National Roundtable Workshop Nairobi 8 June 2011

1. Republic of Kenya Country Programme Evaluation National Roundtable Workshop Nairobi8 June 2011 Independent Office of Evaluation

2. The Country Programme • Two country strategies (COSOPs): 2002 and 2007 • 15 projects since 1979 • Total IFAD loans US$175 million, total counterpart funding US$72 million, total project cost US$378 million • CPM out posted in Nairobi and direct supervision since 2007

3. Evaluation Objectives • Assess the performance and impact of IFAD-supported activities in Kenya; and • Generate a series of findings and recommendations to serve as building blocks for the formulation of the forthcoming Kenya results-based COSOP

4. Evaluation Methodology and Process Methodology • Three building blocks: (i) assess project portfolio, (ii) non-lending activities; and (iii) COSOP performance • Use internationally recognised evaluation criteria and a six point rating scale • The CPE covers around a ten year period since 2000 Process: Main steps • Inception workshop, October 2009 • Desk review report, November 2009 • Main mission, February-March 2010 • Preparation of report, April-November 2010 • Post – CPE mission, January-February 2011 • Report finalised and national roundtable workshop, June 2011 • Agreement at Completion Point, June 2011

5. Main Findings General • Small scale agriculture is mainstay of Kenya’s economy • Government and IFAD share a common vision of promoting agriculture as a vehicle for improving rural incomes • The partnership was at a very low in the 1990s, but major efforts were deployed in the 2000s to rebuild a comprehensive portfolio Project performance • Project performance has been satisfactory in terms of relevance and rural poverty impact, and moderately satisfactory in terms of effectiveness, sustainability, innovation/scaling up, and gender

6. Main Findings (2) • Performance in terms of natural resources management and environment conservation, community development, and over time, commercialization and income generation has been good • Project efficiency however is moderately unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons • Government performance has improved in the past few years, but over the ten year period was moderately unsatisfactory • Bulk of operations in past ten years have mainly covered high- to medium- potential areas • The sub-sector coverage has been wide-ranging, causing several challenges

7. Main Findings (3) Non-lending activities • Discernable achievements are visible in knowledge management for better performance • Partnership with Government and NGO/civil society has been good, but less so with multinational and bilateral aid organizations • There are some recent examples of policy engagement, which however remains limited COSOP • IFAD’s Kenya country presence and regional office are positive initiatives, needing however further streamlining • Synergies across the country programme are insufficient

8. Recommendations • Expand coverage to ASALs and define narrower set of sub-sector priorities • Build on IFAD’s bottom-up, participatory approaches, while emphasising ‘ farming as a business’ to improve incomes • Define priority areas for innovation and strengthen capacities for scaling up

9. Recommendations (2) • Ensure deeper synergies of activities across the country programme • Determine the role of IFAD in strengthening government performance • Allocate the required resources to the country office to enhance its effectiveness