Document of The World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/... · document of the world bank...

Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR00003562

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (ICRR) (IDA-45670 IDA-45680 IDA-45690 IDA-46720)

ON FOUR PROPOSED CREDITS

IN THE AMOUNT

OF SDR 20.1 MILLION (US$30 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA


REPUBLIC OF KENYA


UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

OF SDR 19.0 MILLION (US$ 30 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

FOR A TOTAL OF SDR 79.3 MILLION (US$ 120 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

IN SUPPORT OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE

EASTERN AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT (EAAPP-APL1 AND APL 1A)

June 22, 2016

Agriculture Sector Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda Country Departments East Africa

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ii

EASTERN AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(as of May 28, 2016)

Currency Unit = Ethiopian Birr (ETB) ETB1.00 = US$ 0.0461 US$ 1.00 = ETB 21.699

Currency Unit = Kenyan Shilling (KSh)

KSh 1.00 = US$ 0.0099 US$ 1.00 = KSh 100.771

Currency Unit = Tanzanian Shilling (TSh)

TSh 1.00 = US$ 0.000457 US$ 1.00 = TSh 2,190.1

Currency Unit = Ugandan Shilling (USh)

TSh 1.00 = US$ 0.000297 US$ 1.00 = TSh 3,361.4

FISCAL YEAR Ethiopia: July 8

Kenya: July 1Tanzania: July 1Uganda: July 1

– _ _ -

July 7 June 30 June 30 June 30

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AGP Agricultural Growth Project APL Adaptable Program Loan AR&D Agricultural Research and Development ASARECA

Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa

ASC Audit Services Corporations ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Program (Tanzania) ASDS Agricultural Sector Development Strategy AWP Annual Work Program CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program CAS Country Assistance Strategy CIDA Canadian International Development Agency COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CORAF/WECARD

Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et la Développement Agricole/ West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development

iii

CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Report DFID Department for International Development EAAPP Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project EAC East African Community EASCOM East Africa Seed Committee ECA East and Central Africa EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research EMCP Expenditure Management and Control Program EMP Environmental Management Plan ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESS Environment and Social Safeguards EU European Union FAAP Framework for African Agricultural Productivity FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa FM Financial Management FRR Financial Rate of Return GDP Gross Domestic Product Ha. IA

Hectares Implementing Agency

IAG Internal Auditor General ICB International Competitive Bidding ICT Information and Communication Technology IDA International Development Association IFR Interim unaudited financial report IPM Integrated Pest Management IRR Internal Rate of Return IRRI International Rice Research Institute ISTA International Seed Testing Association IT Information Technology KATRIN Kilombero Agricultural and Training Institute-location of RCoE lt. Liter M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAFC Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security, and Cooperatives (Tanzania) MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund MoA Ministry of Agriculture (Kenya) MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ethiopia) MoF Ministry of Finance (Kenya) MoFEA Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs (Tanzania) MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (Ethiopia) MoLD Ministry of Livestock Development (Kenya) MoLDF Ministry of Livestock Development and Fisheries (Tanzania) MOU Memorandum of understanding MT Metric ton MTR Mid-term Review NAES National Agriculture Extension Services (Tanzania) NAO National Audit Office NARES National Agricultural Research and Extension System NARI National Agricultural Research Institutes NARS National Agricultural Research Systems NGO Nongovernmental Organization OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

iv

OM Operational Manual OP/BP Operation Policy/Bank Procedure PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to Eradicate Poverty PCU Project Coordination Unit PDO Project Development Objective PM Procurement Management PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PPP Public Private Partnership PSC Project Steering Committee R&D Research and Development RTTP RCoE

Regional Training and Technology Dissemination Regional Center of Excellence

SADC Southern African Development Community TIMPs TOSCI

Technologies, Innovations and Management Practices Tanzania Official Seed Certification Institute

TORs Terms of Reference WAAPP West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program

Vice President: Makhtar Diop

Senior Global Practice Director: Juergen Voegele

Country Directors: Carolyn Turk-Ethiopia

Diaretou Gaye-Kenya and Uganda

Bella Bird-Tanzania

Sector Manager: Mark Cackler

Project Team Leader: Assaye Legesse

ICR Team Leader: Assaye Legesse

ICR Primary Author: Richard Carroll

v

EASTERN AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT

ETHIOPIA, KENYA, TANZANIA AND UGANDA

ICRR

CONTENTS A. Basic Information .......................................................................................................... viB. Key Dates ...................................................................................................................... vi

C. Ratings Summary .......................................................................................................... vi

D. Sector and Theme Codes.............................................................................................. vii

E. Bank Staff ..................................................................................................................... vii

F. Results Framework Analysis ....................................................................................... viii

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ..................................................................... xix

H. Restructuring (if any) ................................................................................................... xx

I. Disbursement Profile .................................................................................................... xx

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ................................................... 12. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .................................................. 63. Assessment of Outcomes .............................................................................................. 134. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ............................................................. 245. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ......................................................... 256. Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................... 277. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .............. 28Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .............................................................................. 30Annex 2. Outputs by Component...................................................................................... 31Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ..................................................................... 36Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ................. 39Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ............................................................................... 41Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ....................................................... 42Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ......................... 43Annex 8. Comments of Co financers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ........................... 63Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents .......................................................................... 64Annex 10: Revised allocations for EAAPP Components ................................................ 65Annex 11: Selected Outcome Indicators from Performance Monitoring Plan ................ 69Annex 12: Consolidated Results Framework from Performance Monitoring Plan ......... 72MAP .................................................................................................................................. 75

vi

A. Basic Information

Country: Africa Project Name: AFCC2/RI-Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project

Project ID: P112688 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-45670,IDA-45680,IDA-45690,IDA-46720

ICR Date: 06/14/2016 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: APL Borrower: KENYA, UGANDA, TANZANIA, ETHIOPIA

Original Total Commitment:

XDR 60.30M Disbursed Amount: XDR 79.13M

Revised Amount: XDR 79.30M

Environmental Category: B

Implementing Agencies: Ministries of Agriculture for Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda

Co-financiers and Other External Partners: Not applicable B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual

Date(s)

Concept Review: 11/06/2008 Effectiveness: 01/20/2010

Appraisal: 02/25/2009 Restructuring(s): 07/29/2013 11/06/2015

Approval: 06/11/2009-APL-111/12/2009-APL-

1A Mid-term Review: 01/24/2013 11/30/2012

Closing: 02/27/2015 12/31/2015 C. Ratings SummaryC.1 Performance Rating by ICR

Outcomes: Satisfactory

Risk to Development Outcome: High

Bank Performance: Satisfactory

Borrower Performance: Satisfactory

vii

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Moderately Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies:

Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance:

Satisfactory Overall Borrower Performance:

Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators

Implementation Performance

Indicators QAG Assessments

(if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

Yes (due to initial disbursement lag)

Quality at Entry (QEA):

None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality of Supervision (QSA):

None

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status:

Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Agricultural extension and research 80 80

Agro-industry, marketing, and trade 10 10

Public administration- Agriculture, fishing and forestry 10 10

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Regional integration 17 17

Rural policies and institutions 23 23

Rural services and infrastructure 60 60 E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval

Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili

Country Directors:

Carolyn Turk-Ethiopia Diarietou Gaye-Kenya Diarietou Gaye-Uganda Bella Bird-Tanzania

Kenichi Ohashi—Ethiopia Johannes Zutt—Kenya John McIntire—Tanzania, Uganda Richard G. Scobey (Acting)-Regional Integration

Practice Manager/Manager:

Mark Cackler Karen McConnell Brooks

viii

Project Team Leader: Assaye Legesse David J. Nielson

ICR Team Leader: Assaye Legesse

ICR Primary Author: Richard J. Carroll F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The PDO was to: (i) enhance regional specialization in agricultural research; (ii) enhance collaboration in agricultural training and dissemination; and (iii) facilitate increased transfer of agricultural technology, information and knowledge across national boundaries. This PDO is from the Financing Agreement. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The PDO was not revised. Notes: The original PDO and intermediate indicators and annual targets are taken from PAD results framework p. 46. Uganda was added in October 2009 for which there was a separate PAD for which the targets for PDO indicators were the same as in the PAD for Ethiopia, Tanzania and Kenya. Formulas to calculate selected indicators are provided in Annex 11. The source of the actual values is the annual Performance Monitoring Plan.

(a) PDO Indicators

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from approval

documents)

Formally Revised Target

Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Rate of change in adoption of new technologies, innovations and management practices—TIMPs (disaggregated by type) (%)

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

15 20 20.7

Date achieved 2008 7/29/2013 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Target achieved (103.5%). Indicator added at restructuring and is a composite of indicators 2-4 below.

Indicator 2 : Rate of change in adoption of new varieties, breeds, and management practices (%)


100 120 158.3

Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 12/31/2015

ix

Comments (incl. % achievement)

Target exceeded (291.5% of target-58.3% vs. 20%). Original PAD Indicator exceeded Project year 3 target (36.3% vs. 12%, or 302%) at restructuring. Also, “increase” became “change.” This indicator is a disaggregated sub-indicator of indicator one.

Indicator 3 : Rate of change in adoption of new handling and processing methods (%) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

100 120 123 122

Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Target almost achieved (95.7%-22% vs. 23%). Original PAD Indicator exceeded Project year 3 target (41.9% vs. 12%, or 349%) at restructuring. This indicator is a disaggregated sub-indicator of indicator one.

Indicator 4 : Rate of change in adoption of improved dairy genetic materials (%) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

2.4 27 22


Target partially achieved (81.5%). Indicator added at restructuring. This indicator is a disaggregated sub-indicator of indicator one.

Indicator 5 : Rate of increase in land area with seeds of improved cultivars (%) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

100 120 114 115.12


Target achieved (108%-15.12% vs. 14%). Original PAD indicator achieved target (12% vs. 12%, or 100%) by Project year 3 restructuring. Revised target was lowered to 14% from 20%.

Indicator 6 : Rate of increase in the number of improved livestock breeds (%) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

100 112 120.4

Date achieved 2008 2012 11/2012 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Target achieved (170%-20.4% vs. 12% increase). This actual is from Project year 3. Indicator was dropped at restructuring after it was achieved.

Indicator 7 : Increase in productivity at farm level over control technology for all disseminated new technologies (%)


100 115 109.4

Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. %

Target not achieved (62.7% of target-9.4% vs. 15%). Original PAD Indicator did not achieve Project year 3 target (4.3% vs. 15%, or 28.7% of target) at restructuring.

x

achievement) Productivity is measured as yield per hectare for seeds and tubers, liters/cow/day for dairy. This is a Program level indicator.

Indicator 8 : Rate of change in regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural research (%)


15 72.5 73.75


Target achieved (101.7%). New indicator at restructuring.

Indicator 9 : Rate of increase in information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries (%)


6.3 85 72.5


Target partially achieved (85.3%). New indicator at restructuring.

Indicator 10 : Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the technologies, innovations and uptake pathways (%)-survey


21.5 75 67.1


Target almost achieved (89.5%). New indicator at restructuring

(b) Intermediate Indicators

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from approval

documents)

Formally Revised Target

Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Acquisition of research infrastructure and equipment according to plan (%)-Regional Center of Excellence (RCoE)s


0 90% 100 99.8


Target achieved (99.8%). (corresponds to revised results framework intermediate indicator 1.1-See Annex 11)

xi

Indicator 2 : Proportion of research scientists working in regional research projects compared to plan


0 85% 904 834


Target almost achieved (92.3%). Unit changed to numbers at restructuring (1.2).

Indicator 3 : Number of staff trained (short- and long-term) and applying skills acquired in conducting EAAPP research for development


n.a. n.a. 1,743 1,932

Date achieved 07/29/2013 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Target exceeded (110.8%). Indicator added at restructuring. (1.3)

Indicator 4 : Number of staff undergoing training Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

n.a. n.a. 1,411 75

Date achieved 07/29/2013 12/31/2015


Target not met. However, indicator is not meaningful because it is meant to account for students who have not yet completed their programs by the end of EAAPP. The numbers were expected to reduce towards the end of the phase, as the graduates were anticipated to join the pool of experts. Indicator added at restructuring. (1.4)

Indicator 5 : Number of regional agricultural research projects implemented compared to plan


0 85% 36 (no.) 33 (no.)

Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 07/29/2013 12/31/2015


Original target exceeded (91.7% v. 85%). Indicator changed at restructuring from ‘Proportion of regional agricultural research projects under implementation compared to plan,’ which better measured achievement. (2.1.1)

Indicator 6 : Increase of new technologies developed by RCoEs (number)


NA

At least 1 new technology per

completed regional

research project

534 472

xii

Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 07/29/2013 12/31/2015


Original target exceeded, revised target partially met (88.4%). Actual achievement far exceeded the unrealistically low original target of 1 per country, but was short of the excessively high target set at restructuring. (2.1.2)

Indicator 7 : Number of demand-driven gender-responsive technologies made available to uptake pathways


n.a. n.a. 144 138


Target almost met (96%). Indicator added at restructuring. (2.1.3)

Indicator 8 : Number of existing & new technologies disseminated in more than one EAAPP country compared to plan (number per selected commodity)


0 3 71 150


Target exceeded (211.3%). Indicator revised and target increased at restructuring. Original indicator measured ‘number of incremental technologies’. (2.2.1)

Indicator 9 : Number of new regional technology uptake pathways operational compared to plan


0 3 73 69


Target almost achieved (94.5%). Target increased at restructuring. (2.2.2)

Indicator 10 : Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the available TIMPs uptake pathways (percent)


n.a. n.a. 82.5 79.3


Target almost achieved (96.1%). Indicator added at restructuring. (2.2.3)

Indicator 11 : Number of targeted stakeholders whose capacity building needs have been addressed (number)

Value n.a. n.a. 103,580 735,541

xiii

(quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 07/29/2013 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Target exceeded (710.1%). Indicator added at restructuring. (2.2.4)

Indicator 12 : Number of agribusiness units established/strengthened Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

n.a. n.a. 172 270



Indicator 13 : Number of cultivars for selected commodities registered in more than one EAAPP country


0 3 35 29


Revised target partially achieved (82.9%). Indicator originally measured ‘number per selected commodity’ then changed to total. Target increased substantially at restructuring. (3.1)

Indicator 14 : Tons of commercial seed of the selected commodities sold by seed companies, farmer organizations


NA See country

table 22,028 203,241


Target exceeded (922.7%). Indicator not changed, but target increased at restructuring. (3.2.1)

Indicator 15 : Number of cassava and other cuttings (million) sold by research institutions and private seed companies


NA See country

table 24.77 74.9



Indicator 16 : Number of doses of livestock semen sold in targeted and other ASARECA member countries

xiv


NA See country

table 1,398,000 4,465,380


Target exceeded (319.4%). Target revised upward at restructuring. Liquid Nitrogen plants were expected to be in place by Project year 5 and they are now in place and target is expected to be met soon. (3.2.3)

Indicator 17 : Increase of breeder seed (tons) of the selected commodities produced by research institutions and private seed companies (excluding cassava and other cuttings)


NA See country

table 5,701 12,898


Target exceeded (226.2%). Target increased at restructuring. (3.3.1)

Indicator 18 : Number of cassava & other cuttings produced by research institutions and private seed companies


n.a. n.a. 78,260,000 189,800,000



Indicator 19 : No. of doses of semen produced in targeted & other ASARECA member countries


n.a. n.a. 1,500,000 7,487,150



Indicator 20 : Number of embryos produced in targeted & other ASARECA member countries


n.a. n.a. 1,900 1,421


Target partially met (74.8%). Indicator added at restructuring. (3.3.4)

xv

Indicator 21 : No. of breeding stock produced in targeted & other ASARECA countries Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

n.a. n.a. 9,385 12,446



Indicator 22 : Number of policies, laws, regulations, and/or procedures reviewed for harmonization


n.a. n.a. 12 17


Target exceeded (141.7%). Indicator added at restructuring. (3.4)

Indicator 23 : Regional research and training and dissemination activities implemented according to plan (%)-Management and coordination


0 85 88 89.8


Revised (and original) target met (102.1%). Target revised upward at restructuring. (4.1)

Indicator 24 : Harmonized M&E system for RCoEs in cooperation with ASARECA developed, adopted and implemented


NA M&E system implemented

100 91.3


Target almost (91.3%) achieved. The only pending activity is the operationalization of the M&E System in all EAAPP locations (offices). (4.2)

Indicator 25 : Level of compliance with Environment and Social Safeguards (ESS) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

n.a. n.a. 100 81.25


Target partially met (81.3%). Indicator added at restructuring. (4.3)

Indicator 26 : Number of projects screened for ESS issues

xvi


n.a. n.a. 204 143


Target partially met (70.1%). Indicator added at restructuring. Some of the screening was anticipated post- EAAPP phase one. (4.4)

Indicator 27 : Increase of cultivars for selected commodities registered in more than one EAAPP country (number per selected commodity)-Kenya


0 3

C: 0 D: 0 R: 0 W: 0

C: 0 D: 0 R: 0 W: 0


Aggregated in indicator 13.

Indicator 28 : Increase of breeder seed (tons) of the selected commodities produced by research institutions and private seed companies-Kenya


W: 0.4 R: 0

W:17.5 R:25

C: 1.2 million W: 600 R: 34

Napier: 400,000

C: 8.12 million W: 870 R: 14.2

Napier: 893,450 Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 07/29/2013 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Three targets exceeded, one not met. Aggregated in indicator 17.

Indicator 29 : Increase of commercial seed (tons) of the selected commodities sold by seed companies, farmer organizations-Kenya


W: 50 R: 0

C: 1.3

W: 100 R: 100 C: 3

W: 600 R: 104

C: 1.245 million

W: 548 R: 591

C: 8.04 million Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 07/29/2013 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. % achievement)

One indicator partially met, two exceeded. Aggregated in indicator 14.

Indicator 30 : Increase of livestock semen sold (number of doses) in targeted and other ASARECA member countries-Kenya


S: 360.000 E: 100 B: 200

S: 360.000 E: 100 B: 200

S: 130,000 E: 105

B: 1,750

S: 300 E: 152

B: 1,833 Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 07/29/2013 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. %

One target not met, one met and one exceeded. Aggregated in indicator 16.

xvii

achievement)

Indicator 31 : Increase of cultivars for selected commodities registered in more than one EAAPP country (number per selected commodity)-Tanzania


0 3

C: 0 D: 0 R: 0 W: 0

C: 0 D: 0 R: 4 W: 0



Indicator 32 : Increase of breeder seed (tons) of the selected commodities produced by research institutions and private seed companies-Tanzania


NA W: 10.3 R: 3.7

C: 20 million W: 154 R: 350

C: 54/7 million W: 176 R: 264


One target exceeded, one met and one partially met. Aggregated in indicator 17.

Indicator 33 : Increase of commercial seed (tons) of the selected commodities sold by seed companies, farmer organizations-Tanzania


NA W: 102.7 R: 112.1

C: 46

W: 0 R: 6,700

W: 694 R: 9,059


Indicators exceeded. Aggregated in indicator 14.

Indicator 34 : Increase of livestock semen sold (number of doses) in targeted and other ASARECA member countries-Tanzania


NA S: 10,000

E: B: 1,300

S: 500,000 E: 0

B: 1,300

S: 429,500 E: 0 B: 0


One target partially met, one not met. Aggregated in indicator 16.

Indicator 35 : Increase of cultivars for selected commodities registered in more than one EAAPP country (number per selected commodity)-Ethiopia


0 3

C: 0 D: 0 R: 0 W: 3

C: 0 D: 0 R: 1 W: 2

xviii



Indicator 36 : Increase of breeder seed (tons) of the selected commodities produced by research institutions and private seed companies-Ethiopia


NA W: 20 R: 2.5

C: 75,000

W: 765 R: 174

C: 2.3 million

W: 2,451 R: 389

C: 4.88 million Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 07/29/2013 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Targets exceeded. Aggregated in indicator 17.

Indicator 37 : Increase of commercial seed (tons) of the selected commodities sold by seed companies, farmer organizations-Ethiopia


NA W: 267 R: 75 P: 1

W: 1,000 R: 100

W: 2,254 R: 250


Two targets exceeded. Aggregated in indicator 14.

Indicator 38 : Increase of livestock semen sold (number of doses) in ASARECA member countries-Ethiopia


NA S: 1,519

E: B: 300

S: 18,000 E: 0

B: 300

S: 124,282 E: 0

B: 3,774 Date achieved 2008 2/27/2015 07/29/2013 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. % achievement)


Indicator 39 : Increase of cultivars for selected commodities registered in more than one EAAPP country (number per selected commodity)-Uganda


0

C: 3 D: 3 R: 3 W: 3

C: 10 D: 4 R: 8 W: 0



Indicator 40 : Increase of breeder seed (tons for wheat and rice, acres for cassava) of the selected commodities produced by research institutions and private seed companies-Uganda

xix


NA W: 0.5 R: 0.5

C: 8,250

W: 2 R: 1,202

C: 15.6 million Napier: 0

W: 20 R: 19

C: 166.8 million Napier: 141 million



Indicator 41 : Increase of commercial seed (tons) of the selected commodities sold by seed companies, farmer organizations-Uganda


NA W: 50 R: 50

W: 0 R: 0

W: 6.1 R: 30.2



Indicator 42 : Increase of livestock germ plasm sold (number of doses) in Uganda Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

NA S: 60,000 E: 2,000

B: 0

S: 39,922 E: 208 B: 955


Two targets not met, one indicator exceeded. Aggregated in indicator 16.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived

DO IP Actual

Disbursements (USD millions)

1 12/10/2009 Moderately

Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.00

2 05/27/2010 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 1.17 3 02/23/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 23.43 4 09/30/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 24.11 5 06/13/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 29.96 6 04/07/2013 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 39.81 7 11/02/2013 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 70.80 8 06/11/2014 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 90.16 9 12/02/2014 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 108.46

10 06/23/2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 116.80 11 02/04/2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 119.72

xx

H. Restructuring (if any) 1. Restructuring July 29, 2013 to reallocate funds between expenditure categories/components and update the Key Performance Indictors (KPI). See section 1.7 and Annex 10 for details. 2. Restructuring November 5, 2015 (no-cost extension) to extend the closing date of the Project to December 31, 2015.

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal 1. The East Africa Agricultural Productivity Project (EAAPP)1 sought to exploit the high potential of the agriculture sector for improving people’s livelihoods in East Africa by: i) supporting specialized agricultural research and development in four East African countries; ii) focusing on four commodities important to food security (wheat in Ethiopia, dairy in Kenya, rice in Tanzania and cassava in Uganda); iii) supporting the sharing of the resulting new germplasms across national borders; and iv) supporting seed multiplication and downstream activities including agribusinesses. At appraisal, agriculture accounted for about two-fifths of GDP in East Africa and was the primary source of income for more than two-thirds of the population. If the sector were to contribute to overall economic growth and poverty reduction it was imperative that agricultural productivity increase. To improve productivity, agricultural technology would have to be supported, and each link in the value chain would have to be addressed―from international and local research, extension and advisory services to production, distribution of inputs, and on-farm application. 2. The 2008 World Development Report observed that the policy environment for agriculture in much of Africa had improved, with reduction of implicit and explicit sectoral taxation, correction of overvalued exchange rates, fewer trade restrictions. With the improved policy and institutional environment, returns to agricultural investment were potentially higher. One promising area for this investment was regional agricultural research and development (AR&D). Yet, regional approaches represented only about 1 percent of the overall expenditure on agricultural research in Sub-Saharan agriculture (roughly US$25 million per year of the total US$2.5 billion spent per year on agricultural research and extension). The Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) called for increasing the level of investment in regional approaches 20-fold, or to about US$500 million annually, within 10 years. 3. The regional approach had potential to remedy the fragmented nature of agricultural research in Africa. Africa had 390 public research institutes, compared to 120 in India and only 51 in the United States. The total number of agricultural scientists in public institutes was similar in Africa and in the United States, but the average number of scientists per institute was only 30 in Africa, compared to 180 in the United States. The dispersion of agricultural scientists across so many small institutes in Africa was impeding the assembly of the critical mass of researchers needed to address inherently complex problems. Researchers needed to be more effective, for example, in helping farmers respond to high prices which also depended on farmers’ access to inputs, including seeds of improved cultivars and improved livestock. Weak seed industries and livestock with low genetic potential had constrained farmers. The preparation of EAAPP coincided with the sharp increase in the prices of important food crops (especially cereals and oilseeds) in world markets during 2007–08. This created hardship for African consumers, but created opportunities for farmers. EAAPP was prepared with this knowledge of the small size of national input markets, weak seed industries and livestock with low genetic potential, constraining farmers’ responses to high food prices. EAAPP intended to address these issues through support to

1 EAAPP is referred to as the “Project”, except when EAAPP referred to as one phase of a two-phase Adaptable Program Loan (APL), in which case it is referred to as a “Program”.

2

improvements in agricultural technology through country specialization in four countries in four key commodities, and by lowering of barriers to the movement of technologies across borders. Rationale for Bank involvement 4. The International Development Association (IDA) had already been an important supporter of agricultural technology, a focus of Pillar IV of the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP), which included leadership in donor coordination and harmonization and strengthening African capacity in the area of agricultural innovation. IDA managed Multi Donor Trust Funds at the Bank for four regional organizations: i) Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA),2 ii) Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et la Développement Agricole (CORAF/WECARD), iii) the Southern African Development Community (SADC); and iv) for the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), which had the responsibility of supporting CAADP Pillar IV at the continental level. In addition, IDA was actively supporting the agricultural productivity agenda within each of the four EAAPP participating countries through ongoing operations and planned new operations. EAAPP met IDA’s regional project eligibility criteria because it (i) supported activities that were coordinated across three or more countries, (ii) generated benefits that spill over country boundaries, (iii) had the support of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), (iv) provided a platform for policy harmonization, and (v) is part of a regional agricultural strategy. 5. EAAPP supported the objectives of the World Bank’s Africa Action Plan, which identified regional integration as an important element to achieving higher economic growth and poverty reduction. At the regional level, EAAPP provided a vehicle for implementing the agricultural productivity agenda of ASARECA, which was created to enhance regional collective action in agricultural research for development, extension, training, and education. ASARECA was mandated by COMESA and FARA, to take a lead in coordinating implementation of CAADP Pillar IV and EAAPP. EAAPP was originally conceived as an APL. 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 6. There are three levels of objectives. This ICR focuses on the Project Development Objective (PDO) as expressed in the Financing Agreement (FA) for each country, which also encompasses the Program objective. The ICR also assesses the overall EAAPP goal. Table 1 below presents the original and revised PDO indicators.

Overall goal of EAAPP: “to contribute to increased agricultural productivity and growth” (Project Appraisal Document-PAD, p. 4);

Program objective: “to strengthen and scale up regional cooperation in generation of technology, training, and dissemination programs for regional priority commodities” (PAD p. 4); and

Project development objective (PDO): “to (i) enhance regional specialization in agricultural research; (ii) enhance regional collaboration in agricultural training and

2 Created in 1994, ASARECA is a nonpolitical and nonprofit AR&D association of directors of the national research institutes in 10 eastern and central African countries: Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and South Sudan.

3

dissemination; and (iii) facilitate increased sharing of agricultural information, knowledge and technology across the recipient’s boundaries,” which was as expressed in the FA for each country.3 The terms specialization and sharing knowledge across borders are defined by their associated PDO indicators which are explained in detail in section 2.3 and in Annex 11.

1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators 7. The PDO was not revised, but there were substantial revisions and additions to the PDO indicators as shown in Table 1. These indicators were formally revised in July 2013 when US$43.57 of a total of US$119.72 (36.4%) had been disbursed. Indicators 7 and 8 were added to improve measurement of specialization and technology sharing elements of the PDO. Section 2.3 evaluates the effectiveness of this revision.

Table 1: Original and Revised PDO Indicators Original PDO indicator from PAD Formally revised and new PDO Indicators

1. Rate of increase in adoption of new varieties, breeds, and management practices (%)

1 No change

2. Rate of increase in adoption of new handling and processing methods (%)

2 No change

3 Rate of increase in number of improved livestock breeds (%)

3. Dropped (but covered by indicator 6 below).

4. Rate of increase in land area with seeds of improved cultivars (%)

4 No change

5. Increase in productivity at farm level over control technology for all disseminated new technologies (%)

5 No change

6. Rate of increase in number of improved dairy genetic materials (%)

7. Rate of change in adoption of new technologies (disaggregated by type)

8. Rate of change in regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural research4

9. Rate of increase in information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries

10. Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the technologies, innovations and uptake pathways (%)-survey

3 The PAD formulated the PDO slightly differently: “(i) enhance regional specialization in agricultural research; (ii) enhance collaboration in agriculture training and technology dissemination; and (iii) facilitate increased transfer of agricultural technology, information, and knowledge across national boundaries.”

4 This indicator was added to help track the rate and level of change in how EAAPP is effecting and contributing to regional collaboration in agricultural research among the farmers, traders, policy makers, private sector, universities, and other stakeholders. The type of available specializations as well as the effects of the documented existing collaborations was tracked.

4

1.4 Main Beneficiaries 8. National level reporting suggests on the order of several hundred thousand farmers in each country benefited from the Project. The main beneficiaries of EAAPP were:

Agricultural research and extension institutions built capacity through acquisition of infrastructure5, computer and laboratory equipment, short term training and higher degree programs focused specifically on issues related to the four EAAPP commodities

Farmers who realized higher yields and income. During the Project 161,931 farmers, of which 55,151 were female received short-term training to support the adoption of new technologies, innovations and management practices (End of Phase I evaluation-ASARECA/World Bank, June 2015, p. 76).

General population which gained better food choice and food and nutrition security Other national agricultural institutions through sharing technology across borders which

achieved economies and built a sense of shared mission amongst African scientists in overcoming challenges in AR&D

ASARECA as an institution promoting regional cooperation in agriculture Women and the general public by promoting gender and climate smart technologies The workforce in rural areas through efforts to commercialize agriculture along the value

chains of the four commodities, thus creating job opportunities with a focus on women and youth

1.5 Original Components 9. The Project had four components. The design aimed to improve the productivity of four commodities with each participating country taking the lead for one of the commodities: Ethiopia-wheat, Tanzania-rice, Kenya-dairy and Uganda-cassava. Component allocations at appraisal are in parentheses (summing to US$120 million). Component 1: Strengthening Regional Centers of Excellence (US$27.4 million) - aimed at strengthening the institutional capacities that are needed to establish RCoEs. Capacity strengthening focused on the physical facilities and human resources needed to sustain project objectives and outcomes at both the regional and national levels. Component 2: Technology Generation, Training and Dissemination (US$53.4 million) - supported technology generation, training, and dissemination that was agreed at national and regional levels and included in an annual regional research plan for each commodity and for training and dissemination. Regional plans were developed and agreed upon through regional meetings convened by ASARECA. Research, training, and dissemination activities covered the entire value chain―from basic production to postharvest handling, marketing, processing, and consumption. Component 3: Improved Availability of Seeds and Livestock Germ plasm (US$29.4 million) - supported multiplication of seeds and breeds, strengthened the enabling environment for regional seed and breed trade, and improved the capacity of seed and breed producers and traders. Support was targeted at the four commodities selected in the RCoEs. To assist implementation of EAAPP

5 RCoEs, seed processing plants, milk value addition centers, AI facilities, and liquid Nitrogen production plants.

5

activities under Component 3, the EAAPP coordinating units in each country included a Seed and Breed Business Development Specialist, and a Seed Technologist. Component 4: Project Coordination and Management (US$9.8 million) - financed management and coordination of EAAPP at the national and regional levels. 1.6 Revised Components: The components were not revised, but there were reallocations between the components and expenditure categories which are explained in the next section. 1.7 Other significant changes 10. Although Uganda was part of the original preparation, it did not join the EAAPP until five months later than the other three EAAPP countries (Board approval November 12, 2009). Additional time was needed to agree on cassava for its commodity of specialization at its RCoEs. 11. The Project was restructured twice: 1. On July 29, 2013 to reallocate funds between expenditure categories/components; and 2. On November 5, 2015 to extend the closing date of the Project from February 27, 2015 to December 31, 2015. At the MTR each country made adjustments to the EAAPP allocations according to its own respective priorities, primarily through the allocation of unallocated funds. The main reason for the reallocation of funds across the four countries was the need to respond to the growing demand from farmers for improved seeds, breeds and planting materials. 12. The Government of Kenya (GoK) recognized the need to put more resources into wider diffusion of the improved technologies in order to reach as many farmer groups as possible. GoK also wanted to strengthen the linkages between research and extension, and increase support to agribusiness and marketing, both priority areas that needed more funding. The Government of Tanzania (GoT) decided to shift resources toward the RCoE as opposed to continue spreading resources across the national agriculture research and extension network. The spreading of resources had left insufficient resources to build the institutional and human capacity and the research infrastructure necessary to support the development of KATRIN as Tanzania’s RoCE. GoT also elected to upgrade the institutional and technical capacities of the Tanzania Official Seed Certification Institute (TOSCI) for ISTA/OECD accreditation, which was necessary to facilitate new seed movement across countries. 13. The Government of Ethiopia (GoE), in addition to up and out scaling of improved technologies to a larger number of farmers, wanted to focus more on market linkages along the value chain of the EAAPP commodities and on deepening of regional integration. The Government of Uganda (GoU) also decided to focus on scaling up and out technology dissemination, as well as training activities, increased support to seed production and distribution modalities, and value addition and market linkages to ensure greater impact for a wider range of farmers during the remaining implementation period. Annex 10 summarizes the funding allocations revised at the MTR. For additional country level details, see the Restructuring Paper, July 29, 2013.

6

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 14. Overview of design. The EAAPP strategy to achieve improved agricultural productivity was based on three strategic elements: gains from regional cooperation, ensuring the link between research and development (by promoting access to new seeds by farmers once their demand is demonstrated), and building agriculture research capacity to help link supply of with demand for the four agricultural commodities. Establishing an RCoE in each country (component 1) was a key design feature for building a long-term foundation for regional cooperation. Each country specialized in a particular commodity in which the country had a comparative advantage in agricultural research and development (AR&D): Ethiopia-wheat, Kenya-dairy, Tanzania-rice, and Uganda-cassava. Each country had its own design specifications for its RCoE reflecting its particular country and sector priorities. The RCoEs were effective in AR&D and in regional cooperation because the centers provided a focal point with modern equipment and trained staff where AR&D staff from other countries, with support under component 2, could collaborate. This allowed staff to share their research outputs and methods with the other countries to improve yields and post-harvest handling in all four commodities in the four countries (and in some cases, extending to non-EAAPP countries). 15. The Project design recognized that what really drives demand for new technologies, is the market for the increased production. This, in turn, drives the demand to multiply seed multiplication and promotes adoption rates for new cultivars and farm practices which the Project supported under component 3. The Project also promoted markets through support to business units that would further process the commodities, for example, —Cassava for flour and beverages, rice processing, dairy to yogurt, etc. By necessity, the Project design was complex because it needed to include regional, national and local institutions, while addressing the entire value chain of the selected commodities and while covering four separate countries. Several of the Project risks stemmed from this complexity. 16. Risks identified in the PAD were mostly mitigated. The PAD identified a number of specific risks which revolved mainly around the challenges of regional cooperation. There was concern that Project resources would focus on individual national concerns and that there would be insufficient capacity for regional coordination. These risks did not materialize in any substantial way partly because of the mitigation measures and partly because the commitment of EAAPP countries to the regional approach grew steadily during the Project. One of the mitigation measures required that Project activities be carried out in at least two countries, which reduced the likelihood of focusing exclusively on national rather than regional priorities. The involvement of ASARECA helped mitigate the regional coordination risk because it performed effectively. The risk that seed companies’ would be slow to scale up seed production was rated substantial, but did not materialize as seed companies’ ability to scale up commercial seed production exceeded targets. The risk of technology failure was rated high, but also did not materialize and that can be attributed to rigorous technical vetting of proposals. Another important mitigation measure was to put a large amount of Project resources into the ‘unallocated’ category. While this design feature was intended to overcome the risk that ASARECA would be ineffective, it turned out to be useful in facilitating the response to the need to scale up certain activities at the time of the mid-term review (MTR). 17. The risks related to the lack of a formal mechanism for technology sharing were not sufficiently mitigated. The PAD explicitly recognized the risk that there could be an inadequate policy environment for facilitating regional technology transfer and this risk was to be mitigated by EAAPP countries agreeing in advance to implement measures already agreed with specific focus

7

on the selected commodities. This risk did materialize and has threatened continued progress in regional cooperation since the close of the EAAPP and in the absence of a Phase II. While germplasms, planting materials, breeding stock and technologies were effectively shared, trading of commercial seeds, breeds and planting materials was to be facilitated through a comprehensive harmonization process, which is a longer term effort that was to be followed up under Phase II.

18. EAAPP applied many key lessons and benefited in particular from the Bank’s experience in regional AR&D in West Africa. Lessons were drawn in the areas of: support to agricultural technology systems, improving the effectiveness of research systems, seed systems development, and M&E. The lessons contributed to a design that integrated the development and dissemination of agricultural technology by establishing close linkages between extension and research with a two-way feedback system and establishing decentralized delivery systems that include the participation of local professionals and beneficiaries in extension system delivery. Bank experience also bears out the importance of relevant training programs, which was a key design feature of EAAPP through the funding of MSc and PhD programs directly related to ongoing work. Seed systems lessons of particular importance were the need for additional sources of breeder seed than just agricultural research centers, and the need for public services, such as seed certification and phytosanitary controls, which were built into Project design. In M&E, the Project design incorporated the structure of national M&E systems and ASARECA’s Project on Strengthening of Impact Orientation (PROSIO), with a focus on the special challenges of research institutes. 19. EAAPP adopted the model of the West Africa Agricultural Productivity Project (WAAPP), which recognized the fundamental importance of realizing economies of scale in agricultural research. The WAAPP predated EAAPP by two years and had similar components except that WAAPP also had a component to promote the enabling environment for regional cooperation, which EAAPP did not. In retrospect, given the difficulties in establishing modalities for technology transfer, it would have been wise to have such a dedicated component in EAAPP. 20. EAAPP preparation was highly participatory. Because of the regional nature of the Project, much up front consultation was essential for success. All countries had to be on board with the rules for scientific exchange and the choice of commodity in which to specialize. These agreements required numerous negotiations with a wide variety of government, AR&D and farmer stakeholders attending workshops. Although Uganda came into the Project several months later, it was equally involved in the preparation process including the PDO discussions and the development and finalization of the results framework and indicators and the setting of their own targets. Table 2 provides a timeline of key EAAPP events.

Table 2: EAAPP Timeline Event Date

Board approval of EAAPP APL 1 (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania) June 11, 2009 Board approval of EAAPP APL 1A (Uganda) November 12, 2009 Mid-term Review Nov. 30, 2012 1st Restructuring (level 2) approved-Fund reallocation July 29, 2013 2nd Restructuring (level 2) approved-Extend closing date 10 months Nov. 6, 2015 Evaluation of End of Phase I June 2015 Original closing date Feb. 27, 2015 Actual closing date Dec. 31, 2015

8

2.2 Implementation 21. The Project overcame implementation challenges and achieved impressive results. Each country renovated and upgraded research centers involved in EAAPP activities, with Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda building new RCoEs. All the new RCoEs became operational near the end of the Project. Each country created its own design for the RCoE rather than follow a standard design for all countries. This approach meant that each RCoE design would have produced and evaluated. While that posed a greater implementation challenge that did take longer to complete, it also meant that the RCoEs were better tailored to the specific needs of each country. As these regional facilities were being designed and built to facilitate strong collaboration and effective working environment for the AR&D professionals, EAAPP was promoting agricultural research and development (AR&D) through funding cross border exchange of staff and technologies, the provision of critical, state of the art lab technology, training and other support. EAAPP carried out 33 regionally prioritized agricultural research subprojects under the RCoEs, 28 of which were active in all four countries. These subprojects developed 472 new technologies, innovations and management practices (TIMPs). 76 TIMPs were disseminated to one or more countries. Some of the major ones are highlighted in Section 3. 22. Some are long-term and are still under development. Substantial yield increases were reported at national levels for all commodities and area under cultivation exceeded expectations. Below a number of factors are examined which contributed to the successes and the challenges of the Project. Factors affecting implementation 23. As a regional project, a continuous process of consultation between stakeholders was carried out both regionally and nationally during implementation. The intensive consultations that began during preparation continued throughout implementation. Through a sustained program of regional meetings the Project was able to build a strong “regional attitude.” This effort was challenging because intensive regional cooperation in AR&D was relatively new and each country’s role needed time to develop. Despite the initial challenges, the Project met its mid-term targets by Project year 3 for most results indicators. As agricultural scientists went to other EAAPP countries and began experiencing the knowledge/technology exchanges, they became more and more convinced of the regional benefits and the Project picked up speed. Scientists were able to observe, for example, shared germplasm from one country could reduce the time of research to release from eight years to one year, because it would take only one year of streamlined farm trials to validate the new germplasm, saving seven years of research and other trials. From the time of the MTR onward, the Project was able to meet and exceed most of its results targets. The Project was never at risk. 24. Two years into implementation, but prior to the MTR, ASARECA was able to recruit a new facilitator who made a significant improvement to Project coordination. The initial coordinator was replaced. The new hire helped facilitate cross border exchanges and ensured timely Project reporting, while also supporting the M&E specialist. 25. There was a learning curve for implementing agencies to become familiar with Financial Management (FM) and procurement management (PM) procedures which slowed disbursements. The lack of familiarity with Bank procedures did slow down implementation during the earlier part of the Project. This is evidenced by the fact that by the MTR only about US$ 40 million (about one-third of total Project financing) had been disbursed. During the course of the Project, agencies developed understanding of the process and were able to complete most of

9

the more expensive purchases, such as the RCoE infrastructure, albeit near the end of the Project. There was a 10-month extension of the closing date to December 31, 2015, and all funds for all four countries were disbursed. 26. The fact that only one of the EAAPP countries was International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) certified meant that new seed varieties could not be released without further testing. Only Kenya had ISTA certification which meant that its seeds from Kenya could be transferred and sold across national borders. When the other three countries developed new seed varieties to be shared, the new seeds would have to undergo national testing and trial even though the research to release process was greatly compressed (from 8 years to 1 or 2 years). There was a positive development during the Project where Tanzania had taken the necessary steps to become ISTA certified and is expected to achieve full certification status within the current year (2016). Mid-term review 27. The MTR was conducted in November 2012. The MTR was effective in adjusting to the demand for the new technologies developed with EAAPP support, and which needed to be shared across borders on a larger scale. Funding allocations needed to be shifted to accommodate the scaling up of, in particular, seed multiplication activities. Section 1.7 and Annex 10 summarize the reallocation of Project funding at the MTR. 28. In addition, the MTR revised the results framework which attempted to better capture the PDO. The revisions are documented in the Project Monitoring Plan (PMP),6 which was updated on an annual basis, and are discussed in Section 2.3. During the MTR, the Project also applied a lesson from the WAAPP which led to the establishment of a steering committee at the Permanent Secretary level which further facilitated cross border sharing of TIMPs and a focus on the whole agricultural value chain, which led to scaling up of seed multiplication activities. In addition, agro-business groups were initiated with a focus on women and youth as part of the effort to commercialize agriculture and introduction of market economy in rural areas. For example, in Kenya youth groups developed a service to support dairy production by tick treatments for cows. Women also developed small businesses producing yogurt from the increased dairy production for local consumption. Overall, the MTR made key improvements to Project implementation, including sharpening the focus on women’s participation in the Project, and EAAPP was well-positioned to meet its Phase II triggers. Triggers for EAAPP Phase II 29. The PAD called for a review to be conducted prior to Project close to determine readiness for EAAPP Phase II. A review by the Bank and ASARECA showed that the triggers to proceed to Phase II were met by all four countries. The triggers and their status are presented in Table 3.

6 EAAPP Master PMP, Monitoring and Evaluation Series, Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), January 2010—December 2014, ASARECA, July 2011

10

Table 3: EAAPP Phase II Triggers Trigger Status

Determination by the external review that all four COEs are implementing the project in a manner consistent with the regional plans and priorities as established with the other countries participating in EAAPP and with ASARECA

Met

Determination by the external review that the support to regional research, training, and dissemination activities is operating effectively, and that at least 65 percent of ongoing projects have a satisfactory rating

Met

Determination by the external review that EAAPP has developed a comprehensive regional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system that produces timely information necessary for program management and evaluation

Met

Evidence that regional plans have been adopted by ASARECA member countries seeking to join EAAPP and that there is already participation of these countries

Met

Achievement of target values for dissemination and application of new technologies in participating countries

Met

Target values for sale of seed and livestock germplasm met Met Target values for registration of technologies in project countries reached Met

30. The original concept of RCoEs taking leadership of a single commodity, forming partnerships with all stakeholders within and across borders, was fulfilled. The RCoEs demonstrated leadership beyond national boundaries incorporating the work of scientists from other countries. As originally conceived, Phase II is an important next step to preserve the gains in regional cooperation and scale up the applications of new varieties to realize a fuller impact from the Project. Realizing this fact, three of the Project countries (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) officially requested the Bank to finance Phase II as indicated in the PAD. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 31. Design. The original EAAPP had a detailed results framework to cover the multi-country and multi-dimensional Project. All original PDO indicators, with a few minor revisions, were maintained throughout the Project. The results framework measured not only the individual PDOs, but, through the PDO indicator on productivity, the overall goal of EAAPP to improve agricultural productivity, as well. The MTR revised the results framework adding two indicators to explicitly capture the specialization and cross border technology sharing elements of the PDO: the ‘Rate of change in regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural research’ and ‘Rate of increase in information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries’. 32. Formulating a number of the PDO indicators was a complex process requiring the combining of a range of sub-indicators comprising a wide variety of technologies, innovations and management practices (TIMPs) into a single national level indicator and then aggregating national level indicators into a consolidated Project-wide indicator. For example, the PDO indicator “Increase in productivity at farm level over control technology for all disseminated new technologies,” comprises 16 different productivity measures (four commodities in four countries) that are weighted and combined. Each country used somewhat different weighting in the productivity (and other) measures because they were concentrating on different commodities and TIMPs. This methodology for these indicators was developed in a detailed, annually updated, Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), which laid out the formulas for combining the wide range of indicators (see Annex 11 for details). Another example of a complex indicator is PDO indicator 1, “Rate of change in regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural research.” Box 1 explains the meaning and composition of this indicator. A number of other indicators were also

11

complex and sometimes difficult to interpret. At the same time, the method to produce the indicators was clearly laid out in the joint country PMP.

Several PDO indicators went beyond the PDO, including ‘adoption of new technologies’, ‘land area under improved cultivars’, and ‘increase in productivity at farm level’. Instead of measuring the PDO directly, these measured the expected downstream benefits if the PDO were achieved. For example, the PDO indicator measuring increased area under improved cultivars captured what would the benefits from specialization, collaboration, dissemination and training would be if they had been carried out effectively. So, these indicators are reflective of achievement of the PDO, but measure it only indirectly. Implementation. The results framework was revised during the 2012 MTR and was formalized at restructuring (July 29, 2013). The composite nature of the results indicators represented a trade-off between keeping the number of PDO indicators to a manageable level to create a composite picture of results achievement, but obscuring the differential achievements between commodities, TIMPs and the individual EAAPP countries. To mitigate this trade-off, individual countries compiled detailed results frameworks which specify the detailed results on the national level. These results frameworks were used to produce the overall project results framework. In addition, intermediate indicators contributed to a more transparent picture of Project achievements. All four countries produced quarterly reports based on the results framework. The centrality of EAAPP M&E is demonstrated in the countries’ ICRs each of which is organized according to the main PDO indicators. Because of the complexity of the indicators, it was difficult in some cases to cross-check national level indicators with Project wide indicators. In general, it would be better to have more disaggregated PDO indicators because some of the indicators are capturing too many things at once. 33. Utilization. The M&E framework along with detailed quarterly M&E reporting in each country guided decisions regarding reallocation of funds. The M&E is to be distinguished from the more complex PDO indicators, which were not relied upon for project management. The M&E clearly indicated that more funding was needed to scale up certain activities, among other things, in providing seeds, cultivars and dairy materials to farmers in individual countries. The M&E also

Box 1: PDO Indicator on Specialization and Collaboration This complex indicator tracks EAAPP’s contribution to both specialization and collaboration as it pertains the Center of Excellence approach. It is based on measurement of commodity-specific regional initiatives, increasing staff qualifications, joint planning and implementation of agricultural research, training and dissemination activities in at least two EAAPP program countries, building physical facilities, and developing partnerships and connection to the global agricultural research systems. This indicator was measured by combining five sub-indicators, which themselves were complex indicators: i) Regional research projects -.30%; ii) Regional T&D activities - 30%; iii) Policy harmonization - 10%, iv) M&E system - 15%; and v) Capacity development (RCoE-driven) - 15%. Capacity development, for example, three sub-indicators: Physical facilities (6%), Training (Short and long term-6%), and Partnerships formation (3%).

12

contributed to the measurement of Phase II triggers and helped build a case for Phase II which drove the willingness of EAAPP countries to request the second phase. 34. An impact evaluation was planned for EAAPP. This exercise was carried out under the auspices of ASARECA with the ‘End of Phase I Report’. The key results from this exercise are presented in section 3. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 35. Safeguards. EAAPP was an environmental Category B project. Safeguards policy on displaced persons was triggered, but there were no unresolved issues. RCoE construction, other renovations, and use and disposal of chemicals were strictly monitored by national environmental authorities/systems, with which the Project complied. An environmental safeguards specialist regularly participated in Bank supervision missions. 36. Fiduciary. As stated in section 2.2, there was a learning curve for implementing agencies (IAs) in Bank fiduciary processes which led to some delays in implementation. However, FM ratings, except for one moderately unsatisfactory rating prior to the MTR were all moderately satisfactory or satisfactory with no unresolved issues. The one low FM rating was because of a disbursement lag for the overall Project. On the procurement side, except for some contract management issues, due to capacity limitations at the RCoEs and the consultancy firms supervising the contractors, that delayed the timely completion of the civil works in all of the program countries, there were also no unresolved issues and all ratings were moderately satisfactory or satisfactory. A complaint was made by a bidder after an award for seed cleaning machines regarding restrictive qualification criteria, but the Bank had given a no objection to the procurement because the bidder waited until contract award to register the complaint. Both FM and procurement were rated Satisfactory at Project close. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 37. As an APL, a Phase II for EAAPP was initially envisioned, which would further develop the modalities for technological exchange, and scale up activities by bringing more technologies to market. The Phase II would deepen regional collaboration and expand horizontally (additional countries), and vertically (additional commodities). However, it is not clear that a Phase II will be implemented. At the end of 2014 a Joint Communique signed by Permanent Secretaries from all four countries requesting EAAPP Phase II was sent to the Bank. The Bank has not formally responded to this request. At this writing, GoT, GoK and GoU have officially requested a Phase II while GoE has not. Although the Bank has not supported a Phase II, it has continued to support the agriculture sector in each of the four EAAPP countries, for example, through the second Agricultural Growth Project (AGP-II) in Ethiopia. 38. Recognizing that EAAPP Phase I would end on 31st December 2015, the 6th EAAPP Regional Steering Committee Meeting held on 4th December 2015 recommended that a Regional Exit Strategy for sustainable resource utilization and managing knowledge acquired before, during and after EAAPP phase I be developed. The Regional Steering Committee formed a Task Force which met in Dar es Salaam Tanzania from 15th to 17th December 2015 to produce this strategy which addressed the following areas:

(i) Mechanisms for utilization of RCoE facilities by stakeholders, e.g., researchers, agricultural extension specialists, etc.

13

(ii) Modalities for continued collaboration and sharing of knowledge, technology and innovations.

(iii) Collaboration and linkages between RCoE and Regional and Sub Regional Organizations such as ASARECA, West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD), Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA), Agricultural Technology and Agribusiness Advisory Services (ATAAS), etc.

(iv) Mechanisms for documentation of knowledge products generated during phase I

39. Each country is developing a business plan incorporating these elements. Specifically, in the event that Phase II does not materialize, the National Agriculture Research Institutes (NARIs) in collaboration with the ministries of Agriculture will oversee the management of the facilities and will endorse mechanisms for access and utilization of facilities under RCoEs to ensure sustainability of the centers. The NARIs in consultation with MoA will set the terms and conditions for access and utilization of the facilities by the stakeholders in the region based on prevailing country specific contexts. A profile of scientists and other stakeholders under each RCoE will be made to ease linkages and sharing of information from the RCoEs. The RCoEs will provide leadership in joint activities such as proposal development, soliciting of funding, capacity development, publication and documentation.

3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation Objectives-Substantial 40. EAAPP objectives of specialization, collaboration and productivity improvements are in line with current top regional priorities. EAAPP objectives closely align with the current Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) Pillar 4. Pillar 4 emphasizes activities to improve agriculture research, technology dissemination and adoption. The 18th COMESA summit March 31, 2015 had several directives that EAAPP objectives support, including to implement the CAADP Regional Compact and related investment Framework, and to complete the design of the Regional Livestock Policy, and to mobilize resources to support the establishment of the Centre of Excellence for Dry Lands by 2016, in Djibouti, with the cooperation with other regional economic communities. The continued relevance is clearly shown by the expressions of strong interest in pursuing EAAPP Phase II through the Joint Communique of the four permanent secretaries in agriculture and, further, the formal requests of three of the four EAAPP countries’ ministries of finance. One concern is the inconsistency in the Bank’s institutional regional agricultural strategy. The strategy includes a regional Phase II for WAAPP, but not for EAAPP. The Bank provides substantial support for national level projects in the agriculture sector in East Africa, but, so far, has not included Phase II of EAAPP in its regional strategy. Design-Substantial 41. Design relevance is substantial because EAAPP created strong links between agricultural research and agricultural development, in particular seed multiplication, strategies to improve adoption rates, improved infrastructure for marketing production and promotion of agribusiness. The 18th COMESA summit stated that “agriculture is the mainstay of the region’s industrial development,” which the EAAPP design supported through the development of agribusinesses. The original EAAPP was designed with the assumption that a second phase would be implemented

14

in which the gains from Phase I are scaled up and the processes for regional cooperation are more formally established. Phase I focused on initial arrangements, generation of TIMPs, strengthening regional collaboration, knowledge sharing in agricultural research and completion of modern AR&D facilities. Phase II was to focus on deepening cooperation, further harmonizing technology sharing policies, full utilization of the new infrastructure completed near the end of Phase I and accelerating the scaling up of production of planting and dairy materials for farmers. Thus, under Phase II most of the production gains in the four commodities would be realized. This concept was relevant and appropriate for a program requiring several years of preparatory work in technical training, infrastructure development and establishment of regional modalities for technology sharing. However, in the absence of an EAAPP Phase II because of lack of Bank support, the design relevance rating is lowered from high to substantial. Implementation-Substantial 42. During implementation ownership of the regional process strengthened and national AR&D staff became enthusiastic about the gains from regional cooperation as real benefits to farmers in one country from research conducted in another, increased. The MTR appropriately responded to needed adjustments to scale up activities in key areas of the Project which helped EAAPP maintain substantial relevance. One persistent difficulty is the lack of established modalities for cross border technological exchange. Under the banner of EAAPP these barriers could be overcome. However, in the absence of established modalities as well as the delayed or non-implementation of EAAPP Phase II, momentum in developing regional processes is being lost which will undermine the relevance of some of the gains under EAAPP. 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives Rating: Substantial 43. This section provides a rating for each PDO component based on the consolidated, Project-wide, results framework and follows with a summary of individual country results to give a sense of performance at the national level. The ICR does not provide a split evaluation because while PDO indicators were added at restructuring, the PDO itself was not revised, nor were the targets of the original PDO indicators and, therefore, there was no “lowering of the goal posts.”7 In fact, indicator targets for intermediate outcomes were raised in a number of cases, sometimes by large amounts. Assessment of PDOs based on the Consolidated Results Framework The PDO indicators embodied a theory of change that maintained that if specialization, collaboration and technology sharing are achieved, then positive results would be reflected in adoption rates, and expansion of area of new cultivars, and farmer satisfaction rates with TIMPs. The results presented in the next section support a case for a substantial achievement of objectives.

7 Nevertheless, four of the five original PDO indicators met their targets by the end of project year three when the first restructuring took place, which would warrant a satisfactory rating up to that point.

15

PDO 1-Enhance regional specialization in agricultural research—Substantial

44. As described earlier, the results framework consolidated a wide variety of TIMPs into a set of composite PDO indicators including “Rate of change in regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural research.” This indicator was added at restructuring specifically to measure this element of the PDO. The target for this indicator was met (73.75 actual vs. 72.5 percent target). Meeting this indicator target means that the targeted improvements in joint planning and implementation of agricultural research, training and dissemination activities was met. 45. Intermediate indicators also support a case for substantial achievement. The target for the number of agribusiness units established/strengthened was greatly exceeded 270 agribusinesses created vs. 172 target. This indicator suggests that specialization was achieved because the number of agribusinesses based on the commodity of specialization for each country was well beyond expectation. Each agribusiness group is involved in a certain segment of the commodity along its value chain. Accordingly, different groups were organized on the milk, cassava and wheat value chains. The business incubation process supported by the Project (Uganda) assisted the groups in getting specialized training on the relevant segment of the value chain. This process has enabled the agribusiness groups to focus on a specialized skill and benefit from it. The ‘acquisition of research infrastructure and equipment according to plan’ also reached the target of 100 percent which meant that the RCoEs received all of the support planned by the Project. Another intermediate indicator that was exceeded is the ‘number of staff trained (short- and long-term) and applying skills acquired in conducting EAAPP research for development’. While this is an input indicator it shows again that the Project was supplied with the full contingent of trainees (1,932 vs. 1,743). The increase of new technologies developed by RCoEs also indicates successful specialization, with 472 new technologies developed. While it is below the revised target of 534 new technologies, it is vastly higher than the original target of one technology per regional research project, which would be only 33 new technologies. PDO 2-Enhance collaboration in agricultural training and dissemination—Substantial

46. An important outcome of the enhanced collaboration AR&D is the “Rate of change in adoption of new technologies, innovations and management practices—TIMPs.” This indicator reached a 20.7 percent improvement, meeting its target of 20 percent. The “Rate of increase in land area with seeds of improved cultivars” also exceeded its target with a 15.12 percent increase vs. a target of 14.0 percent. Another outcome of effective dissemination is the “Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the technologies, innovations and uptake pathways.” While progress was made on this indicator, achievement still fell short of the set target reaching 89.5 percent of the target (67.1 percent actual vs. 75 percent target). 47. The number of targeted stakeholders whose capacity building needs have been addressed indicates enhanced collaboration and this target was greatly exceeded (735,000 actual vs. 103,000 target). The level of stakeholder satisfaction with the available TIMPs uptake pathways is another indicator of successful collaboration and the target for this indicator was substantially achieved (79.3 percent actual vs. 82.5 percent target).

16

PDO 3-Facilitate transfer of agricultural technology, information and knowledge across national borders—Substantial

48. The ‘rate of increase in information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries’ was added at restructuring specifically to capture this PDO. This indicator did not fully meet the target (72.5 actual vs. 85.0 percent target). 49. While the PDO indicator fell somewhat short of target, most of the intermediate indicators were met or considerably exceeded. For example, ‘the number of existing & new technologies disseminated in more than one EAAPP country compared to plan’ strongly indicated a cross border transfer of technology and knowledge (150 actual vs. 71 target). ‘The number of cultivars for selected commodities registered in more than one EAAPP country’ also indicates transfer of technology and with 29 technologies registered, greatly exceeded the original target of 3 technologies, though it fell somewhat short of the upward revised target of 35 technologies registered. Table 4 provides further evidence of transfer of technology. Of the 33 AR projects implemented 23 (70 percent) were carried out in all four EAAPP countries and 9 (27 percent) were carried out in three countries. The requirement was to have a minimum of two countries for each sub-project, so the Project exceeded the minimum in 97 percent of the cases and, therefore, demonstrated a commitment to cross border exchange.

Table 4: EAAPP-Supported AR Sub-projects and Country Participation Commodity No. regional projects

Planned (actual) No. countries participating

2 3 4 Cassava 8 (8) - - 8 Dairy 5 (5) - 5 - Rice 15 (10) - 2 8 Wheat 6 (10) 1 2 7 Total 34 (33) 1 9 23

Source: Country implementation progress reports for 2014 50. Two other intermediate indicators are somewhat more indirect measures of cross border technology transfer, but which were certainly promoted by such transfer. These are ‘tons of commercial seed of the selected commodities sold by seed companies, farmer organizations’ (203,241 tons actual vs. 22,028, almost 10 times the target), and ‘the number of cassava and other cuttings (million) sold by research institutions and private seed companies’ (74.9 million actual vs. 24.8 million target). ‘The number of doses of livestock semen sold in targeted and other ASARECA member countries’ exceeded its target substantially, (4.465 million actual vs. 1.398 million target). Overall EAAPP goal of productivity increases- Modest 51. The overall goal of EAAPP was ‘to contribute to increased agricultural productivity and growth.’ The Project results framework included the indicator, ‘Increase in productivity at farm level over control technology for all disseminated new technologies.’ The target for this indicator was a 15 percent increase, whereas 9.4 percent was achieved. Therefore, while there was increased agricultural productivity, the target was not met. 52. A number of intermediate indicators of production may suggest significantly higher productivity than was measured by the PDO indicator. The increase of breeder seed (tons) of the

17

selected commodities produced by research institutions and private seed companies considerably exceeded its target (12,898 tons actual vs. 5,701 tons target). The number of cassava & other cuttings produced by research institutions and private seed companies also exceeded its target by more than double (189.8 million actual vs. 78.3 million target). Annex 3, discussed in the section on efficiency also presents findings of substantial increases in the value of projection for all for commodities (Table 5). It is possible that yield increases were not correctly measured or aggregated by the results framework, but the ICR was not able to determine whether errors were made in the yield calculation. Conservatively, the rating for achievement of the overall EAAPP goal is modest. 53. Based on the Project results framework at the PDO and intermediate indicator levels, the overall achievement of the PDO is Substantial. Four of the seven PDO indicators were met and three made progress but fell short. However, the intermediate indicator targets were not only revised upward substantially at the MTR, in a number of cases they were also exceeded. To add to the positive account of EAAPP impact on farmers, ASARECA compiled a number of testimonials of individuals who benefited from EAAPP in different ways (see Celebrating EAAPP-Farmers testimonies of improved incomes, food security and welfare). These testimonials (examples in the following section) strengthen the case for a substantial rating for outcome. Country Results Summaries This section provides further evidence of achievement of the PDOs, but from national perspectives. 54. Ethiopia. EAAPP was well received by the GoE, as its AR&D efforts benefited substantially from EAAPP support, including regional exchanges of technology. The Project built a new facility to be its RCoE in Kulumsa (Oromia region), which specializes in wheat research. The RCoE has been furnished, officially inaugurated and commissioned. Significant yield increases were realized not only in wheat, but in all four commodities. The yield increases were achieved in broad applications across the intervention area. Wheat yields increased from a national average of 1.5 tons per hectare (t/ha), to 4.4 t/ha, while rice improved from 2.45 t/ha to 3.4 t/ha, cassava from 2.5 to 40 t/ha and milk 1.5 liters per day (lt/day) per cow to 8 lt/day. EAAPP implemented 10 regional subprojects and released 12 bread wheat and 2 durum wheat varieties, as well as 4 new management practices and 306 germplasms that were distributed to EAAPP countries. To promote capacity at the RCoE, the Project also financed 8 PhDs and 14 MSc programs specifically designed to promote ongoing research at the RCoE. The Ethiopia results thus provide evidence of achievement of all components of the PDO and overall goal of EAAPP. Box 2 summarizes the benefits Ethiopia has received from other EAAPP countries. Box 3 provides a case

Box 2: Benefits of Regional Cooperation-Ethiopia Ethiopia benefited from four new varieties of rice from Tanzania, of which two were released into the national system and have reached the seed multiplication stage. Kenya has sent (to Ethiopia and Tanzania) an important variety of wheat (King Bird) which is rust-resistant, and has also been released. This variety has helped defeat a disease that is a regional threat to a major food security crop. Uganda has sent botanical seeds of a number of new cassava germplasms to Ethiopia. EAAPP helped Ethiopia disseminate within the country two existing varieties of cassava from Uganda which have substantially expanded area under cultivation in the southern parts of Ethiopia. Including cassava flour into the food chain in the production of injera (a spongy type of bread that is a staple in the Ethiopian diet) has accelerated the demand

18

of a successful community-based seed multiplication effort in Ethiopia which helped improve availability of new seeds to farmers.

Figure 1: RCoE-Wheat in Ethiopia: Official opening and commissioning of the new facility

55. Tanzania. Tanzania rehabilitated an existing structure for its RCoE in Ifakara in the southern part of the country, but also rehabilitated facilities through its AR&D network with EAAPP funds. Box 4 captures some of the early local impacts of the RCoE. In terms of new technologies gained from regional cooperation, Tanzania received the King Bird variety of wheat (from Kenya) and other wheat germplasm from Ethiopia, cassava germplasm from Uganda, and improved dairy breeds from Kenya. Two Tanzanian rice varieties were released in Kenya (TXD306 and Komboka) and two rice varieties were released in Uganda. In addition, four clones of Napier grass (fodder for dairy) from Kenya (16702, 16805, Kakamega 1 and Kakamega 2) which had shown high tolerance to Napier stunt and smut diseases, as well as good yields, were introduced into the pasture breeding program. Botanical seeds of cassava with enhanced beta carotene

Box 4: Initial Impacts of the Tanzania RCoE Among the staff at KATRIN there is a sense of real impact from the EAAPP rehabilitation of AR&D infrastructure. The rehabilitated buildings and equipped laboratories mean that staff can carry out testing and analytical work that previously had to be done outside the center, which was expensive and took longer. The newly constructed cold room, for example, can preserve germplasm materials for a sustained period, which has saved the rejuvenation costs of collected germplasm every year in the field. The rehabilitated infrastructure of the irrigation field at KATRIN tripled the area under seed production and field trials from 10ha to 32 ha. Seed production and research activities are currently being conducted twice a year to obtain larger amounts of pre-basic, seed and it has substantially reduced the time for technology development. Looking ahead, KATRIN will be able to carry out many trials for regional needs, not only for rice, but also other important commodities.

Box 3: Community-based seed multiplication EAAPP supported a community-based approach to accelerate the provision of improved seeds. Interested farmers received training in seed multiplication and then worked with regional seed enterprises, regional bureaus and service cooperatives to produce and distribute seeds. Farmers received basic seeds and then produced certified seeds under the guidance of extension agents. Under this approach, farmers produced 9,634 tons of certified (C1) wheat seeds of different varieties.

19

(necessary dietary supplement) came from Uganda, and 154 young bulls, reproductive technologies and improved bull semen were bought from Kenya. Some of these technologies have been adopted by farmers, while others are still undergoing field validations, with farmers’ assessment for wider adoption. 56. Kenya. The RCoE in Naivasha was completed and furnished near the end of the Project with EAAPP support. As in other countries, EAAPP provided farm machinery and laboratory equipment to promote AR&D while the RCoE was being designed and built. Three liquid nitrogen

plants have been built and one has been commissioned to support the dairy industry. Though Kenya did not specialize in wheat it contributed a very important wheat variety, Kingbird. This variety was key to combatting a serious wheat rust disease (UG-99) which originated in Uganda, dramatically reduced yields and was spreading in the region. EAAPP supported the bulking up of seed for this variety. Under EAAPP, Kenya has reached 1.6 million beneficiaries (of which 587,944 are female). The adoption of TIMPs by farm households has resulted in higher yields and income from the four commodities. Milk productivity increased on average from 3.8 lt/day to 7.1 lt/day. This yield increase is attributed mainly to improved feed (Napier grass) to overcome nutritional deficits at the small holder level. Cassava has also achieved higher yields of up to 24

Box 5: Impacts of EAAPP Support for Dairy in Kenya

EAAPP supported capacity building/training of farmers and service providers and distribution of 300 doses of semen for artificial insemination (AI) and 23 litres of liquid nitrogen (LN) to each of 50 farmer groups resulting in births of 2,311 cattle. EAAPP took into account the reduced land sizes per household in Kenya, and supported dairy goat rearing as well. Goat multiplication was encouraged and 240 AI Technicians have been trained on collection of goat semen; and 3,072 doses of goat semen harvested and distributed to farmers. The Project also facilitated setting up the Keiyo Marakwet as part of the camel improvement initiative that works in collaboration with the Kenya Camel Association (KCA) in selecting bulls for breeding purpose. The Project supported Balambala women groups in value addition of camel milk by providing solar powered milk coolers and packaging materials.

Genetic improvement interventions were enhanced by procurement of three LNPs located in Meru, Nyandarua and Uasin Gishu Counties with a total capacity of 90 litres/hour. Synchronization and natural bulls scheme has focused on strengthening the roles of Zebu (local breed), exotic breeds, and gender in livestock improvement and capacity building of livestock keepers. Over 3,000 acres of land have been established under improved pasture and fodder production.

20

t/ha. Box 5 illustrates the effects of increasing the availability of livestock germplasm in Kenya. Figure 1 shows the RCoE in Naivash, Kenya.

Figure 2: RCoE-Dairy in Kenya

57. Uganda. Uganda has a newly constructed RCoE near Kampala (Figure 2), and the entire facility is equipped and furnished and is conducting a full range of agricultural research activities specializing in, but not limited to cassava. The facility also has a nutrition lab, which, at the time of the ICR field mission was installing new equipment. In its association with EAAPP, Uganda has made significant strides in dairy with development of its forage and feed technologies, including important research on Napier grass to complement that of Kenya. EAAPP has also provided farm machinery to modernize hay and silage processes as well as provision of an LN plant with a 90 lt/day capacity. Uganda also imported more than 134 heifers and 5 pedigree bulls (from South Africa) to upgrade the gene pool of the dairy stock. In all 40 TIMPs were developed in Uganda reaching a total of 337,000 beneficiaries. Uganda was particularly successful in bulking up cassava cultivars that are resistant to brown streak and mosaic diseases, and getting a large supply of them to farmers.

Box 6: Unexpected Benefits from EAAPP support in Uganda It was reported that EAAPP helped expand farming area. This expansion created employment for weeding and management of the fields. In 2015, there was a move was being taken to allocate some of the National Agricultural Crop Resources Research Institute’s land to a private investor for growing flowers for export. However, because of the successful activities done under EAAPP the government decided that the land would benefit the country more if it continued to be used for research as opposed to the production and marketing of flowers. It would have been extremely difficult to stop this move without the EAAPP infrastructural development alluded to above. Another unexpected benefit was that non-EAAPP countries benefited and continue to benefit from the capacity and outputs of EAAPP. Cross border countries such as S. Sudan, Congo, and Rwanda have been purchasing cassava materials from EAAPP Uganda. In addition, three students from Liberia sponsored by the West African Agricultural Productivity Project (WAAPP) joined Makekere University in 2013. The University attached all of them to the rice

21

Figure 3: RCoE Office Block and Nutrition Lab-Uganda

58. The country summaries are stories of success in the three PDO areas, specialization, training and dissemination and cross border technology sharing. The consolidated results framework also supports a substantial rating for achievement of objectives. 3.3 Efficiency (Net Present Value/Economic Rate of Return, cost effectiveness, e.g., unit rate norms, least cost, and comparisons; and Financial Rate of Return) 59. The Project carried out an impact evaluation of 1,239 beneficiary and non-beneficiary households comparing pre- and post-Project data. Table 5 shows that all four commodities net value of production increased substantially (with increases ranging from 57 to 89 percent) for all four commodities and was significantly higher than that of non-beneficiaries for three of the four commodities surveyed. With EAAPP total Project costs at $120 million and annual benefits estimated at US$100.3 million, the payback period of Project funds is about 1.2 years. Interpretation of these results should also take into account that most of the economic benefits will be realized during Phase II when the program scales up its activities to reach a larger number of farmers. Given the significant improvements the value of production owing to the Project, the value for money is high and supports a substantial, if not high, rating for efficiency.

Table 5: Average Net Value of Commodity Production by Beneficiaries and Non-

Beneficiaries—2009-2014 (2014 constant US$)

Commodity

2009

2014 % change

Beneficiary % change Non-

beneficiary Wheat 905 1,422 57 27Cassava 531 955 80 51Rice 920 1,741 89 60Dairy 2,596 4,672 80 137All 928 1,804 94 78

Source: EAAPP Independent Evaluation Survey for end of Phase I 60. Each of the four countries specializing in a selected commodity in which it has a comparative advantage promoted efficiency. In particular, sharing new germplasms with other countries drastically shortened the development period of new varieties. For example, the cassava breeds that Ethiopia has received from Uganda had to undergo only adaptation trials before release.

22

Thus, the overall development period was reduced from 7 or 8 years to 1 or 2 years. This time reduction depends on the extent to which Uganda (or any country) has accurate data accompanying the new breeds. If Ethiopia, Uganda and Tanzania had a qualified lab to certify new varieties, then the new germplasms could be released immediately to the market. Seed certification capacity is a possible initiative for Phase II of EAAPP that would further increase efficiency in AR&D. 61. Further evidence of efficiency is the achievement of full disbursement US$119.72 million (of US$120.00 million) with only a moderate extension of the Project closing date (10 months). 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory 62. All three components of the outcome assessment are rated substantial. While it was difficult to measure aspects of the PDO such as regional specialization and transfer of knowledge across borders, the high level of achievement of intermediate indicator targets, supported by a positive overall narrative of the achievements of the Project contribute to an overall satisfactory outcome rating.

23

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 63. After the MTR, the involvement of women and youth in the Project was monitored, though it was not an explicit part of the PDO, to ensure substantial female participation. Key Project activities measured the participation of women, whether in formal training and degree programs, in farm trials, or agribusiness. Poverty reduction was implicit in the Project design because it targeted commodities mostly consumed by the relatively poor, and which were considered food security products. Project M&E has measured the following poverty impacts from the Project:

2,283,352 farm households, of which 27 percent were female headed, benefited from TIMPs

1,548,684 farm households of which 31 percent were female headed (assuming that each household has 5 members, more than 7.7 million people) have been lifted above the poverty line. Increased income levels from the use and application of the TIMPs have enabled these households to invest in several livelihood-improving initiatives. Investment in additional income generating properties and sending children to better schools also are positive impacts on the wellbeing of the beneficiary households.

With a per capita investment of less than US$80 per household or US$15 per individual, the EAAPP model can be considered as an efficient poverty reduction instrument in rural areas.

64. In terms of job creation, EAAPP supported the establishment of 410 agro-business units in the four program countries with a total membership of 9,030 (57 percent female members). An estimated 1.67 million people performed tasks/jobs in the EAAPP intervention areas as a result of the labor intensive production and value addition efforts by the Project. More than half of these workers (57 percent) were female. 65. The impact evaluation also measured the economic status of beneficiary households. At the beginning of the Project, 13.7 percent of households self-reported as ‘very poor’, 40.0 percent, were ‘poor,’ and 30.1 percent were moderately poor for a total of 83.8 percent of all EAAPP beneficiaries. By the end of the Phase 1, only 52.6 percent of these same beneficiaries reported themselves as poor or very poor, a decline of more than 30 percent in the poor category. 66. There were also examples of social development. Box 7 shows an example of an approach used in Ethiopia to improve adoption of new technologies and methods and overall results. In addition, interviews during the ICR mission revealed that EAAPP helped build the social capital of cooperation, particularly among scientists and extension professionals, across borders which did not exist before the Project.

24

Box 7: Farmer Research Extension Group (FREG) model-Two-way Feedback

(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 67. Much of the Project resources were dedicated to institutional change and strengthening for regional integration. One of the main achievements was preparing existing institutions to be more capable of collaborating with counterpart institutions in other countries through workshops, joint research and formal training. Support to higher level education at the PhD and MSc levels was geared specifically to build institutional capacity in areas of ongoing research and development, and networking with peers in the other Project countries to address regional AR&D issues. The contribution of physical infrastructure and equipment was another important input to improved capacity of AR&D institutions, not only the construction of the RCoEs in the four countries, but also the rehabilitation of other structures in strategic areas within countries, and the provision of state of the art laboratory equipment. The institutional change supported by EAAPP was envisioned to continue under Phase II. 68. In Phase II, gains in regional specialization and cross border knowledge sharing would be deepened and broadened. Additional countries could join along with an expansion of agricultural commodities. Although it was initially slow in developing, today there is enthusiasm for regional cooperation in AR&D and the benefits it can produce. That represents a significant change in the ‘institutional mind’ in the agriculture sectors of the EAAPP countries. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 69. There were a number of unexpected outcomes which were positive. For example, Uganda produced new cassava materials supported by EAAPP that were later released in non-EAAPP countries (South Sudan, Congo and Rwanda). Other unexpected benefits are discussed in Box 6. New technologies related to dairy farming, including improved breeds, semen, feed technologies also benefited non-EAAPP countries (South Sudan, Rwanda and Burundi). Several countries also produced new technologies in commodities that were not their designated specialty, such as a rust-resistant wheat variety in Kenya (whose specialty was dairy). This is another byproduct of regional cooperation whose benefits might not otherwise been achieved or spread without the support of EAAPP. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops Not applicable

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: High

FREG is an effective approach for adoption of new technology that is used in Ethiopia that applies the important lesson of ‘two-way feedback’. Research, extension and farmers go through a process of dialog and trial with a physical demonstration of new and existing technologies and farm management practices. Farmers witness the result and decide whether or not to adopt the technology on a broader basis. The approach uses Sasakawa 2000 techniques but goes beyond and spreads results from contact farmers to many more non-contact farmers. The approach is supplemented with farmer training to help adoption of new varieties and management practices.

25

70. A strong enthusiasm has developed amongst the stakeholders for regional cooperation. EAAPP has demonstrated in the early stages substantial benefits from specialization and systematic technology sharing amongst countries facing similar agricultural challenges. However, these gains are jeopardized by truncating the program at Phase I. The rating of high is driven by the lack of a Phase II, which is critical to preserve and build on the gains from Phase I, particularly the institutional gains. It is possible still to preserve the benefits of Phase I, but, as witnessed during the ICR mission (March 2016), already significant momentum had been lost, with Phase I teams beginning to disperse to other assignments in the agriculture sector. If Phase II could be initiated, some of the momentum could be regained, in which case the risk rating could be lowered. 71. The production and execution of business plans going forward will be an important effort to preserve gains from EAAPP in the event that Phase II does not materialize. Implementing other elements of the exit strategy (section 2.5) will also be important to sustaining development outcome. In the absence of Phase II, the four EAAPP countries are continuing a number of activities in AR&D. For example, GoE has undertaken a US$50 million agriculture research component under the Bank-supported AGP-II.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately satisfactory 72. The Bank facilitated EAAPP countries’ cooperation to meet the common challenge to increase agricultural productivity. The Bank, along with ASARECA, coordinated negotiations with the four countries regarding their commodity specialization and rules for cooperation. Uganda came on board later in the process because of difficulties in agreeing on the commodity of specialization. In the end, the Bank facilitated this negotiation and GoU chose a commodity promoting food security (cassava) and what proved of significant value to the other countries, both inside and outside of EAAPP. In preparing EAAPP, the Bank worked with other stakeholders to develop a two phase approach to regional cooperation in AR&D. The Bank also effectively used the experience of phase I of the WAAPP project (now in its second phase) to guide the design of EAAPP. 73. One shortcoming in preparation was that the original results framework did not directly cover elements of the PDO. Another possible shortcoming was underestimating the difficulty in securing Bank support for Phase II. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory 74. The Bank performed well supervising EAAPP, including regular (semi-annual) supervision missions, and close coordination with ASARECA. There were TTLs assigned to each country and there was daily supervision from the individual country offices. The Bank made a number of important moves during the MTR to maintain the Project’s relevance and accelerate implementation. Restructuring to reallocate resources responded to the demand for scaling up in key areas, which was made possible by diligent M&E and supervision. The results framework was also revised to reflect the PDOs and to ensure that the four EAAPP countries appropriately

26

measured progress toward Project objectives and followed an agreed methodology, but some of the revisions resulted in the addition of highly complex PDO indicators that attempted to track too many disparate outputs and were therefore difficult to interpret. This might have been avoided had the Bank given better guidance on the results framework. Fiduciary and safeguard activities went smoothly with no unresolved issues and, except for a single FM rating prior to the MTR, there were moderately satisfactory and satisfactory ratings throughout the Project life. In the ICR field interviews, there was praise from counterparts regarding the Bank supervisory role and for the ASARECA coordinator. The Project was fully disbursed with a 10-month extension of closing date, which was modest given the challenges of initiating a regional Project. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory 75. With preparation rated moderately satisfactory, supervision satisfactory and outcome satisfactory, the overall Bank performance rating is satisfactory. This rating does not take into account the fact that the Bank has not followed through with an EAAPP Phase II. Though negative effects of this decision have been partially offset by other Bank activities in the agriculture sector in these countries, it has jeopardized the gains from EAAPP and exposed the Bank to reputational risk. If this consideration were part of the rating then the rating of Bank performance would be significantly lower. Approving a PAD with triggers for a Phase II, having the EAAPP countries meet the triggers and then not follow through with a Phase II does not seem a justifiable course. 5.2 Borrower Performance 76. Note that this section combines the collective performance of governments of four countries and the performances of a number of implementing agencies in each country. (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 77. The four governments provided overall good support and commitment to EAAPP and showed a willingness to learn about the benefits from regional cooperation. The main weakness has been the slow process in establishing the modalities for sharing technology and in moving forward on protocols, and in seed certification which is necessary for selling seeds to other countries. The governments see the high value of the Program and three of the four countries have formally requested Phase II of EAAPP (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda). (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory 78. Implementing agencies were committed to the Project, were firmly committed to the Program, took pride in its accomplishments and have strongly sought Phase II of the program (n.b., Joint Communique). The Borrowers’ ICRRs reflect this pride and commitment (summaries in Annex 7). IAs also made strategic use of the high level training and scientist exchanges. IAs also delivered higher than expected results in many cases and demonstrated true ownership of the EAAPP approach. Institutions in all four countries became stronger in their technical capacities as well as in conducting procurement and FM as evidenced in the more rapid pace of implementation after the Project midpoint. IAs also met all triggers for Phase II. There was detailed reporting on

27

a quarterly basis and a minimum of fiduciary and safeguard issues. ASARECA played an important role in coordinating EAAPP activities in different countries, which compensated for the lower level of involvement of other regional organizations. Some of the responsibility for the complexity of the results framework must be shared by the Borrower. This is offset to some degree by the thoroughness of the overall Project M&E which contributed to satisfactory implementation. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory 79. Both Government and IA ratings are satisfactory and therefore the overall Borrower performance is satisfactory.

6. Lessons Learned 80. Lesson 1: The impact of agriculture research activities can be enhanced when other links in the value chain such as extension, seed multiplication and agriculture inputs are integrated into the overall strategic project design. EAAPP included downstream activities with a high level participation of farmers that helped make the agricultural research more relevant and sent signals where to scale up Project activities. 81. Lesson 2: The FREG model (Ethiopia) for testing new seeds and agricultural practices is effective because farmer involvement is high and results from new technologies are shared and discussed. This model could be relevant to the other EAAPP countries as well (also see Box 7). 82. Lesson 3: In planning and setting up regional projects, substantial preparation time should be allowed to have all parties agree on how to proceed and determine respective roles. The lack of modalities for technological exchange requires time to overcome. There may also be “defense of research turf” barriers to overcome. Some EAAPP countries had advanced research operations in certain commodities (e.g., Kenya – wheat), but had to cede leadership in that commodity to another country. 83. Lesson 4: Although a country may specialize in one commodity, it may achieve breakthroughs in another commodity. For example, although Ethiopia specialized in wheat research, Kenya produced a variety of wheat (King Bird) which was shared with other countries because of its rust-resistant characteristics. A country may achieve a breakthrough in another commodity also because of the country’s knowledge of its own specific conditions. For example, the rapid expansion of cassava in Ethiopia (using Ugandan cassava). This is also an example of benefits from regional cooperation that would not otherwise have been realized. 84. Lesson 6: Establishing a steering committee at a high (PS) level can provide a necessary boost to projects requiring cross border cooperation. The Permanent Secretary level steering committee introduced at the MTR helped accelerate technology sharing, promoted discussions of modalities for trade and better cooperation in technology sharing, while also taking the perspective of the whole agricultural value chain. It also was an application of a valuable lesson of WAAPP. 85. Lesson 7: Implementers of regional agricultural programs should look for ways to achieve spillover effects. EAAPP showed that there can be important unanticipated benefit from regional agricultural research. Not only did new agricultural technologies reach countries outside

28

of EAAPP, but EAAPP countries also contributed new TIMPs that were not necessarily in their specialty. 86. Lesson 8: In a regional project, countries’ competitiveness with each other is an implementation risk that can turn out to be an implementation advantage. This competitiveness could be a force either for protecting one’s own research turf and focusing inward, or to try to outperform each other in terms of implementation and creation of new technologies, or both. The Project design steered competitiveness away from defending turf and toward mutually beneficial regional cooperation/competition as part of preparation by providing for multi-lateral meetings to negotiate how Project resources would be used, which country would be specializing in which commodity and supporting frequent regional exchanges of scientists and technicians to help understand each other’s work. The strategy envisioned that once these exchanges had been underway for a time, the potential for defensiveness would give way to cooperation and healthy competition that would ensure that the Project’s targets would be met. 87. Lesson 9: Research focus on regionally identified and prioritized production issues leads to quick results due to the strong collaboration and sharing of knowledge. In the case of EAAPP, research based on regional crop diseases, such as wheat rust and cassava brown streak, was driven by strong shared incentives to aggressively solve the problem affecting farmers. 88. Lesson 10. Regional efforts help to avoid duplication of efforts and sharing of TIMPs reduces the number of years needed for a single country to produce improved varieties. To achieve the same results as EAAPP would have required individual countries much longer and at a cost that may not have been able to be born at the national level. Thus, productivity would have suffered as plant diseases persisted and new TIMPs were not shared. 89. Lesson 11. RCoEs offer a special advantage to AR&D in that they are regional goods that are made available to the scientists and development professions of multiple nations. Despite the lack of a Phase II, RCoEs, by their nature, are nevertheless contributing to the strengthening regional collaboration and remain an asset shared by EAAPP and other countries.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies 90. Common to all four countries’ Borrower ICRs is the strong argument and demand for Phase II to be implemented to preserve and build on gains from EAAPP in improving AR productivity and food security with which this ICR concurs. 91. The ICR notes that there is a fair number of discrepancies in the numbers between the Project results framework, the Borrowers’ ICRs and the End of Phase I Evaluation (under the auspices of ASARECA and the Bank). Because the numbers are generally favorable to Project achievements in all cases, however, the discrepancies do not alter the ratings. However, it points to the fact that the M&E could have been less complex and the reporting more coordinated to reduce the inconsistencies amongst the numbers measuring a number of objectives. (b) Co-financers No Co-financers (c) Other partners and stakeholders

(e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society)

29

Organized farmer groups, private seed companies and agro-business groups participated in activities of the Project.

30

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)

Components Appraisal Estimate

(USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate (USD

millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

1. Strengthening RCoEs 27.4 30.47 111.2 2. Support to research, training and dissemination

53.4 47.70 89.3

3. Improved availability of seeds and livestock breeding materials

29.4 29.67 100.9

4. Project management and coordination

9.8 11.88 121.2

Total Baseline Cost 120.00 119.72 99.8

Physical Contingencies

0.00

0.00

0.00

Price Contingencies

0.00

0.00

0.00 Total Project Costs 120.00 119.72 99.8

Front-end fee PPF 0.00 0.00 .00 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 .00

Total Financing Required 120.00 119.72 99.8 Appraisal estimates combine costs from PAD for EAAPP APL 1 and APL 1-A.

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Type of Co-Financing

Appraisal Estimate

(USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate

(USD millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

Borrower 0.00 0.00 .00 International Development Association (IDA)

IDA 120.00 119.72 99.8

31

Annex 2. Outputs by Component

This annex provides a national and component breakdown of outputs, as well as a selection of images of RCoEs and other structures built with EAAPP support. Annex Tables 2.1 a-d show indicators divided by Project component. Of the 24 indicators, 13 met or exceeded their targets, 8 nearly met the targets and 3 did not meet their targets. The rate of meeting targets would have been higher, but targets were set too high in a few instances, e.g., 100 percent M&E harmonization, and 100 percent ESS compliance, both under the Management and Coordination component. 1: Strengthening Regional Centers of Excellence - aimed at strengthening the institutional capacities that are needed to establish RCoEs. Capacity strengthening focused on the physical facilities and human resources needed to sustain project objectives and outcomes at both the regional and national levels. Of the six targets, one met the target, four met 90 percent or more of the target and one 85 percent of target.

Annex Table 2.1: Intermediate Outcomes/Outputs by Component a. Component 1: Strengthening Regional Centers of Excellence

Output Indicator Target Actual Acquisition of research infrastructure and equipment according to plan (%)-Regional Center of Excellence (RCoE)s

100 99.8

Proportion of research scientists working in regional research projects compared to plan-RCoEs

904 85%

834

Number of staff trained (short- and long-term) and applying skills acquired in conducting EAAPP research for development

1,743 1,932

Number of regional agricultural research projects implemented compared to plan -Regional research

36 (85%) 33 (91.7%)

Increase of new technologies developed by RCoEs (number)-Regional research

534 472

Number of demand-driven gender-responsive technologies made available to uptake pathways

144 138

Kenya RCoE-Dairy and Milk Processing Plant Built by EAAPP

32

Uganda used EAAPP resources to build a number of structures for the central RCoE, but also offices in Arua, Hoima and Lira.

Uganda RCoE Structures and District Offices Built by EAAPP

RCoE Facility for rearing natural enemies of pests

Office-Arua

Office-Lira Office- Hoima Ethiopia built a modern RCoE facility for wheat in Kulumsa.

Ethiopia RCoE Wheat

Architectural image

33

2: Technology Generation, Training and Dissemination supported technology generation, training, and dissemination that was agreed at national and regional levels and included in an annual regional research plan for each commodity and for training and dissemination. Regional plans were developed and agreed upon through regional meetings convened by ASARECA. Research, training, and dissemination activities covered the entire value chain―from basic production to postharvest handling, marketing, processing, and consumption. Three indicators substantially exceeded their targets, two nearly met their targets and one did not. In the latter case, the target had been revised upward by a large factor at restructuring. Annex Table 2.1-b: Component 2: Technology Generation, Training and Dissemination

Output Indicator Target Actual Number of existing & new technologies disseminated in more than one EAAPP country compared to plan (number per selected commodity)-Regional training and technology dissemination (RTTD component)

71 150

Number of new regional technology uptake pathways operational compared to plan-RTTD

73 69

Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the available TIMPs uptake pathways (percent)-RTTD

82.5 79.3

Number of targeted stakeholders whose capacity building needs have been addressed (number)-RTTD

103,580 735,541

Number of agribusiness units established/strengthened-RTTD 172 270Number of cultivars for selected commodities registered in more than one EAAPP country-RTTD

35 29

3: Improved Availability of Seeds and Livestock Germ plasm supported multiplication of seeds and breeds, strengthened the enabling environment for regional seed and breed trade, and improved the capacity of seed and breed producers and traders. Support was targeted at the four commodities selected in the RCoEs. To assist implementation of EAAPP activities under Component 3, the EAAPP coordinating units in each country included a Seed and Breed Business Development Specialist, and a Seed Technologist. Of the 8 intermediate indicators, 7 were substantially exceeded and one (embryo production fell short).

Annex Table 2.1-c: Component 3: Improved Availability of Seeds and Livestock Germ plasm

Output Indicator Target Actual Tons of commercial seed of the selected commodities sold by seed companies, farmer organizations

22,028 203,241

Number of cassava and other cuttings (million) sold by research institutions and private seed companies

24.77 74.9

Number of doses of livestock semen sold in targeted and other ASARECA member countries

1,398,00 4,465,380

Increase of breeder seed (tons) of the selected commodities produced by research institutions and private seed companies (excluding cassava and other cuttings)

5,701 12,898

34

Number of cassava & other cuttings produced by research institutions and private seed companies

78,260,000 189,800,000

No. of doses of semen produced in targeted & other ASARECA member countries

1,500,000 7,487,150

Number of embryos produced in targeted & other ASARECA member countries

1,900 1,421

No. of breeding stock produced in targeted & other ASARECA countries

9,385 12,446

Note: Component 3 outputs in the table were originally categorized as component 2 outputs in the PAD, which was incorrect. 4: Project Coordination and Management financed management and coordination of EAAPP at the national and regional levels.

Annex Table 2.1-d: Component 4: Project Coordination and Management Output Indicator Target Actual

Number of policies, laws, regulations, and/or procedures reviewed for harmonization

12 17

Regional research and training and dissemination activities implemented according to plan (%)

88 89.8

Harmonized M&E system for RCoEs in cooperation with ASARECA developed, adopted and implemented

100 91.3

Level of compliance with ESS 100 81.25Number of projects screened for ESS issues 204 143

Annex Table 2.2 gives a breakdown of selected indicators including stakeholder satisfaction and individual commodity performance by country.

Annex Table 2.2: Selected Indicators/Outputs at the National Level Output Ethiopia Tanzania Kenya Uganda

Level of stakeholder satisfaction with TIMPs-a

75% 74% 89% 78%

Commodity Wheat Yield-tons/ha-baseline 1.5 1.27 3.2 0.85% Yield-tons/ha-achieved 4.4 2.20 4.5 3.24% Area-ha 14,475 156.7 3,813 86 Rice Yield-tons/ha-baseline 24.5 2.8 3.8 3% Yield-tons/ha-achieved 34 4.8 4.8 20.5% Area-ha 1,608 287 1,150 34.8 Satisfaction level-% 74% 75 80 n.a. Dairy Yield-lt/cow/day-baseline 1.5 Pasture-6 2.85 4.0% Yield-lt/cow/day-achieved 8.0 Pasture-8 11.0 25.5%

35

Area-ha (pasture) 51 1,219 71 Cassava Yield-tons/ha-baseline 2.5-a 5.2 5.3 4.7 Yield-tons/ha-achieved 8.0-a 7.5 13.8 6.6 Area-ha 43.3 3,861 1,194 Formal training PhDs 8 6-a 14 8-a MScs 14 16-a 37 11-aFarmer training-a 34,233 13,999 45,427 16,282 Men-a 27,761 9,454 26,312 11,263 Women-a 6,472 4,545 19,115 5,019

Sources: Borrowers’ ICRs, End of Phase I evaluation-a (for overall satisfaction rate and farmer training)

36

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis8 Estimated project benefits

Project benefits in terms of change in incomes of EAAPP beneficiaries over the project period are estimated using valuation of net increased agricultural production of beneficiaries over non-beneficiaries. Estimates of the change in value of key commodities by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries between 2009 and 2014 are derived from Table 3.1. Net real incomes for key EAAPP commodities of surveyed beneficiary and non-beneficiary households increased considerably over the project period. Non-beneficiaries also increased their net incomes. However, net incomes of beneficiaries from key commodities were significantly higher than those of non-beneficiaries in diary, wheat and rice. Project dairy farmers in Kenya received an estimated average annual net income of over $3000 in 2014; for rice farmers in Tanzania the average was over $1300, $943 for cassava farmers in Tanzania and $1136 for wheat farmers in Ethiopia. Low incomes were received by wheat farmers in Tanzania who complained of low prices. Returns for dairy farmers in Uganda were very low at $300 p.a.

Table 3.1: Net value of production of key commodities in 2009 and 2014 (US$ constant prices)

Country Commodity 2009 2014 % change 2009-2014

Beneficiary Non-beneficiary



Ethiopia Wheat 1,106 939 1136 794 52%* 25%* Cassava 99 60 399 145 497%** 257%

Kenya Rice 42 5 108 60 247% 1425%

Dairy 2,125 1,438 3026 2365 94% 124%

Tanzania

Wheat 135 133 265 206 189% 127%

Rice 877 712 1084 726 82% 50%

Uganda Cassava 643 608 566 464 68% 46%

Dairy 471 286 291 458 18% 206%

All

Wheat 905 785 1422 995 53% 26%

Cassava 531 485 955 734 384% 180% Rice 920 718 1,741 1,148 89% 60%

Dairy 2,596 1,724 4,672 4,091 80% 137%

Total All 928 711 1804 1262 91% 50%

Source: Evaluation survey

8 The ICR relies on the End of Phase I Evaluation of the Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Programme-EAAPP, which was produced by the Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich with the Africa Innovations Institute (AFRII).

37

Table 3.2 shows average increases in net value of agricultural production in 2014 compared to 2009 of $307 for wheat beneficiaries over non-beneficiaries, $175 for cassava beneficiaries and $391 for rice beneficiaries (2014 constant prices). The average net value of dairy production by beneficiaries has increased more slowly than non-beneficiaries’. This appears to be the result of low market prices being paid to many EAAPP group members. However, dairy beneficiaries reported supplementing their incomes through sales of calves, so the difference in net incomes may not have fallen significantly and is treated as zero.

The numbers of EAAPP direct beneficiaries are estimated by the project at 108,633 for wheat; 245,251 for cassava; and 265,125 for rice (EAAPP/ASARECA M&E 2015). Of these, the proportions reporting increased output/income as a result of taking up the technology are 29 percent for wheat producers, 46 percent for cassava and 68 percent for rice. This gives an estimated 421,141 direct beneficiaries reporting improved production.

Total net value of the increased production of beneficiaries compared to non-beneficiaries in 2014 is estimated at $9.68 million for wheat producers, $19.93 million for cassava growers and $70.65 million for rice producers. This represents a net increase in agricultural production value of US$100,262,104 (change in beneficiaries compared to non-beneficiaries) across EAAPP countries. Benefits shown are for one year only (2014 compared to 2009).

Annex Table 2 Valuation of EAAPP net benefits

Commodity

Change in net value of agricultural

production 2009-2014 by EAAPP

beneficiaries vs. non-beneficiaries (US$)

Direct beneficiaries

(total)

Direct beneficiaries

reporting increased

production

Total net value of beneficiaries

increased production

(US$)

Wheat 307 108,633 31,538 9,682,150

Cassava 175 245,251 113,880 19,929,036

Rice 391 265,125 180,693 70,650,918

Dairy - 180,882 95,030 -

All 325 799,891 421,141 100,262,104

Source: Own calculations from EAAPP M&E data and Evaluation survey

Benefit-cost estimates

EAAPP total project costs were approximately US$120 million (PAD). With annual valuation of benefits of $100.3 million, Project benefits equal Project costs in about 1.2 years. The analysis assumes a constant level of benefits to beneficiaries. Whilst projects

38

surveyed were generally those expected to show impact (after around 3 years of implementation), in many cases benefits had only just begun accruing to beneficiaries during the reporting period (2014) and were expected to increase. Changing the assumptions would change the project pay-back period and/or benefit-cost ratio. Even with quite large changes in assumptions (e.g. reducing overall benefits by 40 percent), returns to the investment under EAAPP I look positive by end of 2015.

39

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/

Specialty Lending David Nielson TTL TTL

Helmut Albert Senior Agriculture Economist AFTA1 -

HIS Ag. Econ

Achim Fock Manager, Portfolio and Operation EACVF Madhur Gautam Lead Economist GFADR Steven M. Jaffee Lead Rural Development Specialist GFADR RDS Andrew Mwihia Karanja Senior Agriculture Economist GFADR Ag. Econ. Meseret Kebede Senior Program Assistant LEGES Legal Bremala Malli Senior Operations Officer GFADR

Berhane Manna Senior Agriculturist AFTA3 -

HIS Agric.

Matthew A. McMahon Consultant GFADR Edith Ruguru Mwenda Senior Counsel LEGAM Leg Wilson Onyang Odwongo Consultant GFADR TTL-Uganda David Rohrbach Senior Agriculture Economist GFADR

Mercy Mataro Sabai Senior Financial Management Specialist

GGODR FM

Luis M. Schwarz Senior Finance Officer WFALA Finance Zainab Z. Semgalawe Senior Rural Development Specialist GFADR Rural Development

Mohammed Taqi Sharif Consultant AFTA1 -

HIS

Wendy A. Wiltshire Consultant GFADR Supervision/ICR Assaye Legesse Sr. Agricultural Economist GFA13 TTL Tesfaye Ayele Procurement Specialist GGO01 Procurement Meron Tadesse Techane Financial Management Specialist GGO25 FMS Abel Lufafa Sr. Agricultural Specialist GFA13 TTL-Tanzania Joseph Oryokot Sr. Agricultural Specialist GFA07 TTL-Uganda Irene Bomani Operations Analyst GFA07 Operations Eija Pehu Advisor ARD Advisor Tekola Dejene Consultant-Agriculture Specialist GFA13 Andrew Mwihia Karanja Sr. Agriculture Specialist AFTA1 TTL-Kenya Ladisy K. Chengula Sr. Agriculture Economist GFA07 TTL-Kenya Teklu Tesfaye Sr. Agricultural Specialist GFA13

Henry Amena Amuguni Senior Financial Management Specialist

GGODR FM

Edwin Moguche Financial Management Specialist GG025 FM Mercy Sabai Sr. Financial Management Specialist GGO31 FM Howard Centenary Sr. Procurement Specialist OPSPF Procurement Shimelis Woldehawariat Badisso

Senior Procurement Specialist GGODR Procurement

Martin Fodor Senior Environmental Specialist GENDR Environment Gibwa Kajubi Sr. Social Development Specialist GSU07 Social Development Asferachew Abate Sr. Environmental Specialist GEN01

40

Jane Kibbassa Sr. Environmental Specialist GEN01 Env. Herbert Oule Environmental Specialist GEN01 Env. Judith Mziray Team Assistant AFCE1 Damalie Nyanja Program Assistant AFMUG Sophie Nelly Rabuku Team Assistant AFCE2 Tesfahiwot Dillnessa Team Assistant AFCE3 Meseret Kebede Senior Program Assistant LEGES Legal

Berhane Manna Sr. Agriculturist AFTA3 -

HIS Agric.

Mbuba Mbungu Consultant GEDDR Pauline McPherson Senior Operations Officer GFADR Operations Donald Paul Mneney Senior Procurement Specialist GGODR Procurement Donald Herrings Mphande Lead Financial Management Spec GCFDR FM Joel Buku Munyori Senior Procurement Specialist GGODR Procurement Edith Ruguru Mwenda Senior Counsel LEGAM Leg Wilson Onyang Odwongo Consultant GFADR TTL-Uganda Luis M. Schwarz Senior Finance Officer WFALA FM Zainab Z. Semgalawe Senior Rural Development Specialist GFADR RDS-TTL Tanzania.

Abiy Admassu Temechew Procurement Analyst AFTPE -

HIS Procurement

Patrick Piker Umah Tete Senior Financial Management Specialist

GGODR FM

Dahir Elmi Warsame Sr. Procurement Specialist GGODR Procurement Richard Carroll Consultant-Sr. Evaluator GFA13 Evaluation

(b)-1: Staff Time and Cost-P112688 (APL 1)

Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including travel and consultant costs)

Lending FY09 62.69 657,098FY10 - -

Total: 62.69 657,098Supervision/ICR FY09 - 122FY10 36.37 143,420FY11 34.67 115,567FY12 35.06 163,577FY13 64.45 233,677FY14 47.79 195,412FY15 60.57 288,014FY16 28.71 185,260

Total: 307.62 1,325,049

41

b)-2: Staff Time and Cost-P117593 (APL 1A)

Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including travel and consultant costs)

Lending FY10 15.23 58,432

Total: 15.23 58,432Supervision/ICR FY10 8.71 38,661FY11 17.98 44,754FY12 15.84 48,990FY13 2.85 7,477

Total: 45.38 139,882

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results (if any) A survey of beneficiaries was part of the End of Phase I Evaluation. Results are summarized in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the main text and Annex 2. The report is cited in Annex 9.

42

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results (if any) Not Applicable

43

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Each country prepared its own ICR, summaries which comprise this annex. Full texts are available upon request.

Ethiopia-EAAPP Implementation Completion Report Executive Summary

Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project is conceived in a regional perspective where the targeted countries, i.e., Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda manage investments with regional objectives to foster agricultural development in the Eastern and Central Africa Sub-region. It seeks to invest in commodities that have been identified in Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa Strategic Plan as being of sub-regional importance for mitigation of food insecurity. These include Rice in which Tanzania was leading, Wheat in Ethiopia, Cassava for Uganda and Kenya led Dairy.

The overall objective of Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Program is to contribute to increased agricultural productivity and growth in eastern African countries by strengthening the capacity of Regional Center of Excellences in the selected commodities namely, wheat, rice, cassava and dairy, in the areas of technology generation, training and dissemination, and facilitate increased sharing of agricultural information, knowledge and technology, across the recipient countries.

Wheat Regional Center of Excellence was supporting four key areas: 1) Infrastructural development and capacity building; 2) Technology generation, training and dissemination; 3) Availability of seeds, planting materials and animal breeds; and 4) Project Management, Coordination both at national and regional levels.

Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project Ethiopia phase I was coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources at country level with an investment of 30 Million USD. It was implemented through research and development. The National Project Coordination Unit was under the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Research Coordination Unit was under the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research. The training and dissemination; and availability of seeds, planting materials and livestock breeds were managed though Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Regional Agricultural Bureaus; and technology generation and pre-extension activities by research. The project encompassed nine National Regional States and two City Administrations; namely, Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa by selecting 564 Farmers/Pastoralists Training Centers in 131woredas.

The project had been implementing the activities in a coordinated way in the past five and half years; and the joint overall assessment of the recent implementation support mission by the World Bank (WB) revealed that the program scored an achievement of 80%, which is over 15% points

44

above the WB’s threshold requirement for moving to phase II. Some of the achievements registered are mentioned below.

When we see the regional impacts of the project, through regional collaboration: (1) Ethiopia shared about 313 wheat germplasm to other member countries; (2) Ethiopia also received about 200 rice and 159 Cassava germplasm from Tanzania and Uganda, respectively; (3) Ethiopia introduced 3 commercial verities of rice and 1 wheat commercial variety from Kenya; (4) Ethiopia introduced and being modified seed dresser and feed chopper prototype from Kenya; (5) adaptation and selection of promising lines and releasing of improved technologies through collaborative research; and disease surveillance, monitoring and development of management options for major wheat pests in project countries undertaken at regional level supported the information exchange and had created conducive environment to control dieses and pest on time; and (6) wheat regional center of excellence civil works and room facilities such as laboratory materials, meeting hall, syndicate rooms, ICT, 20 guest houses, cafeteria and power engine and 2 big water reservoir procured and installed. This center of excellence will serve as regional hubs for knowledge, skills, information, source of high quality technologies and innovations and as training facilities for the Eastern Africa region and beyond. Similarly other countries; Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda also developed center of excellence for dairy, rice and cassava, respectively.

When we see the achievements of the project at national level, 12 vehicles, 5 tractors, 1 crop harvesters, 5 harrowers, 2 levelers, 4 seed cleaning machines, 141 motor bikes (forward as agricultural departments),1590 pedal cycles (for Farmers/Pastoralist Training Centers), 20 rice polishers and hullers, and other office facilities were procured and supplied to implementers. On the other hand, 5 warehouses, 2 different seed laboratories (for Benshangul Gumuz and Gambella Regions) and offices on 4 sites (in regions with seed warehouses) were constructed and handed over to the end users. All these procured and distributed constructions, transport means, farm machineries, and office facilities created improved working environments in generation and dissemination of new improved technologies that increased productivity.

In order to increase the capacity in technology generation and dissemination and adoption of improved technologies, long and short term trainings had been given for researchers, project leaders, officials, subject matter specialist, development agents, farmers, and private institutions. Long term training with the objective of building capacity to undertake high level scientific research; and addressing present and future needs, 14 MSc students and 8 PhD students in various disciplines perused their study and most of them have completed their study and back to their duty station.

To generate appropriate technologies and transfer of the technologies through upgrading the skill of small scale producers several kinds of short term trainings were undertaken. In country and overseas, experience sharing visits and trainings had been given; some of them were leadership training for senior research and extension staffs, value chain approach and application; environmental safeguard management, research methods and publishing; and environmental safeguard management. Moreover, short term training in technology up taking and adopting and seed multiplication mechanisms, practical skilled based trainings were provided to 142,692 farmers (117,238 men and 25,454 women), 19,927 development agents and subject matter specialists (16,215 men and 3,712 women). About 49 new artificial inseminators had trained and awarded a diploma which will increase the availability of inseminators in animal breed improvement activities of the government.

45

Under wheat research, 6 regional thematic areas encompassing 10 projects, were benchmarked for its first phase and 12 bread wheat and 2 durum wheat (national) varieties released since 2011 and 4 new management practices (fertilizer, mold board plough, raw planter, grass weed control) had been developed. In addition to this, 3 wheat varieties are under national performance/variety trial in Tanzania. In case of cassava, at least two varieties are in pipe line to be released and 2 cassava chopper and slicers developed. Since 2011, 7 rice varieties released and 1 is in pipe line for registration (commercial variety from Rice Regional Center of Excellence in Tanzania and one irrigated rice variety is under evaluation to be released. 3 dairy technologies are already released.

The linkage established between research and development created a good working relationships and facilitated the transfer of technologies at all levels within a short time to the beneficiaries at grassroots. The approach enabled quick exchange of technologies among the direct beneficiaries and neighboring farmers that substantially solved the shortage of improved technologies for scaling up. Presently, at beneficiaries’ level, satisfaction of the disseminated technologies, innovations and management practices was at 74% for rice, 73% for dairy, 66% for wheat and 64% for cassava. In the project time; 16,384 tons of improved wheat seed were distributed to farmers. Similarly, 607 tons of improved rice seed, 12.5 million of cassava cuttings and 12,164.8 kg of forage seeds accessed to farmers. Improved wheat row planter and moldboard plow; and cassava chipper and slicer developed through research had been multiplied and distributed to respective Farmers/Pastoralists Training Centers which can save labor and time as well as increase productivity and efficiency of processing. As a result, the productivity at intervened farmers had increased. For instance, compared to the baseline data which was 15 and 24.5 kg for wheat and rice had increased to 44 and 34 kg per ha, respectively. Distribution of improved heifer to organized farmer groups and individual farmers, procurement and distribution of sexed semen and synchronization hormone with 5000 doses each; and supporting of bull services as well as distribution of improved forage seeds including extension input had increased milk production of project farmers from an average of 1.5 liter/cow/day. In the project life time/2011-2015/ 421 heifers were delivered to beneficiaries. As well as, 45,277 cows were served by artificial insemination, while through the support of bull service stations about 1,751 cows served. Hence, 17,201 cows conceived and 15309 calves born.

Excluding the indirect beneficiary farmers, the project had intervened and benefited about 398,362 farmers (319,226 male and 79,136 female headed household heads). As a result, the multiplication and dissemination of improved technologies contributed for the increase in income and improved livelihood of beneficiaries. Based on the independent evaluation and project progress reports, about 266,522 beneficiary farmers (211,721 men and 54,801 female household heads) income has increased and able to construct new and improved houses, buy additional farm animals and farm tools, and send kids to school.

Moreover, following the value chain approach, the project had organized 122 women and youth agri-business cooperatives (in dairy processing, seed production, bakery and food processing) created good market linkage and fetch better profit from the sale of their produce. It was learnt that such kind of agri-business development approach can enhance income generation, create employment opportunities and fasten the bond between different actors in the value chain.

Finally, since the second phase of the project will not continue, we would like to forward our concern on the following major areas/gaps: (i) regionally coordinated wheat rust survey and surveillance and management which was efficient in diseases control and management during the project time, conditions may not continue with the same pace unless such kind of regional

46

initiatives will be in placed; (ii) modalities of collaboration for the use of built Regional Center of Excellence facilities is not yet put in place and the objectives of using these as regional hubs for knowledge, skills, information, source of high quality technologies and innovations and as training facilities for the Eastern Africa region and beyond may not be practical; (iii)the effort of regional policy harmonization for ease of technology sharing and accelerated trade among project countries is not yet fully finalized and practical, hence it may impede ease of cross boundary technology sharing and trade; (iv) further modeling and scaling up of 122 women and youth agri-business cooperatives established and strengthened as a pilot program by the project may not progress well.

Ethiopia -Regional Wheat Center of Excellence Inauguration Ceremony

47

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

Executive Summary for Tanzania EAAPP ICR

Agriculture contributes largely to the Tanzania economy, which is 27% of the GDP and 33.9% of export earnings. However its growth has stagnated in the average of 4.4% over the last year against the target of 10% (NAP, 2013). This called for National Rice Development Strategy in 2010, which aimed at doubling rice production from 89900MT in 2008 to 1,963,000 MT by 2018. The Eastern Africa Agricultural productivity Program (EAAPP) was conceived as a Regional Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) initiative to increased agricultural productivity and growth by strengthening and scaling up regional cooperation in generation of technology, training, and dissemination programs for four priority commodities: wheat, rice, cassava and dairy. This was done through strengthen Regional Centre of Excellence (RCoE) in agricultural research in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda to produces improved varieties of selected commodities with rice being the Key commodity in Tanzania. The project was a Regional Initiative adapted Program lending instrument with two phases of 5 years each.

The methods used to prepare the report were thorough desk review of relevant documents, meeting with implement Agencies such as ASA, TOSCI, use of Key informant interview, individual interviews with project staff, project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, mainly using qualitative methods in order to have an in-depth discussion and understanding of project socio-economic impact at household level, and to some extents quantification of results and data from available documentation. Case studies in the form of success stories from project participants were also consulted. In the analysis and presentation key consideration was to assess whether gender aspects were incorporated during project implementation.

1.1 Significant Changes to Project Implementation

1.1.1 Revising the Vision of RRCoE and Result Frame work: At midterm review the result framework was revised as the original PDO were not adequately addressing the PDO/Outcomes. Two indicators were added at PDO level to cover regional specialization, collaboration and sharing of technologies, innovations and management practices under coordination of ASARECA and they were later approved by the World Bank. 1.1.2 Project Closing Dates: A no-cost extension of Credit Closing Date for period of 8 months was added to compensate for the time lost, unforeseen procurement delays and complete critical project activities. This strengthened achievement of the PDOs and

48

allowed smooth closing of the first phase of the project. The Bank approved a No-Cost Extension of the project up to 31st December 2015. 1.1.3 Funds reallocation across expenditure categories and components: There were two changes in fund allocation across and within expenditure categories. This was due to changes in physical and price contingencies, increased magnitude of activities for seed policy harmonization including recruitment of consultancies and increased regional meetings under component of management and coordination. On other hand, it was realized that the budget for implementing environmental Safeguard and Management Plans (ESMPs) for the sub-projects was not included in the original budget. 2.0 Achievements of Project Components 2.1 Component 1: Strengthening of Regional Centre of Excellence: According to M&E data there were 98% (against) acquisition of research infrastructure and equipment. Staffing of research effort on regional project reached 220 as per plan, and the procurement of goods and services reached a level of 89%. This includes the purchase of 14 vehicles, 2 tractors, farm equipment, 10 motor cycles, laboratory equipment, and office equipment (computers, software), power generators. 16 MSc and 6 PhD staff graduated at different universities and 639 staff attended short term course on various courses at various institutes. 2.1.1 According to interviews made at three Research Centers there is general feeling that there has been a great impact from rehabilitation of various infrastructures. The well rehabilitated and equipped laboratories at KATRIN are able to handle analytical works that could not be done before. The cold room is able to store germplasm for a long period, cutting down costs of collecting them every year. Construction of domestic water supply and electricity connection to water sources benefited 33 household residing at KATRIN and 25 households at Nanganje sub village. Irrigation infrastructure increased the area under seed production and field trials from 10ha to 32ha. At Ukiriguru there has been expansion of 10ha irrigation field, good offices that provides favourable working environment for staff. At Dakawa more staff (about 80) were able to be accommodated at the new rehabilitated offices as well as renovation of electrical system. The new vehicles bought were able to facilitate research activities in many location and the new tractors expanded the area under seed production as mentioned at KATRIN and Ukiriguru. 2.2 Component 2: Technology generation, training and dissemination: The project supported rice research projects which benefited at least two program countries. These projects were implemented through research sub-projects that proposed solutions to problems or opportunities that were common to those countries. According to M&E data and PMP 10 rice projects were developed and 5 out of these were able to address more than one thematic area as per agreement. Twenty three technologies were developed including two rice varieties: Tai and Komboka and nine agronomic practices, eight cassava varieties; and three wheat varieties and one agronomic practice.

49

2.2.1 In order to increase capacity of researchers to carry out quality research, proposal development were done by engaging researchers in a peer review of their research. Presentation of research findings ensures that the quality of the work is of considerable high standards. A total of 32 papers were presented at regional conferences and the outputs were widely circulated among national EAAPP scientists and other scientists in other program countries. 2.2.2 Training and Dissemination focussed on increasing availability and access of information and improved technologies; strengthen linkages between research, extension and end-users. New and existing technologies disseminated in more than one EAAPP countries were 42 against the plan of 44 which is 95% level of achievement. The channels used to transfer the identified TIMPs to different stakeholders in the region increased from 3 to 18 compared to plan of 20 which is 90% achievement. These pathways included study tour, e-extension, TV/Radio program, publications, success stories, and agricultural show/exhibitions. Generally the perceptions of stakeholders on the technologies uptake pathways was positive increasing their level of satisfaction on pathways from 10% at the beginning of the project to 71%. PMP indicated that the number of farmers imparted with knowledge through training increased throughout the project period from 10 stakeholders at baseline reaching 599,293 stakeholders of which 41% were females and 59% were male. The great increase resulted from using the method of training of trainers (ToT) to train other farmers. 2.2.3 Forty two TIMPs documented in the technology inventories of rice; cassava and wheat were shared across EAAPP regions through established EAAPP-RRCoE websites. Other pathways included poster/banners, leaflets, brochures, DVD documentaries and Booklets, which were displayed during regional exhibition held in Tanzania and Nairobi international trade fair in Kenya and at the end of EAAPP phase I exhibition held in Kenya. 2.3 Component 3: Multiplication of seed, planting materials and breeds: M&E data shows that 41,676 households benefited from use of improved seeds in terms of employment creation. The data shows that seed interventions created employment (casual workers in seed production) to 11,796 people (65%: female and 35%: male). It indicates that more women benefited more in providing labor in seed activities due to project. 2.3.1 During the project period rice pre basic seeds produced increased from 9.5 MT in 2009 (baseline) to 44 MT in 2015. M&E data further shows an average production of 33 MT annually which surpasses the target of an average of 25 MT annually set. The gross value was estimated to be TZS 152 million over the years. The value of producing pasture seeds and semen had gross value of 2,348.144.500 in nominal value, which was ploughed, back to increase production. Basic rice seed production improved over the project years. The production increased from 50 MT in year 2010 (baseline) to 99 MT in 2015. The production trend found not to consistently increasing over the years due to inadequate irrigation water at ASA farms. Over the years 187.7 MT of wheat and 69.8 million cuttings of cassava were produced.

50

2.3.2 Commercial seeds produced over the project periods increased from 631.6 MT in 2010 to 1,623 MT in 2015. The project through ASA contracted private seeds companies, and farmers to enhance seeds production by providing them with business development services. As the result 14 private seeds companies started to produce commercial rice seeds and managed to increase their production by 296MT annually. Additionally, 405 farmers and 112 extension staff and 49 agro dealers were capacitated in seed business development. 3.0 Overall Project Impact 3.1 Rate of change in regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural research (Indicator 1): Twenty one regional research projects (10 for rice, 3 wheat, 3 cassava and 5 for dairy) were implemented with high levels of other program countries participation, while the RRCoE taking a leading role on rice projects. M&E data shows that 23 new technologies were developed by the regional centres of excellence. The baseline value for this indicator was 5% in 2010 whereby it increased up to 75% in 2015 i.e. meeting the target level of regional specialization and collaboration. 3.2 Rate of increase in information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries (Indicator 2): Two Tanzanian rice varieties were released in Kenya (TXD306 and Komboka) and two rice varieties were released in Uganda. Other technologies were shared from other program countries. For example, four clones of Napier grass from Kenya (16702, 16805, Kakamega 1 and Kakamega 2) which had shown high tolerance to Napier stunt disease and good yields were introduced into pasture breeding program from Kenya, botanical seed of cassava with enhanced beta carotene came from Uganda, 154 young bulls were bought from Kenya, assisted reproductive technologies and bull semen were also taken from Kenya. While, some of these technologies have been adopted by farmers, but others are still undergoing field validations, with farmers’ assessment for wider adoption. The indicator achievement shows an increase from 10% in 2010 to 70% in 2015 meeting the target. 3.3 Rate of change in adoption of new technologies, innovations and management practices (Indicator 3): The indicator shows an increase in rice technology adoption from 35 % on average to 53.2 % (2015) in EAAPP project areas. 3.4 Increase in productivity at farm level over control technology for all disseminated new technologies (Indicator 5): Better use of improved technologies and practices in rice resulted to productivity gain of 1.3t/ha, which is an increase over the baseline taken in the average of all ecosystems (up-land, rain-fed and irrigated). For example, in 2010 (baseline) rice productivity was 2.8 t/ha increasing to 3.8 t/ha in 2015 for all ecosystems and in 2010 (baseline) rice productivity were 4 t/ha increasing to 7 t/ha in 2015 for rain-fed and irrigated land. 3.5 Beneficiary Achievement of Impact: Incomes of project beneficiaries derived from the findings of end of project evaluation on net incomes using constant 2014 prices, shows that net income for beneficiaries increased from US $ 877 in 2010 to 1084 in 2015, an increase of 23%. Net income for wheat beneficiary farmers increased from US $ 133 to US $ 265,

51

equivalent of TZS 530,000. Based on M&E data it also showed an increased net income from TZS 1,760,551 in 2010 to 1,984,846 in 2015, which is an increase of 30%.

3.6 Food and nutrition impact: Food adequacy in the project area increased from 52.8% in 2010 to 62.6% in 2014. By contrast, the status of food deficit decreased from 8.4% in 2010 to 6% in 2014 by project beneficiaries, implying that the project intervention may have brought impact to the households and that most of them are now food secure. Rice being a second important crop for ensuring food security and nutrition after maize, it is undoubtedly that food security improved with the beneficiaries. 3.7 The study found that a food consumption household of all food groups was significantly higher for project beneficiaries compared to non-beneficiaries. For example, rice project beneficiaries were 71% while non-project beneficiaries were 65%. 3.8 Households who invested in livelihood: Assessing the household impact for both direct and indirect beneficiaries, the M&E data provided rough estimates of beneficiaries who invested on livelihood improvement initiatives as a result of the increased income levels were 329,883. Out of these 230,282 (70%) and 99,601 (30%) were men and women respectively. About 137,777 were non-project beneficiaries, implying that technology diffusion took place. 3.9 Employment created: Job opportunities created by EAAPP interventions were 58,805 over project life. The increase was in the area of providing temporary casual labor particularly in research experiments, seed production and processing farms (ASA). Other notable labor created which seem to be permanent were in the area of processing and value addition (rice, dairy and cassava). The number of women who acquired short term employment was lower (17%) that men, however, in seed sector the number of women was higher at 65% (7708 were female while 4088 were male indicating that more women were positively impacted.

3.10 Economic Analysis: In the report, project benefits in terms of change in incomes of EAAPP beneficiaries over the project period were estimated using valuation of net increased agricultural production of beneficiaries over non beneficiaries. Estimates of the change in value from rice commodity by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries between 2009 and 2014 shows average increase by 57% ($ 518.) in net value of agricultural production in 2015 compared to $ 391/- in 2009 for rice beneficiaries.

Conclusion and Recommendations 4.1 Conclusion: This ICRR has presented with evidence the project implementation, achievement, outputs, outcome and impact of the project life (2009-2015). It has shown that the project has brought substantial changes to the lives of the project beneficiaries and to some extent to non-beneficiaries confirming that technology diffusion took place, for example adoption of improved rice varieties increased from 35% in 2010 to 53% in 2015 for project beneficiaries. Overall, the assessment indicate that the target have been met and, in some instances, surpassed. Thus the overall assessment is positive. Regional research projects are on target, though with some variation across commodities. Thus, the concept

52

of regional specialization, collaboration and sharing of technologies, knowledge and information within and across borders were substantially achieved. 4.2 Recommendations: Sharing of technology across country was minimal as training and dissemination remained to be at country level as each EAAPP participating country has its own dissemination system. Dissemination channel such as scientific conference, website did not favour farmers. In the future programs, efforts should be designed to further strengthen, consolidate and build on systems and achievements reached in Phase I, but then strike a balance directed toward supporting technologies on up and out-scaling. 4.3 The T&D mainly focused on conventional production technologies, leaving private sector engagement in extension delivery low. Therefore Future programs and design should be more focusing at strengthening innovation platforms and fostering linkage on smallholder agriculture along the value chain for commercialization to meet increasing agricultural productivity and incomes of smallholder farmers. 4.4 Other areas that were not adequately implemented under phase 1 and could be given more emphasis in future consolidating policy harmonization for movement of technologies and seed across borders, encouraging dialogue, lobbying and advocacy with RECs, while program countries being proactive in undertaking policy review that are within their mandates. ASARECA could continue facilitating regional convening process in this regard. 4.5 By the project closure it is noted that KATRIN has not attained full capacity to be qualified as the RRCoE, solely due to inadequate infrastructure development. Implementation of KATRIN road map that was developed to upgrade RRCoE should be given more attention in the future programs and should be designed to further strengthen and build on the established Regional Rice Centre of Excellence.

53

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

EAAPP IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT FINAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project (EAAPP) is a regional project bringing together Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia. The overall goal of EAAPP is to contribute to increased agricultural productivity and growth in the region. The project is therefore aligned with Kenya’s development goals and objectives as set out in Vision 2030, and the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS). The project’s objective is to strengthen and scale up regional cooperation in generation of technology, training, and dissemination for wheat, rice, cassava and dairy as priority commodities. In line with the overall program objectives, the EAAPP- Kenya has been supporting: (i) Strengthening of the Regional Dairy Centre of Excellence (RDCoE) in both human resource and physical development; (ii) Technology Generation, Training and Dissemination; (iii) Germplasm Multiplication through improving accessibility to improved dairy genetics and seeds/planting materials; and (iv)Agribusiness activities and Policy harmonization. 1.2 The first phase of EAAPP-Kenya which was funded as an Adaptable Programme Loan (APL) from the World Bank and has been under implementation since February, 2010. The project was expected to close by February, 2015 but due to pending civil works at RDCoE the project was granted a “No Cost Extension” up to 30th December, 2015.The main beneficiaries of the project are small scale farmers that received improved technologies and training in feeding, breeding and management of the dairy enterprise, as well as new and superior varieties of wheat, rice and cassava. EAAPP-Kenya also provided some farmer groups with milk cooling plants, pasteurizers, and processing equipment. The project was being implemented at 33 clusters/sites in 23 counties across the country. The other major beneficiaries are the research institutes whose infrastructure was upgraded, rehabilitated or received furniture and equipment to improve the working environment and facilitate performance of their mandate. As part of building the capacity of the Centre of Excellence, several staff also benefitted from advanced studies training leading to PhDs and MSc degrees.

54

1.3 The Government of Kenya contracted an independent consultant to prepare this Implementation Completion Report (ICR) for EAAPP to document the experiences of the government and other key agencies in implementing EAAPP. The main objective of this assignment was to assess whether the project achieved its intended objectives and expected outcomes and to document key lessons learnt from EAAPP interventions. The assessment also evaluated the risk to development outcomes and the prospects for sustainability of the activities financed under the project. In addition, the team carried out the financial and economic analysis of EAAPP and documented the key lessons from project implementation. EAAPP Kenya was mainstreamed into the Government of Kenya (GoK) system and implemented by fourteen (14) agencies from both public and private sector. The many implementing agencies in EAAPP initially presented a challenge in coordination but in due course presented opportunities for sustainability. The evaluation team has come out with the following key findings: 1.4 Project Development Objective (PDO): The PDO remained relevant throughout the implementation period and was maintained as spelt out in the initial design. The PDO was tracked with six indicators, two of which were regional and four national. The overall assessment is that the project achieved and in some cases exceeded the targets set for the six indicators as explained below: 1.5 Regional Projects and Collaboration: The regional indicators focused on (i) Rate of change in regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural research, and (ii) Rate of increase in information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries. In the last five years, various aspects of regional research collaboration gained momentum and some important outcomes and impacts were achieved although there were delays during project inception period. The stringent and un-harmonized policy regimes across the project countries, which was underrated during project design, continued to impede research collaboration and exchange of technologies. However, some efforts were made to address these policy impediments in the last few years of the project. By September 2015, EAAPP-Kenya had implemented all the (5) five regional projects targeted for RDCoE representing a 100% achievement. EAAPP Kenya also implemented an additional (8) eight regional projects initiated from the other centers - wheat (three), cassava (three) and rice (two). In addition, a total of 92 Technology Innovations and Management Practices (TIMPS) and 150 feed rations had been developed from both regional and national research projects by November 2015. Some of these TIMPS are at validation stage at farm level while others are being disseminated. Nineteen (19) new and existing TIMPS were shared in the region through various forums and pathways against the target of 10 TIMPS which is 190% performance. 1.6 At regional level, the project used eight against a target of fifteen (15) dissemination pathways to share both existing and new TIMPs for uptake across the region. These included: Regional exchange visits, National Performance Trials, Print Media, East Africa Hand Book, Website, Conferences, Regional Exhibition and Video Conferencing. This represents 53% performance with regard to regional technological sharing initiatives. The

55

project also generated a large amount of dissemination materials in the form of leaflets, booklets, posters and manuals. The extent to which this has been done is commendable, and based on the samples viewed, the information provided is useful and is well presented. 1.7 Human Resources Capacity Building: The Human Resource capacity building support under the project focused on both long and short term training to enhance technical and social aspects which were crucial in meeting the project objectives. The project fully sponsored a total of 51 post-graduate students comprising of 14 PhD (9 male 5 female) and 37 MSc (25 male and 12 female) students. In addition, the project also partially sponsored 30 students attached to the project adding to a total of 81 post-graduate students of which 21 are PhD students and 60 MSc students. This indicates an achievement of 150% against the target of 24 MSc and 10 PhDs. When the partially sponsored student’s number is included, the achievement rates rises to 238%. Apart from the long term training the project also supported staff from various implementing agencies to undertake short-term training to improve their skills in various aspects. In total the project supported 1,019 (642M, 377F) staff to undertake short courses on various technical and administrative courses. 1.8 Support for Infrastructure: The project supported the construction of the Resource Center, Milk Processing Unit, Motor Vehicle Garage, Access Road, Electric Perimeter Fence and Pivot irrigation Systems at KALRO Naivasha. Other infrastructure supported included; rehabilitation of staff houses and the office block, construction of a livestock quarantine station at Namanga, procurement of laboratory equipment and machinery, vehicles and three liquid nitrogen plants. The bulk of the resources were spent to put up the Resource Center, milk processing plant, garage, perimeter fence and pivot irrigation at KALRO Naivasha as the epicenter of the RDCoE. There were initial delays in the commencement of the civil works mainly due to the lengthy procurement process in the country. Nonetheless, it is estimated that at the end of the year 98% of the infrastructure development was completed and some have been handed over to the Boards of the Management of the host institutions awaiting commissioning. 1.9 Adoption of new technologies: The project supported development of technologies and their dissemination to farmers in form of new varieties, breeds and management practices as well as new handling and processing methods in dairy, wheat, cassava and rice. Assessment results show that on average, adoption rates increased from 35 percent to 58.1 percent (2010-2015) in EAAPP project areas. The set target for adoption of new varieties was 20% while the target for adoption of breeds and management practices was 4% at the end of the project period. Based on the adoption rates achieved the project met and surpassed the set targets. Dairy technologies had the highest adoption rate followed by wheat, rice and cassava in that order. Further analysis showed that low cost technologies with quick returns such as dairy feeding and management were widely adopted compared to expensive technologies with long gestation periods such as improved dairy genetics. 1.10 Land Area under Improved Cultivars: The rate of increase in land area under improved cultivars is a good indicator of the increase in adoption rates for the new varieties emerging from research. The project aimed to achieve on average a 14% increase in land area under the improved cultivars. However, the project exceeded the set targets by

56

unusually wide margin for all cultivars. The land area under cassava had the highest increase at 5,080% followed by wheat (3531%), and rice (958%) while pasture (632%) was the least. The high rates of achievement may be attributed to out scaling of project interventions to non-target areas or an indication that the targets were probably set too low for the Kenyan farmers. 1.11 Increase in productivity at farm level: The adoption of various technologies was aimed at increasing productivity at the farm level. The Results Framework target set for this PDO indicator was 15% by end of the project period for all commodities. Productivity at farm level for the improved technologies had significant positive impact over the control technologies. Secondly, it has been shown that cassava had the highest productivity increase at 160.38% followed by dairy and wheat in that order. The productivity levels for all commodities far exceeded their targets and even with control technologies only wheat marginally fell short of the set target. While it is noted that the set productivity increases were achieved, it is to be observed that in the design of the project the set targets were relatively low. 1.12 Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the technologies and innovations: This indicator was geared towards assessing stakeholder (mainly farmers) satisfaction with technologies and innovations and their dissemination pathways. Information collected this assessment showed that the satisfaction has increased from 23% in the baseline to about 90% at the end of the project for the households in targeted project areas. The greatest increases in farmer satisfaction were observed in dairy and wheat. The satisfaction level at the end of the project period had been set at 80%. This means that the program targets have been met and, in some cases, exceeded. 1.13 Project Impacts: A key expectation of the EAAPP is regionalization of research in order to create economies of scale and spread benefits across the region. Despite a slow start, evidence provided indicates that scientists involved in the four commodities have collaborated in research across the partner countries, including developing protocols for uniform research. Except for a few animals exported from Kenya to Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda, seed or germplasm trade has not taken off due to policy and regulatory barriers. However, significant progress has been made in developing standards, policy and regulatory framework that will lead to enactment of enabling legislation. The results of revitalization of the research centers by EAAPP is becoming visible and also beginning to attract other donors. JICA for example, is scheduled to upgrade the Mwea Rice Station with modern laboratory which will transform the center into a major rice research station. 1.14 Some of the most visible impacts of EAAPP are at the beneficiary level as a result of training, dissemination of technologies and agribusiness support. The introduction of upland rice in places like Tigania has not only added a profitable agricultural enterprise but has made rice accessible and affordable to the community and a common food in their diet. Although the project was not tracking changes in incomes of beneficiaries, evidence adduced during FGDs and observations made by the consulting team confirmed that the beneficiaries’ welfare had improved as result of increased incomes. Although participation of women and youth in group activities were generally lower than men, it was evident that

57

EAAPP trainers had mobilized groups with a fair gender balance. Despite the above positive impacts, there were also negative impacts cited by EAAPP beneficiaries. For instance, the success of some dairy cooperative societies was seen as a threat to existing cooperatives thereby eliciting hostility and resentment. 1.15 Economic and Financial Analysis: Since inception, EAAPP-Kenya has reached a large number of beneficiaries either directly through the products and services offered, or indirectly through farmers’ sharing information. Analysis of the information available clearly indicates that EAAPP-Kenya was generated benefits over and above the project investment costs. Dairy, which was the core for EAAPP funding in Kenya, had the highest NPV (Ksh 9,319,980,117) and IRR (48%). However, in terms of BCR and ROI, it ranked slightly lower than rice. Although the investment in rice was the lowest, the commodity generated high returns to investment (IRR= 44%, BCR = 6.11, ROI = 11.91) perhaps a reflection of the fact it was a new variety being introduced from scratch. The IRR for wheat was 43% while that for Cassava was the least at 27%. All the commodities recorded positive returns to investment. The high rates of return for the different commodities was attributed to high adoption rates of the new technologies and innovations introduced under EAAPP, especially because this was done in completely new areas. The rates of return remained positive even under various sensitivity scenarios. When analysis was made based on “with” and ‘’without” project situations, the results indicated positive benefits for all the four commodities implying that the project had a positive impact on the community. Based on these results it is clear that there were productivity gains which were directly attributable to the interventions supported by the project in the last five years. Lessons Learned: Some of the key lessons learned, inter alia, includes: Although an attempt was made during the design stage to assess the institutional and technical capacity across the participating countries, it was evident during implementation that the differences in capacities and practices across countries had become a major drag to implementation progress. Some of the regional aspects of the project were delayed due to these capacity differences, and EAAPP-Kenya was a victim of this situation. It is therefore apparent that more care and better assessments of these capacity differences and how the gaps were to be addressed would have greatly helped to facilitate project implementation. The design and implementation phases of the project were to some extent disjointed. Most of the Project Implementers were not part of the preparation team and this initially slowed down the implementation process. In future, this disconnect between design and implementation phase should be minimized by ensuring that project implementers participate to enrich design. Although the program had clearly identified policy harmonization as one of the interventions to be supported under the program, during implementation it become clearer that this aspect had been under-rated. As such, policy harmonization should be accorded higher priority and resources in future programs in order for benefits to be shared more widely.

58

During project implementation it was clear that the decision to involve private sector companies and farmer organizations for seed multiplication and distribution was sport on, and added a lot of value to the program while being more sustainable. Thus the use of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) should be further encouraged and promoted in future programs. Although the project had initially the traditional research- production approach, its subsequent orientation towards agri-business development approach improved its outreach and impact. The agri-business development approach to commodity development enhances income generation and employment opportunities; creates forward and backward linkages; and encourages formation of producer groups for bulking, value addition, price negotiations and market linkages and ultimately sustainable. There was disputed understanding of what the RCoEs meant in each country. While some countries saw it as a system wide intervention that was far beyond the centers alone others took the RCoE to mean one station. This aspect need to be clarified as it is an important issue which is at the core of the program. 1.16 Sustainability: Despite the good progress made under EAAPP Phase I, it is noted that a lot of research investments have been funded by the project in terms of infrastructure at the RDCoE, long and short term training of scientists and other staff, and in planning and undertaking of various regional and national research projects. Initial indications are that the sustainability of these investments after the project closure remains a major risk to the development outcome of the project if there is no follow up program or strategy in place by December 2015. It is also noted that the project has made commendable contributions in training, capacity building and provision of critical equipment. The sustainability of these investments will much depend on whether they can be commercialized and some of the services taken over by the county governments, farmer groups and interested private sector players. Given the emphasis placed on value addition and agribusiness development after Mid Term Review, the team finds that there is need to isolate and evaluate the impacts of investments undertaken in this area. Furthermore, this kind of assessment will offer vital lessons that can be used to inform and design future programs. Finally, EAAPP being a regional project is also exposed to some risks associated with regional coordination. The key risks to EAAPP project outcomes identified in this report include macro-economic, policy/institutional; inputs and technology; and weather changes, all of which needs to be addressed. 1.17 Project Management: During the implementation of EAAPP, the operational landscape fundamentally changed in ways not anticipated in the project design. The devolvement of agricultural services to county governments, reorganization of government institutions and legal and regulatory framework are some of the changes that had the potential to slow down the implementation of EAAPP. It is to the credit of the Project Management Unit that these developments that hampered some national programmes and challenges of coordinating many agencies did not derail the implementation of EAAPP.

59

The Republic of Uganda

Executive Summary for Uganda EAAPP ICRR

1.0 Introduction: EAAPP was developed as a two phased program to be implemented in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. It aimed to raise farm incomes, reduce poverty and improve food security by: (i) strengthening Regional Centers of Excellence (RCoE) in agricultural research in the four countries and (ii) supporting these centers in the production of selected varieties of improved seeds and improving access of poor farmers to more productive plant varieties and animal stocking materials. This effort was in response to the following challenges that were affecting agricultural research and productivity in the region, namely: low allocation of resources to agriculture and agricultural research; poor facilities and low salaries for staff in research; low total number of agricultural scientists; lack of a larger shared technology space in the region; limited access by neighboring countries to cultivars available in one country; lack of harmonized policies and regulations relevant to the seed industry; undeveloped informal markets for planted seeds for cassava, wheat and rice; and serious attack on cassava production by cassava mosaic disease (CMD), cassava brown streak disease (CBSD) and cassava bacterial blight (CBB) across the region. 1.1 Objectives, Formulation and implementation: EAAPP-APLA 1 was the first phase of the program in Uganda with a costing of USD 30 million funded by a loan from the World Bank to the Government of Uganda. The project’s objectives were to: (i) enhance regional specialization in agricultural research; (ii) increase regional collaboration in agricultural training and dissemination; and, (iii) facilitate increased sharing of agricultural information, knowledge and technology across national boundaries. These were addressed under four components, namely, Establishing/Strengthening the Cassava Regional Center of Excellence; Technology Generation, Training and Dissemination; Improved Availability of Seeds, Planting Material and Livestock germplasm; and, Project Coordination and Management. 1.1.1 The design of the project was commendable at is was guided by a wealth of secondary information collected at national and regional levels and was followed-up with a wide consultation of key stakeholders from partner states, regional and international organizations through workshops, meetings and briefings. The project effective date was

60

March 17, 2010 with implementation period starting on November 17, 2009 and expected closing date being June 3, 2015. However, it lasted only four years instead of the originally planned five years as implementation started in November 2010 due to bureaucratic delays in government approval of the loan. 1.2 Project Relevance: EAAPP Uganda’s objectives were consistent with those international, continental and regional agricultural policy initiatives including MDGs of eradicating extreme poverty; increasing growth in agriculture GDP by at least 6% under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development goal; ending hunger, achieving food security and adequate nutrition for all, and promoting sustainable agriculture as captured in the sustainable development goal of post 2025 agenda. The project PDOs were realistic and aligned to the overall aspirations of Uganda as captured in Vision 2040, National Development Plan (NDP)-I 2010/11-2014/15 and NDP-II 206/17-2019/20, Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan 2010/11-2014/15 and Agriculture Sector Development Plan (ASDP) 2016/17-2019/20. 1.3 Project effectiveness: This development of this implementation completion report and results (ICRR) found that the project achieved all the targets set for each of the indicators that had been formulated for measuring the outcomes of the project. The indicators were on adoption of new technologies, land area covered with seeds of improved cultivars, productivity at farm level of the disseminated new technologies, level of stakeholder satisfaction with the technologies, regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural research, and information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries. Spill over effects included cross border countries such as S. Sudan, Congo, and Rwanda that have been able to access cassava planting materials from EAAPP Uganda project beneficiaries. 1.4 Direct outputs of the project were recorded in terms of (a) many physical infrastructures including offices, laboratories, screen houses that were constructed and/or rehabilitated (b) different laboratory equipment and facilities for research were provided (c) many vehicles, machinery and laboratory consumables to ease research work and increased production of crops, hay and silage were procured (d) least 7 PhD (1 female) and 9 MSc (3 female) students benefitted from the long term training support (e) many regional research sub-projects were conducted with participation of at least two partner states as co-investigators. In addition to this, many technologies were developed, shared and disseminated across the region using different regional technology uptake pathways, with average level of satisfaction with technology uptake pathways increasing compared to baseline and exceeding the target value. Furthermore, tons of breeder seed and planting materials and tons of commercial seed of cassava, rice and wheat were produced and disseminated or sold out to farmers. A new liquid nitrogen plant with a 90 litre per hour capacity was installed at NAGRC & DB, bulls of improved breeds were imported and doses of livestock semen were obtained and made available to farmers through a revitalized artificial insemination (AI) programme that also included training and equipping the AI technicians. Consequently, cross-bred cattle were and continue to be produced, thus forming a nucleus for herd improvement in Uganda. Efforts to address the implementation of the protocol of seed policy harmonization for ECA also saw the development of harmonized NPT protocols for cassava, rice, wheat and pasture seeds. Coordination of EAAPP was carried

61

out by the Project Coordination Unit established at NARO Secretariat with guidance of the project steering committee and run by a lean team headed by the Project Coordinator. Coordination of the other actors in partner states was through ASARECA. ASARECA also developed the project Performance Monitoring Plan that was the basis for the monitoring and evaluation system set at the PCU. 1.5 Project efficiency: The financial institutional arrangements were as described in the Project Implementing Plan (PIP) was followed. As noted earlier, the project started late and disbursements were slow in the first two years at less than 30%, but was speeded-up in the fourth and fifth year reaching 100%. Similarly, by mid-term, absorption rate was very low, standing only at 28% but this was speeded-up particularly in the last two years resulting in practically all the funds of the project being used. Audits conducted by government were unqualified. Procurement was speeded-up in the last two years but would have been better done if the project produced a strategic procurement plan up-front. The Borrower and the Bank were found to have played their roles as expected under the financing agreement for EAAPP Uganda. 1.6 Environmental and Social Safeguards: EAAPP was a Category B project that had limited SES issues and at the design stage, no indicators were established for monitoring compliance with environment and social safeguards. Nonetheless, appropriate mitigation measures were taken to ensure that there was compliance with the requirements. After the mid-term review, a focal person for gender was recruited and this helped to ensure that gender was mainstreamed in the project activities. 1.7 Sustainability of the project: At policy level, many policies and strategic instruments have been put in place by government that will help sustain EAAPP interventions and/or results. At the institution level, significant emphasis was placed on sustainability by the project steering committee (PSC) through mainstreaming EAAPP activities into the work of NARO and MAAIF. In this regard, too, most of the graduate students support for long term studies were staff of NARO and hence will return and continue with their work at the respective NARO institutes. Regarding technical sustainability, many technologies developed by NARO scientists during the project are already being scale-up and out both within Uganda and partner countries and within the entire East African region. Furthermore, with modern and well equipped laboratories in place, NARO is in a much better position to sustain its contribution to technology generation and dissemination through partnership with regional scientists and successful competition for funding from development partners. 1.8 From the very beginning, the PSC also urged the implementing partners to integrate EAAPP into their mainstream operations for effective planning, budgeting, coordination, monitoring, evaluation, reporting and sustainability of EAAPP initiatives. Thus, most of the existing staff and infrastructure put in place by EAAPP will be maintained through budgetary support from government with additional contribution from developing partners. The Cassava Regional Centre of Excellence is also leading efforts aimed at establishing a Cassava Business and Investment Forum as a one-stop centre for all cassava production and marketing business information.

62

1.9 Conclusion and Triggers for Phase II: Despite the initial considerable delays arising from delayed project approval, and the challenges of decentralization implementation arrangements and regional operations, EAAPP performed very well and in most cases exceeded the targeted values of the indicators in the Project Appraisal document. The civil works at the CRCOE, including office blocks, screen houses, bio-agent rearing screen houses, animal feeds and breeding and health laboratory and the Food Bioscience Lab-Value Addition were renovated/ rehabilitated at the national and zonal research institutes. Procurement and delivery of assorted farm machineries, vehicles, and laboratory equipment have been successfully completed. Many young scientists were trained at PhD and MSc levels and are returning to apply their skills at the various institutes. All these have tremendously improved the infrastructural, physical, technical and human agricultural research capacity of the country within a very short period of time to a level that would have been impossible without EAAPP support and Uganda being among the partners in the regional project. 1.10 The project has been very successful in generating, sharing and disseminating technologies on cassava, rice, wheat and pasture in Uganda and across the four countries. Planting materials and seeds have been developed and disseminated to the farmers and various stakeholders. In support of a sustainable dairy industry in Uganda, the project has (a) revitalized artificial insemination using superior sperms imported into the country (b) installed a liquid nitrogen plant with a daily production capacity of 90 litters (c) rehabilitated the embryo Transfer Laboratory. In addition to the rehabilitation of two laboratories engaged in Animal Nutrition Analysis and Breeding/Animal Health areas, the project has supplied a number of farm machinery and equipment to modernize the hay and silage making processes. The establishment of capacity for multiplication and production of pasture seeds and planting materials, these are not only exemplary but are also very tangible contributions to the livestock sector in the country which need to be consolidated and expanded. 1.11 In terms of resource utilization, disbursement rates were at 100% and total fund utilization was also 100%. This indicates that Uganda has the requisite capacity to absorb funds made available to it. It is also clear that most of the challenges that prompted the development of EAAPP have been addressed. In this context, the PAD provided for implementation triggers for an EAAPP follow-on project. It is also clear from this ICRR that all the triggers for Phase II have been met.

63

Annex 8. Comments of Co financers and Other Partners/Stakeholders Not applicable

64

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), Monitoring and Evaluation Series, EAAPP M&E, Post-MTR Results Framework, Enock Warinda, 2013. Celebrating EAAPP-Farmers testify of improved incomes, food security and welfare, ASARECA, September 2015. EAAPP Master PMP, Monitoring and Evaluation Series, Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), January 2010—December 2014, Enock Warinda (ASARECA), July 2011. End of Phase I Evaluation of the Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Programme – EAAPP, World Bank/ASARECA, June 2015 Expression of interest in Phase II, signed by four Permanent Secretaries of the respective EAAPP countries, October-November 2014. Financing Agreement (Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project) between United Republic of Tanzania and the International Development Association, dated July 22, 2009. Financing Agreement (Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project) between Republic of Kenya and the International Development Association, dated August 14, 2009. Financing Agreement (Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project) between Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the International Development Association, dated September 16, 2009. Financing Agreement (Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project) between The Republic of Uganda and the International Development Association, dated February 3, 2010. Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) January 2010-December 2015, Kitheka Mutua, ASARECA-EAAPP, December 2015. Restructuring Paper on a Proposed East Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL1 and APL1A Credits to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Republic of Kenya, Untied Republic of Tanzania, and Republic of Uganda, July 29, 2013.

65

Annex 10: Revised allocations for EAAPP Components The first restructuring (July 29, 2013) made a number of reallocations of funds to respond to the evolving demands of the Program. Much of the reallocation involved using large amounts of unallocated resources for the new demonstrated needs. Specifically, to respond to the high and growing demand from farmers for improved seeds, breeds and planting materials and ensure sustainability of program interventions, the MTR agreed that the remaining program implementation timeframe and budget should focus on: i) up and out scaling of improved technologies to more farmers; ii) establishment of market linkages along the value chain of the EAAPP commodities; and iii) deepening of regional integration. Reallocations by Disbursement Category Ethiopia

Category of Expenditure Allocation (expressed in SDR)

% of Financing

Current Revised Current Revised Current Revised (1) Goods, Works, Consultants’ services, Training and Operating Costs for Parts A, B.1 and C.1 of the Project (EIAR)

No change

9,400,000 7,653,600 100% 100%

(2) Goods, Consultants’ services, Training and Operating Costs for Parts B.2, B.3, C.2, and C.3 of the Project (MoARD)

No change

7,800,000 9,823,280 100% 100%

(3) Goods, Consultants’ services, Training and Operating Costs for Part D.1 of the Project (MoARD)

No change

300,000 1,135.208 100% 100%

(4) Goods, Consultants’ services, Training and Operating Costs for Part D.2 of the Project (EIAR)

No change

300,000 688,984 100% 100%

(5) Goods, Consultants’ services, Training and Operating Costs for Part D.3 of the Project (ASARECA)

No change

500,000 439,275 100% 100%

(6) Unallocated No change

1,800,000 389,653 100% 100%

TOTAL AMOUNT 20,100,000 20,100,000

66

Kenya

Category of Expenditure Allocation (expressed in SDR)

% of Financing

Current Revised Current Revised Current Revise (1) Goods, Works, Consultants’ services, Training and Operating Costs for Parts A, B.1, C.1 and D.2 of the Project

No change

12,100,000 12,541,606 100% 100%

(2) Goods, Consultants’ services, Training and Operating Costs for Parts B.2, B.3, C.2, C.3 and D.1 of the Project

No change

6,000,000 6,733,394 100% 100%

(3) Goods, Consultants’ services, Training and Operating Costs for Part D.3 of the of the Project

No change

500,000 599,315 100% 100%


1,500,000 225,685 100% 100%

TOTAL AMOUNT 20,100,000 20,100,000 100% 100%

67

Tanzania

Category of Expenditure Allocation

(expressed in SDR) % of Financing

Current Revised Current Revised Current Revise (1) Goods, Works, Consultants’ services and Operating Costs for Parts A, B.1, C.1 and D.2 of the Project

No change

10,500,000 11,596,004 100% 100%

(2) Goods, Consultants’ services and Operating Costs for Parts B.2, B.3 and C.2 of the Project

No change

4,900,000 4,870,900 100% 100%

(3) Goods, Consultants’ services and Operating Costs for Parts C.3 and D.1 of the Project

No change

2,600,000 2,864,946 100% 100%

(4) Consultants’ services and Operating Costs for Part D.3 of the of the Project

No change

500,000 536,000 100% 100%


1,600,000 231,156

TOTAL AMOUNT 20,100,000 20,100,000

Uganda

Category of Expenditure Allocation

(expressed in SDR) % of Financing

Current Revised Current Revised Current Revise (1) Goods, Works, Consultants’ services and Operating Costs for Parts A, B.1, C.1 and D.2 of the Project

No change

11,500,000 12,655,045

100% 100%

(2) Goods, Consultants’ services and Operating Costs for Parts B.2, B.3 and C.2 of the Project

No change

2,800,000 1,432,761

100% 100%

(3) Goods, Consultants’ services and Operating Costs for Parts C.3 and D.1 of the Project

No change

2,800,000

4,412,194

100% 100%

68

(4) Consultants’ services and Operating Costs for Part D.3 of the of the Project

No change

500,000 500,000 100% 100%


1,400,000 0

TOTAL AMOUNT 19,000,000 19,000,000

69

Annex 11: Selected Outcome Indicators from Performance Monitoring Plan Annex 11 provides details into the composition of several of the outcome indicators used in the EAAPP results framework, and illustrates the challenge of capturing the wide range of TIMPs that the Project helped develop and promote.

Indicator 1: Rate of change in regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural research, Training and Dissemination Indicator Level:

Input Output Outcome X Impact

Date of PMP Development: 30th June 2011 Date of Last PMP Review: 1st December, 2015 DESCRIPTION Precise Definition: Regional specialization and collaboration refers to joint planning and implementation of agricultural research, training and dissemination activities in at least two EAAPP program countries. Specialization, as stipulated by the CoE approach, will be tracked basing on: spearheading regional initiative which is commodity specific, qualified staff, physical facilities, partnerships and connection to the global agricultural research systems. – (Cumulative) This indicator helps in tracking the rate and level of change in how EAAPP is effecting and contributing to regional collaboration in agricultural research, training and dissemination. Collaboration areas include [adding up to 100%]

1. Regional research projects...............................................30% Common commodity priority research areas ---- 10% Joint Reviews ----- 10% Joint publications (including inventory of TIMPs) --------- 10%

2. Regional T&D activities................................................ 30% Common platforms ----- 15% Exchange visits --------- 5% Agricultural shows, conferences & exhibitions -------- 10%

3. Policy harmonisation..................................................... 10% Policy harmonisation working group --------------- 3% # of policies rationalised at EAAPP country level ------------ 2% # of policies reviewed/analyzed -------------- 2% # of policies harmonised ----- 3%

4. M&E system................................................................... 15% Common regional planning, reporting, & learning tools ....... 7% Automated System -------------- 4% M&E Working Group (including review mtgs) -------------- 4%

5. Capacity development (RCoE-driven).................................... 15% -Physical facilities --------------- 6% -Training (Short and long term) ------------- 6% -Partnerships formation ------------------ 3%

Unit of measure: Percent Disaggregated by: Components; Research Thematic Areas; Institutions Justification/Management Utility: This indicator measures xxxx. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION/ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Review of progress reports; Joint Review Missions Data source(s): Periodic reports (bi-annual, annual, Review Mission) Frequency and timing of data acquisition: Bi-Annually, Annually Responsibility for Data Collection: M&E unit, EAAPP Country Focal Persons, RCoE Coordinators, M&E Officers Location of data storage: M&E unit, EAAPP Country Focal Persons, RCoE, ASARECA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW & REPORTING Data Analysis Methods: NA Data Presentation Methods: Tables, Narratives Data Review Methods: Periodic Review workshops with stakeholders Data Reporting Methods: Bi-annual, annual, and end-of-project reports

70

Notes on Baselines/Targets:

Indicator 2: Rate of increase in agricultural technology, information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries Indicator Level:


Date of PMP Development: 30th June 2011 Date of Last PMP Review: 28th April, 2015 DESCRIPTION Precise Definition: In this indicator, agricultural technologies, information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries will be tracked annually by counting the numbers by type of TIMPs (e.g. germplasm, varieties and breeds); information and knowledge products (e.g. information packages) and their associated delivery pathways (e.g. regional radio, TV, websites, regional Newspapers) This new indicator is to help in tracking the rate and level of change in how EAAPP is promoting information and knowledge transfer within the region. This will be supported by evidence of information& knowledge products developed and pathways used in dissemination. (Cumulative) International exchange visits 20 - √ Regional/International conferences 20 - √

Web-based platforms 15- √ Regional Agric shows 15 Exchange of germplasm 30 - √

Unit of measure: Percent Disaggregated by: Components; Research Thematic Areas; Institutions Justification/Management Utility: This indicator measures xxxx. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION/ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Review of progress reports; Joint Review Missions Data source(s): Periodic reports (bi-annual, annual, Review Mission) Frequency and timing of data acquisition: Bi-Annually, Annually Responsibility for Data Collection: M&E unit, EAAPP Country Focal Persons, RCoE Coordinators, M&E Officers Location of data storage: M&E unit, EAAPP Country Focal Persons, RCoE, ASARECA PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW & REPORTING Data Analysis Methods: NA Data Presentation Methods: Tables, Narratives Data Review Methods: Periodic Review workshops with stakeholders Data Reporting Methods: Bi-annual, annual, and end-of-project reports Notes on Baselines/Targets:

Indicator 5: Increase in productivity at farm level over control technology for all disseminated new technologies (%). Indicator Level:


Date of PMP Development: 30th June 2011 Date of Last PMP Review:1st December., 2015 DESCRIPTION Precise Definition: Productivity refers to a ratio of the output to input in relation to land, labor, capital and overall resources employed in agriculture. Similarly, agricultural productivity refers to the difference between resources put into agriculture (land, materials, labor, time, money) and the resources extracted from it (food, money). For example, crop productivity is a function of factors like physiography, soil type, rainfall, irrigation, etc. Productivity data include yields and acreage. Increase in productivity means enhancement of the total farm output and efficiency in resource utilization. The distribution of productivity for every crop will be computed, mapped and interpreted using the following formula:

For dairy- Milk yield per cow per day. Pasture is an input in production

ProductivityIndex YYn

TTn

100

Where: Y = Production of selected crop in a unit area; Yn = Total production of selected crop in entire region

71

T = Area under selected crop in a unit area; Tn = Area under selected crop in entire region Unit of measure: Percent Disaggregated by: Commodity, Country Justification/Management Utility: Since this indicator tracks production per hectare, an increase in productivity will be used to measure the level of food security within the target areas, as well as the contributions of the new technologies. In enhancing income generation PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION/ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Surveys; Supervision Mission

Data source(s):Farm records, Enterprise records, market reports, market survey reports, Frequency and timing of data acquisition: Annual; MTR; End of project Responsibility for Data Collection: RCoE Focal Persons, RCoE Coordinators, PCU, M&E officers Location of data storage: Offices of: RCoE Coordinators; M&E Officers; PCU; EAAPP Country Focal Persons PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW & REPORTING Data Analysis Methods: Descriptive statistics, Qualitative Data Analysis, Principle Component Analysis Data Presentation Methods: Tables, Charts, ANOVA tables, Narratives, Graphs Data Review Methods: Annual Planning and Review meetings Data Reporting Methods: Cumulative (Annual Performance Reports), Mid-term Review Reports, End-of-project Evaluation Reports Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baselines: Baseline studies are ongoing. Tools for the study were jointly developed by ASARECA and the respective RCoEs. Appropriate Baseline Study methodologies were selected (ranging from purposive to multi-stage and random sampling), and respondents identified in conformity with statistical standards. Targets: Efforts have been made to review the targets set at the development of the project in order to adopt them, or set new ones that fit with the actual environment. This process is expected to be completed in August 2011. BASELINE, TARGETS & ACTUALS:

72

Annex 12: Consolidated Results Framework from Performance Monitoring Plan

EAAPP updated Result Framework TARGETS AND ACTUALS TABLE

Project Outcome Indicators Unit of

Measure Baseline

2010

Target and (Actual) Cumulative Values

YR 1 2010

YR 2 2011

YR3 2012

YR 4 2013

YR5 2014

YR6 2015

Indicator 1:Rate of change in regional specialization and collaboration in agricultural

research9

Percent 15 25

(12.5) 35

(18.8) 42.5

(26.3) 51.3

(49.5) 63.8

(66.8) 72.5

(73.75)

Indicator2:Rate of increase in information and knowledge transfer across national boundaries

Percent 6.3 17

(10) 35

(21.3) 46.3 (30)

60 (47.5)

80 (67.5)

85 (72.5)

Indicator 3:Rate of change in adoption of new technologies, innovations and management

practices (%)10

Percent 32.8% 4

(3.5) 8

(7) 12 (8)

16 (9.2)

20 (19.7)

20 (20.7)

New varieties, breeds and management practices (%) (NOTE The figures provided as ACTUAL refer to LEVELS, and not the rate of adoption)

Percent 36.7% 4

(2.5) 8

(5.6) 12

(32.8) 16

(42.7) 20

(45) 20

(58.3)

New handling and processing methods.

Percent 20.2% 4

(4) 8

(8) 11

(12) 15

(16) 19

(20) 23

(22) Improved dairy genetic materials (%)

Percent 2.4% 3

(4) 8

(8) 12

(12) 16

(16) 20

(19) 27

(22) Indicator 4:Rate of increase in land area with seeds of improved cultivars (currently measured in hectares)

Percent 2,755.4

Ha 4 (-)

4 (10)

7 (12)

11 (12)

12 (13.5)

14 (15.12)

Indicator 5:Increase in productivity at farm level over control technology for all disseminated new technologies (%).

Percent 3.03% 3

(3.22) 5

(3.84) 8

(4.67) 10

(5.32) 15

(9.1) 15

(9.4)

Indicator 6:Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the TIMPs & products.

Percent 21.53% 10

(23.83) 20

(31.61) 40

(39.73) 60

(64.03) 70

(65.06) 75

(67.1)

INTERMEDIATE RESULTS

Component 1: Strengthening of Regional Centers of Excellence Indicator 1.1:Acquisition of research infrastructure & equipment according to plan (%).

Percent 29.7 14

(31) 45

(40.4) 58

(56) 93

(76.7) 99

(84.2) 100

(99.8)

Indicator 1.2:Staffing of research effort on regional research projects according to plan.

Number 271 363

(304) 462

(392) 671

(490) 800

(696) 826

(749) 904

(834)

9 These are new indicators introduced after the MTR, and following the request by WB M&E Lead Specialist. Inclusion of these

indicators make the PDO statement complete

10 This is a new indicator introduced to cater for the indicators in red/shaded area, which are therefore treated as disaggregation

levels.

73


Measure Baseline

2010


YR 1 2010

YR 2 2011

YR3 2012

YR 4 2013

YR5 2014

YR6 2015

Indicator 1.3:Number of staff trained (short- and long-term) and applying skills acquired in conducting EAAPP research for development

Number - 34

(18) 386

(244) 759

(789) 1,162

(1,223) 1,608

(1,645) 1,743

(1,932)

Sub-Indicator 1.3.1:Number of staff undergoing training Number -

12 (1)

140 (74)

640 (414)

740 (447)

1,116 (642)

1,411 (75)

Component 2.1: Regional research Indicator 2.1.1:Number of regional agricultural research projects implemented compared to plan.

Number 7 -

(-) 30

(23) 35

(27) 36

(32) 36

(33) 36

(33)

Indicator 2.1.2:Number of new TIMPs developed by RCoEs relative to plan

Number 353 25

(30) 48

(63) 103

(117) 214

(211) 371

(336) 534

(472)

Indicator 2.1.3: Number of demand-driven gender-responsive technologies made available to uptake pathways

Number 318 30

(25) 45

(37) 80

(72) 110

(105) 120

(126) 144

(138)

Component 2.2: Training and Dissemination Indicator 2.2.1:Number of existing & new technologies disseminated in more than one EAAPP country compared to plan (number per selected commodity).

Number 93 6

(17) 13

(38) 14

(44) 16

(56) 68

(64) 71

(150)

Indicator 2.2.2:Number of regional technology uptake pathways used in the region compared to plan.

Number 12 4

(11) 10

(18) 25

(24) 32

(28) 73

(68) 73

(69)

Indicator 2.2.3: Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the available TIMPs uptake pathways

Percent 43.8 52.5

(48.0) 55

(56.3) 67.5

(62.4) 75

(69.0) 77.5

(77.8) 82.5

(79.3)

Indicator 2.2.4: Number of targeted stakeholders whose capacity building needs have been addressed

Number - 340 (58)

1,640 (4,323)

29,520 (30,330)

51,600 (77,592)

72,500 (137,339)

103,580 (735,541)

Indicator 2.2.5:Number of agribusiness units established/strengthened

Number 34 27

(34) 46

(40) 59

(54) 66

(161) 184

(199) 172

(270)

Output 3: Availability and Access to seed Indicator 3.1:Number of cultivars for selected commodities registered in more than one EAAPP country.

Number 10 1

(10) 13

(12) 17

(23) 22

(34) 29

(37) 35

(29)

Indicator 3.2.1:Tons of commercial seed of the selected commodities sold by seed companies, farmer organizations, etc.

Number 632.2 2,837

(1,817) 7,960

(2,950) 8,203

(4,651) 8,833

(5,756) 20,108

(30,526) 22,028

(203,241)

Indicator 3.2.2: Number of cassava& other cuttings sold by research institutions and private

seed companies11

Number (million)

10.11 10.11 (10.11)

10.37 (10.39)

10.82 (12.97)

16.32 (20.84)

24.02 (66.3)

24.77 (74.9)

Indicator 3.2.3.:Number of doses of livestock semen sold in targeted &

Number (‘000)

625 400

(625) 450

(675) 500

(627) 700

(800) 800

(855) 1,398

(960.5)

74


Measure Baseline

2010


YR 1 2010

YR 2 2011

YR3 2012

YR 4 2013

YR5 2014

YR6 2015

other ASARECA member

countries12 Indicator 3.3.1:Tons of breeder seed and planting materials of the selected commodities produced by research institutions and private seed companies (excluding cassava & other cuttings).

Number 389.17 1,088 (533)

2,665 (1,333)

3,234 (1,919)

3,996 (2,758)

4,467 (19,428)

5,701 (12,898)

Indicator 3.3.2: Number of cassava& other cuttings produced by research institutions and private seed companies

Number (Million)

0.353 1.20 (1.14)

5.20 (7.31)

10.04 (16.71)

16.31 (30.27)

23.61 (34.24)

78.26 (189.8)

Indicator 3.3.3 :No. of doses of semen produced in targeted & other ASARECA member countries.

Number (‘000)

615.16 648

(659) 863

(824) 1,133

(1,153) 1,253

(1,869) 1,338

(2,447) 1,500

(7,487,150)

Indicator 3.3.4:Number of embryos produced in targeted & other ASARECA member countries.

Number - 100 (-)

650 (101)

1,300 (229)

1,500 (248)

1,700 (498)

1,900 (476)

Indicator 3.3.5:No. of breeding stock produced in targeted & other ASARECA countries.

Number 1,137 3,185 (1,931)

4,185 (2,996)

4,785 (4,199)

5,885 (5,745)

7,785 (7,118)

9,385 (12,446)

Indicator 3.4: Number of policies, laws, regulations, and/or procedures reviewed for harmonization

Number 2 4

(2) 7

(6) 9

(10) 10

(13) 11

(14) 12

(17)

Output 4: Management and Coordination Indicator 4.1: Regional research and training and dissemination activities implemented according to plan (%).

Percent 6.3 70

(26.3) 76.3

(50.0) 81.3

(55.0) 83.8

(73.8) 85

(80.5) 88

(89.8)

Indicator 4.2:Harmonized M&E system for RCoEs in cooperation with ASARECA developed, adopted, and implemented.

Percent 20 82.5

(42.0) 85.0

(62.5) 87.5

(71.3) 92.5

(80.0) 95.0

(84.5) 100

(91.3)

Indicator 4.3:Level of compliance with the ESS

Percent 17.5 100 (55)

100 (58.75)

100 (62.5)

100 (70.5)

100 (77.25)

100 (81.25)

Sub-Indicator 4.4: Number of projects screened for ESS issues

Number - -

(-) 11 (1)

53 (18)

117 (55)

169 (104)

204 (143)

12 Separating the number of doses from those of embryos and breeding stock helps in separating apples from oranges to some extent

ARABIAN PLATE

AFRICAN PLATE(Somalian)

AFRICANPLATE

(Nubian)

Addis Ababa

Djibouti

Asmera

Nairobi

Kampala

Dodoma

Kigali

Bujumbura

KhartoumSan’a

Mogadishu

White

White

Bahr el Ghazal

Nile

Nile

Juba

Shebele

Tana

Ruvuma

Rufiji

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Victoria

Re d

Se a

G u l f o f A d e n

I N D I A N O C E A N

Albert

Turkana

T’ana

Edward

Malawi

Tanganyika

Mweru

RWANDA

UGANDA

DEM.

REP. OF

CONGO

DJIBOUTI

ERITREA REP. OF YEMEN

SOMALIA

SAUDI ARABIA

K E N YA

Z A M B I A

TANZANIA

MOZAMBIQUEMALAWI COMOROS

MADAGASCAR

E T H I O P I A

S U D A N

BURUNDI

30° 40° 50°

10°

0°

10°

50°40°30°

10°

10°

EAST AFRICAEAST AFRICAN RIFT ZONE

EAST AFRICAN RIFT ZONE BOUNDARIES

NATIONAL PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS

NATIONAL CAPITALS

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

MAY 2009

IBRD 36938

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

0 500 Kilometers

Date post:	08-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times