• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Foreword
 Summary
 Introduction
 Method of the review
 Description of IFAD
 Findings
 Conclusions
 Appendix A. Number of projects...
 Appendix B. IFAD project review...
 Appendix C. Distribution of IFAD...














Group Title: A.I.D. evaluation special study
Title: Program review of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087120/00001
 Material Information
Title: Program review of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
Series Title: A.I.D. evaluation special study
Physical Description: 1 v. (various pagings) : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Center for Development Information and Evaluation (U.S.)
Publisher: Center for Development Information and Evaluation, U.S. Agency for International Development
Place of Publication: Washington DC
Publication Date: 1985
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural assistance   ( lcsh )
Projets de développement agricole -- Évaluation   ( rvm )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: "February 1985."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087120
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 12604608

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Foreword
        Page v
    Summary
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Method of the review
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Description of IFAD
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Findings
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Conclusions
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Appendix A. Number of projects administered by IFAD's cooperating institutions
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
    Appendix B. IFAD project review summary
        Page B-1
        Page B-2
        Page B-3
        Page B-4
        Page B-5
        Page B-6
    Appendix C. Distribution of IFAD project assistance
        Page C-1
        Page C-2
        Page C-3
        Page C-4
        Page C-5
        Page C-6
Full Text



I J,

z

7,
41

it 4t
A,


It t
it" ", v ,




1* it
W-6 s , ar
At
t it"



"I, ftl
Vt
Att t I


4, Jt
t

v


it "21

AI

-r,'4 t

V, 'ti
,,, t 'it,' T
ivt^4 1- J . .. ..



it,

it
Q f
tii<
14'


rl



x


j"I










jT,

7





iti,


it,

t





%A
ti it
i t X,
t, jN Tit lr' i-
Sit
41 'T I i-4,
'7,
A
'A't,
It t tv
ti, 4 4, 4 t
17



itt,
JF

t4 it 4 f,

it it
vt it 4,-
i-t i,11,',,lb-,,Vl'
41
it t,'4N-
To T,4"ji,

T1
'41

















PROGRAM REVIEW
OF THE
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (IFAD)


AID EVALUATION SPECIAL STUDY NO. 21






























Center for Development Information
and Evaluation
U.S. Agency for International Development


February 1985











TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

Foreword....................................................... v

Summary......................................................... vi

1. Introduction............................................... 1

2. Method of the Review...................................... 1

3. Description of IFAD.... ........ ........................3

3.1 IFAD's Mandate....................................... 4
3.2 IFAD's Structure........ .........................5
3.2.1 Cooperating Institutions...................... 6
3.2.2 Confinancing and Project Initiation...........7
3.2.3 Country Elgibility.............................8
3.3 IFAD's Size.......................................... 8

4. Findings..................................................10

4.1 IFAD's Target Group..................................10
4.2 IFAD's Impact on Food Production and Rural Incomes...13
4.3 IFAD's Leadership Role in Small Farmer Development...15
4.4 IFAD's Performance by Type of Project.................17
4.4.1 Integrated Rural Development and Resettlement.18
4.4.2 Irrigation................................... 20
4.4.3 Credit.........................................21
4.4.4 Agricultural Production.......................23
4.5 The Relationship of the IFAD Program to U.S.
Development Policy.................................24
4.5.1 Policy Dialogue...............................24
4.5.2 Private Sector.................................26
4.5.3 Institutional Development.....................26
4.5.4 Technology Transfer...........................28
4.6 IFAD's Approach to Women in Development.............. 29
4.7 IFAD's Monitoring and Evaluation System...............30

5. Conclusions.................................................32

Appendixes
A. Number of Projects Administered by IFAD's
Cooperating Institutions
B. IFAD Project Review Summary
C. Distribution of IFAD Project Assistance









FOREWORD


This program review of the International Fund for Agricul-
tural Development (IFAD) was carried out by the Center for Devel-
opment Information and Evaluation in the Bureau for Program and
Policy Coordination of the U.S. Agency for International Develop-
ment (USAID). The review is timely. It has been 10 years since
the 1974 World Food Conference called for the establishment of
IFAD and voiced "the need for a substantial increase in invest-
ment in agriculture for increasing food and agricultural produc-
tion in the developing countries." The urgency of the world
situation expressed then is no less important today. The stark
images of famine in Africa only accentuate for us the seriousness
of hunger and rural poverty still prevalent in many parts of the
world.

It is thus desirable to review IFAD's performance. How has
its mandate to assist small farmers and the rural poor and to
promote food production in developing countries been carried
out? What has been the impact of its program?

This program review provides some important insights on
IFAD's policies and programs. I believe IFAD's special role in
the international development community, to address the problems
of hunger and poverty in the developing world, will be better
understood as a result of this report.


M. Peter McPherson
Administrator
Agency for International Development
Washington, D.C.
January 1985





-vi-


SUMMARY


The USAID program review of the International Fund for
Agricultural Development was conducted from June to December
1984. The review assessed how well IFAD was fulfilling its man-
date to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in the poorest areas of
the world. The review examined IFAD's success in reaching its
target group, in achieving its food production and income goals,
in implementing sustainable projects, and in playing a special
role among development donors. IFAD's policies and procedures,
its performance, and its relationship to U.S. development assis-
tance policies were also examined.

The review was carried out by USAID professional staff under
the direction of the Center for Development Information and
Evaluation. The review team visited a total of 19 projects in 14
countries, examined various IFAD reports and documents, and
interviewed IFAD staff and others on several occasions.


IFAD's MANDATE AND STRUCTURE


IFAD was created with an unusual mandate and structure that
define its role among international donors. IFAD was formed spe-
cifically to address "the need to increase food production in the
poorest food deficit countries, the potential for increasing food
production in other developing countries, and the importance of
improving the nutritional level of the poorest populations in
developing countries and the conditions of their lives."l IFAD's
performance is shaped by its reliance on other development orga-
nizations to appraise, implement, and supervise its projects; its
requirement to maximize cofinancing of projects with other
donors; its small professional staff; its modest level of fund-
ing; and its broad range of eligible recipient countries. As a
fund, IFAD provides supplementary financing; as a development
agency, it advocates its specifically mandated objectives.


IFAD's PERFORMANCE


IFAD's first step in developing projects is to identify the
target group. This is the essence of IFAD's poverty-centered
approach, which is based on the belief that "the rural poor
comprise the developing world's greatest untapped resource of


IIFAD, Lending Policies and Criteria, 1978, p. 1.





-vii-


labour, skills, and enterprise."2 The review team found that
IFAD's efforts to define, identify, and reach the poor have been
generally successful and that all of the projects visited bene-
fited small farmers or the landless.

The primary objective of IFAD's projects is to increase the
production of low-cost foods and enhance the food purchasing
power of the rural poor. Although IFAD's potential for increas-
ing food production and incomes can only be estimated at this
time given the newness of most projects, increased yields and
incomes were already apparent in some projects. Over time, IFAD
must provide leadership in developing new ways to stimulate
increases in food production and rural incomes. During its site
visits, the team found evidence to suggest that this leadership
role is emerging in the design of credit projects, the promotion
of donor involvement in higher risk projects, and the introduc-
tion of new and more appropriate technologies. Not all projects
demonstrate IFAD's special role because, in some cases, IFAD's
programmatic interests have been subordinated to those of other
donors.

IFAD's poverty-centered approach has been successful in many
IFAD projects. However, to find its "niche" as a leader in
designing and implementing small farmer development projects,
IFAD must continue to analyze its own and others' experience; it
must spread the expertise it has gained with strategies appro-
priate to its mandate, for example, in quick-yielding food pro-
duction projects.

Integrated Rural Development Projects. As a group, the
projects visited by the review team showed good potential for in-
creasing agricultural production, rural employment, and income.
Social impacts also appeared to be positive. Startup delays were
common and shortages of counterpart funds were frequent. Once
underway implementation proceeded smoothly in most instances.
The use of separate project management units contributed to this
smooth implementation, but might hinder long-term institution
building and limit project sustainability. The scale and inten-
sity of inputs relative to host country capabilities may cause
sustainability problems in some cases.

Irrigation Projects. The success of IFAD's irrigation proj-
ects has been mixed, which raises questions about IFAD's ability
to appropriately target benefits from larger irrigation schemes.
The review concluded that IFAD should participate in such irriga-
tion projects only when their food production potential is high;
poor farmers will be the predominant beneficiaries; operation,


2Ibid., p. 2.





-viii-


maintenance, and equity issues can be effectively addressed; and
IFAD's participation is essential to ensure that these objectives
are met. IFAD's trend towards supporting smaller scale irriga-
tion projects is a positive one.

Credit Projects. There is a natural congruence between
IFAD's mandate to target project benefits and the individualized
nature of credit delivery. IFAD-financed credit activities
demonstrate a consistent pattern of innovation and experimen-
tation in reaching the poor, but show some potential weaknesses
related to sustainability of benefits.

Agricultural Production Projects. This diverse group of
projects, which includes agricultural research, extension train-
ing, inputs, and livestock activities, has showed varied results
to date. Some projects, such as the innovative Indonesian cattle
project, promise immediate production increases, while others
will have longer term and less direct impacts on small farmers
and the landless.


IFAD IN RELATION TO U.S. DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE POLICY


The review team examined IFAD's program in relation to
important concerns of U.S. development assistance policy: policy
dialogue, private sector development, institutional development,
and technology transfer.

IFAD shares USAID's recognition of the importance of these
concerns, but IFAD's influence is constrained by a variety of
factors, such as its reliance on cooperating institutions for
project appraisal and supervision, its diverse membership, and
its limited staff.

IFAD's strength in policy dialogue is its commitment to
focusing the attention of other donors and host governments on
the needs and capacities of the rural poor. Several IFAD proj-
ects have promoted the use of private merchants and firms or
strengthened private small farm operations and rural enterprises.
Although IFAD is concerned with strengthening institutional capa-
cities through training and technical assistance, it has had dif-
ficulty developing adequate institutional and financial mecha-
nisms to sustain long-term project benefits. Technology transfer
is basic to IFAD's work with small farmers, and nearly all of
IFAD's projects seek to transfer new technologies or to institu-
tionalize improved means of technology transfer. IFAD has effec-
tively combined project elements in new ways and applied labor-
intensive technologies more appropriate to the needs of small
farmers.





-ix-


OTHER ISSUES


Women in Development. Women and girls are a vital part of
the food production system in most developing countries and also
play an extremely important role in family nutrition. They are
also overrepresented among the poor and constitute a large share
of IFAD's target population. IFAD recognizes the importance of
women to the achievement of its development objectives and has
demonstrated its ability, in some of the projects visited by the
team, to enhance their productive roles. Women, however,
remained underrepresented compared to the centrality of their
role in achieving IFAD's objectives. More experimental activi-
ties are recommended.

Monitoring and Evaluation. IFAD places a high priority on
monitoring and evaluation, especially on improving indigenous
monitoring and evaluation capacities. Although progress has been
made in a few projects, project-level monitoring and evaluation
have proved more problematic than IFAD had envisioned.


CONCLUSIONS


IFAD is making a significant contribution to improving the
economic condition of the rural poor in developing countries. It
is increasingly well accepted as a donor institution by the
developing countries because of its commitment to its special
mission. Its small size and its focused and experimental
approach to alleviating problems of rural poverty provide the
basis for a leadership role.

IFAD has undertaken a thorough analysis of the causes and
characteristics of rural poverty and has articulated a poverty-
alleviation strategy. An equivalent analytical effort to articu-
late IFAD's specific role in the technical aspects of smallholder
agricultural development is now called for, IFAD's expertise in
implementing quick-yielding production strategies and poverty-
oriented rural credit schemes is substantial after 7 years of
experience. The application and dissemination of this knowledge
to others is the key to IFAD's impact on the particular develop-
ment problems IFAD was created to address.

Projects that best demonstrate IFAD's special character have
well-defined target groups and clear mechanisms to reach them.
Many are introducing quick-yielding food production techniques
using technologies adapted specifically for small, low-income
farmers. Some are introducing comprehensive packages of inte-
grated services to remote or very poor, underdeveloped and geo-
graphically well-defined areas. Most emphasize the large-scale









production of low-cost foods with a large potential impact on
production and on-farm employment.

Projects that lack a distinctive IFAD contribution tend to
emphasize large-scale infrastructure investments, to provide ser-
vices or introduce technologies that benefit IFAD's target group
only indirectly or over the longer term.

Although IFAD has directly provided US$1.8 billion in
funding over the past 7 years, to be most effective it must com-
bine with and redirect the resources of other donors and host
countries. Cofinancing is thus an essential feature of IFAD's
operations, and IFAD should pay greater attention to assuring
that its own priority interests in serving the rural poor are
fully represented in cofinanced projects. Broadening the range
of institutions chosen for cofinancing, particularly for
IFAD-initiated projects, will provide greater flexibility and
offer more opportunities for spreading IFAD's influence.

IFAD relies on cooperating institutions to design and imple-
ment its projects. These arrangements have proved to be both
advantageous and problematical for IFAD. They should be examined
to determine how IFAD's influence over its projects can be
strengthened.

Because of its membership structure, IFAD has been under
considerable pressure to respond to requests from a large number
of countries. While this effort to reach all member countries is
understandable, it limits and diffuses IFAD's impact. A greater
concentration of program activity in fewer countries might well
be preferable.

In sum, IFAD's performance during its first 7 years is a
positive beginning. IFAD's special role in identifying new
approaches to increasing food production and incomes among the
rural poor is emerging. This is at least as important and as
urgent an aspect of international development programs now as it
was when IFAD was created.








1. INTRODUCTION


The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) pro-
gram review of the International Fund for Agricultural Develop-
ment (IFAD) was conducted during the summer and fall of 1984.
Interest in IFAD's progress had been growing within the donor
community and within IFAD itself, especially given the continuing
discussions regarding IFAD's second replenishment. The Canadian
Government carried out its own assessment of IFAD in early 1984.
At about the same time, the Federal Republic of Germany evaluated
three IFAD projects in its review of donor-financed self-help
efforts. IFAD also undertook its own mid-term evaluations of 14
projects. By the end of 1984, IFAD had been in operation for 7
years. It had completed 6 projects, was implementing 160 proj-
ects, and was developing 86 more. About US$1.8 billion had been
committed in 84 developing countries. The USAID Administrator
believed that a more extensive review of IFAD's program would be
particularly helpful at this time to inform decisions on IFAD's
future.


2. METHOD OF THE REVIEW


The IFAD program review was guided by a series of questions
on issues of most importance to the United States. These ques-
tions were developed through discussions within USAID and with
key personnel from other U.S. Government agencies participating
in the Intra-Governmental Working Group on IFAD (Departments of
Treasury, State, and Agriculture). They focused on IFAD's suc-
cess in fulfilling its mandate to alleviate the problems of
widespread hunger and malnutrition in the poorest areas of the
world. The questions fell into the following categories:

IFAD's Target Group: How well has IFAD targeted assis-
tance to poor small farmers and the rural landless?

IFAD's Food Production and Income Impact: Has IFAD's
assistance increased agricultural production, access to
food, and/or incomes in food-deficient areas?

IFAD's Special Role: Have IFAD's projects addressed
problems that other donors address insufficiently or
targeted assistance to groups or regions that others do
not reach? In light of IFAD's narrow program focus on
small farmers and the rural landless, has IFAD developed
new or innovative forms of assistance?

-- Project Implementation and Sustainability: Have IFAD
projects been implemented satisfactorily? Has IFAD's
unique structure (requirements to maintain minimal








1. INTRODUCTION


The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) pro-
gram review of the International Fund for Agricultural Develop-
ment (IFAD) was conducted during the summer and fall of 1984.
Interest in IFAD's progress had been growing within the donor
community and within IFAD itself, especially given the continuing
discussions regarding IFAD's second replenishment. The Canadian
Government carried out its own assessment of IFAD in early 1984.
At about the same time, the Federal Republic of Germany evaluated
three IFAD projects in its review of donor-financed self-help
efforts. IFAD also undertook its own mid-term evaluations of 14
projects. By the end of 1984, IFAD had been in operation for 7
years. It had completed 6 projects, was implementing 160 proj-
ects, and was developing 86 more. About US$1.8 billion had been
committed in 84 developing countries. The USAID Administrator
believed that a more extensive review of IFAD's program would be
particularly helpful at this time to inform decisions on IFAD's
future.


2. METHOD OF THE REVIEW


The IFAD program review was guided by a series of questions
on issues of most importance to the United States. These ques-
tions were developed through discussions within USAID and with
key personnel from other U.S. Government agencies participating
in the Intra-Governmental Working Group on IFAD (Departments of
Treasury, State, and Agriculture). They focused on IFAD's suc-
cess in fulfilling its mandate to alleviate the problems of
widespread hunger and malnutrition in the poorest areas of the
world. The questions fell into the following categories:

IFAD's Target Group: How well has IFAD targeted assis-
tance to poor small farmers and the rural landless?

IFAD's Food Production and Income Impact: Has IFAD's
assistance increased agricultural production, access to
food, and/or incomes in food-deficient areas?

IFAD's Special Role: Have IFAD's projects addressed
problems that other donors address insufficiently or
targeted assistance to groups or regions that others do
not reach? In light of IFAD's narrow program focus on
small farmers and the rural landless, has IFAD developed
new or innovative forms of assistance?

-- Project Implementation and Sustainability: Have IFAD
projects been implemented satisfactorily? Has IFAD's
unique structure (requirements to maintain minimal





-2-


staff, to work through cooperating institutions, and to
cofinance projects with other donors) functioned effec-
tively? Will IFAD's interventions be sustainable after
projects are completed?

These questions define the general themes of the review.
Within this framework, other issues relating to IFAD's policies,
procedures, and projects were also examined. These include
IFAD's performance in the sectors covered by its project port-
folio, the relationship of IFAD's program to U.S. development
assistance policies, and IFAD's stated interest in women in de-
velopment and monitoring and evaluation activities.

The review synthesized information from a variety of sour-
ces, including IFAD documents (annual reports, policy statements,
project identification and appraisal reports, project supervision
reports, and consultant reports), documents of cofinancing insti-
tutions, interviews with IFAD staff, interviews with represen-
tatives of cooperating institutions, and field visits to a sample
of IFAD projects throughout the world. This information was ana-
lyzed in relation to the key questions outlined previously.

The review was conducted by a team of eight current and one
retired AID officers from July through October 1984. After ana-
lyzing core documents, the review team visited IFAD headquarters
to clarify the scope and purpose of the study and to collect
additional data. Interviews were conducted with IFAD managers,
with U.S. and other executive board members, with the Food and
Agriculture Organization Investment Center staff, and with
others.

The team then prepared for site visits, selecting a sample
of projects that provided for variation in project characteris-
tics, including geographic location, substantive focus, size,
financing, and initiating institution (IFAD or other). The
sample was limited to countries where USAID missions could assist
with logistics and provide country expertise. The review team
also considered IFAD's views concerning which projects were espe-
cially successful or problematic, and which could be visited in a
short timeframe.

The site visits were not intended to be project evaluations.
Teams spent only 3 to 5 days visiting each project. Although
team members observed project activities and interviewed a range
of host government officials, project managers, cooperating
institution officials, and project beneficiaries, data collection
was necessarily limited. Neither expected nor actual project
rates of return could be calculated. The site visits were
intended to give experienced development officers an overview of
project management, activities, problems, and goals as a basis
for assessing IFAD as an institution.









The project sample encompassed a range of significant IFAD
project characteristics. Geographically, it included five proj-
ects in Latin America and the Caribbean, three projects in the
Near East, three projects in Africa, and eight projects in Asia.
Substantively, it included six agricultural production, three
irrigation, six integrated rural development, and four credit
projects. Two of the projects were started in 1978, four in
1979, six in 1980, four in 1981, one in 1982, and two in 1983.
Five projects were IFAD initiated and solely financed, three were
IFAD initiated and cofinanced, and 11 were non-IFAD initiated and
cofinanced.

The review did not directly compare IFAD's activities with
those of other donors. It did not examine specific issues
related to the replenishment of IFAD's funding, nor did it con-
sider IFAD's internal management. The goal of the review was to
assess IFAD's special contribution to alleviating hunger and
improving food production among small farmers and the rural poor.


3. DESCRIPTION OF IFAD


IFAD was established to address complex and widespread
problems of rural poverty in the developing world. It seeks to
increase food production, raise incomes, and enhance nutritional
levels among the poorest and most food-deficient populations.
Other development agencies and international lending institutions
share these concerns and many, including USAID, have programs to
address them, but IFAD is the only donor to "specialize" in these
issues.

IFAD was created with an unusual mandate, structure, and
size. These characteristics, and the interplay among them,
define IFAD as an institution with a special role among inter-
national donors. Significantly, its primary program purpose--
increasing the self-reliance of small farmers and the rural
poor--is one that other donors have found extremely difficult to
achieve. IFAD's challenge is to finance activities that,
"although poverty focused, represent economically sound develop-
mental efforts."1

This section briefly describes those distinguishing elements
of IFAD that define the context for a review of IFAD's program.


1IFAD, 1983 Annual Report, p. 27.





-4-


3.1 IFAD's Mandate


IFAD was created in the mid-1970s at a time when economic
development strategies were being reassessed worldwide. Robert
Ayres in his book Banking on the Poor describes these changes at
the World Bank: "Particularly after 1973 the Bank diversified
. . its funds away from an almost exclusive concern with funding
projects of basic economic infrastructure towards projects expli-
citly devoted to the alleviation of poverty in less developed
countries. "2

This new emphasis on poverty alleviation was simultaneously
taken up by other international organizations, bilateral donors,
and national governments. In the United States the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1973 mandated a change in the "whole approach
to development by concentrating on the needs of the poor."3

One major element of this new poverty-oriented development
strategy was the identification of smallholder agriculture as a
target for greatly increased assistance. While many, if not all,
donors developed their own programs to accomplish this, the need
was considered to be so large that a specialized agency was also
conceived.

The 1974 World Food Conference recognized

the need for a substantial increase in investment in
agriculture for increasing food and agricultural pro-
duction in the developing countries; that provision of
an adequate supply and proper utilization of food are
the common responsibility of all members of the inter-
national community; and that the prospects of the world
food situation call for urgent and coordinated measures
by all countries;

and resolved

that an International Fund for Agricultural Development
should be established immediately to finance agri-
cultural development projects primarily for food pro-
duction in the developing countries.4




2Robert L. Ayres, Banking on the Poor (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press, 1983), p. 1.

3Ayres, p. 9.


4From the Agreement Establishing IFAD, 1977, p. 2.









The agreement establishing IFAD became effective at the end
of 1977. IFAD's mandate was spelled out in this agreement and in
IFAD's Lending Policies and Criteria, published a year later.

The objective of the Fund shall be to mobilize addi-
tional resources to be made available on concessional
terms for agricultural development in developing Member
States. In fulfilling this objective the Fund shall
provide financing primarily for projects and programmes
specifically designed to introduce, expand or improve
food production systems and to strengthen related poli-
cies and institutions within the framework of national
priorities and strategies, taking into consideration:
the need to increase food production in the poorest
food deficit countries; the potential for increasing
food production in other developing countries; and the
importance of improving the nutritional level of the
poorest populations in developing countries and the
conditions of their lives.5

Since 1978, IFAD has translated this original guidance into
an operational program. While the broad thrust of IFAD's origi-
nal mandate is clear, considerable refinement and definition of
the ideas and concepts have been necessary.

The process of defining the target group, analyzing the
causes and characteristics of rural poverty, and developing a
philosophy and approach has taken IFAD time. It also paralleled
the task of setting up the new organization, establishing a
staff, and initiating a large portfolio of projects. The process
culminated in the publication of "Towards an Investment Strategy
for the Rural Poor" in the 1983 Annual Report. Here IFAD synthe-
sizes its first 6 years of experience in the analysis of rural
poverty. This publication and earlier reviews of credit and
integrated rural development activities represent benchmarks in
IFAD's understanding of its mandate and its development of an
organizational "imprimatur" specifically addressing the food pro-
duction needs of the rural poor.


3.2 IFAD's Structure


Just as IFAD's mandate reflected the international develop-
ment community's concerns when IFAD was created, so did its


5IFAD, Lending Policies and Criteria, 1978, p. 1.





-6-


administrative and organizational structure. The donors widely
agreed that they should avoid creating another large bureaucracy
in the already extensive United Nations system. Thus IFAD was
required to remain small by operating with a minimum staff and
cooperating with other institutions and using their expertise as
much as possible.

IFAD's funding was also limited. Its resources were meant
to be catalytic, to "mobilize additional resources" toward its
objectives. IFAD was therefore required to cofinance a portion
of its projects with other donors. Finally, IFAD membership was
open to every member of the United Nations, and IFAD's program
was expected to be worldwide in scope. These elements of IFAD's
structure have had important implications for IFAD's program.


3.2.1 Cooperating Institutions6


IFAD's creators assumed that the international development
community already posessed strong project design, preparation,
appraisal, and implementation skills and that these capabilities
need not be duplicated in a new organization. Indeed, many
countries that had objected to the creation of a new inter-
national development institution insisted that IFAD should be
small and rely largely on the technical expertise of existing
development organizations. The clear implication was that IFAD
would serve as a conduit of development funds, playing only a
limited role in developing and administering its projects. The
services of the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), the regional development banks, and other institutions
would be used for project appraisal and implementation.

IFAD's projects are, for the most part, well supervised,
reflecting the capacities of the cooperating institutions over-
seeing them. Yet although IFAD's relationships with its cooper-
ating institutions have been generally satisfactory, there are
difficulties inherent in this arrangement. The cooperating
institutions are primarily responsible for administering their
own programs. They have their own development priorities and are
likely to be less familiar with IFAD's objectives. The cooperat-
ing institutions already have heavy workloads, and their staffs
may have little incentive to work on IFAD projects. From time to
time these problems have caused some cooperating institutions to
limit their involvement in IFAD activities.





6See Appendix A for a list of projects administered by IFAD's
cooperating institutions.









Therefore, although the basic feasibility of these arrange-
ments has been demonstrated, modifications and increased flexibi-
lity are now indicated. In particular the workload constraint
poses a continuing problem for several of the cooperating insti-
tutions. Adjustments will be required in the immediate future to
assure adequate technical and administrative support for IFAD's
program.


3.2.2 Cofinancing and Project Initiation


Given the enormity of the problems IFAD was created to
address relative to its limited resources, IFAD's creators empha-
sized the importance of cofinancing for IFAD's projects. This
was to serve several purposes. First, by cofinancing projects
with other donors, IFAD would expand the resources available for
small farmer, poverty-oriented development activities. Second,
by cofinancing projects, IFAD could influence others to reorient
their own resources to benefit small farmers and the rural poor.
Third, IFAD was intended to become an institution with expertise
in development strategies to benefit the rural poor. Cofinancing
would provide a mechanism through which professionals from IFAD
and other institutions could learn from each other and share and
exchange their specialized knowledge.

Yet the requirement that IFAD cofinance many of its projects
created a dilemma--how could IFAD join in projects with other
donors while at the same time developing and maintaining a
distinct role as a donor organization? IFAD was created to
assist groups that other donors would not or could not reach, but
how could this be accomplished in joint projects with these same
donors?

The problem was most acute when IFAD's own staff, organiza-
tional capacities, and program philosophy were still undeveloped.
Through cofinancing, IFAD could join in projects (or project com-
ponents) oriented toward the needs of its target groups without
bearing the burden of project development. While IFAD's cofi-
nanced projects are consistent with IFAD's objectives, some bear
little of IFAD's imprint in program or project design.

As IFAD has gained experience, its influence on cofinanced
projects has increased. IFAD has initiated more of its own proj-
ects and interested other donors in cofinancing them. Such par-
ticipation by other donors in IFAD-initiated projects would
appear to be the preferred cofinancing mechanism for IFAD's
program.









3.2.3 Country Eligibility


IFAD may extend assistance to any "developing Member State,"
but explicitly concentrates on the "poorest populations in the
poorest food deficit countries."7 IFAD makes loans on highly
concessional, intermediate, or ordinary terms depending on a
country's per capital income. Because of IFAD's mandate most of
its assistance goes to lower income countries. More than half
of IFAD's loan funds from 1978 to 1984 went to countries with
less than US$400 per capital GNP.

However, IFAD's lending policies lack an explicit ceiling on
income criteria for loan recipients, meaning that any "developing
Member State," regardless of its per capital GNP or GDP, techni-
cally qualifies for IFAD assistance. Further, IFAD's Lending
Policies and Criteria require that approximately one-third of its
loans be on intermediate or ordinary terms. Some donors includ-
ing the United States, have questioned these policies. IFAD's
mandate may require changes in loan criteria to permit an even
greater concentration of its resources in the poorest countries.8


3.3 IFAD's Size


IFAD is in every way a modest institution. Its program,
administrative costs, and staff are all smaller than those of
other international financial institutions. Resource levels have
been maintained roughly at US$1 billion over a 3-year period, or
US$300-350 million per year. This compares with the World Bank's
program at approximately US$12 billion per year, the Interna-
tional Development Association (IDA) at US$3 billion per year,
and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) at US$3.5 billion
per year. USAID's development assistance program level is about
US$1,9 billion per year. At this stage, IFAD relies solely on
donor contributions for funding and does not borrow on interna-
tional money markets as do other international financial institu-
tions. IFAD's program level also has been subject to some uncer-
tainty resulting from prolonged funding negotiations among its
donors.

Controversies surrounding IFAD's funding have resulted in
delays in individual donor contributions after funds have been
pledged. One donor has not completed payment on the initial



7IFAD, Lending Policies and Criteria, p. 1.

8See Appendix C for a complete list of IFAD loan recipients
and relevant country characteristics.





-9-


pledge. Others, including the United States, did not complete
payment within the time period of the first replenishment.
Although the institution can approve projects "subject to the
availability of funds" in certain cases, the failure of some of
IFAD's donors to comply with payment schedules has made long-term
planning difficult.

IFAD's staff is also small--only 80 professionals. Although
the limited size of IFAD's staff has contributed to a strong
sense of purpose and efficient administration, it has also posed
problems. It has, for example, limited IFAD's participation in
project implementation and supervision, as well as IFAD's ability
to improve rapport with developing countries. This creates a
dilemma: IFAD is held accountable for the unique character of
its investments by the donors but lacks the staff to make its
presence directly felt in many significant management aspects of
its program. There are a variety of possible mechanisms for
addressing this issue. These will need to be considered in the
near future.

In summary, IFAD's performance is shaped by its distinctive
mandate and its structure, the key elements of which are the
following:

-- An emphasis on small farmer food production and assis-
tance to poorer rural population groups

An obligation to rely on other development organizations
for the appraisal, implementation, and supervision of
its projects

A requirement to maximize cofinancing of its projects
with other donors

A small professional staff

-- A modest level of funding

A broad recipient country eligibility at various stages
of development

An institutional accountability for the uniqueness and
success of its projects despite limited direct control

Operating within this policy and programming structure, IFAD
combines the roles of a fund and a development agency. As a
fund, its role is to provide supplementary financing for other
development agency projects consistent with its mandate. As a
development agency, it must be an advocate and pacesetter for
the accomplishment of the development objectives set forth in its
mandate. IFAD's distinctiveness rests in its ability to promote
an orientation of donor and developing country resources toward





-10-


food production by the poorer groups of small farmers and other
rural poor. Its success depends on its ability to identify
opportunities to achieve this purpose, to persuade others to
cooperate, and then to demonstrate what can be achieved. At the
same time, IFAD's ability to accomplish these objectives is
constrained by its internal structure and by the policies, pre-
ferences, and capabilities of cooperating and cofinancing insti-
tutions and host country governments. Further refinements will
be necessary to address the problems that have emerged.

IFAD is relatively new. Its performance over the past 7
years must be viewed in relation to its structure and distinctive
characteristics. IFAD's understanding of its mission, its accep-
tance by developing countries and the donor community, and its
ability to perform within its unique operating requirements are
evolving with time and experience.


4. FINDINGS


4.1 IFAD's Target Group


IFAD's most distinguishing characteristic is its commitment
to assisting low-income small farmers and the rural landless.
IFAD's Lending Policies and Criteria states that "its major
target groups, irrespective of the stage of economic development
of the country, will be the small and landless farmer."9 IFAD's
program is based on the belief that "the rural poor comprise the
developing world's greatest untapped resource of labour skills
and enterprise."10 Food production, nutritional levels, and
incomes can be raised by channeling resources directly to the
rural poor.

Although IFAD was established specifically to meet the needs
of this target population, other donors also provide development
assistance to small farmers and the rural poor within their
broader mandates. Because these donors, including USAID, have
had difficulty in defining poverty, and thus in channeling pro-
ductive assistance to particularly impoverished groups, the
review team paid particular attention to IFAD's performance in
this regard.


10Ibid.


9P. 2.





-11-


When the review team asked IFAD staff, "What are you doing
differently from other donors?", the most often repeated response
was that IFAD "begins with the target group." This is the
essence of what IFAD calls its poverty-centered approach. IFAD's
stated approach to improving food production is first to identify
a "target population," then to identify one or more key
constraints to production, and finally to identify key interven-
tions. This differs from the approach of some other inter-
national donors (and many developing countries) who place a
greater emphasis on food production goals than on assisting any
particular population groups. These donors identify targets of
production opportunity first. The choice of the target popula-
tion evolves from the process of identifying which production
activity will be financed.

Beginning with its Lending Policies and Criteria, and
extending through other major program and policy documents, IFAD
defines qualitative and quantitative guidelines for identifying
target groups for IFAD assistance. Projects are to be identified
in geographic areas characterized by low incomes, small holdings,
and limited access to developmental services. Other factors such
as the degree of physical or cultural "isolation" are also con-
sidered. Particular subgroups among the poor, such as fishermen,
pastoralists, and female heads of households are explicitly iden-
tified to receive IFAD assistance.

The review team found that all of the projects visited bene-.
fited small farmers or the landless. The most common criterion
to identify this target group was landholding size (number of
hectares owned or, if not owned, farmed as a tenant). Maximum
size of holding for project participants varied, but in only one
project did it exceed 10 hectares and in most cases it was 5 hec-
tares or less. For example, three sample projects had the
following characteristics:

Chuquisaca North Rural Development Project (Bolivia):
An extremely isolated highland area with a high degree
of absolute poverty among target households, which have
no more than 5 hectares of land.

Smallholder Cattle Development Project (Indonesia):
Serves recent transmigrants from Java and other islands,
relocated on new land in Sumatra with an average farm
holding of 2 hectares.

Grameen Bank, component of the Small Farmer Credit
Project (Bangladesh): Borrowers are landless or near
landless poor possessing no more than 0.2 hectares of
land.

In addition to landholding size, IFAD also applied other
criteria. In Tunisia, a middle-income country, the two poorest





-12-


provinces (based on per capital income) were selected for assis-
tance. In the Gambia, female rice growers in an isolated swamp
area will benefit from the clearing and irrigation of swamps. In
the Dominican Republic, poor farm families with an annual income
below US$400 are being settled on lands allocated under a land
reform program. In all of these cases, the specificity of the
criteria for identifying IFAD's target group was such that proj-
ect benefits accrued almost exclusively to groups of poor small
farmers or the rural landless.

In some projects IFAD assistance was less specifically
targeted; project benefits accrued to IFAD's primary target popu-
lation but to some degree also to less disadvantaged households
within the projects' geographic boundaries. Such was the case,
for example, in the Yemen Arab Republic. In the Tihama Region,
half of the population lives in absolute poverty and 70 percent
are sharecroppers, but the IFAD/World Bank investments in
infrastructure and agricultural services will also benefit land-
owners. Similarly, the Haitian Rivibre Blanche irrigation
scheme serves small farmers (3-5 hectares) but also a few of the
country's largest landholders who own substantial parcels within
the project area. In the Alto Mayo Rural Development Project in
Peru, IFAD is assisting poor farmers who had earlier migrated to
the remote region, some of whom had already achieved higher
income levels prior to the project's initiation. Furthermore, in
Dominica, the very poorest farmers were excluded because they
could not meet the collateral requirements for IFAD loans. And
in other cases, where IFAD is supporting broadly defined national
needs, such as in the Thailand Agricultural Research Project,
institutions are receiving aid that will benefit small farmers
only partially and indirectly.

These examples indicate the operational limitations of a
purist approach to targeted aid. It is not always possible or
desirable to limit assistance solely to the poorest small farm-
ers. Impoverished people are not always in readily identifiable
and accessible groups. Although poverty may be endemic to cer-
tain regions where poor soils, rough terrain, drought, isolation,
or other factors are at work, there still may be substantial
variations in the wealth of the inhabitants. On the other hand,
in the poorest developing countries, the bulk of the population
are so severely impoverished that distinctions among "target
groups" are less relevant. In the Pakistan Small Farmer Credit
Project, for example, in which farmers with fewer than 10 hec-
tares qualified for assistance, this group constituted 90 percent
of the country's farmer population.

Furthermore, IFAD has sought to balance its goal of
assisting the rural poor with its goal of increasing agricultural
production in a sustainable way. In Kenya, for example, IFAD





-13-


chose to participate in a World Bank agricultural extension proj-
ect assisting small farmers in areas of high production poten-
tial, even though there are clearly more disadvantaged farmers in
other areas of the country. This suggests that IFAD weighs other
factors in selecting project opportunities, in addition to
"starting with the target group."

Although the review team concluded that IFAD's efforts to
define, identify, and reach the poor have been generally success-
ful, the team agreed with IFAD's own mid-term evaluations that
"the degree of impact on the poorest and women is varied."ll
IFAD will need to continually seek out new means of assisting
poorer groups that would otherwise be bypassed.

This is especially important in cofinanced projects ini-
tiated by other donors that may not always share IFAD's program-
matic emphasis on small farmers and the rural poor, and in which
IFAD's ability to ensure specificity in identifying the target
group may be limited.


4.2 IFAD's Impact on Food Production and Rural Incomes


IFAD was established at a time when a special development
program to address the problem of widespread hunger in the world
was considered an urgent necessity. The primary objective of the
organization is therefore to promote the production of low-cost
foods and enhance the food purchasing power of the rural poor.
IFAD's Lending Policies and Criteria spells out the approach to
be taken to accomplish these objectives:

First, by alleviating the specific constraints which
impinge on productivity such as lack of inputs, water,
and new technologies, on previously cultivated lands.

Second, by bringing new land under cultivation where a
return to the rural poor can be anticipated.

Third, by addressing policy and institutional problems
which impact negatively on agricultural production by
and for low income groups.12




11IFAD, Synthesis of Mid-Term Evaluations, June 1984.


12pp. 3-4.





-14-


Most of IFAD's anticipated impact on food production and
incomes can only be estimated at this time. Many of the 19
projects visited are still making improvements in infrastructure
and have not yet resulted in improvements in production. Even in
projects where production improvements are underway, quantitative
data are often lacking.

Yet some projects have begun showing results. In Dominica,
the supply of pork, poultry, and vegetables has increased as a
result of IFAD activities. A sample of borrowers in the IFAD/
World Bank Small Farmer Credit Project in Pakistan have increased
their incomes by 100 percent. The incomes of borrowers under the
IFAD-financed Grameen Bank project in Bangladesh increased at a
rate 10 times the national average, according to a recent survey.
Yields from the second rice crop being produced in the Gambia's
Jahaly and Pacharr Project are estimated at 7.0 metric tons per
hectare, compared with 4.5 planned and 1.0 obtained prior to the
project. The review team concluded that substantial production
increases are likely to occur in nearly all of the projects
visited, although some project goals (e.g., in Bolivia) appear
overly optimistic.

The team did not see any projects addressing problems out-
side the range of agriculture/income-related issues appropriate
to IFAD's mandate. However, subactivities in several projects
will only indirectly affect production. In the Yemen Southern
Uplands IRD Project, for example, project components were dedi-
cated to health, literacy, and home economics goals.

There is an essential link between IFAD's objective of
reaching and assisting the target population and the goal of
alleviating hunger. The low-income, small producers in IFAD's
target group both need more food and are an instrument for pro-
ducing it. IFAD must therefore direct its project assistance not
only to groups in need, but to groups that also have some means
of utilizing the assistance productively. The need to keep these
elements in balance is a dynamic element in IFAD's programming.
There must be tradeoffs between the needs of the target groups
and their potential for productive use of IFAD assistance, be-
tween improving nutrition through increased food production or
through increases in rural incomes overall, and between the
objective of channeling assistance to small farmers with access
to land or to other small producers with no access to land.
IFAD's Lending Policies and Criteria raised the issue straight-
forwardly: "There exist opportunities for some low-income people
to earn income by raising their food output, though this requires
careful specification of the production processes, with par-
ticular regard to the impact on technology and labour utiliza-
tion. At the same time, the purchasing power of poor people as a
whole must rise, so that demand for the basic food sources





-15-


increases alongside with supply . "13 To date, IFAD has
maintained these competing sets of concerns in reasonable
balance.


4.3 IFAD's Leadership Role in Small Farmer Development


IFAD was created to play a special role among donors in
increasing agricultural production through directing assistance
to the rural poor. This specialization carries with it a respon-
sibility to function as an "expert." Over time, IFAD should pro-
vide leadership in developing new ways to stimulate increases in
food production and rural income. Ideally, IFAD's program should
both reflect and determine the most effective small-farmer-
oriented economic development practices around the world. This
is the "comparative advantage" that was intended to result from
IFAD's specialization.

The review team therefore examined IFAD's policies and acti-
vities to determine whether they demonstrated the organization's
special role. On the institutional level, the team asked
whether IFAD undertook projects that were more "risky" than other
donors, and if so, whether IFAD was successful in implementing
them. The team also asked whether IFAD performed more effec-
tively in reaching the rural poor, whether IFAD's interventions
were innovative, and whether they reached previously ignored
populations in new ways.

The site visits suggest that IFAD has indeed begun providing
leadership. The following areas are among those in which IFAD
leadership is demonstrated:

Several of IFAD's credit projects are providing new
sources of funds to many new borrowers. In Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Dominica, and Tunisia, low-income groups
without previous access to formal credit are being
systematically assisted in obtaining credit for the
first time. These projects incorporate new forms of
credit delivery and innovative uses of collateral
substitution.

Several IFAD projects have combined existing approaches
and service delivery mechanisms in new, more effective
ways. In Thailand, combined extension and credit teams
are delivering coordinated services to poor farmers in
an experimental effort. In Yemen, women are being


13p. 4.





-16-


trained to perform agriculture extension services to
rural households.

Several IFAD projects have convinced other development
institutions to undertake new kinds of projects pre-
viously considered too risky. In Bangladesh, the
Grameen Bank has successfully demonstrated to other
donors the credit worthiness of landless borrowers. In
Indonesia, another donor will likely join the second
phase of a cattle distribution project which was ini-
tially believed to be too risky.

Some IFAD projects have introduced new or more appro-
priate technologies. In Haiti low-cost, labor-intensive
rock and wire dams and terraces are replacing capital-
intensive, permanent structures that have become in-
operable. In Bangladesh, IFAD is financing low-cost
fertilizer storage units rather than the more complex
and costly facilities being financed by other donors,
including USAID.

Some projects, although consistent with IFAD's mandate, do
not demonstrate the organization's special role. Two of IFAD's
earliest projects provide good examples. In Thailand, IFAD cofi-
nanced the rehabilitation and expansion of a large-scale irriga-
tion system with the World Bank, which shows no particularly
distinctive IFAD features. Likewise, the integrated rural devel-
opment project that IFAD cofinanced with IDB in the Dominican
Republic lacks any discernible IFAD imprint.

The review team concluded that IFAD's special role will be
most evident in projects with the following characteristics:

The projects are implemented in areas where the produc-
tion of basic food crops predominates or where the
potential is high.

The projects emphasize low-cost food crops for domestic
consumption (except when production for export is essen-
tial to raising incomes of the rural poor).

The projects are directly and immediately relevant to
low-income, smallholder farming.

The projects introduce new, quick-yielding technology or
methods of service delivery.

SThe projects increase employment opportunities for the
landless poor as part of food production strategies or,
where this is not feasible, in other rural development
activities.





-17-


Over time, IFAD is delineating a special role for itself.
Its poverty-centered programming approach has clearly met with
success in many IFAD projects. For IFAD to ensure that its
degree of specialization as an institution is achieving the
desired ends, and for IFAD to establish its "niche" as a leader
in designing and implementing small farmer development projects,
it must continue to analyze its own and others' experience. It
must also develop further strategies and approaches appropriate
to its mandate. In particular, IFAD's experience and expertise
in quick-yielding food production strategies should be articu-
lated to further guide IFAD's own program and to share its find-
ings with others. What is needed is an analytical effort by
IFAD, equivalent to that which produced the 1983 Annual Report
chapter on poverty alleviation, but focusing specifically on
technical issues in stimulating food production and rural in-
comes.


4.4 IFAD's Performance by Type of Project


IFAD groups its projects into Integrated Rural Development,
Irrigation, Credit, Fisheries and Livestock Development, and
Agricultural Development categories. Although these terms
suggest strict divisions among the types of IFAD projects, in
practice projects tend to overlap categories. Projects that have
titles that would imply a singular focus may include several
types of activity. The Cul de Sac Agriculture Development
Project in Haiti, for example, constructs health centers and
potable water stations as well as an irrigation system. In fact,
nearly all IFAD projects have either multiple components or are
coordinated and intermixed with collateral development activi-
ties.

For the purposes of this review, projects visited by the
team have been grouped into the following categories (some appear
more than once):

1. Integrated Rural Development and Resettlement

Peru: Alto Mayo Rural Development
Dominican Republic: Consolidation and Development of
Rural Settlements
Bolivia: Chuquisaca North Rural Development
Yemen: Second Southern Uplands Rural Development
Yemen: Third Tihama Development
Gambia: Jahaly and Pacharr Rural Development





-18-


2. Agricultural Production (Extension, Research,
Inputs, Livestock)

Liberia: Smallholder Rice Seed Production
Thailand: National Adaptive Research
Bangladesh: Fertilizer Sector Programme
Kenya: National Extension
Indonesia: Smallholder Cattle Development
Tunisia: Development of Small and Medium Farms in Kef
and Siliana

3. Credit (Agricultural and Non-Agricultural)

Dominica: Agricultural Credit for Food Production
Tunisia: Development of Small and Medium Farms in Kef
and Siliana
Pakistan: Agricultural Development Bank
Bangladesh: Fertilizer Sector Programme
Yemen: Second Southern Uplands Rural Development
Thailand: Agricultural Credit
Indonesia: Smallholder Cattle Development
Peru: Alto Mayo Rural Development
Bolivia: Chuquisaca North Rural Development

4. Irrigation

Haiti: Cul de Sac Agricultural Development
Thailand: Second Northeast Irrigation
Gambia: Jahaly and Pacharr Rural Development
Pakistan: On-Farm Water Management


4.4.1 Integrated Rural Development and Resettlement


The integrated rural development (IRD) projects covered by
this review were all cofinanced with other donors and all
employed an IRD approach to serve undeveloped, isolated areas or
areas under cultivation for the first time. This is consistent
with the stated objectives in the Lending Policies and Criteria:
"The Fund, while initially stressing quick maturing projects,
will also consider cooperation with other agencies to support
long-term major investments in land and water development to
achieve large increments in agricultural production, possibly
bringing into cultivation unexploited lands."14 In some cases
IFAD contributes a portion of the funds for the overall project;
in others IFAD finances only certain subactivities.


14p. 3.





-19-


The IRD projects visited had the following common elements:


They are all large in scale and comprehensive in design.

-- They have numerous subproject activities, some of which
are not directly related to agricultural production.

They have high investments in infrastructure relative to
other costs.

They have medium- to long-term goals.

-- They were managed by new organizational units estab-
lished exclusively to implement the project.


As a group these projects showed good potential for increas-
ing agricultural production, rural employment, and incomes. With
the exception of a few projects in which the target population
included both poor and somewhat more advantaged farmers, benefits
were narrowly targeted to the rural poor. Although social
impacts, such as increased national integration of previously
marginal groups, are difficult to measure, they also appeared to
be positive.

All the IRD projects visited had experienced startup delays
or difficulty in obtaining counterpart funds, but once they were
underway, implementation proceeded smoothly, except in Bolivia.
Some of this positive performance may be related to project mana-
gement units (PMUs) that were set up for the life of the project
outside normal lines of bureaucratic authority. However, such
PMUs may have a negative effect on institution building and pro-
ject sustainability. In addition, IRD projects present special
problems of sustainability because of the scale and intensity of
inputs relative to the continuing financial and administrative
capabilities of several host countries. For example:


In the Dominican Republic, the Government's large inter-
national debt jeopardizes its development commitments.
Unless the Government's financial situation improves,
the resources required to continue servicing the IFAD/
IDB-financed resettlement schemes will be difficult
to secure.

In Yemen, the Government has not yet made plans for pro-
viding the additional resources needed to continue the
high level of farmer services provided by the projects.





-20-


SIn Bolivia, the scope of the project appears too large
to sustain, given the country's severe fiscal crisis.


4.4.2 Irrigation


Irrigation projects visited by the review team in Thailand,
Pakistan, Haiti, and the Gambia share the following charac-
teristics:

Projects are dedicated largely to renovating, rehabili-
tating, or extending existing irrigation infrastructure.

Project subelements address operation, maintenance, and
equity issues raised by the introduction and expansion
of water resources; for example, by creating water-user
groups.

Demand for water is very high in the areas served and
lack of water appears to be a significant agricultural
production constraint.

SBeneficiaries are largely, but not exclusively, low-
income, small farmers.

IFAD's ability to target assistance specifically to small
farmers is diminished somewhat by the size and scope of many
irrigation projects and by IFAD's role as a junior partner with
other development donors. Irrigation projects also present
special sustainability problems associated with the need to
operate and maintain complex water supply systems after project
completion. IFAD's projects have attempted to address this
problem in part through the creation of small farmer water-user
groups, but the effectiveness of these groups varies.

IFAD's irrigation projects appear to be having mixed suc-
cess. In Pakistan, preliminary surveys indicate that the project
(which builds on a successful USAID pilot project) is achieving
the planned increases in incomes and crop yields, but it
demonstrated no special mechanisms to ensure that benefits are
targeted to the poorer producers. In Haiti, problems with ini-
tial feasibility studies caused delays in startup. Utimately the
project required reformation and a 3-year extension. In
Thailand, the project construction is progressing satisfactorily,
but small farmer user groups are not yet functioning effectively.
Also in Thailand, plans for postconstruction operation and main-
tenance and dry season water allocation appear to be nonexistent.

Although the irrigation projects have elements of success,
they also raise questions about IFAD's ability to specifically
target the benefits from large-scale irrigation. The review





-21-


concluded that IFAD should participate in such projects only if
the following conditions are met:

1. The potential for food production impact is high.

2. Poor farmers are the predominant beneficiaries.

3. Operation, maintenance, and equity issues are addressed.

4. IFAD's participation is essential to ensure that these
objectives are met.

IFAD staff noted that more recently developed projects have
emphasized smaller scale irrigation projects, a trend that the
review team supports.


4.4.3 Credit


The review team found that IFAD-financed credit activities
share a number of positive attributes:

The projects bring credit to first-time, previously
"unbankable" borrowers in innovative ways.

The projects demonstrate flexibility in design, a
willingness to take needed policy initiatives, and an
ability to use creative institutional arrangements.

The projects successfully address specific "high-risk"
factors that have made other donors and national govern-
ments unwilling to serve the credit needs of certain
populations.

The projects recognize that credit alone is insufficient
and that credit supervision, technical assistance,
markets, and transport services are also necessary for
production effects to be achieved.

There seems to be a natural congruence between IFAD's man-
date to target project benefits and the highly individualized
nature of credit delivery. Taken together, the IFAD-financed
credit activities demonstrate a consistent pattern of innovation
and experimentation which promise substantial .productive benefits
for the rural poor. The achievements of several IFAD credit
projects stand out and are descirbed below.

-- The Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. This project is suc-
cessfully providing noncollateral loans to the landless.
Strict eligibility criteria limit loans to the landless
rural poor. Women especially are actively and





-22-


systematically encouraged to participate. Potential
borrowers are formed into groups of five who jointly
guarantee the loans and share a common interest in
repayment. The largely illiterate borrowers can make
oral applications to visiting bank agents. Member
groups meet weekly, exercise group discipline on mem-
bers, and contribute 5 percent of each loan to a group-
controlled fund. Each group member buys a share in the
bank, receives dividends, and is required to maintain
some minimum amount of savings. The Bank's loan re-
covery rate is 99 percent compared to a national average
of 50-60 percent. The incomes of borrowers have
increased at a rate 10 times the national average.

- The Small Farmer Credit Project in Pakistan. This proj-
ect has succeeded in shifting the national agricultural
bank's lending toward smaller farmers through an out-
reach program designed to serve previously ineligible
borrowers. The project has created a cadre of "mobile
credit officers" who travel to villages on motorcycles
and bicycles to identify new borrowers, take oral loan
applications, and supervise farmers' use of credit.
Collateral requirements have been substantially reduced
compared to the traditional agricultural development
credit program. As a result, the loans to small farmers
rose from 40 to 70 percent of the bank's business. A
sample of new borrowers showed twice the increase in
income of a sample of nonborrowers.

-Agricultural Credit for Food Production in Dominica.
This project provided the first source of formal credit
to small producers, who are the island's primary produ-
cers of food. After Hurricane David damaged or
destroyed 80 percent of the island's structures in 1979,
the IFAD project created a new small farmer window in
the National Agricultural and Industrial Development
Bank. While the artificially low (5.5 percent) on-
lending interest rate may create sustainability
problems, the project has successfully enabled small
producers to begin utilizing agricultural credit. The
project coordinates supervision of credit with on-farm
services and technical assistance, and tailors loan eli-
gibility to meet the specific needs of smaller produ-
cers. Security is provided through a guarantor rather
than through fixed assets; thus landless producers, such
as coastal fishermen, can also obtain credit. After 21
years, 75 percent of the loan funds have been disbursed
and a 94-percent repayment rate has been achieved.

- The Credit Component of the Indonesian Cattle Project.
Although not the main project element, this component is
necessary for the project's overall success. Eligible





-23-


farmers are organized into 10-person groups led by a key
farmer. Each member receives a cow and establishes a
loan account for its value. The farmer agrees to repay
the loan within 6 years by delivering two calves, whose
value is credited to the farmer's account. Because the
value of these calves is expected to be greater than the
cost of the initial loan plus interest, the surplus will
be returned to the farmer. The project combines ele-
ments of group guarantee and in-kind credit, with well-
defined extension and service inputs. However, as in
the case of the Dominica project, the artificially low
(6 percent) interest rate may create sustainability
problems.

Although the review team concluded that IFAD's credit proj-
ects share many positive aspects, there were also some areas of
potential weakness. As in projects in other sectors, the team
found that too little was being given to project sustainability
over the long term. In particular, the delivery of "cheap"
credit presents potential problems, because it is unlikely that
host countries would be able to continue to subsidize credit
after project completion. In addition to sustainability con-
cerns, cheap credit could also result in misallocations of
resources by borrowers.

IFAD's policy in making loans to intermediate credit insti-
tutions is that relending rates (to farmer-borrowers) should be
both positive in real terms and nondiscriminatory wherever
possible. That is, interest rates should exceed the rate of
inflation and should be the same for all sectors of the economy.
This is not, however, the policy or practice of some borrowing
countries. IFAD makes loans in such cases only if the credit has
special justification and if the country agrees to move toward
positive real interest rates and the elimination of discrimina-
tion among economic sectors. In practice, this means that
interest rates are less than positive in a few IFAD projects at
this time.


4.4.4 Agricultural Production


This category includes agricultural research, extension,
training, inputs, and livestock projects--a range of activities
that makes it difficult to characterize the group as a whole.
The review team noted that some projects in this group affect
agricultural production directly (e.g., livestock and rice pro-
duction projects), whereas others affect production only
indirectly (e.g., research and extension projects).

Agricultural production projects were designed to meet a
variety of needs. The Bangladesh fertilizer project, for





-24-


example, was part of a multidonor effort to finance badly needed
fertilizer imports. The Liberia rice seed project sought to pro-
vide farmers with a reliable off-farm source of improved, high-
yielding rice seeds. The Thailand agricultural research project
and the Kenya extension project are designed to reorient national
research and extension systems toward the production activities
of small farmers.

While projects in this group demonstrate good potential for
a positive production impact, results to date have been varied.
The Indonesia cattle project promises rapid and substantial pro-
duction increases for transmigrant farmers, but results from the
Thailand research and Kenya extension projects remain in the
future. The Liberia rice seed project has not yet produced a
superior seed, but small farmers have benefited substantially
from the introduction of more reliable sources and the availabil-
ity of a greater volume of certified seed.


4.5 The Relationship of the IFAD Program to U.S. Development
Policy


4.5.1 Policy Dialogue


IFAD and USAID share a belief that inappropriate host
country policies impede economic development and that policy
changes are often an essential component in economic progress.
IFAD's commitment to policy dialogue is stated explicitly in its
Lending Policies and Criteria:

The attainment of [IFAD's] objectives . will
require . improvements in . relevant policies
concerning such matters as pricing, credit, marketing,
subsidies and cost recovery. Deficiencies here can
generate constraints both of a short-run and long-run
nature, in recognizing the full impact of physical
investments. The Fund would encourage governments to
review and adjust their policies to strengthen their
incentives for increased production by Fund's target
groups. There is need to develop a wide variety of
basic institutions of agricultural development sup-
ported by a package of economic policies and
incentives."15


15p. 4.





-25-


Such policy initiatives were evident in a number of the
projects the team discussed with IFAD staff and in the following
projects visited:

-- In Bangladesh, IFAD participated in a joint donor effort
to phase out the subsidization of fertilizer sales.

In Yemen, IFAD secured Government approval for a land-
tenure study intended to examine economic implications
of tenant farming.

In the Gambia, the Jahaly and Pacharr project represents
an increasing emphasis on irrigation in the Government's
agricultural programs as a long-range measure to offset
the effects of recurrent drought.

In Pakistan, loan negotiations with the Government
resulted in formal ordinances requiring the establish-
ment of water-user associations as each water course is
improved, to ensure the farmers' contribution to main-
tenance and utilization of irrigation schemes.

IFAD's major strength in the policy area is its commitment
to focusing the attention of other donors and host governments on
the needs and capacities of the rural poor:

IFAD recognizes that it is one of many sources of
finance, that its activities are a small part of a much
larger effort and that external finance is only one of
the elements of agricultural development. IFAD will,
therefore, attempt to play a catalytic role in rais-
ing the proportion of nations and external funding
directed at improving the well being and self-reliance
of the poor.16

This influence is brought to bear through joint activities,
cofinanced with other donors, as well as through IFAD's own
policy dialogues with national governments, especially in its
Special Programming Missions, of which there have been 24 since
1978.

IFAD has suggested that its small size, narrow focus, and
membership structure give it special advantages and have resulted
in special success in policy dialogues.17 Although IFAD may have



16IFAD, Lending Policies and Criteria, p. 2.


17IFAD, 1983 Annual Report, p. 38.





-26-


advantages in particular cases (especially in increasing the
allocation of development resources to IFAD's target group), the
review team concluded that IFAD's character also constrains its
policy influence. IFAD's resources are limited compared to those
of other donors. IFAD's small staff has limited time for direct
contacts with host governments. IFAD is often the smaller
partner in larger projects in which other donors take the lead
policy dialogue role. IFAD's program is geographically
dispersed and consists of only one or two projects in most
countries. Finally, IFAD must cope with the diverse views of its
members on the directions that policy change should take. The
review team concluded, however, that IFAD's influence would be
increased if, over time, project funds were concentrated in those
countries where policies are moving in appropriate directions.


4.5.2 Private Sector


IFAD's Lending Policies and Criteria does not state an
explicit policy regarding the use of public or private sector
organizations. Project implementation may involve the public
sector, the private sector, or a combination, and the review team
saw examples of all three. In Bangladesh and Indonesia, for
example, projects used private fertilizer merchants and cattle
traders. In Kenya, private traders were the major providers of
pesticides in connection with the reoriented extension program.

The situation was more complicated in Dominica where the
IFAD project provided capital for the state Marketing Board--a
Government intermediary established for the distribution and
marketing of farm produce. In practice, the Marketing Board pro-
vided much less efficient services than the independent
"hucksters" (market people) who abound on the island. During the
course of the project, the government reoriented the Marketing
Board to emphasize interisland trade and exports. This was a
concession to the independent "huckster" system and reflected the
Government's recognition (supported by IFAD and the Caribbean
Development Bank) that its role in distribution and marketing
should be limited. Similarly, project managers in the Dominican
Republic, with IFAD and IDB agreement, are permitting farmers to
work their own plots within the collectives, rather than rigidly
enforcing the communal farming system as originally designed.


4.5.3 Institutional Development


IFAD clearly expressed its commitment to institutional devel-
opment:





-27-


The Fund will accord higher priority to activities that
strengthen the technical and institutional capacity
essential for agricultural and rural development
. . The Fund will encourage the development of
local capabilities and skills . so as to progressi-
vely reduce dependence on foreign assistance and exper-
tise; to assist countries in expanding the supply of
trained personnel and their integration into sound
institutional structures that permit effective response
to local conditions and problems; to assist local
institutions in the design and implementation of moni-
toring systems appropriate to the special objectives of
IFAD-financed projects.18

However, the review team was unable to discern a consistent pat-
tern of support for institutional development in the projects
visited. Several specific areas of concern were identified:

1. IFAD did not always adequately consider the long-range
sustainablity of project activities and benefits during
project design.

2. Projects did not always obtain adequate host country
commitments. This was reflected in insufficient counter-
part contributions, inadequate host government capacity
to sustain recurring costs, and insufficient institu-
tionalization of project management.

3. IFAD's financial policies are inconsistently applied.
Some projects provide assistance on sustainable terms,
whereas others do not.

4. IFAD's use of separate project management units, outside
of regular bureaucratic channels, may be efficient for
implementing projects, but may also contribute to insti-
tutional weaknesses that threaten long-term project
sustainability.

The review team concluded that the lack of adequate institu-
tional and financial mechanisms to sustain long-term project
benefits was an important weakness in IFAD's program.


18IFAD, Lending Policies and Criteria, p. 8.





-28-


4.5.4 Technology Transfer


Technology transfer is fundamental to IFAD's goal of stimu-
lating agricultural development among small farmers. Although a
supportive policy environment and sufficient private incentives
are necessary conditions for agricultural growth, technological
change--new ways of applying knowledge for practical use--can
directly increase production and productivity. Therefore,
nearly all of IFAD's projects seek to transfer new techniques of
agricultural production or to institutionalize improved means of
technology transfer itself, as the following projects demon-
strate:

In Kenya, the IFAD/World Bank project introduced
training and visitation (T and V) systems, pioneered
elsewhere, as an improved basis for diffusing new agri-
cultural technology.

In Haiti, IFAD and IDB are financing the construction of
a locally repairable irrigation system that can be
operated and maintained by small farmer groups.

In Indonesia, IFAD provided plows, cattle, and extension
services enabling recent transmigrants to greatly expand
their agricultural acreage.

In Bangladesh, IFAD developed low-cost fertilizer stor-
age containers useful to small farmers.

In Pakistan, IFAD supported mobile "bankers on bikes,"
able to reach and assist small farmers in the country-
side.

Every development donor is involved in technology transfer.
What characterizes IFAD is its concern with technology that is
immediately and specifically applicable to the needs of small
farmers and the rural landless.

IFAD has also provided grants for research at major inter-
national and regional agricultural research centers. Although
these research projects are relevant to small farmers, their
benefits are neither direct nor immediate. Moreover, IFAD pro-
vides only a very small portion of the funding for agricultural
research in the developing world. Given this small contribution,
the review team concluded that IFAD's funding should be highly
selective and focus only on applied research that has a potential
for immediate application or a direct relevance to ongoing IFAD
projects.





-29-


The review team did not discover any "new" agricultural
technologies developed by IFAD. Yet IFAD has effectively com-
bined project elements in some new ways--taking experimental
ideas, disseminating them, and demonstrating them in practice.
In most projects IFAD has also concentrated on tools and tech-
niques that are labor--not capital--intensive, that are appro-
priate to the needs of small farmers, and that yield relatively
quick returns in increased productivity or income.


4.6 IFAD's Approach to Women in Development


In most developing countries women and girls are a vital
part of the food production system, and their productivity is
essential to national economic growth. They also play an impor-
tant role in family nutrition. Yet despite widespread recogni-
tion of the importance of women to economic development, many
donors, including USAID, have had difficulty devising appropriate
strategies to reach them. An inadequate understanding of gender-
based patterns of behavior, especially of the key production
roles that rural women play, has hampered project design. Rural
services often focus on male heads of households, ignoring the
significance of women's contribution to production and to the
overall development of local communities.

Women are overrepresented among the world's poor and consti-
tute a disproportionately large share of IFAD's target popula-
tion. IFAD's Lending Policies and Criteria recognizes the
importance of women to the achievement of development objectives
and noted that the "promotion of the role of women in develop-
ment would also receive attention." In many of the IFAD projects
the team visited, assistance was targeted to women. The Kenya
National Extension Project has trained extension workers (includ-
ing women) to work with rural women's groups to help improve the
food production skills of their members. Women farmers are par-
ticipating in the Kef and Siliana project in Tunisia and some are
receiving loans under the IFAD credit scheme. In Liberia, where
women play a key role in rice farming, project managers are ac-
tively seeking to employ women farmers as "outgrowers" of seed.
In the Southern Uplands project in Yemen, 34 home economics cen-
ters are being established and female extension agents are being
trained; this is particularly significant in Yemen, where the
population of rural working-aged men has been significantly
depleted through outmigration to nearby oilproducing areas. In
the Gambia, the need to reallocate land to women, who were the
original tillers of the swamps, caused delays and required rede-
sign of elements of IFAD's Jahally and Pacharr project.

These and other efforts demonstrate IFAD's ability to
enhance the productive roles of poor rural women. However, with
the exception of the Grameen Bank project, women have been





-30-


underrepresented in IFAD's credit projects. In Dominica, where
37 percent of the rural households are headed by females, less
than 6 percent of the IFAD project borrowers are female. In
Pakistan, a small-scale experimental credit outreach program for
women has been marginal to the larger project. The success of
the Grameen Bank in delivering credit to extremely poor rural
women indicates that much more can be achieved.

Even when projects make no specific effort to target women
and girls, they are affected by project activities. The review
team was concerned that the designs of some IFAD projects may be
based on erroneous assumptions about the availability of unpaid
family labor to achieve planned production increases.

Providing this unpaid labor may well have unintended nega-
tive consequences for female welfare. Research from many devel-
oping countries shows, for example, increases in school dropout
rates among girls during peak cultivation periods and in areas of
intensified agriculture. Yet if women and girls do not provide
unpaid labor, the project's production goals may be jeopardized.

Finally, IFAD's projects inadequately consider the signifi-
cant role that women's incomes play in family nutrition.
Research from a number of countries shows that improvements in
family nutrition correlate much more strongly with increases in
female income levels than with increases in male or aggregate
family incomes. This would imply that targeting assistance spe-
cifically to raise female incomes may be especially relevant to
IFAD's nutrition goals.


4.7 IFAD's Monitoring and Evaluation System


IFAD places a "high priority" on improving indigenous moni-
toring and evaluation capabilities, and accords "special signifi-
cance" to monitoring and evaluation as an institution-building
effort. Since 1980 IFAD has required that each project have an
approved monitoring and evaluation plan within 6 months of proj-
ect implementation.

IFAD's Operational Guidelines on Monitoring and Evaluation
specify the following:

(a) Monitoring information and on-going evaluation
should directly assist in the more efficient man-
agement and implementation of the particular proj-
ect to which it relates;

(b) Monitoring information and on-going evaluation
should be available to assist in the management of





-31-


similar projects running in parallel in the same
or other countries;

(c) The results of on-going and ex-post evaluations
should assist in the design of new projects in the
same or different countries;

(d) All monitoring information and evaluation results
should also be available as inputs to wider policy
formulation at national and international
levels.19

Monitoring and evaluation should, in other words, be an integral
part of project development, management, and planning.

IFAD seeks to institutionalize project monitoring and eval-
uation through the use of monitoring and ongoing evaluation
(MOE) teams that serve project managers, but answer directly to
national monitoring and evaluation units. IFAD's guidelines also
specify a variety of quantitative and qualitative data--core
data, baseline data, survey data, interview data, target group
surveys, special studies, implementation studies, studies of
extraneous conditions, ongoing evaluations, and mid-term reviews--
that the MOE should collect and a range of methods that the MOE
should use.

IFAD's mid-term evaluations concluded that project-level
monitoring and evaluation was less successful and more problema-
tic than IFAD had envisioned. IFAD's Synthesis of Mid-Term
Evaluations stated that "the M&E [monitoring and evaluation]
systems in operation on most of the fourteen projects are inade-
quate .. ." This report also noted that although "all project
managements have established routine progress and financial
reporting," and some have developed useful day-to-day management
information systems, none (with the possible exception of Malawi)
had successfully initiated larger monitoring and evaluation
efforts. The report concluded that "those baseline surveys that
have be: oe;o~: '-ave either been inadequate or it has not been
possible to process them in a timely manner," that "most M&E
units suffer from belated appointment of or inadequate staff and
poor facilities," that there was "too much reliance on expatriate
technical assistance," and that "the designed systems were more
sophisticated than the project or country needed and generated
more output than the M&E units could handle or management
comprehend."20



19IFAD, Operational Guidelines on Monitoring and Evaluation,
1979, pp. 12-13.

20IFAD, Synthesis of Mid-Term Evaluations, June 1984.





-32-


This review team reached similar conclusions. Four of the
projects visited by the team lacked any identifiable monitoring
and evaluation unit. Implementation monitoring was judged good-
to-excellent in seven projects, adequate in eight, and inadequate
or nonexistent in five. Only one of the projects visited (in the
Dominican Republic) was conducting useful and effective evalua-
tion studies. Most evaluation activities observed were being
conducted by national agencies, staffed by expatriates, and
poorly integrated with project management. Many M&E units were
just beginning to collect data several years after project ini-
tiation. The quality of data being collected was generally
poor.

IFAD's approach to monitoring and evaluation activities has
evolved, and more recent working plans have recognized that moni-
toring and evaluation must be more directly linked--and more
directly accountable--to project management. IFAD has recognized
that guidance for data collection and analysis must be simpler,
more precise, and focused on data that are more directly useful to
project managers. IFAD has also recognized that local monitoring
and evaluation units should emphasize project monitoring, while
central units should emphasize project evaluation.

IFAD recognizes that the development of effective, indige-
nous monitoring and evaluation institutions will be a long-term
process. One of IFAD's significant contributions toward this end
has been its catalytic role in mobilizing interest in monitoring
and evaluation throughout the UN system, culminating in the devel-
opment of UN-wide monitoring and evaluation guidelines for rural
development.

However, IFAD still needs to clarify how monitoring and
evaluation information can be made more useful in its own proj-
ects. The Synthesis of Mid-Term Evaluations, for example, points
out that host country managers must be convinced of the value of
monitoring and evaluation, a task that would be easier if moni-
toring and evaluation activities were clearly more useful. The
most pressing need is to simplify data collection activities so
that the volume and quality of information are more appropriate
for use by project decision-makers.


5. CONCLUSIONS


1. The review team concluded that IFAD is making an impor-
tant contribution to improving the economic conditions of the
rural poor in developing countries. IFAD is increasingly well
accepted as a donor institution by the developing countries
because of its commitment to its special mission. This provides
the basis for a leadership role in small farmer development.





-33-


2. Over the past 7 years, IFAD has provided US$1.8 billion
in funding focused on small farmers and the rural poor in devel-
oping countries. To be most effective, IFAD must combine with
and redirect other donor and host country resources and spread
its influence and expertise. To do this, IFAD must demonstrate
an increasing competence in introducing projects that address the
particular development problems of small farmers and the rural
poor.

3. IFAD has undertaken a thorough analysis of the causes and
characteristics of rural poverty and has articulated a poverty-
alleviation strategy. This is an important step. An equivalent
analytical effort is called for that articulates IFAD's specific
role in the technical aspects of smallholder food and agricultur-
al development. IFAD's expertise in the realm of quick-yielding
production strategies and poverty-oriented rural credit schemes
is significant after 7 years of experience. IFAD should give
attention to analyzing and synthesizing its and other donor
experience in these activities. This knowledge, its application
and dissemination, is the key to IFAD's leadership role in devel-
oping improved approaches to small farmer development.

4. Some of IFAD's projects clearly demonstrate IFAD's spe-
cialized character. Other projects, while consistent with IFAD's
broad mandate, lack a distinguishing IFAD "imprimatur."

The projects included in this review that best demonstrate
IFAD's special character have the following characteristics:

They have well-specified target groups and clear mecha-
nisms to reach them (such as the credit projects in
Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Dominica, which are bringing
new, previously ineligible, borrowers into the credit
market).

They introduce quick-yielding food production techniques
using technologies scaled and adapted specifically for
small, low-income farmers (such as the rice seed produc-
tion project in Liberia, fertilizer storage in
Bangladesh, and cattle distribution in Indonesia).

They introduce a comprehensive package of integrated
services to remote or very poor, undeveloped, and
geographically well-defined areas (such as the agri-
cultural development project in Haiti's Cul de Sac
region, the swamp reclamation project on the south bank
of the Gambia River, and the two integrated rural deve-
lopment projects in the Yemen Arab Republic).





-34-


They emphasize the large-scale production of low-cost
foods with a large potential impact on production and
on-farm employment (such as in the Alto Mayo project in
Peru).

Projects lacking a distinctive IFAD contribution tended to
have the following characteristics:

They emphasize large-scale infrastructure investments
(such as the Northeast Thailand irrigation project or
the consolidation of settlements project in the
Dominican Republic).

They provide services or introduce technologies that
benefited IFAD's target group only indirectly or over
the longer term (such as the Thailand adaptive research
project).

They benefit largely undifferentiated target groups and
lack mechanisms that direct benefits primarily to poorer
farmers or the landless (such as the Pakistan on-farm
water management project).

5. Cofinancing is an essential feature of IFAD's opera-
tions. IFAD should give greater attention to the identification
and selection of other-donor-initiated projects for cofinancing,
in order to assure that its own priority interests in serving the
rural poor are fully represented. IFAD's "comparative advantage"
as a specialized, narrowly focused development organization can
and should be evident in the choice of all projects, its own and
those cofinanced with other donors. Broadening the range of
institutions chosen for cofinancing, and placing a greater empha-
sis on cofinancing for IFAD-initiated projects, will provide IFAD
with greater flexibility and offer better opportunities to spread
IFAD's influence.

6. IFAD's project design and implementation capacity rests
largely with cooperating institutions. Although IFAD's projects
suffer from the range of implementation problems common to all
donors (delays in startup, staffing, procurement, securing
approvals, and in completing feasibility work), once initiated
they are generally well implemented. Nevertheless, IFAD's over-
sight of these activities should be strengthened, especially with
regard to securing host country commitments for project support,
such as counterpart funds, and designing postproject mechanisms
for sustaining benefits. This raises implications for IFAD
staffing which need to be further examined.

7. IFAD's policies are generally consistent with U.S.
development assistance policy emphases. IFAD policy and program
documents evidence a commitment to establishing positive policy





-35-


environments, forming viable institutions, transferring appro-
priate technologies, and enhancing private enterprise. These
objectives are being achieved to some degree in many of IFAD's
projects, but will require further emphasis in IFAD's dialogue
with host governments and in project design. In particular, IFAD
should give more attention in the design of projects to the long-
term institutionalization of project management if project bene-
fits are to be sustained.

8. IFAD has articulated an ambitious and comprehensive
approach to monitoring and evaluation, but has not successfully
institutionalized monitoring and evaluation at the project level.
IFAD should provide more specific guidance to orient project
monitoring and evaluation toward data collection and analysis
that is smaller in scale and more immediately useful to project
management.

9. Although IFAD ascribes priority to women as a target
group, its success in reaching them has been limited. This has
been the case for many donors, but IFAD's mandate implies a
significant role for IFAD in women-oriented project activities.
More experimental work is needed by IFAD in this regard.

10. Because of its membership structure, IFAD has been
under considerable pressure to respond to requests from a large
number of countries. IFAD's 1983 Annual Report notes that member
countries not previously receiving IFAD loans will be given
priority. This effort to reach all member countries, while
understandable, limits the impact IFAD could achieve through a
greater concentration of program activity in fewer countries.

In sum, IFAD's overall performance during its first 7 years
represents a positive beginning. IFAD's special role in iden-
tifying new approaches to increasing food production and incomes
among the rural poor is emerging. Its concentrated attention on
and growing experience with programs for the poorer small farmers
and landless people is a significant and urgent dimension of
today's international development efforts.





A-i


APPENDIX A

NUMBER OF PROJECTS ADMINISTERED BY
IFAD's COOPERATING INSTITUTIONS


Cofinanced Exclusively
Cooperating Coop. Inst. IFAD Financed
Institutions Initiated Initiated by IFAD Total


World Bank (IBRD/IDA)

Asian Development
Bank (ADB)

Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB)

African Development
Bank (AFDB)

Office for Project
Execution (OPE), UNDP

Arab Fund for Economic
& Social Development
(AFESDB)

Caribbean Development
Bank (CDB)

Central American Bank
for Economic
Integration (BCIE)


Andean Development
Bank (CAF)


Sources: IFAD, Progress Report on Project Implementation,
6 March 1984. IFAD, 1984 Draft Annual Report,
11 December 1984.


Total


160





B-1


APPENDIX B

IFAD PROJECT REVIEW SUMMARY


Table B-1. IFAD Project Review Summary
(by region)


Percent
Percent Dispersed
Project Name IFAD thru Loan
(Cooperating Institution) Country Sector Date Typea Funding 1983 Rate


LAC

Cul de Sac Agric. Haiti Irrig. 10/78 Co. N/A 47% 1%
Dev. (IDB)
Consolidation & Dev. Dom Rep. IRD 12/79 Co. 28% 29% 4%
of Rural Settl. (IDB)
Ag. Credit for Food Dominica Credit 9/80 IFAD 100% 66% 1%
Production (CDB) only
Chuquisaca N. Rural Bolivia IRD 12/81 IFAD 96% 6% 4%
Dev. (CAF) & Co.
Alto Mayo Rural Dev. Peru IRD 12/82 Co. 42% 1% 4%
(IBRD) (Cred.)

NEAR EAST

Dev. Small/Med. Farms in Tunisia Ag. Dev. 12/80 IFAD 94% 18% 4%
Kef & Siliana (AFESD) (Cred.) & Co.
Third Tihama Dev. N. Yemen IRD 3/79 Co. 22% 13% 1%
(IDA)
S. Uplands Rural N. Yemen IRD 9/80 Co. 29% 41% 1%
Dev. (IDA)

AFRICA

Jahally & Pacharr Gambia IRD 12/81 IFAD 31% 35% 1%
Rur. Dev. (AfDB) & Co.
National Extension Kenya Ag. Dev. 9/83 Co. 29% --- 1%
(IDA) (Ext.)
Smallholders Rice Liberia Ag. Dev. 4/81 IFAD 100% 20% 4%
Seed (IBRD) only

ASIA

Fertilizer Sector Bang. Ag. Dev. 12/79 IFAD 100% 86% 1%
Program (IDA) only
Small Farmer Ag. Bang. Credit 9/80 IFAD 100% 23% 1%
Credit (ADB) only
Smallholder Cattle Indon. Ag. Dev. 5/80 IFAD 100% 31% 4%
Dev. (IBRD) (Cattle) only
Ag. Dev. Bank Pakistan Credit 6/79 Co. 51% 93% 1%
(IDA)
On-farm Water Mgmt. Pakistan Irrig. 12/81 Co. 24% 25% 1%
(IDA)
Second N.E. Irrig. Thailand Irrig. 10/78 Co. N/A 46% 4%
(IBRD)
National Adaptive Thailand Ag. Dev. 9/80 Co. 31% 3% 4%
Res. (IBRD) (Res.)
Ag. Credit Project Thailand Credit 4/83 Co. 24% --- 4%
(IBRD)


aCo. = Cofinanced.





B-2




Table B-2. IFAD Project Review Summary
(by sector)


Percent
Percent Dispersed
Project Name IFAD thru Loan
(Cooperating Institution) Country Sector Date Typea Funding 1983 Rate


AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Dev. Small/Med. Farms in Tunisia Ag Dev. 12/80 IFAD 94% 18% 4%
Kef & Siliana (AFESD) (Cred.) & Co.
National Extension Kenya Ag. Dev. 9/83 Co. 29% --- 1%
(IDA) (Ext.)
Smallholders Rice Liberia Ag. Dev. 4/81 IFAD 100% 20% 4%
Seed (IBRD) only
Fertilizer Sector Bang. Ag. Dev. 12/79 IFAD 100% 86% 1%
Program (IDA) only
Smallholder Cattle Indon. Ag. Dev. 5/80 IFAD 100% 31% 4%
Dev. (IBRD) (Cattle) only
National Adaptive Thailand Ag. Dev. 9/80 Co. 31% 3% 4%
Res. (IBRD) (Res.)

IRRIGATION

Cul de Sac Ag. Haiti Irrig. 10/78 Co. N/A 47% 1%
Dev. (IDB)
On-farm Water Mgmt. Pakistan Irrig. 12/81 Co. 24% 25% 1%
(IDA)
Second N.E. Irrig. Thailand Irrig. 10/78 Co. N/A 46% 4%
(IBRD)

IRD

Consolidation & Dev. Dom. Rep. IRD 12/79 Co. 28% 29% 4%
of Rural Settl. (IDB)
Chuquisaca N. Rural Bolivia IRD 12/81 IFAD 96% 6% 4%
Dev. (CAF) & Co.
Alto Mayo Rural Dev. Peru IRD 12/82 Co. 42% 1% 4%
(IBRD) (Cred.)
Third Tihama Dev. N. Ye-en IRD 3/79 Co. 22% 13% 1%
(IDA)
S. Uplands Rural N. Yemen IRD 9/80 Co. 29% 41% 1%
Dev. (IDA)
Jahally & Pacharr Gambia IRD 12/81 IFAD 31% 35% 1%
Rur. Dev. (AfDB) & Co.

CREDIT

Ag. Credit for Food Dominica Credit 9/80 IFAD 100% 66% 1%
Production (CDB) only
Small Farmer Ag. Bang. Credit 9/80 IFAD 100% 23% 1%
Credit (ADB) only
Ag. Dev. Bank Pakistan Credit 6/79 Co. 51% 93% 1%
(IDA)
Ag. Credit Project Thailand Credit 4/83 Co. 24% --- 4%
(IBRD)


aCo. = Cofinanced.





B-3


Table B-3. IFAD Project Review Summary
(by approval date)


Percent
Percent Dispersed
Project Name IFAD thru Loan
(Cooperating Institution) Country Sector Date Typea Funding 1983 Rate


1978
Second N.E. Irrig.
(IBRD)
Cul de Sac Ag.
Dev. (IDB)

1979
Fertilizer Sector
Program (IDA)
Consolidation & Dev.
of Rural Settl. (IDB)
Third Tihama Dev.
(IDA)
Ag. Dev. Bank
(IDA)

1980
Dev. Small/Med. Farms in
Kef & Siliana (AFESD)
Smallholder Cattle Dev.
(IBRD)
National Adaptive Res.
(IBRD)
S. Uplands Rural Dev.
(IDA)
Ag. Credit for Food
Production (CDB)

Small Farmer Ag.
Credit (ADB)

1981
Smallholders Rice
Seed (IBRD)
On-farm Water Mgmt.
(IDA)
Chuquisaca N. Rural
Dev. (CAF)
Jahally & Pacharr
Rur. Dev. (AfDB)

1982
Alto Mayo Rural Dev.
(IBRD)

1983
National Extension
(IDA)
Ag. Credit Project
(IBRD)


Thailand

Haiti



Bang.

Dom. Rep.

N. Yemen

Pakistan


Irrig.

Irrig.


10/78

10/78


Ag. Dev. 12/79

IRD 12/79

IRD 3/79

Credit 6/79


Co.

Co.



IFAD
only
Co.

Co.

Co.


Tunisia Ag. Dev. 12/80 IFAD
(Cred.) & Co.
Indon. Ag. Dev. 5/80 IFAD
(Cattle) only
Thailand Ag. Dev. 9/80 Co.
(Res.)
N. Yemen IRD 9/80 Co.

Dominica Credit 9/80 IFAD
only

Bang. Credit 9/80 IFAD
only


Liberia

Pakistan

Bolivia

Gambia



Peru



Kenya

Thailand


Ag. Dev.

Irrig.

IRD

IRD



IRD
(Cred.)


Ag. Dev.
(Ext.)
Credit


4/81

12/81

12/81

12/81


IFAD
only
Co.

IFAD
& Co.
IFAD
& Co.


N/A

N/A



100%

28%

22%

51%



94%

100%

31%

29%

100%


46% 4%

47% 1%


aCo. = Confinanced.


100% 23% 1%


100%

24%

96%

31%


12/82 Co. 42%


9/83

4/83


1% 4%



1%

--- 4%


Co. 29%

Co. 24%





B-4.


Table B-4. IFAD Project Review Summary
(by cofunding)


Percent
Percent Dispersed
Project Name IFAD thru Loan
(Cooperating Institution) Country Sector Date Typea Funding 1983 Rate


IFAD INITIATED AND SOLELY FINANCED

Fertilizer Sector Bang. Ag. Dev. 12/79 IFAD 100% 86% 1%
Program (IDA) only
Smallholder Cattle Indon. Ag. Dev. 5/80 IFAD 100% 31% 4%
Dev. (IBRD) (Cattle) only
Ag. Credit for Food Dominica Credit 9/80 IFAD 100% 66% 1%
Production (CDB) only
Small Farmer Ag. Bang. Credit 9/80 IFAD 100% 23% 1%
Credit (ADB) only
Smallholders Rice Liberia Ag. Dev. 4/81 IFAD 100% 20% 4%
Seed (IBRD) only

IFAD INITIATED AND COFINANCED

Dev. Small/Med. Farms in Tunisia Ag. Dev. 12/80 IFAD 94% 18% 4%
Kef & Siliana (AFESD) (Cred.) & Co.
Chuquisaca N. Rural Bolivia IRD 12/81 IFAD 96% 6% 4%
Dev. (CAF) & Co.
Jahally & Pacharr Gambia IRD 12/81 IFAD 31% 35% 1%
Rur. Dev. (AfDB) & Co.

COFINANCED

Second N.E. Irrig. Thailand Irrig. 10/78 Co. N/A 46% 4%
(IBRD)
Cul de Sac Ag. Haiti Irrig. 10/78 Co. N/A 47% 1%
Dev. (IDB)
Consolidation & Dev. Dom. Rep. IRD 12/79 Co. 28% 29% 4%
of Rural Settl. (IDB)
Third Tihama Dev. N. Yemen IRD 3/79 Co. 22% 13% 1%
(IDA)
Ag. Dev. Bank Pakistan Credit 6/79 Co. 51% 93% 1%
(IDA)
National Adaptive Thailand Ag. Dev. 9/80 Co. 31% 3% 4%
Res. (IBRD) (Res.)
S. Uplands Rural N. Yemen IRD 9/80 Co. 29% 41% 1%
Dev. (IDA)
Alto Mayo Rural Peru IRD 12/82 Co. 42% 1% 4%
Dev. (IBRD) (Cred.)
National Extension Kenya Ag. Dev. 9/83 Co. 29% --- 1%
(IDA) (Ext.)
On-farm Water Mgmt. Pakistan Irrig. 12/81 Co. 24% 25% 1%
(IDA)
Ag. Credit Project Thailand Credit 4/83 Co. 24% --- 4%
(IBRD)


aCo. = Cofinanced.






B-5


Table B-5.


IFAD Project Review Summary
(by loan summary)


Percent
Percent Dispersed
Project Name IFAD thru Loan
(Cooperating Institution) Country Sector Date Typea Funding 1983 Rate


1%

Fertilizer Sector
Program (IDA)
Ag. Credit for Food
Production (CDB)
Small Farmer Ag.
Credit (ADB)
Jahally & Pacharr
Rur. Dev. (AfDB)
Cul de Sac Agric.
Dev. (IDB)
Third Tihama Dev.
(IDA)
Ag. Dev. Bank
(IDA)
S. Uplands Rural
Dev. (IDA)
National Extension
(IDA)
On-farm Water Mgmt.
(IDA)


Bang.

Dominica

Bang.

Gambia

Haiti

N. Yemen

Pakistan

N. Yemen

Kenya

Pakistan


4%

Smallholder Cattle Indon.
Dev. (IBRD)
Smallholders Rice Liberia
Seed (IBRD)
Dev. Small/Med. Farms in Tunisia
Kef & Siliana (AFESD)
Chuquisaca N. Rural Bolivia
Dev. (CAF)
Second N.E. Irrig. Thailand
(IBRD)
Consolidation & Dev. Dom. Rep.
of Rural Settl. (IDB)
National Adaptive Thailand
Res. (IBRD)
Alto Mayo Rural Peru
Dev. (IBRD)
Ag. Credit Project Thailand
(IBRD)


Ag. Dev.

Credit

Credit

IRD

Irrig.

IRD

Credit

IRD

Ag. Dev.
(Ext.)
Irrig.


Ag. Dev.
(Cattle)
Ag. Dev.

Ag. Dev.
(Cred.)
IRD

Irrig.

IRD

Ag. Dev.
(Res.)
IRD
(Cred.)
Credit


12/79

9/80

9/80

12/81

10/78

3/79

6/79

9/80

9/83

12/81


5/80

4/81

12/80

12/81

10/78

12/79

9/80

12/82

4/83


IFAD
only
IFAD
only
IFAD
only
IFAD
& Co.
Co.

Co.

Co.

Co.

Co.

Co.


IFAD
only
IFAD
only
IFAD
& Co.
IFAD
& Co.
Co.

Co.

Co.

Co.

Co.


100%

100%

100%

31%

N/A

22%

51%

29%

29%

24%


100%

100%

94%

96%

N/A

28%

31%

42%

24%


86% 1%

66% 1%

23% 1%

35% 1%

47% 1%

13% 1%

93% 1%

41% 1%

--- 1%

25% 1%


31% 4%

20% 4%

18% 4%

6% 4%

46% 4%

29% 4%

3% 4%

1% 4%

4%


aCo. = Cofinanced.





C-1


APPENDIX C

DISTRIBUTION OF IFAD PROJECT ASSISTANCE


The following table on IFAD recipient countries identifies
the IFAD member countries eligible for IFAD loans, their GNP per
capital, population, and number and amount of approved projects.
The data on IFAD projects is as of December 1984 and includes
all projects from 1978.

Lower income countries with per capital income below
US$440.00 received 54 percent of the total value of approved proj-
ects and 49 percent by number. IDA-eligible countries, those
with per capital GNP of US$790 and below received 79 percent by
value of IFAD's loans. One project was approved for a country in
the upper-middle income group. The income groupings are based on
the World Bank's World Development Report, 1984 (The Table of
Basic Indicators).





C-2


Table C-1. GNP Per Capita and IFAD Recipient Countries




Approved
GNP per Projects as of
Capita Population December 1984)
in 1982b in Mid-1982 Amount
Country (US$) (millions) Number (SDRm)c


Bhutan NA 1.2 1 5.5
Lao PDR NA 3.6 1 6.6
Chad 80 4.6 -
Bangladesh 140 92.9 7 122.6

Ethiopia 140 32.9 2 24.1
Guinea Bissau 170 0.8 1 6.5
Nepal 170 15.4 3 27.3
Afghanistan NA 16.8 -

Equatorial Guinea NA 0.4
Vietnam NA 57.0 -
Mali 180 7.1 2 20.2
Zaire 190 30.7 2 18.8
Burkina Faso 210 6.5 2 21.8
Malawi 210 6.5 3 31.8
Maldives NA 0.2 1 1.9

Uganda 230 13.5 2 31.2
Mozambique NA 12.9 1 17.7
India 260 717.0 5 148.5
Rwanda 260 5.5 2 12.9

Burundi 280 4.3 2 17.6
Tanzania 280 19.8 1 7.1
Somalia 290 4.5 3 20.4
Haiti 300 5.2 3 18.8
Benin 310 3.7 2 19.3

Central African Rep. 310 2.4 2 5.2
China 310 1,008.4 3 75.9
Guinea 310 5.7 1 9.9
Niger 310 5.9 1 9.7

Madagascar 320 9.2 3 24.9
Sri Lanka 320 15.2 4 44.1
Togo 340 2.8 1 7.4
Comoros 340 0.4 1 3.2





C-3


Table C-l. GNP Per Capita and IFAD Recipient Countries (cont.)




Approved
GNP per Projects as of
Capita Population December 1984)
in 1982b in Mid-1982 Amount
Country (US$) (millions) Number (SDRm)c


Cape Verde 350 0.3 1 2.2
Ghana 360 12.2 1 9.6
Gambia 360 0.7 2 8.9
Sao Tome & Principe 370 0.1 1 2.1
Pakistan 380 87.1 6 88.4

Kenya 390 18.1 2 10.9
Sierra Leone 390 3.2 3 19.6
Angola NA 8.0 -
Sudan 440 20.2 4 39.2
Mauritania 470 1.6 2 8.8
Yemen PDR 470 2.0 3 17.1

Djibouti 480d 0.4 1 1.0
Western Samoa NA 0.2 1 1.4
Liberia 490 2.0 2 12.2
Senegal 490 6.0 1 10.4
Yemen AR 500 7.5 4 29.1

Lesotho 510 1.4 1 4.9
Bolivia 570 5.9 3 26.3
Indonesia 580 152.9 3 72.7
St. Vincent & Grenadines 620 0.1 -
Zambia 640 6.0 2 21.0
Honduras 660 4.0 2 18.6

Solomon Islands 660 0.2 1 1.5
Guyana 670 0.8 -
Tonga 675e 0.1 1 1.0
Egypt 690 44.3 3 55.5
El Salvador 700 5.1 1 5.1

Dominica 710 0.1 1 1.2
St. Lucia 720 0.1 1 2.0
Grenada 760 0.1 1 1.4

Thailand 790 48.5 3 40.5
Cuba NA 9.8 1 11.1
Papua New Guinea 820 3.1 1 9.1
Philippines 820 50.7 3 23.8





C-4


Table C-l. GNP Per Capita and IFAD Recipient Countries (cont.)




Approved
GNP per Projects as of
Capita Population December 1984)
in 1982b in Mid-1982 Amount
Country (US$) (millions) Number (SDRm)c


Zimbabwe 850 7.5 1 16.7
Nigeria 860 90.6 -
Morocco 870 20.3 2 35.3
Cameroon 890 9.3 2 22.8
Botswana 900 0.9 1 6.8
Nicaragua 920 2.9 2 18.9

Swaziland 940 0.7 1 5.7
Ivory Coast 950 8.9 1 2.7
Belize 1,080 0.2 -
Guatemala 1,130 7.7 1 5.0

Congo 1,180 1.7 1 4.3
Mauritius 1,240 0.9 1 5.3
Peru 1,310 17.4 2 27.4
Dominican Rep. 1,330 5.7 2 18.3
Jamaica 1,330 2.2 1 8.9
Ecuador 1,350 8.0 1 5.2

Turkey 1,390 46.5 2 26.9
Tunisia 1,390 6.7 2 21.6
Costa Rica 1,430 2.3 1 4.4
Colombia 1,460 27.0 1 6.8
Seychelles NA 0.1 -

Paraguay 1,610 3.1 3 16.5
Syria 1,680 9.5 1 15.7
Jordan 1,690 3.1 2 20.6
Lebanon NA 2.6 -
Korea, Rep. 1,910 39.3
Fiji 1,950 0.7

Panama 2,120 1.9 2 15.9
Chile 2,210 11.5 -
Brazil 2,240 126.8 1 15.6
Iraq NA 14.2 -





C-5



Table C-l. GNP Per Capita and IFAD Recipient Countries (cont.)




Approved
GNP per Projects as of
Capita Population December 1984)
in 1982b in Mid-1982 Amount
Country (US$) (millions) Number (SDRm)c


Mexico 2,270 73.1 1 17.5
Algeria 2,350 19.9 -
Argentina 2,520 28.4 -
Uraguay 2,650 2.9 -
Iran NA 41.2 -

Barbados 2,900 0.3 -
Surinam NA 0.4 -
Malta 3,800 0.4 -
Cyprus 3,840 0.6 1 4.7


aIncluded are those countries with
in 1982.


GNP per capital up to US$4,000


bGNP per capital figures are from the World Bank, World
Development Report, 1984.

cSDR = $0.9962

d1981 figures.

eFigure is from the Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators.


Source: IFAD, December 1984.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs