APR Workshop 2010-APR Performance-Maria Donnat

Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010

Annual Performance Review and South-South Cooperation Event

1-6 November 2010Nanning, China


Presentation outline

1.APR performance

2.Portfolio performance

3.Development results


1.APR performance


New approvals

2009/2010

Approvals• 9 projects and 1 COSOP approved

• USD 213 million

EffectivenessOld procedure: 9.7 months (or 6.4 months without outliers) against 12 months in 2008/09

Co-financing mobilizedUSD 249 million

USD 1.16 leveraged for each dollar invested by IFAD

Quality at entryOnly 55% of our new projects expected to meet their objectives!!!


53 56 62

1.191.23

1.42

5865 68

32 40.5 40.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Nb of projects Value(USD'10,000,000)

Nb of projects Value(USD'10,000,000)

2008

2009

2010

A growing portfolio to manage

Loans and DSF grants

Regional and country grants

111111111

(USD billion) (USD million)


How to contain portfolio growth?

5.96 6.38 6.36

8.78

6.11

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0-2 years 2-4 years 4-6 years 6 years + Projectsapproved

duringreviewperiod

Average project duration (in years), by project maturity

Portfolio average

6.55 years


How to contain portfolio growth?

22.4524.44

21.96

26.90

22.90 23.67

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Average loan size (in USD million) per period

Overall portfolio Newly approved projects


b) Supervising on-going projects


2007/08 – 1st generation issues: Shift from UNOPS; Getting familiar with core supervision requirements and processes; familiarization with key project issues; benchmarking.

2008/09 – 2009/10 - 2nd generation issue: Fine tuning of process; focus on key areas (FM/M&E etc); client feedback; opportunities for learning and sharing for accelerated improvement; appreciative enquiry vs problem identification.

2010/2011 – 3rd generation issue: Ensuring highest quality standards across countries and projects (supervision processes, Aide Mémoires, expertise); Enhancing impact of supervision process on projects’ effectiveness and performance

Direct Supervision – a steep learning curve


Supervision achievements

• 37 supervision/MTR missions and 17 follow-up missions

• 8 start-up workshops

• 6 PCR missions

• 35 supervision debriefings

• Special meeting organized in April 2009 to discuss problem projects and agree on additional resources for well-targeted implementation support


Quality of supervision (loan + DSF grants)

Most Aide Mémoires are improving in quality and PMU feedback is usually positive, but:

• Uneven clarity (and usefulness?) of recommendations (from 11 to 126 recommendations/report; average is 41)

• Reporting on results insufficient (lack of impact data)• Sections on sustainability, targeting and KM often poorly

covered• Many reports still lack a clear expression of mission’s

opinion • Fiduciary aspects covered with varying degrees of detail and

audit logs often not attached


Highly problematic:

• No corporate minimum requirements for grants’ supervision (frequency, quality norms)

• No budget for supervision

• Only 30% of large regional grants supervised

Quality of supervision (grants)


Loan administration

• 382 WAs processed (representing 20% of all WAs processed in IFAD and 36% of total IFAD disbursements)

• Average APR processing time: 27.46 days (PMD average: 27.06 days)

• Overall processing time: 46 days (IFAD average: 42.6 days)


Time for processing WAs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

(US

D m

illion

)

APR ESA LAC NEN WCA

Amounts disbursed, per Division

0

10

20

30

40

50

APR ESA LAC NEN WCA

Average WA processing time, by Division and overall

Nb of days in Reg. Div.Nb of days total IFAD


Knowledge management

• Knowledge products:– Five Newsletters

– Three Occasional Papers

– Two BBC documentaries (700 million viewers worldwide)

• KM infrastructure:– APR, ICT and COM are working on a new multi-purpose

internet environment – IFADASIA (within ifad.org domain) to serve as a home for the APR regional network.


2. Portfolio performance

Annex IV: Project Status ReportSummary of Project Status and Ratings

Annex I: Project Status Report SUMMARY OF PROJECT STATUS AND RATINGS

A. Project Performance Ratings

B.1 Fiduciary Aspects Last Current B.2 Project implementation progress Last Current

1. Quality of financial management 1. Quality of project management

2. Acceptable disbursement rate 2. Performance of M&E

3. Counterpart funds 3. Coherence between AWPB & implementation

4. Compliance with loan covenants 4. Gender focus

5. Compliance with procurement 5. Poverty focus

6. Quality and timeliness of audits 6. Effectiveness of targeting approach

7. Innovation and learning

B.3 Outputs and outcomes Last Current B.4 Sustainability Last Current

1. Actual outputs/ component 1 1. Institution building (organizations, etc.)

2. Actual outputs/ component 2 2. Empowerment

3. Actual outputs/ component 3 3. Quality of beneficiary participation

4. Actual outputs/ component 4 4. Responsiveness of service providers

5. Actual outputs/ component 4 5. Exit strategy (readiness and quality)

6. Actual outputs/ component 4 6. Potential for scaling up and replication

J ustification:

Annex IV: Project Status ReportSummary of Project Status and Ratings

A. Overall Assessment and Risk Profile Last Current

C.1 Physical/ financial assets

C.2 Food security

C 1 Overall implementation progress (Sections B1 and B2)

J ustification for rating

C 2 Likelihood of achieving the development objectives (section B 3)

J ustification for rating C 3 Risks Short description of major risks for each section and their impact on achievement of development

objectives and sustainability

Fiduciary aspects

Project implementation progress

Outputs and outcomes

Sustainability


Portfolio at Risk

37

1

8

32

0

12

30

1

15

41

2

12

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Actual Problem

Potential Problem

Not at Risk


Main problem patterns

Nb of projects with low PSR

scores (1,2 or 3)

% (total number of

risk flags)

Disbursement 20 36%

M&E 19 35%

Exit Strategy 18 33%

Financial Management 17 31%

AWPB (plans versus achievements) 14 25%

Gender 13 24%

Institution Building 12 22%

Project Management 12 22%

Audit 12 22%

Innovation and Learning 11 20%

Service Providers 11 20%


Disbursement (Loans + DSF grants)

7596 91

151

108 100

177

020406080

100120140160180

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

(in USD million)


Disbursement lags, per country

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Improvement

Deterioration

Stable


2010 Country Portfolio Performance Ratings

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

India

Tajikistan

Indonesia

Vietnam

Nepal

Pakistan

Sri Lanka

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Maldives

Bhutan

Cambodia

China

Mongolia

Philippines

Average


Financial management issues

Can have adverse consequences (implementation standstill)

− Problematic for 17 projects (31% portfolio)

− Lowest scores found in three countries

− High proportion of projects with problems in four additional countries

Design issues (flow of funds arrangements) Capacities to comply with IFAD procurement guidelines


Project management issues

Used to be the main factor explaining overall poor project performance.

Partly explained by rotation of Project Directors and other key staff, but not only (e.g. overly complex implementation arrangements)

− Still problematic for 12 projects (22% portfolio)

− Mostly in 7 countries

− APMAS start shall help (but only few countries)


M&E issues

Deprives Project Directors from the ability to steer implementation

Deprives all stakeholders from understanding real project performance and impact

− Unsatisfactory for 19 projects

− Lowest scores found in 4 countries (all older projects)

− New projects however tend to receive higher scores


3. Results


Portfolio alignment with IFAD SF

0

200 000 000

400 000 000

600 000 000

800 000 000

SO1 SO2 SO3 SO4 SO5 SO6 PMU

(Total project funds in USD)

Previous Review Period Current Review Period


Allocations to cross cutting themes

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Institutionalsupport

Gender CommunityDvt

Social/HumanDvt

closed projects on-going projects


Development effectiveness, by SO (Self-assessments)

% projects rated 4 or better

07/08 08/09 09/10

SO1: 83% 60% ND

SO2: 72% 61% ND

S03: 56% 57% ND

SO4: 50% 54% ND

SO5: 50% 73% ND

SO6: 59% 74% ND

IFAD Target (2010): 85%

At completion (PCR + Evaluation)

08/09 09/10ARRI 2009

SO1: 88% 75% 27%

SO2: 100% 80% ND

S03: ND 80% ND

SO4: 67% 100% ND

SO5: ND 100% ND

SO6: ND 50% 100%


During implementation (PSR)


Project impacts (Self-assessments)

% projects rated 4 or better

07/08 08/0909/1

0

Incomes 41% ND ND

Food security 39% 50% 82%

Empowerment 70% 74% 80%

Financial assets 41% 52% 84% IFAD Target (2010): 70% to 80%

At completion (PCR + Evaluation)


During implementation (PSR)

08/09 09/10 ARRI

Incomes ND 100% 82%

Food security 100% 100% 91%

Empowerment 86% 100% 100%

Financial assets 83% 100% 82%

We reached, or exceeded, all corporate targets


Concrete results (RIMS)

RIMS data 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/2010

DataNb

projects DataNb

projects DataNb

projects DataNb

projects

Households reporting improved food security

82,689 7 289,974 13 165,894 7 85,475 9

Persons receiving project services

763,671

21 928,593 22 153,632 9 ND 2

Farmers reporting production or yield increased/herd size

132,319

11 679,897 10 24,328 6 120,923 10

Nb of farmers adopting technology recommended by project

218,088

11 807,278 11 68,184 4 616,135 7

Persons trained in crop and livestock production and development

241,526

22 316,630 20 483,178 20 457,251 29

Nb of active savers 502,58

016 939,427 19 777,581 16 2,467,399 15

Active borrowers 263,49

218 456,609 20 816,896 21 814,760 28


RIMS Surveys

Survey conducted?RIMS surveys

Baseline MTR Completion

Yes 41 (78%) 9 6

N/A 5 5 5

No 11

Total RIMS projects 52


Comparison between baseline and MTR (or MTR and completion) - RIMS surveys -

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

Chronic malnutrition Acute malnutrition Children underweight

India-1063

Indonesia-1112

Laos-1301

China-1271

Vietnam-1202

Laos-1207

Mongolia-1205


Outcome surveys results

% beneficiaries with increased income

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

CMB-1261

IND-1155

IND-1314

IND-1126

% beneficiaries with improved food security or livelihood sources

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

IND-1063

NEP-1119

LAO-1207

BGD-1165

MON-1205

% farmers reporting increase in agricultural production

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

IND-1126

LAO-1207

BGD-1165

BGD-1284

% farmers reporting increase in agricultural productivity

0%

20%40%

60%80%

100%

CMB-1261 PHI-1137 BGD-1284


APR Action Plan

Action 1 - To strengthen supervision processes and implementation support for problem projects

Action 2 - To strengthen the quality of supervision Aide Mémoires

Action 3 - To continue strengthening project-level financial management and procurement processes

Action 4 - To continue strengthening project-level M&E systems

Action 5 - To develop APR KM regional infrastructure further (IFADASIA roll out)

Date post:	25-Dec-2014
Category:	Education
Upload:	ifad-international-fund-for-agricultural-development
View:	8,260 times
Download:	3 times

APR Workshop 2010-APR Performance-Maria Donnat

Education