Download Performance of non-lending activities

Independent Office of Evaluation
Ghana Country Programme Evaluation
National Roundtable Workshop
2 November 2011 - Accra, Ghana
1
Ghana Country Programme Evaluation
• Covers 13 years of strategy and operations (COSOP 1998,
2006), 6 projects and 9 technical assistance grants
• Triangulates from multiple sources:
 Comprehensive desk review (including past evaluations);
 Field visits of projects and selected grants
 Interviews with stakeholders
 Thematic roundtable discussions (rural finance,
agricultural value chains)
2
Three levels of analysis
Performance of the COSOP
(strategy)
Performance of non-lending
activities
(knowledge management,
partnerships, policy dialogue)
Overall
Partnership
Performance
Performance of the portfolio
(project-level analysis)
3
IFAD- Ghana Cooperation Highlights
Total projects : 16 (since 1980)
Total cost:
US$ 675 m
IFAD lending: US$ 225 m h.c. loans (33%)
Gov. funding:
US$ 162 m (24%)
Co-financing
US$ 288 m (43%)
4
Real GDP per capita in Ghana (1972-2010)
constant 2000 US$
GDP per capita (data from 2006 follow the rebasing proposed by Ghana Statistical
Service)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Source: WB 2011
20
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
19
74
19
72
0
5
Prevalence of Poverty (%)
88 88
90
80
63
70
60
67 70
52
52
50
40
1991/92
29
30
2005/06
20
10
0
National
Northern
Upper
West
Upper
East
6
Evolution of IFAD’s strategy
COSOP 1998
- Geographic concentration on regions in Northern Ghana
- Sub-sectors: irrigation, rural finance, agricultural technology
transfer, support to decentralisation
COSOP 2006
- Shift towards country-wide mono-sectoral programmes
(phasing out of Upper West)
- Same subsectors + new focus on value chain development
Other important changes
• IFAD Direct supervision since 2008
• IFAD Country presence since 2011
7
Portfolio Performance – Overview
• Overall positive and improving
• Relevant project objectives, some design flaws
• Effectiveness varies within and between projects
• Weak efficiency
• Impact is mixed: strong on institution and social capital,
variable for income & assets; environmental risks
• Sustainability is improving
• Innovations introduced but piloting not sufficient.
8
Portfolio performance - Rural Finance
• Relevant and effective at institutional level (regulatory
environment, rural banks, credit unions, apexes)
• Less so at adapting financial products to rural poor
clients
• Introduced “matching grants” as smart subsidies
(loan + equity + ma. grant) ; lack of clarity over
implementation
• Contributed to national policy on microfinance (but
subsidised credit programmes continue)
9
Portfolio performance - Rural Enterprises
• Business Assistance Centres imparted basic
entrepreneurial skills, contributing to growth of micro
and small enterprises
• Rural Technology Facilities strengthened apprenticeship
systems, less clear results in technology dissemination
• Facilitated coordination and public-private partnership
in MSE development at district level (legislative
initiatives)
10
Portfolio performance - Local Government
and Community Development
• Focused on very poor groups, supporting district-level
participatory planning
• Design too optimistic: (i) unclear policy framework
(ii) IFAD not supported by experienced development
partners; (iii) funding gap
 Slow implementation and sustainability threats
11
Portfolio performance - Agricultural
development
• Effective at supporting production : (i) higher-yield roots
and tubers; (ii) participatory extension approaches
(farmers field fora)
• Value chain support: relevant but difficult to implement.
Weak business analysis, unclear mutual obligations in
private-public partnerships
Upgrading processing for existing value chains (roots &
tubers);
Development of new value chains is challenging (e.g.
vegetables)
12
“Non-lending” activities
• Policy dialogue: significant in rural enterprise; rural finance.
Matching grants have potential. Limited in other sub-sectors
• Partnerships strong with Government at national level,
growing at local level.
In rural finance, gap with multilateral agencies
Value chain: increasing with private sector, but review of
risks and constraints not sufficient
• Knowledge management is weaker area: poor M&E, impact
assessment. Promising “intuitions” in COSOP and project
formulation not always supported by technical analysis
13
COSOP performance
• Relevance. Shift of focus between 1998 and 2006 COSOP
from geographic targeting to broad-based growth with
limited analysis of implications and constraints
• Effectiveness. Strongest results in rural finance and rural
enterprises at institutional level
 Mixed results in the North
 Value chains: valid concept, early implementation stage,
questions on approaches
• Management issues. Country office established in 2011.
M&E has not received enough attention
14
General Assessment
COSOP performance
Moderately Satisfactory: 4
Non-lending activities
Moderately Satisfactory: 4
Overall
Partnership
Performance
Moderately
Satisfactory: 4
Performance of the
portfolio
Moderately Satisfactory: 4
Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory;
3 = moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory;
5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory
15
Main Recommendations
• Strengthen analytical work in COSOP preparation and
project design
• Continue sub-sectoral programmes but increase focus on
Upper West
• More emphasis on testing and scaling up innovations:
(i) rural finance and matching grants; (ii) savings and credit
products adapted to the poor
• Value chains. Review successful regional experiences,
explore opportunities to cooperate with other initiatives
• Support national M&E systems in partnership with national
and international social science research institutions
16
THE END
Thank you for your attention
17