1. BASIC INFORMATION a. Basic project data Project title: Kenya Kirmira-Oluch Smallholder Irrigation Development Project Project code: P-KE-AAZ-001

Instrument number(s): ADF LOAN NO:2100150012296

Project type: INVESTMENT

Sector: OSAN

Country: Kenya Environmental categorization (1-3): 1Processing Milestones Key Events Disbursement and Closing

date Date approved: 31 May, 2006

Cancelled amount: None Original disbursement deadline: 30 September 2013

Date signed: 14 July,2006

Supplementary financing: None Original closing date: 30September 2013

Date of entry into force: 21 Sept. 2006

Restructuring: N/A Revised disbursement deadline:

Date effective for 1stdisbursement: 20 October, 2006

Extensions (specify dates):

1. 1 October, 2013 to 30 Sept. 2014

2. 1 October, 2014 to 31 August 2015

3. 1 Sept.,2015 to 30 June, 2016

Revised closing date:

30 Sept 2016

Date of actual 1st :b. Financing sources

Financing source/instrument (MUA)

Approved amount(MUA) :

Disbursed amount(MUA) :

Percentage disbursed(%):

Loan: 22.98 Million 22.98 Million 100.0 Grant: 1.15 Million 1.15 Million 100.0 Government: 34.44 Million 63.0 Other (ex. Co-financiers):

N/A N/A

TOTAL : 58.57 Million Co-financiers and other external partners:

Execution and implementation agencies: Originally Ministry of Regional Development Authorities, then Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and RegionalDevelopment Authorities (MENR&RDAs)/Kimira Oluch Smallholder Farm Improvement Project (KOSFIP) Project Management Coordination Team ( PMCT)c. Responsible Bank staff

Position At approval At completion Regional Director GABRIEL NEGATU Sector Director ALY ABOU-SABAA CHIJI OJUKWU

PCR EVALUATION NOTE FOR PUBLIC SECTOR OPERATIONS

Sector Manager CHIJI OJUKWU JOSEPHINE MWANGI-MUTUURA

Task Manager ALEX MEND ONESMUS MAINA Alternate Task Manager ONESMUS MAINA AHMED SHEIKH PCR Team Leader ONESMUS MAINA PCR Team Members LOUSELGED MEKONNEN,

WALTER ODEROd. Report data PCR Date : 20 October 2017 PCR Mission Date: From: 17 October 2016 To: 21 October 2016 PCR-EN Date: Evaluator/consultant : John Redwood III Peer Reviewer/Task Manager:

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONSummary from Appraisal Report including addendum/corrigendum or loan agreement, and taking into account any modification that occurred during the implementation phase.

This project sought to develop sustainable and environmentally friendly smallholder irrigation schemes in the Kimira and Oluch sites and increase household income and food security through irrigated smallholder agriculture, and thereby to contribute to enhancing sustainable income levels for the rural households and thus help in alleviate poverty. In pursuit of these objectives, it had components for irrigation scheme development and management, marketing and extension, and project coordination and management.

a. Rationale and expected impacts:Provide a brief and precise description on the project/programme rationale (concerns/questions raised), expected impacts and the intended beneficiaries (directly or indirectly impacted by the project/programme). Highlight any change that occurred during the execution phase.

Nyanza Province in western Kenya had the highest poverty incidence in the countryat the time the project was appraised. This province was densely populated, had unreliable rainfall, and had experienced frequent crop failures. Thus, interventions in agriculture that sought to increase household income had been identified as the number one priority for the area. Increasing irrigated agricultural-based incomes in such an environment, more specifically, was expected to ensure a secure production of staple and high value crops with better returns to farmers. The project’s expected impact was an increase in household incomes and food security as the result of sustainable and environmentally-friendly investments inn irrigated agriculture at two sites in this province.

b. Objectives/Expected Outcomes:Provide a clear and concise description of the project objectives, expected outcomes, and intended beneficiaries. In so doing, highlight any revision/amendment.

The project’s sector goal was to enhance sustainable income levels for the rural households and thus help in alleviating poverty. It was also to improve agricultural production and productivity and the value of produce for poverty reduction and improve rural livelihoods in Kenya. The specific objectives were to develop sustainable and environmentally friendly smallholder irrigation schemes in the Kimira and Oluch sites and to increase household income and food security throughirrigated smallholder agriculture.

c. Outputs and intended beneficiaries:Provide a clear and concise description the expected outputs and intended beneficiaries. In so doing, highlight any revision/amendment.

The project’s main output will be the development of two irrigation schemes for theproduction of staple and high value crops through gravity flow, provision of extension service and market services as well as establishment of farmer organizations that will own and manage the irrigation schemes. Its intended direct beneficiaries were 3,000 small farmers and their households.

d. Principal activities/Components:Provide a clear and concise description of the principal activities/components. In so doing, highlight any revision/amendment.

The project had three components:

Irrigation Scheme Development and Management: This component had two sub-components: (i) irrigation scheme development and management; and (ii) formation of Water Users Associations. More specifically, it was expected to involve the development of two irrigation schemes with associated drainage, road networks, and civil and hydraulic structures covering about 1,474 ha. In addition, about 88 km of feeder roads would be constructed, 97 smallholder irrigation associations would be established and later combined to form two Irrigation Water Users Associations (IWUAs), which would be trained toefficiently manage the schemes.

Marketing and Extension: This component had three sub-components: (i) support to an estimated 3,000 farmers, including training in entrepreneurial skills, good crop husbandry practices, quality control, and irrigation system management; (ii) training of up to 120 extension workers (of which 40% were expectedto be women) based on the training needs assessment report; and (iii) promotion of market linkages to: (a) enhance and incorporate small scale producers into local, regional and global supply chains through innovative technical interventions in the field as well as market analysis: and (b) with commercial buyers, training through partnerships with buyers using service providers with various skills.

Project Coordination and Management:The project would be implemented within the existing institutional framework at ministerial and district levels. To this effect, an overall Focal Point would be designated at the Executing Agency to act as a liaison officer. At the field level where actual project implementation would take place, a team of experts would be recruited to augment the capacity of the District administration.

3. PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

RELEVANCE

a. Relevance of the project development objective: Evaluation of the relevance ex-ante and ex-post (including during the implementation phase). The relevance of the project objective(during the evaluation ex-ante and the post-evaluation) in terms of alignment with country’s development priorities and strategies, the beneficiary needs (including any changes that may have occurred during the implementation), applicable Bank sector strategies, the Bank country/ regional strategy, and general strategic priorities of the Bank. This criterion equally assesses the extent to which the project’s development objective was clearly stated and focused on outcomes and the realism of the intended outcomes in the project setting.

The project’s development objective was very relevant to the country’s development objectives as articulated in the Strategy for Revitalization of Agriculture (SRA, 2004-2010), which was the overall strategy guiding the Kenya agriculture sector at that time and entailed a unified agriculture sector ministries’ response towards supporting the Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS, 2003-2007). It was also relevant to the successive Government’s Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) of 2010-2020 as well as MTP and Vision 2030. In addition, it was aligned to the Bank’s Ten-Year Strategy (2012-2022) and contributed to the MDG of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. This evaluation thus concurs with the PCR’s Highly Satisfactory (4) rating.

b. Relevance of project design (from approval to completion):The evaluator should provide an assessment of the relevance of the project design regardless of the one provided in the PCR. The evaluator will also comment on the PCR conclusion for this section, and will provide an evaluation of the relevance of the project design. The latter assesses the soundness and the timing of eventual adjustments, or technical solutions to ensure the achievement ofthe intended results (outcomes and outputs), the adequacy of the risk assessment, environmental and social protection measures, as well as the implementation arrangements. For Programme Based Operations (PBO), an assessment will be made on the relevance of the prior actions, the policy dialogue and the extent to which the operation could have been more pro-poor in its design.

Project design was substantially relevant, and this evaluation also concurs with the proposed Satisfactory (3) rating in the PCR. The two proposed gravity irrigation schemes were cost-effective, easy to operate, and easy to maintain alternatives for irrigation development in the area and they were combined in a single project under the same management structure since thee agricultural and water resources, technical, and socio-economic situations of the two schemes werevery similar. The project sought to build the capacities of community and other local institutions toidentify and manage watershed issues and implement conservation or mitigation measures. It also

sought to address linkages between upstream and downstream land use practices through community-level integrated ecosystem management plans. The project likewise included training and management of WUAs for sustainable community-based smallholder irrigation and drainage systems and adopted a participatory approach that facilitated farmer involvement from project inception to implementation. Project implementation was carried out by a multi-sectoral team to provide knowledge transfer to farmers and an efficient implementation process. The project’s monitoring framework, however, neglected to include enhance household food security, which was an explicit part of the project’s development objective as cited above.

EFFECTIVENESS

c. Effectiveness in delivering outputs :Evaluation of the extent to which the project achieved its stated results (obtained from the logical framework) based on the last Implementation Progress and Results Report (IPR) and by considering accurate reporting of direct or indirect evidence on intended and unanticipated outputs. In the absence of sufficient data (as direct evidence), indirect evidence (such as project outcomes and other pertinent processes/elements of the causal chain) should be used particularly in the evaluation of the extent to which the project is expected to achieve its stated results/ objectives. The absence of sufficient data to assess the effectiveness shouldbe indicated (and clearly detailed in the PCR quality evaluation section). The PCR score should equally be indicated in this section.

Effectiveness in delivering project outputs was mixed and this assessment agrees with the PCR’s Satisfactory (3) rating although a Moderately Satisfactory rating, as the PCR itself suggests, wouldhave been more appropriate. Major infrastructure works were completed but some of the minor ones were not and the project fell short with respect to farmer training and the delivery some other intended outputs in part due to funding shortages as detailed below.

1. The upstream irrigation infrastructure (weir) is in place and functional – 100% completed (One weir in each scheme constructed and functional. The roads were rehabilitated and in use by farmers although some parts were damaged by floods. Domestic water points were likewise constructed and reportedly were currently in use by farmers.)

2. The in-field irrigation and drainage system is in place and functional -- 74% completed (delays occasioned by remittance of GoK funds). The completed works are reportedly functioning effectively.

3. Blocks constructed and connected – 0% completed -- Yet to be done (sensitization meetings are on-going in blocks where minor works have been completed). A total of 94 blocks yet to be constructed and connected.

4. Civil works supervised to specifications:a. Main infrastructure – 100% completeb. In-field, irrigation and drainage system -- In-field irrigation drainage system

constructed 59.05km in the project area supervision contract time (man-hours) elapsed when the works were at 74% complete and contract discharged. Subsequent Supervision of these works is reportedly being done by the executing agency.

c. Vehicles and motorcycles provided – appraisal targets surpassed by 100% (8 vs 4) and 175 % (22 vs. 8), respectively.

5. Land Information System – 86% completed (86% for Kimura scheme and 84% for Oluch scheme).

6. Formation of IUWAs:a. Training of trainers – 100% completed.

b. IUWAs formed and functional – 100% completedc. Farmers trained in irrigation management – 19% (adoption of trained approaches to

farming was low due to incomplete construction of minor irrigation infrastructure).d. Share Capital base established in each scheme – 0 (No farmer cooperative society has

been established due to low produce by farmers).e. Irrigation schemes properly maintained and handed over to IWUA by year 5 – 87%

complete -- major works are complete (100%) but minor canal construction is incomplete (74%) due to low funding by GoK.

f. Socio-economic and gender analysis baseline study conducted – 33% complete -- only one baseline study was conducted during project implementation. Periodic assessment of the socio-economic indicator was to be conducted.

g. Sensitization meetings for extension workers and communities conducted – 100% completed.

h. M&E System developed – 100% completed and operational.7. Marketing and Extension:

Farmers trained in agricultural production and marketing – 75% (3,000 against a target of 4,000) -- the remaining 1,000 farmers were expected to be trained before the project closure. Out of the trained farmers 43% are women.

Irrigation training plots established – appraisal target was exceeded by 33% (8 instead of 6) -- due to the size of the project area more irrigation training plots were necessary to reach all farmers.

Starter inputs provided to poor farmers – 1.3% completed -- the activity was constrained by shortage of funds arising from reallocation of the budget to major works.

Demonstration plots established and farmers trained through field schools – 8% -- the project reportedly integrated the farmer field school with other appropriate approaches.

Block irrigation efficiency study conducted – 0 – not carried out because the irrigation infrastructure was incomplete.

Farmers study tours organized to commercial farms – 75% of the appraisal target met -- the tours have reportedly enabled farmers to learn and practice technologies.

Farmers trained on entrepreneurship skills – 8.9% -- technical assistance was sought from Hortpro consultancy which provided 32 ToTs (training of trainers) for a period of 3 person-months.

Sustainable farming training provided – 9.4% -- The project concentrated on training a few farmers from whom other farmers were expected to learn.

Training in fodder production provided – 100% achieved. Workshops on farm planning conducted – appraisal target surpassed by 40% (7 vs. 5). Training on post-harvest provided – 1.8% -- only preliminary training had been

conducted since the activity will be based during full crop production. Short term expertise provided – 25% -- this activity was limited by shortage of funds. Post-harvest handling facilities constructed and functional – not carried out as funds

were reallocated to major works.8. Support to extension workers:

a. Motorcycles provided – appraisal target (14) surpassed -- 22 motorcycles procured and in use. Demand of the project activities necessitated the purchase of additional motorcycles.

b. District extension workers trained on irrigated agriculture – 3.3% -- the funds earmarked for the activity were reallocated for construction of works hence the low number of extension officers trained.

9. Market linkages:a. Market study conducted and market intelligence information made available—87.5%

(7 out of 8) -- market intelligence information was gathered in local and regional market.

b. Training in marketing product quality control and phytosanitary conducted – 5% -- marketing manuals have been prepared for the farmers reference.

c. System water level established – not established because minor works construction is incomplete.

d. Number of resettlement houses 95 and 1 church constructed – 100% complete.e. Number of farmers compensated for relocation – 100%.f. Number of farmers trained/sensitized to adopt best environmental management

practices – 57% -- slow uptake and adoption of the skill learnt was experienced during the implementation stage.

g. Number of social infrastructures developed to prevent water-borne diseases (6) – 100% -- health facilities were rehabilitated and equipped to a minimum level to diagnose and treat water related diseases.

h. Domestic water point constructed and functional (8) – 100%.i. Water harvesting (56) – 100%.j. Environmental and social management plan (ESMP) implemented -- 71.4% --

according to the PCR, adherence and compliance to the ESMP was ensured at every level of irrigation infrastructure works.

d. Effectiveness in delivering outcomes:Evaluation of the extent to which the project achieved its intended set of outcomes (including for Program Based Operations (PBOs) where complementary measures are necessary for their implementation, namely public awareness, policy dialogue and institutional arrangements for instance). The evaluator should make an assessment based on the results of the last project Implementation Progress and Results (IPR). The evaluator shall indicate the degree to which project outcomes (intended and unanticipated) as well as reasons for any eventual gap were discussed in the PCR.

Project effectiveness in delivering planned outcomes was Unsatisfactory (2) rather than Satisfactory (3) as claimed by the PCR, as is illustrated below:

1. Increased yield per hectare and better prices for farm produce – varied between 50% and 87.5% of the appraisal targets. According to the PCR, the increase in yield was attributed to availability of irrigation water, trainings and adoption of modern agronomic technologies. Progress towards target is less than 100% in all the crops due to the fact that farmers were still using rudimentary methods of irrigation because of the incomplete in-field irrigation infrastructure.

2. Increased farm income from agriculture processing and marketing – average income per capita per annum increased only 30% in relation to appraisal target while net farm income per household increased 66.7% in this regard. The PCR found that there had been no

substantial change in per capita incomes since development of the schemes was still ongoing.

3. Adverse social and environmental effects prevented – all needed resettlement took place as planned and all required compensation for land taken was reportedly made.

4. Reduced degradation of the project environment – 79.8% of the farmers to be trained were trained and according to the PCR, the application of the best environmental management practices learnt by the trained farmers helped in controlling the degradation of the project environment during implementation stage. However, no actual evidence is presented to support this affirmation.

5. Incidence of water-related diseases decline in the project area – according to the PCR, the project’s health promotion activities were aimed at reducing the incidence level by 20% by the project completion time. However, it is not clear from the PCR as to whether this actually occurred.

6. Reduced level of negative effects on the social and physical environment of the project – here too it is not clear from the PCR whether this has occurred.

e. Project development outcome: The ratings derived for outcomes and output are combined to assess the progress the project has made towards realizing its development objectives, based on the rating methodology recommended in the Staff Guidance Note on project completion reportingand rating (see IPR Guidance Note for further instruction on development objective rating).

The project failed to achieve its development objective by the time it was completed as measured by its key outcome indicators none of which appear to have met their appraisal targets. This was particularly the case with respect to agricultural yields and farmer incomes the increase in which was a key explicit part of the project’s development objective as was enhanced food security, whichwas not measured (or presumably monitored) at all. Thus, the present evaluation rates project development outcome as Unsatisfactory (2), disagreeing with the PCR’s Satisfactory (3) rating.

f. Beneficiaries:Using evidence, the evaluator should provide an assessment of the relevance of the total number of beneficiaries by categories and disaggregated by sex.

Only 17% (500) of the appraisal target (300) of farmer households were receiving and using irrigation at the time the project closed., while only one-third (1,000 of 3,000) farmers had been trained in agricultural production and just 12.5% (15 out of 120) line ministry staff had been trained to support farmers through extension work. Actual project performance in this regard was, thus, very disappointing.

g. Unanticipated additional outcomes (positive or negative, not taken into consideration in the project logical framework) : This includes gender, climate change, as well as social and socio-economic- related issues. Provide an assessment of the extent to which intended or unanticipated additional and important outcomes have been taken into consideration by the PCR. The assessment should also look at the manner the PCR accounted for these outcomes.

Two unanticipated positive outcomes were listed in the PCR:

Land values have gone up as a result of the project, and Housing standards improved in the project area due to improved transportation of

building materials as a result of project road and bridge improvements.

EFFICIENCY

h. Timeliness:The timeliness of project implementation is based on a comparison between the planned and actual period of implementation from the date of effectiveness for first disbursement. For Programme Based Operations (PBOs), the timely release of the tranche(s) are assessed through this same criterion.

The project was expected to take 6 years, but, in practice, took 9, indicating poor timeliness. Thus, this assessment rates project performance in this regard as Unsatisfactory (2). The PCR describes the reasons for the significant implementation delays as follows:

The planned project duration was extended due to delay in commencement of construction of irrigation infrastructure. The commencement of construction of main and secondary irrigation infrastructure lagged behind schedule due to inadequate budget for the works and the effect of post-election violence of 2008. The preparation of the designs for minor works also took longer than planned and consequently the disbursement of funds for implementation of the same could not be done on time. The minor works are still ongoing and the in-fields canals and drains are also underway. The development of a Land Information System for the schemes was slowed down due to interruption from bad weather (flooding) and need to allow for harvesting of crops each season hence there’s need for more time to complete the activity. The IWUAs have not yet established share capital and system for water levy because full scale agricultural production is yet to commence being the anticipated main source of revenue for the farmers. Arising from the incomplete development of the irrigation infrastructure, the level of crop production is still low becausethe concentration is still on technologies demonstration. Only the early adopters comprisingof approximately 20% of the farming population have started commercial crop production due to their proximity to the main irrigation infrastructure. In general, the project encountered a number of challenges relating to lengthy procurement procedures which adversely affected timely implementation of most the activities.

i. Resource use efficiency:Provide and assessment of physical implementation (based on outputs delivered) against resources used (based on cumulative commitments) at completion for all contributors to the project (the Bank, Government, and others). This criterion would normally not apply to PBOs, as there is often no direct link between the outputs and the amount of contribution (in which case the rater would indicate N/A).

Resource use efficiency was likewise Unsatisfactory (2) since, as noted with respect to the effectiveness of delivering its intended outputs above, not all of the planned activities were carried out within the planned project budget envelope.

Cost-benefit analysis:Provide an assessment of the timeliness of the development outputs, and the extent to which costs of the costs have been effective and have been provided in the most efficient manner. The PCR rating should be discussed. The evaluator should verify whether the benefits of the project (achieved or expected) exceed its actual costs. To achieve this, evidences will mainly be based on a comparison between Economic Rates of Return (ERR) calculated at appraisal, the mid-term review and completion. When commenting PCR ratings, the degree of utilization of valid sources for evidence justifying the rating assigned should be taken into consideration. The evaluator should ensure of the validity of assumptions and that the same model was used for the calculation of others ERRs. For PBOs for which this calculation model does not apply, an assessment could be done with regards to the contribution of policy reforms to economic growth. In the absence of sufficient evidence, an appropriate rating should be assigned.

This analysis could not be carried out at the time of the PCR because the water distribution and application works were on-going and yet to be completed to enable improved production on most irrigated farms. However, given that either additional investments – and thus costs -- will be required to fully implement project activities as planned or these investments will not take place atall, the corresponding additional benefits will either take longer to come on stream or will not occur at all. Thus, it is highly likely that the actual ex-post ERR will be lower than that estimated at appraisal. Hence, this assessment concurs with the PCR’s proposed Unsatisfactory (2) rating.

k. Implementation progress:The assessment of the Implementation Progress (IP) on the PCR is derived from the updated IPR and takes into account the all applicable IP criteria assessed under the three categories : i) Compliance with covenants (project covenants, environmental and social safeguards and audit compliance), ii) project systems and procedures (procurement, financial management and monitoring and evaluation), and iii) project execution and financing (disbursement, budget commitments, counterpart funding and co-financing).

Implementation progress is likewise rated Unsatisfactory (2), as in the PCR, because optimal irrigation is yet to be realized as only a few farmers access the irrigation water from the conveyance system and the water storage facilities and the farmers are thus still using rudimentary techniques of water application which include siphoning, bucket, blocking overflow among others. Therefore, the rate of agricultural production remains unsatisfactory estimated at 20% and is only attributed to early adopters who have experienced the benefits of irrigated agriculture. Furthermore, at the time of project closing, the IWUAs were not operating satisfactorily due to slow membership recruitment by their leadership precipitated by the fact thatmost members of the community are not contributing adequately towards the prescribed registration fee.

SUSTAINABILITY

l. Financial sustainability:Provide an assessment of the extent to which funding mechanisms and modalities (eg. Tariffs, user fees, maintenance fees, budgetary allocations, other stakeholder contributions, aid flows, etc.) have been put in place to ensure the continued flow of benefits after completion, with particular emphasis on financial sustainability. For PBOs, the assessment should focus on financial sustainability of reforms, as well as the Bank’s policy dialogue to promote financial sustainability of the reforms.

The financial sustainability of the project was expected to be realized through generation of funds from water levies and agricultural production activities. The envisaged activities were to include farmers establishing capital base (share capital) through saving for the functioning of the organization. However, this is yet to be achieved. Farmers would also be required to establish a system of water levy by which members were to pay charges to cover the costs of operation and maintenance. These strategies likewise are yet to be implemented since the farmer organizations (IWUA) are still in their early stages of formation. The scheme officials are yet to acquire adequate managerial skills and form a proper financial base to effectively engage in the basic operations of the scheme. Thus, this evaluation concurs with the PCR’s Unsatisfactory (2) rating.

m. Institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities:Provide an assessment of the extent to which the project has contributed to the strengthening of institutional capacities – including for instance through the use of country systems – that will continue to facilitate the continued flow of benefits associated with the project. An appreciation should be made with regards to whether or not improved governance practices or improved skills, procedures, incentives, structures, or institutional mechanisms came into effect as a result of the operation. For PBOs, this should

include an assessment on the contributions made to building the capacity to lead and manage the policy reform process; the extent to which the political economy of decision making was conducive to reform; the Government’s commitment to reform; and how thedesign reinforced national ownership.

The institutional arrangement followed a participatory approach where relevant line ministry staff were reportedly incorporated in the operation and maintenance of irrigation structures to provide technical back-stopping services, as a way of providing continuity. There was also provision for the future scheme management to employ scheme staff with technical and managerial skills to handle issues on operation and maintenance. The local government staff has been offering extension services to the Irrigation Water Users Associations (IWUA) leadership with a view to making these organizations fit to take over full responsibility for the monitoring, management, operation and maintenance of the scheme. However, the IWUAs are still at a preliminary stage of formation and their post-project capacity and sustainability are not as yet possible to confirm. Accordingly, this assessment downgrades the PCR’s proposed Highly Satisfactory (4) rating to Satisfactory (3).

n. Ownership and sustainability of partnerships:Provide an assessment of whether the project has effectively involved relevant stakeholders, promoted a sense of ownership amongst the beneficiaries (both men and women) and put in place effective partnerships with relevant stakeholders (eg. local authorities, civil society organizations, private sector, donors) as required for the continued maintenance of the project outputs. ForPBOs, the assessment should measure the extent to which the Government’s capacity to conduct consultations during policy dialogue and the extent to which the Bank supported the Government in deepening the consultation processes.

In order to ensure ownership, continuous community training was carried out to increase awareness on scheme development and management issues. The farmers formed two IWUAs, which were trained to enhance their capacity to operate and manage the schemes. IWUA officials were elected to serve at both block and scheme levels respectively. The inclusion of farmer representatives in the project steering committee was done in an effort to ensure that beneficiaries are involved in the decision- making process.To ensure sustainability of partnerships, linkages were to be developed between farmers and collaborating partners. However, the performance of IWUA leadership does not give one the confidence that they will effectively and sustainably operate and maintain the schemes currently and there is need for more time for greater capacity building. Therefore, this item is rated Unsatisfactory (2)

o. Environmental and social sustainability:Provide an assessment of the objectivity of the PCR rating on the project’s implementation of environmental and social mitigation/enhancement measures with regard to the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP), the capacity of countryinstitutions and systems, as well as the availability of funding to ensure the environmental and social sustainability of the operation.This criterion would normally only apply to Environmental Category I and II projects.

The environmental and social sustainability of the schemes was reportedly addressed by including the negative environmental impacts in the Code of Good Practices for Construction and developing an ESMP to monitor the environmental issues occurring in all the phases of the works. This has reportedly taken care of environmental and social concerns by providing appropriate andadequate crossings over the works, upgrading and equipping health facilities, provision of clean drinking water (from roof catchments and communal water points). The project also trained farmers on various aspects of environmental conservation, including monitoring of the environmental changes. However, some of the conservation activities that were geared towards environmental and social sustainability reportedly remained fragile due to the low level of

adoption of technologies by the farmers. This notwithstanding, the main canals were lined to reduce the risk of siltation and the growth of weeds while project design excluded problem areas from the irrigation layout, especially, areas with serious risk of salinity and the environmentally sensitive areas. Conservation of the upper catchment areas of the two rivers, which are the sourcesof the irrigation water for the two schemes, was done to reduce land degradation and ensure the protection and sustainable use of the upstream water catchments. The project also prepared guidelines for farmers to enhance their capacity to supervise the ESMP. Thus, this evaluation agrees with the PCR’s Satisfactory (3) rating for this item.

4. PERFORMANCE OF STAKEHOLDERS

a. Bank performance:(Preparation/approval, ensure of Quality at Entry (QAE) : quality of the supervision, completion) : Provide observations on the objectivity of the PCR ratings and feedback provided by the Borrower, and if necessary, re-assess the Bank’s performance throughout the project cycle (design, implementation, completion) by focusing on evidence from the PCR in relation to 7 criteria defined in the PCR Guidance Note.

Disbursement of funds from the Bank was done on timely basis throughout the project period as planned. With strengthening of the Regional office, requests for relevant approvals with respect to procurement processes were reportedly promptly acted upon whenever they reached the Bank. The Bank provided regular guidance through supervision missions and capacity building of relevant project staff on procurement and financial procedures. Thus, this assessment concurs with the PCR’s proposed Satisfactory (3) rating.

b. Borrower performance: Provide observations on the objectivity of the PCR ratings, and if necessary, re-assess the Borrower’s performance throughout the project cycle (design, implementation, completion) by focusing on evidence from the PCR in relation to questions defined in the PCR Guidance Note.

Government and implementing agency performance in ensuring quality preparation and implementation was generally satisfactory. Provision of timely counterpart funding was adequately adhered to with the project having a dedicated project counterpart fund account. Project Special Account was replenished accordingly albeit with occasional delays largely from incomplete documentation. The project monitoring and evaluation system was fully operationalized and regular project progress reports were generated and availed to the Bank. The Borrower reportedly endeavoured to implement recommendations by Bank supervision missions and measures were taken by the Borrower in an effort to ensure project sustainability, particularlyby fostering participation of project’s stakeholders and involving the appropriate staff and institutions. However, the project, as designed, was not implemented within the expected time frame and was still not fully completed at the time of closing. This notwithstanding and while Moderately Satisfactory would have been a more appropriate rating, this evaluation accepts the PCR’s proposed Satisfactory (3) rating.

c. Performance of other stakeholders: Provide observations on the objectivity of the PCR ratings, and if necessary, re-assess the other shareholders’ performance throughout the project cycle (design, implementation, completion) by focusing on evidence from the PCR in relation to relevant questions specific to each stakeholder (co-financiers, NGO, contractors and service providers).

Where adequately facilitated, the contractors reportedly delivered quality work within the reasonable time. However, some local contractors did not deliver the works on time due to slow pace and intermittent funding. The participation of farmers in the formation of the IWUA and ownership of the schemes’ operation and maintenance was inadequate. However, their in-kind contribution through participation in other project activities was reportedly significant. The project engaged consultants to provide technical assistance on specific aspects of sub components. Most of these consultancies were completed as per the Terms of Reference (ToRs) and specifications except for one assignment for marketing extension and organizational support that failed to deliver due to misunderstanding of the ToRs by the consultant. Considering this mixed performance, and while Moderately Unsatisfactory would probably be a more accurate rating, since this is not an option, this assessment downgrades the PCR rating for the performance of other stakeholders from Satisfactory (3) to Unsatisfactory (2).

5. SUMMARY OF OVERALL PROJECT PERFORMANCE

a. Overall assessment: Provide a summary of the project/programme’s overall performance based on the PCR 4 key components (Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability). Any difference with the PCR and the reasons that have resulted in them should be mentioned. For cases with insufficient evidence (from the PCR and other documents) available, the evaluator should assign a partly satisfactory rating (to be revised) until a post project performance evaluation (e.g. PPER, PER or PRA) is complete.

This project suffered from significant implementation delays and failed to fully achieve its intended outcomes and development objective. In short, both efficiency and effectiveness were inadequate. While it holds promise for better results in the future assuming that all planned activities are eventually completed in a satisfactory manner, actual impacts on irrigated farmer yields and incomes remain to be determined as do the final costs of fully implementing the planned project design, both of which may ultimately have a negative impact on the ex-post cost-benefit analysis if conducted. Thus, the overall project rating is Unsatisfactory (2) – although a Moderately Unsatisfactory rating would have bee more appropriate – as compared with the PCR’s proposed Satisfactory (3) rating.

b. Design, implementation and utilization of the M&E (appreciation of the evaluator):Provide an assessment of planned and actual cost of the design, implementation and utilization of the M&E system. Design : To which extent the project M&E system was explicit, adequate and realistic to generate and analyse relevant data ; Implementation : To which extent relevant data was collected – Elements of M&E implementation and effectiveness in the PCR ; Utilization : degree of utilization of data generated for decision-making and resource allocation – elements of M&E utilization in the PCR.

The design, implementation, and utilization of the M&E system appear to have been adequate andprovided useful information for the PCR. However, as the project as designed was not fully implemented at the time of completion, ongoing monitoring of project costs and benefits (i.e., outputs and associated outcomes) will be required for there to be a definitive judgment as to its ultimate satisfactory of unsatisfactory results, although the ex-post ERR is likely to be lower than that estimated at appraisal.

. EVALUATION OF KEY LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

a. Lessons learned: Provide a brief description of any agreement/disagreement with all or part of the lessons learned from the PCR after analysis of theproject performance with regards to each of the key components of the evaluation (Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and

Sustainability). List the PCR main new and/or reformulated pertinent (and generic) lessons learned for each of these components here. It is recommended that no more than five lessons learned are discussed. Key questions and targeted audience must also be specified for each lesson learned.

Among the lessons learned highlighted by the ICR, two, which are directed to the Government andthe to the Government and the Bank, respectively, are particularly important: (i) the need for pertinent Ministry staff to prioritize project activities to ensure adequate attention to project implementation needs; and (ii) the need for the availability of adequate funds and design documents for all (i.e., both major and minor) infrastructure investments to ensure that they can be implemented in a timely manner.

b. Recommendations: Provide a brief description of any agreement/ disagreement with all or part of the recommendations from the PCR. List the PCR main new and/or reformulated recommendations (requiring more actions by the Borrower and/or the Bank) here.

The two lessons above are also reflected in recommendations contained in the PCR with which thisevaluation entirely agrees. It likewise concurs with the recommendations regarding the critical importance of community participation in project preparation and implementation in part in order to strengthen local ownership of the works and activities involved. It is also recommended that the Bank continue to monitor project implementation through full completion and results in terms of irrigated agricultural outputs and yields and associated impacts on farmer household incomes and conduct an ex-post cost-benefit analysis once this information becomes available.7. COMMENTS ON PCR QUALITY AND TIMELINESSThe overall PCR rating is based on all or part of the criteria presented in the annexe and other: The quality of the PCR is rated as highly satisfactory (4), satisfactory (3), unsatisfactory (2), and highly unsatisfactory (1). The timeliness of the PCR is rated as on time (4) or late (1). The participation of the Borrower, co-financier, and the bank’s external office(s) are rated as follows: Very Good(4), Good (3), Fair (2), Poor (1).

The PCR was delivered more than one year after the project closed. It is of generally good quality, but some of its ratings appear to be too positive based on actual project implementation performance and results at the time of closing as described in the PCR itself. It appears to have done as much as it could with the incomplete information available (regarding full project costs and eventual project benefits) however.

8. SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATIONThis is a summary of both the PCR and IDEV ratings with justification for deviations/comments. Appropriate section of the PCR Evaluation should be indicated in the last column in order to avoid detailed comments. The evaluator must provide a reasonable explanation for each criterion the PCR rating is not validated by IDEV. Consequently, the overall rating of the project could be “equally satisfactory”.

Criteria PCR PCREN Reason for disagreement/ Comments

RELEVANCE 3.5 3.5

Relevance of project development objective 4 4

Relevance of project design 3 3

EFFECTIVENESS 3 2

Development objective (DO) 3 2 The project failed to meet its outcome targets in part because not all infrastructure investments and other project activities

designed to enhance agricultural production and productivity, more sustainably management the natural resource base, and enhance farmer incomes were completed or carried out during the (extended) project implementation period.

EFFICIENCY 2.5 2

Timeliness 3 2 The project took 50% longer to implement than planned

Resource use efficiency 3 2 Not all planned project activities could be financed within the project budget.

Cost-benefit analysis 2 2

Implementation progress (IP) 2 2

SUSTAINABILITY 3.0 2.5

Financial sustainability 2 2

Institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities

4 3 Institutional capacity and sustainability of IWUAs has not yet been ensured

Environmental and social sustainability 3 3

OVERALL PROJECT COMPLETION RATING

3.0 2.5 Project effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability all lower than rated by the PCR

Bank performance: 3 3

Borrower performance: 3 3

Performance of other shareholders: 3 2 Some contractors and consultants appear to have performed inadequately.

Overall PCR quality: 2.5 The PCR was delivered more than one year after the project closing date. It appears to be generally objective but some of its ratingsseem to be overly positive given actual project performance and outcome shortcomings.

9. PRIORITY FOR FUTURE EVALUATIVE WORK: PROJECT FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUTION REPORT, IMPACT EVALUTION, COUNTRY/SECTOR REVIEWS OR THEMATIC EVALUATION STUDIES:

- Project is part of a series and suitable for cluster evaluation

- Project is a success story

- High priority for impact evaluation

- Performance evaluation is required to sector/country review

- High priority for thematic or special evaluation studies (Country)

- PPER is required because of incomplete validation rating

Major areas of focus for future evaluation work:

a) Performance evaluation is required for sector/ country review

b) Cluster evaluation (institutional support)

c) Sector evaluation (budgetary support or public finance management reforms)

Follow up action by IDEV: Identify same cluster or sector operations; organize appropriate work or consultation mission to facilitate a), b) and/or c).

Division Manager clearance Director signing off

Data source for validation: Task Manager/ Responsible bank staff interviewed/contacted (in person, by telephone or

email) Documents/ Database reports

Attachment:

PCR evaluation note validation sheet of performance ratings

List of references

Appendice 1

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT EVALUATION NOTE Validation of PCR performance ratings

PCR rating scale:

Score Description4 Very Good – Fully achieved with no shortcomings3 Good – Mostly achieved despite a few shortcomings2 Fair – Partially achieved. Shortcomings and achievements are roughly balanced1 Poor – very limited achievement with extensive shortcomings

UTS Unable to score/rateNA Non Applicable

Criteria Sub-criteriaPCRworkscore

IDEVreview

Reasons for deviation/comments

RELEVANCE Relevance of the projectdevelopment objective (DO) during implementation

4 4

Relevance of project design (from approval tocompletion)

3 3

OVERALL RELEVANCE SCORE 3.5 3.5

EFFECTIVENESS* Effectiveness in delivering outcomes

Outcome1 3 2

Outcome2 3 2

Effectiveness in delivering output

Output13 3

Output23 2

Development objective (DO)

Development objective rating

3 2

Beneficiaries

Beneficiary13 2

Beneficiary2

Criteria Sub-criteriaPCRworkscore

IDEVreview

Reasons for deviation/comments

Unanticipated outcomes (positive or negative not considered in the project logical framework) and their level of impact on the project (high, moderate, low)Institutional development

4 3

Gender 3 3

Environment & climate change

3 3

Poverty reduction 2 2

Private sector development

NA NA

Regional integration NA NA

Other (specify) NA NA

EFFECTIVENESS OVERALL SCORE 3 2

EFFICIENCY Timeliness (based on theinitial closing date)

3 2

Resource used efficiency

3 2

Cost-benefit analysis 2 1

Implementation progress (from the IPR)

2 2

Other (specify) NA NA

OVERALL EFFICIENCY SCORE 2.5 1.75

SUSTAINABILITYFinancial sustainability

2 2

Institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities

4 3

Ownership and sustainability of partnerships

3 2

Environmental and social sustainability

3 3

*The rating of the effectiveness component is obtained from the development objective (DO) rating in the latest IPR of the project (see Guidance Note on the IPR). The ratings for outputs and outcomes are determined based on the project’s progress towards realizing its targets, and the overall development objective of the project (DO) is obtained by combining the ratings obtained for outputs and outcomes following the method defined in the IPR Guidance Note. The following method is applied: Highly satisfactory (4), Satisfactory (3), Unsatisfactory (2) and Highly unsatisfactory (1).

Criteria Sub-criteriaPCRWorkscore

IDEVreview

Reasons for deviation/comments

BANK PERFORMANCE

Proactive identification and resolution of problems at differentstage of the project cycle

3 3

Use of previous lessons learned from previous operations during design and implementation

3 3

Promotion of stakeholder participation to strengthen ownership

3 3

Enforcement of safeguard and fiduciary requirements

3 3

Design and implementation of Monitoring & Evaluation system

3 3

Quality of Bank supervision (mixof skills in supervisory teams, etc)

3 3

Timeliness of responses to requests

3 3

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE 3 3

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Quality of preparation and implementation

3 2

Compliance with covenants, agreements and safeguards

3 3

Provision of timely counterpart funding

3 3

Responsiveness to supervision recommendations

3 3

Measures taken to establish basis for project sustainability

3 2

Timeliness of preparing requests 3 2

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE 3 2.5

PERFORMANCE OF OTHER

Timeliness of disbursements by co-financiers

NA NA

Functioning of collaborative agreements

NA NA

Quality of policy dialogue with co-financiers (for PBOs only)

NA NA

Quality of work by service providers

3 2

Responsiveness to client demands 3 3

OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

3 2.5

The overall rating is given: Very Good, Good, Fair and Poor.

(i) Very Good (HS) : 4(ii) Good (H) : 3(iii) Fair (US) : 2(iv) Poor (HUS): 1

DESIGN, IMPLEMENTAION AND UTILIZATION OF MONITIRING ANDEVALUATION (M&E)

Criteria Sub-criteriaIDEVScore

Comments

M&E DESIGN M&E system is in place, clear, appropriate and realistic

3

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were duly approved

3

Existence of disaggregated gender indicator

3

Baseline data were available or collected during the design

3

Other, specify NA

OVERALL M&E DESIGN SCOREM&E IMPLEMENTA-TION

The M&E function is adequately equipped and staffed

3 Appears to have been the case.

OVERALL M&E IMPLEMENTATION SCOREM&E UTILIZATION

The borrower used the tracking information for decision

3

OVERALL M&E UTILIZATION SCOREOVERALL M&E PERFORMANCE SCORE

3

PCR QUALITY EVALUATION

Criteria PCR-EVN Comments

(1-4)

QUALITY OF PCR

1. Extent of quality and completeness of the PCR evidence and analysis to substantiate the ratings of the various sections

3

2. Extent of objectivity of PCR assessment score 3

3. Extent of internal consistency of PCR assessment ratings; inaccuracies; inconsistencies; (in various sections; between text and ratings; consistency of overall rating with individual component ratings)

2

4. Extent of identification and assessment of key factors (internal and exogenous) and unintended effects (positive or negative) affecting design and implementation

3

5. Adequacy of treatment of safeguards, fiduciary issues, and alignment and harmonization

3

6. Extent of soundness of data generating and analysis process (including rates of returns) in support of PCR assessment

2 Not the PCR’s fault that data to conduct the ex-post cost-benefit analysis was not available.

7. Overall adequacy of the accessible evidence (fromPCR including annexure and other data provided)

2

8. Extent to which lessons learned (and recommendations) are clear and based on the PCR assessment (evidence & analysis)

3

9. Extent of overall clarity and completeness of the PCR

3

Other (specify) NA

PCR QUALITY SCORE 2.67

PCR compliance with guidelines (PCR/OM ; IDEV)

1. PCR Timeliness (On time = 4; Late= 1) 1 The PCR was delivered more than one year after the project’s revised closing date

2. Extent of participation of borrower, Co-financiers & field offices in PCR preparation

3 Unknown

3. Other aspect(s) (specify) NA

PCR COMPLIANCE SCORE 2

*** rated as Very Good (4), or Good (3), or Fair (2), or Poor (1)

References

1. AfDB, Republic of Kenya, Kimura-Oluch Smallholder Farm Improvement Project – Appraisal Report, February 2006.

2. AfDB, Republic of Kenya, Kimura-Oluch Smallholder Farm Improvement Project – Project Completion Report, October 20, 2017.

3. AfDB, Guidance Note on the Preparation of Project Completion Report (PCR) Evaluation Notes (RCR-EVN), 2009.