Cosop Review


Published on

Cosop Review by Dr. Hari Upadhyaya presented during IFAD Annual Portfolio Review December 3, 2012; 13:15-15:15 hrs; Ministry of Finance, Singha Durbar

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cosop Review

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