SCALING UP IN PROJECT AND COSOP DESIGN EXPERIENCE FROM IFAD TANZANIA AND KENYA
TANZANIA• Marketing Infrastructure, Value Addition and Rural Finance Support Programme (MIVARF): Board Dec 2010; Cost $169.5m; IFAD $90.6m; AfDB $62.9m (parallel); AGRA $6.9m (total donor $160.4m); Others $2m; Domestic $7m; 7 years; Coverage 21 regions in Mainland TZ & 5 in Zanzibar; Beneficiaries 471,200 HHs.Objectives• Enhance incomes and food security through access to financial services and markets.Components• Market infras. & systems: (i) market infras. (AfDB); (ii) value addition (AfDB); & (iii) producer empowerment and market linkages (IFAD/AGRA).• Rural finance: (i) grass-roots financial services (IFAD); & (ii) rural financial systems development (IFAD/AGRA) – risk sharing facility.
Basis & scale of scaling up• GoT request for follow-up project to 2 projects (AMSDP closed Dec 2009, RFSP closing 2010)• Both projects had PM‟s Office as lead agency• Last supervision done jointly for both projects with „follow-up project‟ mindset• Donor contr. to 2 projects $60.9m. [RFSP. IFAD $16.3m+Swiss $2.2m; 9-year FLM; 7 Regions. AMSDP. IFAD $16.3m+AfDB $25m+Irish $1.1m; 8 Regions; 5 regions coincided for the 2 projects (Kilimanjaro, Iringa, Mbeya, Rukwa, Ruvuma].IFAD Interim Evaluation• Required for 2nd phase projects.• Innovations/successful experiences identified for ‘scaling up’: RFSP. holistic approach (macro/meso /micro levels), targeting of poorer women (self-help groups joining SACCOS), building capacity of SACCOS, competitive/shared assessment of MFI performance; AMSDP. private sector partners for capacity building of groups, involvement of beneficiary group reps in market research & information, producer group formation & collective marketing, Warehouse Receipt System.Design challenges• Collaboration with different strategic focus of AfDB & IFAD (parallel financing: infrastructure Vs capacity building, rural finance)• AGRA as co-financier & implementation partner• Joint design missions (logistics, timing, TOR/aide memoires cleared by managers of 3 agencies)• Difficult partnership negotiations (CPM link to all)• But AfDB still did separate appraisal• Duality of approaches: AfDB used VC approach. AGRA refused guarantee company approach recommended by FAO/IC (recruited by IFAD). AGRA participated in QE to defend RSF approach.• Anxiety of staff – who moves, position (to GoT)
KenyaUpper Tana Catchment Natural Resource Mgt Project (UTaNRMP): Board Apr 2012; Cost$68.8m; IFAD $33m; Spanish $17m; (total donor $50m); 8 years; Coverage 6 counties, 24 riverbasins; Beneficiaries 205,000 HHs.Objectives• Increased sustainable food production & incomes & sustainable NRM.Components• Community empowerment: (i) sensitization/ awareness; (ii) strengthening community structures; & (iii) community plans.• Rural livelihoods: (i) research/demonstrations; & (ii) IGAs (matching grants).• Water & NRM: (i) Water RM; (ii) Forest/Agric Ecosystem Mgt.Basis & scale of scaling up• GoT request for follow-up project to MKEPP (extended to close Mar 2013 for UTaNRMP)• MWI as lead agency for MKEPP & UTaNRMP• Supervision done with ‘scaling up’ mindset• Donor contr. to MKEPP $21.6m. [IFAD $16.7m+GEF $4.9m; 8 years; 5 river basins, Mt. Kenya forest & national park.• IFAD grant-assisted Green Water Credit tested SWC technologies
IFAD Country Programme Evaluation & others• Required for scaling up• Successful experiences identified: NRM and environmental conservation, participatory community development & community action plans linking livelihood improvements and environmental mgt, use of grants in stimulating the uptake of environmental mgt and income-generating activities.Design challenges• Approach for financial services: dedicated financing mechanism for GWC activities (involving payment by major users for water protectors), combination of grants & commercial funding, MGs (MGs by WSTF & PCT with governance conditions)• Mgt of much larger project (emphasis on coordination & use of implementation partners)• Uncertainty of institutional arrangements (ministries, counties with new constitution); cross county interventions (ecosystem)• Developing partnerships (coordination with WB NRMP, WSTF; but failed new GEF funding)• Transition arrangements (budget, facilities, accounts, mandatory mission in May 2012)• Anxiety of staff – why competitive recruitment, when smooth seamless transition?• QA requirement for impact evaluation of MKEPP before disbursement of grant funds
Design response to scaling up questions1. What? Interventions/approaches successfully developed and tested under MKEPP(MTR & CPE) - (i) community empowerment and community-based NRM; (ii)coordinated approach to NRM and rural poverty reduction; (iii) linking rural livelihoodsto NRM; and (iv) watershed/ecosystem approach to NRM.2. Whose idea? Inherent in “pilot project” status of MKEPP. Request from GoK.3. Tested/piloted/evaluated? Most interventions piloted under MKEPP, withmodifications/refinements. Other initiatives developed/tested by two IFAD grantprojects, GWC &PRESA. Impact assessment of MKEPP underway.4. Scale? Continue work in MKEPP 5 river basins, expand eventually to all 24 riverbasins. Address up-scaling challenge by: phasing the number of new riverbasins, changing from project implementation to coordination mode, & partnerships.5. Drivers? GoK to improve the water resources mgt, willingness to contribute by ruralcommunities living to livelihood initiatives & improve access to water, KENGEN&Nairobi Water Company who rely onn reliable supplies of good quality water, &climate change mitigation. IFAD with core mandate of poverty reduction by supportingreversal of trend of natural resource degradation.6. Space? From 5 river basins under MKEPP to 24 river basins, plus enormousopportunity to address human-wildlife conflict (parks & communities).
7. Pathways? Seamless transition from MKEPP to UTaNRMP with UTaNRMP initiated 6months before MKEPP closure, gaining from existing MKEPP infrastructure under. Toensure that learning process continues, UTaNRMP includes a KM subcomponent.8. Time horizon? Up-scaling pathway in place from design in collaboration with MKEPPteam & CPMT. 8-year project life.9. Definition of pathways? Desire of GoK & other stakeholders to build on successes ofMKEPP through horizontal expansion, learning and improvement of approaches to ruralpoverty reduction and NRM, concentration of resources on interventions with bestprospects of success are best, as reflected by phasing approach.10. Risks & mitigation? Overall, UTaNRMP is considered only moderately risky.Governance issues to be mitigated through transparency in processes, separation ofaward committee from disbursement agent, independent verification.11. IFAD’s role? IFAD leads design process and will support transition from MKEPP toUTaNRMP through the country office with support of CPMTs in Nairobi and Rome.12. IFAD’s policies, procedures and resources support to scaling up process? Policy ondirect supervision will ensure strong role in supporting the scaling up process. Alsotargeting and gender policies; rural finance policy; private sector and rural enterprisepolicy; environment and climate change policy; and the policy on KM.
KENYA Country Strategic Opportunities Programme(COSOP 2013-18): Board Apr 2013; Approx. $100m by IFAD; Potential co-financing – AfDB, RBAs etc;Objectives. (i)• improved access to natural assets, technologies & services for agricultural intensification; (ii) enhanced access to interventions to increase productivity in post-production technologies & markets; (iii) gender responsive sustainable community-based NRM improved.Scaling up mindset• Lessons from CPE - increasing attention to ASALs (geographic), narrower sub-sectoral focus (thematic), evaluated technologies, community participation (driver).• Use of structured scaling up framework to arrive at strategic objectives in Results Framework.• Continued exploration of partnerships• Incorporation into IFAD corporate scaling up agenda