China Country Programme Evaluation Main Findings and Recommendations

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


China Country Programme Evaluation Main Findings and Recommendations. National Roundtable Workshop Beijing, 17 July 2014 Presentation by the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD. Evaluation Objectives. Assess the performance and impact of IFAD operations in China; - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • China Country Programme Evaluation

    Main Findings and RecommendationsNational Roundtable WorkshopBeijing, 17 July 2014

    Presentation by the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD

  • Evaluation ObjectivesAssess the performance and impact of IFAD operations in China;

    Assess IFADChina Partnership; and

    Generate a series of findings and recommendations to serve as building blocks for the formulation of the next Results-Based China COSOP


  • Evaluation MethodologyAssessment of three mutually reinforcing pillars in the IFAD-Government partnership: (i) Project portfolio performance; (ii) Non-lending activities (policy dialogue, knowledge sharing, partnership building and grants); (iii) Country strategy (COSOP) performance

    Internationally recognized evaluation criteria, with a six point rating scale (with 1 being the lowest score and 6 the highest)


  • ProcessPreparatory phase (Jan-May 2013): Approach paper, preparatory mission, and search for national consultants

    Desk review (May-Aug 2013): Preparation of CPE desk review reports, an Issues Paper to capture main findings based on the desk review, thematic papers on selected key topics, and self-assessments by IFAD Management and Government of China

    Country work phase (AugSep 2013): The evaluation team met partners and stakeholders in Beijing, and visited IFAD financed projects in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and Gansu Province

    Main report writing and peer review (Oct 2013-May 2014): Draft final report submitted to IFAD Management and Government


  • IFAD China Cooperation HighlightsTotal number of approved loans: 27 (since 1981)

    Total IFAD Commitment: US$ 775 m

    Counterpart funding (Contribution from Government and beneficiaries): US$ 1 billion

    Co-/parallel financing: US$ 100 million

    On-going projects: 7

    CPE covers IFAD China partnership from 1999-2013,inter-alia,13 approved projects, 3 COSOPs, and country programme management


  • IFAD country strategies1999 COSOP: A joint WFP/IFAD strategy with a main focus on food security giving special attention to households with high risk of falling back into poverty

    2005 COSOP: Two strategic thrusts: access and innovation Prioritizing rural finance, agricultural production, demand-driven models for technology transfer and agricultural marketing

    2011 Results-Based COSOP: This most recent COSOP is aligned to the 12th Five-year Plan. It reiterated the 2005 COSOP priorities, emphasising value chain development, south-south cooperation, knowledge management and introducing a new support priority- rural farm and non-farm micro and small enterprises (MSEs)*

  • Selected Main FindingsGeneral

    IFAD-GOC partnership has been highly valued, reflecting mutual trust and cordial relations

    IFADs financing is comparatively small but crucial to the alleviation of Chinas rural poverty, especially at local level


  • Selected Main Findings (cont.)Portfolio Performance

    The portfolio performance is satisfactory (5)

    Rural poverty impact is satisfactory, with most important contribution being in households income, food security and agricultural productivity

    Areas in need of improvement (rated as 4 ) are: (1) human/social capital and empowerment;(2) institutions and policies; and (3) innovation and scaling up. Provision of rural finance.


  • Selected Main Findings (cont.)COSOP Performance

    Overall COSOP performance is satisfactory

    Strategic objectives are relevant and in line with government policies and development priorities

    Rural-urban migration and the evolution of socioeconomic rural landscape were not sufficiently taken into accounts in COSOPs and project design

    Effectiveness in providing rural financial services was weak.


  • Selected Main Findings (cont.)Programme Management

    Establishment of ICO in 2005, with 3 professional staff as of 2013, and direct supervision since around 2008

    Rome-based China Country Programme Manager

    Disbursements slow as compared to other IFIs and there are opportunity for greater use of country systems

    Good attention to results measurement and evaluation


  • Selected Main Findings (cont.)Non-lending Activities

    Knowledge Management was weak in the past, but is being strengthened, especially since 2011

    Partnership with MOF, NDRC and provincial and local authorities strong. Less strong with MOA, and multilateral and bilateral organisations

    Policy dialogue good at provincial level, but there are opportunities for more dialogue at national level


  • Key conclusionsOverall the China IFAD partnership has been satisfactory

    China-IFAD partnership is mutually beneficial

    IFAD has a critical role to play to support Govt. to reduce rural poverty through loan-funded projects

    Attention has been given in recent years to knowledge sharing and south-south co-operation, but more can be achieved


  • Main Recommendations

    Strengthen knowledge cooperation linked to adequate levels of lending

    Enhance south-south and triangular cooperation

    Added focus on scaling up innovations for wider impact on rural poverty reduction


  • Main Recommendations (cont.)

    Strengthened partnerships with multi-laterals/bi-laterals and other national level institutions

    Out-posting the China CPM to Beijing by 2015

    Targeting the portfolio in a changed rural context


  • Next Steps

    Finalise CPE ReportEnd July

    Agreement at Completion Point End August

    Discussion in Evaluation CommitteeNovember

    Discussion in Executive Board 2015


  • Thank you! *



View more >