Ghana Country Programme Evaluation National Roundtable Workshop

1. Independent Office of Evaluation Ghana Country Programme EvaluationNational Roundtable Workshop 2 November 2011 - Accra, Ghana

2. Ghana Country Programme Evaluation • Covers 13 years of strategy and operations (COSOP 1998, 2006), 6 projects and 9 technical assistance grants • Triangulates from multiple sources: • Comprehensive desk review (including past evaluations); • Field visits of projects and selected grants • Interviews with stakeholders • Thematic roundtable discussions (rural finance, agricultural value chains)

3. Three levels of analysis Performance of the COSOP (strategy) Performance of the portfolio (project-level analysis) Performance of non-lending activities (knowledge management, partnerships, policy dialogue) Overall Partnership Performance

4. IFAD- Ghana Cooperation Highlights

5. Real GDP per capita in Ghana (1972-2010) constant 2000 US$ Source: WB 2011

6. Prevalence of Poverty (%)

7. Evolution of IFAD’s strategy COSOP 1998 - Geographic concentration on regions in Northern Ghana - Sub-sectors: irrigation, rural finance, agricultural technology transfer, support to decentralisation COSOP 2006 - Shift towards country-wide mono-sectoral programmes (phasing out of Upper West) - Same subsectors + new focus on value chain development Other important changes • IFAD Direct supervision since 2008 • IFAD Country presence since 2011

8. Portfolio Performance – Overview • Overall positive and improving • Relevant project objectives, some design flaws • Effectiveness varies within and between projects • Weak efficiency • Impact is mixed: strong on institution and social capital, variable for income & assets; environmental risks • Sustainability is improving • Innovations introduced but piloting not sufficient.

9. Portfolio performance - Rural Finance • Relevant and effective at institutional level (regulatory environment, rural banks, credit unions, apexes) • Less so at adapting financial products to rural poor clients • Introduced “matching grants” as smart subsidies(loan + equity + ma. grant) ; lack of clarity over implementation • Contributed to national policy on microfinance (but subsidised credit programmes continue)

10. Portfolio performance - Rural Enterprises • Business Assistance Centres imparted basic entrepreneurial skills, contributing to growth of micro and small enterprises • Rural Technology Facilities strengthened apprenticeship systems, less clear results in technology dissemination • Facilitated coordination and public-private partnership in MSE development at district level (legislative initiatives)

11. Portfolio performance - Local Government and Community Development • Focused on very poor groups, supporting district-level participatory planning • Design too optimistic: (i) unclear policy framework (ii) IFAD not supported by experienced development partners; (iii) funding gap  Slow implementation and sustainability threats

12. Portfolio performance - Agricultural development • Effective at supporting production : (i) higher-yield roots and tubers; (ii) participatory extension approaches (farmers field fora) • Value chain support: relevant but difficult to implement. Weak business analysis, unclear mutual obligations in private-public partnerships • Upgrading processing for existing value chains (roots & tubers); • Development of new value chains is challenging (e.g. vegetables)

13. “Non-lending” activities • Policy dialogue:significant in rural enterprise; rural finance. Matching grants have potential. Limited in other sub-sectors • Partnerships strong with Government at national level, growing at local level. • In rural finance, gap with multilateral agencies • Value chain: increasing with private sector, but review of risks and constraints not sufficient • Knowledge management is weaker area: poor M&E, impact assessment. Promising “intuitions” in COSOP and project formulation not always supported by technical analysis

14. COSOP performance • Relevance. Shift of focus between 1998 and 2006 COSOP from geographic targeting to broad-based growth with limited analysis of implications and constraints • Effectiveness. Strongest results in rural finance and rural enterprises at institutional level • Mixed results in the North • Value chains: valid concept, early implementation stage, questions on approaches • Management issues. Country office established in 2011. M&E has not received enough attention

15. General Assessment COSOP performance Moderately Satisfactory: 4 Performance of the portfolio Moderately Satisfactory: 4 Overall Partnership Performance Moderately Satisfactory: 4 Non-lending activitiesModerately Satisfactory: 4 Rating scale:  1 = highly unsatisfactory;  2 = unsatisfactory; 3 = moderately unsatisfactory;  4 = moderately satisfactory;  5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory

16. Main Recommendations • Strengthen analytical work in COSOP preparation and project design • Continue sub-sectoral programmes but increase focus on Upper West • More emphasis on testing and scaling up innovations: (i) rural finance and matching grants; (ii) savings and credit products adapted to the poor • Value chains. Review successful regional experiences, explore opportunities to cooperate with other initiatives • Support national M&E systems in partnership with national and international social science research institutions

17. THE END Thank you for your attention