports, project status reports and portfolio assessment documents, project
completion reports as well as available evaluation documents.24 The review will also include reports,
evaluations and relevant documents produced by other organizations such as the Government of Sudan
(e.g. IPRSP, policies, strategies regulations), other international organizations (e.g. WB, AfDB, AFD,
BSF), research institutes, including IFPRI25, and NGOs, with particular focus on relevant country
strategies or analytical work (evaluations, sectoral studies). Finally, the desk review will be
complemented by an archive search to be conducted at IFAD headquarters in order to better
understand internal business processes (budget and resources available, quality assurance at entry and
during implementation). Input from both PN and the Information Resource Centre of IFAD will be
gathered. The desk review will provide two key deliverables. First, it will produce a preliminary draft
of the introductory sections of the main report. Second, it will determine the key information gaps and
the additional information requirements to adequately address the main evaluation questions.

35. In a second phase, a self-evaluation exercise will be required of both PN and project staff in the
field. This will give an opportunity for managers responsible for program and projects to share their
knowledge and perceptions of key issues pertaining to the results and major implementation
constraints. During the preparatory mission, a planned self assessment workshop will be discussed
with project managers in the field to obtain their buy-in. If deemed necessary, according to the
outputs of the former phases, a third phase of primary data collection may be carried out. OE is
currently examining the feasibility, time and resource requirements for possible Impact Studies on
selected projects which could be launched prior to the main Evaluation Mission. The exercise may
take the form of mini-surveys to be conducted in the sites of one or more projects, in order to obtain
basic data on the project’s impact. The primary data collection could provide an Impact Assessment
study as a deliverable.

36. In a final phase, an inter-disciplinary evaluation mission will be fielded. The mission will have
reviewed the outputs of the former evaluation steps. At the beginning, the mission will attend
meetings and conduct interviews in the capital with representatives of the Government, international
organisations and NGOs and other relevant key informants. The mission will visit each project

22
     To be identified in consultation with the Government and PN.
23
     Sample of project sites to be visited will be determined after the preparatory mission to Sudan.
24
     This includes, inter alia, project evaluations in Sudan, relevant thematic evaluations such as the one on
decentralisation in the PF region but also other corporate level evaluation (direct supervision, support to
replicable innovations etc.).
25
    Agricultural marketing studies were commissioned by IFAD to IFPRI. As well as the collaboration IFAD/
IFPRI on measuring empowerment.



                                                     87
selected for deeper review in order to cross-check information and data gathered during the previous
evaluation phases. It is recommended to spend four to five days in the field per project and to break
the mission into two or more sub-groups in order to maximize the number of sites to be visited.
Practical criteria for the selection of sites to be visited will also need to be specified. In addition, a self
assessment workshop will be conducted (likely in Khartoum) with projects managers who will
evaluate their own ongoing project(s).

37. At the end of the mission, an Aide-mémoire outlining the preliminary results and observations
will be prepared and discussed during a wrap-up meeting. It is important that Government and project
officials, as well as the CPM and the IFAD field representatives attend that meeting. Deliverables of
the final phase include: an Aide-mémoire, up to five project self-evaluations, and the draft final CPE
report. The Figure below illustrates the proposed sequence of the evaluation phases.

                  Approach Paper-Figure 1: Proposed sequence of the evaluation phases

     Phase 1. Desk review                                                            Phase 4. Evaluation mission
     → Preliminary draft
                                                 Phase 2. Self evaluation
     introductory section report                                                     → Validate data and conduct
                                                 workshop in Khartoum
     → Decision on primary                                                           more focused analysis
     data collection exercise



                                                        Phase 3
                                                        Primary data
                                                        collection



                                      VI.    Evaluation Team and Schedule

38. The evaluation team will consist of a maximum of five consultants plus a Lead Evaluator who
will work under the supervision, and with the support, of the OE Senior Evaluation Officer. Special
efforts will be made to constitute a gender-balanced CPE team and to identify and recruit Sudanese
nationals as part of the team. The CPE team leader should have experience in conducting a CPE as
well as full knowledge of IFAD’s mandate, specificities and operating model26, experience in
agriculture and rural development issues and evaluation, as well as work experience in Sudan. S/he
will be responsible, inter-alia, for preparing the draft CPE report and other deliverables.

39. The experts of the team would cover the following thematic areas between them27:
            a) Rural sociologist: Community development, local capacity-building and empowerment,
               gender, targeting, post-conflict & peace-building
            b) Natural resources management specialist w/ specific knowledge of livestock &
               rangeland management
            c) Rural economist: Rural finance/marketing/micro-finance
            d) Rural infrastructure specialist: basic social infrastructure including potable water
               supply, irrigation development (infrastructural aspects), rural roads
            e) Agriculture specialist: Agricultural development services, irrigation development
               (agricultural and social aspects).
            f) Agricultural and rural development institutional expert.



26
        Including the evolution in the Fund’s priorities and working modalities.
27
     See Appendix 4 for additional details on project components and sub-components on which expert
identification is based.



                                                        88
40. The preparation of selected background papers by local experts will be required. These reports
could address selected themes mentioned in this approach paper, or others that may be identified
during the CPE preparatory mission. These papers will serve as key inputs for the CPE’s analysis and
report writing. Given that PN will prepare a COSOP for Sudan following the completion of the CPE,
every effort will be made to ensure that the results of the CPE are available in time to be taken into
account in the new COSOP. Table 5 below shows the major steps in the process.
                   Approach Paper-Table 5. Planned Schedule for the Sudan CPE

                                Tasks                                              Dates

Draft Approach Paper prepared by OE for discussion with Lead             November-December 2007
Evaluator, relevant IFAD departments and cooperating partners in
the Sudan
Preparatory Mission to Sudan                                                01-13 December 2007
Initiation of project impact studies in two project areas                      December 2007
Team leader briefing in Rome 28                                                18 January 2008
CPE field mission                                                       21 January -20 February 2008
Orientation by and discussion with program personnel and                  January – February 2008
counterparts.
Self Assessment Workshop by project personnel and other                        January 2008
stakeholders
Wrap up meeting in Khartoum with participation of Sudan CPM*                 21 February 2008
Working Papers (from drafting to finalizing)                            22 February – 07 April 2008
Main report writing begins                                                    27 March 2008
OE and PN review of draft CPE                                             22 April - 10 June 2008
GoS and other CLP members review of draft CPE                              11 June – 02 July 2008
Incorporate CLP comments and prepare audit trail                              02-11 July 2008
Distribute final report (pre-workshop version) and audit trail                12-23 July 2008
Agreement at Completion Point Workshop*                                         24 July 2008
Finalise Agreement at Completion Point                                      30 September 2008
Publication of final evaluation report                                        30 October 2008
*To be attended by CPM

                                    VII.    Core Learning Partnership

41. The core learning partnership (CLP) consists of the main users of the evaluation29, and as per
IFAD Evaluation Policy, it is mandated to provide guidance to OE at critical stages in the evaluation
process. Furthermore, by ensuring that the evaluation asks relevant questions, and by becoming
involved in the CPE from an early stage, the CLP also plays a role in developing ownership of the
evaluation and in facilitating the utilization of evaluation recommendations and learning. The CLP
would provisionally be composed as follows:

        Government of The Sudan
        - Ministry of Finance and National Economy
        - Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
        - Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources
        - Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries
        - South and Kordofan State Government
        - North Kordofan State Government
        - Butana Development Agency
        - The Office of the First Vice President
28
     Briefing with Senior Evaluation Officer, OE Director, and PMD.
29
     See IFAD’s Evaluation Policy, p. 10.



                                                   89
        IFAD – Programme Management Division (PMD)
        - Ms Mona Bishay (Director PN)
        - Ms Rasha Omar (CPM Sudan)
        - Mr Shyam Khadka (Senior Portfolio Manager, PMD)
        - Mr Mohamed Abdelgadir (IFAD Country Presence Officer in Sudan)
        - Senior Coordinator of the IFAD co-financed projects in Sudan and all project coordinators
            in Sudan
        IFAD – Office of Evaluation
        - Mr Luciano Lavizzari (Director)
        - Mr Paul-André Rochon (Senior Evaluation Officer)
        Civil society represented by the Farmers’ Union, the Pastoralist Union, and the Women
        Union.

42. The CLP will be asked, inter-alia, to review and comment on the draft approach paper, the draft
CPE final report and Issues Paper30. They will also be invited to participate in the CPE national
roundtable workshop to be organized towards the end of the evaluation in Sudan.

                             VIII.       Communication and Dissemination

43. In order to facilitate the use of the Sudan CPE, and in line with IFAD’s Evaluation Policy, there
will be a first stage in the evaluation process in which the draft evaluation approach paper will be
communicated to key stakeholders at IFAD and in Sudan, inviting their comments. OE will organize a
CPE preparatory mission to Sudan in December 2007 to discuss the draft approach paper, in addition
to briefing partners about the Evaluation Policy and the CPE methodology, guidelines and overall
process. Contact has already been established with the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) on the
sharing of CPE draft documents and a possible IsDB field participation in the evaluation of selected
co-financed projects31.

44. As per usual practice, a wrap up meeting will be held in Khartoum at the end of the CPE’s field
mission, and on that occasion the evaluation team will present and discuss with key partners its
preliminary findings. Partners will also be provided adequate time and opportunities to review and
comment upon the draft CPE report.

45. Moreover, a CPE national roundtable workshop will be organized in Sudan by OE in close
collaboration with the Government and PN towards the end of the evaluation process. This workshop,
which will focus on learning, will allow multiple stakeholders to exchange views on key evaluation
issues and provide inputs for the preparation of the evaluation’s Agreement at Completion Point,
which articulates the recommendations and specific actions that both IFAD and the Government agree
to implement from the CPE.

46. The published final CPE report (inclusive of an Executive Summary and the Agreement at
Completion Point) will thereafter be widely distributed in hard copies and posted on IFAD’s website.
An evaluation Profile and Insight will also be prepared on the Sudan CPE, and distributed together
with the final evaluation report. The CPE report, and brief notes that OE prepares based on the
evaluation (“Profile” and “Insight”) will also be disseminated through selected electronic networks.
Specific efforts will be made by OE to share the CPE report, Profile and Insight with countries in the
PN and PF region.

47. It is important to note that written comments of the Government of Sudan and PN on key CPE
deliverables will be treated with utmost consideration by OE, in line with the provisions contained in
the IFAD Evaluation Policy. This requires OE to: (i) rectify any factual inaccuracies that may be
30
     The short CPE Issues Paper, to be prepared by OE with inputs from Government of Sudan and PN, will
constitute the basis for discussions at the CPE national roundtable workshop in Sudan towards the end of the
evaluation.
31
     The IsDB will soon finalize its Country Assistance Evaluation on Sudan.



                                                   90
present in the CPE report; and (ii) carefully assess the comments of partners on substantive issues, and
decide whether or not they should be included in the report. Comments of a substantive nature that,
according to OE, would not lead to changes in the evaluation’s overall findings may be flagged in the
main CPE report as dissenting views in the form of footnote(s), clearly indicating the issue at hand and
source of comment. Finally, OE will prepare and share an “audit trail” of how it has treated the
comments of the Government and PN in finalizing the CPE report.

                Approach Paper-Appendix 1: IFAD Strategy and Operations in Sudan

Country strategy. Over the last 20 years, the Sudan has remained a priority country for IFAD, both at
the global and regional level. Up to the first COSOP, approved in September 2002, IFAD strategy in
Sudan as expressed in project design and implementation was broadly guided through learning from
project experience. In 1993-94, OE assessed the Sudan country portfolio and strategic orientations
emerging from the evaluation were inter alia (i) to make further assistance to Sudan more intensive
and focused in scope (concentrated in one, or at most two regions and focused on rainfed agriculture
areas); (ii) to seek synergies effects with other projects during project design; (iii) to emphasize
sustainable development based on private investment and the involvement of farmers' groups; and (iv)
to ensure a more dynamic management of the portfolio by IFAD while enhancing the policy dialogue
with the Government; and (v) to make future project design and implementation more participatory to
ensure more effective implementation and sustainable results.

The 2002 COSOP. At first analysis, the 2002 COSOP does not appear to be a radical change of
course compared to the strategy inherent in projects designed since the 1994 CPE. It has been written
more as an over arching macro policy document rather than focusing on the country portfolio and
projects. It proposes to maintain geographical concentration on areas with a high degree of rural
poverty, in particular where the traditional rainfed sector dominates. The COSOP proposes 3 main
thrusts in the country, namely: (i) to support the livelihood strategies of target groups through
improving both the productive capacity of rural households and an enabling institutional environment;
(ii) to empower both men and women to fully participate in the development process, with particular
attention to improving women’s access to decision-making at the local level; and (iii) to promote good
local governance by addressing, where IFAD has a comparative advantage, structural causes of
domestic conflicts. Thus, area-based rural development projects would continue to represent the
majority of projects in the portfolio. Stronger partnerships are envisaged with multilateral and bilateral
donors as well as international and local NGOs, without specification, however, of the specific
domains of collaboration. It is also noteworthy that the COSOP provided a window for future IFAD
involvement in the South of Sudan.

Policy dialogue is defined in the COSOP as the readiness of partners to discuss all policy issues
relevant to rural poverty reduction, coupled with a willingness to use projects to pilot and promote
policy reforms. Issues which IFAD aims at advancing on the policy reform agenda are:
(i) macroeconomic and agricultural policies (in collaboration with the IMF); (ii) enabling legal and
institutional framework for the development of a community-based rural finance system; (iii) land
tenure and rural taxation; (iv) rural market development; (v) the legalization and role of grass-roots
organization in the context of decentralization process; and (vi) the development of social services,
especially for women.

IFAD operations in Sudan. Since 1979, IFAD has financed 15 projects in The Sudan, for a total loan
amount of US$211.6 million and with an estimated total project cost of US$569 million. This
represents approximately 13.3 per cent of total IFAD lending to the 126 projects approved so far in the
Near East and North Africa Division. Five projects were closed before the 1994 CPE, five were
designed before the 1994 CPE and closed before the 2002 COSOP and five projects were designed
after the 1994 CPE and are ongoing (4) or only recently approved (1). These five youngest projects
can be considered as the new generation of IFAD projects in Sudan. Three projects are located in
central Sudan (Western, Southern and Northern Kordofan States) and two projects are located in the
North-east of the country (Kassala, Nile, Gedaref, El Gezira and Khartoum States). The youngest
project’s IFAD loan is not yet effective. Figure A1 presents the geographical distribution of the most


                                                 91
recent IFAD projects on a map of Sudan. Table A1 summarizes key data for the 10 most recent IFAD
financed projects in Sudan.
                        Approach Paper-Table A1: IFAD Co-financed Projects
                                   Dates                                                  Funding
                                                                                          IFAD       Total               Intern.
                                   IFAD
Project                                         Loan       Loan      Original   Loan      Loan       Project             Co-       Coop.
                                   Board
Title          Loan No.   Sector               Signing     Effectiv. closing    Closing   (USD       (USD       Status   financier Instit.
                                   Approval
                                                                                          million)   million)
Northern
Province
Irrigation      304    Irrigation 03-Dec-86 09-Dec-86 07-Dec-87 30-Jun-94 30-Jun-98           9.5      28.76    Closed              WB
Rehabilitati
on Project
En Nahud
Cooperative
                448      Credit 30-Nov-88             15-Mar-89 30-Jun-97 31-Dec-98           9.5       16.7    Closed            UNOPS
Credit
Project
Southern
Roseires
                         Agric.
Agricultural    268               02-Oct-90 19-Nov-90 10-Jan-92 31-Mar-00 31-Mar-00        10.33       14.65    Closed   None     UNOPS
                         Dev.
Development
Project
Northern
Province
Irrigation   459/ SRS-                                                                                                   IsDEB
                       Irrigation 15-Apr-92 02-Jun-92 10-Mar-93 31-Dec-98 31-Dec-01           12       32.52    Closed              WB
Rehabilitati 32                                                                                                          &OPEC
on Project –
Phase 2
White Nile
                                                                                                                         Dom.
Agricultural
              SRS-36 Irrigation 15-Sep-93 25-Jan-94 18-Jan-95              30-Jun-02       10.68       14.98    Closed   Fin.     UNOPS
Services
                                                                                                                         Inst,
Project
North
Kordofan
                          Rural                                                                                                     Dir
Rural            501               28-Apr-99   14-Jul-99 14-Jun-00 31-Dec-08                 10.5       23.7    Ongoing IsDB
                          Dev.                                                                                                      Sup
Development
Project
South
Kordofan
                          Rural
Rural            544               14-Sep-00   26-Sep-00 12-Feb-01 30-Sep-11               17.87       39.62    Ongoing None      UNOPS
                          Dev.
Development
Programme
Gash
Sustainable
                          Agric.
Livelihoods      630               18-Dec-03   27-Jan-04     2004 31-Mar-13                  24.9         39    Ongoing None      UNOPS
                          Dev.
Regeneration
Project
Western
Sudan
                          Rural
Resources        655               02-Dec-04   14-Feb-05     2006   30-Jun-14                25.5         49    Ongoing None      UNOPS
                          Dev.
Management
Programme
Butana
Integrated
                          Rural                                                                                                   DirSup/
Rural            717               14-Dec-06   16-Feb-07    2007?   30-Jun-16                24.8      29.85 Approved    None
                          Dev.                                                                                                    UNOPS
Development
Project
Total                                                                                     211.63     558.62


Distribution of financing over components. Figure A2 presents the distribution of IFAD lending
over project components, for the five ongoing IFAD projects which add up to a total loan amount of
US$103.9 million and a total project cost estimate of USD$172.1 million. As the figure shows, almost


                                                           92
half of IFAD financing is aimed at institutional support (27 per cent) and community development (20
per cent) components, which are present in all five projects.

             Figure A2: Distribution of IFAD Financing Over Project Components

                                                   Livestock & rangeland
                                                            6%           Rural roads
                                      Irrigation                                        Institutional support &
                                                                             3%
                                          7%                                             project management
                 Natural Resources                                                                27%
                    Management
                         9%

               Financial services &
                    marketing
                       9%
                                                                                            Community
                               Agricultural services                                   development & w omen
                                       19%                                                     20%




While receiving 19 per cent of IFAD financing, components to strengthen agricultural services are
explicitely present in only two out of five projects (but subsumed under different components in all
projects). Rural financial services and marketing related components are present in four out of five
projects, but are relatively less consuming in terms of financing. Other important but more project
specific components are natural resources management (9 per cent - in all on-going projects),
irrigation (7 per cent - 1 project) and animal husbandry development (6 per cent - 2 projects). Two
projects include a rural roads component that are financed mainly by other sources.

Cofinanciers, lead agencies and cooperating institutions. The bulk of financing for the five most
recent projects is brought in by IFAD (57 per cent) and the Government of Sudan (18 per cent) as
shown in Figure A3. International cofinancing, while intended for three out of five projects, has
materialized in only one project so far32.

                            Figure A3: Contribution of cofinanciers to projects
                                                                     IFAD
                                                                     57%




              National financial
                 institutions
                      1%

                             IsDB
                              5%                                                        Government
                                Beneficiaries                                              18%
                                    5%
                                                       Undetermined so far
                                                              14%



2.     Two projects are state projects, NKRDP and SKRDP. Three other projects are federal: GSLRP,
WSRMP and the BIRDP. Three of the new generation projects are supervised by UNOPS and two are
directly supervised by IFAD (with financial administration by UNOPS). All projects are set to be
taken over under direct supervision in 2008.

3.    Technical Assistance Grants. Table A2 gives an overview of the 20 IFAD Technical
Assistance Grants (TAGs) for Sudan between 1994 and 2006. Six grants were exclusively allocated to
the country, while 14 were aimed at the PN sub-region as a whole or several countries within the sub-

32
    The Islamic Development Bank finances the road construction component in the North Kordofan Rural
Development Project.



                                                                93
                        region. The country specific grants (three IFAD “small country grants” and three “supplementary
                        funds grants”) add up to US$731 560 and were intended mainly for capacity building, policy dialogue
                        and project support. The 14 regional grants amount to slightly over US$14.2 million and are allocated
                        mainly for applied research and capacity building in diverse fields.

                                    Approach Paper-Table A2. IFAD Technical Assistance Grants for The Sudan
                           Grant No./                         Benefitting                                                                  SM                        Amount
                                           Recipient                                      Programme name                      Type                    Closing date
                           Trust fund                          countries                                                                 approval                     (US$)
                             717 H        Sudan (FAO)            Sudan          Assisting the Govt. of Sudan to combat       Capacity    14-Sep-04                   200,000
                                                                                              desert locust                  Building
(<US$200,000)
Small country




                              797            Sudan               Sudan            Development of an MDG and rural                       25-Aug-05                    100,000
   grants




                                                                                 poverty oriented M&E system in the
                                                                                  Federal Ministry of Agriculture &
                                                                                               Forestry
                              943            Sudan               Sudan            Piloting Regulated Access to Range                    20-Dec-2006 30-Apr-2008 133,560
                                                                                Resources in the Butana Region, Sudan
                             JP 028     Sudan (cofinances        NENA            Programme of Action to Assist IFAD                                                   48,000
programmes




                                           grant 494)                           Projects to reach rural women in NENA
funds grant
 PN suppl.




                             IT 162          Sudan               Sudan              North & South Kordofan Rural                                                     150,000
                                                                                            Development
                             IT 174          Sudan               Sudan            Policy Dialogue on Land & Water                                                    100,000
                                                                                         Governance Reform
                              703            AOAD                NENA             Red Palm Weevil Integrated Pest                        28-Jun-04     30-Sep-07     200,000
Small regional grants




                                                                                Management (IPM) Programme in Near
                                                                                               East
                              723            IFPRI               NENA               Thematic study on the impact of                      08-Oct-04     03-Mar-05     190,000
                                                                                agricultural trade liberalisation on small
                                                                                        rural producers in Nena
                              864          Bibliotecha           NENA                EO/EAD: Conference on the                          7-Jun-2006 31-Mar-2007        50,000
                                           Alexandria                           Governance of Natural Resources in the
                                                                                  NENA – Alexandria 3-5 July 2006
                              296         NENAMTA                NENA             Programme Establishment NENA         Capacity          06-Dec-94     30-Jun-07     3,000,000
                                                                                   Africa Management Training in       Building
                                                                                            Agriculture
                              391         NENAMTA                NENA            Integration of Yemen in NENAMTA             Capacity    04-Dec-97     30-Jun-07     607,000
                                                                                              Programme                      Building
                              494       WOMEN-NENA               NENA            Programme of Action to Assist IFAD Capacity            03-May-00      30-Jun-06     763,723
                                                                                Projects to reach rural women in NENA Building
                              578           ICARDA           Sudan, Egypt,       Prog. For Enhancing Food Security in        Applied     23-Apr-02     30-Sep-05 1,169,000
                                                              Eritrea and           the Nile Valley and the Red Sea          Research
                                                               Ethiopia
                              579             FAO            Jordan, Egypt,         Marine Resources Management              Applied     23-Apr-02     31-Dec-08 1,000,000
                                                             Yemen, Saudi            Programme in the Red Sea                Research
                                                            Arabia, Djibouti,
Large regional grants




                                                               Sudan and
                                                                 Eritrea
                              635            IFPRI           Sudan, Tunisa,       Empowering the rural poor under            Applied     11-Dec-02     30-Jun-06     931,000
                                                               Morocco          volatile policy environments in NENA         Research
                              666            IDRC                NENA            Programme to Develop a Knowledge Institutional 11-Sep-03              30-Sep-07 1,000,000
                                                                                  Generation and Sharing Network in Building
                                                                                           NENA, Phase I
                              690           ICARDA             Morocco,         Comm.-based optimization of the    Applied               18-Dec-03     31-Dec-07 1,000,000
                                                             Jordan, Egypt, Management of Scarce Water Resources Research
                                                              Iraq, Lybia,   in Agriculture in West Asia and North
                                                             Saudi Arabia,                   Africa
                                                            Sudan, Syria and
                                                                Tunisia
                              708            IDRC                NENA              Regional water demand initiative          Applied     09-Sep-04     18-Apr-05 1,200,000
                                                                                     (WADIMENA 2004 - 2008)                  Research
                              801            InWent              NENA             Capacity-Building in Managing for          Capacity    08-Sep-05                   1,900,000
                                                                                    Results and Impact (CaMaRI)              Building
                              901            CGAP                NENA           PN Regional Partnership Programme to                     14-Dec-06     22-Dec-22 1,200,000
                                                                                support the development of a pro-poor                       (Not
                                                                                   rural financial sector in NENA                        effective)




                                                                                         94
                             Approach Paper-Appendix 2: Sudan CPE Framework
     Purpose                              Key questions33                                       Key activities

Assess the           Did IFAD pursue the right country strategy, i.e., was it      COSOP review, desk review
quality of the       designed to ensure highest possible rural poverty
country strategy     reduction impacts?                                            Self-evaluation by IFAD
                                                                                   management/staff, discussion with
                         •     What resources were allocated?                      cooperating institution officers
                         •     Did the COSOP identify and address the key          Interviews with IFAD management/staff
                               challenges to reducing rural poverty?
                         •     Was the COSOP articulated in a clear, focused       In-country interviews with: key
                               and realistic way, that provided guidance to        government officers, IFAD funded project
                               operations?                                         managers/staff, civil society
                                                                                   representatives, research institutions,
                         •     How well did IFAD perform in developing the         IFIs/UN/Bilat. organisations
                               COSOP?
                         •     Was the COSOP coherent with the GOS’s               Prepare a note with the assessment of the
                               strategies and with IFAD’s strategic framework      COSOP’s quality, with particular focus on
                               and its regional strategy?                          its relevance, triangulating the different
                                                                                   sources of information
                         •     Assess the extent to which the main directions in
                               the country strategy complemented the strategies
                               of other donors working in agriculture and rural
                               development

Evaluate IFAD’s      To what extent was the country strategy implemented           Loan and grant portfolio desk review
country strategy     through projects (loans and TAGs) and non-project
implementation       activities (policy dialogue, partnerships, and knowledge      Self evaluation by IFAD
                     sharing) and how did they perform?                            management/staff and by the GOS

                         •     Was the COSOP actually reflected in the design      Interviews with IFAD staff
                               and implementation of operations?
                                                                                   In-country interviews with: key
                         •     How did the operations perform?                     government officers, IFAD funded project
                                                                                   managers/staff, civil society
                         •     How well IFAD and its partners performed?           representatives, research institutions,
                                                                                   IFIs/UN/Bilat. organisations
                         •     Were IFAD’s business processes appropriate, for
                               example, were adequate human and financial          Assessment of data reliability
                               resources made available by IFAD to achieve all
                               the main objectives of the Country Strategy?

Assess the           What was the impact of IFAD’s country strategy and            Desk review of impact studies and other
impacts of           operations?                                                   documentation from IFAD, the projects
IFAD’s strategy                                                                    and particularly from other IFIs
and operations           •     What impacts IFAD had in Sudan and how
                               sustainable is it?                                  Self evaluation by IFAD management/
                         •     What innovations and actual (or potential)          staff
                               replication and scaling-up have taken (or may       Interviews with IFAD staff
                               take) place?
                         •     Did the impact contribute to the achievement of     In-country interviews with: key
                               IFAD’s strategic objectives and to the MDGs?        government officers, IFAD funded project
                                                                                   managers/staff, civil society
                                                                                   representatives, research institutions,
                                                                                   IFIs/UN/Bilat. Organisations


33
     In addition to these key questions the CPE will refer to specific guiding questions for each section provided
in the CPE guidelines.



                                                     95
                               Guiding questions for the Impact Domains34
Impact domains         Guiding questions
Physical assets        Did IFAD programme improve equitable access to productive resources and technologies?
                       To What extent did IFAD interventions secure access for the rural poor to income generating
                       assets
Environment and        Were the community-base resources influenced by the actions of the poor in different IFAD
Common Resource        interventions?
Base                    To what extend did IFAD’s interventions contribute to the protection or rehabilitation of natural
                        resources and the environment (with a focus on water resources and rangeland)?
Agriculture            What are the trends, among IFAD target groups, in terms of the changes in cropping patterns
productivity           (additional crop types and additional growing seasons); what is the evolution of crop and
                       animal productivity? How these changes are seen across all farming households.
Social Capital and     To what extend did IFAD empower the poor to make their voices heard, influence
Empowerment            policymaking and gain access to social services?
                       How well did IFAD interventions help in building the poor’s collective capacity in order to
                       increase their capacities and their negotiation skills?
Institutions and       Did the existing institutions, policies and regulatory frameworks significantly influence the
Services               lives of the rural poor?
                       To what extend did IFAD interventions contribute to increasing the degree of decentralization?
Financial assets       To what extend did IFAD interventions contribute to increasing the financial resource base of
                       rural poor households and individuals?35
                        What impact did IFAD interventions have on securing financial services for the rural poor?
                        What were the improvements made by IFAD’s operations on the institutional financial
                        frameworks?
Markets                 To what extend did IFAD interventions improve the marketing of goods and services, and the
                        reduction of transaction costs to achieve favourable market prices?
                        What are the main incentives/constraints faced by the target groups in accessing the markets for
                        agricultural inputs/outputs?
                        What is the evidence of effectively greater inclusion of target groups as a result of IFAD
                        interventions?
                        Are they any marketing practices that connect target groups to different markets?
                        What are the key factors in terms of policies, business models, and collective action that explain
                        these practices?
                        To what extend did the added-value of on-farm transformation of agricultural and animal
                        husbandry products increase?

CPE’s Building Blocks

The first block concerns the quality of the country strategy itself: did it identify, understand, and
address the key challenges to reducing rural poverty, was it articulated in a clear, focused and realistic
way that also provided guidance to operations, and how well did IFAD perform in developing the
country strategy. The second block concerns the question whether the country strategy was actually
reflected in the design and implementation of operations, how operations performed (using the typical
performance criteria of relevance, efficiency, and effectives), and how well IFAD’s partners and IFAD
itself performed. The third building block focuses on results: what impact has IFAD’s strategy and
operation had, how sustainable is it, and what potential or actual replication and scaling-up have taken

34
     Impact domains most relevant to the COSOP will be given the larger emphasis. In addition, special
attention will be paid to poverty and gender where appropriate.
35
     The agriculture and non agriculture resource base (diversification of income) and income flows in the dry
season.



                                                    96
place. What did these achievements mean in terms of contributing to the attainment of IFAD’s
strategic objectives and to the MDGs, and what role did other partners play. Each building block is
explained in later the OE guidelines.


    Quality of              Operationalizing and                 Impacts of IFAD’s Strategy and
    Country             Implementing IFAD’s Country                        Operations
    Strategy                      Strategy

   COUNTRY                                                      CONTRIBUTIONS OF OTHER
   CONTEXT              PARTNER PERFORMANCE                     DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
                          Fulfilling Agreed Roles &
                                 Commitments
                                                                    DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
       Relevance &
       Significance




                                                                       Contribution to MDGs
                                                                    Addressing Key Challenges to
                                                                      Rural Poverty Reduction


                             IFAD OPERATIONS
                       1. Design – Quality at Entry                       ORGANIZATIONAL
       IFAD                                                                EFFECTIVENESS
                       2. Implementation
   STRATEGY                                                              Meeting IFAD’s Strategic
  Clarity & Focus      3. Performance Assessment
                         • Relevance                                           Objectives
      Realism
                         • Efficiency
                         • Effectiveness
                                                                       IFAD CONTRIBUTIONS
       Comparative
       Advantage




                                                                                                              Partners & Communicate
                                                                 Outreach & Distribution




                                                                                                                REPLICABILITY &
                                                                                           SUSTAINABILITY

                                                                                            Risk Assessment


                                                                                                                   SCALING-UP
                                                                                              Key Factors
                                                                       IMPACT
                                                                        Domains

                                                                        Gender



                          IFAD PERFORMANCE
                       Design & Implementation Support
                            Managing Partnerships
      IFAD                Innovation and Knowledge
   Performance                     Sharing
     Country




                                              97
         Approach Paper-Appendix 3: Data sources for assessing evaluation criteria and issues
                            (To be completed by the evaluation team)




                                                                                                    Sudan poverty reduction and rural development strategy




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Interviews with government officials and project teams
                                                  Sudan socio-economical and political background




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Sudan evaluation reports, Sudan country working
                                                                                                                                                                                        reports, mid-term reviews, completion reports…
                                                                                                                                                                                        Project implementation documents: supervision




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Interviews with cofinancing and cooperating
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Divisional portfolio performance reviews




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  papers of corporate level evaluations




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Interviews with donors and NGOs




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Interviews with beneficiaries
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Special reports and studies
                                                                                                                                                             Project design documents




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Direct field observation
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Self-evaluation reports
                                                  documentation
                                   Data sources




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         institutions.
                                                                                                    documents
Data Required
(As per Report Outline)
Country Strategy Analysis
(i) IFAD Role and Value Added
(ii) Target Groups
(iii) Partnerships
(iv) Guidance for Operations
(v) Policy Dialogue
(vi) Innovation
IFAD Capacity for Strategy
Development
(i) Analytical Work
(ii) Consultations & Partnerships
(iii) Ownership
(iv) Flexibility & Continued
      Relevance
(v) Learning from experience
Programme Operational
Performance
(i) Relevance to country strategy
      and the needs of the rural poor
(ii) Effectiveness in terms of
      attaining country strategy
      objectives and projects
      objectives
(iii) Efficiency of projects and the
      combination of project and non-
      project activities
Operational Performance of IFAD
and Its Partners
Impacts, Sustainability &
Innovation/Replicability
(i) Impacts as per country strategy
      goals and projects goals
(ii) Sustainability
(iii) Innovation/Replication/Up-
      Scaling




                                                                                                                                                                                   98
                Approach Paper-Appendix 4: Project components and sub-components




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         South Kordofan Rural Development Programme




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Butana Integrated Rural Development Project
                                                        Southern Roseires Agricultural Development




                                                                                                                                                                                              North Kordofan Rural Development Project
                                                                                                     Northern Province Irrigation Rehabilitation




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration
                                                                                                                                                   White Nile Agricultural Services Project




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Western Sudan Resources Management
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Programme
                                                                                                     Project 2
                                                        Project




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Project
 Agricultural development services                      V                                            V                                             V                                          V                                          V                                            V                                           V                                    V
 Irrigation development                                                                              V                                             V                                                                                                                                  V                                                                                V
 Women focussed development                                                                          V                                             V                                          V                                          V                                            V                                           V
 Community development, local capacity-building                                                                                                                                               V                                          V                                            V                                           V                                    V
 and empowerment
 Basic social infrastructure, potable water in                                                                                                                                                V                                          V                                            V                                           V                                    V
 particular (usually part of community development
 components)
 Natural resources management                                                                                                                                                                 V                                                                                                                                   V
 Road construction                                                                                                                                                                            V                                                                                                                                   V                                    V
 Animal production and rangeland management                                                                                                                                                                                              V                                            V                                                                                V
 Marketing                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            V                                           V                                    V
 Rural financial services                               V                                            V                                             V                                          V                                          V                                            V                                           V
 Institutional support, project management and M&E      V                                            V                                             V                                          V                                          V                                            V                                           V                                    V

                                     Approach Paper-Bibliography

Country background
Sudan ASTI Country Brief, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); International Service for
      National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), Nienk M. Beintema and Hamid H.M. Faki, 2003.
Sudan Country Engagement Plan, United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), 2005.
Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme, 2006.
Sudan Country Profile, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2006.
Assessment of Rural Poverty in the Near East and North Africa, IFAD, 2002
World Development Indicators, The World Bank, 2005.
Sudan Stabilization and Reconstruction Country Economic Memorandum, The World Bank, 2003.
Republic of Sudan, Joint Assessment Mission, Framework for sustained peace, development and poverty
      eradication, 2005.
Sudan Country Profile, FAO Statistical Yearbook, Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2004.
EU relations with Sudan : Country Overview, European Union, 2007.




                                                   99
The European Union - Sudan Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme for the Period 2005 –
      2007, European Union, 2005.
Sudan at a glance, The World Bank, 2006.
Towards Poverty Eradication in the Sudan: An Analysis of Human Capability Failure, Nader Fergany, UNDP
     Khartoum, 1997.
Country Evaluation: Sudan, United Nations Development Programme, 2002.
Sudan Emergency Operations Evaluation, World Food Programme, 2004.
Agriculture Revitalization Programme, 2002-2006 and 2006-2010, Government of Sudan, excerpts.
A Framework for Sustained Peace, Development and Poverty Eradication – Staff Assessment of Progress, The
      World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, February 2006 and March 2007.
Empowering the Rural Poor under Volatile Policy Environments in the Near East and North Africa Region
     Research Project, International Food Policy Research Institute, Sudan Case Study.
National Poverty Eradication Concept Note, Approved by the Core Coordinating Group, Sudan Joint
      Assessment Mission, September 2004.
Sudan Country Report, 2007-2008, EIU.
World Economic Organisation 2007, Sudan, IMF.
Masters Thesis No. 27, Mohammed Eltahir El tayeb ‘Agricultural Extension in Sudan, Policies and Reality: The
      case of Khartoum State’.
Rural Services Centre, Sudan, FAO, undated.
Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2004-2006, WFP, Background Paper, Khartoum Food Aid
       Programme, 6-8 June 2006.
Food Security, poverty and economic policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Trade and Macro-economic
      Division, IFPRI, Feb 2003.
Evaluation of Sudan transitional assistance for rehabilitation programme. Final report submitted to USAID by
      Development Associates, 20 Sept 2002.
Save the Children (UK) South Sudan Project: Water and Sanitation Project Review, Feb 2004, Tom Slaymaker,
       Water Policy Programme, Overseas Development Institute.
Country Programme Review, Main Report and Working Papers, IFAD NENA Division, Report No. 1277-SD,
      June 2001.
The IFAD Sudan Programme 1999-2007, A performance review and summary of key issues, draft.
Sudan Country Working Paper (FPPP) Desk Review and Country Visit, Dec 2006.
Sudan Country Desk Review Note, Country Fact Sheet (FPPP), Dec 2006.
Corporate Level Evaluation of regional strategies of PN Division, CWP (Sudan).
Direct Supervision Pilot Presence Evaluation, Field Mission report (Sudan), March 2005, draft.
Summary notes stakeholders Sudan, undated.
Summary of the Sudan Case Study: Empowering the rural poor under volatile policy environments in the NENA
     Region, June 2006.
Sudan Case Study: Empowering the rural poor under volatile policy environments in the NENA Region, IFPRI,
      3 March 2006, draft.


IFAD Evaluation policy and methodology
IFAD Evaluation Policy, Office of Evaluation, IFAD, April 2003.
Evaluation Manual: Methods & Practices, Underlying Principles, Office of Evaluation, IFAD, December 2005.
Evaluation Manual: Methods & Practices, CPE Guidelines, Office of Evaluation, IFAD, December 2005.




                                                   100
IFAD Strategy
The Sudan, Country Portfolio Evaluation, Main Report and Appendices, Monitoring and Evaluation Division,
      Economic Policy and Resource Strategy Department, IFAD, July 1994.
Republic of the Sudan, Country Strategic Opportunities Paper (COSOP), December 2002.


IFAD Policy documents
Rural Finance.
Rural Enterprise.
Targeting: Reaching the Rural Poor.
Supervision and Implementation Support.
Sector-wide Approaches for agriculture and rural development.
Operationalising the Strategic Framework for IFAD 2002-2006, Mainstreaming a gender perspective in IFAD’s
      operations, Plan of Action 2003-2006. Approved by IFAD’s EB, April 2003.
IFAD policy on crisis prevention and recovery, 18 August 2005.
Knowledge management strategy.
Innovation strategy


OE Corporate-level Evaluations
Evaluation of IFAD’s Rural Finance Policy, September 2007.
Evaluation of IFAD’s Field Presence Pilot Programme, July 2007.
IFAD’s Direct Supervision Pilot Programme, November 2005.
Supervision Modalities in IFAD Supported Projects, September 2004.
Regional strategy of the PN Division


IFAD Projects

Southern Roseires Agricultural Development Project
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a proposed financial assistance to the
Republic of Sudan for the Southern Roseires Agricultural Development Project, IFAD, October 1990.
Loan Agreement (Southern Roseires Agricultural Development Project) between the Republic of Sudan and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development, November 1990.
Appraisal Report, Vols 1&2, Dec 1990.
Mid-term Evaluation of the Southern Roseires Agricultural Development Project, Office of Evaluation and
Studies, October 1998.
Supervision Report, Nov 1999.
Project completion report, MOAF, 1992-1999.


Northern Province Irrigation Rehabilitation Project – phase II
Appraisal Report, March 1992.
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on two proposed loans to the Republic of
Sudan for the Northern Province Irrigation Rehabilitation Project – phase II including a proposed loan under the
Special Programme for Sub-Saharan African Countries affected by drought and desertification, IFAD, April
1992.



                                                   101
Loan Agreement (Northern Province Irrigation Rehabilitation Project – phase II) between the Republic of Sudan
and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, June 1992.
IFAD Project Completion Report, October 2002.


White Nile Agricultural Services Project
Appraisal Report, Volume 1 and 2, January 1994.
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a proposed loan to the Republic of
Sudan for the White Nile Agricultural Services Project under the Special Programme for Sub-Saharan African
Countries affected by drought and desertification, IFAD, December 1993.
Loan Agreement (White Nile Agricultural Services Project) between the Republic of Sudan and the International
Fund for Agricultural Development, January 1994.
Supervision Report, July 2001.
Government Project Completion Report, Volumes 1 & 2, December 2002.


North Kordofan Rural Development Project
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a proposed loan to the Republic of
Sudan for the North Kordofan Rural Development Project, IFAD, April 1999.
Loan Agreement (North Kordofan Rural Development Project) between the Republic of Sudan and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development, July 1999.
Re-Appraisal Report, Vols. 1&2, North Kordofan Rural Development Project, Republic of Sudan, Main Report,
May 1999.
Supervision Report, North Kordofan Rural Development Project, Republic of Sudan, International Fund for
Agricultural Development Fund, March 2002.
Mid-Term Review, North Kordofan Rural Development Project, Republic of Sudan, International Fund for
Agricultural Development Fund, August 2004.
Supervision report 2005.
Supervision Report, North Kordofan Rural Development Project, Republic of Sudan, International Fund for
Agricultural Development Fund, April 2006.
Deliveries and the Effect/Impact of the Project, Final Report, North Kordofan Rural Development Project,
Republic of Sudan, Ibrahim El-Dukheri, IFAD, October 2006.
Evaluation of the Rural Finance Component, North Kordofan Rural Development Project, Republic of Sudan,
Quality Finance International, January 2007.
Project Status Reports for years 2006, 2005 and 2004.


South Kordofan Rural Development Programme
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a proposed financial assistance to the
Republic of Sudan for the South Kordofan Rural Development Programme, IFAD, July 2000.
Financing Agreement (South Kordofan Rural Development Programme) between the Republic of Sudan and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development, September 2000.
An assessment of Security issues and outreach to the target group, 22 August 2000.
Appraisal Report, Vol. 1 Main Report and Appendices, South Kordofan Rural Development Programme,
Republic of the Sudan, June 2000.
Memo from Khalid El Harizi, CPM, PN to Abdelmajid Slama, Director, PN, Sudan: Workshop on the Poverty
Reduction Strategy, (Khartoum: 15-20, September 2000), Loan signature of the South Kordofan Rural
Development, Programme (Prague: 24-27 September 2000).
An assessment of the implementation of the Programme, 5 December 2001.



                                                   102
Supervision Report, 2004.
Draft First Phase Review Report, South Kordofan Rural Development Programme, Republic of the Sudan, May
2005.
Supervision Report, Sept 2005.
Supervision Report, July 2006.
Memo from Khalid El Harizi, CPM, PN to Abdelmajid Slama, Director, PN, SUDAN - South Kordofan Rural
Development Programme (SKRDP), Post-appraisal mission - Back-to-Office Report.
Project Status Reports for years 2006, 2005 and 2004.

Interdepartmental Assessment Mission Report, South Kordofan Rural Development Programme, Republic of the
Sudan, July 2005.Report on the Impact Evaluation Survey, South Kordofan Rural Development Programme,
Republic of the Sudan, 2007.


Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project
Inception mission, aide-mémoire, October 2002.
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a proposed loan to the Republic of
Sudan for the Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project, IFAD, December 2003.
Appraisal Report, Main Report and Appendices, Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project, Republic
of the Sudan, December 2003.
Loan Agreement (Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project) between the Republic of Sudan and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development, January 2004.
Supervision report 2004
Report of the Follow up Mission, Gash Sustainable Livelihood Regeneration Project, Republic of the Sudan,
July-September 2005.
Project Status Reports for years 2006, 2005.
supervision report 2005
Report on the Follow up of the Land Registration Program and Formation of Water Users’ Associations, June-
July 2005.

Report of the Follow up Mission, Gash Sustainable Livelihood Regeneration Project, Republic of the Sudan,
May 2006.
Supervision Aide Mémoire, Gash Sustainable Livelihood Regeneration Project, Republic of the Sudan,
November 2006.


Western Sudan Resources Management Programme
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a proposed loan to the Republic of
Sudan for the Western Sudan Resources Management Programme, IFAD, December 2004.
Programme Loan Agreement (Western Sudan Resources Management Programme) between the Republic of
Sudan and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, February 2005.
Appraisal Report, Main Report and Appendices, Western Sudan Resources Management Programme, Republic
of the Sudan, December 2004.
Supervision Mission Aide Memoire, Western Sudan Resources Management Programme, Republic of the
Sudan, UNOPS, December 2006.
Project Status Report for year 2006.




                                                   103
Butana Integrated Rural Development Project
President’s Report, Proposed loan to the Republic of Sudan for the Butana Integrated Rural Development
Project, IFAD, December 2006.
Project Loan Agreement (Butana Integrated Rural Development Project) between the Republic of Sudan and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development, February 2007.
Appraisal Report, Vol. 1: Main Report and Annexes, Butana Integrated Rural Development Project, Republic of
the Sudan, December 2006.


IFAD partnerships
Partnership agreement Italy-IFAD: Activities financed under supplementary funds from the government of Italy
to IFAD, Final Report 2001-2006, Zero draft, Resource Mobilization Division, External Affairs Department,
IFAD, 2007.
Partnership Agreement Italy-IFAD 2001-2006, Case Studies in Niger, Sudan and Guinea Bissau.

Grants in Sudan

Enhancing food security in the Nile Valley and Red Sea Region, final report, ICARDA (period Sept 2002 to
March 2006).




                                                 104

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:157
posted:8/22/2010
language:English
pages:136