Malawi - Mwanza Rural Development Project - Completion Report

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND

REPUBLIC OF MALAWI

MWANZA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

AGRICULTURE AND AGRO-INDUSTRY DIVISION (OSAN.1) NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH REGION (OSAN) January, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS iii BASIC PROJECT DATA SHEET iv PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK (PROJECT MATRIX) x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiv 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND FORMULATION 2

2.1 Project Objectives 2 2.2 Project Formulation and Preparation 2 2.3 Project Appraisal, Negotiation and Approval 2 2.4 Project Description 2 3. PROJECT EXECUTION 5

3.1 Loan Effectiveness and Start-up 5 3.2 Modifications 5 3.3 Implementation Schedule 6 3.4 Reporting 7 3.5 Procurement 7 3.6 Sources of Finance and Disbursement 8 4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS 10

4.1 Overall Assessment 10 4.2 Operating Results 10 4.3 Management and Organisation Performance 14 4.4 Performance of Consultants, Suppliers and Contractors 15 4.5 Fulfilment of Loan Conditions and Covenants 16 4.6 Economic Performance 17 5. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 16

5.1 5.2

Lack of Environmental and Social Management Plan Social Impact

17 18

5.3 5.4

Environmental Impact Impact on women

18 19

6. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY 19 6.1 Technical Sustainability 19 6.2 Economic Sustainability 20 6.3 Institutional Sustainability 21 7. PERFORMANCE OF THE BANK AND THE BORROWER 21 7.1 Performance of the Bank 21 7.2 Performance of the Borrower 22 8. OVERALL PERFORMANCE AND RATING 22 9. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23

9.1 Conclusions 23 9.2 Lessons Learned 24 9.3 Recommendations 25

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Implementation Schedule: Appraisal versus Actual 7 Table 2 Summary of Items in Project Procurement List 8 Table 3 Project Financing 8 Table 4 Revised Project Cost Estimates by Category of Expenditure 9 Table 5 Disbursement of ADF Loan by Category of Expenditure 9

LIST OF ANNEXES No of Pages Annex 1 Map of Malawi 1 Annex 2 Detailed Loan Disbursement 4 Annex 3 Re-calculation of Economic Internal Rate of Return (Project Completion) 1 Annex 4 Performance Evaluation and Rating 3 Annex 5 Recommendations and Follow-up Matrix 1 Annex 6 Borrower’s Project Completion Report (presented under a separate cover) 1 Annex 7 Sources of Information 1 Annex 8 Fulfilment of Loan Conditions and Covenants 1 Annex 9 Status of Project Achievements 5

This report was prepared by Mr. Justus Kabyemera, Senior Agricultural Economist (OSAN.1) and three Consultants: an Agricultural Economist; an Agronomist; and a Civil Engineer following their mission to Malawi in March/April 2007. All questions relating to the report should be addressed to Mr. Chiji C. Ojukwu, Division Manager, OSAN.1 (Extension 2292).

iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AAR : Annual Audit Report ADB : African Development Bank ADF : African Development Fund ADMARC : Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation AEDC : Agricultural Extension Development Coordinator AEDO : Agricultural Extension Development Officer AR : Appraisal Report ASAP : Agricultural Sector Adjustment Programme BLADD : Blantyre Agricultural Development Division DADO : District Agricultural Development Officer DO : Development Officer DRIMP : District Roads Improvement and Maintenance Programme DTC : Day Training Centre EA : Executing Agency EIRR : Economic Internal Rate of Return EPA : Extension Planning Area FA : Field Assistant FHA : Farm Home Assistant FUA : Fund Unit of Account FAO/IC : Food and Agriculture Organisation/Investment Centre FY : Financial Year GDP : Gross Domestic Product GOM : Government of Malawi ha : Hectare(s) LHA : Land Husbandry Assistant LOGS : List of Goods and Services M&E : Monitoring and Evaluation MoFNR : Ministry of Forestry and Natural Resources MK : Malawi Kwacha MOA : Ministry of Agriculture MOAFS : Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security MOW : Ministry of Works MRDP : Mwanza Rural Development Project NRDP : National Rural Development Programme para. : Paragraph PCR : Project Completion Report PY : Project Year QPR : Quarterly Progress Report RDP : Rural Development Project SACA : Smallholder Agriculture Credit Administration SMS : Subject Matter Specialist UA : Unit of Account (ADB) USD (US$) : United States Dollar

iv

BASIC PROJECT DATA SHEET

1. Loan Number 2100150000687 (F/MLW/RUD/92/93) 2. Borrower Name 9900000271: Malawi Government 3. Guarantor 9900000271: Malawi Government 4. Beneficiary Mwanza Rural Development Project - Ministry of

Agriculture (and Food Security) 5. Executing Agency Ministry of Agriculture (and Food Security) 6. Bank Source of Finance 2100: African Development Fund

A. LOAN

ADF Loan Appraisal Estimate Actual (PCR) 1 Amount (UA million) UA 8.01 million UA 5.48 million 2 Service Charge (%) 0.75% per annum (on loan

amount disbursed and outstanding)

0.75% per annum (on loan amount disbursed and outstanding)

Principal Repayment Rate

1% per annum from 11th to 20th year inclusive and 3% per annum thereafter

1% per annum from 11th to 20th year inclusive and 3% per annum thereafter

3 Repayment Period 50 years (including grace period of 10 years) from date of signature of the Agreement

50 years (including grace period of 10 years) from date of signature of the Agreement

4 Grace Period 10 years 10 years 5 Loan Negotiation Date Not Indicated Data Not Available 6 Loan Approval Date August 1991 27th August 1991 7 Loan Signature Date Not Indicated 13th May 1992 8 Date of Entry into Force Not Indicated 11th March 1993 9 Loan Effectiveness Not Indicated 11th March 1993

B. PROJECT DATA

Appraisal Estimates Actual (2004) Project Cost and Financing Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Total

1 Total Cost (UA million) 5.85 4.16 10.01 3.75 3.16 6.91 2 Financing Plan ADF (UA million) 5.85 2.16 8.01 3.75 1.73 5.48 GOM (UA million) 0.00 2.00 2.00 0 1.43 1.43

3. Date of First Disbursement (ADF Loan): 7th December 1993 4. Date of Last Disbursement (ADF Loan): 31st December 1998 (Initial)

31st December 1999 (1st Extension) 31st December 2001 (2nd Extension) 30th June 2003 (3rd Extension)

31st December 2003 (4th Extension) 30th June 2004 (5th Extension)

31st December 2004 (6th Extension) 30th June 2005 (7th Extension)

5. Commencement Date of Project Implementation Activities: 11th March 1993 6. Planned Completion Date of Project Implementation Activities: March 1998 7. Revised Completion Date of Project Implementation Activities: 30th June 2004

v

C. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Project Cost under-run 31.0% (UA 3.10 million) 2. ADF Loan Balance 31.6% (UA 2.53 million) 3. Time over-run * Slippage of Effectiveness of ADF Loan (208%) 12.5 months * Slippage of Completion Date (120%) 6 years * Slippage of Last Disbursement Date (130%) 6.5 years * Number of Extensions of Last Disbursement Date 7

4. Project Implementation Status Completed 5. List of Verifiable Indicators and Levels of

Achievement (expressed as percentage on planned levels)

See Annex 9

6. Institutional Performance Satisfactory 7. Contractors’ Performance Satisfactory 8. Consultants’ Performance Unsatisfactory Appraisal PCR

9. Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) (%) 33% 5.03% D. BANK MISSIONS

Mission Type Date/period No of Persons

Composition Person Days

Identification 1982 NA Not Indicated ---1 Preparation 1988 NA FAO Investment Centre (NA) --- Appraisal April/May 1991 3 Principal Agronomist, Agricultural

Economist & Civil Engineer ---

Supervision March 1993 to January 1997

NA During the PCR mission, no information was available for the said period

NA

Supervision 16th February to 4th March 1997

3 Agricultural Economist, Agronomist & Environmentalist

16

Supervision 3rd to 19th December 1997

3 Principal Agricultural Economist, Senior Livestock Officer & Agronomist

16

Mid-Term Review 27th July 15th August 1998

3 Principal Agricultural Economist, Financial Analyst/Auditor Expert & Agronomist

19

Supervision 26th April to 10th May 1999

2 Principal Agricultural Economist & Civil Engineer

14

Supervision 6th to 18th November 1999

2 Division Manager & Agricultural Economist

12

Supervision 25th May to 2nd June 2000

1 Agricultural Economist 7

Supervision 3rd to 9th December 2000

1 Agricultural Economist 6

Supervision2 1st to 13th September 2001

2 Principal Agricultural Economist & Senior Livestock Specialist

12

Supervision 30th June to 18th July 2002

2 Principal Agronomist & Principal Agriculture Economist

18

Supervision 15th to 27th October 2002

2 Principal Agronomist & Micro Finance Expert

12

1 --- = Actual mission period was not specified 2 The Mission also attended the Malawi Agriculture Sector Investment Programme Donor Consultative Forum

vi

Mission Type Date/period No of Persons

Composition Person Days

Supervision3 28th April to 14th May 2003

2 Senior Agronomist & Senior Livestock Officer

16

Supervision 28th to 31st January 2004

1 Principal Agronomist 3

Financial Supervision (Audit Review Mission)4

18th to 23rd July 2004

1 Disbursement Officer 5

PCR 19th March to 6th April 2007

3 Agricultural Economist, Livestock Marketing Expert & Civil Engineer

18

E. DISBURSEMENT a. ADF Summary Loan Disbursement

ADF Loan Appraisal Estimate (UA million)

Actual (UA million)

Percentage Disbursed

Total Disbursed 8.01 5.48 68.4% Amount cancelled NA 2.53 NA Unused Balance NA 2.53 NA Average Yearly Disbursement 1.60 0.50 31.3%

b. ADF Loan Yearly Disbursements and Government Contribution

Appraisal Amount (UA million) Actual/PCR Amount (UA million) Year ADF GOM Total

%age of Total ADF5 GOM Total

%age of Total

1992/93 3.10 0.39 3.49 34.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 1993/94 2.72 0.37 3.09 30.9 0.16 0.09 0.25 3.6 1994/95 0.96 0.39 1.35 13.5 0.20 0.06 0.26 3.8 1995/96 0.51 0.40 0.91 9.1 0.07 0.10 0.17 2.5 1996/97 0.72 0.45 1.17 11.7 0.64 0.14 0.78 11.3 1997/98 - - - - 0 0.19 0.19 2.8 1998/99 - - - - 0.57 0.12 0.69 10.0

1999/2000 - - - - 0.60 0.13 0.73 10.6 2000/01 - - - - 0.37 0.16 0.53 7.7 2001/02 - - - - 0.44 0.11 0.55 8.0 2002/03 - - - - 0.76 0.08 0.84 12.2 2003/04 - - - - 1.27 0.14 1.41 20.4 2004/05 - - - - 0.40 0.11 0.51 7.4 Total 8.01 2.00 10.01 100.0 5.48 1.43 6.91 100.0

3 The Mission also supervised the Horticulture and Food Crops Development Project. 4 The Mission also supervised Smallholder Outgrower Sugarcane Production Project, Lilongwe Forestry Project, Agricultural Services Project, Macadamia Smallholder Development Project, Customary Land Reform and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Project, Horticulture and Food Crops Development Project and District Water Supply III. 5 Ref: Summary Loan Ledger (ADF): Printed in 10th April 2007.

vii

F. SUPPLIERS/CONTRACTORS

Name Contract (Items) Date Contract Signed

Date Contract Finished

Contract Duration (Months)

Amount (contract currency)

Lusitania Ltd Construct MRDP HQs Office Block; 1no CH10 House; 12no DH8 Houses; 3no PH4 Houses; 17no EH10 Houses; 4no EH8 Houses and associated external works

16/06/1998 April 2002 (Terminated the Contract)

66 MK 30,047,187.63

Christian Service Committee Building Contractors

Construct Lisungwi EPA Office Block; 1no DH8 House; 1no EH8 House; 1no PH4 House; 24no EH10 Houses; and 3no Dip Tanks

18/06/1998 16/07/2001 36 MK 10,554,296.82

Lemu Building Contractors

1no. EPA Office (Chiwembu); 1no DH8 House; 1no EH8 House; 1no PH4 House and 2no EH10 Houses.

11/05/1998 08/10/2000 29 MK 4,702,239.70

Lemu Building Contractors

1no (Thambani) Sub-EPA Office Block; 1no EH8 House; 3no EH10 Houses; and 1no Dip Tank

21/02/1999 NA (Contract was terminated)

NA MK 1,963,824.46

Kadwala Building Contractors

1no (Neno) EPA Headquarters office block; 1no PH4 House; 21no EH10 Houses; and 1no Dip Tank

11/09/1998 23/07/2001 34 MK 9,639,316.11

Clova Construction Company

Completion of Mwanza RDP Headquarters office Block; Veterinary Clinic; and construction of perimeter wall fence.

23/06/2003 11/06/2004 12 MK 35,595,000.00

Fargo Ltd Roadworks within Mwanza RDP Headquarters complex

23/06/2003 05/04/2004 10 MK 23,531,844.00

Littleways Building Contractors

External services within Mwanza RDP complex

23/06/2003 08/03/2004 9 MK 6,589,474.00

Littleways Building Contractors

Completion of Mwanza RDP Staff Houses and Servant Quarters; and 1no Dip Tank

23/06/2003 21/05/2004 11 MK 21,357,096.78

Likonde Building and Civil Engineering Contractors

Lisungwi perimeter fence servants quarters, water reticulation; and Neno EPA Headquarters Offices

23/06/2003 04/03/2004 10 MK 13,818,356.06

SM Construction Perimeter fence water reticulation, dip tank at Thambani, Chiwembu , Kawiriza

23/06/2003 No data No data MK 11,597,878.50

Commercial Borehole Drillers

Borehole drilling complete with overhead water tanks, solar pumps with all external

23/06/2003 No data No data MK 9,769,313.25

viii





works at Lisungwi, Neno, Chiwembu and Thambani sub-EPAs

Khama la Chemwali Building Contractors

Construction of Livestock Structures: 1no Slaughter Slab Class B; 3no Slaughter Slabs Class C; 1no Quarantine Facility; 2no Cattle Markets; and 1no Drug Store

04/03/2002 17/04/2004 25 MK 7,200,095.40

Toyota Malawi Supply of vehicles No data No data No data MK 3,687,975.00 Stansfield Motors Malawi

1no station wagon; and 39no motorcycles

No data No data No data MK 3,335,000.00

Mitsubishi Cooperation Japan

2no 7-t lorries No data No data No data 7,813,200 JY

IAPSO6 5no 4X4 vehicles; 1no minibus, 1no video van; and 20no motorcycles.

No data No data No data 20,135,239 JY

IAPSO 1no yellow van No data No data No data US$ 5,866.20 ICL 2no computer servers;

2no laptops and 15no desktop computers; and 2no HP printers.

15/10/2003 10/12/2003 8 weeks US$ 41,648.00

Mapanga Furniture Ltd Office furniture (assorted)

06/11/2003 01/01/2004 8 weeks US$ 120,149.00

MM Africa technology (RSA)

Veterinary equipment 15/11/2003 14/02/2004 14 weeks

19,513.79 Euro

Ollivette (Malawi) Limited

Office equipment: 1no air conditioner; 89no electric fans; 1no generator; 12no upright refrigerators; 4no JVC TV screens; 14no hoovers; 28no cookers; 18no wheelbarrows; 4no video cassette recorders; 25no electric kettles; 99no heaters; 15no radios; 2no solar system equipment; and 12no fridge guards.

15/11/2003 14/02/2004 14 weeks

US$ 225,034.10

Xerographics 15no printers; 15no UPS; 2no projectors; 7no projector screens; 7no overhead projector screens; 10no flipcharts stands; 6no duplicating machines; 7no photocopiers; 5no switchboard; and 75no telephone handsets.

18/9/2003 13/11/2003 8 weeks US$ 154,986.90

Business Machines Limited

1no Laserjet copier; and 1no sharp facsimile machine.

28/03/2004 19/06/2004 24 weeks

MK 148,317.97

NCR Office Equipment 2no electrical typewriters; 5no solar calculators; and 20no

02/02/1994 02/04/1994 8 weeks MK 566,850.00

6 IAPSO: Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office

ix





pocket calculators Controller of Stores (Govt)

4no desktop computers; 2no dumpy levels; 4no prismatic compasses; 20no electric fans; and 20no heaters

24/11/1993 03/06/1999 6 years MK 468,033.66

G. CONSULTANTS

Name Contract (Description) Date Contract Signed




Fitzwilliam Partnership Ltd

Design and supervision of civil works; and quantity surveying

23/03/1997 26/03/2004 84 MK 7,428,219.98

Exell Consultants Design and supervision of road works

19/04/2000 11/04/2003 36 MK 2,914,667.24

Buildings Department

Design and supervision of Buildings (Govt internal agreement)

26/08/1998 15/06/2004 41 MK 3,487,221.96 (supervision)

Auditor General (National Audit Office)

Production of Annual Audit Reports

Not Available

Not Available Not Available

Not Available

x

MWANZA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT) PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK (PROJECT MATRIX)

NARRATIVE SUMMARY OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS VERIFICATIONS ASSUMPTIONS/RISKS

SECTOR GOALS

To increase the sector’s contribution to the sustained per capita income increase and the welfare of smallholder population of Mwanza and Neno districts.

Target Set at Appraisal

Not Given

Actual at Completion

Data not available

Government Statistical Reports.

Appraisal Target Actual Item 1991 2004 1.1 Econ. value of incremental production by PY7 (98/99)

MK 14.7 m MK 18.1m (nominal)

OBJECTIVES (Medium-Term Outcome)

1. Sustained increase in FE earnings/savings

BLADD Monitoring and Evaluation Unit

Crop (i.e. maize) farmers have been motivated by newly constructed transport and marketing infrastructure and Government macro-economic and agricultural policy reforms.

2. Sustainable increase in production of food and cash crops (in tonnes)

2.1 Incremental production (mt) pa by PY7 (1998/99)

Maize 8,000 29,670 Vegetables 13,000 15,400 Pulses 1,600 3,057 Pigeon Peas 15,882 3,682 Cotton 1,005 0 3. Sustainable increase in production of livestock products

3.1 Incremental production p.a. by PY5 (1996/97)

Cattle (head) 200 18,585 Poultry 1,200 216,197 Eggs 1 million 43,239,400 Mortality Red 3% 6.5%

BLADD M&E Unit, plus MRDP Crop Estimates and DAO.

Climate and rainfall have been favourable in late years.

xi


BLADD M&E Unit and DVO

Livestock component has not been implemented as planned at appraisal.

4. Health of population improved by reduction in water borne diseases

4.1 Rate of prevalence of water borne diseases reduced to minimum levels

74 Ministry of Health

Records for the area

Water supply schemes have been implemented, and beneficiaries trained in sanitation/health issues.

OUTPUTS

Planned Targets (Appraisal: 1991) Actual by (PCR) 1. Use of farm inputs increased

1.1 13,575 farmers taking seasonal credit by PY5 6,018 received credit from MRFC but soon credit

component was dropped.

2. Research, extension and training

services strengthened 2.1 Block extension system to be operating

effectively in all 48 dev. areas by PY2

384

2.2 13,575 farmers adopting improved technologies and practices by PY5

3,764

3. 3.1 80% of cattle dipped p.a. by PY3

0.8%

Veterinary services improved and improved cattle and poultry production practices introduced

3.2 200 farmers taking fattening steers by PY5, and 12,000 chicks p.a. from PY3

Component dropped

4. Integrated, community-initiated land 4.1 Soil conservation measures on all land 285 ha under ridge

Mwanza RDP Quarterly Progress reports, Borrower’s PCR, other ad hoc Reports, Project file records and, Bank Technical Supervision Reports.

BLADD Credit Officer, DAEO, DCO & DVO.

Credit Component cancelled.

BLADD and field staff have been well trained and highly motivated through logistical support and provision of adequate field and housing allowances.

Proposed technologies are appropriate and high

xii


identified as vulnerable to erosion by PY5

realignment, and 255 ha under vetiver and 507 gullies reclaimed

husbandry and soil conservation measures identified and introduced; and staff trained to practice new participatory approach.

4.2 Resource Management Plans prepared and implemented in a minimum of 3 areas by PY3

14,852 heaps of manure made and applied; 2860 kgs of agro-

forestry seeds planted

5. Support and supervision services at

MRDP headquarters and BLADD strengthened.

5.1 111 staff recruited and in post, 117 houses constructed, and vehicles, including 4 4WDs and 39 motorcycles, purchased, all by PY3

111 staff recruited, 11 houses constructed, 5 vehicles and 39 motorcycles procured in PY4

6. Rural water supplies and roads

improved. 6.1 66,000 people receiving clean water supplies

from PY4 onwards.

3,442 people by PY4 and 9,145 people by PY12 (03/04)

6.2 70 kilometres additional roads operational from PY4.

63 km by PY4 and 70 km by PY 12 (2003/2004).

Land Husbandry officer.

MRDP Project officer/Financial Controller BLADD.

MRDP Project Officer, MOW S. Region, Dept. of Water and Roads

yielding.

No major crop diseases or attacks.

Recurrent exp. met by GoM after project investment period.

Water supply systems and roads adequately maintained.

ACTIVITIES

ADF Loan Allocation by Category of Expenditure

Appraisal 1991

(UA million)

6thR Jan2004

(UA million)

PCR June2004

(UA million) 1.1 Civil Works 2.86 3.02 2.59

Vehicles 0.49 0.72 0.32

Credit: Intensify field activities; and provide seasonal, medium-term credit funds to farmers’ clubs, women groups. Equipment 0.14 0.76 0.41

GoM has provided site for

xiii


1.2 Tech Assistant & Training 0.53 0.66 0.21 Agriculture Activities 0.16 0.93 0.40 Credit & Revolving Fund 1.48 0.28 0.37

Input supplies and marketing: Construct and staff input stores, and provide farmers with market information.

Infrastructure 1.59 0.65 0.53 Recurrent Costs 0.76 0.99 0.64

2.1 Strengthen block extension system in all development areas.

Total 8.01 8.01 5.48

2.2 Establish nurseries for citrus and potatoes. 2.3 Establish 17 sites for adaptive research

trials.

2.4 Train extension staff and farmers. 3.1 Construct/rehabilitate veterinary clinic and

dip tanks, dog baths and slaughter slabs, and staff them.

3.2 Establish cattle fattening schemes. 3.3 Improve distribution of poultry stock.

MRDP accounts,

Bank Disbursement Records, and

Audit Reports

MRDP quarterly progress reports

4.1 Advise on land suitability, and promote appropriate soil conservation techniques on all lands identified as vulnerable to erosion

4.2 Initiate and execute Resource Management Plans in a min. of 3 areas.

5.1 Recruit additional staff, construct housing for staff and provide transport and equipment.

6.1 Boreholes and Wells rehabilitated or constructed and 2 gravity fed water supply schemes implemented.

storage sheds and ADMARC has provided staff for the sheds.

Inputs have not been available in right place at right time due to cancellation of credit component

Loans sanctions were imposed in 98/99

Government financial contributions were not released adequately and when released, were not on time in most cases.

6.2 70 km roads to be constructed and maintained.

xivEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Objectives: The project’s immediate objectives were to: increase the incomes and welfare of the smallholder population of Mwanza District; protect the land resources, maintain long term productivity of the land; and improve the nation’s balance of payments by increasing production of export and import substitution of agricultural commodities. Project Description: The project activities defined at appraisal were implemented under six main components, namely: (i) Extension, Research and Training, (ii) Credit, Input Supplies and Marketing, (iii) Land Resource Management (iv) Livestock Development (v) Infrastructure Development, and (vi) Project Management Support. Implementation: The project was initially planned to be implemented within a period of 5 years starting from February 1992 to December 1998. However, it was completed on 30th June 2004, approximately 11 years after loan effectiveness. The delays were mainly caused by: (i) delay by the borrower’s late fulfilment of the loan conditions; (ii) high staff turn-over; (iii) the Bank’s sanctions against the country which resulted in suspension of loan disbursement for almost 8 months; (iv) most of project staff did not receive training on the Bank’s rules of procedure for procurement of goods and services; (v) lack of Bank technical supervisions in the early years of the project; (vi) delays by the Bank in responding to the borrower’s request for withdrawal applications and settlement of contractors’ payment claims. Physical implementation of field activities started on 11th March 1993 and the deadline for final disbursement was extended seven (7) times from 31st December 1998 to 30th June 2005. Achievements of Project Outputs: The overall performance of the project was barely satisfactory although the bulk of the planned physical targets were achieved. The delayed commencement and protracted implementation had its toll on the overall achievements of the project. The main landmarks of the project are civil and infrastructure works, including associated external works. Extension service, livestock and other agricultural activities have been strengthened and are operational, having impacted positively on the crop production and enhancement of rural incomes. The improved rural roads network has contributed to smooth transportation of agricultural inputs and produce. The development of water points has been a source of potable drinking water for the target communities. Although most of the infrastructural development activities have been successfully completed, there are still outstanding civil works required to be completed in order to fully maximise the benefits and sustain the initiatives undertaken during project implementation. Loan Utilisation: Out of UA 8.01 million, the total loan disbursed and utilised by the last date of disbursement, on 30th June 2005, was UA 5.48 million (68.4%), leaving a loan balance of about UA 2.53 million (31.6%) which has since been cancelled. Counterpart Funding: At appraisal, Government was expected to contribute UA 2.00 million (20%). However, at the project closure, the contribution only reached UA 1.43 million, about 14.3 % of total project cost. Performance of Bank and Borrower: The performance rating for the Bank was gauged on the timeliness in processing of withdrawal requests for disbursement, the effectiveness of supervision missions and aptness in solving the problems that ensued in the course of project implementation. As for the Borrower the criteria for performance rating were in terms of fulfilment of loan conditions, implementation performance, and performance of the executing agency.

xvDuring the PCR mission, no information was available on the Bank’s supervision missions during the first five years of its initiation, while subsequent supervision missions were also inconsistent and lacked in skills mix. Moreover the Bank made frequent changes in the Project Task Managers throughout the project implementation period. The Bank also imposed a blanket suspension to the country midway during project implementation, due to non-submission of the audit reports, which adversely affected project activities. It was also noted that recommendations made by Bank supervision missions were not effectively followed through by the Bank and communications were largely disjointed and farfetched. With regard to the Borrower the fulfilment of conditions precedent to the disbursement for the loan proved difficult and took more time than expected. In terms of contract management, the Government excelled in some vehicles and equipment contracts, whilst other civil works were poorly managed. Besides, the high turnover of project Government staff also constrained the project implementation. Economic Performance: EIRR calculated over the period of 20 years, is 5.03%, as compared to 33% calculated at appraisal (ref. Annex 3). The EIRR could have been slightly higher had the farmers taken full advantage of seasonal and medium-term credit, which was planned to be made available to the beneficiaries in the project area. Overall Performance and Rating: The overall performance and rating for project is unsatisfactory. The overall assessment of various project indicators and parameters is 1.84 as indicated in the Project Outcome Ratings Table in Annex 4. According to the rating carried out by the Mission, the highest score accrued to technical viability in recognition of the Government’s efforts to revamp the country’s agricultural extension system coupled with the redeployment of extension staff to the grassroots. The overall rating for sustainability of project activities is slightly higher than the other parameters, due to the availability of various Government policies as well as relative financial discipline, including a reasonable rate of disbursement attained. Notable is the fact that the Government has decentralized its administrative system and divested most of its functions to the lower levels. Sustainability and Viability: Most of the physical infrastructures established within the project were in reasonable condition and operational, during PCR. Project staff and smallholder farmers have been properly trained to improve their knowledge and skills. The Government is committed to making continued and progressive budgetary allocations to activities initiated under the project. Conclusions and Recommendations: Despite the numerous setbacks that befell the project during the course of its implementation, it managed to achieve some of its objectives and anticipated outputs. The outputs will be instrumental in contributing to the project long-term goal, namely, sustained per capita income increase and poverty reduction for the smallholder population of Mwanza and Neno districts. The Government has affirmed its commitment to advancing the achievements attained under the project in a sustainable manner. The recommendations pertain to Quality of Design at Entry, especially in setting the project benchmarks and establishing of practical and achievable Loan Conditions Prior to Entry into Force to facilitate loan effectiveness; timely supervision and review of projects to facilitate corrective measures; decentralization of Bank operations to country offices to speed up processing of outstanding technical issues; refraining from blanket suspension of disbursement to projects by punishing only the culprit projects, setting project duration relative to project type and components for proper implementation and achievement of the objectives; consultations with key stakeholders during the formative stages of projects for active participation and inculcation of sense of ownership, and inclusion of the Management Information System/Monitoring and Evaluation System, in the project design, for effective project data generation, processing and management to facilitate decision making.

11. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The agriculture sector, including fisheries and forestry, has been the main sectoral contributor to economic growth and stability in Malawi. It accounts for 40% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and about 90% of export earnings and its performance greatly influences Malawi's overall economic situation. The sector is composed of smallholder and estate sub-sectors. The total arable land is about 2.4 million ha and land area under cultivation is about 2 million ha. Of the latter, the smallholder sub-sector, comprising about 1.8 million families, cultivates 1.25 million ha under customary tenure. The estate sub-sector with only 8,500 farms occupy nearly 0.75 million ha and cultivates about 15% of the land. Some 80% of the total food production and 10% of exports come from smallholder sub-sector which also accounts for 25% of the total GDP and 90% of agricultural labour. About 55% of smallholder farmers cultivate less than 1.0 ha, 31% cultivate between 1.0 and 2.0 ha, while 14% cultivate above 2.0 ha. Traditionally, production in smallholder sub-sector has been primarily for subsistence, with maize being the major staple crop. Recently, the sector has taken up cultivation of burley tobacco on a larger scale. The estate sub sector produces mostly export crops like flue-cured tobacco, burley tobacco, tea and sugarcane.

1.2 The Government's agriculture sector goal, in the agricultural sector, is to increase the output of traditional crops and to diversify agriculture into non-traditional crops, so as to increase incomes and improve the livelihoods of the rural people which can be attained through improving food self-sufficiency as well as expanding and diversifying the agricultural export base. To meet the requirements of the smallholder farmers, the Government priorities entail the improvement of research, extension and training, input supply, irrigation and livestock husbandry. Limitations on land availability make productivity increase the focus of the Government strategy. The main element of the strategy has been the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP). The NRDP was formulated in the early 1970s and was modified in 1978 after it became apparent that the rural development projects of the early 1970s, while relatively successful, were too costly to replicate on a nationwide basis. Its aim therefore was to provide agricultural services, develop rural infrastructure including roads and domestic water supplies and also preserve the natural resources through soil conservation and afforestation, across the entire country, through a series of discrete rural development projects (RDPs). 1.3 Under NRDP, the country has been divided into 8 Agricultural Development Divisions (ADD), each one controlled by an independent management unit headed by a Programme Manager. With a total of designated 30 RDPs nationwide, each ADD is responsible for overseeing between two and five RDPs. Each RDP7 is headed by a Project Officer8, who is assisted by a team of subject matter specialists (SMS). The RDP is further sub-divided into Extension Planning Areas (EPAs) manned by Development Officers9, which serve on average a population of 5,000 to 10,000 farm families. These EPAs are further divided into sections manned by Field Assistants10. 28 of the 30 designated RDPs have so far received external donor financing and five of them, namely, Namwera, Mangochi, Blantyre/Shire Highlands, Zomba and Mwanza, have been financed by African Development Fund. The Mwanza RDP was part of the NRDP initiative and is under the administration of Blantyre ADD. 1.4 This report presents a summary of performance during project implementation, the lessons learnt and recommendations that would be useful for managing future interventions in the rural development projects in Malawi and in other regional member countries. Background documents for development of this Project Completion Report (PCR) included Appraisal Report (AR), Borrower's PCR, project consultants' reports, audit reports, project files, Bank's mission aide

7 RDP, now called District Agriculture Development Office. 8 Project Officer, now called District Agriculture Development Officer (DADO). 9 Development Officer, now called Agriculture Extension Development Coordinator (AEDC). 10 Field Assistant, now called Agriculture Extension Development Officer.

2memoires and reports, project quarterly progress reports and other documents listed under Annex 7 (Sources of Information). 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND FORMULATION 2.1 Project Objectives The project’s objectives were to: (i) increase the incomes and welfare of the smallholder population of Mwanza District; (ii) protect the land resources, maintain and raise long term productivity of the land; and (iii) improve the nation’s balance of payments by increasing production of export and import substitution of agricultural commodities. 2.2 Project Formulation and Preparation 2.2.1 By early 1990s, Mwanza was one of the three RDPs under the NRDP not to have benefited from external donor support. The Government had been unable to provide financing to Mwanza district, and as a result the area lacked effective production support services such as extension, credit and veterinary services including basic infrastructure. Mwanza is an area with potential for increasing agricultural production, but this had hitherto been constrained by the lack of accessibility and low population. There was a need, therefore, to provide the basic services and infrastructure upon which to build national projects and programmes, which the Government would wish to implement in order to cover specific key sub-sectors. 2.2.2 Although Mwanza Rural Development Project (MRDP) was identified in 1982, for some years no follow-up action was taken as it was considered that Mwanza District was too remote, too sparsely populated and lacked the most basic infrastructure upon which to build the project. However, the construction of the two tarmac roads, in later years, traversing the project area and linking it with the country’s two main cities improved the scope for input delivery and produce marketing. Because of the area’s improved communication and its hitherto relatively sparse population, there had been much immigration during the years preceding the project resulting in a high rate of deforestation, land degradation, and population growth. 2.2.3 By 1988, it was felt that the area was ready for a rural development project. In the same year, FAO Investment Centre (FAO/IC) undertook a project identification/preparation mission on behalf of the Bank Group. The FAO/IC preparation report was revised by Government in 1990. 2.3 Project Appraisal, Negotiations and Approval Based on the revised FAO/IC’s preparation report, the Bank Group mission visited the country in April/May 1991 to appraise the project. The ADB appraisal report was positive and encouraged the Government to request for financial support for the MRDP. No details on the loan negotiations were available but the loan was approved on 27th August 1991. 2.4 Project Description 2.4.1 The project activities defined at appraisal were implemented under six main components including: (i) Extension, Research and Training, (ii) Credit, Input Supplies and Marketing, (iii) Land Resource Management (iv) Livestock Development (v) Infrastructure Development, and (vi) Project Management Support. The project was mainly concentrated in Mwanza RDP which is in Mwanza District (see Annex 1).

32.4.2 Extension, Research and Training: The project was to strengthen the extension services by increasing the number of field assistants by 17 in order to bring the staff:farmer ratio from 1:1,200 down to 1:770 and provide the field staff with bicycles to improve their mobility. Due to poor state of the existing EPA buildings, the project was to construct three new EPA centres at Mwanza (Chiwembu), Neno and Lisungwi including a sub-EPA at Thambani which would, each, consist of fully equipped and furnished offices, a classroom and a demonstration kitchen. A range of equipment was to be purchased for extension and demonstration purposes including video, farm mechanisation and cotton spraying equipment. 2.4.3 The project was to strengthen the Women’s Programme by providing additional staff including an Assistant Women’s Programme Officer, 1 Senior Farm Home Assistant and 1 Farm Home Assistant to increase their number to 7 and would provide them with motorcycles. The project was to recruit a Food and Nutrition Officer and provide housing and transport in order to carry out food and nutrition activities. To conclude the on-going and initiate research activities, the project was to strengthen adaptive research by funding 17 trials and providing for 1 Adaptive Research Officer with a motorcycle. In view of the potential for improving citrus production in the project area, the project was to strengthen horticultural activities by recruiting 1 Horticultural Officer who was to be provided with a motorcycle to facilitate establishment of 2 nurseries (citrus and potato) for supply of seedlings and seeds to farmers. 2.4.4 In order to minimise unnecessary delays due to lack of clear understanding on what to do during the initial stages of implementation, the project was to provide funds for start-up workshops for the ADD management, the District Development Committee and the project staff soon after effectiveness of the loan. The project was to provide funds for in-service residential and day training for both staff and farmers including management course for the Project Officer to improve managerial skills and work performance. Staff training was to cover nutrition, food processing and food storage and participants would include 30% women. The project was to provide funds for ox-trainers at each EPA to assist farmers intending to use draught power. 2.4.5 The project was to provide appropriate houses for extension and research staff, and also meet the recurrent costs of vehicles, nurseries, trials, equipment and EPA centres including rehabilitation of old facilities like staff houses, potato store and “iron strong houses”. 2.4.6 Credit, Input Supplies and Marketing: The project, through Smallholder Agriculture Credit Administration (SACA), was to provide seasonal credit (MK 9.76 million) to farmers to enable them to purchase seeds, fertilisers and agro-chemicals. The seasonal credit was to be provided through clubs and groups targeting 13,575 farmers (27%) by the end of project life which would bear a 12% up-front charge with a repayment period of 9 months. The project was also to provide medium-term credit facilities (MK 411,000) to individual and farmers’ groups to purchase draught oxen and farm implements including ox-carts, ploughs, ridgers, trek chains, tool bars and cotton sprayers which would bear a 15% annual interest with a repayment period of 3 to 7 years. The project was to specifically target women groups to support their income generating activities and would provide additional field staff with houses and motorcycles. 2.4.7 To improve input delivery and marketing, the project was to finance the construction of 3 “sedi”- type input sheds of 500 tonnes capacity each and staff houses which would be handed over to Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation (ADMARC) for proper management. 2.4.8 Land Resource Management: The project was to develop an integrated approach to land resource management geared towards protecting the land resources from deforestation, degradation and erosion thus maintaining and raising the long term productivity of the land. The planned measures were to include: soil conservation; forest and grazing management; crop and livestock husbandry; agro-forestry and infrastructural works. Soil conservation measures were to

4include: establishment of marker ridges; hedges and fruit trees; contour buffer strips; alley cropping and intercropping of acacia with cereal crops. The project was to establish 3 additional tree nurseries and maintain a boundary of the forestry reserves. 2.4.9 The component was to be coordinated by the Land Husbandry Branch11 and was to recruit a technical assistant, Resources Management Expert, in order to develop the integrated land resources approaches and strengthen the capacity of Land Husbandry Branch to plan and execute the project activities. The project was also to recruit additional staff and provide them with housing, transport, materials and equipment. 2.4.10 Livestock Development: The project was to strengthen animal health and veterinary services by providing funds to: (i) set up revolving funds to implement cattle fattening programme and to supply drugs to farmers; (ii) construct a veterinary clinic at Mwanza, a veterinary station at Neno, 6 new dip tanks, 2 cattle markets, 6 poultry houses, 4 slaughter slabs and 2 dog baths; and (iii) rehabilitate 2 existing dip tanks and 2 poultry houses. The veterinary clinic was to be equipped with fridges, deep freezer and other veterinary equipment whilst the dip tanks were to be provided with equipment and uniform. The project was to provide funds for incremental staff including Veterinary Assistants and Field Officers, for disease control and animal husbandry, Guards and Scouts, Labourers and Herdsmen who were to be provided with housing and transport. 2.4.11 Infrastructure Development: Rural Roads: In order to alleviate the communication problems within the project area, in particular to facilitate the movement of inputs and agricultural products, the project was to finance the construction of 70 km of new roads and spot improvements to 60 km of existing district roads according to the standards of the District Roads Improvement and Maintenance Programme (DRIMP). DRIMP was to carry out the rural roads planning, design, construction/rehabilitation, using labour intensive techniques, and also supervision. Water Supplies: The project was to provide funds for drilling of 45 new boreholes, rehabilitation of 20 existing boreholes, construction of 25 new protected shallow wells, rehabilitation of 25 existing shallow wells, improvement of 75 spring catchment areas, and construction of gravity-fed piped water supply in Thambani and Lisungwi to benefit about 53,000 people. Planning, design and construction of water supply schemes were to be undertaken by the Water Department whilst day-to-day maintenance was to be carried out by the beneficiaries after intensive training. 2.4.12 Project Management Support: The project was to be managed at the day-to-day level by the Project Officer based at MRDP who was to be answerable to the Programme Manager (Blantyre ADD) with technical assistance from the Field Officers. The project was to provide funds for supporting project management at both the ADD and RDP levels. In addition, two committees were planned to be established, namely, a Project Coordination Committee (PCC) and a Project Implementation Committee (PIC). The establishment of these committees was a condition precedent to entry into force of the loan. The project was to finance the construction, equipping and recurrent costs of the new MRDP Headquarters office block. The project was to recruit additional administrative and clerical staff and provide them with transport including a 7-tonne lorry and personnel carriers. The project was also to construct staff houses which included 2 DH8, 17 EH10, 6 PH4 and 7 low cost houses. To strengthen the monitoring and evaluation of the project, five additional enumerators were to be recruited and provided with survey equipment and 2 computers. To sensitise staff and define operational responsibilities under the project, the project was to facilitate a series of start-up workshop at the commencement of the project execution.

11 Changed to Land Resources and Conservation Branch

53. PROJECT EXECUTION 3.1 Loan Effectiveness and Start-up Although the ADF loan was approved by the Board on 27th August 1991 and signed on 13th May 1992, the loan was declared effective on 11th March 1993 mainly due to Government’s delay in fulfilling the loan conditions. The first loan disbursement was made on 7th December 1993 and implementation of project activities started during the same month. 3.2 Modifications 3.2.1 The project experienced numerous modifications most of which emanated from periodic changes in Government policies as well as the overall socio-economic environment in the country. These modifications were effected after thorough discussions between the Borrower and the Bank, and the latter’s approval prior to execution. Hereunder are the most pertinent modifications that were made on the project in the course of its implementation: (i) Splitting of the Project Area into Two Districts: The original project area consisted of Mwanza district only with one RDP headquarters, and was divided into 3 EPAs of relatively homogenous agro-ecological conditions, namely, Mwanza (740 km2), Neno (610 km2) and Lisungwi (940 km2) which were further sub-divided into 31 sections. During the project implementation, in 1994, Mwanza District was split into two administrative districts, namely, Mwanza and Neno. MRDP is subdivided into Mwanza Extension Planning Areas (EPA) including Thambani sub-EPA. Neno RDP is subdivided into Neno and Lisungwi EPAs. At present Mwanza District is subdivided into 22 sections (out of which 4 are still vacant) with a total of 24,248 identified farming families (staff to farmer ratio of 1:1,350) and Neno district is divided into 30 sections out of which 3 are still vacant with 31,450 farming families (staff to farmer ratio of 1:1,165). (ii) Recruitment of Adaptive Research Field Officer: The Adaptive Research Field Officer who was supposed to be recruited under the project and be based in Mwanza was never recruited as the adaptive research teams that were initially based at ADD level were, due to change in policy, relocated to Research Stations to be involved in commodity research. (iii) Seasonal and Medium-Term Credit: Under the project seasonal and medium-term credit of MK 10.171 million was planned to be made available to farmers through the SACA, which by then was a department within the Ministry of Agriculture. On 1st October 1994, SACA was transformed into Malawi Rural Finance Company (MRFC), which operates independently of the Government and charges commercial interest rates (33% plus 15% collateral) that were rather too high for the smallholder farmers. The cash-based credit scheme was discontinued. The rest of the funds that were originally earmarked for motorcycles under the credit component were transferred to the Extension, Research and Training component. The Cattle Fattening Revolving Fund (Fund) which was also supposed to be managed by MRFC did not materialize as farmers could not afford MRFC’s credit conditions. The Fund was intended to support a stall-feeding programme as a strategy to boost beef production in the project area. The funds were, instead, transferred to smallholder farmers and staff training programmes. (iv) Fulfilment of Loan Conditions: Category A2 – Designating and Gazetting as Forestry Reserve the Land in Mwanza District Unsuitable for Settlement and Cultivation: This condition was removed by the Bank from Category A to Category B as it proved difficult to fulfil, and it contributed to the delay of the project effectiveness, since it required surveys, production of topographical maps and an Act of Parliament which proved to be a long process. In order to

6expedite the loan becoming effective and thus, facilitating the disbursement of funds, the Bank waived the above condition in January 1993. (v) Fulfilment of Loan Condition Category B1 – Recruitment of Land Resources Management Expert not later than 6 Months of Loan Effectiveness: PANAFCOM was awarded the above contract to source the Land Resources Management Expert to the project. PANAFCOM proved difficult as some of their demands were not within the provisions of the contract. The Government requested the Bank to remove the Condition, and to use local staff from BLADD and RDP to carry out the work. The Bank gave a “No-objection” to the borrower’s request.

(vi) Establishment of Agro-forestry Nurseries: Owing to change in Government policy regarding management of agro-forestry nurseries, the project could not establish tree and fruit tree nurseries, and instead, established farmer-managed nurseries. (vii) Construction of 6 new and Rehabilitation of 2 old Poultry Holding Houses: The project cancelled the construction and rehabilitation of the poultry holding houses owing to change in Government policy. (viii) Construction of Quarantine Facility for Cattle: The project had no provision for cattle quarantine facility but realizing the need for the facility, the project made provision for the construction of one quarantine facility. (ix) Deletion of 16 Low Cost Houses: Construction of low cost houses was deleted by Government because of their inferior quality consequently they were upgraded to the EH10 category which increased the appraisal number of EH10 houses from 74 to 90. (x) Change of Mode of Procurement (Water Supply): At appraisal, drilling of boreholes was planned to be carried out by Water Department (Ministry of Works) under Force Account. However, due to limited human resources and drilling rigs, by 1998, only 6 new boreholes were drilled by the Department which necessitated the Government to seek for a “No objection”, from the Bank, to tender out the remaining water points under National Competitive Bidding. 3.3 Implementation Schedule As per appraisal, the project was to be implemented within a period of 5 years starting from 1992/93 (February 1992) through 1997/98 (December 1998). However, the project implementation started on 11th March 1993 mainly due to delay in fulfilment of loan condition (para 3.2.1, iv). The deadline for final disbursement was extended six times from 31st December 1998 to 31st December 1999, 31st December 2001, 30th June 2003, 31st December 2003, 30th June 2004, 31st December 2004 and 30th June 2005. Consequently, ADF funded project activities were terminated on 30th June 2004, approximately 11 years after loan effectiveness. Target dates for Project implementation, as defined at appraisal and the actual ones, are presented in Table 1.

7

Table 1: Implementation Schedule: Appraisal versus Actual

Implementation Schedule No Description Planned (Appraisal) Actual

1. Loan Approval August 1991 27th August 1991 2. Loan Signature Not Indicated 13th May 1992 3. Date of Entry into Force Not Indicated 11th March 1993 4. Establishment of Project Coordination Committee Not Indicated August 1992 5. Loan Effectiveness Not Indicated 11th March 1993 6. Starting Date of Project Implementation 1992/93 11th March 1993 7. Detailed Design, Specifications and Bid Documents July 1992 1995 8. Award of Contracts November 1992 1998 - 2003 9. Construction of Houses February 1993 1998 - 2003

10. Construction of Roads including Structures March 1993 1996 - 2001 11. Date of First Disbursement Not Indicated 1st April 1993 12. Date of Final/Last Disbursement June 1998 30th June 2005 13. Mid-Term Review Not Indicated October 1998 14. Project Completion 1997/98 30th June 2004

3.4 Reporting 3.4.1 During the early years of project implementation, data management seemed to be a problem due to lack of electronic storage facilities, and also poor monitoring and evaluation system. Nonetheless, according to the Borrower’s records, which were verified by the Mission, Government submitted to the Bank 41 quarterly progress reports. In addition, 10 monthly reports, covering July 2003 to April 2004, have been produced and submitted to the Bank. The Government had submitted a total of 10 audit reports to the Bank which were produced by the Auditor General (National Audit Office, Lilongwe). The financial audit was performed in accordance with the appraisal report and Government’s Public Audit Act No 6 of 2003 which provided reasonable assurance that project resources were being managed in accordance with the borrower’s financial rules, laws and regulations and Bank’s disbursement procedures and reporting guidelines. According to the assessment by the Auditor General most of the financial statements were devoid of material and financial misappropriation. 3.4.2 The Mid-Term Review was not planned at appraisal, but was conducted by the borrower in March 1998. The Bank’s mid-term review was fielded between 14th July and 4th September 1998 and a full mission report was produced in October 1998. The Borrower submitted a PCR, to the Bank, in December 2005, which provided a basis for the PCR mission’s discussions. The Bank supervision missions’ reports and Aide Memoires assisted in monitoring and evaluation of the project implementation progress. Some project-related studies were conducted by the Government such as yield survey, livestock survey and extension survey whose reports were produced and circulated to the stakeholders. Several working papers and minutes of technical meetings were prepared by the project. 3.5 Procurement 3.5.1 Procurement of goods, works and services was done in accordance with the provisions of the Bank rules of procedure. A summary of major items which were procured, with respect to the procurement mode recommended at appraisal versus actual, is given in Table 2. The list of Contractors, Consultants and Suppliers is given in the Basic Project Data Sheet, Sections F and G.

8Table 2: Summary of Items in Project Procurement List

Mode of Procurement No Item Description Appraisal Actual

1 Vehicles and Motorcycles National Competitive Bidding National Competitive Bidding International Competitive Bidding International Shopping

2 Civil Works Contractors National Competitive Bidding National Competitive Bidding 3 TA: Resource Management Expert Short List NA

4 Equipment National Shopping and International Shopping

National Shopping and International Shopping

5 Veterinary Drugs National Shopping National Shopping and International Shopping

6 Road Construction/Maintenance Force Account Force Account

7 Borehole Drilling Force Account Force Account and National Competitive Bidding

3.5.2 Procurement, of goods and services, was done using the approved ADF tendering process, through the Ministry’s Internal Procurement Committee which is decentralised from the Office of the Director of Public Procurement. MoAFS has a Procurement Specialist responsible for the ADF funded projects. For civil works, national tenders were administered by Ministry of Works (Building Department). However, in some cases, the prices paid for goods and services differed from those indicated on the tender agreement due to late processing of contracts by both the Government and the Bank. According to the Borrower, there were no serious problems experienced in using the procurement methods outlined under 3.5.1. However, the process of approving and awarding of contracts was lengthy thus affecting implementation schedules of the civil works. The major problems occurred during contract management whereby some contracts were cancelled since some contractors abandoned the works due to capacity problems whilst others lodged claims for loss of profit due to delayed payments. Another predicament occurred when some contractors demanded to gauge their contract prices in foreign currency (United States Dollars), due to delayed payment of their claims. This was, however, not in line with the provisions in the contract document. 3.6 Sources of Finance and Disbursement 3.6.1 Sources of Finance: Table 3 shows that the total project cost, including contingencies at the time of appraisal, was UA 10.01 million. The ADF loan and Government (GOM) were to provide UA 8.01 million and UA 2.00 million, respectively, towards financing of the project. There were six revisions of the project’s List of Goods and Services (LOGS) which were made in April 1995, September 1997, November 1999, January 2002, July 2003 and January 2004, as summarized in Table 4, in order to: (i) meet the increased cost of civil works due to high actual costs of construction materials; (ii) provide additional funds for agricultural activities; and (iii) accommodate the modifications made (ref: para. 3.2.1).

Table 3: Project Financing

Appraisal (1991) Actual (1998) Actual (PCR/2004) Actual vs Appraisal Source Amount

(UA million) %age (%)

Amount (UA million)

%age (%)

Amount (UA million)

%age (%)

Deviation (UA million)

%age (%)

ADF 8.01 80.0 1.64 70.1 5.48 79.3 (+) 2.53 68.4 GOM 2.00 20.0 0.70 29.9 1.43 20.7 (+) 0.57 71.5 Total 10.01 100.0 2.34 100.0 6.91 100.0 (+) 3.10 69.0

9Table 4: Revised List of Goods and Services

ADF

Category Category of Expenditure

Appraisal Dec 1991

1st Revision April 1995

2nd Revision Sept 1997

3rd Revision Nov 1999

4th Revision Jan 2002

5th Revision July 2003

6th Revision Jan 2004

Works Civil Works 2,865,950.00 2,706,950.00 3,766,052.00 2,465,950.00 2,796,950.00 2,796,950.00 3,020,831.00 Goods Vehicles 487,790.00 535,970.00 404,500.00 469,576.00 633,350.00 794,500.00 718,029.00 Goods Equipment 136,680.00 197,710.00 207,500.00 354,894.00 304,690.00 464,710.00 755,343.00

Services Technical Asst & Training 532,000.00 237,660.00 688,900.00 732,550.00 780,390.00 641,750.00 664,881.00

Services Agricultural Activities 159,800.00 40,420.00 199,000.00 370,392.00 572,042.00 834,920.00 934,242.00

Services Credit & Revolving Fund 1,484,550.00 1,950,080.00 12,600.00 1,284,000.00 947,640.00 1,059,370.00 282,121.00

Works Infrastructure Works 1,587,990.00 1,555,922.00 1,608,200.00 1,455,824.00 1,189,650.00 599,500.00 645,575.00

Misc. Other Recurrent Costs 758,392.00 788,440.00 1,126,400.00 879,966.00 788,440.00 821,452.00 992,130.00

Base Cost (UA) 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 Contingencies 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 Total Cost (UA) 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00 8,013,152.00

3.6.2 Disbursement: By 1998, planned completion year, the Bank’s loan disbursement reached only UA 1.64 million (20.5% of the total loan) which reflected poor absorptive capacity by the borrower. In 1999, due to non-submission of the Audit Reports for several ADF funded projects, the Bank declared sanctions against the country which resulted in blanket suspension in the disbursement of project funds for almost 8 months. At the close of the project, 2004, according to Tables 3 and 5, the actual amount disbursed from the ADF loan was about UA 5.48 million (68.4%), leaving a loan balance of UA 2.53 million, which has since been cancelled. Disbursements amounting to UA 3.75 million were made under “Direct Payment” to Contractors, Suppliers and Consultants whilst UA 1.73 million was transferred under “Revolving Fund Replenishments” to Project’s Special Account. Table 5 gives the financial status of ADF loan disbursement by categories of expenditure. Details of loan disbursements, including direct payments, are given in Annex 2. 3.6.3 Government Contribution: By 1998, the borrower’s contributions reached UA 0.70 million, 7.0% of the total cost as opposed to the appraisal estimate of UA 2.00 million (20.0%). This trend continued and, by 2004, the Government did not fulfilled its entire financial commitment to the project, in that, its contribution reached only UA 1.43 million which represents 17.9% of total cost. The contribution mainly covered staff salaries, office rentals, utilities (electricity, water and telephone) and other local operating costs. A table, of yearly disbursements of ADF loan and GOM’s contribution, is presented in the Basic Project Data Sheet (Section E:b).

Table 5: Disbursements of ADF Loan by Category of Expenditure (UA)

Categories of Expenditure 6th Revision of LOGS (UA)

Actual Amount Disbursed (UA)

Percentage Disbursed

Amount (UA) Undisbursed

A. Investment Costs I. Civil Works (Works) 3,020,831.00 2,591,017.89 85.8 429,813.11 II. Vehicles (Goods) 718,029.00 318,933.34 44.4 399,095.66 III. Equipment (Goods) 755,343.00 410,870.46 54.4 344,472.54 IV. Technical Asst and Training (Services) 664,881.00 210,944.72 31.7 453,936.28 V. Infrastructure Works (Works) 645,575.00 533,835.35 82.7 111,739.65 Sub-total of Investment Costs (UA) 5,804,659.00 4,065,601.76 70.0 1,739,057.24 B. Recurrent Costs VI. Agricultural Activities (Services) 934,242.00 403,843.00 43.2 530,399.00 VII. Credit & Revolving Fund (Services) 282,121.00 371,255.58 131.6 (89,134.58) VIII. Recurrent Costs (Miscellaneous) 992,130.00 644,373.95 65.0 347,756.05 Sub-Total of Recurrent Costs 2,208,493.00 1,419,472.53 64.3 789,020.47 Total (A +B) 8,013,152.00 5,485,074.29 68.5 2,528,077.71 Grand Total (UA) 8,013,152.00 5,485,074.29 68.5 2,528,077.71

Source of Data: Mwanza RDP Documents and BLADD Financial Controller’s Data-base.

10 4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS 4.1 Overall Assessment 4.1.1 The overall performance of the project was barely satisfactory although the bulk of the planned physical targets were achieved. The delayed commencement and protracted implementation had its toll on the overall achievements of the project. The main landmarks of the project are civil and infrastructure works, including associated external works. The modern RDP, EPAs, sub-EPA office blocks and staff houses are well equipped and provide good accommodation for the Government staff. Extension service, livestock and other agricultural activities have been strengthened and are operational, and have impacted positively on the crop production and enhancement of rural incomes. The improvement in rural roads network, construction of new access roads and spot improvement of existing roads have contributed to the percentage increase of transportation of agricultural inputs and produce including easy access to trading centres, hospitals/health clinics and schools. 4.1.2 The modern veterinary clinic, at Mwanza, will provide better facilities for animal health services. With the construction of the slaughter slabs, consumers are assured of a regular supply of meat from animals slaughtered under controlled conditions and monitored by the meat inspectors. The construction and rehabilitation of boreholes and shallow wells have been a source of potable drinking water, for the target communities, which have contributed towards the reduction of waterborne and water-related diseases. The project has partially achieved the immediate development objective of increasing the incomes and welfare of the target smallholder population, protecting the land resources, and maintaining long term productivity of the land. The objective is likely to be fully realized in future through good operation and routine maintenance of the infrastructure and continuous provision of institutional support by the Government. However, due to the absence of the Environmental and Social Management Plan, the performance of the project with respect to its environmental management was poor. 4.2 Operating Results 4.2.1 The major operational activities are as highlighted in para. 2.4.1. The project civil and infrastructural works achievements are summarized in Annex 9. Although the project, under review was extended 7 times, the Bank passed a ruling that future projects will not be extended for more than 2 times. The operational performance, by project component, was as follows: 4.2.2 Extension, Research and Training: The target at appraisal for this component has not been met in that the present staff to farmer ratio stands at 1:1,292 (Mwanza 1:1,350 and Neno 1:1,165) as opposed to the appraisal target of 1:770, even after recruitment of additional 17 field assistants to the original 31. The 1:770 target was not met due to high staff turn-over resulting from retirements, death, transfers, splitting of Mwanza district into Mwanza and Neno districts, and also the population increase of farm families during the project lifespan. However, the staff members could not be easily replaced since the Natural Resources College was no longer offering Certificate courses for field assistants. 4.2.3 By the end of 1998, the intended project completion date, very little had been achieved on civil works due to delays in production of tender documents and the long tendering process. By 2004, Thambani sub-EPA, Mwanza EPA, Lisungwi EPA offices and some staff houses had been completed and handed over to Government for use. However, some civil works like Neno EPA centre, 10 EH10 staff houses within Neno EPA, the brick wall fences at Chiwembu EPA and Thambani sub-EPA centres have not been completed. The construction of Neno EPA stopped in

112003 since the contractor pulled out due to capacity problems and no alternative contractor was identified. During project implementation, the Government proposed to use other contractors who were already on site to complete Neno EPA but the Bank advised the borrower to negotiate with the original contractor who eventually refused to return to the site. By close of the project, the progress of construction work at the Neno site stood at 80% complete. During the mission period, the EPA construction was being partially completed by Government using its own resources. 4.2.4 All EPAs and sub-EPA centres comprise offices, classroom and demonstration kitchen which are fully furnished although the demonstration kitchens were not fitted with dover stoves due to their unavailability. Although electrical equipment, including refrigerators for storage of vaccines, electric cookers and other accessories have been procured for the said centres, some of them like Thambani sub-EPA do not have electrical power for effective use of the equipment. Although most of the civil works targets were achieved, several problems were encountered by the borrower due to suspension of disbursement by the Bank which led to late settlement of contractor’s payment certificates and consequently some contractors terminated their contracts. The Government had to recruit other contractors to complete the outstanding works. Potato stores and “iron strong houses” were not rehabilitated, as per the appraisal report, in order not to make smallholder farmers completely reliant on the Government for minor works rehabilitation. A request was made, by Government, to the Bank and a “No objection” was granted to reallocate the funds to procurement of agricultural inputs. 4.2.5 The project strengthened adaptive research activities through funding of 41 trials conducted by Adaptive Research Officer who was then based at ADD. Due to change in Government policy the officer was no longer part of the ADD management. The project, however, continued to fund the adaptive research activities in areas of cotton, citrus, maize, groundnuts, wheat and pigeon peas which were conducted by smallholder farmers themselves with the assistance of extension staff conducted the research trials. One Horticulture Officer was recruited under the project who facilitate establishment of 1 Government citrus nursery and several sweet potato farmer managed nurseries. 4.2.6 As per appraisal, three local start-up workshops were conducted for the ADD management, District Development Committee and project staff. Residential and day training courses were also conducted for farmers in agriculture and specialized courses in food processing and crop storage. Residential and fortnightly non-residential extension courses were conducted for staff to enable them deal more efficiently with farmers and update their knowledge of livestock and crop husbandry. In addition, 35 staff underwent short-term courses while 9 went for diploma and 6 went for first degree courses in agriculture. Several local study tours were conducted for farmers. Besides, farmers had two regional tours to South Africa (Citrus Production) and Tanzania (Dairy Farming). 4.2.7 Credit, Input Supplies and Marketing: Due to changes in Government policy, SACA was de-linked from MoA on 1st October 1994 and later evolved into a profit making organization known as MRFC, ref. para. 3.2.1(iii). An initial amount of MK 1.76 million was provided to MRFC by the project which, between 1998 and 1999, was disbursed to 414 farmer clubs with a total membership of 6,018 comprising 3,753 male and 2,265 female farmers. However, MRFC charged farmers the market interest rates, of 33% in addition to a 15% collateral, which were rather too high. As such, the loan recovery, from farmers, proved to be very difficult and only 52.3% of the money was recovered which led to unsuccessful administration of the seasonal and medium term loans. This high interest rate served as a decentive to potential beneficiaries. Consequently, the project used some of the funds to implement a credit in kind scheme called the “pass on programme” where a total of 55 farmer groups were provided with goats and poultry and passed on the first off-springs to other beneficiaries. Under the same scheme, some farmers were given improved seeds and were expected to pass-on seeds to others after the first harvest.

12 4.2.8 To facilitate the distribution of agricultural inputs and outputs, by 1998, the project facilitated the construction of 3 “sedi-type” sheds, each of 500 tonnes capacity, including an office and 3 EH10 staff houses. The project only provided funds but the actual construction was undertaken by ADMARC. All the said structures were formally handed over to ADMARC after completion, since it was a loan condition. 1 DH8, 1 EH8 and 6 EH10 staff houses which were earmarked for credit assistants, under the credit sub-component, were constructed and allocated to agricultural extension workers due to de-linking of SACA. 4.2.9 Land Resource Management: Recruitment of Land Resources Management Expert was cancelled, after an agreement between the Bank and the borrower, since PANAFCOM firm which was awarded the contract did not field the required expert as some of their demands were not within the provisions of the contract. The post was later cancelled since time did not allow the borrower to re-advertise the post considering the remaining project period which was short. In addition, the planned activities were, at that time, successfully being implemented by the RDP staff with support from the ADD specialists. However, as per the borrower’s PCR, since there was no input from the Land Resources Management Expert, to some extent, the outcome under the component, has not been achieved as expected since a lot of areas remain not properly conserved. This has also been attributed to funding problems since civil works were given a priority over land resource management activities. 4.2.10 On civil works, by 1998, no staff house was constructed. However, by 2004, all the staff houses, under this component, were constructed by local contractors. The project supported land resource management activities that were meant to protect the land resources from deforestation, degradation and soil erosion thus maintaining the long-term productivity. The project promoted an integrated approach to land resource management that involved active participation of local communities and other stakeholders in planning and execution of conservation measures. Local communities were empowered to use low cost technologies in addressing the issues of land degradation, soil erosion, soil fertility, deforestation and over grazing. Smallholder farmers were also trained in the use of “A” frame for pegging and construction of marker ridges which were planted with either vetiver grass and fruit trees. Residential and day training including study tours were conducted for staff and farmers. 4.2.11 Due to change in policy (ref. para. 3.2.1), regarding management of agro-forestry nurseries, the project could not establish Government-managed nurseries. As such, several farmer-managed fruit trees and conservation grasses nurseries were established in the project area which supplied the planting materials to the farmers. One Government-managed citrus nursery was established since this was not affected by the policy change. The project conducted: 299 campaign meetings on agroforestry including distribution of assorted agro-forestry planting materials; 350 on-farm-demonstrations on land reclamation from gullies; 542 on-farm-demonstrations on garden raised footpaths; 315 demonstrations and 36 launches on compost manure making which resulted in 13,276 compost heaps to be made and 563 demonstration on compost manure application; and 475 on-farm-demonstration on agro-forestry, some of which are still on going. The project also established 176 farmer-managed vetiver-nurseries whose vetiver was distributed to beneficiaries. Residential staff and farmer courses were conducted covering manure making and application, land reclamation and agro-forestry issues. In addition, the project provided support to the Ministry of Forestry and Natural Resources (MoFNR) to enable them establish three additional tree nurseries for supply of seedlings to beneficiaries. The project facilitated gazetting of 21,136 ha as “State Forest Reserves and unsuitable for settlement and cultivation” under the general notice number 180 published in Malawi Government Gazette 2.331; Vol XXXIV No. 47 of 12th September, 1997. The project also provided support to the MoFNR for maintenance of the demarcated forestry reserves.

134.2.12 Livestock Development: The project had no provision for quarantine facilities but realizing the need for such facility, a provision was made within the project budget to construct a quarantine facility at Zalewa in Lisungwi EPA though the workmanship was poor. All slaughter slabs were constructed without a provision of water supply for cleaning the floor slab and maintaining proper hygiene. Consequently, butcher-men are forced to draw water from nearest boreholes. During cleaning of the slaughter slab, the sewerage reticulation system conveys the liquid effluent into a septic tank while the solid wastes are either dumped into a covered disposal pit or in the incineration chamber constructed near the slaughter slab. The metallic hoists were also fabricated using substandard tubular materials which sag under the heavy weight of the dead animals during the skinning process. In addition, there are no facilities, like pulley and hooks, for lifting and hanging the carcass which makes it difficult for butchermen to carry out the skinning process. 4.2.13 The project constructed 5 dip tanks and rehabilitated one. A modern veterinary clinic was constructed near Mwanza RDP office. A veterinary station was constructed at Neno EPA but is yet to be completed. The two planned cattle markets were constructed at Feremu and Lisungwi. Five dog baths were constructed instead of two as funds were available to satisfy the increased demand. A cattle fattening revolving fund was never established as per. para 3.2.1 (iii) which left the Ministry with no capacity to administer the fund. The project did not construct nor rehabilitate poultry houses as appraised due to change in Government policy (ref. para. 3.2.1, vii). At the time of project appraisal, the policy required that chickens from Mikolongwe Veterinary Station be under quarantine in poultry holding houses for up to 2- 3 days to recover from stress before selling them to farmers. The new policy allowed the farmers to get the birds on the same day of arrival which made the construction of holding houses irrelevant and the funds were reallocated to other civil works. The construction, of low cost staff houses, was cancelled due to change of preference by the borrower (ref. para. 3.2.1, ix). 4.2.14 Infrastructure Development: Roads: The project financed the construction of 70 km of new rural access roads (revised to 75 km) including structures and spot improvement of 60 km of existing rural roads in order to facilitate the movement and distribution of agricultural inputs and provision of extension services. The activities were carried out by the District Road Improvement and Maintenance Programme (DRIMP - Ministry of Works) under Force Account. By 1998, only 34 km of new roads had been constructed including structures, whilst spot improvement covered only 10 km of the existing roads. By 2004, the project constructed 70 km of new roads out of 75 km (93%) and facilitated spot improvement of 55 km of existing roads out of 60 km (92%), refer to Annex 9. All the target roads have been handed over to the respective District Assemblies. The timber-deck bridges, along Njanjama–Kalanga road and also Chikwekwe-Kasamba ADMARC road, collapsed rendering them impassable to motor-vehicles and even some pedestrians. 4.2.15 Water Supply (Groundwater and Piped Water Supply) : By 1998, only 6 new boreholes were drilled by the Water Department due to limited human resources and drilling rigs. Although the activities were planned to be carried out by the Water Department, the Government having sought a “No objection” from the Bank, tendered out the remaining water points. Due to outsourcing, by 2004, the project had facilitated the drilling of 42 new boreholes which were fitted with either AFRIDEV manual pumps or solar powered pumps, rehabilitated 20 old boreholes, constructed 22 protected shallow wells and rehabilitated 5 old shallow wells benefiting 13,371 households/farm families (refer to Annex 9), about 66,000 people which compares well with the appraisal target of 53,000. The beneficiaries were organised in Water Point Committees and trained in water point hygiene and community based management (CBM). Although most water points are functional, there is need for further training of the beneficiaries in pump maintenance. 4.2.16 As per the borehole drillers’ contracts and drilling reports, which were checked by the mission, almost all the boreholes were drilled to a depth of more than 50 metres with a yield of more than 0.30 litre per second and a drawdown of less than 0.10 metre. In order to ensure that

14water being delivered, to the beneficiaries, was potable, the borehole drillers carried out, through the Water Department’s Central Laboratory, the quality tests on the water samples which covered bacteriological (E.coli and faecal streptococci), physical and chemical (pH, suspended solids, turbidity, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, and sulphate). Monitoring of the water quality is routinely carried out, on quarterly basis, by the District Water Office in conjunction with the Health Surveillance Assistant (HSA). The boreholes are periodically disinfected, by the HSA, with chlorine 24 hours prior to their next use. The improvement to 75 spring catchments areas was not undertaken due to change of preference by the beneficiaries who opted for hand pumps. The piped water schemes earmarked for Thambani and Lisungwi were constructed by other development partners in the water sector. 4.2.17 Project Management Support: The project was generally implemented according to the appraisal plan, and during implementation, the ADD and RDP staff carried out the project activities, but the high staff turn-over resulting from retirements and transfers caused a lot of unnecessary delays. This situation was exacerbated by the frequent changes of Bank’s Task Managers which caused lack of technical continuity as each new officer had to take some time to study the project issues. At the start of the project, most of the ADD and RDP staff did not receive training in the Bank’s rules of procedure for procurement of goods and services. Consequently, the staff lacked the necessary knowledge and experience in the preparation of tender documents, and did not properly follow the guidelines. The situation was aggravated by lack of Bank technical supervision in the early years of the project. The project started in 1993 and according to the available documentation, the Bank did not start supervising the project until 1997. In 1999, the Bank declared sanctions against the country, and this resulted in suspension of loan disbursement to the project for almost 8 months which meant that most of the project activities, notably the civil works, came to a stand-still as contractors stopped working owing to non-settlement of payment certificates. 4.2.18 As per appraisal, both committees PCC and PIC were set up at the start of the project. Although PCC was quite active and effective during the early years of the project implementation, it gradually ceased to work. PIC worked throughout the project life, though its membership started to gradually decrease. During the early years of project implementation, data management seemed to be a problem due to lack of electronic storage facilities and poor monitoring and evaluation system. However, the situation improved after procurement of computers. 4.2.19 The construction of Mwanza RDP headquarters block took many years to complete due to suspension of disbursement by the Bank in 1999, which led to delayed and non payment of claims submitted by the contractor resulting into unnecessary claims for loss of profit and currency depreciation. Both the Government and the Bank took a long time to resolve the issue until the contractor pulled out from the site in 2000. The Government subsequently decided to split the remaining activities into several lots in order to complete the work before expiry of the project period. The Mwanza RDP office block has since been completed. All vehicles, equipment and furniture which were proposed in the appraisal report and revised in the LOGS were procured. Fitzwilliam Partnership Ltd, Exell Consultants and Buildings Department were recruited and incorporated to provide technical personnel for design and supervision of the civil works. 4.3 Management and Organisation Performance 4.3.1 While the MoA was the overall project executing agency, MRDP was under the portfolio of the Controller of Agricultural Services (MoA). The overall management of the project was the responsibility of the Programme Manager BLADD, while day-to-day execution was carried out by the Project Officer, based in Mwanza District who reported directly to the Programme Manager. BLADD provides technical support to all agricultural projects that are being implemented within its jurisdiction. For this purpose, the office has a large team of subject matter specialists (SMS)

15who work in various specific fields relating to the agricultural aspects of rural development. BLADD SMS who provided technical support to MRDP included Divisional Agriculture Extension Officer, Divisional Veterinary Officer, Divisional Land Resources Conservation Officer, Divisional Crops Officer, Divisional Irrigation Officer, Principal Economist (M&E), Financial Controller and Principal Human Resources Manager. 4.3.2 At project level, the RDP was headed by the Project Officer who was assisted by a team of SMS most of whom qualified to diploma level. Extension was further decentralized to the level of EPA managed by Development Officer. The EPAs were further sub-divided into sections each being manned by Field Assistant. In total, there are 52 sections within the project area. The target at appraisal for the extension component has not been met, as per para. 4.2.2. Regarding coordination of the project activities, although the PCC and PIC were set up without delay and were effective during the first years of the project implementation, their meetings became irregular towards the end of project implementation and their membership became progressively reduced. PIC was never chaired by Regional Administrator (South) since the position had been abolished. 4.3.3 Although the project management was in line with the proposals, the continuity of some of the project activities was affected by high staff turnover. During the project life, six officers have held the post of Programme Manager for BLADD, and two officers for the post of Project Officer. In some cases, the outgoing officers left no hand-over notes behind for the new incoming officers. These changes affected the operational performance of the project management unit, as they attributed to lack of continuity which coupled with lack of electronic data storage facilities negatively affected the project management information system especially for data generated during the first few project years before the procurement of computers. Frequent changes in the project Task Managers at ADB headquarters also had a negative impact on the performance of the project.

4.3.4 Staff Motivation and Training: In spite of the frequent changes in the project management unit, the rest of the staff, both at BLADD and at field level, have been highly motivated by the built-in incentives, mainly in the form of housing, transport and training. Three start-up workshops were conducted for the ADD management, DDC, and project staff. Residential and 2-weekly extension courses were conducted for staff to enable them deal more efficiently with farmers and update their knowledge of livestock and crop husbandry. In addition, 35 staff members underwent short-term courses while 9 went for diploma and 6 went for first degree courses in agriculture. Project field staff are accommodated in modern offices and houses and, above that, most of them have also been issued with either motor-vehicles, motorcycles or bicycles for mobility. 4.4 Performance of Consultants, Suppliers and Contractors

4.4.1 Performance of Consultants: The Land Resources Management Expert was not recruited as planned (para. 3.2, v). Fitzwilliam Partnership Ltd’s performance, as per the borrower’s assessment, was satisfactory since the quality of design works was assessed as being reasonable. A number of additional works had to be incorporated into the contracts and some of the Bills of Quantity which were prepared omitted very crucial elements and clauses. However, the quality of supervision was good as the consultant’s personnel were always on site. Their relationship with the client was fair whilst that with the contractors and other consultants was good. Exell Consultants’ performance was not satisfactory. The quality of design works was fair, as was the quality of personnel which were provided. Major problems occurred associated with wrong positioning of the culverts on the drawings which resulted in major changes associated with additional costs. The quality of supervision in terms of the final output was good as evidenced by the frequent supervisions. In terms of financial management the consultant is ranked as fair. Exell’s relationship with the other consultants was good, but fair with the client. Buildings Department (Ministry of Works)’s performance was satisfactory. The department provided

16standard designs for staff houses and specific designs for the RDP, EPA and sub-EPA. The quality of supervision in terms of the final output was quite good and site meetings were conducted every month in order to check on progress being made during implementation of the civil works. The relationship of Buildings Departments with other contractors was good while with other consultants was fair. The quality of personnel under the department was good and all the deployed staff was well experienced and competent. Auditor General’s (National Audit Office) performance was satisfactory in that the office prepared Annual Audit Reports and submitted them in a timely manner. A list of consultants is shown in Section G of the Basic Project Data Sheet. 4.4.2 Performance of Suppliers: Most suppliers performed satisfactorily. They supplied good quality products and delivered them within a reasonable time. Most of the Suppliers were in good relationship with the borrower. A list of suppliers is shown in Basic Project Data Sheet, Section F. 4.4.3 Performance of Contractors: With the exception of Lemu and Khama la Chemwali, the overall performance of the contractors was satisfactory and they constructed the office block, houses and associated external works according to the design requirements. All contractors had good relationship with the client and their quality of contract management and financial soundness was good. The major problems and misunderstanding occurred, with the client, due to non-settlement of payment certificates resulting from the suspension of disbursement by the Bank which also affected their timing of civil works execution, and also misinterpretation of the contract clauses which led to claim of loss of profit. A list of contractors is shown in Section F of the Basic Project Data Sheet. 4.5 Fulfilment of Loan Conditions and Covenants 4.5.1 Conditions Precedent to Entry into Force: The effectiveness of the loan agreement was subject to fulfilment by the borrower of the following conditions: i. Enter into an agreement with ADMARC providing among other things, that ADMARC

will staff and manage the three inputs sheds to be constructed under the project and that the borrower will hand over the sheds to ADMARC without charge.

ii. Designate and gazette as forestry reserve the land in Mwanza District unsuitable for settlement and cultivation.

iii. Establish both the Project Coordination Committee (PCC) and Project Implementation

Committee (PIC). PCC would be chaired by the Chief Economist in the Department of Economic Planning and Development and with membership drawn from the Ministries of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources, and of Works and Finance; while PIC to be chaired by the Regional Administrator South and with membership drawn from Blantyre ADD, the Ministry of Works, of Forestry and Natural Resources and the Project.

4.5.2 Although the conditions were not many, condition (ii) proved difficult to fulfil (ref. para. 3.2.1 iv) as a result there was delay in loan effectiveness and project implementation. The loan became effective on 11th March 1993. 4.5.3 Other conditions: In addition to the above Conditions, the Borrower was required to fulfil six other conditions as follows: i. Recruit the Resources Management Expert not later than four months of loan effectiveness. ii. Provide an undertaking that within two years of loan effectiveness, all project staff will be

recruited or redeployed.

17iii. Undertake measures satisfactory to the fund decentralizing responsibilities for the technical

and financial management of the project, including inter-alia, facilitating communication between the Programme Manager and the fund on matters pertaining to project implementation.

iv. Submit a report to the ADF on a quarterly basis and indicate in detail therein the progress made during the reporting period.

v. Cause the accounts of the management unit to be audited annually by the auditor general

and submit to ADF a copy of the auditors’ report.

vi. Make the necessary budgetary allocation in accordance with the project expenditure schedule to meet its share of the project cost.

4.6 Economic Performance 4.6.1 In order to access the economic viability and sustainability of the project, the Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) has been recalculated over a 20 year period. However, the assumptions, which were made at appraisal, that farmers would adopt packages of agricultural technologies and practices offered under the project were not realised because the credit component was cancelled hence the farmers could not access improved agricultural inputs. Nonetheless, the benefits of the incremental production of maize were used for the recalculation of the EIRR. Caution should be taken in interpreting the figure since this incremental production of maize is not solely due to the effect of the project. Maize was selected over other crops, like pigeon peas, because of the following reasons: (i) since maize serves both as a cash and staple food in the area, it is widely grown by most, if not all smallholders in the project area; (ii) most farmers in the area cannot afford to buy agro-chemicals (i.e. fertilizer and pesticide), hence, they grow local maize which does not require much use of agro-chemicals, unlike the hybrid maize; (iii) there were no systematic recorded annual production and cost data for other crops which are not widely grown in the area. Although, at appraisal, livestock and poultry production was included in the economic analysis, it has been excluded in recalculating the post EIRR. 4.6.2 The costs include the investment, recurrent and replacement costs of the project, including incremental on-farm production costs. A standard conversion factor of 1 has been assumed for the economic analysis, since foreign currency is traded freely in the country and as such does not carry any premium. Price contingencies, taxes as well as Government direct subsidies have been removed from the analysis. 4.6.3 EIRR calculated over the period of 20 years, is 5.03%, as compared to 33% calculated at appraisal (ref. Annex 3). The EIRR could have been slightly higher had the farmers taken full advantage of seasonal and medium-term credit, which was planned to be made available to the beneficiaries in the project area. The low EIRR is also attributed to the overly long project implementation duration coupled with a multitude of changes in Government Policy and socio-economic conditions in the country. 5. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 5.1 Lack of Environmental and Social Management Plan 5.1.1 The appraisal report did not provide for the undertaking of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and/or an Environmental Management Plan to be conducted during project implementation. However, due to the delay experienced during

18implementation of the project activities, most of the activities were not carried out by 1998 which was supposed to be the planned completion year. Coincidently, during the same year, the Project Mid-term Reviews were conducted by both the Borrower and the Bank but did not take advantage to consult the Malawi’s National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP/1994), the Environmental Management Act (1996) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (1997) which were produced by the Malawi’s Environmental Affairs Department (EAD). The EAD, which is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Studies, could have categorised the project, due to its complex infrastructure development, under “the prescribed list of projects for which EIA study is mandatory”. According to the MTR report, there was no proposal for conducting an Environmental Audit, during the remaining period of project implementation, which could have identified the environmental problems and present early corrective actions. Unfortunately the Environmental Audit was not conducted and no Environmental and Social Management Plan was produced, resulting in the complete absence of managerial guidelines in mitigating the negative impacts of this project. 5.1.2 During the later years, the EAD decentralised its activities to the district level, including Mwanza and Neno District Assemblies. According to the minutes of the PCC meetings and quarterly progress reports, there was no mention of the District Environmental Officer’s participation in project activities to monitor project environmental performance. Despite six revisions of the List of Goods and Services, there has been no financial provision within the project resources for environmental management activities. This problem was compounded by lack of defined project’s Management Information System/Monitoring and Evaluation system which could have been used to develop proper monitoring indicators. Such system could also have been proposed during the borrower’s and Bank’s Mid-Term Reviews. 5.2 Social Impact 5.2.1 Despite the shortfall and lack of quantitative data, field observation revealed that positive social impacts resulting from project activities included: Crop Production and Income Generation: With the adoption of improved crop and livestock husbandry technique, production of both crop and livestock is likely to be improved. The increase in crop production usually enhances household food security and cash income through sales of cash crops and surplus food crops. Increased consumption of livestock products will particularly be important, given the low level of animal protein intake in the project area. 5.2.2 Infrastructure Development: The constructed and rehabilitated rural roads have greatly improved communication between rural areas and trading centres thus facilitating smooth transportation of agricultural inputs and produce. This has also connected the rural areas to social amenities like hospital/health clinics and schools. The construction and rehabilitation of the rural roads was undertaken through labour-intensive approach which created employment for the rural communities thus improving the household income. Potable Water Supply: The construction and rehabilitation of boreholes and shallow wells have been a source of potable water and therefore contributed towards reduction of waterborne and water-related diseases. Provision of Dip Tanks, Dog Wash and Slaughter Slabs: Though not quantified, the construction and rehabilitation of dip tanks and dog wash will have an impact on reduced incidences of tick-borne diseases in the project areas. The slaughter slabs will be instrumental in improving conditions in the slaughter process and consumers are assured of adequate meat supply. 5.3 Environmental Impacts 5.3.1 Some positive environmental impacts under the project include: Land Resources Conservation: by strengthening the land resource management, through contour ridges planted with vetiver grass, fruit trees, agro forestry technologies and intercropping, the project has

19contributed to the reduction of the land degradation and soil erosion rate, thus enhancing sustainable farming systems. Gazetted Forest Reserves: some forest areas (21,136 ha), which were unsuitable for settlement and agricultural development were gazetted under the project. Although the gazetted area was significantly smaller than originally planned at appraisal (82,400 ha), it triggered a solution process in contributing to the Government Policy on demarcation of areas unsuitable for settlement and agricultural development, thus facilitating natural resources protection and reduction in soil erosion. 5.3.2 On the other hand, the construction of RDP and EPA offices, staff houses, rural access roads, slaughter slabs and drilling of boreholes generated some negative environmental impacts which included land clearing, removal of vegetation, increased soil erosion, disturbance of flora and fauna, and contamination of groundwater through use of agro-chemicals and fertilizers in agricultural land. Unfortunately, no records are available which indicate how the negative impacts have been mitigated during project implementation. 5.4 Impact on Women 5.4.1 In order to improve implementation of Women’s Programmes, an additional Assistant Women’s Programme Officer, 1 senior Farm Home Economist and 1 Farm Home Assistant were recruited to directly undertake activities related to rural women. One Food and Nutrition Officer was also recruited to promote food and nutrition activities. However, due to cancellation of the credit component, which was supposed to assist women farmers to establish income generating activities, only 414 mixed groups were formed out of which only 2,265 female farmers against 3,753 male farmers accessed the cash-based credit. Although at appraisal, it was proposed that pure women groups should be formed to participate in income generating activities like citrus fruit processing, fish farming, bee keeping, fruit tree nurseries, vegetable production and small-stock rearing, according to the Borrower’s PCR, no pure women groups were formed and accessed credit. In terms of home economics activities, all the activities were derailed since the construction of the EPA office blocks, which house the demonstration kitchens, took a long time to be completed. During PCR mission, all demonstration kitchens, except for Neno EPA, were completed but not being utilized since the dover stoves were not installed due to their inavailability and have since been replaced by electric cookers, which according to the officers will be installed soon. 5.4.2 The female farmers and other female beneficiaries were jointly trained together with their male counterparts. This included residential and day training sessions, on-farm demonstration, local study tours and field days covering different aspects of agricultural activities. However, the actual number of women farmers trained was not provided, by the borrower due to inadequate data management. The project provided water points for domestic water supply, in terms of boreholes and protected shallow wells, fitted with hand-pumps or solar powered pumps, which have reduced the women’s drudgery of drawing water from long distances and unprotected sources. 6. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY 6.1 Technical Sustainability 6.1.1 Most of the civil engineering structures and rural infrastructures, which were achieved during implementation, are still in good condition except for the uncompleted works. The modern office blocks and staff houses have been handed over to MoAFS by the contractors, and the Government is still remitting annual financial allocations of about UA 130,000 to the BLADD’s budget (Part II/Government Contribution) to cater for completion of the outstanding construction activities and routine maintenance. The rural access roads and slaughter slabs were handed over to

20the respective District Assemblies (DA) which will be responsible for the routine maintenance using the District Development Fund whose allocation averages UA 12,000 per annum. Using the current labour-intensive road maintenance approach, it was indicated that the DA will promote formation and training of the road maintenance committees, within each Village Development Committee. Using the annual financial provision, the DA will facilitate replacement of the collapsed two timber-deck bridges, which were construction by the project, through the District Roads Office. For the slaughter slabs, in addition to the DA’s DDF budget, the funds generated through slaughter fees of UA 0.28 per cattle and UA 0.07 per shoat imposed on the butcher-men in addition to slaughter slab committee membership fee of UA 0.22 per month per butcher-man, which will partly be used for routine maintenance. 6.1.2 The provision of water points has necessitated access to potable water supply by beneficiaries leading to good human hygiene and health consequently the water point committees, with assistance from Department of Water, will maintain the AFRIDEV hand pumps and also enforce the household financial contributions, which during the PCR mission was UA 0.14 per household per month, for procurement of pump’s spare parts. Although no project specific data was available during the PCR mission, District records from the District Health Officer indicated that diarrhoea cases reduced from 9,517 in 1998 to 4,674 in 2004, cholera cases reduced from 180 in 1998 to 0 in 2004 whilst dysentery cases reduced from 6,149 in 1998 to 2,108 in 2004. Low cases and confined geographical spread of water related and communicable diseases is a manifestation of good access to potable water and sanitation facilities. Besides, the said diseases are normally covered during information and communication system, community based management (CBM) training sessions for the water point committees, and also at all health centres and clinics. In order to provide easy access to AFRIDEV pump spare parts, the Water Department, decentralised stocking of the parts by utilising reputable local hardware stores. In some water points, beneficiaries provided proper fencing and pump lock in addition to community policing in order to curb vandalism and theft of hand pumps. 6.1.3 Due to late completion of the civil works and infrastructures including the demonstration kitchens, the Nutrition Officer and Farm Home Assistants did not start utilising the facilities to teach rural women on home economics and nutritional issues during the project implementation period. However, during the PCR mission, approximately 3 years after project completion, though demonstration kitchens were completed except for Neno EPA, no activities were carried out but the Government officials insisted that the kitchens will be utilised to benefit rural women within the respective EPA and sub-EPA. With respect to this, no project data on the nutritional status of the beneficiaries was available. Office equipment and vehicles, procured under the project, will be operated, maintained and replaced, when necessary, under the BLADD management and direction component’s annual operation and maintenance funds which, according to the Programme Manager, averages about UA 23,000 per annum. 6.2 Economic Sustainability Cost recovery is very essential for project sustainability. The local communities have organized themselves into user associations, which elect their executive committees to run and maintain the newly constructed and rehabilitated infrastructures through charging a user fee from all beneficiaries. The project has laid down the necessary infrastructure that is likely to motivate farmers to produce more agricultural crops and be able to sell their surplus to the local market for cash. The sustainability of such infrastructure mainly depends on the beneficiaries, their appreciation of the benefits and their feeling of ownership and responsibility to take care of these infrastructures. Furthermore, the end users are quite willing to pay a user fee as long as the services are improved to the required standard and their availability guaranteed.

216.3 Institutional Sustainability 6.3.1 The Government administrative system at the District level has been decentralized to facilitate for easy management and communication between various sectors of the economy. The Local Government is also divested at the level of the communities. The overall management of the project was all along under the jurisdiction of the Blantyre ADD and RDP/DADO and at the technical level by the EPA. This set up will be maintained in future to enable the advancement of what was attained under the project. 6.3.2 During project implementation, various training packages were imparted to district staff at both the lower and higher levels. The Government through the ADD will continue undertaking training packages within the extension education framework to up-grade and up-date staff of new technological packages. Most importantly, the District Assemblies have integrated project activities into their budgets and calendar of activities to ensure sustenance and dissemination of project benefits to other communities outside the project area. 7. PERFORMANCE OF THE BANK AND THE BORROWER 7.1 Performance of the Bank 7.1.1 Project Design at Entry: The design of the project was not facilitative for an integrated approach to project implementation. The project had too many components and sub-components, which were rather disjointed. This was further aggravated by the project Matrix, which was deficient in data and verifiable indicators. No proper analysis was undertaken to gauge the anticipated outputs to capacities at various levels of implementation. Due to poor professional skills mix at project appraisal, important aspects pertaining to environment, gender and socio-economic indicators were not taken into consideration. Thus, the project was confronted by a multitude of intractable constraints during implementation and a multiplier data gap during monitoring, supervision and preparation of both the Government and Bank PCR. 7.1.2 Conditions Precedent to Entry into Force: One of the Bank conditions prior to entry into force was not practical which required the borrower to designate and gazette as forestry reserve the land in Mwanza District. This condition delayed the declaration of the project effectiveness as it required an Act of Parliament which was a long process. In order to expedite the loan becoming effective and thus, facilitating the disbursement of loan funds, the Bank waived the above condition in January 1993 and the loan was declared effective on 11th March 1993, with 12.5 months or 208% slippage on effectiveness from the loan approval date. 7.1.3 Delay in Settlement of Contractors’ Claims: The suspension of disbursement of funds and other delays in settlement of contractors’ claims affected the implementation of civil works which resulted in some contractors terminating their contracts. In 1999, the Bank declared sanctions against the country, which resulted in suspension of loan disbursement to the project for almost 8 months. This meant that most of the project activities, notably the civil works, came to a stand-still as contractors stopped working owing to non-settlement of their payment claims. These delays in settling contractors’ claims have resulted in unnecessary claims for loss of profit and currency depreciation. The borrower also experienced long delays by the Bank in responding to their requests for withdraw applications. 7.1.4 Bank Missions : The project identification and preparation was done by FAO/IC and the Bank carried out the appraisal. The Bank appraisal mission was composed of only two experts, namely, an agronomist and a civil engineer. The appraisal team did not include proper skills mix for such a complicated rural development project which included so many sub-components in

22various economic sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, road construction and water supply. Since there were civil works to be carried out, an environmentalist should have been included on the team. In terms of supervision, the Bank did not provide enough support to the project during the initial years of the project. The project activities commenced in March 1993, and the first Bank supervision was in 1997. Poor Bank supervision impacted negatively to the project implementation as the early BLADD project officers had no experience in the project implementation, and Bank’s rules of procedure for procurement of goods and services and also disbursement. Most of these supervision missions did not include proper skills mix to handle most of the technical issues that were affecting the project implementation. A total of 14 missions (including 1 appraisal, 1 Mid-Term Review) were undertaken over the implementation period and 1 PCR mission resulting into an average of 1.1 supervision missions per annum which is less than the Bank Group recommendation of 1.5 supervisions per year. This situation was exacerbated by the frequent changes of Bank’s Task Managers. In view of the above, the Bank’s performance is rated unsatisfactory (Annex 4). 7.2 Performance of the Borrower 7.2.1 Acceptance of Untenable Loan Conditions: The Government being an equal partner in the Loan Agreement should have made a thorough analysis on Loan Conditions Precedent to Entry into Force for their practicality and implication prior to signing of the Loan Agreement. The Government, cognizant of the long Parliamentary procedure for the fulfilment of the Loan Condition on gazetting the forestry reserve land in Mwanza, should not have accepted the Loan Condition wholesomely or should have negotiated for an amendment of the Condition prior to signing the Loan Agreement. This would have saved the project from unnecessary delays, which ensued in the course of its implementation. 7.2.2 High Staff Turnover: High staff turn-over as a result of retirements and transfers impacted negatively on the project implementation as it caused a lot of unnecessary delays. For example, during the project life, six officers have held the post of Programme Manager for the BLADD, and two officers for the post of Project Officer which affected the operational performance of the project management, as they attributed to lack of continuity and poor data management. 7.2.3 Poor Contract Management: Despite having an ADF-projects Procurement Officer, at the MoAFS headquarters, most of the contracts were poorly managed. Besides, the Consultant, Fitzwilliam, who was supposed to advise the Government on procurement and contractual issues, was not adequately adept to facilitate smooth management of the contracts for civil works. 7.2.4 Loan Utilisation, Counterpart Funding and Payments of Contractors: The borrower was able to utilize about UA 5.48 million (68.4%) of the total loan (UA 8.01 million) when the project came to a close on 31st June 2004. However, GOM’s actual contribution stood at UA 1.43 million (17.9%) of total actual project cost as opposed to the appraisal estimate of UA 2.00 million. The GOM’s contribution covered staff salaries, allowances, office rentals, utilities and other overhead costs. All the contractors have been dully paid and there is no outstanding claim. 7.2.5 Although the borrower managed to achieve some of the planned project activities, contributed the counterpart funding, and submitted the progress reports, annual audit reports and the PCR. The borrower failed adhere to time and cost schedules, took a long time to comply to all the convenants, consequently the performance is judged unsatisfactory (Annex 4). 8. OVERALL PERFORMANCE AND RATING 8.1 The overall performance and rating for project is unsatisfactory. The overall assessment of various project indicators and parameters is 1.84 as indicated in the Project Outcome Ratings

23Table in Annex 4. The rating is indicative of the relatively poor performance of the project in terms of attaining most benchmarks and indicators as envisaged appraisal. According to the rating carried out by the Mission, the highest score accrued to technical viability in recognition of the Government’s efforts to revamp the country’s agricultural extension system coupled with the redeployment of extension staff to the grassroots. The overall rating for sustainability of project activities is slightly higher than the other parameters, due to the availability of various Government policies as well as relative financial discipline, including a reasonable rate of disbursement attained. Notable is the fact that the Government has decentralized its administrative system and divested most of its functions to the lower levels. 8.2 Although it is difficult to attribute some of the benefits to this single project, in the absence of any systematic data, it has, in conjunction with other players in the area, contributed to poverty alleviation, social benefits, private sector development and environmental sustainability. 8.3 Generally, despite the setbacks that affected the project in the course of its implementation, it managed to achieve most of its objectives and anticipated outputs. The outputs are fundamental contributions towards the Government’s long-term goal for sustainable rural development. 9. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Conclusions 9.1.1 The project implementation performance was barely satisfactory and although it managed to achieve some of its objectives, the outcome was below anticipated levels. The project was subjected to numerous modifications and extensions that impacted negatively on the general performance of the project. Notable, however, is the fact that despite the delay, almost all planned physical targets were achieved. The following outputs were attained: (i) use of farm inputs has increased significantly owing to improved feeder roads network and the construction of ADMARC markets. Although the project did not successfully administer seasonal and medium term loans due to low recovery rates, use of farm inputs increased to some degree as the project used some of the funds under this component to implement a credit in kind scheme called the “pass on programme”; (ii) Research, extension and training services have been strengthened, although the anticipated ratio of extension worker to farmer was not achieved. Farmers and staff have undergone several training programmes which have assisted in building the capacity within the project area. Furthermore the project has improved staff incentives by providing them with transport facilities and appropriate accommodation; (iii) veterinary services have been improved and poultry production practices have been introduced in the area; (iv) integrated community-initiated land husbandry and soil conservation measures and low cost technologies have been identified and introduced; and (v) support and supervision services at EPAs, RDP and BLADD have been strengthened; and rural water supplies and roads have been improved. These outputs are likely to lead to the environmentally sound and sustainable increase in production and sales of food and cash crops; increased production and sales of livestock products; and improved health of the population in the project area by reduction in water borne and water-related diseases. All the outputs will, in future, contribute to the achievement of the project long-term goal, namely, sustained per capita income increase and poverty reduction. 9.1.2 The project time overrun is attributed to: (i) delay by the Borrower in fulfilling the loan conditions; (ii) high project staff turn-over; (iii) the Bank’s sanctions against the country which resulted in suspension of loan disbursement to the project for almost 8 months; (iv) at the start of the project, most of the ADD and RDP staff did not receive training in the rules of procedure for procurement of goods and services; (v) lack of Bank technical supervisions in the early years of the project; (vi) delays by the Bank in responding to the borrower’s request for withdrawal

24applications, and also settlement of contractors’ payment certificates/claims; and (vii) lack of timely response to critical issues by the Bank. Despite the time overrun, approximately UA 5.48 million (68.4%) of the ADF loan amount was disbursed and utilised, leaving a loan balance of about UA 2.53 million (31.6%). Although most of the infrastructural development activities and other civil works have been successfully completed, there are still outstanding activities required to be completed in order to fully maximise the benefits and sustain the initiatives undertaken during project implementation. 9.2 Lessons Learned 9.2.1 Quality of Design at Entry: It is technically more appropriate for rural development projects to be focused on few tangible and integrated components that can have an exponential effect on each other and a multiplier effect on the outputs to the beneficiaries. Besides, the project matrix is a very important attribute to attaining the objectives of any project. Therefore there is need to ensure that project matrices are articulate in terms of data and substance. The capacities, in terms of human and financial resources; the institutional set-up, etc are also fundamental in project implementation. These need to be analyzed properly during the preparation phases of the project. 9.2.2 Tender and Contract Documents: Tender and contract documents should be discussed between the borrower/employer and the contractor/consultant during the procurement process to avoid misunderstanding during contract management. 9.2.3 Environmental Issues: Project designs should be in-line with the Bank’s Environmental and Social Assessment Procedure (ESAP) and Borrower’s environmental laws and regulations in order to properly preserve the environment. 9.2.4 Loan Conditions: Issues requiring Parliamentary approval should not be included under Conditions Precedent to Entry into Force of the Loan Agreement. 9.2.5 Bank Missions: Adequate skills-mix, including an Environmental expert and a Sociologist, is necessary for all Bank missions. There should be timely supervision of projects and regular follow-up on recommendations. Bank PCR mission should be fielded at the right time, soon after project completion. 9.2.6 High Staff Turnover: High staff turnover is not amenable to project implementation. 9.2.7 Delays in Settling Payment Claims: Untimely settlement of payments claims due lengthy bureaucratic procedures cause unnecessary delays in project implementation. 9.2.8 Approach to Credit Facility: Smallholder agricultural credits can not absorb credit facilities whose interest rates are market-determined, para. 4.2.7. 9.2.9 Project Duration: The five-year implementation period for an integrated rural infrastructure development project, within a wide coverage, is too short. Protracted project implementation negatively affects the extension services, crop production, nutrition and health activities, and also delays the project benefits. 9.2.10 Economic Performance: For the projects which did not carryout baseline surveys and did not establish MIS/M&E systems, the recalculation of the EIRR, at PCR, is problematic because assumptions made at appraisal normally do not hold up to the end especially for projects whose implementation periods get extended several times. Performance Indicators: Socio-economic and

25environmental baseline should be prepared at project inception so as to guide the project implementation in line with the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals. 9.3 Recommendations To the Bank 1. Quality of Design at Entry: for future projects, the Bank, at the project design stage, should

focus on few key components that are integrated and attainable in the given timeframe. To facilitate the implementation and eventual follow-up of the project, the Project Matrix should be adequately analytical with comprehensive data that can be verified at all stages of project implementation. Besides, set targets and project outputs should be gauged to the capacity at various levels from the Government to beneficiary levels, including technical, financial, institutional and human resources. .

2. Conditions Prior to Entry into Force: should always be kept to minimum and should be as

practical and achievable as possible to enable the borrower fulfil them in a reasonable time period so as to avoid unnecessary delays in declaring the loan effective. In case the set conditions prove intractable, concerted action should be taken in good time to repeal or adjust them in order to facilitate the initiation of project implementation.

3. Timely Supervision and Review of Projects: The Bank should ensure that the cycle of

project supervision and mid-term review is maintained strictly, so as to enable timely decision making pertaining to the project.

4. Environmental Issues: The Bank should reinforce inclusion of environmental issues and

provide adequate financial provision, in all projects, in line with the Bank’s ESAP and borrower’s environmental laws, regulations, and guidelines.

5. Mission skills-mix: project preparation, appraisal, supervision, mid-term review and PCR

missions should have all the proper skills-mix required for the given tasks. For all future projects, classified under the ESAP categories 1 and 2, the Bank shall ensure that an Environmentalist and a Sociologist are part of the above mentioned missions. In addition, appraisal, mid-term and PCR missions should include an economist with strong background in monitoring and evaluation. In case of limited resources, the Bank should strive to utilise local consultants.

6. Decentralization of Bank Operations: Since the Bank now has a Country Office in

Malawi, it is recommended that most of the project technical processes be undertaken more at the Country Office level.

7. Project Duration: The Bank should consider extending the duration of implementation for

agricultural project that have a large infrastructure component to between 7 to 9 years to facilitate for smooth initiation process.

8. Economic Performance: To facilitate the recalculation of the EIRR at PCR, the project

design should include the baseline survey, MIS/M&E system at appraisal. For consistent follow-up the EIRR assumptions made at appraisal should be reviewed at mid-term review.

26To the Borrower 1. In future, Loan conditions should be carefully analyzed for amenability and practicality

prior to signing of the Loan Agreement. Once signed, the Borrower should adhere to the agreed Loan Conditions without fail in order to avoid delays in project implementation.

2. During the tendering process, a 1-day meeting should be held between the

borrower/employer and the contractors/consultants, to thoroughly discuss the tender and contact documents’ clauses in order to avoid misinterpretation during contract management which leads cancellation of contracts (para 3.5.2 and 4.4.3).

3. In future, the Borrower should ensure fulfilment of the counterpart fund obligation and

commitment as agreed in the Loan Agreement so as to facilitate project activities as mandated and stipulated in both the Appraisal Report and Loan Agreement.

To the Bank and the Borrower 1. During project design, credit component should be properly analysed within the prevailing

conditions, to ensure that there is a built-in mechanism that would enable the smallholder farmers to utilise agricultural credit at affordable interest rates.

2. The Government should strive to produce the Borrower’s PCR, within 3 months, after

completion of project activities and the Bank should field the PCR mission within 6 months after project completion. Before the PCR mission goes to the field, it should be briefed by the previous Project Task Managers. The PCR should be very analytical and quantitative with respect to data generated during project implementation.

3. The project’s socio-economic and environmental indicators should be prepared at project

inception so as to guide the project implementation in line with the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Consequently, the performance of the projects should be judged against the achievement level of the MDGs.

4. The Bank and the Borrower should settle the payment claims as per requirements in the

Contract document, so as to avoid unnecessary claims for “loss of profit”. 5. The Bank and the Borrower should strive, as much as possible, to adhere to the planned

project implementation schedule in order to maximise the benefits from the project. 6. The Government should strive to maintain the project staff who are attached to the project

in their positions. The Bank also should, as much as possible, maintain the project Task Managers in order to preserve the institutional memory.

7. All key stakeholders, including grass-root beneficiaries should be fully consulted during

project identification, preparation and appraisal of future projects. From experience, agricultural projects are more beneficial when they have an infrastructural component. Future agricultural project should include a component of rural infrastructure, especially construction/rehabilitation of rural roads.

8. Management Information System (MIS) including Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

should be included in future project designs so as to facilitate data collection and follow-up on the project implementation schedule. The system should most preferably be established during the first year of project implementation.

Annex 2

Page 1 of 4 Malawi: Mwanza Rural Development Project

Detailed Loan Disbursement (Summary Loan Ledger)

Country : MALAWI Loan Currency : UAC Net Loan Amount : 5,485,074.29 Borrower Number : 9900000271 Approval Date : 27.08.1991 Amount Approved : 8,013,152.00 Borrower Name : MALAWI GOVERNMENT Signature Date : 13.05.1992 Amount Signed : 8,013,152.00 Project Title : MWANZA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Effectiveness Date : 11.03.1993 Amount Cancelled : 2,528,077.71 Loan Number : 2100150000687 Closing Date : 30.09.2005 Undisbursed Balance : 0.00

Value Date Application

Number Beneficiary LDV Number Equivalent Disbursed

in UAC Cumulative

Disb. in UAC Undisbursed

Balance in UAC 01.01.1993 Opening Balance 0.00 8,013,152.00 07.12.1993 Details in the old system 140,140.62 140,140.62 7,873,011.38 14.12.1993 Details in the old system 11,352.02 151,492.64 7,861,659.36 24.12.1993 Details in the old system 1,469.68 152,962.32 7,860,189.68 18.02.1994 Details in the old system 2,051.63 155,013.95 7,858,138.05 22.03.1994 Details in the old system 3,060.82 158,074.77 7,855,077.23 27.05.1994 Details in the old system 6,141.88 164,216.65 7,848,935.35 29.06.1994 Details in the old system 160,339.29 324,555.94 7,688,596.06 26.08.1994 Details in the old system 11,549.61 336,105.55 7,677,046.45 06.10.1994 Details in the old system 2,303.77 338,409.32 7,674,742.68 04.11.1994 Details in the old system 7,821.20 346,230.52 7,666,921.48 14.11.1994 Details in the old system 11,393.07 357,623.59 7,655,528.41 29.11.1994 Details in the old system 3,067.26 360,690.85 7,652,461.15 13.06.1995 RP NO 18 Ministry of Finance F/MWI/1995/0605 273.77 360,964.62 7,652,187.38 21.06.1995 RP NO 19/20 Ministry of Finance F/MWI/1995/1271 34,577.44 395,542.06 7,617,609.94 21.03.1996 DP NO 24 Stansfield Motors Limited F/MWI/1996/0804 37,209.43 432,751.49 7,580,400.51 31.05.1996 RP NO 21 & 27 Malawi/Government – ADF & Stansfield Motors Ltd F/MWI/1996/1386 429,721.04 862,472.53 7,150,679.47 07.06.1996 RP NO 23 & 26 Government of Malawi F/MWI/1996/1389 11,645.27 874,117.80 7,139,034.20 28.06.1996 RP NO 29 Government of Malawi F/MWI/1996/1937 7,539.80 881,657.60 7,131,494.40 18.07.1996 DP NO 28 Toyota (Malawi) Limited F/MWI/1996/2089 112,064.31 993,721.91 7,019,430.09 29.07.1996 DP NO 30 Stansfield Motors Limited F/MWI/1996/2185 26,880.53 1,020,602.44 6,992,549.56 30.08.1996 DP NO 31 Stansfield Motors Limited F/MWI/1996/2318 55,710.06 1,076,312.50 6,936,839.50

Annex 2 Page 2 of 4



in UAC Cumulative


Balance in UAC 19.10.1998 DP NO 11 & 12 Lusitania Ltd & Kadwala Building and Electrical Co F/MWI/1998/2490/91 148,469.18 1,224,781.68 6,788,370.32 19.11.1998 DPNO 18/RF 001 Lusitania Ltd & Ministry of Finance F/MWI/1998/2764/76 251,097.84 1,475,879.52 6,537,272.48 25.11.1998 DP NO 16 Christian Service Committee F/MWI/1998/2860 39,482.90 1,515,362.42 6,497,789.58 01.12.1998 DP NO 21 Lusitania Ltd F/MWI/1998/2878 80,879.06 1,596,241.48 6,416,910.52 03.03.1999 DP NO 30 Lusitania Ltd F/MWI/1999/0441 50,673.55 1,646,915.03 6,366,236.97 01.06.1999 RF NO 39 Ministry of Finance F/MWI/1999/1239 143,002.24 1,789,917.27 6,223,234.73 07.07.1999 DP NO 49 Lusitania Ltd F/MWI/1999/1623 26,216.82 1,816,134.09 6,197,017.91 30.08.1999 DP NO 40/56/55 Lusitania Ltd /Christian Service Committee F/MWI/1999/1960 108,657.07 1,924,791.16 6,088,360.84 05.11.1999 DP NO 60/61/62 Lusitania Ltd /Lemu Building Contractors F/MWI/1999/2528 108,284.42 2,033,075.58 5,980,076.42 01.12.1999 DP NO 64 Lusitania Ltd F/MWI/1999/2711 42,369.07 2,075,444.65 5,937,707.35 23.12.1999 RF NO 59 Ministry of Finance F/MWI/1999/2989 137,254.57 2,212,699.22 5,800,452.78 11.02.2000 RP NO 53 Malawi Rural Finance Company F/MWI/2000/0279 30,862.40 2,243,561.62 5,769,590.38 10.05.2000 DP NO 71 Lusitania Limited F/MWI/2000/0827 52,880.03 2,296,441.65 5,716,710.35 19.06.2000 DP NO 40-64 Lusitania Limited F/MWI/2000/0886 NA NA NA 19.06.2000 DP NO 40-64 Lusitania Limited F/MWI/2000/0886 NA NA NA 19.06.2000 DP NO 40-64 Lusitania Limited F/MWI/2000/0886 NA NA NA 19.06.2000 DP NO 40-64 Lusitania Limited F/MWI/2000/0886 NA NA NA 19.06.2000 DP NO 40-64 Lusitania Limited F/MWI/2000/0886 39,311.83 2,335,753.48 5,677,398.52 27.06.2000 RF NO 72 Malawi Government F/MWI/2000/1112 108,992.41 2,444,745.89 5,568,406.11 29.09.2000 RF NO 85 Malawi Government F/MWI/2000/1657 171,813.35 2,616,559.24 5,396,592.76 28.06.2001 DP NO 97 Dummy Business Partner F/MWI/2001/1126 9,252.17 2,625,811.41 5,387,340.59 01.08.2001 DP NO 99 Dummy Business Partner F/MWI/2001/1291 14,874.87 2,640,686.28 5,373,465.72 16.08.2001 DP NO 96 Inter Agency Procurement Services Office F/MWI/2001/1404 127,223.70 2,767,909.98 5,245,242.02 06.09.2001 DP NO 98 Dummy Business Partner F/MWI/2001/1572 1,715.44 2,769,625.42 5,243,526.58 10.09.2001 DP NO 101 Dummy Business Partner F/MWI/2001/1585 14,785.87 2,784,411.29 5,228,740.71 10.09.2001 DP NO 100 Dummy Business Partner F/MWI/2001/1586 NA NA NA 05.10.2001 DP NO 100 Dummy Business Partner F/MWI/2001/1586 44,739.77 2,829,151.06 5,184,000.94 18.10.2001 DP NO 102 Christian Service Committee 1/MW/2001/02089 27,345.54 2,856,496.60 5,156,655.40 31.10.2001 RF NO 91 Ministry of Finance 1/MW/2001/02123 104,455.59 2,960,952.19 5,052,199.81 08.11.2001 DP NO 106 The University of Malawi 1/MW/2001/02668 2,066.23 2,963,018.42 5,050,133.58 07.12.2001 DP NO 111 University of East Anglia 1/MW/2001/03205 14,932.06 2,977,950.48 5,035,201.52 22.03.2002 RF NO 95 Ministry of Finance 1/MW/2002/04834 80,940.53 3,058,891.01 4,954,260.99

Annex 2 Page 3 of 4



in UAC Cumulative


Balance in UAC 26.03.2002 DP NO 115 Principal, Malawi College of Accountancy 1/MW/2002/04903 907.68 3,059,798.69 4,953,353.31 05.04.2002 DP NO 102 Christian Service Committee 1/MW/2002/05043 37,142.78 3,096,941.47 4,916,210.53 09.05.2002 DP NO 121 Christian Service Committee 1/MW/2002/05594 23,948.44 3,120,889.91 4,892,262.09 02.07.2002 DP NO 112 Inter Agency Procurement Services Office 1/MW/2002/06259 44,425.24 3,165,315.15 4,847,836.85 17.07.2002 RF NO 126 Ministry of Finance 1/MW/2002/06623 257,274.99 3,422,590.14 4,590,561.86 17.07.2002 DP NO 124 Principal Ministry of Agriculture 1/MW/2002/06522 4,142.44 3,426,732.58 4,586,419.42 25.07.2002 DP NO 125 Foundation for International Development 1/MW/2002/06773 2,464.65 3,429,197.23 4,583,954.77 25.07.2002 DP NO 128 University of Malawi: Bunda College of Agriculture 1/MW/2002/06774 3,135.93 3,432,333.16 4,580,818.84 09.08.2002 DP NO 132 Principal Ministry of Agriculture 1/MW/2002/06916 31,948.64 3,464,281.80 4,548,870.20 15.08.2002 DP NO 134 Christian Service Committee 1/MW/2002/06963 22,381.41 3,486,663.21 4,526,488.79 15.08.2002 DP NO 135 Kadwala Building and Electrical Contractors 1/MW/2002/06964 23,178.98 3,509,842.19 4,503,309.81 27.08.2002 DP NO 139 Khama la Chemwali Construction Company 1/MW/2002/07106 22,393.09 3,532,235.28 4,480,916.72 11.09.2002 DP NO 139 Khama la Chemwali Construction Company 1/MW/2002/07357 14,131.43 3,546,366.71 4,466,785.29 21.10.2002 DP NO 137 Technical Computer Training Ltd 1/MW/2002/07840 803.62 3,547,170.33 4,465,981.67 31.10.2002 DP NO 138 University of Ghana, Academic Affairs 1/MW/2002/07966 24,386.62 3,571,556.95 4,441,595.05 19.11.2002 DP NO 142 Natural Resources College 1/MW/2002/08246 5,079.52 3,576,636.47 4,436,515.53 10.12.2002 DP NO 144 Eastern and Southern African Management Institute 1/MW/2002/08553 1,242.90 3,577,879.37 4,435,272.63 10.12.2002 DP NO 148 Development Training International 1/MW/2002/08554 2,493.39 3,580,372.76 4,432,779.24 12.12.2002 DP NO 150 Eastern and Southern African Management Institute 1/MW/2002/08549 2,426.00 3,582,798.76 4,430,353.24 12.12.2002 DP NO 152 Development Training International 1/MW/2002/08550 2,433.40 3,585,232.16 4,427,919.84 13.01.2003 DP NO 143 Chitsime Drilling Company Limited 1/MW/2002/08862 45,046.53 3,630,278.69 4,382,873.31 22.01.2003 DP NO 156 Development Training International 1/MW/2003/09187 6,162.74 3,636,441.43 4,376,710.57 22.01.2003 DP NO 157 Development Training International 1/MW/2003/09188 3,081.37 3,639,522.80 4,373,629.20 21.02.2003 DP NO 158 Staff Development Institute 1/MW/2003/09549 1,177.99 3,640,700.79 4,373,451.21 28.02.2003 RF NO 155 Ministry of Finance 1/MW/2003/09645 157,723.37 3,798,424.16 4,214,727.84 11.03.2003 DP NO 154 Christian Service Committee 1/MW/2003/09722 10,253.52 3,808,677.68 4,204,474.32 11.03.2003 DP NO 153 Kadwala Building and Electrical Contractors 1/MW/2003/09724 15,892.50 3,824,570.18 4,188,581.82 02.06.2003 DP NO 169 Development Training International 1/MW/2003/10611 2,342.04 3,826,912.22 4,186,239.78 02.06.2003 DP NO 167 Development Training International 1/MW/2003/10610 2,342.04 3,829,254.26 4,183,897.74 06.06.2003 DP NO 161 Foundation for International Development 1/MW/2003/10711 2,120.61 3,831,374.87 4,181,777.13 06.06.2003 DP NO 160 University of Ghana, Academic Affairs 1/MW/2003/10712 8,659.14 3,840,034.01 4,173,117.99 19.06.2003 RF NO 173 Ministry of Finance 1/MW/2003/10831 120,597.71 3,960,631.72 4,052,520.28

Annex 2 Page 4 of 4



in UAC Cumulative


Balance in UAC 09.07.2003 DP NO 163 Development Training International 1/MW/2003/11148 3,200.41 3,963,832.13 4,049,319.87 22.07.2003 DP NO 179 International Development Centre 1/MW/2003/11315 6,464.82 3,970,296.95 4,042,855.05 22.07.2003 DP NO 176 Development Training International 1/MW/2003/11316 40,242.33 4,010,539.28 4,002,612.72 11.08.2003 DP NO 178 University of Ghana, Academic Affairs 1/MW/2003/11545 8,597.34 4,019,135.62 3,994,015.38 12.09.2003 DP NO 177 Christian Service Committee 1/MW/2003/11931 12,954.84 4,032,091.46 3,981,060.54 25.09.2003 DP NO 184 Littleways Building Contractors 1/MW/2003/12004 37,183.69 4,069,275.15 3,943,876.85 25.09.2003 DP NO 185 Clova Construction Company 1/MW/2003/12005 47,360.14 4,116,635.29 3,896,516.71 06.10.2003 RF NO 182 Ministry of Finance 1/MW/2003/12183 772,958.63 4,889,593.92 3,123,558.08 14.10.2003 DP NO 172 Sokoine University of Agriculture 1/MW/2003/12273 28,090.81 4,917,684.73 3,095,467.27 28.11.2003 DP NO 189 Fargo Limited 1/MW/2003/12752 29,212.14 4,946,896.87 3,066,255.13 26.01.2004 DP NO 191 Fargo Limited 1/MW/2004/13430 36,186.79 4,983,083.66 3,030,068.34 24.03.2004 DP NO 196 Mapanga Furniture Limited 1/MW/2004/14193 81,240.97 5,064,324.63 2,948,827.37 24.03.2004 DP NO 195 ICL (Malawi) Limited 1/MW/2004/14194 28,161.07 5,092,485.70 2,920,666.30 04.05.2004 DP NO 197 Olivetti Limited 1/MW/2004/14639 83,494.35 5,175,980.05 2,837,171.95 04.05.2004 DP NO 200 Fargo Limited 1/MW/2004/14638 34,324.95 5,210,305.00 2,802,847.00 06.05.2004 DP NO 199 Xerographics 1/MW/2004/14668 106,689.89 5,316,994.89 2,696,157.11 24.05.2004 DP NO 203 Littleways Building Contractors 1/MW/2004/14837 19,530.72 5,336,525.61 2,676,626.39 24.05.2004 DP NO 201 Likonde Building & Engineering Company 1/MW/2004/14864 16,200.70 5,352,726.31 2,660,425.69 24.05.2004 DP NO 202 Fargo Limited 1/MW/2004/14915 18,131.93 5,370,858.24 2,642,293.76 20.07.2004 DP NO 207 Fargo Limited 1/MW/2004/15570 3,721.54 5,374,579.78 2,638,572.22 20.07.2004 DP NO 209 Clova Construction Company 1/MW/2004/15581 22,551.80 5,397,131.58 2,616,020.42 20.07.2004 DP NO 205 Littleways Building Contractors 1/MW/2004/15567 19,442.00 5,416,573.58 2,596,578.42 04.08.2004 RF NO 198 Ministry of Finance 1/MW/2004/15778 31,230.42 5,447,804.00 2,565,348.00 23.06.2005 DP NO 213 Clova Construction Company 1/MW/2005/19919 19,425.41 5,467,229.41 2,545,922.59 30.06.2005 RP NO 212 Ministry of Finance 1/MW/2005/19949 17,844.88 5,485,074.29 2,528,077.71 09.01.2007 CAPITAL DECREASE (2,528,077.71) 5,485,074.29 0.00

Annex 3


Re-calculation of Economic Internal Rate of Return (Project Completion)

Cost with Project (MK) Benefits with Project (MK) Year

Investment O&M Production Costs

Incremental Total Cost

Price in MK/mt

Incremental Production

Incremental Total Value

Net Incremental

Income (MK)

PY1 - - 530,000 530,000 630 50 31,500 (498,500) PY2 970,642 1,020,538 1,060,100 3,051,280 990 483 478,170 (2,573,110) PY3 1,685,319 1,342,313 1,591,400 4,619,032 1,520 776 1,179,520 (3,439,512) PY4 1,618,295 2,144,955 2,125,700 5,888,950 2,620 134 351,080 (5,357,870) PY5 14,022,100 3,046,595 2,655,800 19,724,495 3,230 (1,221) (3,943,830) (23,668,325) PY6 - 4,256,844 2,655,800 6,912,644 7,030 1,791 12,590,730 5,678,086 PY7 34,079,721 4,161,553 2,655,800 40,897,074 8,200 1,101 9,028,200 (31,868,874) PY8 40,832,373 8,142,017 2,655,800 51,630,190 6,660 4,795 31,934,700 (19,695,490) PY9 35,467,559 12,959,727 2,655,800 51,083,086 11,290 4,295 48,490,550 (2,592,536)

PY10 39,832,027 11,188,221 2,655,800 53,676,048 21,450 4,640 99,528,000 45,851,952 PY11 93,103,833 11,633,862 2,655,800 107,393,495 12,540 (7,498) (94,024,920) (201,418,415) PY12 200,221,910 23,127,887 2,655,800 226,005,597 15,730 3,217 50,603,410 (175,402,187) PY13 66,914,597 19,831,705 2,655,800 89,402,102 21,870 3,217 70,355,790 (19,046,312) PY14 22,487,419 2,655,800 25,143,219 27,780 3,217 89,368,260 64,225,041 PY15 20,564,535 2,655,800 23,220,335 27,780 3,217 89,368,260 66,147,925 PY16 20,564,535 2,655,800 23,220,335 27,780 3,217 89,368,260 66,147,925 PY17 20,564,535 2,655,800 23,220,335 27,780 3,217 89,368,260 66,147,925 PY18 20,564,535 2,655,800 23,220,335 27,780 3,217 89,368,260 66,147,925 PY19 20,564,535 2,655,800 23,220,335 27,780 3,217 89,368,260 66,147,925 PY20 20,564,535 2,655,800 23,220,335 27,780 3,217 89,368,260 66,147,925

Estimated EIRR 5.03%

Annex 4

Malawi: Mwanza Rural Development Project Performance Evaluation and Rating

Overall Assessment: Key of Rating12

Category HS Highly Satisfactory, when overall average score is in excess of 3 (3<R<4). Ratings between 1 or 2 for component indicators should be stated.

Category S Satisfactory, when overall average score is in excess of 2, but does not exceed 3 (2<R<3). Ratings between 1 or 2 for component indicators should be stated.

Category US Unsatisfactory, when overall average score is in excess of 1, but does not exceed 2 (1<R<2). Category HUS Highly unsatisfactory, when overall average does not exceed 1 and includes the rest.

A. Implementation Performance Rating

FORM IP 1

Component Indicators Score (1 to 4)

Remarks

1. Adherence to Time Schedule 1 Delay of almost 12.5 months from approval to loan effectiveness and 12 years of implementation compared to the planned 5 years.

2. Adherence to Cost Schedule 2 The Bank disbursed 68.5% and the GoM contributed only 17.9% over the whole implementation period.

3. Compliance with Covenants 2 One of the conditions precedent to loan effectiveness delayed project implementation for over a year

4. Adequacy of Monitoring & Evaluation and Reporting

2 41 quarterly progress reports, 10 monthly reports and 10 Annual Audit Reports. No M&E system was in place.

5. Satisfactory Operations (if applicable)

3 Major civil works construction/rehabilitation completed (except for Neno EPA offices and houses).

TOTAL 10 Overall Assessment of

Implementation Performance 2.0 Unsatisfactory

B. Bank Performance Rating FORM BP 1

Component indicators Score

(1 to 4) Remarks

1. At identification 3 Identification was done by FAO Investment Centre and the report was used for preparation of the project.

2. At Preparation 3 GoM in 1990 revised FAO/IC preparation report before it was sent to Bank Group for review.

3. At Appraisal 2 Project quality at entry was not satisfactory. One of the conditions prior to entry into force was not practical and hard to achieve in a reasonable time period. Although project Logframe (matrix) was included, some targets were too optimistic as there were no baseline surveys carried out.

4. At Supervision 1 Very low frequency. Supervision missions also had inadequate skills mix.

Overall Assessment of Bank Performance 2.25 Satisfactory

12 Source: African Development Bank Group: Operations Manual, Chapter 9 – Project Completion Report. June 1999

2

C. Project Outcome Rating FORM PO 1

No Component Indicators Score

(1 to 4)

Remarks

1 Relevance and Achievement of Objectives

2.0 Unsatisfactory

i. Macro-economic policy 2 ii. Sector policy 2

iii. Physical (including production) 2 Most civil works like office blocks, houses, roads, bridges, boreholes, ADMARC storage sheds, dip tanks, dog baths and slaughter slabs were completed and are in good condition

iv. Financial 2 Disbursement was not very timely. The borrower only spent 68.5% of the total loan amount. The borrower’s contribution was also less than envisaged at appraisal.

v. Poverty alleviation, social & Gender 2 Some benefits to communities in project area including better incomes, food security, better agricultural practices and improved road network and water supply infrastructures.

vi. Environment 2 By strengthening the land resource management, through contour ridges planted with vetiver grass, fruit trees, agro forestry technologies and intercropping, the project has reduced the rate of deforestation, land degradation and soil erosion, thus enhancing and facilitating sustainable farming systems.

vii. Private Sector Development 2 Privatisation process has been initiated through sensitizing the beneficiaries to form committees to run and maintain some of the constructed infrastructures such as irrigation structures, dip tanks, dog baths and slaughter slabs and boreholes.

viii. Other (specify)

NA NA

2 Institutional Development 2.0 Unsatisfactory i. Institutional Framework including

restructuring 2 The institutional framework during time of project was

not very conducive as was subjected to frequent policy changes.

ii. Financial & Management Information Systems, including Audit Systems

2 Project data and information for early years was never recorded as M&E was not operational then. However, in later years, financial and management information systems somehow improved, and project technical reports, annual audit reports were prepared.

iii. Transfer of Technology 2 Technology transfer was limited due to lack of technical assistance & application of appropriate technology generated by adaptive research.

iv. Staffing by qualified persons (including turn-over), training, & counterpart staffing.

2 Qualified staff were recruited with high turnover. Adequate technical short and long-term courses were provided to staff and farmers.

3

Sustainability

2.37

Satisfactory

i. Continued Borrower Commitment 3 GOM has promised to continue financial support to the project, and most of the infrastructure is being and will continue to be run by local communities who charge a small user fee for maintenance.

ii. Environmental Policy 3 Policy is already in place which was used by the project to gazette some of the project land into forest reserves.

iii. Institutional Framework 3 The project has been managed and will continue to be managed by BLADD, under the MOAFS which will include the operation and maintenance activities in its annual budget.

3No Component Indicators Score

(1 to 4)

Remarks

Sustainability (continued)

iv. Technical Viability and Staffing 3 The introduced low cost technologies are being advanced by the extension system. Transfer of technology to local staff, and farmers through training programmes provided by the Project. Project extension staff are provided by Government through the civil service commission.

v. Financial Viability including cost recovery systems

2 Capacity for self-financing and cost recovery might be possible if all communities continue to pay for the services provided by the newly structures constructed.

vi. Economic viability 2 Potential for more economic is seemingly positive if the Government and smallholder farmers capitalize on some of the achievements in production

vii. Environmental Viability 1 Although the GoM was shown determination to protect all those fragile areas in the project that are unsuitable for cultivation and human settlement by gazetting them in forest reserves, implementation was dismal (26%).

viii. O&M facilitation (availability of recurrent funding, foreign exchange, spare parts, workshop facilities, etc.)

2 Although the project can generate some resources for O&M, the amount can not suffice to cater for all the financial requirements, hence budgetary allocation will still be needed from Government.

4. Economic Internal Rate of Return 1 5.03%

TOTAL 7.37 Overall Assessment of Outcome 1.84 Unsatisfactory

Annex 5


Recommendations and Follow-up Matrix

Issues Lessons Learned/ Recommendations Follow-up Actions Responsibility

No initial training for project staff in Bank’s procurement and disbursement procedures

Formal training of project staff on the Bank’s rules of procurement and loan disbursement procedures is important for smooth project implementation

For future projects, during project launching, Borrower should be trained in the Bank Group’s procurement rules and guidelines as well as loan disbursement procedures.

ADB

Poor record keeping due to lack of MIS (including M&E)

Management Information System (MIS) including Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) should be included in the project design and be enforced during project implementation.

MIS and M&E should be part of the project design and be used as management tools during implementation. M&E officer should be recruited within PY1 to manage the MIS & M&E.

ADB/Borrower

No Bank supervision during early years of project implementation.

Bank supervision missions should be fielded starting from PY1

Task Managers should incorporate new projects in their work programmes

ADB

No proper skills mix during Missions

Proper skills mix should be made with respect to the proposed task

Task Managers should provide adequate experts during the Mission

ADB

Too many and difficult loan conditions

Loan conditions should be simple, rationalized and kept to a minimum in order to avoid delays in loan effectiveness and project implementation

Loan conditions should be few, realistic and achievable within a short period.

ADB

Poor operation and maintenance of the slaughter slabs

The District Assembly should revise fees charged (slaughter fees and movement permit) per butcherman in order to meet the maintenance costs.

To achieve the objective of having hygienic slaughter slabs, the District Assembly should periodically revise the fees charged for maintenance of the infrastructure.

Borrower

Delay in settlement of Contractors’ payment certificates (claims)

There is need to streamline and speed up settlement of contractors claims to avoid delays in implementation

Task and Project Managers should follow up on prolonged payment issues

ADB/Borrower

Poor credit facility dispensation

Cash-based seasonal and medium term loans were not successfully administered due to high interest rates and were less preferred by the farmers/beneficiaries.

In future projects, only the farmer managed credit-in-kind schemes (pass-on approach) should be promoted

ADB/Borrower

ADD, RDP and EPA infrastructural development is crucial for effective extension service in Malawi

Support to infrastructure development at ADD, RDP and EPA does provide a good communication system for extension service and also contribute to rural development.

The Government should write proposals for construction of Blantyre and Lilongwe ADD Headquarters’ office blocks including RDPs and EPAs which are still accommodated in dilapidated infrastructures.

Borrower

Annex 6 Page 1 of 1

Malawi: Mwanza Rural Development Project

Borrower’s Project Completion Report (presented under separate cover)

The Borrower’s Project Completion Report (PCR) was produced and submitted, to the Bank, in December 2004. The Borrower’s PCR was presented as one document with respect to the “Table of Contents” reproduced below:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 BASIC DATA 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0 FULFILMENT OF LOAN CONDITIONS

4.0 ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT 5.0 PROCUREMENT 6.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

7.0 LOAN UTILISATION 8.0 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ANNEX 1. Project Organisational Chart 2. Details of Contracts Awarded under Procurement 3. Details of Contracts Awarded under Civil Works 4. Disbursement Details

Annex 7


Sources of Information

1. “Appraisal Report”, African Development Fund/Republic of Malawi; Mwanza Rural Development

Project. June 1991. 2. “Project Completion Report”, Republic of Malawi/Blantyre Agriculture Development Division;

Mwanza Rural Development Project. December 2004. 3. “Mid-Term Review Report - Mwanza Rural Development Project, African Development Fund.

October 1998. 4. “Loan Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Malawi and the African

Development Fund: Mwanza Rural Development Project”: African Development Fund. May 1992. 5. “Assorted Bank Mission’s Aide Memoires”, Blantyre ADD copies. Reference - Basic Project Data

Sheet, Section D: Bank Missions. 6. “Report on the Citrus Study Tour to South Africa”, Republic of Malawi/Blantyre Agriculture

Development Division; Mwanza Rural Development Project. April 2003. 7. “Report on the Dairy Study Tour to Tanzania”, Republic of Malawi/Blantyre Agriculture

Development Division; Mwanza Rural Development Project. 8. “Quarterly Progress Reports Number 1, 9-17, 19-20, 32-33, 35-41”, Republic of Malawi/Blantyre

Agriculture Development Division; Mwanza Rural Development Project. 9. “Monthly Progress Reports Number 1 to 10”, Republic of Malawi/Blantyre Agriculture

Development Division; Mwanza Rural Development Project. 10. “Annual Audit Reports/Financial Statements - Mwanza Rural Development Project., reporting

period: (i) June 1996-June 1999; (ii) 2000/01; (iii) 2001/2002; (iv) 2002/2003; (v) 2003/2004; (vi) 2004/2005, Republic of Malawi/Auditor General (National Audit Office).

11. “Project Coordination and Implementation Committee Meeting Minutes (assorted); Republic of

Malawi/Blantyre Agriculture Development Division; Mwanza Rural Development Project. 12. “Assorted Contract Documents with Contractors, including Drawings, and Bills of Quantities for

Civil Works”, Republic of Malawi/Blantyre Agriculture Development Division; Mwanza Rural Development Project.

13. “Assorted Contract Documents for Supply of Goods with Supplies”, Republic of Malawi/Blantyre

Agriculture Development Division; Mwanza Rural Development Project. 14. “Revision of List of Goods and Services Number 1 to 6”, Republic of Malawi/Blantyre Agriculture

Development Division; Mwanza Rural Development Project. 15. “Assorted Project Files”, Mwanza Rural Development Project (Blantyre ADD). 16. “Operational guidelines for Mwanza Rural Development Project Credit Revolving Fund”, Malawi

Rural Finance Company Limited, Lilongwe, Malawi.

Annex 8 Page 1 of 1

Malawi: Mwanza Rural Development Project Fulfilment of Loan Conditions and Covenants

A. Conditions Prior to Entry into Force (Date of Loan Approval: 27th August 1991 & Date of Entry into Force: 11th March 1993)

No. Loan Conditions

Date of Fulfilment Slippage Remarks (reason for delay )

i. Enter into agreement with ADMARC providing among other things, that ADMARC will staff and manage the three inputs sheds to be constructed under the project and that the borrower will hand it over the sheds to ADMARC without charge.

1996 / 1997 NA NA

ii.

Designate and gazette as forestry reserve the land in Mwanza District unsuitable for settlement and cultivation.

Gazette in 12th September 1997

73 months Required surveys, demarcation and topographical maps and an Act of Parliament which was a long process (ref para 3.2.1iv).

iii. Establish both the Project Coordination Committee (PCC) and Project Implementation Committee (PIC) )to be chaired by the Chief Economist in the Department of Economic Planning and Development and with membership drawn from Ministries of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources, of Works and Finance while PIC to be chaired by Regional Administrator and with membership drawn from Blantyre ADD, Ministry of Works, of Forestry and Natural Resources and Project

March 1992 NA NA

B. Other Conditions No. Loan Conditions: Date fulfilled Slippage

Remarks ( reasons for delay)

i. Recruit the Resources Management Expert not later than four months of the loan effectiveness.

Not done NA Ref para 3.2.1 v

ii. Provide an undertaking that within two years of loan effectiveness, all project staff will be recruited or redeployed.

Within 6 months of loan approval

NA NA

iii. Submit a report to the ADF on a quarterly basis and indicate in detail therein the progress made during the reporting period.

Fulfilled NA NA

iv. Cause the accounts of the management unit to be audited annually by the Auditor general and submit to ADF a copy of the auditors’ report.

Fulfilled NA NA

v. Make the necessary budgetary allocation in accordance with the project expenditure schedule to meet its share of the project cost.

Fulfilled NA NA

Annex 9 Page 1 of 5

Malawi: Mwanza Rural Development Project

Status of Project Achievements

A: CIVIL WORKS (PER COMPONENT) (i) Extension, Research and Training Component

Item Appraisal Target (1991)

Revised Target

Achieved (1998)

Achieved (PCR - 2004)

PCR %age

achieved

Procurement Mode

Mwanza (Chiwembu) EPA Centre (Construction) 1 1 0 1 100 NCB

Lisungwi EPA Centre (Construction) 1 1 0 1 100 NCB Neno EPA Centre (Construction) 1 1 0 113 100 NCB Thambani Sub-EPA Centre (Construction) 1 1 0 1 100 NCB Demonstration Kitchens14 (Const’n) 4 4 0 4 100 NCB DH8 Staff Houses (Construction) 7 7 0 7 100 NCB EH8 Staff Houses (Construction) 3 3 0 3 100 NCB EH10 Staff Houses (Construction)15 34 34 0 34 100 NCB EH8 Staff Houses (Rehabilitation) 1 1 1 1 100 Force Account EH10 Staff Houses (Rehabilitation) 5 1 1 1 100 Force Account Potato store (Rehabilitation) 1 0 0 0 0 NA Iron strong houses (Rehabilitation) 2 0 0 0 0 NA (ii) Credit, Input Supplies and Marketing Component

Item Appraisal Target (1991)

Revised Target

Achieved (1998)


PCR %age

achieved

Procurement Mode

Credit - Civil Works DH8 Staff Houses (Construction) 1 1 1 1 100 NCB EH8 Staff Houses (Construction) 1 1 1 1 100 NCB EH10 Staff Houses (Construction) 6 6 6 6 100 NCB

Marketing - Civil Works Sedi Marketing Sheds incl Offices 3 3 3 3 100 NCB EH10 Staff Houses (Construction) 3 3 3 3 100 NCB

(iii) Land Resources Management Component

Item Appraisal Target

Revised Target

Achieved (1998)


PCR %age

achieved

Procurement Mode

Civil Works DH8 Staff Houses (Construction) 2 2 0 2 100 NCB EH8 Staff Houses (Construction) 1 1 0 1 100 NCB EH10 Staff Houses (Construction) 6 6 0 6 100 NCB

Nursery Establishment Agro-forestry 3 3 1 3 100 Force Account Forestry 3 3 1 3 100 Force Account

13 Construction of Neno EPA Office Block was not completed during the implementation period. 14 Demonstration kitchens are part of the EPA and Sub-EPA office blocks. 15 10no EH10 staff houses were abandoned by contractors and have consequently not been completed.

Annex 9 Page 2 of 5

(iv) Livestock Development Component


Revised Target

Achieved (1998)


PCR %age

achieved

Procurement Mode

CH10 Staff Houses (Construction) 1 1 0 1 100 NCB DH8 Staff Houses (Construction) 2 2 0 2 100 NCB EH8 Staff Houses (Construction) 1 1 0 1 100 NCB EH10 Staff Houses (Construction) 8 8 0 8 100 NCB Low Cost Staff Houses 9 0 0 0 0 NA Dip Tanks (Construction) 6 6 0 5 83 NCB Dip Tanks (Rehabilitation) 2 2 0 1 50 NCB Poultry Houses (Construction) 6 0 0 0 0 NA Poultry Houses (Rehabilitation) 2 0 0 0 0 NA Slaughter Slabs/House: Type B 1 1 0 1 100 NCB Slaughter Slabs/House: Type C 3 3 0 2 67 NCB Dog Baths 2 2 0 2 100 NCB Cattle Markets 2 2 0 2 100 NCB Veterinary Clinic (Mwanza RDP) 1 1 0 1 100 NCB Veterinary Station (Neno EPA) 1 1 0 1 100 NCB Quarantine Facilities (Zalewa – Neno EPA) 0 1 0 1 100 NCB

(v) Infrastructure Development Component (see Section B, below) (vi) Project Management Support Component


Revised Target

Achieved (1998)


PCR %age

achieved

Procurement Mode

Mwanza RDP Headquarter Offices 1 1 0 1 100 NCB DH8 Staff Houses (Construction) 2 2 0 2 100 NCB EH10 Staff Houses (Construction) 17 17 0 17 100 NCB PH4 Staff Houses (Construction) 6 6 0 6 100 NCB Low Cost Staff Houses 9 0 0 0 0 NA

Annex 9 Page 3 of 5

B1: INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT: RURAL ROADS

(i) Summary


Revised Target

Achieved (1998)

Achieved(PCR - 2004)

PCR %age

achieved

Procurement Mode

Basic Road Construction 70 km 75 km 34 km 70 km 93 Force Account Additional Structures 75 km 75 km 34 km 70 km 93 Force Account Spot Repairs (Existing Roads) 60 km 60 km 10 km 55 km 92 Force Account

(ii) Details of New Rural Roads

No District/RDP Name/Description Quantity

& Unit Remarks

1 Mwanza Njanjama to Kalanda Road 16 km The road is in good condition but one double-span timber deck bridge across Nthuzi River has collapsed

2 Neno Kam’mwamba to Kanono Road 12 km 3 Neno Neno Mission to Dambe Road 10 km 4 Neno Neno to Lumbe Road 9 km 5 Neno Manyenje to Kasamba Road 3 km 6 Neno Lusingwi to Nkundika Road 7 km 7 Neno Dambe to Chawe Road 5 km 8 Neno Lisungwi to Mbemba Road 8 km Total 70 km (out of 75 km: 93% achievement)

B2: INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT: DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY

(i) Summary


Revised Target

Achieved (1998)

Achieved(PCR - 2004)

PCR %age

achieved

Procurement Mode

Borehole Construction 45 45 6 45 100 Force Account and NCB

Borehole Rehabilitation 20 20 0 20 100 Force Account Shallow Well Construction 25 25 0 22 88 Force Account Shallow Well Improvement 25 25 0 5 20 Force Account Spring Improvement 75 0 0 0 0 NA Lisungwi Piped Water Supply 1 0 0 0 0 NA Thambani Piped Water Supply 1 0 0 0 0 NA

Annex 9 Page 4 of 5

(ii) List of Drilled (New) Boreholes

No District/RDP Name of Village/Institution Qty & Unit

No of Households

Remarks

1 Mwanza Mgwedula Village 1no. 80 Operational 2 Mwanza Thambani sub-EPA Centre 1no. 30 Operational: Solar-powered with overhead tank 3 Mwanza Thambani ADMARC 1no. 135 Operational 4 Mwanza Thambani sub-EPA Houses 1no. 50 Operational 5 Mwanza Kunenekude Agric Station 1no. 115 Operational 6 Mwanza Ziyaya Agriculture Station 1no. 130 Operational 7 Mwanza Thambala Agriculture Station 1no. 140 Operational 8 Mwanza Ngadziwe Agriculture Station 1no. 220 Operational 9 Mwanza Chiwembu EPA Houses 1no. 190 Operational

10 Mwanza Chiwembu EPA Centre 1no. 25 Operational: Solar-powered with overhead tank 11 Mwanza Mulongolola Village 1no. 120 Operational Sub-total for Mwanza District 11no. 1,235

12 Neno Ligowe Agriculture Station 1no. 35 Operational 13 Neno Chikalema Agriculture Station 1no. 377 Operational 14 Neno Mbemba Agriculture Station 1no. 205 Operational 15 Neno Neno EPA Centre 1no. 30 Operational: Solar-powered with overhead tank 16 Neno Chikwekwe Village 1no. 428 Operational 17 Neno Matope Dip Tank 1no. 82 Operational 18 Neno Kasamba Village 1no. 92 Operational 19 Neno Tchenga Village 1no. 379 Operational 20 Neno Manondo Village 1no. 366 Operational 21 Neno Kholombidzo Village 1no. 274 Operational 22 Neno Kanono Turn-off 1no. 208 Operational 23 Neno Ntchena Village 1no. 128 Operational 24 Neno Ligowe Dip Tank 1no. 120 Operational 25 Neno Daelo Village 1no. 92 Operational 26 Neno Hiwa Agriculture Station 1no. 182 Operational 27 Neno Chidakwani Agric. Station 1no. 292 Operational 28 Neno Lambe Villate 1no. 175 Operational 29 Neno Ntingale Village 1no. 619 Operational 30 Neno Lisungwi EPA Centre 1no. 550 Operational: Solar-powered with overhead tank 31 Neno Feremu Agriculture Station 1no. 369 Operational 32 Neno Kundembo Agric. Station 1no. 420 Operational 33 Neno Chifunga Agriculture Station 1no. 173 Operational 34 Neno Kandoje Agriculture Station 1no. 286 Operational 35 Neno Mulaza Village 1no. 50 Operational 36 Neno Magaleta Agriculture Station 1no. 208 Operational 37 Neno Nkhombe Agriculture Station 1no. 194 Operational 38 Neno Manondo Agriculture Station 1no. 370 Operational 39 Neno Mwingitsa Agriculture Station 1no. 215 Operational 40 Neno Lumbe Village 1no. 510 Operational 41 Neno Zalewa Agriculture Station 1no. 68 Operational 42 Neno Kasamba Dip Tank 1no. 90 Operational Sub-total for Mwanza District 31no 7,587 Total for the Project 42no. 8,822

(iii) List of Rehabilitated Boreholes

No District/RDP Name of Village/Institution Qty &

Unit No of

Households Remarks

1 Mwanza Mwanza RDP Hq 1no. 67 Operational 2 Mwanza Nsansama Agriculture Station 1no. 128 Operational 3 Mwanza Ngadziwe 1no. 79 Operational 4 Mwanza Thambani 1no. 91 Operational 5 Mwanza Nkulumadzi Dip Tank 1no. 117 Operational 6 Mwanza Kawiriza Dip Tank 1no. 133 Operational 7 Mwanza Chabweza Agriculture Station 1no. 146 Operational Total for Mwanza District 7no 761

Annex 9 Page 5 of 5


Unit No of

Households Remarks

8 Neno Kanono Agricuture Station 1no. 221 Operational 9 Neno Kandoje Agriculture Station 1no. 141 Operational

10 Neno Lisungwi Centre 1no. 110 Operational 11 Neno Year Agriculture Station 1no. 93 Operational 12 Neno Chikapa Agriculture Station 1no. 70 Operational 13 Neno Kanono ADMARC 1no. 42 Operational 14 Neno Ngayiyaye Dip Tank 1no. 59 Operational 15 Neno Nchena Dip Tank 1no. 76 Operational 16 Neno Lisungwi Dip Tank 1no. 180 Operational 17 Neno Kambale Agriculture Station 1no. 69 Operational 18 Neno Neno Mission Agric Station 1no. 136 Operational 19 Neno Kundambo Agriculture Station 1no. 51 Operational 20 Neno Nsambi Dip Tank 1no. 63 Operational Total for Neno District 13no 1,311 Total for the Project 20no 2,072

(iv) List of New Protected Shallow Wells


Unit No of

Households Remarks

1 Mwanza Sudala “A” 1no. 95 Operational 2 Mwanza Sudala “B” 1no. 102 Operational 3 Mwanza Gulumba “A” 1no. 180 Operational 4 Mwanza Gulumba “B” 1no. 213 Operational 5 Mwanza Chiwembu 1no. 89 Operational 6 Mwanza Ng’onzo 1no. 128 Operational 7 Mwanza Kachipanda 1no. 70 Operational 8 Mwanza Kasuza 1no. 132 Operational 9 Mwanza Humba 1no. 50 Operational

10 Mwanza Chabweza “A” 1no. 63 Operational 11 Mwanza Chabweza “B” 1no. 40 Operational Total for Mwanza District 11no. 1,162

12 Neno Kaligwenjere 1no. 72 Operational 13 Neno Kanono 1no. 109 Operational 14 Neno Gobede 1no. 84 Operational 15 Neno Mvala 1no. 67 Operational 16 Neno Wilson 1no. 104 Operational 17 Neno Ngaiyaye 1no. 45 Operational 18 Neno Kachipanda 1no. 73 Operational 19 Neno Njalamano 1no. 60 Operational 20 Neno Chasesa 1no. 80 Operational Total for Mwanza District 9no. 694 Total for the Project 20no. 1,856

(v) List of Rehabilitated Shallow Wells


Unit No of

Households Remarks

1 Neno Kholombizo 1no. 126 Operational 2 Neno Neno Turn Off 1no. 98 Operational 3 Neno Tchenga Village 1no. 102 Operational 4 Neno Chididi 1no. 217 Operational 5 Neno Kabuula 1no. 78 Operational Total for Neno District & Project 5no 621

Date post:	26-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times