Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
I BASIC DATA
A Report data
Report date Date of report: September, 2017
Mission date (if field mission) From: 08 March, 2017 To: 22 March, 2017
B Responsible Bank staff
Positions At approval At completion
Regional Director J. LISTE
Country Manager K. MBEKEANI (OIC)
Sector Director A. ABOU-SABAA C. OJUKWU
Sector Manager F. KWESIGA M. TARHOUNI (OIC)
Task Manager D. KEITA T. KARIKARI
Alternate Task Manager R. LUBUNGA P.AGBOMA
PCR Team Leader T. KARIKARI
PCR Team Members
H. DJOSSOU-LORNG (SNR. AGRIC ECONOMIST) P.DOGHLE (PRINCIPAL FMS) D. OSEI BOAKYE (PROCUREMENT OFFICER) J. TETTEY COFIE (DISBURSEMENT ASST.) J. HEDHLI (ADMIN. ASST/COM. FOCAL PERSON)
C Project data
Project name: NORTHERN RURAL GROWTH PROGRAM
Project code: P-GH-AA0-030 Instrument number(s): 2100150015795
Project type: LENDING Sector: AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Country: GHANA Environmental categorization (1-3): 2
Processing milestones – Bank approved
financing only (add/delete rows depending
on the number of financing sources)
Key Events (Bank approved financing
only)
Disbursement and closing dates (Bank
approved financing only)
Financing source/ instrument1: Financing source/ instrument1: Financing source/ instrument1:
Date approved: Cancelled amounts: Original disbursement deadline:
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT FOR PUBLIC SECTOR OPERATIONS (PCR)
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT
BANK GROUP
2
17 DECEMBER 2007 UA1,788,601.47 31 MARCH 2016
Date signed:
04 MARCH 2008
Supplementary financing: N/A Original closing date:
31 DECEMBER 2015
Date of entry into force:
08 SEPTEMBER, 2008
Restructuring (specify date & amount
involved):
Revised (if applicable) disbursement deadline:
31 MARCH 2017
Date effective for 1st disbursement:
30 APRIL 2009
Extensions (specify dates): 1 YEAR Revised (if applicable) closing date:
30 DECEMBER 2016
Date of actual 1st disbursement:
05 AUGUST 2009
Financing source/ instrument2: Financing source/ instrument2: Financing source/ instrument2:
Date approved: Cancelled amounts: Original disbursement deadline:
Date signed: Supplementary financing: Original closing date:
Date of entry into force: Restructuring (specify date & amount
involved):
Revised (if applicable) disbursement
deadline:
Date effective for 1st disbursement: Extensions (specify dates): Revised (if applicable) closing date:
Date of actual 1st disbursement:
Financing source/instrument (add/delete
rows depending on the number of financing
sources):
Disbursed amount
(amount):
Percentage
disbursed (%):
Undisbursed amount: Percentage
undisbursed (%):
Financing source/ instrument1: UA38,211,398.53
(USD 54,013,340.00)
95.53 UA1,788,601.47
(USD2,528,260.00)
4.47
Government:USD10.4 million USD3,030,000.00 29.13 USD7,370,000.00 70.87
Other - IFAD Loan SDR 14,164,411.86
96.69 SDR 485,588.14 3.31
Other – IFAD Grant USD162,000.00 40.50 USD238,000.00 59.50
Other - Participating Financial Institutions USD5,172,000.00 112 Nil 0.00
Other - Beneficiaries USD14,850,000.00 401 Nil 0.00
Other - Private Investors USD1,912,000.00 204 Nil 0.00
TOTAL
Financing source/instrument (add/delete
rows depending on the number of financing
sources):
Committed amount: Percentage
committed (%):
Uncommitted
amount:
Percentage
uncommitted (%):
Financing source/ instrument1: UA38,211,398.53 95.53 UA1,788,601.47 4.47
Government: USD3,030,000.00 29.13 USD7,370,000.00 70.87
Other - IFAD SDR 14,164,411.86 96.69 SDR 485,588.14 3.31
Other - Participating Financial Institutions USD5,172,000.00 112 Nil 0.00
Other - Beneficiaries USD14,850,000.00 401 Nil 0.00
Other - Private Investors USD1,912,000.00 204 Nil 0.00
TOTAL
Co-financiers and other external partners: IFAD, PFIs, Beneficiaries, Private Investors
Executing and implementing agency (ies): MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
3
D Management review and comments
Report reviewed by Name Date reviewed Comments
Country Manager K. MBEKEANI,
Sector Manager M. TARHOUNI
Regional Director (as chair of Country Team) J. LITSE
Sector Director C. OJUKWU
II Project performance assessment
A Relevance
1. Relevance of project development objective
Rating* Narrative assessment (max 250 words)
4 The development objective of the Programme is sustained poverty reduction through transformation of the agricultural sector as engine of growth. This is inline with the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy II, the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (the GSGDA I & II) covering the period and the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II) and the Medium Term Agriculture Investment Plan (METASIP II). The GSGDA I and II and the METASIP II particularly stress on the use of the value chain approach for agricultural transformation. The development objective is also inline with the mandate and core development concerns of both financiers - IFAD and the AfDB: The Bank has a mandate to contribute to the sustainable economic development and social progress of its regional member countries individually and jointly while IFAD’s core development concern focuses on sustainable poverty reduction in rural areas and the creation of rural environments in which the potentials of the rural people can be leveraged for their own sustainable development and the development of the nation as a whole. The Programme was designed to be in line with the Bank’s Country Strategy Paper (CSP) for the period 2005 – 2009 Pillars 1 and 2 and the Ghana Joint Assistance Strategy (GAS - Pillar 1) supported by the Bank and other development partners for Ghana for the period (2007 to 2010): The respective CSP pillars are (i) Improving the Investment Environment; and (ii) Pro-gender Equity Policies; and GAS pillar is Private Sector Competitiveness. It is also in line with the Bank Group’s Policy on Agricultural and Rural Development(of when???). The Programme was designed to contribute to NEPAD – CAADP Pillar 2 (Improving rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for market access) and Pillar 3 (Increasing food supply and reducing hunger). It is also aligned to MDG 1 (Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger). At completion, the Programme is closely aligned to the Bank’s Feed Africa Strategy for Agricultural Transformation in Africa (2016-2022), particularly enablers 1 (increase productivity); 3 (Increase investment in soft and hard infrastructure), 4 (catalyse flows at increased agricultural finance) and 5 (create an improved agribusiness environment). At the global level it is aligned to SDGs 1.(End poverty in all its forms everywhere); 2.(End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture); and 10 (Reduce inequality within and among countries).
* For all ratings in the PCR use the following scale: 4 (Highly satisfactory), 3 (Satisfactory), 2 (Unsatisfactory), 1 (Highly unsatisfactory)
2. Relevance of project design
Rating* Narrative assessment (max 250 words)
2 The Programme is based on the logic (theory of change) that robust farmer based organisations and value chain platforms, improved rural and market infrastructure, improved access to rural financial services and well-cordinated, monitored and managed interventions will lead to the programme beneficiaries’ capacities built to be able to pursue sustainable livelihoods that will consequently lead to reduced poverty in the programme area. The programme was executed by setting up a programme co-ordination and management unit within the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, staffed with competitively selected personnel including staff of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. The programme collaborated with government institutions including the Department of Feeder Roads (DFR), Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) and the Ghana Health Services (GHS) as well as external consultancy firms and contractors to deliver specific tasks that were within their core mandate; as well as facilitating agencies such as ACDEP and SNV. Incentives were provided for private firms with stakes in the commodities that the
4
programme promoted to provide services, notably marketing services, for the project beneficiaries through partnership arrangements. Being the first project executed by the Ministry that comprehensively used a value chain approach, the design allowed for innovation and flexibility during implementation. However the design did not adequately consider an exit strategy for the facilitating agencies it used and this could affect the sustainability of their activities. In addition, the Programme skewed most of its interventions to benefit farmers, principally, with very limited support for other value chain actors such as aggregators and processors which could have engenderedbetter sustainability of some of the interventions that was promoted in the areas of ownership, partnerships and financing. Another weakness in the design had to do with agricultural financing mechanism that was promoted by the project,– using matching grant. It was relatively less effective due to the very low capacity of targeted beneficiaries raise the required equity; perceived high risk profile of the clients viewed by the Banks involved and liquidty of the rural banks involved.
3. Lessons learned related to relevance
Key issues (max 5, add rows as needed)
Lessons learned Target audience
1. Appropraite exit strategy for project implementing support agencies
1. The provision of support and incentives for non-government agencies (such as ACDEP, SNV etc.) in project implementation should be designed such that the agencies pass on technology, knowledge and skills to either the beneficiaries or suitable government agencies.
Bank, Borrower
2. Support for other value chain actors aside farmers
2. Agricultural Projects that establishes production, processing and/or storage facilities such as warehouses and irrigation should critically analyse risks and issues pertaining to the non-farmer actors involved in the value chain of the selected commodities (e.g. aggregators, exporters and processors) and include pragmatic activities to address gaps that are widespread in their operations.
Bank, Borrower
3. Matching grants 3. Matching grant should have flexible terms based on the client/beneficiary and the kind of investment. It is a good instruments to use to the extent that flexibilities are allowed to accommodate perculiarities of the industry involved.
Bank, Borrower
B Effectiveness
1. Progress towards the project’s development objective (project purpose)
Comments
Provide a brief description of the Project (components) and the context in which it was designed and implemented. State the project
development objective (usually the project purpose as set out in the RLF) and assess progress. Unanticipated outcomes should also be
accounted for, as well as specific reference of gender equality in the project . The consistency of the assumptions that link the different
levels of the results chain in the RLFshould also be considered. Indicative max length: 400 words.
The overall sector goal of the programme is to contribute to equitable and sustainable poverty reduction and food security among rural households in Ghana. The specific objective is to increase northern Ghana area rural households’ income on a sustainable basis. The proposed programme would be implemented in 57 districts located in northern Ghana over a six-year period under four components: (i) Commodity Chain Development; (ii) Rural Infrastructure Development; (iii) Access to Financial Services; and (iv) Programme Coordination. Essential expected outcomes under Commodity Chain Development component are: (i) 2000 market oriented FBOs producers’ organisations strengthened and fully functional (250 producters’ organisations at PAR); (ii) 57 Functional District Value Chain Committees (DVCC) established (5 commodity inter-professional bodies at PAR); (iii) commodity business plans prepared and implemented; and (iv) a commodity development fund established. For the Rural Infrastructure Development component, there were two sub-components namely: (i) Small Scale Irrigation Development; and (ii) Marketing Infrastructure Development. At appraisal the project targeted developing 4,500 ha of small scale irrigation schemes; construct simple water control structures, such as dykes and/or bunds and open earth drains for crops, and/or fisheries production and support the adoption of rainwater water management and soil and water conservation technologies through
5
demonstrations and training of farmers (FFSs) in appropriate land preparation techniques and utilization of mulch and livestock manure. However, at midterm the actual activities that were retained/introduced brough the total agricultural water management schemes to 5,095 ha. This comprised 21 small scale irrigation schemes totalling 1852 ha; 20 inland valley rice development schemes totalling 1340 ha; 1003 flood recession schemes; and 150 surface water pump schemes with a potential area of 900ha. Out of these the inland valley rice schemes and 696ha of the small scale irrigation schemes were outside the project catchment area but were included to optimise earlier Bank-financed interventions with the savings realized at MTR. The appraisal targets for the marketing infrastructure development sub-component were (i) 800 km of farm access tracks for existing and newly developed small scale irrigation schemes and inland valley rice schemes; (ii) improve 600 km of feeder roads and construct 270 culverts to open-up areas with high agricultural production potential; (iii) upgrade 348 km of trunk roads with bitumen surfacing; (iv) construction of 10 bridges; and unspecified number of bulking facilities. The MTR revised this targets to (i) 200 km of farm access tracks; (ii) 600 km of feeder roads with culverts; and (iii) 13 bulking facilities made up of 10# 1,000MT capacity warehouses; and 4 ultra-modern packhouses for fruits and vegetables. For the Access to Finance component the targets were (i) Value of gross loan portfio rises by USD 4,608,000; and (ii) USD1,360,000.00 matching grant is disbursed.
2. Outcome reporting
Outcome indicators (as per
RLF; add more rows as needed)
Baseline value (2007)
Most recent value
(A)
End target (B)
(expected value at project
completion)
Progress towards target
(% realized) (A/B)
Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 50 words per outcome)
Core Sector
Indicator (Yes/No)
Outcome 1: Increase in productivity of 80% smallholder farmers
Maize (0.8 t/ha) Soya (0.4 t/ha)
Sorghum (0.5 t/ha) Rice (1.90 t/ha) Onion (9.0 t/ha)
Tomato (8.0 t/ha) Pepper (6.0 t/ha)
Okra (7.0 t/ha)
3.5 2.2 1.9 3.2
12.5 11 8.5 9
3.9 2.7 1.8 3.1
10.8 9.6 7.2
10.4
89.7 81.5
105.5 103.2 115.7 115.6 118.0 86.5
This increase in the productivty for smallholder beneficiary farmers is attributable to complementary interventions of the project including access to finance (through a cashless credit model) accessibility to farms and input/output market through the provision of feeder roads) and effective extension delivery and governance of stakeholders’ activities using the DVCC
Yes
Outcome 2: Increase in real income of 80% of rural household income in Programme Area.
Not measured USD 1,058.00
NA NA
Unlike productivity increase, the changes in household incomes as a result of interventions was not independently tracked as part of Programme M&E. As a proxy profit from maize a dominant crop across the project intervention area was used demonstrate the trends in household incomes.1
Yes
Rating* (see IPR
methodology) Narrative assessment
3 The outcome of the project is rated satisfactory. Crop productivity, businesses along the value chain, business profits and jobs have all had upward trends on the average, noting also that the increases in incomes are characterized by high variations across space and time. For example the net earnings of farmers from their
1 The income of households was estimated as the income of from 2.0 Ha of maize production; 2.0 Ha of other crops and an estimated 50% of the profit margin of the crops from other sources including, livestock keeping, trade (input/output), rendering of services e.g. mechanisation services. By 2016, the volume of inputs traded had tripled and the volume of produce traded had almost doubled. Also the the ease of getting mechanised services for land preparation had improved from 9% to 44%.
6
maize farms alone in southern regions (GHS1,833.00) were over 3 times higher than that of the UER2, and less income increase were experienced in some years especially 2015 due to exorgenous factors.
3. Output reporting
Output indicators (as specified in the RLF; add more rows as needed)
Most recent value
(A)
End target (B)
(expected value at project
completion)
Progress towards target
(% realized) (A/B)
Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 50 words per output)
Core Sector
Indicator (Yes/No)
Output 1:Commodity Value Chain Developed
No of functional farmer based organisations (FBO)3
1,707 2,000 85 All 8,127 FBOs are functional. However, only 1,707 FBOs (21%) are functioning at the level deemed acceptable.4 This conclusion were arrived at by the independent assessment of FBOs.
No
No of functional district value chain committees (DVCCs)5
57 57 100 An independent assessment done on 57 DVCCs concluded that 60% are functioning well6. Other innovative interventions such as anchoring the DVCCs around a strategic agribusiness actors (referred to as DVCC node) is being used to build up the weak DVCCs.
No
Output 2: Rural Infrastructure Developed
Area of agricultural water management schemes developed (Ha)7
4,664 5,092 92% The construction of 6 schemes in one of the five zones (zone 2) was halted after the design stage due to time and budgetary constraints.
Yes
Length of feeder roads constructed/ rehabilitated
646 600 108% The DFR was very instrumental in selecting, designing and supervising the construction of the feeder roads at a minimal cost.
No
Length of Farm Access Tracks constructed
100 200 50% The farm tracks were reduced to tracks that were linked to or within the agricultural water management schemes- where there were already consultants to design and supervise the works - due to delay in identifying suitable design and supervision consultants for the farm tracks.
No
No of bulking facilities constructed
13 14 92% Construction of a warehouse facility at one site had to be discontinued at the design stage due to land litigation.
No
Output 3: Access to financial services Improved
Value of gross loan portfolio (USD)
5,172,000 4,608,000 112% Credit to farmers was anchored on the DVCC model. This enhanced monitoring and repayment which averaged 98%.
No
2 NRGP 2016: Independent Participatory Outcome Assessment The income of households was estimated as the income from 2.0 Ha of maize production; 2.0 Ha 4 ACDEP 2015 a. FBO Assessment: Field Results and Analysis Report. of other crops and an estimated 50% of the profit margin of the crops from other sources including, livestock keeping, trade (input/output), rendering of services e.g. mechanisation services. By 2016, the volume of inputs traded had tripled and the volume of produce traded had almost doubled. Also the the ease of getting mechanised services for land preparation had improved from 9% to 44%. he district level. 6 ACDEP 2015 b. DVCC Assessment: Field Results and Analysis Report 7 This includes Small Scale Irrigation, Inland Valley Rice, Flood Recession and Direct River Pumping Schemes.
7
Output indicators (as specified in the RLF; add more rows as needed)
Most recent value
(A)
End target (B)
(expected value at project
completion)
Progress towards target
(% realized) (A/B)
Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 50 words per output)
Core Sector
Indicator (Yes/No)
Matching Grant Disbursed (USD)
695,370.93 1,360,000.00 51.13% Out of 250 grant applications, 175 were shortlisted and only 32 were able to receive the grant. The key challenge has to do with difficulty in raising the equity part of the grant and liquidity of the rural commercial Banks involved. In comparison with other programmes such as Rural Enterprises Program (REP), where the matching grant appear to have performed better, it was discussed that a typical REP client (usually agro-processors) is more resource rich than a typical NRGP supported smallholder farmer. The Programme however revised conditions of the Matching Grant to support vulnerable women and youth groups. To this end, nineteen (19) vulnerable groups were supported with infrastructure and processing equipment for shea and fonio processing whilst others received tricycles for carting harvested and aggregated produce, and bullocks for land preparation.
No
Output 4:Programme managed efficiently
AWP&B prepared and approved on time
6 6 100% No
Project Audit reports prepared and approved on time
7 7 100% No
Rating* (see IPR
methodology) Narrative assessment
3 The Project is rated satisfactory. This is because substantially most of the key outputs were achieved. In particular, with respect to Rural Infrastructure Development which was wholely financed by the Bank, the project was able to complete most of the activities and this stimulated considerable gains in productivity of the crops promoted and their marketing.
4. Development Objective (DO) rating
DO rating (derived
from updated IPR)* Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words
3 The DO rating is Satisfactory as both the outcome and output are rated 3. Remarkably high achievement was attained with respect to productivity of the commodity value chains that the project addressed; impressive infrastructure developed and an innovative means of providing credit for agriculture- using cashless credit system through the platforms that were established by the project – was institutionalised.
5. Beneficiaries (add rows as needed)
Actual (A) Planned (B) Progress towards target (% realized) (A/B)
% of women
Category (eg. farmers, students)
201,746 50,000 403.49 59 Smallholder Farmers
8
55 30 183 33 Nucleus Farmers
53,074 45,000 117.94 NA Households
111 114 97.37 NA Mechanization Services Providers
226 114 198.25 8 Inputs Dealers
80 57 140.35 59 Aggregators / processors
6. Unanticipated or additional outcomes (add rows as needed)
Description Type (eg. gender, climate
change, social, other) Positive or negative
Impact on project (High, Medium, Low)
The project helped build the capacity of local contractors by ensuring that civil works were packaged in sizes that allowed them to bid and providing training (in tendering processes, contract management and concrete works) for them to deliver then effectively.
Capacity building (private sector)
Positive High
The project introduced a cashless credit system through which the participating financial institutions made payments for services and goods rendered to farmers for their farming and this was deducted ar source from payments made by the aggregator through the Banks concerned for the farmers’ produce.
Innovative Financing Positive High
7. Lessons learned related to effectiveness (add rows as needed)
Key issues (max 5, add rows as needed) Lessons learned Target audience
1. Importance of completing civil works before project closes
1.To the extent possible the closing of projects while civil works, espercially agricultural water management schemes have not been completed should be minimized: A number of the agricultural water management schemes that left uncompleted by the erstwhile Bank-Financed IVRDP and SSIDP had deteriorated considerably before being included in NRGP activities.
Borrower, EA
2. Use of government agencies for design and construction supervision of feeder roads
2. Where the capacity exists, government agencies should be used to implement project activities to minimize costs and engender ownership: The change of procurement method from using a competitively selected firm to design and supervise construction of the feeder roads to using government agency (Department of Feeder Roads) accelerated the execution of this activity without compromising quality and at a lower cost and engendered ownership.
Borrower, EA
3. Timely termination of contracts of underperforming contractors
3. It is important to ensure that under-performing contractors are punished by terminating their contracts and applying the appropriate contractual clauses as unpunished contractors could be a manace to project implementation. In terminating some contracts other contractors executing works for NRGP changed from being lackadaisical and delivered their works effectively.
Borrower, EA
4. Restricting award of civil works contracts according to contractor’s capacity
4. The procurement of civil works contractors activity innovatively restricted contractors to an award of not more than one contract at a time. This was decided after it was observed that 2 of the four terminated contracts in the first batch of feeder roads rehabilitation works was because the contractors did not have the capacity to work in more than one site (usually remotely located from each other) at a go.
Borrower, EA
C Efficiency
1. Timeliness
9
Planned project duration – years (A) (as per PAR)
Actual implementation time – years (B) (from effectiveness for 1st disb.)
Ratio of planned and actual implementation time (A/B)
Rating*
6 8.45 0.71 2
Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
The timeliness of the project is rated as unsatisfactory. This is because the ratio of planned implementation time (as per PAR) from the date of effectiveness and actual implementation time from the date of effectiveness is 0.78 (between 0.50 and 0.75).
2. Resource use efficiency
Median % physical implementation of RLF outputs financed by all financiers
(A) (see II.B.3)
Commitment rate (%) (B) (See table 1.C – Total commitment rate of all
financiers)
Ratio of the median percentage physical implementation and
commitment rate (A/B)
Rating*
96.00% 95.53 1.01 4
Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
The ratio of the median percentage physical implementation of the project outputs and commitment rate is ≥1. In essence the project is considered to have delivered more outputs than expected within the budget. This is largely because of the inclusion of uncompleted activities of previously closed projects and the use of cheaper government institutions notably the department of Feeder Roads for some consultancy services.
3. Cost benefit analysis
Economic Rate of Return (at appraisal)
Updated Economic Rate of Return (at completion)
Rating*
15% (scenario of 50% infrastructure cost) 18% (scenario of 25% infrastructure cost)
20% 32%
3
Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
Economic analysis over 25 years was conducted using constant prices and exchange rate at GHS0.93/USD. The Benefit-cost ratios computed using input and farm-gate output prices on incremental basis indicate that there are good returns on the investments made across the Programme area. The benefit-cost ratio for sorghum was found to be 4.6, 9.3 for soybeans, 6.7 for maize, 11.7 for rice and 61.4 for tomatoes. These ratios obviously give high degree of financial sustainability of the Programme. Using the actual yields and costs projections, a sensitivity analysis indicates that if 50% of economic cost of infrastructure were taken into consideration, the Programme would have a 20% EIRR. The 20% of EIRR is higher than the 15% obtained at appraisal using 50% of the economic cost of transport infrastructure. Similarly, when 25% of the economic cost of infrastructure were taken into consideration, the Programme would have 32% EIRR. Again, the 32% of EIRR is higher than the 18% obtained at appraisal using 25% of the economic cost of transport infrastructure. Further sensitivity analysis indicates that if benefits are reduced by 30%, the EIRR would be 5% with a Net Present Value (NPV) of –USD4,329,000 compared to the appraisal estimate of 9% with an NPV of –USD7,048,000. This implies that with the actual figures, if benefits were to reduce by 30%, the loss will not be as bad as projected at Programme appraisal. Also, if costs were increased by 30%, the EIRR would be 3% with an NPV of USD14,775,000 compared to the appraisal estimates of 11% of EIRR with an estimated NPV of –US$4,202,000. If the Programme was to lag by two years, the EIRR would have been 2% with an NPV of USD4,195,000 compared to the appraisal estimate of 11% with an NPV of -USD2,789,000.
4. Implementation Progress (IP)
IP Rating (derived from
updated IPR) *
Narrative comments (commenting specifically on those IP items that were rated Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory, as per last IPR). (indicative max length: 500 words)
3 The Implementation Progress of the project is rated satisfactory: In the compliance with covenants category, the project was rated highly satisfactory with audit compliance and satisfactory with environmental and social safeguard compliance. However the compliance with project covenants were unsatisfactory due to several months of delay in
10
the project becoming effective. With respect to project systems and procedure, the project is again rated satisfactory for procurement, financial management and M&E. On project financing and execution, disbursement, budget commitment and co-financing were satisfactory. However the counterpart funds was rated unsatisfactory. In all less than 50% of the counterpart funds was disbursed to the project.
5. Lessons learned related to efficiency
Key issues (max 5, add rows as
needed) Lessons learned Target audience
1. Readiness of project for implementation at design.
1. There is need to enhance the implementation readiness of projects including ensuring that feasibility and designs of infrastructure development activities are ready before project approval to ensure speedy delivery.
Bank, Borrower, EA
D Sustainability
1. Financial sustainability
Rating* Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
3 The benefit-cost ratios computed using input and farm-gate output prices on incremental basis indicate that there are good returns on investments made across the Programme area. The benefit-cost ratio for sorghum was found to be 4.6, 9.3 for soybeans, 6.7 for maize, 11.7 for rice and 61.4 for tomatoes. These ratios obviously indicate high degree of financial sustainability of the Programme. A Participatory Outcome Assessment undertaken on the Project in 2016 corroborates this and revealed that activities of actors along the value chains promoted by the Programme (input dealers, mechanisation services providers, farmers, agrigators/marketers of commodities and participating financial institutions) are profitable and there is potential for financially sustainability. In particular the operations of PFIs engaged in the cashless credit model promoted by the Programme is highly sustainable because the banks used their own resources with no financing from the Programme.
2. Institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities
Rating* Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
3 The sustainability of the project activities post project completion hinges on the building up of the capacity of institutions to include / mainstream the activities in their regular activities: NRGP by design had to work with different public and private sector institutions that facilitated implementation of Programme interventions. As an implementing agency, MOFA through the Programme, supported and strengthened the District Departments of Agriculture (DDA) to be able to execute Programme activities through provision of financial resources, trainings and provision of equipment. In addition to MOFA, NRGP built the Department of Feeder Roads including provision of logistics that were left with them after project completion to design and supervise the construction of all of the feeder roads. The GIDA and Agricultural Engineering Services Directorate (AESD) were also used for the development of the Flood recession schemes. The uses of this institutions engendered a high degree of institutional sustainability. Other facilitating agencies such as ACDEP, FTC, ORGIS, Trias, etc. and private sector partners such as Sekaf, Tibzaa, etc. also had their capacities built and strengthened through their participation in the Programme to deliver facilitation services for the DVCCs on a cost sharing basis. It is expected that these agencies continue to avail their services to the DVCCs. With respect to civil works construction the programme consciously ensured that contracts were packaged consideration to use this as an opportunity to build the capacity of local contractors – e.g. the Feeder Roads were restricted to lot sizes of not more than 20km to ensure that the lower class contractors are able to bid for them. Through the award of contracts to the local contractors and training provided by the project during the course of their engagement by the project, the capacities of these contractors were strengthened.
3. Ownership and sustainability of partnerships
Rating* Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
2 The PFIs, FAs and PPPs have taken ownership of the specific interventions they engaged in. The DVCCs have also taken ownership of the links established with inputs dealers, service providers, traders, aggregators and processors and are ready to maintain these. The relatively well established DVCCs such as those at Garu-Tempane, Bawku-West, Sissala West and
11
Yendi Districts, for example, endorse the forms of member FBOs’ loan applications to enhance the chances of loan approval. They also help the bank to recover loans advanced to members and this is set to continue even after the end of NRGP. However for the irrigation schemes and warehouses there is need for a conscious effort by the executing agency and district assemblies to devolve its management from government agencies and increase the participation of private sector or dynamic Water User Associations/DVCCs in their management to engender sustainability.
4. Environmental and social sustainability
Rating* Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
4 Environmental and social safeguards were mainstreamed into Programme implementation. The implementation of the Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs) was in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ghana Health Service (GHS), MOFA Environment Unit and Environmental Desks of the various District Departments of Agriculture (DDAs) to promote environmental and social sustainability of Programme interventions even after it has ended. The Programme promoted irrigation along perennial water bodies (mainly Black and White Voltas) through the provision of water pumps with pipes and other accessories as a coping mechanism against the long dry season experienced in the mandate area. To help conserve the buffer zone of these water bodies, farmers were provided with water hose stretching between 50 and 100 metres from the river source. To further enrich buffer zones, about 12,600 tree seedlings of grafted mangoes, shea and cassia were provided to farmers for planting. The Programme also took some initiatives to mitigate health impacts associated with implementation of the irrigation activities. With regards to the marketing infrastructure sub-component, (e.g feeder roads, farm access tracks rehabilitation works), borrow pits for all the completed works have been reinstated or converted into animal watering points upon request from the communities and under the guidance of the relevant decentralized institutions. The compliance monitoring of all activities and the reinstatement of the borrow pits was ensured by EPA. The Programme acquired Environmental Permits from EPA for the construction of all the warehouses and pack houses.
5. Lessons learned related to sustainability
Key issues (max 5, add rows as needed) Lessons learned Target audience
1. Use of non-government actors especially NGOs as facilitation agencies
1. Whiles it was efficient using NGOs such as ACDEP to play facilitating roles for the DVCCs, it is unclear if the NGO will be equally motivated to deliver this vital service without project resources. This could weaken the DVCC concept post project implementation.
Bank, Borrower, EA
2Anchor investors’ involvement in the management of production and bulking facilities
2. The sustainable utilisation of the irrigation schemes, especially the pump schemes and the bulking facilities is best engendered when there is an anchor investor who organise the other users and mobilize resources for the operations and management support.
Bank. Borrower, EA
III Performance of stakeholders
1. Bank performance
Rating* Narrative assessment by the Borrower on the Bank’s performance, as well as any other aspects of the project (both quantitative and qualitative). See guidance note on issues to cover. (indicative max length: 250 words)
4 The Bank demonstrated its support to Ghana’s economic development over the years by investing in strategic
sectors. These include; Agriculture, energy, water and sanitation and road infrastructure. These have contributed
significantly towards the reduction of poverty in Ghana as recorded by the sixth round of the Ghana Living
Standard Survey (GLSS) of 2012/13. The GLSS 6 indicated that poverty levels in Ghana have reduced from
31.9% in 2005/06 to 24.2% in 2012/13.
The design of NRGP and in particular the infrastructure component was done by the bank in an efficient and
timely manner. The design was sufficient in its response to major challenges in Northern Ghana which is severely
prone to climate change. The construction and rehabilitation of smallscale irrigation projects, flood recession
12
schemes and market infrastructure such as warehouses, packhouses and feeder roads addressed key challenges of
the North. These adequately supported the development of commodity value chains promoted by NRGP.
The 14 missions carried out by the bank during Programme implementation were useful in addressing technical,
procurement, monitoring & evaluation and programme management and other implementation challenges. The
last two missions reviewed preparations for programme completion and provided guidance for the completion
report. The Bank staff especially the Task Team Leader has been very prompt in responding to mails, review of
documents and provision of No Objections. This facilitated the speedy implementation of the Programme
resulting in high disbursement rate of about 95% at closure from less than 10% at mid term
The bank also demonstrated flexibility in the course of implementation. At Mid-Term when it was necessary to
refocus the infrastructure component, the Bank was amendable to this idea. The bank also agreed and supported
the salaries and operations of the IFAD financed components when the IFAD allocated funds had been exhausted.
This flexibility on the part of the bank made it possible for NRGP to complete successfully.
Comments to be inserted by the Bank on its own performance (both quantitative and qualitative). See guidance note on issues to cover. (indicative max length: 250 words)
Key issues (related to Bank
performance, max 5, add rows as needed)
Lessons learned
1. Prompt response to request of the Programme by the Bank
The Task Team Leader and other Bank staff were quick at reviewing the Programme’s request and either providing feed back or granting No Objections. This greatly facilitated the speedy implementation of the Programme. The Task Team Leader doesn't only sent mails but also followed up with phone calls. The communication style employed by the Task Team Leader positively impacted on the implementation of the Programme.
2. Flexibility of the Bank to Changes
The flexibility to add additional relevant staff to the Programme Management Unit, refocus the infrastructure as proposed by Government and take up salaries by staff on the IFAD payroll at some point in time were commendable and that in no doubt led to the successful completion of the Programme .
3. Adequate number of missions with a mix of experts
Missions fielded by the Bank had the adequate mix of experts who technically reviewed documentation of the Programme and made relevant and appropriate recommendations that enhanced programme implementation.
4. Proximity of Bank to Programme
The presence of the field office in Ghana also reduced the length of time in delivery of hard copies of documentation to the Bank. Programme staff are able to contact their counterparts from the Bank easily to resolve issues
2. Borrower performance
Rating* Narrative assessment on the Borrower performance to be inserted by the Bank (both quantitative and qualitative, depending on available information).
3 The Borrower performance is assessed at three levels: Borrower (Ministry of Finance), Executing Agency (MOFA) and the Project Co-ordination and Management Unit (PCMU) levels. The Ministry of Finance provided support and guidance for the project. In particular they participated actively in the MTR discussions leading to in inclusion of uncompleted schemes that were outside the project area to ensure that the savings that were estimated at MTR were utilised. They also provided support and guidance for the project in securing the Bank’s support to address issues as they emerged, including a request for payment for claims and a request for Bank to include payment of staff salaries after the IFAD budgetary allocation for that activity run out. At the sector level, MOFA ensured that they provided the requisite macro-monitoring of the project especially after the MTR. They provided political support at the highest level to ensuring that contractors delivered as
13
scheduled and where necessary terminated contracts of underperforming contractors. The PCMU also satisfactorily delivered on all expectations especially after the MTR.
Key issues (related to Borrower performance, max 5, add rows as needed) Lessons learned
1. 1.
3. Performance of other stakeholders
Rating* Narrative assessment on the performance of other stakeholders, including co-financiers, contractors and service providers. See guidance note on issues to cover. (indicative max length: 250 words)
3 The other stakeholders comprises, IFAD (co-financier), public project sector implementing/collaborating agencies namely, District Assemblies, Department of Feeder Roads, the Ghana Health Services and the Environmental Protection Agency; NGOs, including ACDEP, FTC, ORGIS, Trias; Private instititutions including Sekaf, Tibzaa etc., project consultants, contractors and suppliers. All these stakeholders enthusiastically participated in project implementation activities and derived benefits from the project: - IFAD’s performance in the project delivery was largely satisfactory in providing quality supervision and guidance to the
project team. Though joint supervision with the Bank was not frequent, both IFAD and the Bank shared information on the project and jointly provided guidance to government on overcoming issues affecting project implementation amicably (e.g. payment of salaries of staff after the budget under IFAD was exhausted).
- The public sector agencies including the DAs, GHS, EPA and DFR were all supported and each contributed positively to the successful implementation of the projects. However the GIDA (especially at headquarters level) discussed that their involvement in the delivery of the infrastructure was limited and there was a lack of clarity on provisions available for continuing with the training of the water user associations (WUAs) and the farmers after project closure.
- The NGOs and private institutions assisted the project in delivering effective value chain networking and marketing services which provided motivation for the farmers to improve their productivity and increase production.
- The project was strict in ensuring that consultants, contractors and suppliers delivered on their contracts. Six out of 73 lots of feeder roads contracts were terminated and the appropriate contractual clauses applied. This positively influenced other contractors including the contractors for the bulking facilities (warehouses and packhouses) and water management schemes to deliver their contracts..
Key issues (related to performance of
other stakeholders, max 5, add rows as needed)
Lessons learned (max 5) Target audience (for
lessons learned)
1. Co-financing of project 1. Under co-financing arrangement, it is important to ensure that joint supervision and a good comprehension of the rules, procedures and best practices applicable to either financiers
1. Bank, IFAD
IV Summary of key lessons learned and recommendations
1. Key lessons learned
Key issues (max 5, add rows as needed) Key lessons learned Target audience
1. Project facing implementation challenges
1. It is worthwhile to undertake an early MTR to restructure or rescope projects that are saddled with persistent? implementation challenges.
Bank, Borrower
2. Formal sector involvement in the management of production and bulking facilities
2. The sustainable utilisation of the irrigation schemes, especially the pump schemes and the bulking facilities best engendered when there is a formal sector player (private or public) interested/anchor investor in the infrastructure such as a nucleaus farmer who can provide operations and management support.
Bank, Borrower, EA
2. Key recommendations (with particular emphasis on ensuring sustainability of project benefits)
Key issue (max 10, add rows as needed) Key recommendation Responsible Deadline
14
1. Completion of Small Scale Irrigation Schemes in Zone 2 (Upper West and part of BA)
This activity was discontinued after designs were completed because of budgetary and time constraints. It is expected that the government will use other funding sources such as GASIP
Executing Agency ASAP
2.Anchor farmers for pump schemes There are a number of private sector interest in using the facilities Small Scale Irrigation Schemes. The Executing Agency, through GIDA should engage these firms to ensure that the schemes are optimally used
Executing Agency ASAP
V Overall PCR rating
Dimensions and criteria Rating*
DIMENSION A: RELEVANCE 3.00
Relevance of project development objective (II.A.1) 4
Relevance of project design (II.A.2) 2
DIMENSION B: EFFECTIVENESS 3.00
Development Objective (DO) (II.B.4) 3
DIMENSION C: EFFICIENCY 3.00
Timeliness (II.C.1) 2
Resource use efficiency (II.C.2) 4
Cost-benefit analysis (II.C.3) 3
Implementation Progress (IP) (II.C.4) 3
DIMENSION D: SUSTAINABILITY 3.00
Financial sustainability (II.D.1) 3
Institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities (II.D.2) 3
Ownership and sustainability of partnerships (II.D.3) 2
Environmental and social sustainability (II.D.4) 4
AVERAGE OF THE DIMENSION RATINGS 3.00
OVERALL PROJECT COMPLETION RATING S
VI Acronyms and abbreviations
Acronym (add rows as needed) Full name
ACDEP Association of Church Development Project
AESD Agricultural Engineering Services Directorate
AfDB Africa Development Bank
AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget
CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme
DDA District Department of Agriculture
DFR Department of Feeder Roads
DO Development Objective
DVCCs District Value Chain Committees
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
15
ESMPs Environmental and Social Management Plans
FAs Facilitating Agencies
FASDEP Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FBOs Farmer-Based Organizations
FTC Farmer Training Centre (Bolgatanga)
GASIP Ghana Agriculture Sector Investment Programme
GHS Ghana Health Service
GHS Ghana Cedis
GIDA Ghana Irrigation Development Authority
GoG Government of Ghana
GSGDA Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda
Ha Hectares
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IP Implementation Progress
IVRDP Inland Valley Rice Development Project
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
METASIP Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Programme
MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture
MT Metric Tonne
MTR Mid-Term Review
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development
NPV Net Present Value
NRGP Northern Rural Growth Programme
ORGIIS Organization for Indigenous Initiatives and Sustainability
PAR Project Appraisal Report
PCU Projects Coordinating Unit (of MoFA)
PFIs Participating Financial Institutions
PCMU Programme Coordination and Management Unit
PPPs Public Private Partnerships
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SSIDP Small Scale Irrigation Development Project
USD United States Dollar
WUAs Water Users Associations
