02 ifad portfolio review

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

1. Background of Lao PDR (linked to IFAD support)2. IFAD-Laos COSOP (2011-2015)3. On-going programmes4. IFAD-funded Programmes Performance (at country

and regional levels)5. General Issues concerning programmes

performance6. Way forward/areas needing further support

2005 2007 2010 2013

Human Dev. Index 0.51 0.53 0.549 0.569

Agriculture value added (% of GDP) 36.2 34.9 32.7 26.5

GNI per capita 472 887 1123 1661

Total population (million) 5.88 6.21 6.44 6.77

Rural population as % of population 73 69 67 64

Poverty rate based on population 30.7 27.6 26 23.2

Main 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

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

GDP per capita (USD)Agriculture contribution to GDP per capita (USD)Agriculture contribution to GDP per capita (%)

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 / grant Active Loan / grant Pipelined grant / loan

1. (1980-1982) Casier-Sud Pioneer Agricultural Project

1. (2009-2016) Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Productivity Enhancement Project ($15 mill)

1. GAFSP (2016-2020): Global Agriculture and Food Security Program - 30 million USD

2. (1984-1990) Agricultural Production Project

3. (1988-1992) Rural Credit Project

2. (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 USD

4. (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 Project

3. (2013-2019) Southern Laos Food and Nutrition Security and Market Linkages Programme ($14.7)

8. (2004-2010) Oudomxai Community Initiative Support Project

9. (2006-2014) Rural Livelihoods Improvement Programme in Attapeu and Sayabouri 10. (2007-2013) Northern Region Sustainable Livelihoods through Livestock Development Project

IFAD funded operations

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

IFAD-funded Programmes Performance (at country and regional levels)

Quality of financial management

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 3 3 4 4 3,5

LAO1396 3 3 5 5 4,0

LAO1459 4 4 4 4 4 4,0

LAO1608 4 4 4 4 4,0

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,33 3,50 4,25 4,20 4,00 3,9

Regional average 3,70 3,80 4,00 4,10 4,05 3,9

Portfolio average score improvement in 5 years: 3.3 (moderately unsatisfactory) in 2011 to 4.0 (moderately satisfactory) in 2015

In 2014 only one project had a “satisfactory” (5) rating for FM: LDP Other projects were rated “moderately satisfactory” (4) for FM Increase 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.

LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO16800

1

2

3

4

5

6

Quality of financial ma-nagement

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5

Quality of financial management

Country average Regional average

Acceptable disbursement rate

Country 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 SSSJ LDP after an "unsatisfactory" score during its early years of implementation, only gradually

improved toward its completion SNRMPEP has followed the same patterns, but managed to reach satisfactory disbursement

levels at completion in 2015


1

2

3

4

5

6


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 5 5 5 5 5,0

LAO1396 2 2 3 4 2,8

LAO1459 3 3 4 5 3,8

LAO1608 4 3 3 3,3

LAO1680 4 4,0

Country average 3,33 3,50 3,75 4,20 3,8

Regional average 3,40 3,50 3,40 3,50 3,5

Availability of counterpart funding

Avg score for country portfolio in 2015: 4.4 “moderately satisfactory” In 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.


1

2

3

4

5

6


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 4 4 6 6 5,0

LAO1396 4 4 4 5 4,3

LAO1459 4 4 4 5 5 4,4

LAO1608 4 4 4 5 4,3

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 4,00 4,00 4,50 4,80 4,67 4,4


Quality and timeliness of audits

Since 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)


1

2

3

4

5

6


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 3 3 4 4 3,5

LAO1396 4 4 4 5 4,3

LAO1459 4 4 4 4 4 4,0

LAO1608 4 4 4 5 4,3

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,67 3,75 4,00 4,20 4,33 4,0


Quality of project management

The average over 5 years: Country portfolio rating very slightly above regional rating The quality of project management improved in the past two years, mostly due to the

improved ratings for LDP and SNRMPEP On 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

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5


Country averageRegional average

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 3 4 4 4 3,8

LAO1396 4 4 4 5 4,3

LAO1459 4 4 4 5 5 4,4

LAO1608 4 4 3 4 3,8

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,67 4,00 4,00 4,20 4,33 4,05


PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Compliance with procurement

The lack of compliance with IFAD procurement guidelines is one of the key issues of the portfolio

Country average significantly below regional average in 2015 Most 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

1301 1396 1459 1608 16800

1

2

3

4

5

6

Compliance with procu-rement

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5

Compliance with procurement


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

1301 3 3 4 4 3,5

1396 4 4 4 5 4,3

1459 4 4 4 4 4 4,0

1608 4 4 4 4 4,0

1680 4 3 3,5

Country average 3,67 3,75 4,00 4,20 3,67 3,9


Performance of M&E

Country average consistently below regional average SSSJ has been continuously rated “moderately unsatisfactory”, SNRMPEP almost consistently

“Moderately Satisfactory”, LDP improved to “Moderately Satisfactory” FNML has started on “Moderately Satisfactory” and effort should be made to improve to a 5

“satisfactory” Overall improvement required for all projects Projects 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

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Performance of M&E

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5

Performance of M&E


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 3 3 3 3 3,0

LAO1396 3 3 4 4 3,5

LAO1459 4 4 4 3 4 3,8

LAO1608 4 4 3 3 3,5

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,33 3,50 3,75 3,40 3,67 3,53


Coherence between AWPB and implementation

Country 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.

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Coherence between AWPB and implementation 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 4 3 4 4 3,8

LAO1396 3 3 4 5 3,8

LAO1459 4 4 4 4 4 4,0

LAO1608 4 3 4 4 3,8

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,67 3,50 3,75 4,20 4,00 3,84


Responsiveness of service providers

Ratings for country portfolio consistently below APR average The weak capacities and/or lack of responsiveness of service providers are the key issues

faced by the country programme portfolio An improvement is however noted in 2015 for three projects, which received a score of

"4"

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

1 2 3 4 5 63

4

5



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 4 4 4 4 4,0

LAO1396 2 2 3 4 2,8

LAO1459 3 3 3 4 4 3,4

LAO1608 4 3 3 4 3,5

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,00 3,25 3,25 3,80 4,00 3,47


Overall implementation progress

Over 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 average Average performance dropped from 2014 to 2015 However, SSSJ has recovered from being a “problem project” to having a “moderately satisfactory”

score in 2015

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Overall implementation progress

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5

Overall implementation progress (LAO)


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 4 4 4 4 4,0

LAO1396 4 4 4 5 4,3

LAO1459 3 3 3 4 4 3,4

LAO1608 4 4 4 3 3,8

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,67 3,75 3,75 4,20 3,67 3,84


TARGETING

Gender focus Most 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 LDP’s performance improved towards project completion

For last 5 years average performance for country has been below regional average

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Gender focus

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Gender focus


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 two years of implementation: LDP and SSSJ

Poverty focus

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Poverty focus

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Poverty focus


Effectiveness of targeting approach Until 2013, few projects were assessed as adequately

reaching out to their intended target groups, especially in the initial years

Three projects received a low score of "3" or "2" in their early years of implementation.

Although the gap has decreased, the average country programme average score has been consistently below the APR regional average

The quality of beneficiary participation has been found "moderately satisfactory" for most projects during the period under review (except for LDP with a 5)

The country programme performance is broadly at par with the APR regional portfolio

But the closure of LAO1396 has caused a recent decline in the country average score

Quality of beneficiary participation

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Effectiveness of targeting approach

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Effectiveness of targeting approach


LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Quality of beneficiary participation

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Quality of beneficiary par-ticipation


QUALITY OF RESULTS

Innovation and learning Starting from a low base (3.33 was the average country

score in 2011), the portfolio average score is higher that the average APR regional score since 2013

Two projects (LDP and SNRMPEP) received the highest score ("5") towards completion

These scores accounted for the sharp improvement in country portfolio score between 2012 and 2013/4.

Project-level focus on climate change and the environment is only rated "moderately satisfactory“ for most projects

The average country portfolio score is also lower that the APR regional average,

A sharper focus on these important issues - that have a critical bearing on target groups' livelihoods means - need to be better reflected in project design and/or implementation.

Climate and environment focus


1

2

3

4

5

6

Innovation and learning

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5

Innovation and learning


LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO16800

1

2

3

4

5

6


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5



Institution building and learning The performance of most projects in strengthening

capacities of local institutions was rated "moderately satisfactory"

Except for the year 2013, the average country programme score was below the average APR regional score

In a context of low capacities, this is certainly an issue of concern that deserves adequate attention and more investment in institutional capacity building activities

Only SNRMPEP managed to receive a score of "5" during its last two years of implementation

Two projects, RLIP and SSSJ had low score for empowerment

Overall, the country portfolio average scores has been consistently lower than the APR regional average

Empowerment


1

2

3

4

5

6

Institution building and learning

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5




1

2

3

4

5

6

Empowerment

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5

Empowerment


Innovation and learning This indicator measures the extent to which project

activities are generating adequate benefits for project beneficiaries.

Completed projects RLIP and LDP were rated "satisfactory" rating towards completion

Other projects have received a "moderately satisfactory" score for this important indicator

The portfolio average score has been below the APR regional average for most of the period except in 2013 and 2014

Performance against "food security" follows a similar pattern as the indicator "physical/financial assets"

The average score of "4" recorded over the last 5 years for the portfolio as a whole

Important to improve scores especially since most projects are implemented in districts with a large proportion of malnourished children and food-insecure households, as measured by RIMS surveys.

Food security

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Physical/financial assets

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Physical/financial assets


LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Food security

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Food security


IMPACTS

Institution building and learning Most projects rated "moderately satisfactory"

throughout the period under review In a context of low capacities, this is certainly an issue of

concern that deserves adequate attention and more investment in institutional capacity building activities. Except for the year 2013, the average country programme score was lower that the average APR regional score.

Empowerment: Of the five projects, only LAO1459 managed to receive a score of "5" during its last two years of implementation for the indicator "empowerment". Two projects, one completed (LAO1301) and one on-going (LAO1608) were provided a low score of "3". For the latter project, important changes in implementation approaches may be recommended. Overall, the country portfolio average scores has been consistently lower than the APR regional average, which should call for action and correction.

Empowerment


1

2

3

4

5

6


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5




1

2

3

4

5

6

Empowerment

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5

Empowerment


Exit strategy The long-term sustainability of project benefits not well

imbedded in project design and/or actively pursued through an appropriate exit

strategy Trend is similar to that of the entire APR portfolio, but to

a lesser extent, Lao portfolio average has been consistently lower that

the regional average.

Most projects rated "moderately satisfactory" LPD seems to have the greatest potential and in fact will

be scaled up in a new project Compared with the APR regional portfolio, Lao portfolio

scores were consistently lower.

Potential for replication and upscaling

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exit strategy

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Exit strategy


LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Potential for scaling up and replication

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Potential for scaling up and replication


Quality of natural assets and climate resilience

Project impact on improving resilience to climate change has been rated "moderately satisfactory" for all projects since this new indicator was introduced.

This compares unfavourably with the APR regional average.


1

2

3

4

5

6


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5



1. Institutional capacity building 2. Effective coordination between central project

coordination unit and provincial/district team3. Delivering AWPB physical and/or financial

targets4. Timely and transparent procurement and

disbursement5. M&E: data collection, reporting and use for

programme management

General Issues

1. Improved and timely planning process and programme implementation (faster, cheaper and better)

• Planning and budgeting =>AWPB <= Financial Management • Beneficiaries HHs -> M&E 2. Integrated project management system (e.g. M&E for planning, mapping, MIS in program management, etc.,)3. KM / KS (Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Working group, considering as the highest policy platform in the country / case studies and learning events/routes at country and regional levels in partnership with Procasur, etc.,)4. Partnerships with other DPs to support programme performance (Lux-Dev, AFD, FAO, WFP, CIAT, IRRI, WB, ADB, UN-HABITA, etc.,)5. Coordination/ Capacity building /management to support decentralization initiative• How to strengthen the in-country capacity for the development of effective pro-poor

investment policies and institutions?• How to develop the capacity of key service providers for the delivery of quality services?• How to improve the accountability of public institutions and systems and to ensure

sustainability?6. Implementation Support Missions/ technical coaching

Way forward/areas needing further support

Thank You IFAD Country OfficeBenoit Thierry, CPM Soulivanh Pattivong, CPO

02 ifad portfolio review

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of 02 ifad portfolio review