Regional project implementation workshop in Western and Central Africa

1. Regional project implementation workshop in Western and Central Africa Douala, Cameroon27-30 January 2009

2. Regional Structural Characteristics • The Wave of Policy Reforms are well engaged in many countries of the Region (Ghana, Benin, Nigeria, Senegal) with increasing emphasis on: Decentralization; Improved (though still inadequate) Governance; Increased Role of the Private Sector, NGOs and Civil Society • HOWEVER, high concentration of poorest countries in the world (DR Congo, Niger, Chad, Sierra Leone, Mali); and • 25% of countries regularly affected by armed conflicts, political instability, or emerging from conflict (Mauritania, Guinea, Chad, Guinea Bissau, DR Congo, Sierra Leone)

3. Portfolio overview and trends 2006-072007-08 • Number of loans approved 7 7 • Portfolio of loans 50 50 • Lending portfolio as at 30 June (IFAD financing, US$ million) 633 729 • Cofinancing mobilized from IFIs/bilateral agencies (US$ million) 291 313 • Disbursement lag (%) 10% 12% • Number of ongoing large grants 15 15 (4 large grants closing in 2008) • Number of ongoing small grants 12 19 (9 country grants and 10 small regional)

4. Overall portfolio performance • Encouragingly positive and satisfactory picture with more than 80% of projects rated “good or better” • However, operational challenges given complex socio-economic and political environments; weak institutions and limited absorptive capacity. • Quality and sustainability are not fully satisfactory in 12.5% where the focus on rural poverty is less than desired

5. Implementation performance

6. Main ProblemsRisk flags in 44 rated projects

7. Timeliness in loan effectiveness • Improvements against 2007 (10.7 months): Now 9.6 months • However, significant delays • Burkina Faso (PROFIL): 12 months • The Gambia (RFP): 19 months • Sierra Leone (RFCIP): 13 months • Nigeria:15 months • Cameroon: signature of PADMIR: 5 months • Areas requiring attention • Identify (and involve) key project staff early during project design to ensure prompt effectiveness • Resolve effectiveness conditions during project design and appraisal (except ratification) • Increase country ownership and commitment

8. The 5 projects at risk in 2007 :In 2008 3 were upgraded to Not at Risk (NAR) and 2 completed and closed • Benin, Artisanal Fisheries: upgraded (NAR) • Ghana, NRPRP: upgraded (NAR) • Niger, PPLIDA: upgraded (NAR) • Senegal, VMDP: completed • Senegal, VOMP: completed

9. However new projects are now at risk • 4 new Actual Problem Projects • Cameroon: PADC (poor financial management) • DR Congo: PRAPE (poor financial management) • DR Congo: ARPOP (poor financial management) • Guinea: SADEP-GF (civil strife) • 3 new Potential Problem Projects • Chad: PRODER-K (civil strife) • Mali: PIDRK (civil strife) • Sierra Leone: Rehabilitation & Community (weak institutional capacity and performance of Cooperating Institution)

10. Key elements of response to improve performance • Improve quality in design with more attention given to M&E, readiness for implementation, and based on a results framework • Selective in choice and type of project, avoiding complexity and minimising risks in civil strife countries • Gradual reduction of number of projects but emphasising country programme approach; develop 1 substantive project per country during the 3 year PBA cycle • In high risk countries introduce half yearly or quarterly audits

11. Other elementsof response to improve performance • Establishment of Portfolio Management Unit for loan administration and to support CPMs and projects in implementation support and direct supervision • Emphasising Country ownership / engagement during design / implementation • Greater emphasis on In-country teams and local knowledge • Significant increase of IFAD supervision • Strategic use of grants to strengthen capacities: Work planning budgeting and financial Management, M&E • Foster Innovation and learning: PA teams, Fidafrique, Innovation Fair, HUB, OECD, ...

12. Other elements of response to improve performance - continued • Undertake systematic reviews before mid-terms when necessary or when project badly performing • Early closing of underperforming projects that cannot be adjusted • More efforts to harmonize with other development partners (and simplify processes for procurement, disbursement, reporting)

13. As such should continue to build capacity for development results and to monitor and measure the achievement of: • strengthened monitoring and evaluation capacities within Ministries of Agriculture (and projects) • tightened links between monitoring and evaluation and project planning through the introduction of results-based annual work plans and budgets within projects • capacity development in financial management and administration, procurement, and follow-up of audit recommendations and implementing appropriate support measures

14. CONCLUSION • Ensure an integrated system management for development results with the power of measuring performance and results BECAUSE • If you measure results, you can report success. • If you can see success, you can reward it. • If you can reward success, you are less likely to reward failure. • If you can see success, you can learn from it. • If you can recognize failure, you can correct it. • If you can demonstrate results, you can win public support.