02 ifad portfolio review

Click here to load reader

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of 02 ifad portfolio review

Slide 1

IFAD Country Office, Benoit Thierry, CPM Soulivanh Pattivong, CPO

IFAD-Laos Project Retreat/Workshop 9-11 December, 2015, Luangprabang, Lao PDR

Overview of IFAD-Funded Programmes Performance in Laos

Introduction Background of Lao PDR (linked to IFAD support) IFAD-Laos COSOP (2011-2015)On-going programmesIFAD-funded Programmes Performance (at country and regional levels)General Issues concerning programmes performanceWay forward/areas needing further support

2005200720102013Human Dev. Index0.510.530.5490.569Agriculture value added (% of GDP)36.234.932.726.5GNI per capita47288711231661Total population (million)5.886.216.446.77Rural population as % of population73696764Poverty rate based on population30.727.62623.2Main crops production: rice, soybeans, sugarcane, corn, tobacco, etc.,Nutrition facts: high malnutrition rate (40%), particularly in rural areas

Population density Economic Indicators(source: WB, UNDP)

Poverty rate and Poverty density

Share of Agriculture in GDP

Three Strategic Objectives:SO1: Community-based access to, and management of, land and natural resources SO2: Access to advisory services and inputs for sustainable, adaptive and integrated farming systems SO3: Access to markets for selected produces

Cross-cutting issues that are common to all three strategic objectives: 1. Capacity-building of government, beneficiaries and service providers2. Engagement with ethnic groups3. Engagement with women as key partners in all production and marketing systems4. Strategic infrastructure related to farming systems (e.g. small-scale village irrigation) or markets (e.g. farm-to-market roads)5. Formation of farmer and producer common-interest groups6. Resilience to climate-related risks and enhanced capacity to adapt to climate change.

IFAD-Laos COSOP (2011-2015)

Portfolios

Closed Loans / grantActive Loan / grantPipelined grant / loan1. (1980-1982) Casier-Sud Pioneer Agricultural Project1. (2009-2016) Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Productivity Enhancement Project ($15 mill)1. GAFSP (2016-2020): Global Agriculture and Food Security Program - 30 million USD2. (1984-1990) Agricultural Production Project

3. (1988-1992) Rural Credit Project2. (2011 - 2017) Soum Son Seun Jai / Community based Food Security and Economic Opportunities Programme ($14 m)2. Livestock project (2016-2020) (with ADB) - 10 million USD4. (1991-1997) Xieng Khouang Agricultural Development Project - XKADP5. (1999-2005) XADP Phase II6. (1995-2003) Bokeo Food Securiy Project 7. (1998-2004) Northern Sayabouly Rural Dev Project3. (2013-2019) Southern Laos Food and Nutrition Security and Market Linkages Programme ($14.7)8. (2004-2010) Oudomxai Community Initiative Support Project9. (2006-2014) Rural Livelihoods Improvement Programme in Attapeu and Sayabouri10. (2007-2013) Northern Region Sustainable Livelihoods through Livestock Development Project

7

IFAD funded operations

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTIFAD-funded Programmes Performance (at country and regional levels)

Quality of financial management20112012201320142015AverageLAO130133443,5LAO139633554,0LAO1459444444,0LAO160844444,0LAO1680444,0Country average3,333,504,254,204,003,9Regional average3,703,804,004,104,053,9

Portfolio average score improvement in 5 years: 3.3 (moderately unsatisfactory) in 2011 to 4.0 (moderately satisfactory) in 2015In 2014 only one project had a satisfactory (5) rating for FM: LDPOther projects were rated moderately satisfactory (4) for FMIncrease in average country score has been due to the marked improvement in performance of LDP during its last two years of implementation. In 2015 Laos avg. is below regional avg. by 0.05 points.

Acceptable disbursement rateCountry avg in 2015: 3.8, borderline moderately satisfactory. However, it is above regional avg. 2014: The highest reported rating was satisfactory (5) for RLIP and SNRMPEP, lowest rating was moderately unsatisfactory (3) for SSSJLDP after an "unsatisfactory" score during its early years of implementation, only gradually improved toward its completionSNRMPEP has followed the same patterns, but managed to reach satisfactory disbursement levels at completion in 2015

20112012201320142015AverageLAO130155555,0LAO139622342,8LAO145933453,8LAO16084333,3LAO168044,0Country average3,333,503,754,203,8Regional average3,403,503,403,503,5

Availability of counterpart fundingAvg score for country portfolio in 2015: 4.4 moderately satisfactoryIn 2015, counterpart funding were found to be both timely and sufficient for all projects but FMNL. Best scores are recorded by SNRMPEP, which received a "highly satisfactory" rating for two consecutive years since 2014. After being lower than the APR regional average in 2011 and 2012, average country scores are higher since 2013.

20112012201320142015AverageLAO130144665,0LAO139644454,3LAO1459444554,4LAO160844454,3LAO1680444,0Country average4,004,004,504,804,674,4Regional average4,44,44,34,54,443

Quality and timeliness of auditsSince 2013 the country average has been the same or higher than the regional average

In 2015 the country average is 4 moderately satisfactory

The quality and timeliness of the last audits of LDP and SSSJ were rated as satisfactory (5)

20112012201320142015AverageLAO130133443,5LAO139644454,3LAO1459444444,0LAO160844454,3LAO1680444,0Country average3,673,754,004,204,334,0Regional average4,004,004,004,004,07

Quality of project managementThe average over 5 years: Country portfolio rating very slightly above regional ratingThe quality of project management improved in the past two years, mostly due to the improved ratings for LDP and SNRMPEPOn an avg project management rating is still largely moderately satisfactory (4)It is very crucial to bring this rating higher to satisfactory (5) from the initial years of the project

20112012201320142015AverageLAO130134443,8LAO139644454,3LAO1459444554,4LAO160844343,8LAO1680444,0Country average3,674,004,004,204,334,05Regional average3,904,004,104,204,184,08

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Compliance with procurementThe lack of compliance with IFAD procurement guidelines is one of the key issues of the portfolioCountry average significantly below regional average in 2015Most projects receiving, at best, a "moderately satisfactory" rating over the period The exception is LDP, which received a "satisfactory" rating during its last year of implementation. The score of the newly started FNML was downgraded to moderately unsatisfactory" in 2015 This is a priority issue to be addressed by all projects

20112012201320142015Average130133443,5139644454,31459444444,0160844444,01680433,5Country average3,673,754,004,203,673,9Regional average3,903,904,004,104,20

Performance of M&ECountry average consistently below regional averageSSSJ has been continuously rated moderately unsatisfactory, SNRMPEP almost consistently Moderately Satisfactory, LDP improved to Moderately SatisfactoryFNML has started on Moderately Satisfactory and effort should be made to improve to a 5 satisfactoryOverall improvement required for all projectsProjects should aim to regularly report on progress at different levels (outcomes, outputs, activities, etc.)Managers should make use of M&E information for planning and decision-making

20112012201320142015AverageLAO130133333,0LAO139633443,5LAO1459444343,8LAO160844333,5LAO1680444,0Country average3,333,503,753,403,673,53Regional average3,603,503,904,004,053,81

Coherence between AWPB and implementationCountry programme performance as been consistently below the regional average, except for the year 2014 This suggests that most projects struggle to deliver AWPB physical and/or financial targets.

20112012201320142015AverageLAO130143443,8LAO139633453,8LAO1459444444,0LAO160843443,8LAO1680444,0Country average3,673,503,754,204,003,84Regional average3,703,803,904,104,083,92

Responsiveness of service providersRatings for country portfolio consistently below APR averageThe weak capacities and/or lack of responsiveness of service providers are the key issues faced by the country programme portfolioAn improvement is however noted in 2015 for three projects, which received a score of "4"

20112012201320142015AverageLAO130144444,0LAO139622342,8LAO1459333443,4LAO160843343,5LAO1680444,0Country average3,003,253,253,804,003,47Regional average3,903,903,904,304,314,06

Overall implementation progressOver the last 5 years there has been only one instance of a "satisfactory" rating (LDP)Average score for the portfolio is 3.84, bordering between moderately unsatisfactory and moderately satisfactory For all 5 years country average score has been consistently lower the APR regional averageAverage performance dropped from 2014 to 2015However, SSSJ has recovered from being a problem project to having a moderately satisfactory score in 2015

20112012201320142015AverageLAO130144444,0LAO139644454,3LAO1459333443,4LAO160844433,8LAO1680444,0Country average3,673,753,754,203,673,84Regional average3,904,004,004,204,164,05

TARGETING

Gender focusMost projects have performed "moderately satisfactorily" with regard to mainstreaming gender in implementation and/or targeting women. SSSJ has received a score of "3" for the past three years, while LDPs performance improved towards project completion For last 5 years average performance for country has been below regional average

Since 2013, there has been a marked improvement in the extent to which projects manage to reach poor households effectively, but from a low base Still, the country programme performance has been consistently below the APR regional average Best performance is recorded by two projects with a score of "5" in the past