asia and the pacific division - ifad

Document Date: 30-Dec 2014

Report No: 3626

Programme Management Department

Asia and the Pacific Division

Portfolio Performance Report

Annual Review July 2013 - June 2014

Main report and appendices

APR Portfolio Performance Report - Main Report and Appendices Annual Review July 2013- June 2014

i

Contents

Currency equivalents iv

Weights and measures iv

Abbreviations and acronyms v

Project and programme acronyms vii

Definitions of ratings ix

Map of Asia and the Pacific Region Active Investment Portfolio as at 30 June 2014 x

Executive Summary xi

I. Overview of the economic and social situation in the region 1

II. Country programmes 3

RB COSOPs presented to EB 3 A.

Country programme issues 4 B.

III. Current investment portfolio and operations 7

Characteristics 7 A.

Operations 9 B.

IV. Current grant portfolio and operations during the review period 13

Characteristics 13 A.

Operational results of grants, including summary of GSR and GCRs 15 B.

V. Management performance of ongoing portfolio of investment projects 18

Project management 18 A.

Disbursement performance 20 B.

Loan/grant administration 21 C.

Procurement 21 D.

Financing covenants 23 E.

Audit 23 F.

Monitoring and evaluation 24 G.

VI. Results of the ongoing portfolio 25

Overall implementation progress 25 A.

Outputs 26 B.

Outcomes and emerging impacts 28 C.

Targeting of poverty, gender and youth 32 D.

Innovation and learning 35 E.

Replication, scaling-up and knowledge management 36 F.

Knowledge management 37 G.

Sustainability 38 H.

VII. Evaluation and self-assessment 39

VIII. Portfolio management 41

Supervision 41 A.

Implementation support 42 B.

Risks 43 C.

Portfolio at risk 43 D.

Problem patterns 45 E.

Pro-activity 46 F.

IX. Conclusions and the way forward 46

Conclusions 46 A.

The way forward 48 B.


ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Current IFAD financing by country 7

Figure 2: Average period from project approval to first disbursement and effectiveness 11

Figure 3: Maturity of portfolio 2011 - 2014 12

Figure 4: Maturity of grants portfolio 16

Figure 5: APR Disbursement as % of disbursable 21

Figure 6: Changes in relative wealth ranking 28

Figure 7: Changes in beneficiaries' income over past 12 months 29

Figure 8: Percentage decrease in children malnutrition rates 31

Figure 9: Decrease in % of households suffering from one hungry season/year 31

Figure 10: Portfolio Performance 2010 - 2011 43

List of Tables

Table 1: RB-COSOPs submitted to the EB during the review period 3

Table 2: Sub-regional distribution of portfolio 8

Table 3: IFAD financing by result category (US$ '000) 8

Table 4: Financing terms 9

Table 5: Current 2013-2014 portfolio by financing source and type as at 30 June 2014 9

Table 6: Projects that went through QA from July 2013 – June 2014 10

Table 7: Projects approved during the review period 10

Table 8: Projects entered into force during the review period 11

Table 9: APR Grants Portfolio 2011-2014 13

Table 10: Effective grants by grant policy output 13

Table 11: Approvals by window and size 15

Table 12: GCRs by impact domain 18

Table 13: PSR rating for project implementation progress and fiduciary aspects 19

Table 14: Disbursements 2012/2013 - 2013/2014 21

Table 15: PSR rating: Overall implementation performance and assessment 25

Table 16: Households reporting increase in production/productivity over past 12 months 30

Table 17: Changes in food security situation over past 12 months (AOS) 31

Table 18: Gender bias: girls’ rates vs. boys’ rates 32

Table 19: PSR rating: Gender, poverty, targeting and empowerment 32

Table 20: PSR rating: Innovation, scaling-up, sustainability and climate/environment 35

Table 21: Actual and potential problem projects 2013 - 2014 44

Table 22: Problem patterns - PSR risk flags (% of projects with a rating of 3 or lower) 45

https://xdesk.ifad.org/sites/pi/results/2014%20Portfolio%20Review/Disclosure/APR_PPR_2013-2014_Volume%20I_PMD_KH_Nov17_SanaComments.docx#_Toc407705888











iii

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of Ongoing Investment Projects on 30 June 1

Appendix 2: List of Ongoing Grant Projects on 30 June 3

Appendix 3: PSR Ratings of Ongoing Projects 6

Appendix 4: GSR Ratings of Ongoing Grants 9

Appendix 5: Projects with Delays in Signing/Entry into force 10

Appendix 6: Disbursement Performance of Investment Projects 11

Appendix 7: Relative Share of Co-financiers in Ongoing Portfolio 16

Appendix 8: Projects Completed during Period under Review 18

Appendix 9: Project Extensions during Period under Review 21

Appendix 10: Recommendations of Evaluation and Follow-up 22

Appendix 11: Action Plan for Improving Portfolio Performance 24

Annexes

Table 1: CFS Project fiduciary risk rating Table 2: Average disbursement processing time (days) Table 3: Inclusive financial services Table 4: Empowerment and social capital Table 5: Agricultural technologies and production services Table 6: Natural resources Table 7: Markets Table 8: Examples of innovative project features Table 9: GEF projects and achievements Table 10: ASAP project focus and activities Table 11: Comparison between PSR scores and PPA scores Table 12: Ongoing projects – list of missions (July 2013 – June 2014) Table 13: Risk Matrix Table 14: PAR country programme 2012 - 2014

Table 15: 2013/2014 Actual and potential problem projects


iv

Currency equivalents

Currency Unit = Special Drawing Rights

SDR 1.0 = US$1.546

Weights and measures

1 kilogram = 1000 g

1 000 kg = 2.204 lb.

1 kilometre (km) = 0.62 mile

1 metre = 1.09 yards

1 square metre = 10.76 square feet

1 acre = 0.405 hectare

1 hectare = 2.47 acres


v

Abbreviations and acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank AIT Asian Institute of Technology AOS Annual Outcome Surveys APMAS Asia Project Management Support Project APP Actual Problem Project APR Asia and the Pacific Region APRACA Asia-Pacific Rural and Agricultural Credit Association ARTS Audit Reports Tracking System ASAP Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations AusAID Australian Agency for International Development CFS Controller's and Financial Services Division CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIP International Potato Center CIs Cooperating Institutions CNY Chinese Yuan Renminbi COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities Programme CPE Country Programme Evaluation CPIS Country Programme Issue Sheet CPM Country Programme Manager CPO Country Programme Officer DfID Department for International Development DMP Divisional Management Plan DSF Debt Sustainability Framework EB Executive Board ENRM Environment and Natural Resource Management ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FMA Financial Management (Risk) Assessment FMS Financial Management Specialist FPSI Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility Ha Hectare HC Highly Concessional ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development ICO IFAD Country Office ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry ICT Information and Communication Technology Division IFAP International Federation of Agricultural Producers IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IFRS International Financial Reporting Standards IGAs Income Generating Activities IOE Independent Office of Evaluation IPSAS International Public Sector Accounting Standards IRRI International Rice Research Institute KfW Reconstruction Credit Institute (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) KM Knowledge Management LGS Loans and Grants System M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goal MTR Mid-Term Review MU 1 ha = 15 mu (China) NEDA National Economic and Development Authority NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations


vi

Non-CGIAR non-Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research OSC Operational Strategy and Policy Guidance Committee PCR Project Completion Report PCRV Project Completion Validation Report PFRR Project Fiduciary Risk Rating PMU Project Management Unit PPAs Project Performance Assessments PPP Potential Problem Project PROCASUR Corporation for Regional Rural Development Training PSR Project Status Report PTA Policy and Technical Advisory Division QE Quality Enhancement R&D Research and Development RB-COSOP Results-Based- Country Strategic Opportunities Programme RIMS Results and Impact Management System RMF Results Management Framework SAIs Supreme Audit Institutions SDR Special Drawing Rights (IMF currency equivalent) SF Strategic Framework SHGs Self-Help Groups SIS Supervision and Implementation Support SOE Statement of Expenditures SVR Supervision Report UN United Nations UNICEF The United Nations Children's Fund US$ United States Dollars WAs Withdrawal Applications WFP World Food Programme YPOs Young Partner Organizations


vii

Project and programme acronyms

Country Project

Id Loan / DSF grant No.

Project acronym Project Name

Afghanistan 1460 8033 RMLSP Rural Microfinance and Livestock Support Programme

Afghanistan 1637 8112 CLAP Community Livestock and Agriculture Project

Bangladesh 1165 567 SCBRMP Sunamganj Community-Based Resource Management Project

Bangladesh 1235 609 MFTSP Microfinance and Technical Support Project

Bangladesh 1284 644 MFMSFP Microfinance for Marginal and Small Farmers Project

Bangladesh 1322 681 MIDPCR Market Infrastructure Development Project in Charland Regions

Bangladesh 1355 739 NATP National Agricultural Technology Project

Bangladesh 1402 725 FEDEC Finance for Enterprise Development and Employment Creation Project

Bangladesh 1466 786/808 PSSWRSP Participatory Small-scale Water Resources Sector Project

Bangladesh 1537 807 CDSPIV Char Development and Settlement Project IV

Bangladesh 1585 847 HILIP Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project

Bangladesh 1647 896 CCRIP Coastal Climate Resilient Infrastructure Project

Bhutan 1296 659 AMEPP Agricultural, Marketing and Enterprise Promotion Programme

Bhutan 1482 824 MAGIP Market Access and Growth Intensification Project

Cambodia 1175 551/8011 CBRDP Community Based Rural Development Project in Kampong Thom & Kampot

Cambodia 1261 623 RPRP Rural Poverty Reduction Project in Prey Veng and Svay Rieng

Cambodia 1350 8005 RULIP Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project in Kratie, Preah Vihear and Ratanakiri

Cambodia 1464 793 TSPRSDP Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and Smallholder Development Project

Cambodia 1559 870/8101 PADEE Project for Agricultural Development and Economic Empowerment

China 1223 600 ECPRP Environment Conservation and Poverty Reduction Programme in Ningxia and Shanxi

China 1227 634 RFSP Rural Finance Sector Programme

China 1271 673 SGPRP South Gansu Poverty-Reduction Programme

China 1323 709 MRDP/XUAR Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Modular Rural Development Programme

China 1400 740 IMARRAP Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Rural Advancement Programme

China 1454 766 DAPRP Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction Programme

China 1478 778 SPEAR Sichuan Post-Earthquake Agriculture Rehabilitation Project

China 1555 855 GIADP Guangxi Integrated Agricultural Development Project

China 1627 875 HARIIP Hunan Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Improvement Project

China 1629 885 YARIP Yunnan Agricultural and Rural Improvement Project

China 1699 2000000431 SSADeP Shiyan Smallholder Agribusiness Development Project

India 1040 444/794 NERCORMP II North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas

India 1063 506 JCTDP Jharkhand-Chattisgarh Tribal Development Project

India 1121 538 National Microfinance

National Microfinance Support Programme

India 1155 585 OTELP Orissa Tribal Women's Empowerment Programme

India 1226 624 LIPH Livelihoods Improvement Project in the Himalayas

India 1314 682 TWEP Tejaswini Rural Women's Empowerment Programme

India 1348 662/691 PT-Tamil Nadu Post-Tsunami Sustainable Livelihoods Programme for the Coastal Communities of Tamil Nadu

India 1381 710 Mid-Gangetic Plains

Women's Empowerment and Livelihoods Programme in the Mid-Gangetic Plains

India 1418 748 MPOWER Mitigating Poverty in Western Rajasthan Project


viii

Country Project



India 1470 779 CAIM Convergence of Agricultural Interventions in Maharashtra's Distressed Districts Programme

India 1617 856 ILSP Integrated Livelihoods Support Project

India 1715 2000000648 LAMP Livelihoods and Access to Markets Project

Indonesia 1258 645 READ Rural Empowerment and Agricultural Development Programme in Central Sulawesi

Indonesia 1341 755 PNPM National Programme for Community Empowerment in Rural Areas Project

Indonesia 1509 835 SOLID Smallholder Livelihood Development Project in Eastern Indonesia

Indonesia 1621 880 CCDP Coastal Community Development Project

Laos 1301 660/8082 RLIP Rural Livelihoods Improvement Programme in Attapeu and Sayabouri

Laos 1396 771 NRSLLDP Northern Region Sustainable Livelihoods through Livestock Development Project

Laos 1459 8025 SNRMP Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Productivity Enhancement Project

Laos 1608 8089 SSSJ-CFSEOP Soum Son Seun Jai - Community-based Food Security and Economic Opportunities Programme

Laos 1680 8117 FNML Southern Laos Food and Nutrition Security and Market Linkages Programme

Maldives 1347 663/692 PT-AFReP Post-Tsunami Agricultural and Fisheries Rehabilitation Programme

Maldives 1377 726 FADIP Fisheries and Agricultural Diversification Programme

Maldives 1624 8104 MEDEP Mariculture Enterprise Development Project

Mongolia 1205 592 RPRP Rural Poverty Reduction Programme

Mongolia 1455 836 PMPMD Project for Market and Pasture Management Development

Myanmar 1654 2000000650 FARM Fostering Agricultural Revitalisation in Myanmar

Nepal 1119 8010 WUPAP Western Uplands Poverty Alleviation Project

Nepal 1285 646 LFLP Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme

Nepal 1450 8014 PAF II Poverty Alleviation Fund Project II

Nepal 1471 796 HVAP High-Value Agriculture Project in Hill and Mountain Areas

Nepal 1602 881/8106 Biu-Bijan Kisankalagi Unnat Biu-Bijan Karyakram

Pakistan 1078 554 Southern FATA Southern Federally Administered Tribal Areas Development

Pakistan 1182 558 NWFP Barani North-West Frontier Province Barani Area Development Project

Pakistan 1245 625 AJK Community Development Programme

Pakistan 1324 683 MI&OP Microfinance Innovation and Outreach Programme

Pakistan 1385 695 REACH Project for Restoration of Earthquake-Affected Communities and Households

Pakistan 1413 727 PRISM Programme for Increasing Sustainable Microfinance

Pakistan 1514 825 SPPAP Southern Punjab Poverty Alleviation Project

Pakistan 1515 837 GLLSP Gwadar-Lasbela Livelihoods Support Project

Pakistan 1676 2000000446 LAMP Livestock and Access to Markets Project

Papua New Guinea

1480 809 PPAP Productive Partnerships in Agriculture Project

Philippines 1253 661 RuMePP Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme

Philippines 1395 749 CHARMP II Second Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project

Philippines 1485 767 RaFPEP Rapid Food Production Enhancement Programme

Philippines 1475 890 INREMP Integrated Natural Resources and Environmental Management Programme

Solomon Islands

1565 8070 RDP Rural Development Programme

Sri Lanka 1254 636 Dry Zone Dry Zone Livelihood Support and Partnership Programme

Sri Lanka 1316 712 SPEnDP Smallholder Plantations Entrepreneurship Development Programme


ix

Country Project



Sri Lanka 1346 664/693 PT-CRReMP Post Tsunami Coastal Rehabilitation and Resource Management Programme

Sri Lanka 1351 665/694 PT-LiSPP Post-Tsunami Livelihood Support and Partnership Programme

Sri Lanka 1457 797 NADeP National Agribusiness Development Programme

Sri Lanka 1600 857 IIDP Iranamadu Irrigation Development Project

Timor-Leste 1576 8093 TLMSP Timor-Leste Maize Storage Project

Tonga 1628 8099 RIP Tonga Rural Innovation Project

Viet Nam 1272 647 DPRPR Decentralized Program for Poverty Reduction in Ha Giang and Quang Binh Province

Viet Nam 1374 701 IMPP Programme for Improving Market Participation of the Poor in Ha Tinh and Tra Vinh Provinces

Viet Nam 1422 741 DBRPP Developing Business with the Rural Poor Programme

Viet Nam 1477 768 3PAD Pro-Poor Partnerships for Agroforestry Development Project

Viet Nam 1483 810 3EM Project for the Economic Empowerment of Ethnic Minorities in Poor Communes of Dak Nong Province

Viet Nam 1552 826 TNSP Agriculture, Farmers and Rural Areas Support Project in Gia Lai, Ninh Thuan and Tuyen Quang Provinces

Viet Nam 1662 2000000253 SRDP Sustainable Rural Development for the Poor Project in Ha Tinh and Quang Binh Provinces

Viet Nam 1664 2000000434 AMD Project for Adaption to Climate Change in the Mekong Delta in Ben Tre and Tra Vinh Provinces

Definitions of ratings

6 Highly satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 Moderately satisfactory 3 Moderately unsatisfactory 2 Unsatisfactory 1 Highly unsatisfactory


x

Map of Asia and the Pacific Region Active Investment Portfolio as at 30 June 2014


xi

Executive Summary

Asia-Pacific and IFAD on the move together

Three decades of strong economic growth in Asia and the Pacific were accompanied by 1.spectacular successes in reducing rural poverty, which declined from 59 to 31 percent in two decades (compared with the overall incidence of poverty in the general population of 18%). Yet, the countries of the region still face a number of critical challenges, including:

(a) rising income inequality, which, if unchecked, will result in a diminished effect of economic growth on poverty reduction and contribute to social conflict and political instability;

(b) overall economic growth rates are slowing down everywhere to around 6 percent for developing Asia from over 9 percent in 2010;

(c) weather concerns and increasing demand due to rising living standards continue to put pressure on food prices, that are dropping, but not far from their historical high;

(d) high vulnerability to natural disasters like climate change, with people in the region being four and 25 times more vulnerable than those in Africa and in North America/Europe, respectively;

(e) governance remains a concern; and (f) the region still holds two-thirds of the world’s poor, over 750 million people, and two thirds

of the world's 568 million undernourished and hungry people.

2. Consequently, the governments have their work cut out for them, and so does IFAD, given its unique mandate of rural poverty reduction, increased agricultural production and improved nutrition in developing countries. The good news is government spending in agriculture is increasing, albeit gingerly, to respond to the emerging opportunities. Although the challenge is daunting, given the sheer size of the problem, IFAD’s support to the region continues to be substantial and on track towards achieving, the target for APR of reaching some 30 million people out of the global outreach target of 90 million people for the whole of IFAD. During the period under review APR’s current portfolio of US$1.82 billion for 60 projects and programmes in 19 countries in the region, performed fully satisfactory. In fact over the past four years and more, the portfolio performance with respect to implementation progress has steadily improved with 91% of projects rated as moderately satisfactory (4) or better in 2013/14. Twenty-three percent of the projects received a score of satisfactory (5) or above. Only six projects scored below par (3 or 2) and face challenges and implementation delays that also jeopardize the likelihood that these projects can meet their development objectives.

The APR Country Programmes

3. APR’s vision and mission of visibility and being the preferred partner for the governments and other development partners throughout the region is developing fast. During 2013/2014, APR succeeded in getting three new Results Based COSOPs approved, while undertaking different kinds of reviews (annual, mid-term, completion, and interim) of nine, out of the ten, ongoing COSOPs. As an indication of IFAD’s evolving strategic focus in the region, all three new COSOPs emphasise: access to services (especially rural finance, including remittances, and extension of improved technologies) for farmers to take advantage of market opportunities and income diversification; increased resilience to climate and other shocks; employment generation; strengthening sustainable rural institutions and promoting social empowerment of marginalised groups. They address IFAD’s overarching goal of turning smallholder agriculture into sustainable agribusinesses in the context of climate change, market volatility, and socio-economic fragility. In view of the mutually reinforcing focus of the governments and IFAD on ensuring delivery of concrete results and positive impact on the rural poor, all nine COSOP reviews succeeded in consolidating or restructuring the country strategies so that they can do just that. The agreed actions included closing various non-performing projects (e.g. in Pakistan), revising some of the strategic objectives where appropriate while consolidating those that delivered desired results, and making decisions about the future directions of the country programmes.

4. However, despite the satisfactory overall performance of APR’s portfolio, the individual country programmes have had to deal with many common implementation challenges, including: project management; high transactions costs in remote islands or mountainous areas; building


xii

partnerships and mobilising co-financing; uneasy alignment and harmonisation of processes and procedures; fragile states’ or situations’ specific needs; policy dialogue; and challenges related to specific Middle Income Country (MIC) and private sector engagement. The country programme management teams spent considerable effort finding innovative solutions to all of the issues. These ranged from embedding national technical experts among project management teams to fill short-term capacity gaps and to train staff and beneficiaries, and to encourage the recruitment of deputy project managers who would ensure business continuity in the face of high senior staff turn-over. Also helpful are: strengthening community based organizations as a strategy to reduce transaction costs in remote areas; capacity improvement of immature institutions in fragile areas; sponsoring workshops and other forms of linkages between target groups and the private sector to minimise transaction costs of the latter.

5. As an indication of the general interest in IFAD’s work in the region, assessment surveys were organised for and about IFAD in Asia. Although the sample sizes were small, their findings were interesting and positive, albeit not always flattering. The 2013 assessment by the Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network of IFAD’s organisational effectiveness and evidence of contribution to development results rated IFAD’s performance strong to very strong for most of the performance indicators related to organisational management. Their assessment of IFAD‘s performance on providing evidence of its contribution to development results was less flattering, with countries rating IFAD strong in all results areas, while others gave a score of inadequate in some results areas. The IFAD client survey in eight countries from the region also registered a significant improvement for all key indicators compared to the 2012 client survey, with the highest scores on aid effectiveness, and contribution to Income, food security and empowerment.

The investment portfolio: outputs and challenges

6. APR has been successful in reducing the size of the portfolio of both loans and grants, while increasing their average size per project, as a means to increase efficiency. The reversal of the planned declining trend in the number of grants in the portfolio, from 23 grants last period to 27 now, although still lower than the levels (34) reached two years ago, is merely temporary. APR intends to persist in maintaining the size of the grant portfolio to a manageable level. During the review period

1, the portfolio comprised of 60 current investment projects in 19 countries, with a

total IFAD financing of US$1.82 billion (out of a total project costs of US$4.26 billion), in addition to the 27 grants worth US$30.5 million. Together they benefitted approximately 29 million people (cumulatively) by the end of the review period, based on the available RIMS data. This confirms the intended decrease in the number of countries (from 24 to 19) and investment projects (from 65 to 60), accompanied by an increase in total volume of funding. The result is a gradual increase in loan size per project from US$26.5 million in 2011-2012, to US$28.0 million in 2012-2013, to US$30.4 million in the current period.

7. The lion’s share of the investments supported the market and related infrastructure sector, which has continued its upward trend from 22% of the portfolio in 2013 to 25% now. Other sectors receiving substantial focus include: rural financial services; community driven development; natural resources management; agricultural production, research and extension; and policy dialogue. The worrying trend of dwindling investments in rural finance is being rectified by efforts to increase investments, starting with working with partners and experts to document global best practices that can be scaled up quickly by investment projects funded by governments, with or without donor support including IFAD’s.

8. Seventy-nine percent, of total financing in the portfolio is funded on concessional terms and conditions (including Highly Concessional plus Debt Sustainability Framework), as compared to 84% in the last period, and 89% the period before that. Thus, the share of lending to MICs on ordinary terms is rapidly increasing.

9. The key risks facing the APR portfolio this year include: disbursement lags due to weak financial management and procurement delays; weak M&E systems that do not strengthen management planning capabilities; weak capacities of project management teams and implementing partners leading to poor sustainability of project benefits; remoteness and inaccessibility of project areas due to poor rural infrastructure; lack of credit discipline and policy reversals by governments under political pressure undermining the sustainability of rural

1 Review period refers to July 2013 to 30 June 2014


xiii

financial services; cumbersome local procedures and processes compounded by political instability and/or poor governance; policy reversals. The mitigation measures for these risks employed by the projects include, inter-alias: careful project designs that remain simple and based on clear and mainstreamed institutional arrangements; persistent and coherent capacity building and knowledge sharing; scaling up results and best practices; building in appropriate exit strategies.

10. Other risks affecting the portfolio included: tenuous security situations and the ongoing conflict in fragile states or fragile situations in otherwise stable countries; natural disasters like adverse climate events hitting the project areas; price escalation of agricultural inputs; market volatility for agricultural products; commercial land concessions encroachment on the usufruct rights of the target groups; and mistrust between public and private sector players. These risks were mitigated through: incorporating climate smart designs; using local partners with the right capabilities and socio-political savviness as implementing partners; and avoiding politically unstable regions where all else fails.

11. With intensive implementation support, the number of actual problem projects (APPs) fell from last year’s nine projects to six this year, while the number of potential problem projects (PPPs) dropped from three last year to two this year. Consequently, the portfolio not at risk (NAR) has improved from 81% to 88% over the two years period. All the six APPs are in South Asia, while both PPPs are in Southeast Asia one of which is co-financed and supervised by the ADB. It is noteworthy that the three countries mostly affected by time over-runs (India, Nepal) and delayed loan closing (Pakistan) also have the largest number of persistent problem projects.

12. The key factors causing the problems in APPs and PPPs are varied, but the key ones include: delays in recruiting and mobilising implementing partners; weak and unstable project management; slow disbursement rates due to lack of competent accounting staff; inadequate and untimely counterpart funding provisions; and sudden changes of government leading to major distractions policy reversals.

13. APR teams continue to focus on reducing further the problem projects in the portfolio through various means, and it is encouraging that APR’s proactivity index has improved for the third consecutive year to 67% during this review period from 58% last year. On the other hand, the failure to improve the “reduced risk index” this year, which is zero, is a wakeup call. APR will seek to ensure that solutions are found for the chronic problem projects which may entail restructuring them drastically or proceeding with their cancellation in close dialogue with the concerned governments.

The special challenge of disbursement lags

14. Disbursements over the review period reached US$191.5 million for loans, DSF grants and loan component grants, representing an increase of approximately 7% over the previous review period. This accounts for 31.4% of total disbursements for IFAD in the review period. For the grants, the disbursements reached just under US$11.0 million which represents an increase over last year. The overall disbursement rating from the GSR is satisfactory. However, investment projects disbursement lags are a concern, especially in China where there is little incentive at the project level to submit supporting documentation for WAs given the fact the activities are pre-financed by local governments and later claimed from IFAD. Problems of disbursement lag also happen in other countries for other reasons like weak capacity.

15. The main area of persistent problems across the portfolio, where PSR ratings were 3 or lower, is in fact the disbursement lag, which is again this year the worst area of performance for the divisional portfolio, with a worsening of performance to 52% of projects registering a score of 3 or lower, as compared to 46% in 2012/2013, and 49% in 2011/2012. The main underlying causes for this are often related to inefficient internal cash flow management, delays in submitting invoices, pre-financing of categories by local authorities (using government budgetary processes) or implementing partners (like NGOs or private sector partners using different methods) who then encounter delays in submitting appropriate withdrawal applications, delays in government budget approval processes sometimes due to governance challenges, untimely and incorrect processing of withdrawal applications compounded by delays in making payments, shortage of full-time staff and weak capacity of financial management staff compounded by staff turnover, inappropriate or inefficient accounting systems sometimes due to governments refusing to adopt newer systems for their projects. In


xiv

addition, the recent changes in IFAD’s financial management systems (Flexcube, in particular) have caused disruptions and delays in the processing of withdrawal applications. CFS is working on this, however, with the hope of resolving all issues before the next review period.

Sources of financing the investments: PBAS and co-financing

16. Twenty countries received a total allocation of US$843 million from the current IFAD09 replenishment and PBAS cycle of 2013-2015. Since the beginning of that cycle, projects have been approved for ten of them, with a total IFAD financing of US$289 million, representing the total or a portion of their allocations. The balance will be fully committed by end 2015, although the Philippines and Pakistan allocations risk having to be put back into the wider PBAS pool if the current difficulties in processing three new projects are not resolved quickly.

17. The economic development successes of countries in the region are driving away many traditional donors. As a result, APR continues to experience challenges in mobilising co-financing resources, which means the portfolio now consists of a majority of projects exclusively financed by IFAD at 53%. Yet, successes continue to be registered in mobilising external co-financing, now standing at a substantial US$842 million for 29, out of the 60, ongoing projects, representing nearly half of the portfolio. The key co-financiers are the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank. In addition, to external sources of co-financing, domestic sources are increasingly becoming critical for project funding, reaching 37%. While strengthening partnerships with traditional partners (ADB and WB, etc.), APR will simultaneously strategically position itself more towards tapping this emerging source of funds, especially in the MICs.

Re-engineered staffing & decentralisation agenda of APR

18. The year witnessed the concretisation and finalisation of the ideas and decisions that emanated from the long (March 2013 to March 2014) consultative process on re-engineering the unit that was launched by the Director. In the end, major decisions were taken to: dismantle the former Business Centre; fill the long vacant position of Portfolio Adviser through an internal APR rotation; and establish clusters of country teams with the express aim of creating more cost effective and agile teams of CPMs and ICOs to be supported by a strengthened Portfolio Advisory Team. To reinforce them, five sub-regional hubs are being established comprise of 1 to2 out-posted CPMs and 1-2 CPMs at headquarters. Included in the objectives of the proposed structure are: greater horizontal working for more efficient use of resources; more cross fertilization and better transfer of knowledge; better services to countries; and more opportunities for career development. The five hubs are Beijing for East Asia, Hanoi for Southeast Asia, Dhaka for Southwest Asia, Jakarta for the Pacific Rim, and Delhi for South Asia. Once fully operational, they will have their own operational budgets.

19. Meanwhile, decisions have been reached on 21 staff movements in and out of the division, representing a turnover of about 40%, the full implementation of a few of which will be after the review period. There was the departure of one CPM, one Regional Economist, one SPO, one CPO, and one PA, and the filling of the Portfolio Advisor position (through internal rotation in APR), two CPM positions, one RE position, one CPO position and one ACPO position. In addition, approval was granted for the creation of two CPO positions, 1 Programme Officer position, 1 CPA position, and 1 G5 position. These will be filled soon.

20. Also, the EB approved the creation of two new ICOs for Afghanistan and Myanmar, making a total of 12 ICOs now approved for APR. In addition to the two out-posted CPMs, the decision was reached to outpost four more in the coming year or two to be comprised of one CPM for each of the five hubs, plus one extra for the Hanoi hub to be in charge of some countries in Southeast Asia other than Viet Nam. The CPMs for both Delhi and Jakarta hubs have been on stand-by since, only waiting for the signing and full implementation of the provisions in the respective Host Country Agreements.

Methodological note on review process

21. This year’s portfolio review processes improved on the methodology of earlier years. As in the past, it relied heavily on the APR supervision quality assurance process which has been in place for a number of years already. Through that process, APR continues to monitor its portfolio from the headquarters through a thorough quality assurance review of supervision and implementation support mission reports of both the loan and grant programmes. An external reviewer is commissioned to assess the quality of the overall process and the supervision


xv

reports, as well as the PSR ratings assigned by the supervision teams to ensure consistency in quality. Project Management Units (PMUs) and mission members participated in the assessment through survey questionnaires. The supervision mission reports are discussed in debriefing meetings attended by the concerned country teams, the external reviewer, other staff of APR (especially the Procurement Officer and the Programme Officer in charge of results), with the participation, where possible, of the respective Finance Officer from CFS and the Legal Counsel from LEG. When the Lead Portfolio Advisor (LPA) attends, he chairs the session.

22. In cases where mid-term review (MTR) or project completion review (PCR) reports are reviewed, the APR Director chairs the meeting, or the Lead Portfolio Advisor does on her behalf, with the participation of all those staff of APR, CFS, and LEG, listed above for the normal supervision report review meetings. Additionally, the full APR portfolio advisory group (PAG) is required to attend. The PAG is composed of APR’s: Lead Portfolio Advisor; the Procurement Officer; Programme Officer in charge of results; the Programme Officer in charge of Knowledge Management; the Programme Assistant in charge of the Portfolio Review; and the long term consultant Portfolio Analyst.

23. At the country level, the country teams monitor their respective portfolios through in-country missions composed of international and local consultants, often led by CPMs or CPOs and with participation from PTA and CFS colleagues, as well as ICO staff.

24. This year’s active APR portfolio review process started in earnest in early April 2014, with the composition of the teams of staff from all concerned units who need to contribute drafts of the sections of the report. The external reviewer of the supervision reports also contributed. Additionally, one other external consultant was recruited, and together with the consultant Portfolio Analyst, helped put together the necessary data for the report and contribute some sections of it. During the process, the Portfolio Advisory Group (PAG) provided the country teams with necessary documentation to guide them in preparing key documents for the portfolio performance report, and supported the teams as needed.

25. Consultative-cum-validation meetings with CPMs and their country teams, including ICO staff, were held face-to-face or virtually through skype or telephone. In total, 20 such meetings were held during which discussions focused on providing feedback on, and validating the quality of the country programme issues sheet (CPIS), the country action plans, and the project status reports (PSRs). The LPA chaired these intensive discussions with the country teams, with the participation of the full PAG. The APR Director assisted in one of these meetings to provide feedback on how they might be improved. The PAG also met with CFS to discuss and agree on their role and contribution in the process.

26. Subsequent to the compilation of the final full draft of 2013-2014 APR portfolio performance report, it was circulated on 7 August 2014 to the whole division and other concerned units of IFAD for comments before finalisation. The report was then finalised for submission to PMD on 14 August 2014, as requested.

27. Thus, this year’s APR portfolio review process has pro-actively engaged all APR staff at headquarters and in the field, as well as concerned CFS colleagues. The LPA and the PAG are deeply grateful for their full contribution.


1

I. Overview of the economic and social situation in the region

Overall socio-economic developments

Three decades of strong economic growth in Asia and the Pacific have been accompanied by 1.successes in reducing poverty. Between 1990 and 2011, the proportion of people in the region

living below US$1.25 a day dropped from 52% to 18% 8 percentage points beyond the MDG1 target for 2015.

2 Similarly, the region has done well in achieving other MDG goals, such

as reducing the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water (which fell from 28% to 9%), achieving gender parity at all levels of education, and coming close to comprehensive primary enrolment and completion. Yet, the economies of the region still face a number of critical challenges. First, income inequality is rising fast in many countries. According to a recent

ADB report, it rose through the 1990s and 2000s in 11 of 28 Asian countries 82% of the region’s 2010 population.

3 Over this period, the Gini coefficient of developing Asia increased

from 39 to 46. Over time, rising inequality tends to accompany a diminished effect of economic growth on poverty reduction, and contributes to social conflict and political instability.

Second, overall economic growth rates have slowed down in recent years. Developing Asia 2.grew by 6.1% in 2013 and 2012, compared to growth rates of 9.2% in 2010 and 7.3% in 2011, and is projected to increase only marginally in 2014 and 2015 (6.2% and 6.3%, respectively) due to moderating growth in China and India. Inflation levels have also improved, mirroring declines in global food prices of 3% between October 2013 and January 2014, a trend continuing since the August 2012 historical high.

4 This should benefit the poor, particularly the

net food buyers, although global food prices are still close to their historic high; and weather concerns and increasing demand will continue to put pressure on food prices. The region is particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. According to the 2010 Asia Pacific Disaster Report, people in the region are 4 and 25 times more vulnerable to natural disasters when compared with people in Africa and in North America/Europe, respectively.

5

Twenty three million hectares are drought prone, representing one fifth of the region’s rice growing areas.

Third, governance issues also remain an area of concern for a number of countries in the 3.region. Transparency International’s Corruption Index falls below 30 for 10 countries. The lowest scores appear to be associated with fragility, poverty, political freedoms, and higher rural population.

6

Key challenges facing poor rural women and men

Asia and the Pacific hold two-thirds of the world’s poor, over 750 million people; and two thirds 4.of the world's 568 million undernourished and hungry people (in terms of caloric intake). In almost all sub-regions, poverty is primarily a rural phenomenon: an estimated 70% of the poor live in these areas. The incidence of rural poverty has declined from 59% to 31% in the last two decades for the region as a whole (as compared to 18% for overall poverty).

7 The situation is

worst in South Asia, where 507 million poor people lived in 2010, and where the proportion of undernourished people is 18%. Incidence of rural poverty is also more extensive in South Asia,

reaching 45% - while in East Asia the proportion of poor among the rural population is 15%. While these figures depict the extent of poverty in the region, they are estimates and should be used with caution. A substantial portion of the rural population fall in and out of poverty due to

periodic shocks floods, droughts, civil strife, and increases in food and fuel prices. This is an indication of the high degree of their vulnerability. Extreme weather conditions, in particular, pose major threats to food and livelihood security for rural people who rely on natural resources for their livelihoods.

2 ESCAP, ADB and UNDP. 2013. Asia-Pacific Aspirations: Perspective for a Post-2015 Development Agenda, Asia Pacific

Regional MDG Report 2012/2013. 3 Asian Development Outlook 2012

4 World Bank. Food Price Watch, February 2014.

5 Asia-Pacific.UNDP.org/content/rbap/en/home/regioninfo/

6 Corruption Perceptions Index 2013, Transparency International

7 IFAD (APR). 2013. Agriculture—Pathways to Prosperity in Asia and the Pacific, Occasional Paper No. 17, May 2013.


2

Beyond income poverty, deprivation is evident in the high prevalence and persistence of 5.

undernourished children nearly three out of every four of the world's underweight children reside in developing Asia; almost one out of every two children in South Asia is stunted.

8 The

region is also lagging behind in meeting other MDG goals such as halving the proportion of people without basic sanitation or extending maternal health care services.

In addition to having most of the world’s poor, Asia and the Pacific also lag behind on gender 6.equality. Women face discrimination in jobs and disparity in power, voice and political representation. Almost half of the adult women in South Asia are illiterate, and girls are more likely to drop out from school than boys. Women’s participation in the labour force is among the lowest in the world. Throughout Asia and the Pacific, women earn less, have few decision-making powers over income earned, and are less able to access extension services, credit and production assets compared to men. Indigenous people are also disadvantaged, with an estimated 75 million poor out of about 225 million indigenous persons in Asia and the Pacific. Often in remote locations with limited access to markets and services and weak physical and social infrastructure, they face social, economic and political marginalization. In almost all countries in the region, the income gap between indigenous peoples and the majority population is widening.

Labour movements migration have helped rural poor people cope with deteriorating terms 7.of trade and limited access to remunerative markets and affordable services. In addition to absorbing excess labour, financial flows from migrant workers to their home communities have been significant. In 2012, an estimated 60 million migrant workers originating from the region sent US$260 billion to their families, which accounts for 63% of global remittances.

9 Most

remittance-receiving households in the region, particularly those from rural areas have limited access to savings accounts and other financial instruments that can help build assets. Thus, remittances play a significant role in providing relatively more stable sources of income than most other external flows. Providing rural households with more options for utilizing their money leverages the development impact of remittances.

Role of agricultural and rural development sectors

The higher incidence of poverty in rural areas, the association between poverty and 8.undernourishment, and growing out-migration from rural areas leaving behind the vulnerable

(women, children, and elderly), all point to an important role for agriculture and more

generally for rural development in combating poverty. Further, fragile countries with higher poverty rates often exhibit significant economic dependence on over-exploited natural resources.

Agricultural and rural development is important for poverty reduction not only because of the 9.need to mitigate vulnerability, but also because they offer important opportunities for sparking long-term rural economic growth and moving people out of poverty for good. For example, the rising demand for food and high-value agricultural products in the region has created attractive investment opportunities and transformed the agriculture sector. If organised and strengthened, poor rural women and men can benefit in various ways from the newly emerging opportunities.

Available data indicate that government spending in agriculture is increasing to respond to 10.these emerging opportunities. Yet generally they remain below 1980 levels. It appears that sustainable and equitable agricultural development needs viable models that can safeguard public and other domestic investments. This requires support in (a) making agriculture less risky for smallholders; (b) conserving the environment and raising productivity; and (c) implementing adaptation measures to counteract the adverse effects of climate change. Such support to smallholder adaptation capacity should go beyond expanded research for improved crop yields and tolerance to stress conditions but also in pest management, soil conservation and cropping patterns.

IFAD’s Response to Key Trends

As is shown later in this report (section III on portfolio characteristics), through its loans and 11.grants programme, IFAD is increasingly investing in market linkages and related infrastructure, value chains development, and building partnerships with the private sector, active in key value

8 UNICEF (2012) State of the World’s Children 2012 and 2010 World Population Prospects.

9 IFAD 2013. Sending Money Home to Asia: Trends and Opportunities in the World’s Largest Remittance Marketplace.


3

chains where poor women and men are engaged. There are interesting examples of value chain linkages involving major national and international food corporations, e.g. the partnership of Indonesia’s Rural Empowerment and Agricultural Development Programme in Central Sulawesi with the Mars Company. There have also been good experiences involving federations of producer groups linked to marketing and value chains (e.g. India ULIPH). These operations have collaborated with lead firms, especially in the start-up phase of a project (e.g. in Viet Nam). Such firms have a better feel for the range of primary as well as value added and agro-industrial products demanded in the marketplace.

IFAD has also invested heavily in rural finance, to increase investment in growth areas, improve 12.pro-poor outreach of financial services, and ultimately to increase incomes and reduce inequality. There are good examples of solid linkages with business services (e.g. Philippines RuMEPP), micro-enterprise lending (e.g. Bangladesh FEDEC) and sustainable microfinance (Pakistan PRISM). However, there are other cases where the role expected of financial institutions did not materialise, requiring restructuring during implementation (e.g. VBARD in Viet Nam 3EM).

The APR portfolio is supporting many interventions on natural resources management, which 13.now represent at least nine percent of the portfolio. In addition, all IFAD investments include risk mitigations against natural disasters and provisions for climate smart development.

APR is also increasingly paying attention to remittances, and in particular, their potential for 14.enhancing the economic development of IFAD target groups when they are channelled into productive investments (see latest Myanmar COSOP). There is evidence from the literature that remittances generate output growth either by increasing consumption or by increasing investment. In addition, the ability of rural households to spend on health, housing and nutrition can enhance their agriculture productivity and spur economic growth over the longer term.

II. Country programmes

RB COSOPs presented to EB A.

Three new RB-COSOPs were presented to the Executive Board (EB) during the present review 15.period, namely Cambodia (September 2013), Nepal (September 2013) and Myanmar (April 2014). They bring the total number of countries with COSOPs in APR to 14, including the Sub-regional strategic opportunities paper for 13 countries on the Pacific Rim. Of them seven have been updated 2 to 3 times and five have only had one phase, including Afghanistan’s which was updated in December 2013 with the EB’s endorsement in April 2014. Highlights from the three latest COSOPs, and comments on them from the EB members, are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: RB-COSOPs submitted to the EB during the review period

Cambodia (2013-2018)

The three strategic objectives of the COSOP are: poor small farmers enabled to take advantage of market opportunities; poor rural households and communities increase resilience to climate and other shocks; and poor rural households improve access to strengthened rural services delivery. The EB welcomed the leading role IFAD will play in supporting Cambodia’s agricultural sector and the broad consultation process used to prepare it. They raised some concern about land tenure and usufruct rights in the country, in particular the effect of economic concessions to large firms on IFAD’s target groups

Nepal (2013-2018)

IFAD’s three strategic objectives in Nepal under the new strategy are: promote rural income diversification and stimulate employment; strengthen food security and resilience to climatic and other risks; and promote inclusive, accountable and sustainable rural institutions. The EB noted the responsiveness of the new COSOP to the findings and recommendations of the recent Country Programme Evaluation (May 2013). The additional emphasis on economic development along the economic corridors, and on remittances and migration issues, though challenging, was welcomed. The EB recognised fragility and governance challenges in Nepal, and endorsed the need to increase partnerships with civil society, private sector actors and public institutions at the grassroots level.

Myanmar (2014-2018)

IFAD’s first country strategy in Myanmar has three major strategic objectives: empowering rural women and men to access agricultural resources, technologies, services and markets; creating business and employment opportunities for rural women and men; and promoting social empowerment and marginalised groups, particularly ethnic groups. The EB noted the strong country ownership of the strategy and welcomed their strong co-financing approach embedded in it.

It is noteworthy that the three COSOPs emphasise four themes, namely: access to services 16.(especially rural finance, including remittances, and extension of improved technologies) for farmers to take advantage of market opportunities and income diversification; increased


4

resilience to climate and other shocks; employment generation; and strengthening sustainable rural institutions and promoting social empowerment of marginalised groups. They represent the continuing importance APR places on turning smallholder agriculture into sustainable businesses in the context of climate change, market volatility, and socio-economic fragility.

Highlights of COSOP reviews

Out of APR’s thirteen COSOPs, nine are results-based and require mandatory annual and mid-17.term reviews. During the present review period, a mid-term or annual review plus one completion-cum-redesign of an interim phase was conducted in the nine countries concerned. Highlights of the main conclusions reached in all of these, include: the strategic objectives and approaches of the COSOPs remain valid and relevant, and aligned to government priorities; and that the achievements are generally on course to meet the original COSOP targets. In some cases agreement was reached to redirect some of the SOs towards new challenges or refocus on emerging thematic areas like private sector engagement.

Country programme issues B.

As will be shown later in this report (notably section VI), the overall performance of APR’s 18.country programmes has been satisfactory during the review period, with over 90%of all projects reaching a moderately satisfactory rating or higher for both overall implementation progress and likelihood of achieving development objectives. This, in fact, represents a continuing trend of steady improvement over the last four review cycles. The findings of the China country programme evaluation (1999 to 2013), concluded during this review cycle, is a good example of this. Nonetheless, the country programmes have, in varying degrees, had to deal with some common implementation challenges and issues that kept the country teams busy. These include: project management; high transactions costs; building partnerships and mobilising co-financing; uneasy alignment and harmonisation of processes and procedures; fragile states’ or situations’ specific needs; policy dialogue; and challenges related to specific Middle Income Country (MIC) and private sector engagement. These, and the efforts being made to address them, are explained in some detail below.

Project management challenges. These are due for the most part to high staff turnovers, 19.weak capacity of staff and institutions, poor financial management, and weak monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems and practices leading to poor data that then results in inappropriate and inadequate feed-back loops needed to ensure good project management. As IFAD supported projects in APR are often fully embedded within government institutions, locally and/or nationally, in almost all countries of the region, key project positions are filled with government staff on secondment. Experience has shown that this arrangement, while desirable and fully encouraged to ensure ownership, sustainability and future scaling up, also often results in undesirable consequences for project performance. High staff turnover, especially of project directors and other senior staff, causes disruptions not easily overcome as they are almost entirely beyond the control of IFAD. Where government staff hold key positions as well as additional responsibilities not related to the project it is common for them to be distracted by their other duties that are often more urgent politically. Several remedial measures were tested, including increased numbers of national technical experts being embedded in operations in Nepal. In India, efforts continue to encourage state governments to assign deputy project managers/directors wherever possible, which ensures some degree of continuity of activities even when project managers are recalled to other duties. In the case of CHN-1629, where staff were previously part of a pool and assigned tasks as needed, but with little continuity or accountability for results, agreement was reached to assign staff permanently with clear terms of references and explicit accountabilities.

High transactions cost particularly in islands and fragile states. This is linked primarily to 20.scattered populations and islands with low population densities, weak oversight by ministries at the central level coupled with institutions at sub-national levels causing problems of coordination and communication. In other cases, the issue arises from the remoteness of IFAD project areas, even in otherwise well-endowed countries. While the high transaction costs, further compounded by the low capacity of remote communities and institutions and limited recurrent budgets, particularly impact the operations in the Maldives, the Pacific Islands, and even Papua islands of Indonesia, they are not alone in facing this challenge. National and local (provincial, district, or county) governments, even in some MICs like China, India, and Sri Lanka (Moneragala and Kilinochchi) struggle to attain the basic capacity to sustain development


5

services to outlying communities. Communication in these areas is difficult due to underdeveloped infrastructure. Security issues notwithstanding, there are still examples of PMU management teams unwilling or unable to locate to the field. One of IFAD’s responses to these parallel realities and challenges is to agree to include higher proportions of rural infrastructure in the portfolio, even in the MICs. In the Pacific Islands, like elsewhere, the remedy adopted is to support sub-regional projects involving many small countries (island states) and rely on civil society organisations, the private sector, inter-governmental sub-regional institutions, and business development service providers as implementing partners where possible. Also more effort will be made to include incentive mechanisms to convince staff to move to the field, especially in remote areas.

Challenges in building partnerships and mobilising co-financing. During the period, there 21.was strong evidence of an increased effort in almost all country programmes to push forward the partnership agenda. The various forms of partnerships pursued are: participation in donor forums and consultative group meetings at the country level, of which many good examples exist including in Laos PDR and the Philippines; engagement in the UNDAF consultations and processes like in Bhutan, Laos, and Maldives, resulting in good visibility for IFAD although implementation of such frameworks pose problems due to lack of coordination and synchronisation; the CGIAR systems’ involvement in the linkages between the loan and grants programmes of the region; private sector engagements, mainly through the projects; co-

financing with like-minded donors, with good examples in Bangladesh, Laos, and Indonesia where almost all projects are co-financed; and knowledge management particularly through south-south cooperation, notably between China and many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Key challenges encountered in this endeavour come from many factors including: non-22.conducive environments and, in some cases, government actions/decisions that discourage (or do not encourage) IFAD co-financing of projects with other donors (particularly IFIs), examples of which include China and India; challenges in working simultaneously with national and provincial counterpart institutions in a decentralised and de-concentrated institutional set-up as in many MICs; the difficulties of local government units mobilising their mandatory share of the costs of rural infrastructure, causing serious delays that were behind, for instance, PHL-1395 being rated as an actual problem project (APP) until June 2014; and the special challenges faced in co-financed projects, due to issues of coordinating the interventions and the procedures and processes of two or more foreign co-financiers. In the specific case of co-financed projects, notably with the ADB and World Bank, the main challenges come from an uneasy harmonisation of processes and procedures of the partners, although with considerable efforts on both sides, things improved. In this connection, a key area of concern is the blanket application of the environmental and resettlement safeguard measures of other donors, which may sometimes be unsuitable for the types of agricultural sector development projects IFAD supports. Another area of difficult harmonisation concerns procurement and disbursements, where IFAD has been gradually building its own expertise since 2008.

Private sector engagement challenges. The overall performance of some public-private 23.partnerships and related projects and programmes, considered best practices by QA at design, turned out to encounter serious delays during implementation. Specific examples include LKA-1457, MDV-1377 and MDV-1624. Usually, the issues arise from: a change of heart of some private sector players when circumstances change and other attractive business opportunities arise; and mistrust developing in between public and private parties.

Uneasy alignment with some national systems. In the aggressive pursuit of the tenets of the 24.Paris declaration on aid effectiveness, where APR has sought to align its operations as closely as possible to the country systems, major successes and a number of challenges were registered. As mentioned earlier all the COSOPs and the projects are fully aligned. Some successful examples of effective mainstreaming of IFAD project results into broader national and state level programmes include PAK-1413, CHN-1323 and IND-1155. Issues of alignment, however, arise mainly in seeking to align with country systems, procedures, and processes, or in seeking convergence or linkages with government programmes. Two extreme cases concern the fact that approval processes of the Pakistani and the Philippines governments of foreign funded projects are so cumbersome that several IFAD projects, worth over US$100 million, have stalled over a year. In most cases, however, problems relate more to delays caused by adopting bureaucratic procedures of governments on matters like thresholds for different


6

procurement methods, where IFAD’s approach is more practical for projects but cannot be adopted due to national restrictions.

Fragile states’ or situations’ specific needs, linked with insecurity in the areas of IFAD 25.interventions, weak local and state institutions, poor prospects for achieving sustainability of the benefits of the operations, and catastrophic consequences for investments washed away in a matter of hours or so due to natural or man-made disasters, like earthquakes, floods, or outbreak of civil strife. Obvious cases of these challenges include the Afghanistan country programme, but also projects in difficult regions of the Philippines and Indonesia.

Specific MIC related challenges. Ostensibly both IFAD and MICs declare the need to put 26.more emphasis in their partnerships and engagement on so-called “non-lending activities”, such as knowledge exchanges, policy dialogue, innovation and scaling up. Given that APR has some of the biggest MICs, these activities are daunting. In the case of the June 2014 China CPE, the area that received the lowest ratings of moderately satisfactory is the non-lending activities, while the overall performance of the country programme was rated satisfactory. To resolve this mismatch between desire and resources and capabilities, negotiations have started with some countries for them to put aside their own resources, in the form of trust funds or similar, to carry out such non-lending activities. If progress can be achieved along those lines it is certain that the related performance of the APR portfolio will improve.

Policy dialogue challenges and opportunities. There is a mismatch between IFAD’s desire 27.to engage in policy dialogue and partnership building and the resources (human and capital) available to carry these out at national, or even provincial, levels meaningfully. Yet expectations of governments for IFAD’s help is high, because of its good reputation for supporting sustainable profitable investments in agriculture and rural development for small farmers, fishers and other small entrepreneurs. Consequently, APR works through its fourteen COSOPs and 60 odd projects to pursue as much policy dialogue as is materially possible. The following domains were covered in recent years: access to natural resources (land and water); strengthening the rural finance focus of projects; development of sustainable pro-poor value chains and market access arrangements; strengthening the capacity of local institutions; promulgation and/or simple implementation of, often good, existing laws and regulations pertaining to social inclusion and women’s empowerment; promotion of pro-poor public-private partnerships; and south-south cooperation and knowledge management. Policy engagement in one form or another was pursued during the period through: investment projects; grants; and dedication of country programme management team members in partnerships with stakeholders. In all cases IFAD’s policy dialogue efforts have the dual objective of creating an enabling policy environment for IFAD-supported projects and strengthening the capacity of government agencies to develop and implement pro-poor policies, as initiatives in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, Maldives and Viet Nam indicate.

Client Perspectives

The 2013 assessment by the Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network 28.(MOPAN) of IFAD’s organisational effectiveness and evidence of contribution to development results was done in six countries, of which three are in APR, namely Indonesia, Pakistan and Viet Nam. MOPAN itself qualified the risks of generalising the findings due to the relatively very small sample size. Nonetheless, the following few key findings are noteworthy. First, IFAD’s performance was rated strong to very strong for most of the 21 key performance indicators related to organisational management. The only areas needing improvement are: in assuring adequate country presence; establishing more efficient corporate procurement procedures; and results-based budgeting. Coincidently, APR is already aggressively pursuing the decentralisation agenda. Second, IFAD‘s performance on providing evidence of its contribution to development results received mixed reviews. With respect to progress towards achieving its strategic objectives at the country level, stakeholders in Viet Nam gave the most positive rating of strong in all results areas, while those in Indonesia gave a more mixed rating with the lowest score of inadequate being given for three out of six results areas. It is noteworthy that in Indonesia the direct country partners gave higher ratings than the in-country donors. The same pattern per country was registered for IFAD responding well to countries’ development priorities and contributing to country level goals, although much more nuanced ratings were given for adjusting to changing needs and the level of innovation brought to bear on development challenges.


7

The 2014 IFAD client survey was undertaken in eight countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, 29.Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Viet Nam). Again, given the extremely small sample size, it is risky to extrapolate its findings to the regional level. Nevertheless, the following observations can be made. First, APR registered a significant improvement for all key indicators compared to the 2012 client survey, with a score of 5.1 against 4.97 for aid effectiveness, 5.12 against 5.06 for contribution to Income, food security and empowerment; 4.76 against 4.64 for contribution to national policy dialogue and support for participation of the civil society. Second, APR’s score was satisfactory, at 4.98, for the newly introduced results management framework indicator of effective partnership building. Third, across all eight countries, alignment with country processes and country ownership exhibit the highest average scores in 2014, both at 5.2, while national policy dialogue score lowest at 4.8. Although, on average, policy dialogue made the largest improvement since 2012, much work remains to be done.

III. Current investment portfolio and operations

Characteristics A.

A total of 19 countries, out of the 3410

in APR, have received a total allocation of US$843 million 30.from the current IFAD09 replenishment and PBAS cycle of 2013-2015. Projects have been approved for ten of them, with total IFAD financing of US$289 million, representing all or a portion of their allocations. With respect to the current portfolio, it is comprised of 60 ongoing projects in 19 countries, with a total IFAD financing of US$1.8 billion (see Figure 1 and Table 3).

Figure 1: Current IFAD financing by country

This represents a decrease in the number of countries from IFAD 7 in 24 to IFAD 10 in 19 and 31.projects from 65 in 2012/13 to 60 in 2013/14, accompanied by an increase in total volume of funding, compared to the last review period. The result is a gradual increase in loan size per project from US$26.5 million in 2011-2012, to US$28.0 million in 2012-2013 to US$30.4 million in the current period, as intended. On the other hand, the change signifies a substantial increase in total IFAD funding, at over US$200 million, compared to the 2011-2012 period, while the number of projects remained the same at 61 and 60 respectively. Again, this reinforces the intended gradual increase in loan sizes in APR. The five countries that received the biggest share of IFAD resources continue to be India, China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and

10

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Democratic, People’s Republic of Korea, Fiji, India,

Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kiribati, Lao People’s, Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall, Islands,

Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Niue, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Samoa, Solomon

Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.


8

Viet Nam (Figure 1). Between them, they have projects worth US$1.2 billion, equivalent to around 67% of the total commitments for APR.

The distribution of IFAD investments across the four sub-regions of APR has remained virtually 32.unchanged in three years, with around 57-58% of the portfolio concentrated in South Asia, 27% in Southeast Asia, 13-14% in East Asia, and 1-2% in the Pacific Islands (Table 2).

Table 2: Sub-regional distribution of portfolio11

Current portfolio by sectors/themes. The lion share of IFAD’s investments in APR during the 33.review period supported the market and related infrastructure sector, and is witnessing an increasing trend over the last few years, from 22% in 2013 to 25% now. Other sectors receiving substantial focus include: rural financial services; community driven development; natural resources management; agricultural production, research and extension; and policy dialogue. To reverse the diminishing investments in rural finance APR initiated various steps, including the initiation of the grant funded Project to Document Global Best Practices on Sustainable Models of Pro-Poor Rural Financial Services in Developing Countries, which started implementing in 2014. It will assist rural finance providers and governments extend financial services on a sustainable basis, through the application of best practices. Another noteworthy trend is that governments agree to use substantial IFAD resources (11% of total investments) to build and strengthen project management and coordination capacities. This is important given the preference of governments to use loan resources for hardware.

Financing terms. The bulk, or seventy-nine percent, of APR’s portfolio is funded on 34.concessional terms and conditions (including highly concessional plus DSF), as compared to 84% last period, and 89% the period before that (Table 4). Thus, a rapidly increasing number of projects and programmes funded on ordinary terms are being witnessed. Only one APR operation in India is so far financed on blend terms, but that is likely to start increasing too.

11

South Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. South East: Cambodia,

Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines and Viet Nam. East Asia: China and Mongolia. Pacific Islands: Papua New Guinea,

Timor-Leste and Tonga.

Sub-regions

No. of

countries %

No. of

projects %

Current

financing

(US$'000) %

No. of

countries %

No. of

projects %

Current

financing

(US$'000) %

No. of

countries %

No. of

projects %

Current

financing

(US$'000) %

South Asia 8 42 33 54 944 702 58 8 42 35 54 1 061 706 58 8 42 31 52 1 046 822 57

South East 5 26 17 28 440 003 27 5 26 19 29 489 868 27 6 32 19 27 497 930 27

East Asia 2 11 7 11 205 227 13 2 11 7 11 239 203 13 2 11 7 14 257 858 14

Pacific Islands 4 21 4 7 25 914 2 4 21 4 6 25 914 1 3 16 3 1 21 918 1

Total 19 100 61 100 1 615 846 100 19 100 65 100 1 816 691 100 19 100 60 100 1 824 528 100

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Table 3: IFAD financing by result category (US$ '000)

Sector 2012/2013 2013/2014 2012/2013 2013/2014

Market and related infrastructure 405 966 447 058 22% 25%

Management 196 196 202 420 11% 11%

Community driven development 172 204 173 085 9% 9%

Natural resource management 151 758 167 430 8% 9%

Research, extension and training 131 073 133 169 7% 7%

Agricultural production 128 596 132 860 7% 7%

Policy and institutional support 127 818 130 033 7% 7%

Rural financial services 194 993 106 227 11% 6%

Livestock and rangelands 70 300 104 715 4% 6%

Small and micro enterprises 82 445 86 594 5% 5%

Irrigation 77 008 86 028 4% 5%

Other 80 718 54 720 4% 3%

Total 1 819 074 1 824 339 100% 100%


9

Table 4: Financing terms

Co-financed projects. Due to successes of many countries in the region in improving their 35.

economies, the decline in the region’s share of total global Official Development Assistance flows continues to accelerate. Consequently, APR continues to experience challenges in meeting IFAD’s goal of reaching a 1:1.6 co-financing ratio. Thus, APR’s portfolio increasingly consists of projects exclusively financed by IFAD (type E), at 50% of all projects, while 37% of the projects were initiated by IFAD and co-financed by others (type F), and the number of projects initiated by others and co-financed by IFAD (type C) steadily decreased from 16% in 2012 to 13% now (Table 5). Despite the challenges, APR succeeded in mobilising co-financing of up to US$842 million from donors for 28, out of the 60, ongoing projects, representing nearly half of the portfolio. The key international co-financiers are the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank. Currently ADB is the biggest co-financier with a total of US$ 328 million for 7 ongoing projects in four countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines). Meanwhile, both IFAD and ADB are pushing even harder to conclude a new Framework Co-financing Agreement (FCA) before the end of 2014, which would further enhance immediate collaboration in many countries.

Table 5: Current 2013-2014 portfolio by financing source and type as at 30 June 2014

In addition to external sources of co-financing, domestic sources are increasingly becoming 36.critical for project funding, reaching 37%. APR is strategically positioning its dialogue with many countries of the region, notably the MICs, to agree a minimum level of co-financing from domestic sources for each IFAD funded project. This approach is the main vehicle through which APR is likely to meet the corporate goal of 1:1.6 co-financing ratio.

Operations B.

Quality at entry

Ten APR designed projects went through quality assurance (QA) reviews during this period. 37.Four of them previously went through the quality enhancement (QE) process, leaving only six to do so during the present review period (Table 6). The key recommendations made by the QA relate mainly to: improving the logical framework (6 projects); clarifying implementation arrangements (4 projects), agreeing on the rural financing schemes (4 projects); refining the economic analysis (3 projects); revisiting the risk mitigation measures (3 projects), and rationalising the provision of agricultural subsidies (3 projects).

Financing terms

No. of

project

Current

financing

amount

(US$ '000)

% of

financing

No. of

project

Current

financing

amount

(US$ '000)

% of

financing

No. of

project

Current

financing

amount

(US$ '000)

% of

financing

DSF (red) 10 158 046 9% 10 151 301 8% 8 80 813 5%

DSF/HC (yellow) 4 107 681 6% 4 102 662 6% 3 63 662 4%

Highly Concessional 36 1 176 406 64% 43 1 274 198 70% 45 1 295 936 80%

Intermediate 4 121 630 7% 4 121 630 7% 4 128 435 8%

Ordinary 5 210 703 12% 4 166 900 9% 1 47 000 3%

Blend 1 50 062 3% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%

Total 60 1 824 528 100% 65 1 816 691 100% 61 1 615 846 100%

2013/2014 2013/2012 2012/2011

`

Financing

type

No of

projects %

Cofinancier

(INTL

resources) Domestic IFAD Grand Total

C 8 13% 523 546 214 420 191 352 929 318

E 30 50% 1 009 848 1 001 771 2 011 619

F 22 37% 317 954 371 479 631 405 1 320 838

Total 60 100% 841 500 1 595 747 1 824 528 4 261 775

Percentage 20% 37% 43% 100%

Current amount US$ ('000)


10

CountryProject

ID

Project

NameQE Date QA Date EB Approval

Laos 1680 FNML (LOT) 15 Feb 13 01 Jul 13 07 Sep 13

Viet Nam 1662 SRDP 25 Feb 13 02 Jul 13 19 Sep 13

Pakistan 1676 LAMP 27 Mar 13 05 Jul 13 11 Dec 13

Viet Nam 1664 AMD 31 Jul 13 30 Sep 13 11 Dec 13

Philippines 1548 Fish-CoRAL 25 Apr 13 30 Sep 13 Sep 2014

China 1699 SSADeP 10 Jun 13 04 Oct 13 11 Dec 13

Kiribati 1708 OIWFP (LOT) 09 Oct 13 31 Jan 14 Sep 2014

Myanmar 1654 FARM 18 Dec 13 04 Feb 14 08 Apr 14

India 1715 LAMP 04 Sep 13 07 Feb 14 08 Apr 14

Bangladesh 1648 PACE Jun-14 Sep 2014

Total 10 projects

RMF

indicatorsDescription

Rating 4 or

better

Rating 5 or

better

Average

ratings

1 Effectiveness of thematic area 100% 50% 4.5

2

Project impact on poverty

measurement 100% 50% 4.5

4.3.3 Gender 80% 20% 4.0

4.3.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 90% 50% 4.4

4.3.5 Scaling up 71% 43% 4.1

IFAD 9

Environment and Climate

Change 67% 17% 3.5

OA Project design 100% 50% 4.5

DO

Likely to achieve development

objectives (%) 100% NA NA

As shown in Table 6 the overall average QA rating for the projects that went through quality 38.assurance is 4.5 with 100% of them deemed likely to meet their development objectives. APR’s performance in QA has continued its upward improvement.

Table 6: Projects that went through QA from July 2013 – June 2014 QA ratings for RMFs

Approvals

APR succeeded in obtaining approval of a large number of projects during the review period, 39.

reaching a total of twelve investment projects (thirteen financing instruments) from IFAD’s core resources, four of which are additional financing, plus two financing funded from ASAP resources, of which one was additional financing. The total investments committed for all of these projects amounts to just over US$271 million. The EB raised project specific questions ranging from clarifying the measures taken to reduce fiduciary risks (BGD-1585), to those on clarifying the targeting approach (IND-1715 and MMR-1654), to the need to clarify proposed private sector partnerships (MMR-1654 and PAK-1676), to requests for clarifying how the weak capacity constraints will be addressed. The EB considered the CHN-1699’s success in mobilising substantial counterpart funding (1:1.7) from the Chinese government as a best practice. It noted this indicates a greater commitment of the central and local governments in pursuing the project’s development objectives, which should auger well for the sustainability of the interventions and the subsequent scaling up of the best practices emerging from it.

Table 7: Projects approved during the review period


11

Pre-implementation activities

Five projects entered-into-force during the review period (see Table 8), with an average lapse of 40.time between approval and entry into force of only four months. Discounting the outlier, India’s JTELP, which encountered a 12.4 months lapse of time, the average time from approval to entry into force for the remaining four projects, is less than 2 months. This good performance risks being offset, if CHN-1699 and VNM-1664 do not soon start disbursing.

Table 8: Projects entered into force during the review period

In addition to the five projects whose Financing Agreements (FA) entered into force during the 41.review period, FAs for three new projects approved during the review period have not been signed as of 30 June 2014. They include IND-1715 and MMR-1654, approved only in April 2014, plus PAK-1676, approved since December 2013. The delays in signing PAK-1676 are due to the lengthy approval procedures for all foreign funded projects by Pakistan’s National Economic Council. APR is working with the Pakistani government to speed up the process. APR’s performance on other key pre-implementation parameters (Figure 2) shows: improvements on time between approval and entry into force, which decreased from just over nine months to just under 8 months; stagnation on time between entry into force and first disbursement, which hovers around just under 7 months since 2010/2011; and the persistent disappointing performance on the time lapsed between approval to first disbursement, which, while dropping slightly from about 19 months in 2010/2011, is still too high at around 16 months. The major challenge, therefore, for the division is how to reduce the latter parameter, by reinforcing project management, particularly in the areas of financial management and M&E, and working with CFS to improve further the disbursement infrastructure and processes at IFAD.

Figure 2: Average period from project approval to first disbursement and effectiveness

Concerning the specific case of the 17 additional financing (including five DSF grants, ten 42.loans, one in-loan grant, and one ASAP grant) for 14 projects, nine started disbursing as at 30 June 2014 of which one achieved 100% disbursement. Among the remaining 8, four are not signed (with an average lag of 14 months), three are signed but not disbursable, and 1 is disbursable but has not yet started disbursing. In the extreme case of 19 months delay in getting the additional grant financing for PHL-1485 signed, it was mutually decided to cancel it.

CountryProject

Id

Project

Name

Approved

Financing

(US$ '000)

Project

Board

Approval

Loan

Effectiveness

Approval to

entry into

force lag

(months)

Disbursement

as of 30 June

2014

China 1699 SSADeP 43 803 11 Dec 13 30 Jan 14 1.6 Not disbursable yet

India 1649 JTELP 51 001 21 Sep 12 04 Oct 13 12.4 5.8%

Laos 1680 FNML (LOT) 9 722 07 Sep 13 13 Sep 13 0.2 12.2%

Viet Nam 1662 SRDP 23 000 19 Sep 13 27 Nov 13 2.3 8.0%

Viet Nam 1664 AMD 34 000 11 Dec 13 28 Mar 14 3.5 Not disbursable yet

Total 5 161 526 Average 4.0


12

Maturity of the portfolio

The APR portfolio during the review period is relatively young with 40% of the 60 current 43.projects and programmes being less than three years old, and the average age of the cohort is four years. The country programmes with the oldest projects are India (three projects of seven years, 11 years, and 17.6 years old) and Nepal (8.8 years and 11.5 years). One of these is a Flexible Lending Mechanism project in its third cycle, one benefitted from a top-up without formally closing the old project, and a few may be dragging on due to resistance of the governments to close them.

Many governments in APR, especially the MICs that are eligible for loans on ordinary terms, 44.tend to prefer short project durations, often no more than 5 years. Their argument is that the short grace period (3 years) of such loans forces them to start paying part of the principle even before they finish disbursing the loan. This poses difficulties, as processes and procedures in many countries result in slow implementation start-ups, although on many occasions later catching up efforts succeed in still completing project activities without too much time over-run. Continuing dialogue between APR project design teams and governments is encouraged to reach appropriate case-by-case compromises on realistic implementation periods.

Figure 3: Maturity of portfolio 2011 - 2014

Project completion/loan closing

APR, with support from other units of IFAD, pursued the cleaning up and rejuvenation of the 45.portfolio, as much as possible. Thirteen projects closed during the period, with an average delay in closing of about 15 months. Five of them were in Pakistan, the closing of four of which dragged on for between 15 and 49 months due in some cases to investigations about, and subsequent recovery of, some ineligible expenditures. At closure, US$34 million was cancelled from the loans of the 13 projects, representing 11% of their initial allocation of US$312 million. In addition to the already closed projects, APR is also closing six more projects that should have closed by 30 June 2014. Efforts will continue to make sure they close expeditiously. Thus, the overall ratio between projects completing to approvals is improving. Over the last ten review periods (July 2004 – June 2014), seventy four projects were approved in the APR, while 61 completed, thus the completion to approval ratio improved to 82% from 76% in the last review period. This is an indication that the portfolio is renewing itself at a faster rate than before.

Time overruns and extensions12

Seven projects13

in the portfolio have time overruns of over 15%, due to the extension of their 46.completion dates (four were extended during the present review period and three earlier). Five of the seven received additional financing which required the extension of their completion dates. Four of them are in India and two in Nepal, reinforcing the earlier observation that the performances of those country programmes suffer from time over-runs. Pakistan is the other country programme that suffered from such, but the situation there improved with the recent

12

Refer to Appendix 9 Table 2 for details. 13

For the analysis of time overruns, India 1040 applies approval, signing, effectiveness and completion/closing dates of

additional financing.


13

closing of four projects whose closure had been delayed due to unresolved issues related to IFAD’s financial reporting requirements.

Arrears and status of suspended projects

As of 30 June 2014, Korea D.P.R. is the only country in the portfolio in arrears to the amount of 47.US$6.1 million. APR has been actively following up on the situation and there was positive progress, but no solution, during the period. No projects are under suspension in the region.

IV. Current grant portfolio and operations during the review period

APR’s grant strategy 2014 is aligned with IFAD’s Strategic Framework (2011-2015) and 48.Medium-Term Plan (2013-2015) plus IFAD’s Policy for Grant Financing. It builds complementarities and synergies with the investment portfolio to achieve greater impact on smallholder productivity and rural poverty reduction. It also contributes to sustainable development through: (a) capacity building of partner institutions and organizations, including indigenous and women’s organisations; (b) knowledge management, learning and dissemination; and (c) policy dialogue and advocacy. The APR divisional strategic work plan (DSWP) 2014 implements the grant strategy by strengthening the impacts of regional investments in the following areas: integration of poor rural people in high value chains; provision of inclusive financial services; support to rural producers’ organizations; and promotion of innovative technologies for smallholders. Thus, it directly implements the region's strategic priorities for supporting sustainable smallholder agriculture, market linkages and value chain development, adaptation to climate change, and innovative non-farm income generating opportunities by mobilising remittances and engaging rural enterprises.

Characteristics A.

This year’s analysis of the APR grants portfolio focuses only on the standalone regional/global 49.and country specific windows, and excludes the 18 loan component grants amounting to US$14.5 million, since those are already covered under the analysis of their related loans. APR grants portfolio has increased by about 17% during the present review period from 23 grants in

2012/2013, with a total volume of

commitments amounting to US$30.5 million (Table 9). This represents a reversal of the declining trend in the number of grants in the

portfolio, although it is still lower than the levels (34) reached in 2011/2012. APR, nevertheless, intends to maintain the size of the grant portfolio to a manageable level. The main explanation for this year’s trend is the increase in large regional/global grants from 13 to 17 in search of improved technologies and documenting best practices for broader dissemination. Thus, half of the grants approved during the period benefit research centres and organisations, both CGIAR

14 and non-CGIAR

15. APR nevertheless succeeded in maintaining the downward trend of

reducing small country grants, which dropped from 12 in 2011/12 to 6 last year and 5 now. The plan is to reinforce this trend in the next period too.

Of the 27 ongoing grants, ten were directed towards the grant policy output on capacity 50.building, nine on innovation, and eight on advocacy and learning. As shown in Table 10, about 39% (or US$11.9 million) of the financing was allocated to promote and develop innovations. Furthermore, the grants are also aligned with IFAD’s Strategic Framework Objectives, with about 45% responding to providing poor women and men access to services (SFO 2), 32% on enabling poor women and men and their organizations to influence policies and institutions (SFO 4). Substantial support was also provided for SFO 5, SFO 1 and SFO 3.

14

Including grants under the Agricultural Research for Development window 15

PROCASUR, APRACA, AFA, ICIMOD

Table 9: APR Grants Portfolio 2011-2014

*Excluding loan component grants, GEF, ASAP, DSF and Bilateral supplementary funds.

Status of grants

No. of

grant

Financing

amount

US$ ('000)

No. of

grant

Financing

amount

US$ ('000)

No. of

grant

Financing

amount

US$ ('000)

Regional/Global - Large 17 23 077 13 16 884 17 22 284

Regional/Global - Small 4 1 050 3 1 500 4 1 838

Country - Specific Large 1 700 1 700 1 4 050

Country - Specific Small 12 3 036 6 2 015 5 2 277

Total 34 27 863 23 21 099 27 30 449

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14


14

Table 10: Effective grants by grant policy output

*Excluding loan component, GEF, ASAP, DSF and Bilateral supplementary funds.

Regional grant alignment with the investment portfolio

Thirty percent of APR’s loan projects are supported by loan component grants, which target 51.capacity building of institutions and government agencies plus training of project beneficiaries. However, the present analysis focuses on the non-loan component grants only, namely the ongoing regional/global and country grants (excluding loan component, DSF, ASAP, GEF and bilateral supplementary financing). Of those, half

16 directly benefit specific projects in the

region. Another 21% of these types of grants, such as the grant to APRACA for the project to document best practices on rural financial services (RuFBeP), should benefit all country portfolios in the region, while the remaining 29% indirectly benefit IFAD target beneficiaries. An example of good linkages between grants and the investment portfolio is the “Root and Tuber Crops Research and Development Programme for Food Security in Asia and the Pacific Region” (G-I-R-1239, also called FoodSTART) which supports value-chain training to build the capacity of investment project staff in West Papua, Indonesia. In addition, in China the grant supports CHN-1627 to use the loan component grant of US$1.0 million to scale-up findings and results of FoodSTART. In the Philippines, the project cooperates with food business enterprises of indigenous populations in the Cordillera Highlands through linkages with PHL-1395. Other examples of grant programmes with direct linkages to loan projects are presented in Box 1.

Co-financing generated

APR’s large grant portfolio amounting to US$26.3 million is co-financed to the tune of US$13.9 52.million, of which US$3.0 million is from the Swiss co-financing under G-I-R-1447 MTCP 2. These financing were included in the agreements as other sources of funding in the form of financial or in-kind/staff time contributions. APR’s leveraging factor (amount of financing generated beyond IFAD’s resources) has increased from 0.34 in 2012/13 to 0.53 in 2013/14.

Additional/supplementary financing

APR has leveraged additional resources from Korea supplementary funds amounting to 53.approximately US$1.5 million under the “Technology as a Development Solution (TDS) program

Use of ICT to Improve Livelihoods of the Poorest in Rural Areas”. The TDS programme aimed to leverage IFAD-funded projects that place emphasis on improving smallholder incomes by increasing their productivity and sales, and by strengthening interaction with market actors within the value chain. A total amount of US$1.1 million from the Korean supplementary funds, which were allocated to Cambodia, India and Papua New Guinea in the form of grants, became effective in October/November 2013, and already disbursed 55% or US$600,000. The grant to

16

G-I-R-1108, G-I-R-1113, G-I-R-1114, G-I-R-1304, G-I-R-1308, G-I-R-1386, G-I-R-1396, G-I-R-1452, G-I-R-1239

Grant Policy OutputAmount

(US$ ‘000)% SFOs

Amount

(US$ ‘000)%

Innovation 11 899 39 SFO 1 2 200 7

Innovative activities promoted and innovative technologies

developed in support of IFAD target group

A natural resource and economic asset base for poor rural w omen

and men that is more resilient to climate change, environmental

degradation and market transformation

Advocacy 3 838 13 SFO 2 13 650 45

Aw areness, advocacy and policy dialogue on issues of

importance to rural people promoted by, and on behalf of, this

target group

Access for poor rural w omen and men to services to reduce

poverty, improve nutrition, raise incomes and build resilience in a

changing environment

Capacity building 10 635 35 SFO 3 2 199 7

Capacity of partner institutions strengthened to deliver a range

of services in support of poor rural people

Poor rural w omen and men and their organizations able to manage

profitable, sustainable and resilient farm and non-farm enterprises or

take advantage of decent w ork opportunities

Learning 4 077 13 SFO 4 9 785 32

Lesson learning, know ledge management and dissemination of

information on issues related to rural poverty reduction

promoted among stakeholders w ithin an across regions

Poor rural w omen and men and their organizations able to influence

policies and institutions that affect their livelihoods

SFO 5 2 615 9

Enabling institutional and policy environments to support agricultural

production and the full range of related non-farm activities

Total 30 449 100 Total 30 449 100

Grant Policy Output Strategic Framework Objective (SFO)


15

Bangladesh amounting to US$380,000 is yet to be presented to the September EB 2014 as supplementary financing to the Promoting Agricultural Commercialization and Enterprises (PACE) project. To date, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund and SCCF have contributed a total of US$20.8 million to 5 loan projects focusing on natural resource management and climate change adaptation in Asia and the Pacific region.

In addition, a total of US$57.0 million from the Adaptation for Smallholder Programme (ASAP) 54.funds has been programmed in Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Cambodia and Nepal. The amount of US$15.0 million was approved as an add-on to the BGD-1585 project, which is not yet effective at the time of reporting, while US$12.0 million was fully blended with the VNM-1664 and effective in March 2014.

Operational results of grants, including summary of GSR and GCRs B.

Approvals

From the 10 regional/global and country grants worth US$13.9 million approved during the 55.review period (Table 11), US$8.3 million was allocated to CGIAR and non-CGIAR centres at regional/global level while US$5.6 million was allocated at country level as standalone grants. A grant of US$4.05 million was approved by the EB in December 2013 in support of the Rapid

Response to Post Typhoon Haiyan Agriculture Rehabilitation Programme (HARP) GRIPS id 2000000382 in the Philippines. This grant was fast-tracked as IFAD’s emergency response to typhoon, which devastated large areas of IFAD’s ongoing PHL-1485 and PHL-1253 projects.

Table 11: Approvals by window and size

Large Small Total

Grant window Amount US$‘000 No. Amount US$‘000 No. Amount US$‘000 No.

Regional/Global

CGIAR 3 000 2 3 000 2

Non-CGIAR 5 300 4 5 300 4

Country-specific 4 050 1 1 500 3 5 550 4

TOTAL 12 350 7 1 500 3 13 850 10

*Excluding GEF, ASAP, DSF and Bilateral supplementary funds.

Box 1: Examples of loan-grant linkages

Grant 1213-ICLARM: Linking Fisheries and Nutrition: Promoting innovative fish production technologies in ponds

and wetlands with nutrient-rich small fish species in Bangladesh

The goal of this project was to increase household income in poor, rural households, and improve nutrition,

especially in women and children through increased intake of nutrient-rich small fish. This grant was

implemented by the World Fish Center (formerly ICLARM) and benefitted the NATP and SCBRMP projects in

Bangladesh through fish production technologies.

Grant 1304-PROCASUR: Strengthening of Knowledge Sharing and Innovations using the Learning Routes

Methodology in Asia and the Pacific

The goal of this project was to increase knowledge and capacity for adopting and scaling up best practices

and innovations for poverty reduction among IFAD stakeholders in the Asia and the Pacific region. IFAD

projects in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Nepal, Thailand and Viet Nam are benefitting from this project

and intend to benefit other countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Grant 1347-WOCAN: Capacity Building for Women’s Leadership in Farmers’ Producer Organizations in Asia and

the Pacific Region’ Project

The goal of this project was to create a culture of women’s leadership and advocacy of change in countries

where performance on gender issues has been poor and rural sector performance in women’s representation

at the government level is low. This grant was implemented by Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture

and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN) and benefitted IFAD projects in Lao PDR, Maldives and Sri

Lanka (SPEnDP, NADeP, IIDP, DZLiSPP) through training and information sharing.


16

Pre-implementation activities

The small grant to the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development (GRIPS id 56.200000111) in Myanmar is the only one approved during the review period (February 2014) and has not entered into force by the end of the period. The grant agreement has been shared with the government for concurrence and signing. The country team is closely following-up with the concerned ministry and will discuss further during the next visit to Myanmar in July. It is expected that the grant will become effective before the end of 2014.

Disbursement performance

The overall disbursement of APR grant programmes registered an increase from US$9.9 million 57.in 2012-2013 to US$10.7 million in 2013-2014. Five grants have already disbursed 44% to 94% of their initial allocation, amounting to US$6.1 million. The overall disbursement rating from the GSR is satisfactory except for the grant to AIT (G-I-R-998-A).

Maturity of the grant portfolio

Of the 27 effective grants in APR, 19 (63%) are within less than 2 years maturity from the date 58.of effectiveness of which, 9 were in early implementation stage (Figure 4). The remaining 37% were either in their final implementation stage (7 grants) or with implementation periods longer than 3 years (3 grants). Thus, it can be concluded that the APR grant portfolio is young as success was achieved in systematically closing old projects.

Figure 4: Maturity of grants portfolio

*Excluding loan component, GEF, ASAP, DSF and Bilateral supplementary funds.

Grant completion/closing

During the review period, 12 stand-alone grants were closed, three grants completed, and six 59.grants are due to complete on 31 December 2014. There were 17

17 grants that passed the

closing date with an average delay in closure of approximately 7 months. The main reasons for the delays were unjustified balance and delayed submission of project completion reports and final audits. Grant 1081-FSPI passed the closing date in 2012 and has 24 months delayed as at 30 June 2014. This grant has not yet been closed due to inadequate financial reporting, and AOU requested CFS and APR to take further steps to commission an independent financial expert to reconstruct grant accounts to obtain assurances on the actual use of funds. This should be concluded by December 2014.

Time overruns

In APR’s grants portfolio, two grants reportedly had time overruns over 15%. The first is G-I-R-60.1239 to International Potato Centre (CIP) with a time overrun of 33% for 1 extension of 12 months (31 March 2015). The second is G-I-R-1396 to SNV with a time overrun of 24% for 1 extension of 6 months (30 June 2015). The extended completion dates of these two grants aimed to align the implementation period of the programme as foreseen in the design document, endorsed by QE and QA reviews. However, it is important to recall here that the

17

Refer to Appendix 8 Table 7 for details.


17

extension of G-I-R-1239 CIP was in fact a mere correction of an error in the original entry on LGS. As stated in the amendment memorandum both the QA and QE approved a 4-year implementation period but unfortunately when the initial grant agreement was drafted it erroneously referred to three years. Consequently, strictly speaking it has no time overrun, despite the “extension”.

Extension

The regional small grant G-I-R-1271-IPRCC-CN “Promoting South-South Cooperation with 61.China in Poverty Reduction through Knowledge Sharing” was extended during the review period with the new completion and closing dates as 31 December 2014 and 20 September 2015 respectively. The rationale for the extension was to enhance the impact and visibility of IFAD’s increasingly substantial role in facilitating south-south cooperation not only in PRC China, but also in partner developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As a result, a workshop will be held in Maputo, Mozambique at the beginning of August 2014.

Cancellations

No grants were fully cancelled during the period under review. However, a reduction of 62.approximately US$1.6 million was effected during the financial closure processes. About US$1.45 million of the cancelled funds were funds provided by IFAD to co-finance a US$41.8 million project with FAO. Although the IFAD grant funds were made available to FAO for the 2-year project period, virtually none of the US$40.3 million co-financing that was to be provided by other financiers materialized. The project design was such that, effectively, IFAD funds could not be disbursed without the expected funds from co-financiers for necessary complementary activities. As a result, FAO did not seek to access the resources IFAD provided.

Financial management

The number of financial transactions processed for the APR regional/global grants during the 63.period under review increased from 35 to 39, with the average disbursement amount increasing from US$269,000 to US$275,000. The overall implementation progress, including financial management, of about 37%

18 of APR grant programmes was monitored through formal

supervision missions during the review period. A few were supervised during regular consultations with the country teams, notably the ICO staff, and about 15%

19 recently had start-

up missions. Although supervision missions are regularly undertaken for the loan portfolio, it is less frequent that grant-specific supervision missions are carried out for, especially, the small grants portfolio. As a consequence, it is not infrequent that, the direct monitoring by IFAD of the adequacy of financial management arrangements in such stand-alone grants is limited to desk reviews of financial reports. Nevertheless, where possible, country stand-alone grants are supervised in connection with the supervision of investment projects in the areas.

Audit and fiduciary aspects

Overall, the audit reports for the APR regional/global grant portfolio have been submitted on 64.time and do not highlight any particular issues. While audit reports are required for large grants, audit arrangements for small grants vary depending on the nature and size of the grants. Over the past years, many CGIAR centres did not submit financial statements to IFAD, although they were available on the website of the centres. Those financial statements were audited and specific reference made to the IFAD grants, as required by IFAD. The audit reports for some grants have not been submitted at the time of reporting and these are being followed-up closely with the grant recipients. The grants concerned are: (i) G-I-R-1244 (UN ESCAP); (ii) G-I-R-1284

(University of Kassel Watercope for which audited financial statements were submitted on time in German but the English translation was received only in July 2014; (iii) G-I-R-1421 (Secretariat of the Pacific Community Suva Regional Office); (iv) G-I-R-1430 (Partners in Community Development Fiji); and (v) G-I-R-998-A (Asian Institute of Technology).

During the coming year, CFS will be working on the implementation of an audit report tracking 65.system for grants, similar to the one being used for loans, to facilitate the follow-up and monitoring of the audit reports for grants. CFS will also continue to put pressure on grant recipients to improve the rate of audit report submission and timeliness.

18

G-I-R-1239, G-I-R-1244. G-I-R-1284, G-I-R-1286, G-I-R-1304, G-I-R-1308, G-I-R-1363, G-I-R-1403, G-I-R-1421, G-I-R-1430. 19

2000000102, 2000000108, G-I-R-1451-, G-I-R-1452-


18

Summary of GSRs and GCRs

The overall rating for the 19 grants required to submit GSRs during the review period was 4.4 66.or moderately satisfactory. Among the indicators, the overall implementation progress received the highest rating of 4.6, while linkages to the investment portfolio and scaling-up catch up with a rating of 4.3. The ratings for all indicators are presented in Appendix 4. The performance of all, but one, grant recipient has been rated 4 or higher.

There were 5 GCRs20

received during the review period. The outcomes of the grant 67.programmes as reported in the GCRs are summarized in Table 12 according to five impact domains. Of these domains, the human and social capital and empowerment, as well as food security and agricultural productivity, are the dominant impact of grants assessed. For example, in G-I-R-1114, local crops and varieties were packaged into farming or cropping systems technologies such as rice-fish-vegetable and integrated crop-livestock production systems, and replacement of crop varieties to enhance agricultural production. By substituting the local varieties with high-yielding varieties and including vegetables into rice-fish-vegetable production system, net income of farmers increased about 2 to 2.6 times compared to local practices.

Table 12: GCRs by impact domain

Grant Completion Reports (GCRs)

Impact Domain21

Household income & net

assets

Human and social capital &

empowerment

Food security & agricultural productivity

Natural resources and

the environment

Institutions and

policies

G-I-R-1108-IRRI ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

G-I-R-1114-IRRI ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

G-I-R-1213-ICLARM/WFC ✔ ✔ ✔

G-I-R-1235-NEDA ✔ ✔

DSF-8076-NP/TA 7762-NEP ✔ ✔ ✔

Lessons learned

APR develops a manageable and focused grants programme that supports innovation in 68.

regional priorities. The following lessons have emerged from the ongoing regional grants:

(a) Depending on the nature of grant programmes, alignment with government systems/programs ensure sustainability even after grant closure;

(b) Complex operational frameworks and diverse funding modalities of partners involved in the programme sometimes hamper implementation;

(c) APR’s reviews of grant supervision reports continue to be an effective tool for knowledge sharing, disseminating good practices, and understanding common challenges; and

(d) The ICOs’ pro-activity in grants supervision and implementation provide immediate support to recipients and promotes efficiency on financial and human resources.

V. Management performance of ongoing portfolio of investment projects

Project management A.

For the second year in a row, APR’s PSR scores for project management have improved, albeit 69.marginally (Table 13). A substantial correlation exists between this PSR indicator (and Coherence of implementation with AWPB) with Overall Implementation Progress. Scores for the former two are the most correlated by far with Overall Implementation Progress scores, with coefficients of 0.74 and 0.71, respectively. Indeed, of the six problem projects in the portfolio, only one scores 4 or more on project management. Inversely, of the 8 projects scoring 3 or less on project management, 5 are problem projects. Assuming a causal relationship - from Project Management and Coherence with AWPB onto Overall Implementation Progress - suggests that the quality of project management and of execution is therefore the key determinants of project success. Effective managers are not only good administrators but often recognize the importance of having a frontline presence in the field, not only in headquarters. It is

20

G-I-R-1108, G-I-R-1114, G-I-R-1213, G-I-R-1235, G-I-R-1180 21

IOE Evaluation Manual, April 2009


19

recommended that effective project managers be contracted, where appropriate and feasible, to participate on IFAD missions (in their own country or in others) to give hands on advice in problem situations.

Innovative projects with large organizational structures do not necessarily suffer slow 70.implementation, if management is effective. A good example is BGD-1165 where the project director and coordinators and the PMUs at headquarters and district levels were effective in planning, coordination, management and monitoring of the project, and in motivating the upazila management units and the community development facilitators to devotedly implement project activities through the Community Organisations, Beel User Groups and Labour Contracting Societies. The project generated impressive outcomes and impact on livelihoods of through increased incomes, productivity and access to markets and social services.

Table 13: PSR rating for project implementation progress and fiduciary aspects

Most of the 8 projects suffering from below par project management also feature PMUs 71.established specifically for project execution and staffed by seconded government employees. Indeed, although IFAD would prefer to build up the capacity of existing line ministries, most projects in the APR portfolio operate through PMUs embedded in these public or parastatal institutions. Services such as community development and technical support (e.g. extension) are often provided by NGOs and increasingly by private sector partners. This review, therefore, recommends a more rigorous selection of key management personnel and the appropriate implementing institutions to ensure effective implementation. The question of what is the most effective, “sustainable” way to provide support to the target rural population is key, and needs to be carefully assessed by IFAD during project design.

Financial Management

The APR fiduciary performance indicators (quality of financial management, acceptable 72.disbursement rate, counterpart funds, compliance with loan covenants, compliance with procurement, quality and timelines of audits) in the period under review continued to improve, albeit slightly, with a cumulative average PSR rating of 4.1 this review period compared to 4.0 for the 2012/2013 period and 3.8 in 2011/2012. This success, however small, was partly due to the concerted effort of APR and CFS in building the capacity of project teams in financial management and prudent fiduciary procedures, while implementing an upgraded computerized Financial System at IFAD, known as Flexcube. The system, which replaced the20 year old LGS, was meant to be an improved secure system with a web interface. Unfortunately, despite its obvious advantages and improvements, it has caused some unintended disruptions including reducing disbursement efficiencies of the APR portfolio (see below). CFS is working on addressing the causes of these negative consequences to allow the full benefits of the improved system to be realised.

CFS assisted in carrying out financial management (risk) assessments (FMAs) of all APR 73.projects either at design, for new projects, or during supervision missions. In the period under review, CFS officers or finance management specialists performed 10 risk assessments at

Indicators

2014 2013 2012Average

Pre-MTR

Average

Post-MTR

Ra

ting

1

Ra

ting

2

Ra

ting

3

Ra

ting

4

Ra

ting

5

Ra

ting

6

Share of

moderately

satisfactory

(rating 4 or

above)

Project Management 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.4 0 1 7 37 20 2 88%

Performance of M&E 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.0 0 3 17 28 18 1 70%

Coherence betetween AWPB &

implementation 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.3 0 3 9 37 15 3 82%

Total average : Project

implementation progress 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.2 0% 3% 16% 51% 26% 3% 80%

Quality of financial management 4.1 4 3.8 4.1 4.1 0 1 8 42 16 0 87%

Acceptable disbursement rate 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.0 3.8 2 13 21 16 13 2 46%

Counterpart funds 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.6 0 0 9 26 23 9 87%

Compliance with loan covenants 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.5 0 0 5 36 25 1 93%

Compliance with procurement 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.2 0 0 11 38 17 1 84%

Quality and timelines of audits 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 13 40 13 1 81%

Total average : Fiduciary aspects 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.2 0% 3% 17% 50% 27% 3% 80%

Average PSR rating

Average PSR rating: Project implementation progress and fiduciary aspects

2014


20

design (compared to 4 in the previous year) and 64 risk assessments during supervision missions (56 in the previous year). These have been carried out for each APR country programme by the assigned Finance Officers, or by a financial management a specialist who’s TORs were cleared by them. This dedicated close review contributed to the resolution of some long-standing issues related to the refund of ineligible expenditures for some Pakistan projects. In addition, as part of the Asian Project Management Support Project, (APMAS) an IFAD-financed large regional grant implemented by the Asian Institute of Technology, CFS organised its first ever regional Fiduciary Forum for financial management project staff in Bangkok, Thailand, in October 2013. Over 100 project staff from 17 countries participated.

Fiduciary risk ratings – Risk Based Disbursement22

. The overall fiduciary risk assessment 74.of projects includes not only quantitative and qualitative project data, but also takes into consideration the context in which the projects operate (country regulations, capacity/quality of lead implementing agency). Based on this, the overall risk profile of APR projects is rated “medium” from the fiduciary point of view, since 76% of the eighty two projects analysed (including both those ongoing and under design during the period) are rated as medium risk, thirteen percent are rated low risk and the rest (11%) are rated high risk. Common issues for high risk projects include low disbursement and large cash payments. The only high risk assessment at design is the new Myanmar FARM Project given the country’s public sector environment and being the first ever IFAD engagement in the country. In all cases diagnosed, risk mitigating actions have been set-up and documented in a follow up action plan to overcome issues such as weak internal control environment (weak accounting system, weak financial staff skills and capacity). Two projects rated high risk closed during the period.

Need for Internal audits. While the need to have internal audit function embedded in project 75.teams is not mandatory, the FMAs and APR’s own observations revealed the need to have them as a best practice. Consequently, projects are being advised to have such functions where ever possible, even it would mean an external staff would be identified on a temporary basis. Similarly, computerized accounting systems, although not mandatory, are essential for strong financial management and are being encouraged. Currently only 35 projects (55% of the total) in APR use accounting software, the balance use means like excel which is considered risky and potentially open to manipulation leaving no trails. Gradually, and where governments expressly approve, the setting up of accounting software is being encouraged.

Disbursement performance B.

Total disbursements (loan plus grants) to APR projects during the period were US$202.3 76.million, accounting for 35% of the total IFAD disbursements in the period, representing an increase of approximately 7% above the previous period. The highest disbursements were for projects in China (US$34.2 million or 18%), India (US$30.6 million or 16%), and Viet Nam (US$27.3 million or 14%). The largest single disbursement was for loan IDN-1341 in Indonesia for approximately US$7 million. While there is a marginal increase in the total disbursement for APR, the amount disbursed against the disbursable amount – (i.e. loan/grant commitments minus the previous year's cumulative disbursement) does not reflect an increase, due to the changing size of the portfolio. The amount disbursed as a percentage of disbursable for APR remained at 14%, which is lower than desired.

Improving the disbursement performance of APR’s portfolio will require a concerted effort by 77.APR, CFS, cooperating institutions where applicable, and projects and governments in: bringing down the disbursement lag of the current 19 projects suffering from it to increase project efficiency; ensuring the implementation readiness of new projects using both IFAD’s implementation support budget and grant resources, where feasible; and providing tailored training in the preparation of withdrawal applications (WA) and on IFAD financial rules. APR further intends to use the occasion of the forthcoming APR Portfolio Performance Review workshop in Siem Reap, Cambodia, in December 2014 to pay special attention to the disbursement lag.

Meanwhile, CFS introduced some streamlined disbursement procedures in 2013 that aim at 78.enhanced efficiencies in the loan and grant administration and disbursement efficiencies. They include provisions like: requests for replenishments into the Designated Account or for reimbursements can be submitted 90 days after the submission of the previous WA; and direct

22

Refer to Annexes, Table 1


21

Disbursement

2012-2013

(US$)

Disbursement

2013-2014

(US$)

IFAD Loans, DSF and loan

component grant 177 731 621 191 536 144

Grant (incld. Stand-alone ECD,

Co-financing grant) 9 956 518 10 736 857

Total 187 688 139 202 273 002

(Spanish Trust Fund) 1 239 603 4 476 743

Table 14: Disbursements 2012/2013 - 2013/2014

payment procedures should be used only for payments above US$100 000 equivalent; etc. These reduced WAs to 354 in the review period, compared to 479 (26% decrease) before, accompanied by an increase in the average WA size (approximately 30%) to US$541 026 from US$374 502, well above the IFAD average of US$362 000.

Figure 5: APR Disbursement as % of disbursable

Unfortunately, these improvements were undermined by the limitations imposed by Flexcube, 79.and the two weeks it took in September 2013 to transfer from LGS when no disbursements could take place. They caused the average processing time for WAs in APR to increase moderately from 18 to 22 days

23, which is still below the IFAD average processing time of 29

days. Flexcube limitations particular impact projects covering more than one province, like some Vietnamese projects (VNM-1422 and VNM-1662). Given that Flexcube cannot handle more than three WAs at a time, and it requires the value date of the first one before processing the second, the period for processing WAs from these projects is often last a minimum of 30 days (lag). Apart from the Flexcube imposed issues, disbursement lags also occurs in countries that pre-finance expenditures, like China. Here projects have little incentive to submit supporting documentation for WAs after they have already received the funds from the local or state governments. More effort will need to be put in such countries to get governments prevail over the project teams to develop the habit of compiling WAs on time.

Loan/grant administration C.

Risk Based Disbursement (RBD) developed by CFS in late 2012 has now been mainstreamed. 80.This methodology evaluates and integrates financial management risks with financial administration and, thereby, enhances efficiency in the disbursement process. Regarding the quality of WAs CFS reportedly noted improvements in the submission of supporting documentation. However, some problems persist in a few cases, such as missing supporting documents, miscategorization of expenditures, non-provision of required forms, and inaccurately designated accounts statements reconciliation. With the joint APR/CFS efforts, as well as those of Cooperating Institutions where applicable, to strengthen the financial capacity of project staff, through training workshops like the one organised in 2013 in Bangkok, these should disappear. In addition, maintaining direct dialogue and communication between projects, APR, CFS, and CIs, will contribute towards much larger improvements in the quality of WAs. In relation to projects under CI supervision, CFS highlighted the need to avoid the high frequency and small amount of WAs through the direct payment method.

For the purpose of the present reporting period, CFS ensured full implementation of the 81.financial management assessments at supervision and project design. CFS officers participated in supervision missions for projects rated high risk. They also devoted time to the project design while strengthening the capacity building of local Financial Management Specialists. Overall, CFS Finance Officers participated in 6 design missions, 9 SIS missions, loan negotiations, and start up workshops. As mentioned, one regional workshop was held in Bangkok while a Country Financial Workshop in China was led by the Controller and Director of CFS.

Procurement D.

There is a marginal improvement in APR’s overall average rating to 4.1 for performance on the 82.procurement indicator, during the review period compared to the previous periods (4.0 in

23

Refer to Annexes, Table 2


22

2012/13 and 3.9 in 2011/12). Eighty four percent (56 projects) were rated moderately satisfactory or higher, while 6% (11 projects) were rated moderately unsatisfactory. A further analysis of the ongoing portfolio of 67 projects reflects 38 projects (57%) rated moderately satisfactory, 17 projects (25%) rated as satisfactory and one project (1%) rated as highly satisfactory. Eleven (16%) projects are rated as moderately unsatisfactory for this indicator, which is worrying and being closely monitored by concerned country teams. The analysis of the ratings over the last 3 periods reflects a three to six percent variance in the projects rated moderately satisfactory and above against projects rated moderately unsatisfactory and below.

As in previous years, issues hindering procurement efficiency in APR continue to be indirectly 83.or directly associated with one or a combination of the following: (a) non-availability of adequate procurement personnel coupled with high staff turnover, especially of government seconded-staff funded through government budget lines; (b) non-segregation of roles and responsibilities; (c) inappropriate decentralization of budget and decision-making processes; (d) inadequate understanding and application of procurement guidelines, procedures and processes; (e) inadequate controls and monitoring of compliances; (f) ambiguous and unclear statement of requirements; (g) inadequate and ad-hoc monitoring of performance and deliverables; (h) inadequate and non-availability of market information at decentralised levels; (i) weak and non-consultative planning; (j) inadequate policies on records management and document retention; (k) inconsistencies and non-compliances in review of tender/bid documents and procurement decisions; (l) governance issues in a decentralized environment with capacity and monitoring limitations; (m) low remuneration and incentives to staff; (n) excessive requirements and general mistrust in local systems, which discourages supplier/vendors/contractor interest in participating in public procurement; (o) interferences and/or requirements for involvement of several agencies when procurement is undertaken; (p) various political and social agendas which influence procurement decisions in a de-decentralized environment; and (q) challenges in procurement involving community participation

Out of the 11 Projects rated moderately unsatisfactory: KHM-1350 and KHM-1464 were 84.downgraded due to significant delays caused by weaknesses in procurement planning and execution; IND-1418, IND-1381 and IND-1617 were downgraded primarily due to delays in procurement which similarly effected IDN-1258 and IDN-1509, PAK-1514; LKA-1316 rating was downgraded due to weaknesses in internal controls and non-availability of adequate staffing and project implementation issue; while the rating of IND-1348 and LKA-1457 were maintained as 3 as there were no significant progress in the project implementation.

National Procurement Systems

APR adopted the use of National Procurement Systems in the majority of countries in the 85.region, except for India, Papua New Guinea, Pacific Islands and Myanmar, where there are no laws exclusively governing public procurement of goods by the departments and ministries at the Central level or at the State level. The primary driver in the adoption of National Procurement Systems is not purely a technical decision but one driven by borrowers, for example China, Indonesia, Cambodia, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Philippines, Afghanistan, Viet Nam where there exist detailed procurement rules, regulations and procedures. The problems with the use of National Procurement systems are not attributable to the rules per se, but the way that they are applied. Hence, sometimes, even with a good structure and proper regulations, the system could still operate inefficiently and be unable to improve service delivery. The possible causes of inefficiency can be due to a number of factors in the larger environment in which public procurement systems operate, including: poor management; unskilled procurement officers; excessive focus on process; corruption; poorly designed controls; inadequate justice system; poor investment climate; etc. As such addressing the general lack of capability or inadequate system operation needs to extend the current assessment tools beyond rules and regulations to the broader socio-political environment.

Within the APR Portfolio, procurement thresholds are in general consistently aligned with the 86.respective thresholds as outlined by the national systems, when such regulations exist. As an example in Mongolia the procurement method thresholds are established by a Mongolian Cabinet approved decree, while in Indonesia there are at least three Presidential Decrees known to IFAD, which outline the procurement method thresholds, such as Prepress 54, Prepress 70/12 and Prepress 84/12 for different administrative regions. The same applies for example to Bangladesh, Maldives, Cambodia, Philippines, Afghanistan, Laos, etc.


23

Based on the project level operational risk environment, the most common risk mitigation 87.measure taken by APR include clarifying processes and procedures in the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) such as: the acceptable standard bidding documents; public notification of bidding opportunities; adequate response time to prepare and submit bids; Public notification of contract awards; Bidder qualifications criteria to be specified clearly in the standard bidding documents; eligible foreign firms allowed to bid; Award of contract to the lowest evaluated bidder; disallowance of use of merit points for evaluation of bids; inclusion of audit rights of IFAD; the disallowance of negotiation prior to contract award; and contractors to provide performance security and inclusion of provisions that allows IFAD to declare a firm or individual ineligible to be awarded a contract financed by IFAD if it at any time, it determines that the firm or individual has engaged in fraud or corruption in IFAD financed contracts. APR also ensures that in new designs adequate resources are inbuilt to support the capacity development of the national staff and also introduced technical assistance in the form of procurement specialist to support the projects.

In addition to the above APR has ensured procurement prior review thresholds, are established 88.ranging between US$30,000 to US$500,000 to mitigate risks and improve efficiency and control by balancing the volume and level of detail of procurement review enhancing and supporting the CPM’s with respect to their oversight role. The prior and post reviews are also enhanced at times with a combination of thresholds and contract volumes to enable assessment to be carried out on a wider range of procurement actions not limited to only lager value procurements.

Financing covenants E.

The average APR portfolio’s PSR rating for loan covenants is 4.3, in line with the previous 89.years. There were no projects with a rating of 2 (unsatisfactory), but five registered 3 (moderately unsatisfactory). The main gaps identified include reference to late submission of reports and not full compliance to tax exemption for IFAD financing. In all cases, the implementation of remedial actions is ongoing, sometimes as a condition for disbursement of top-up financing (as in the case of Afghanistan).

Audit F.

The proportion of audit reports received to date stands at 71% (40 out of 56 audits due) in line 90.with last year, where 67% of audit reports due were received. For this exercise, only 18 (or 45%) of the audit reports were received on time. Frequently, national legislation prescribes a six month deadline but this can also result in systematic late submission to IFAD, albeit by only a couple of weeks. Private audit firms are as likely to submit on time as Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs). A major issue is very few projects use the Audit Report Tracking System (ARTS) to upload their audited financial statements. Another challenge for CFS is promoting an early start of the audit process for projects and sponsoring the use of ARTS to support an increased timely submission rate. Out of the 40 audits received, 27 have been reviewed by CFS including an assessment of the quality of the audit work and of the financial reports. The quality of the financial reporting is highly satisfactory or satisfactory in 37% of the cases with 63% of the cases mostly or partially satisfactory. The quality of the audit work is highly satisfactory or satisfactory in 27% of the cases only. The correlation between quality of the financial reporting and the audit is not linear with much room for improvement as already indicated in the past.

The PSR score for the “quality and timeliness of the audit” indicator is stable at 4.0 for the last 91.three years. Of the 40 audits received to date, 37 (or 93%) were issued with an unqualified opinion on financial statements, and 3 (8033-AFG, PHL-1395, VNM-1422) with a qualified opinion. Where audit opinions are qualified, issues identified by auditors were linked to local legislative requirements or minor misalignments of reporting dates. Despite the positive results in terms of audit opinions, outcomes of audit reviews indicate that overall, of reports reviewed to date (27 out of 40), 19 (or 70%) have been classified as medium risk from a reporting/audit point of view with 8 (or 30%) classified as low risk. No audit report has been assessed as high risk. This indicates that the quality of the audit work at project level is in need of substantial improvements.


24

The financial reporting standards applied for the preparation of financial statements are in line 92.with internationally accepted practices (IFRS or IPSAS) in 35% of the cases. 20% used National Standards with the remaining being under modified application of cash or accrual accounting. One of the main challenges for the near future is to increase the number of projects applying international standards to improve the credibility and uniformity of the financial information disclosed. In addition to regional fiduciary trainings, supervision missions are used to try to accommodate project/countries needs and IFAD requirements. An important exercise in this regard is done during the design of new projects to ensure adequate financial arrangements are duly considered, including financial reporting and accounting standards used.

In terms of institutions performing the audit, 25 (62%) of the auditors were national SAIs, whilst 93.15 (38%) were private audit firms. International Standards on Auditing (ISA) or International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI) were applied by 23 auditors (or 58%). 17 (or 42%) auditors followed national audit standards. IFAD actively engages with SAIs whenever minimum requirements have been met. IFAD has limited resources to work individually with all SAIs but is supporting the INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI) to enhance the institutional capacity of SAIs. A pilot SAI capacity building program is currently on-going in Africa and possibly will be expanded to Asia in case of positive outcomes. Contacts have also been made during the year with the Auditor Generals of India, Cambodia, Afghanistan and China in order to improve the understanding of common requirements.

Monitoring and evaluation G.

APR's portfolio continues to see improvements in M&E performance. The average PSR score 94.increased from 3.5 two years ago to 4.0 during the reporting period; and the number of projects at satisfactory level (4 or higher) increased from 34 of 62 two years ago (55%), to 47 of 67 by June 2014 (70%). Of the 51 projects required to report on RIMS output indicators in 2013, 50 submitted the required RIMS report this year; of 35 projects required to report on outcome indicators, 28 did so. Of 35 projects effective since 2009, 30 have conducted baseline surveys while 4 have initiated these belatedly following start-up challenges. Of 21 projects completed from 2009 to 2013, 18 projects completed RIMS endline surveys. The improving scores correspond with higher fulfilment of RIMS requirements and improved reporting on outcomes.

Tools and methodologies for outcome measurement are increasingly being used by better 95.trained staff, and IFAD supervisions are placing additional emphasis on generating evidence to feed reviews. A number of projects are introducing APR's Annual Outcome Survey (AOS) methodology into their M&E plans and actions. AOS surveys, an APR innovation, were conducted in eight countries providing useful information on food security, changes in household incomes and other outcomes. As compared to mandatory RIMS impact surveys, which are only conducted at baseline and completion and in some cases at mid-term, AOS value-added is that they offer timely information to project management and stakeholders for decision-making purposes. Also, a control group is used, allowing for estimation of project contribution to measured changes. With the application of AOS, APR has attempted to bridge an information gap in measuring and monitoring effects against the projects’ theories of change. In particular, AOS encourages project implementers to ensure that the various technologies promoted, and training/extension activities provided, are resulting in improved yields and/or increased production.

While there is increasing attention to outcome monitoring, perhaps the most challenging aspect 96.of project M&E in the portfolio, many projects continue to rely on qualitative judgments and on field assessments by IFAD supervision missions to document progress against outcomes. There are many cases of outcome surveys being conducted at the end of a project in an attempt to generate data for the PCR. This reaffirms that project teams are still, either not convinced of the value of M&E in Management decision making, or do not have the capacity to implement it. Therefore, though improving in compliance, functionality of M&E systems is mixed, with M&E remaining an area of particular concern in many operations. In particular, the linkage to outcome and sustainability measurement needs much more emphasis by PMUs and in supervision missions (especially from MTR through to final supervision). In addition, supervision missions should carefully review project outreach data and triangulate RIMS data with other checks to ensure consistency. CPMs should also validate RIMS data with AWPB targets and progress reports. As a good practice, some country teams (e.g. Viet Nam and


25

Pakistan) are now ensuring that appropriate annual RIMS targets are provided early in the year, as part of AWPB reviews, so that there is less room for errors during end-of-year reporting.

A number of other efforts dedicated to strengthening M&E are notable. This includes an M&E 97.training and sharing event in India in December 2013 that brought together IFAD-funded projects from India, Bhutan and Nepal. An IFAD grant to IFPRI has sought to strengthen quality of baseline, endline and outcome surveys through appropriate questionnaires, sampling, and the use of handheld devices for enumerators that allow for real-time data validation, cleaning and survey supervision. IFAD country teams for Bangladesh, Indonesia and Nepal have applied project reporting templates developed last year, with easy-to-use data entry templates and automated reporting that are aggregated at country level for reporting on RB-COSOP results frameworks. The establishment of a China-wide project M&E group in July 2013 aims to facilitate exchanges of M&E experiences and knowledge, with IFAD support. Finally, APR also completed its M&E e-training programme during this reporting period, and is seeking to launch this on IFADAsia with ICT. E-trainings have been developed in collaboration with the APMAS grant to Asian Institute for Technology, building on IFAD project case studies and materials and PMD guidelines and other IFAD resources. This online M&E training addresses challenges in supporting M&E with limited budget resources. APR is also seeking to develop mechanisms to independently finance some project M&E activities in the future. This could include coupling large loans with small grants (in-built in design and financing of loan-funded projects), together with provisions for retroactive financing - so that M&E activities can start early and buttress planning and execution from the start. A 6-month establishment phase would focus on M&E and planning processes as well as ensuring recruitment of qualified staff.

VI. Results of the ongoing portfolio

This section provides an overview of portfolio performance against four key effectiveness 98.indicators: “overall implementation progress”, “likelihood to meet development objectives”, “physical & financial assets” and “food security”. Results achieved at the output, levels are then presented against impact domains. Finally, outcomes and impacts are synthesized drawing on RIMS data, PSR scores, and data from Annual Outcome Surveys and RIMS surveys. For advanced projects, MTR, PCR and evaluation reports offer some additional qualitative assessments.

Overall implementation progress A.

Table 15: PSR rating: Overall implementation performance and assessment

Portfolio performance with respect to implementation progress has steadily improved over the 99.past four years, with 91% of projects rated moderately satisfactory (4) or better in 2013/14 (Table 15). Twenty-three percent of the projects received a score of satisfactory (5) or above for the likelihood to meet their development objectives. The six projects that scored below par (3 or 2) face challenges and implementation delays that also jeopardize the likelihood that they can meet their development objectives.

Likelihood of achieving development objectives

There is a noticeable close correlation between the performance indicator “overall 100.implementation progress” and the indicator “likelihood of achieving development objectives”: during the review period, 93% of projects have at least moderate chances of achieving their

Indicators

2014 2013 2012Average

Pre-MTR

Average

Post-MTR

Ra

ting

1

Ra

ting

2

Ra

ting

3

Ra

ting

4

Ra

ting

5

Ra

ting

6

Share of

moderately

satisfactory

(rating 4 or

above)

Implementation progress 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.3 0 2 4 41 19 1 91%

Development achievement 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.4 0 1 4 39 22 1 93%

Phisical & financial assets 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.3 0 2 7 37 21 0 87%

Food security 4.0 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.2 0 2 7 44 14 0 87%

Natural asset & climate resilience 4.2 na na 4.1 4.3 0 0 2 49 16 0 97%

Total average 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.3 0% 2% 7% 63% 27% 1% 91%

Average PSR rating: Overall implementatio performance and assessment

Average PSR rating 2014


26

goal (Table 15). This is an improvement compared with previous reporting periods. The average portfolio score, of 4.3, recorded during the current review period has also slightly improved over 2012/13. The younger projects (pre-MTR) score lower (4.0) on average than the older ones (post-MTR) which score 4.4 - illustrating a j-curve pattern in project execution. No project received a score of “1” (highly unsatisfactory), but one project (MDV-1377) was rated “2” (unsatisfactory while 4 others were rated “3” (moderately unsatisfactory). The reasons for weak performance of these projects mostly relate to poor capacities and cumbersome bureaucratic processes. Also, the inability to recover from initial start-up delays is common to all of them. One project received a score of “6”, BGD-1322, a marketing infrastructure development project that is credited with having met all of its objectives, with good prospects of sustainability. Its key success factors appear to have been the provision of a comprehensive support all along the value chain- from up-front investments in road and other market infrastructure, to capacity-building support to producers’ groups, to the establishment of multi-stakeholder market management committees.

Physical and Financial Assets

Some 87% of projects had a score of 4 or above for the indicator “physical and financial 101.assets”, during the reporting period. Project assessments suggest that inclusive rural finance services, training, and strengthening organisations of rural producers were important contributors to improvements in households’ incomes and assets. For example, in VNM-1422 81.6% of households participating in Common Interest Groups (CIGs) reported an increase in their income from agricultural production (peanut, soybean, sugarcane and tobacco) and about 60% of total households participating in livestock activities also confirmed an increase in their incomes. These were reportedly a result of improved access to extension services, production tools, better access to markets, and improved access to financial services. In AFG-1460, AOS findings suggest an average increase in the income of poor dairy goat producers (mostly women) by US$2 per day- a notable increase given the low levels of income in the target areas.

Food Security

Project supervision ratings suggest that IFAD support to smallholders is having a positive 102.impact on their food security status. The average score for “food security” during the review period is 4.0, slightly below the average of 4.1 recorded in 2011/12- with 87% of projects receiving a score of 4 or above. Unfortunately, only in some cases are PCR scores backed up by rigorous statistical findings. The case of BGD-1165 is a good example, where survey data demonstrates that the project effectively promoted technological improvements and crop diversification, including reduction in the use of pesticides and reduced production costs. Expansion of agricultural production included a 23% increase in cultivated land areas, while wheat yields grew from 6.25 ton/ha at baseline to 6.61 tons/ha at completion.

Outputs B.

In this section, and where possible24

, available RIMS Level 1 data are presented by impact 103.domains to provide a sense of the key output-level results achieved. Additional, contextual information is provided for projects that have accounted for the largest share of these results.

Households Assets and Incomes

Accumulation of financial assets for households is a key driver of investment and economic 104.growth. A total of 23 projects (30% of APR’s portfolio) have reported on rural finance activities during the reporting period, all of which scored 4 or higher under the Physical and Financial Assets category. Collectively, these projects have provided some 1 212 000 persons, mostly women, with micro-credit. According to annual RIMS data, IND-1314 reported 767 000 active borrowers, or 70% of the total reported under the APR portfolio. The dominance of IND-1314 is due to the fact that 11 projects previously involved in microfinance (that had been reporting a total of 1 291 000 active borrowers) are now completed and closed. The reported number of voluntary savers, at 414 000 persons, has similarly decreased significantly from previous review period.

24

A disconnect has always existed between RIMS “domains” and the impact domains used by the IOE. Certain impact domains

(such as food security) require the positive contribution of a variety of outputs, from different thematic areas. As a result, it is not possible to use RIMS Level 1 data (outputs) to illustrate progress against all impact domains.


27

Empowerment and human social capital

Overall, projects engaged in empowerment of poor rural producers and their communities have 105.reported the creation of 2 125 formal community groups (13 projects), training of 18 440 community workers (8 projects); and training of 91 081 community members on community management (by 15 projects). A smaller number of projects reported on the construction or rehabilitation of social infrastructure, such as drinking water systems, health centres or community centres. Two projects made particularly notable contributions to these aggregate results: PHL-1395, organized 361 People’s Organizations (POs) with a membership of some 8 000 men and 7 500 women - covering 13 193 households. These POs are implementing 500 micro-projects in reforestation, agroforestry, domestic water, and irrigation, while 316 POs were also supported in livelihood activities. The project has also established about 280 Livelihood Interest Groups, members of which have received technical support in agriculture, agribusiness and IGAs. Some 1 466 community members (including 40% women) were selected and trained to join the 170 barangay-based Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Teams (PMETs) - to monitor different micro-projects in their respective barangay. Notable achievements are also recorded for IND-1314, which has trained some 10 110 community workers, all women, in areas related to domestic violence, sexual harassment, gender equality, malnutrition or rights, and has formed 303 new Self Help Groups (SHGs) during the review period. Since project start, 12 442 SHGs have been created with a membership of 1665 000 households.

Food security and agricultural productivity

The provision of extension services, training or production inputs to farmers and livestock 106.owners through Producers’ Groups continues to be a key feature of many projects. Some 3 000 such groups were established or strengthened (with a membership of some 52 000 persons, including 14 700 women). Two projects accounted for 65% of this: IND-1470 (mostly established SHGs and Dairy Groups) and IDN-1258. Following its problem project classification at mid-term, the latter project made notable adjustments and impressive progress in forming commodity groups in 150 villages across Central Sulawesi. Also, 31 projects (or 46% of the portfolio) trained 189 000 farmers in crop production. Three projects contributed nearly 50% of this number: KHM-1559, VNM-1552 and BGD-1322.

RIMS reports also indicate that some 68 265 livestock owners were trained or benefited from 107.extension services provided by 23 projects. KHM-1559 accounts for nearly half. It trained 31 400 persons in fish production, or 80% of the total number of persons trained in these technologies. Across the portfolio, some 11 600 households were provided with animals, mostly under IND-1040. In addition, 18 projects organized training courses specifically targeting government extension staff or other service providers. Notably, CHN-1323, which created an innovative grassroots extension service network using farmer technicians. It accounts for 25% of the 5 400 technical staff trained in the APR portfolio. The project trained and equipped “Technical Envoys” selected from the communities to provide basic technical services on demand to other farmers and livestock owners alongside formal extension staff.

Natural resources and the environment

Overall, RIMS reporting shows that slightly fewer projects reported on achievements related to 108.the formation or strengthening of NRM groups or to the promotion of improved land management practices, though the number of persons trained in NRM has increased to reach some 19 914 individuals. One project accounts for close to 80% of this figure: NPL-1285, which has supported the formation of 4 155 Forestry Groups since its inception, with a total membership of 39 290 households managing an average of 0.53 ha of forest each. The establishment and strengthening of users’ groups remains a key entry point for projects engaged in the promotion of sustainable NRM practices. During the review period, seven projects reported on the establishment or strengthening of a total of 827 Water Users’ or Forestry Groups. BGD-1585, which accounts for some 70% of this, has transferred the responsibility of fish ponds’ management to Beel Users’ Groups.

A small number of projects reported on the formulation of Environmental Management Plans: 109.four projects reported the development of some 464 such plans. VNM-1477, in particular, achieved impressive results. In 2013, it allocated an additional 10,000 ha of forestland to farmers, raising the total forestland allocation to some 22,000 ha. The guidelines for participatory forestland planning and allocation were amended to integrate a strategy for the


28

inclusion of landless poor and, subsequently, 264 ethnic households (poor and near poor) were allocated 1 617 ha from community forestland reserves and from households with larger forestland areas. Forestland use planning has been completed for 107 393 ha of forest (or 150% of the original target of 72 000 ha) in 20 project communes and 267 villages. Forest use certificates were issued to 3 395 households, 51% of them from poor and near-poor households.

Available RIMS data indicate that some 60 432 hectares of land are now under improved 110.management practices thanks to project-supported activities such as NRM training or land restoration activities. This includes 20 000 ha of land now under improved management practices under IND-1470, which represents one third of the total reported by eight projects altogether. Two projects (NPL-1119 and IND-1115) have also, reportedly contributed to the improvement of management practices over some 32 109 ha of common property resources.

Markets

Twenty four projects in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia and Viet Nam have 111.sought to improve access to markets for poor, remote communities through the construction or rehabilitation of 886 km rural roads. Seventeen projects have extended training in post-production, processing or marketing during the review period to some 63 000 persons. PHL-1253 supported 7 400 marketing groups with business-development services. The total number of marketing groups supported during the review period, has increased in comparison to previous review periods, illustrating the increasing concern for improving the capacities of poor rural producers to aggregate and access markets.

RIMS data also shows that 17 projects trained some 34 200 persons to strengthen their 112.business development or entrepreneurship skills, slightly below the previous review period. BGD-1322 alone accounts for 54% of this figure, with some 18 500 members of Producer's Groups. Training of micro-entrepreneurs has also been a key deliverable in the Philippines, with two projects accounting for another 32% of the total number of micro-entrepreneurs supported. An Annual Outcome Survey recently conducted by PHL-1509 revealed that some 25% of the micro-enterprises supported since project start have generated an average of 2.3 additional full-time employees and that about 17% of them also hired an average of 3.2 part-time employees.

Some 85 000 micro-enterprises have been supported to access credit, against 126 000 during 113.previous period. BGD-1402 continues to account for the largest part of this figure (73 200 micro-entrepreneurs in 64 districts). As of June 2013, cumulative loan disbursement of partners under this project amounted to US$315 million- almost 6 times the amount at project start, with about 565 000 active borrowers of which 380 000 or 67% are women.

Outcomes and emerging impacts C.

The outcomes and preliminary impact of projects past mid-term are presented below. Key data 114.sources are the PCRs and RIMS survey results, but also the Annual Outcome Surveys (AOS) conducted in a number of countries.

Figure 6: Changes in relative wealth ranking

Physical and Financial Assets

Mature projects (34 projects implemented for five years or more) scored higher on average 115.(4.3) against PSR indicator “physical and financial assets” than projects under 5 years (average


29

score of 4.0). However, there is some variability even in mature projects: the RIMS survey for BGD-1322 did not show major improvement in ownership of physical assets, while LAO-1396 (Figure 6) reports an improvement of relative wealth ranking for project beneficiaries between mid-term and completion. As shown in Figure 7 below, there was an important increase in the percentage of households in the two richest quintiles. Correspondingly, the project reports that average household incomes from livestock production increased from US$87 at baseline to US$425 at completion, surpassing the US$400 target.

The four projects for which a PCR was conducted during the review period obtained an average 116.score of 5.3 for the indicator “Physical assets”. Outcome survey data used in the BGD-1402 PCR suggests that 98% of the micro-entrepreneurs supported by the project expanded their business activities; and that 11% of them diversified them, thanks to an accumulation of financial assets. Annual Outcome Surveys conducted in 5 projects that did not yet conduct a RIMS endline survey also showed that a greater proportion of beneficiaries reported increases in income as compared to non-beneficiaries. The proportion of households reporting a lower income is also much smaller among project beneficiaries. BTN-1482 reported the highest proportion of beneficiaries reporting increased incomes, at 96% against 85% of the control group. The largest difference between beneficiaries and control groups is recorded by IND-1040: 66% of its beneficiaries reported increased incomes, while only 23% of the control group did. More modest results were recorded by IND-1470 and IND-1348, with, respectively, 31% and 17% reporting increased incomes, against 20% and 10% for the respective control groups. Surveys also signalled that 10% and 23% of beneficiaries’ households for these two projects

reported a lower income suggesting the need to revisit some project interventions to ensure broader benefits for the target group.

Natural resources and the environment

The average PSR score for “climate and environment focus” is 4.2, with 90% of the projects 117.receiving a score of 4 or above. In terms of outcomes or impact, very few quantitative data are available. The BGD-1585 supervision report highlights some interesting, and quite unusual, development in the area of biodiversity: the various improved management techniques promoted by this project (such as building of sanctuaries, guarding, application of fish feed or beel re-excavation techniques) have thus far resulted in an increased availability of endangered fish species in all beels (seven endangered, but commercially important high value fish species, re-appeared in significant quantities) and overall biodiversity increased from 51 to 80 species.

Empowerment

Some 51% of the projects received a score of 4 for the “empowerment” indicator and 42% of 118.projects had a score of 5 or above, reflecting an overall satisfactory performance. Key determinants for good performance often included a focus on awareness raising and on community sensitization, as well as the formation of inclusive self-help groups coupled with the promotion of income-generating activities that foster economic empowerment. In BTN-1482, for example, the inclusive approach adopted for the formation of farmers’ groups allowed women

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Higher Same Lower Higher Same Lower

Project beneficiaries Control group

66

33

0

29

57

6

31

60

10 11

76

13 17

61

23

7

57

40

66

31

2

23

68

11

96

4 0

85

12 3

% o

f h

ou

seh

old

s re

po

rtin

g a

hig

her

,

iden

tica

ll o

r lo

wer

inco

me

Changes in beneficiaries' income over past 12 months

Mongolia-1455 India-1470 India-1348 India-1040 Bhutan-1482

Figure 7: Changes in beneficiaries' income over past 12 months


30

and poor rural households to become active participants in most of these groups. In KHM-1559, the project provides specific gender training for women beneficiaries to enhance their capacities to constructively assess their roles and rights and enhance their political participation.

The strong links between improved natural resource management and empowerment in rural 119.areas that IFAD targets are illustrated by BGD-1165 (which obtained a score of 6). The various users’ and producers’ groups formed by the project have enhanced community cohesion and built an important social capital- even though their primary purpose was mainly production and NRM-oriented. There are also indications that technical training and credit services have economically empowered members of the target group, particularly women. Similarly, Tonga-1628 has made an impressive contribution to enabling communities to develop their own skills and take charge of their development. Following project support for community development plans (CDPs), poor communities engage in the organization and management of natural resources, and have successfully demonstrated their capacity to mobilize and manage financing, including remittances, to fund portions of the CDPs.

Five projects scored below par on empowerment (MDV-1377, IND-1617, LAO-1608, LAO-1301 120.and LKA-1600) primarily due to significant implementation delays in capacity-building activities and provision of technical services. In the case of MDV-1377, such delays have led to insufficient outreach and declining motivation of targeted communities. In the case of LAO-1608, the capacity building of farmers and community groups has just begun, in a supply-driven approach that does not foster ownership and sustainability. IFAD’s supervision concludes that, unless changes take place in the implementation strategy, it is unlikely that groups formed will be sustained after the provision of inputs.

Agricultural Productivity

As shown in Table 16 below, all AOS report improvements in crop yields or production. In 121.countries and projects where livestock rearing is the main means of livelihoods, such as Mongolia and India, some 90% of beneficiary households have reported improvements in livestock productivity or size. BTN-1482, which supports agricultural intensification, also appears to be quite successful in comparison with the control group.

Table 16: Households reporting increase in production/productivity over past 12 months

(Source: AOS) Project beneficiaries Control group

Yes No Yes No

Livestock production/productivity:

MNG-1455 91% 9% 64% 36%

IND-1040 87% 13% 58% 42%

BTN-1482 30% 70% 24% 76%

Crop yields/production:

Indonesia 1258 79% 21% 51% 49%

BTN-1482 62% 38% 7% 93%

IND-1470 35% 65% 11% 89%

A significant proportion of respondents from the control groups also reported improvements in 122.crop or livestock production. Most of the time, this proportion is much lower than among project beneficiaries, suggesting quite clearly the specific impact of IFAD projects. In some cases, particularly in that of crop production in BTN-1482, the difference is not so large. In the absence of clear evidence on whether factors other than IFAD projects are driving productivity improvements nor whether increases may be related to project spill overs or contamination effects, it can be reasonably assumed that IFAD funded interventions are contributing to overall efforts by government, other donors or farmers themselves to increase agricultural production.

Food security

For projects that have not yet conducted a RIMS mid-term or completion survey, some of the 123.AOS conducted during the current review period are providing additional information on the percentage of surveyed project beneficiaries reporting an increase in income of the past 12 months. These findings are presented in Chart 2.

On average, 49% of project beneficiaries reported an improvement in their food security 124.situation over the past twelve months, against 19% of households in the control groups. The largest differences between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were recorded by IDN-1258, with 67% of beneficiaries claiming an improvement in their food security situation against only


31

11% of non-beneficiaries. The latest supervision report confirms that the project is improving food security through the development of cash crops, improving crop and livestock production and productivity and enhancing post-harvest practices to reduce losses and adding value. Not included in the above table

25, the AOS report of BGD-1537 also found that there was

an annual decrease by 6% in the number of food-insecure beneficiary households and a reduction by 22 points in this percentage in comparison with baseline.

Child malnutrition: As shown in the chart, the six RIMS impact surveys conducted during the 125.review period also indirectly confirm, for the most part, improvements in food security. Thus, all six surveys show a decrease in most children malnutrition measures. The largest improvements

are recorded by BGD-1165, followed by LAO-1301 and PAK-1413. These are three projects that have generally delivered all their outputs and reached IFAD target groups. All three projects had also very high chronic malnutrition rates at baseline (60% or more). These survey findings are

particularly encouraging given that the reduction in chronic malnutrition is widely accepted as an indication of an improvement in the overall well-being of the population surveyed. In the case of BGD-1322, the RIMS survey report mentions that the percentage of households experiencing at least one hungry season has decreased from 58% at baseline to 35% at project completion. As five of these surveys specifically sampled only project beneficiaries, these findings are indicative of projects’ contribution to improving the nutritional status of children and food security.

The latter improvements in child nutrition 126.are supported by other RIMS survey findings, in particular the decrease in percentage of beneficiaries suffering from at least one “hungry season” in the past year. As shown in Chart 1, the most significant decrease is recorded by LAO-1396 (-28 percentage points), followed by BGD-1322 (-23 percentage points). In the case of the two projects for which there is an increase in percent of households suffering from one hungry season (PHL-1395 and PAK-1413), it is important to highlight that in both cases, the RIMS surveys were not conducted exclusively among project beneficiaries, but among randomly selected households in surveyed villages. PHL-1395 was in problem status with delayed delivery of benefits when the MTR RIMS survey was undertaken, whereas PAK-1413 is a dispersed microfinance project working

25

The AOS questionnaire for this project was adapted to meet its specific information requirements and the questions related to

food security were asked in a different manner; therefore, answers cannot be aggregated with other AOS.

Change in food security situation over past 12 months (AOS)

Project beneficiaries Control group

same worse improved same worse improved

Mongolia-1455 37% 0% 63% 72% 2% 28%

Indonesia 1258 31% 2% 67% 82% 7% 11%

India-1470 93% 3% 4% 96% 3% 1%

India-1040 33% 7% 60% 61% 4% 35%

Average 49% 3% 49% 78% 4% 19%

Table 17: Changes in food security situation over past 12 months (AOS)

Figure 8: Percentage decrease in children malnutrition rates

-3

-23.

-28

8

-35

-25

-15

-5

5

Dec

reas

se f

rom

bas

elin

e

(per

cen

tage

po

ints

)

BGD-1165 BGD-1322 LAO-1396

PAK-1413 PHI-1395

Figure 9: Decrease in % of households

suffering from one hungry season/year


32

in different project areas only the first of which were captured in at baseline and comparable at completion. The RIMS surveys reflect degradation in food security among the respective target population, but are not informative of total impact under the two IFAD projects.

With respect to “acute malnutrition” status, available data are more difficult to explain. This 127.indicator is generally associated with the measurement of temporary external shocks, and is therefore highly sensitive to variability in local conditions. Data seem to suggest that, in the event of temporary shocks, girls’ malnutrition status tend to be less affected than boys’. The use of qualitative tools would be required to understand what has happened.

The case of PHL-1395, which features an increase by 5% in the number of stunted children 128.(low height for age) by mid-term, as well as an increase in the percentage of households suffering from one hungry season per year, may be related to the sampling method prescribed by RIMS: when the “random walk” procedure is used to select survey respondents, these respondents may – or may not- be project beneficiaries. In the case of PHL-1395, project delivery had been limited until mid-term, classifying the project in problem status until last year. The increase in chronic malnutrition rates by 5 percentage points therefore reflects inefficient delivery of benefits as well as general deterioration of living conditions in project target villages.

Survey data provide preliminary indications that: (i) the gender bias against girls has drastically 129.reduced from baseline; (ii) girls have tended to benefit proportionally more than boys from improvement in households’ food security. As shown in Table 17, these interesting phenomena are observed in all four countries: if there is a bias in favour of boys at baseline for the indicators “height for age” and “weight for age”, the trend is reversed at completion. Thus, on average, girls’ rates for “chronic malnutrition” and “underweight status” were, respectively, 2 and 3 points above boys’ rates at baseline. At completion, boys’ malnutrition rates are slightly higher than girls’ rates.

Table 18: Gender bias: girls’ rates vs. boys’ rates26

Chronic malnutrition: height for age

Underweight children: weight for age

Acute malnutrition: weight for height

Baseline Completion Baseline Completion Baseline Completion

BGD-1165 1.6 -1.3 -0.4 0.6 -5 -3.2

BGD-1322 3 no data 7 no data 1 no data

LAO-1396 0 -1 1 1 -3 -3

PAK-1413 5 1 4 -5 3 -1

PHL-1395 0.7 -1.4 3.3 -0.2 0 -1.4

Average 2.06 -0.68 2.98 -0.9 -0.80 -2.15

Targeting of poverty, gender and youth D.

The ability of IFAD-funded projects to reach out to the intended target groups, in particular the 130.poor, women and vulnerable groups, is important for an organization that has committed to reach 90 million persons and lift 80 million out of poverty by 2015. As shown above, the current review period continued earlier improvements in all three indicators used to track the extent that project activities reach out to the poor, women and other intended vulnerable groups.

Table 19: PSR rating: Gender, poverty, targeting and empowerment

26

For example for BGD-1165, “1.6” is calculated by subtracting the girls’ rate for “chronic malnutrition (or 57.6%) from the boys’ rate (or 56%). The difference shows that there is 1.6 percentage points between girls and boys values, revealing that girls tend to suffer more from chronic malnutrition compared with boys.

Indicators

2014 2013 2012Average

Pre-MTR

Average

Post-MTR

Ra

ting

1

Ra

ting

2

Ra

ting

3

Ra

ting

4

Ra

ting

5

Ra

ting

6

Share of

moderately

satisfactory

(rating 4 or

above)

Gender focus 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.6 0 1 5 28 90 9 91%

Poverty focus 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.7 0 0 1 31 32 3 99%

Targeting approach 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.5 0 1 3 32 30 1 94%

Empowerment 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.5 0 0 5 34 26 2 93%

Total average 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.6 0% 1% 4% 37% 53% 4% 94%

Average PSR rating: Gender, poverty, targeting and empowerment



33

Box 2: Best practices in “targeting”

IND-1040:

Target Group

“category”

Nb of persons

reached (cumul.) % women

A: Better off 7 134 50%

B: Poor 18 666 50%

C: Poorer 35 112 49%

D: Poorest 64 044 50%

Total 124 956 50%

Viet Nam-1552: The population of the province includes three main

ethnic groups: Kinh 78,5%, Cham 12,7% and Raglay 8% (a group

among which poverty rates are significantly higher). The project

targeted the communes with the highest numbers of poor ethnic

minorities and, within these communities, 19,300 households

including 6,000 poor ethnic Raglay households and 6,000 non-poor

Raglay households as per appraisal targets. So far, the Raglay/Cham

households consist of 44% of training participants, but only 16% of

CIG members, requiring urgent attention from project management.

Effectiveness of targeting approach

The proportion of projects that are at least partly successful in reaching out to their intended 131.beneficiaries has improved remarkably over the recent years, reaching 94% in the current review period. The average PSR score, at 4.4, is also a slight improvement from previous reporting period. Notwithstanding this overall satisfactory assessment made during supervision missions, few SIS reports actually contain the necessary evidence that provides a strong basis for these scores, such as an assessment of the quality of the targeting processes and mechanisms followed or details on numbers of beneficiaries reached, by category or type. With varying degrees of reliability, however, all projects have over the years developed the ability to track the overall number of persons reached per type of activities and also the percentage of women beneficiaries. The targeting approach most often encountered

27 entails two different

steps. In a first step, a mix of poverty and accessibility criteria (e.g. focus on the most remote villages) is used to identify certain target areas. In a second step, participatory selection processes or wealth ranking exercises take place at the village level - usually with support from local authorities or decision-making bodies - for the identification and final selection of project beneficiaries, often according to pre-established eligibility criteria. Many projects, although they target explicitly certain groups in particular, also adopt an inclusive targeting approach

28. In this case, better-off farmers are not excluded from participation in

project activities, but these are usually designed to be more “attractive” to poor farmers than richer ones.

In all cases, the risk of elite capture of project benefits has to be avoided and the projects need 132.to properly monitor their beneficiaries’ profile. This is for example the current challenge of MDV-1377, one of the three projects that received a low score of “3”. The SIS report noted that, since the concept of cooperatives is very new to the Maldives, it is not evident that the poor and marginalized fishers and farmers were made fully aware of the benefits of the project and it is very likely that the better-off members of the community will govern and control the village cooperative activities in their interests. Urgent action is therefore required for the establishment of an efficient M&E system that tracks and calibrates project outreach.

IND-1617, the only project to receive a low score of 2, illustrates the challenge that some 133.projects may face in trying to follow their prescribed targeting strategy: while the target is the inclusion of at least 50% of households below the poverty line and 20% of households from Schedule Casts in Producers’ Groups case, the SIS mission found that these targets are not attainable nor are they sound, as only the inclusion of a sufficient number of better-off farmers can guarantee a sufficient volume of production and access to markets. Two other projects that received a score of “3” (CHN-1629, IND-1470), given the absence of a transparent participatory process for beneficiaries’ identification, in the first case; and in the second case that the project has so far only reached 50% of its appraisal target with 2 years remaining.

In view of these findings, APR will in the next years ensure that Project teams and SIS missions 134.pay sufficient attention to assess and discuss the quality and effectiveness of targeting approaches and that this discussion, as well as detailed outreach figures, is properly documented in SIS reports. Where needed, additional support will also be provided to improve M&E systems and their ability to track outreach figures in a reliable, cost-effective manner.

27

e.g. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Philippines, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam 28

For example in India, Nepal, Tonga


34

Box 4: Best practices in “gender focus”

BGD-1322: The project has expanded women’s economic

empowerment through access to, and control over, productive

assets (microcredit, IGAs, daily wages from infrastructure

construction, vegetable production, and marketing of agricultural

produce). It strengthened women’s decision-making role in the

household and community, as well as their representation in

membership and leadership of local institutions (in particular the

Market Management Committees). The project also helped to

reduce women workload by reducing the time spent on a daily

basis to go to the market. (Source: PCR report)

Box 3: Best practices in “poverty focus”

BGD-1165: The project has so far benefited 139,000 rural

households, of which 10% were landless and 90% were marginal

farmers owning less than 2.5 acres of land. (Source: SIS report)

BGD-1322: Project beneficiaries, namely primary producers,

char-based traders (both women and men), landless and women-

headed households, belonged to the poorest groups in the

Charlands area, one of the poorest regions in the country. Thus

landless households and labourers living on daily wages

accounted for 45% and 46% of project direct beneficiaries,

respectively, including 30% female-headed households. (Source:

PCR report)

NPL-1119: Among the 12,000 new households selected during

PRA exercises, 40% were Dalits and 58% from marginalized

castes. (Source: SIS report)

Poverty focus

Only one project (MDV-1377) received a score below “4”, which explains the spectacular 135.achievement related to the percentage of projects rated 4 or above (99% from 87% in 2011/12). The “% of projects that received a score of 5 or above” may be more informative: during the current review period, 31 projects had a score of “5” or above and 32 had a score of “4”, indicating that the performance of 46% of projects was only moderately satisfactory.

For these 31 projects, two types of 136.situations are usually found. In the first, the low score is a result of inadequate monitoring and/or documenting of beneficiaries’ profiles (e.g. in terms of income groups or vulnerability status); the intended beneficiaries may have been reached, but the SIS mission could not find adequate outreach data. In the second situation, projects faced difficulties in effectively reaching out to their intended target groups, either quantitatively (e.g. outreach targets are not met) or qualitatively (e.g. the beneficiaries effectively reached do not have the expected poverty or vulnerability profile). The cause is often the use of inadequate selection criteria, or difficulties in properly managing the processes for beneficiaries’ identification and selection.

As suggested by many SIS reports, remedial actions include improvements in M&E systems, 137.with a focus on the proper monitoring of outreach data, and enhanced, participatory processes for the identification and selection of project beneficiaries.

Gender focus

During the review period, 90% of 138.the projects received a score of 4 or above for their performance in ensuring equitable access of project benefits and activities to women and for mainstreaming gender in implementation. This is a slight decrease from 2011/12 (94%), even if the average score has slightly improved in absolute terms (4.5 in current review period).

The lowest score (2) is recorded by KHM-1464 but the latest SIS report does not include any 139.discussion on gender focus. Five other projects

29 in Laos, Nepal, Maldives and Sri Lanka had a

low score of “3”. The latest SIS report for NPL-1119 includes a good assessment of gender mainstreaming challenges faced by the project. Key issues include the lack of understanding, at PMU level, of gender mainstreaming requirements, caused in part by the fact that no social analysis was conducted, no gender experts were included in previous supervision missions or recruited by the PMU, and that no explicit gender strategy was developed. Gender mainstreaming efforts were limited to ensuring the participation of women in project activities and monitoring their participation in groups’ meetings. No efforts were made to identify and address areas of gender inequalities within the households as well as in the society. By and large, this situation illustrates some of the difficulties also shared by the other projects which received a score of “3”; and to a lesser extent the situation of many projects with a score of “4”.

Five projects30

received a score of “6”. Usually, high scores are justified by the fact that the 140.project has targeted women in particular, like in the case of PAK-1413 (73% of incremental

29

LAO-1608, MDV-1347, MDV-1624, NPL-1119 and LKA-1457. 30

PAK-1413, PHL-1395, LKA-1346, BGD-1165, BGD-1322


35

borrowers reached under this microfinance project were women); or by the fact that certain components/activities are designed around women’s needs and requirements. This is for example the case of the LKA-1346 project, which was designed so that women would be the main beneficiaries of the social and economic infrastructure, microenterprise development and financial services development components.

As recommended by many SIS reports during the current review period, the focus for the next 141.years should be on the development and implementation of a proper gender mainstreaming strategy for all projects, while SIS missions should also strive to better analyse and document achievements or challenges in terms of women empowerment. Also, it would be wise if the next SIS missions for all projects which received a score of 3 or below would include a Gender Expert, who could be gender focal person in the projects or the ICOs, so that the required additional support is provided.

Youth. The Asia and the Pacific region is home to 61.5 per cent of the world’s youth, which 142.means that the majority of IFAD-supported projects reach out to young rural people as an integral part of their inclusive, pro-poor targeting approach. Projects, specifically targeting youth are mainly focusing on addressing the challenge of high youth unemployment. The lack of employment opportunities means that many young people are either jobless or forced into informal, insecure and low-wage employment. Many move to cities or to other countries, where they often find themselves even worse off. With vocational training or job connection programmes, projects aim to enhance the employment perspectives of young people. The VNM-1422, for example, provides vocational training aimed at helping rural youth gain access to wage work in the industrial parks: enterprises from the parks are involved in defining the offer of training and are also training rural youth as apprentices. Under IND-1155, for example, young girls are being trained in bookkeeping so that they can provide this service to the self-help groups of mostly illiterate women.

Innovation and learning E.

During current review period, the PSR ratings for “learning and innovation” have improved 143.significantly: 90% of the projects received a score of 4 and above, compared with 70% in 2012/13. This is an impressive improvement, probably highlighting that APR efforts deployed in the past few years are starting to bear fruits. However, it is important to note that only 28% of the projects received a score of 5 or 6, suggesting that there is still room for improvement for some 72% of the portfolio.

Also, the proportion of projects receiving very low and low scores is slightly higher than for 144.other indicators, with two projects receiving a score of 2 (PAK-1515 and KHM-1464) and 5 projects receiving a score of 3 (MDV-1377, NPL-1602, PAK-1514, IDN-1258 and CHN-1629). For most of these projects, the low rating is justified mainly by the fact that the projects have been unable to start implementing their in-built innovative features due to implementation delays. This is for example the case for the Pakistan, Nepal and China projects. In Indonesia, an innovative public-private partnership has been formalized with the Mars Company in the project areas so that cocoa farmers can access markets at premium prices, but so far, the project has no clear exit and scaling up strategy. In the Maldives, although the latest SIS mission observed that a few field-level technical innovations were introduced by some producers’ groups for the processing of agricultural produce, these innovations had not been initiated nor supported by the project.

The China CPE conducted during the review period sheds some interesting light on the issue of 145.innovation and, to a certain extent; evaluation findings may reflect some of the challenges faced by other projects in other countries. While innovation is a key feature of the country’s COSOP, the CPE notes that most of the innovations observed in the portfolio were not necessarily

identified at design stage but had emerged during implementation mostly related to agricultural technologies- in response to a given implementation challenge or to an emerging opportunity. When innovations were defined at the design stage, like in the case of the three most recent projects which are piloting value chain approaches and partnerships with the private sector, the CPE notes that detailed strategies and guidelines on how to implement these innovations need to be properly defined to provide practical guidance to project implementers. Another challenge is also the increasing reluctance of local authorities to use IFAD loan proceeds for the piloting of innovative approaches that may, or may not, be successful. Since


36

Box 5: Best practices in “replication and up-scaling”

As illustrated by the now completed RPRP in Mongolia,

warranted examples of replication or up-scaling may take years

to be documented and may eventually lead to improvements in

the policy framework. The mobile kindergartens piloted by the

projects were thus not only taken-up and replicated by UNICEF,

the World Bank and several other donors, but this successful

experience also informed the national education policy which is

now promoting preschool child care.

China is borrowing at ordinary terms, there is thus an increasing expectation that IFAD’s financing should be used for investments that will guarantee high rates of return, such as investments in infrastructure. A last challenge found in China and in many other countries is the fact that projects seldom monitor and evaluate innovations differently from standard activities. As a result, independent robust assessments of the viability and potential for scaling up of innovative approaches are hard to come by.

Table 20: PSR rating: Innovation, scaling-up, sustainability and climate/environment

Two projects in Bangladesh received the highest PSR score: BGD-1165 and BGD-1322. The 146.first one, now completed, has introduced a number of significant innovations in the country context, all of which were quite successful. The second project formed Labour Contracting Societies through which vulnerable and destitute women were involved in road construction activities, while benefiting from advocacy training on social issues (e.g. hygiene or child marriage). Upon completion of the construction work, these women were provided an opportunity to join credit groups and benefit from income-generating activities. The institutionalization of Market Management Committees was also an innovation tested by the project. The innovations or innovative features of the projects rated 4 or above are summarized in Table 8 of the Annex.

Replication and scaling-up F.

According to PSR scores, the portfolio is performing highly satisfactorily in relation to the 147.potential of scaling up and replication, with 96% of projects obtaining a score of 4 or above and an average portfolio score of 4.5. This represents a significant improvement as compared to previous periods. However, the proportion of the projects with scores 5 or above stands at 45%, suggesting that there is still room for improvement.

Four projects received the highest 148.score of 6. In the case of BGD-1322, the score was justified by the fact that the various innovations successfully piloted by the project are being scaled-up by the newly started BGD-1647, which is jointly funded by IFAD, ADB and KfW, while the value chain and microenterprise activities of BGD-1402 will be scaled-up in the new IFAD-funded project currently under design. In the case of IND-1040, since January 2014, the Government has already initiated a new project that replicates project approaches in two additional districts in Manipur and three districts in Arunachal Pradesh benefiting 59 000 poor households in 1 177 villages with investments of some US$90 million over six years period (2014-2020).

For the three projects obtaining the lowest score of 3 (KHM-1464, IND-1617 and LAO-1301), 149.the SIS reports do not provide specific explanations on reasons for under-performance, but it is

Indicators

2014 2013 2012Average

Pre-MTR

Average

Post-MTR

na

Ra

ting

1

Ra

ting

2

Ra

ting

3

Ra

ting

4

Ra

ting

5

Ra

ting

6

Share of

moderately

satisfactory

(rating 4 or

above)

Innovation 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.4 0 2 5 41 17 2 90%

Scaling-up 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.7 0 0 3 34 26 4 96%

Exit strategy 4.0 3.9 3.7 4.0 4.1 3 0 3 7 40 12 2 81%

Institution building 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.2 0 0 9 39 19 0 87%

Beneficiary

participation 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.5 0 0 4 32 30 1 94%

Responsiveness of

service providers 4.3 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.4 0 0 0 5 40 22 93%

Climate &

environment focus 4.2 na na 4.1 4.3 0 0 2 49 15 1 97%

Total average 0% 0% 1% 6% 51% 34% 7% 92%

Average PSR rating: Innovation, Scaling-up, sustainability and Climate/enviroment



37

noticeable that these are projects that are facing implementation challenges and delays and this may negatively affect their potential for replication and scaling up.

Key achievements for the projects rated 4 or 5 show that the issue of replication and scaling up 150.has been given the necessary attention in recent years, whether the specific aspects being up-scaled by IFAD or other donors were innovative in the country context, or just successful in addressing a particular development challenges. Thus in the Pacific islands, the successful conclusion of the innovative Supplemental Equity Grant programme within SOL-1565 and the partnership agreement models of PNG-1480 (themselves drawing on WB experience in Latin America) are both being scaled up in a new project that will be funded jointly by WB, EU, IFAD and Australia. In addition, the government has committed to borrow more IFAD and WB resources to, as much as, double the initial investments to expand these approaches to more producers. In Bhutan, BTN-1482 successfully piloted low-cost electrical fences to protect agricultural fields from wildlife predation, a serious issue in the country, as a result of which the MoA budget for the 11th Five-Year Plan includes significant funding for expanding this technology in more districts and localities.

In Myanmar, an interesting and unusual example of early replication is taking place. Key 151.elements of the design of IFAD's first investment project in the country (MMR-1654), particularly in the areas of irrigation management and advisory services, are thus already being scaled-up by the WB, which plans to invest US$100 million in three locations of the central dry zone even before project implementation started.

Other projects are working hard to ensure the proper documentation of successful approaches 152.or technologies that seem to hold strong replication potential. This is for example the case in Indonesia, where the latest SIS mission for 1621 noted with satisfaction that the project, which was designed as a model to be replicated and scaled-up by the Government, is making efforts to facilitate the generation and dissemination of knowledge and lessons learned. In Afghanistan, where the Government still has insufficient budgetary resources to scale on its own the various successful project approaches, efforts are focused on sharing knowledge and experiences between the various project implementers (FAO, ICARDA and international NGOs), so that they may learn from one another and improve their own approaches for a better support to the most vulnerable members of rural communities.

In Viet Nam, all SIS missions have put a strong emphasis on assessing the models and 153.approaches that have strong potential for replication, recommending concrete actions and measures to ensure proper knowledge management or identifying the current obstacles for replication (such as the high level of subsidies that may not be sustainable after project completion). The project 1477 includes several features with good potential for scaling up within and outside the province, such as the participatory forestland use planning and allocation system which has achieved significant impact and now requires a provincial policy for scaling-up, or the output-based extension service contracts using farmer-to-farmer trainers and functioning association of service providers.

In India, the on-going Tejaswini Rural Women’s Empowerment Programme (682-IN) piloted the 154.so-called Courage Brigades in its project villages. Composed of 5 women and men each, these brigades work to strengthen women empowerment and create a safe environment for women and girls. By involving the community, both women and men, they managed to change attitudes around crucial and contentious issues such as domestic abuse, caste violence and malnutrition. The Courage Brigade model has been so successful that the state government of Madhya Pradesh has decided to replicate it throughout all districts. During the first phase of replication alone, this will benefit more than 21 million people.

Knowledge management G.

APR continues to place strong emphasis on knowledge management and learning through 155.capacity building, events, knowledge products and grants. The newly created sub-regional clusters will further enhance these knowledge exchanges within teams. IFADAsia continues to be a key tool for knowledge management that is increasingly being used by in-country partners. Particularly with a scaling up and policy dialogue agenda, projects and country teams are increasingly placing emphasize on systematically documenting and sharing evidence-based lessons and experiences. Capacities at project level, however, remain weak. The majority of projects do not have a dedicated knowledge management expert. APR, is working on mitigating


38

this gap by specifically building projects’ capacity. For example, in Pakistan, the start-up workshops for the Southern Punjab Poverty Alleviation Project and Gwadar-Lasbela Livelihoods Support Project included dedicated sessions on knowledge management and learning. Regional grants, such as the ROUTASIA Programme, specifically work on building local knowledge champions and at the same time documenting and disseminating lessons learned.

APR has launched a new Asia Learning Series, which aim at filling the respective learning 156.needs of the region’s governments. The launch event in April 2014 featured the Korean development model. It was held at IFAD headquarters, co-hosted by IFAD and the Korean Rural Economic Institute, and brought together high-level representatives from Korea and the region. Additional events to strengthen knowledge exchange held during the review period include a microfinance learning session with projects from Pakistan and Iran and an IFAD-hosted session on family farming and gender during the regional conference Role of Family Farming in the 21

st Century: Achieving the Zero Hunger Challenge by 2025, which will take

place in August 2014, but was prepared during the review period. One output of the conference is a policy brief on The Changing role of women in the economic transformation of family farming in Asia and the Pacific. While developed particularly for this event, it will serve as one of IFAD’s contribution to the International Year of Family Farming. Other APR knowledge products include an Occasional Paper on scaling up, country newsletters and publications developed by the projects and ICOs. In addition, videos on successful interventions in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Nepal were produced.

Another occasion for increased knowledge sharing and IFAD visibility is the APR Director’s 157.country visit to Pakistan during which the APR Director and CPM were able to participate in a one hour live television interview with the only English-speaking TV channel in Pakistan. Journalists joined her field visit, which resulted in extensive coverage of the project’s successes. In Bangladesh, her mission organised a partner consultation on food security and rural development, in which current and future partners, such as KOICA, the EU and WorldFish, participated.

Further noteworthy series of special knowledge management and sharing events are those 158.organised through the south-south cooperation efforts in China. Through a small grant funded “Supporting South-South Cooperation with China on Poverty Reduction through Knowledge Management” the China ICO and the government convened the fifth IFAD-China Workshop on South-South Cooperation in Beijing, in August 2013. Focusing on smallholder based agri-business development; the workshop was attended by 17 participants from 8 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It was also attended by high level officials from IFAD and China, including the IFAD President, the Chinese Vice Minister of Finance, and Prof. Dr. Justin Lin, former Chief Economist of the World Bank. Success of the workshop stimulated partners to broaden the scope of knowledge sharing and cross fertilization. As a result, the Sixth workshop is taking place in Mozambique with 80 participants from 17 countries, as the present report is being prepared (August 2014). Among other follow ups of the workshop is the emerging twinning between Xinjiang in China and San Juan province of Argentina.

Sustainability H.

For all its projects, but especially the more mature ones, APR is increasingly ensuring that SIS 159.missions assess the prospects of post-project sustainability (defined as the continuation of projects’ benefits beyond project completion) through an analysis of various important dimensions: institutional sustainability, social sustainability, economic and financial sustainability and environmental sustainability. The extent to which all these dimensions are sufficiently covered in available SIS reports is variable. In addition, only the first two dimensions are being captured in the standard PSR template (through the indicators “institution building” and “empowerment”), and the detailed scores that may be provided in APR SIS reports in appreciation of the other dimensions cannot be easily compiled and analysed

31. As such, the

standard PSR indicator “exit strategy”, which assesses the extent to which an exit strategy detailing institutional arrangements, legal aspects, ownership and post-project funding, is the main source for an informed discussion on sustainability.

31

This would require APR to maintain an ad-hoc database.


39

During the review period, 81% of the projects received a score of 4 or above for the indicator 160.“exit strategy”, which is a marked improvement as compared to earlier review periods. This may be an indication that the strong focus that APR has placed over the past few years on the issue of post-project sustainability has brought about some positive developments. Nevertheless, three projects

32 in Cambodia, India and Viet Nam received the lowest scores of

2, while seven projects33

in Maldives, Pakistan, Nepal, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Bhutan and Philippines obtained a score of 3. For most of these projects, the low rating was justified by the fact that no clear exit strategy was defined or implemented yet. This is for example the case for MDV-1377, AFG-1460, NPL-1471, BTN-1482 or IDN-1258. In other cases, for example in countries where it is unlikely that the Government will be in a position to continue to support the grass-roots organizations established with project support, the key strategy for ensuring post-project sustainability is to ensure that these institutions reach financial self-sustainability before project completion, like in the case of IND-1418. In Indonesia, an important precondition for sustainability of the various infrastructure constructed in the framework of the IDN-1258 project is also the preparation of O&M plans.

In other instances, post-project sustainability can only be guaranteed if the Government, or 161.other actors, continue to support, beyond project completion, the grass-roots organizations established, recognizing that their self-sustainability will require long-term support. This is the case of the project IND-1155, which received a score of 6 given that the State government has committed to support these organizations for an additional five-year period. In the case of BGD-1402, the other project obtaining a score of 6 during the review period, the various pro-poor, women-friendly microfinance products and approaches implemented by the project were fully mainstreamed within PKSF; the microfinance apex institution that was responsible for project implementation and that will continue to operate beyond project completion.

Environment and Climate Resilience

APR traditionally has focused on sustainable environment and natural resource management 162.(ENRM). Sixty percent of projects in APR address one or more of the following ENRM aspects with differing levels of complexity: soil and water conservation; potable water; forest management; non-timber forest products (NTFPs); watershed management; coastal zone and fisheries management; biodiversity conservation; pasture management; and renewable energy technologies, to name a few. Furthermore, funds mobilised from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) have enabled promotion of the above ENRM priorities in several projects to a greater depth. APR is currently implementing 3 GEF-funded projects after closing the Viet Nam project and completing the ASEAN project by 30 June 2014, as described in Annexes Table 9.

With the initiation of the Adaptation for Smallholder Programme (ASAP) in 2012 a more 163.targeted focus has emerged on building resilience to climate shocks. Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal and Viet Nam are the first set of projects that blend ASAP funds (US$57 m) with PBAS allocations (US$113.5 m) for undertaking climate change adaptation interventions. The ASAP grants have enabled orienting the RB-COSOPs for these countries to explicitly address climate change concerns and to inform IFAD investment priorities. Table 10 of the Annexes, provides a summary of project focus and activities.

VII. Evaluation and self-assessment

During the review period, IFAD’s Independent Office conducted one Country Programme 164.Evaluations (China) and four Project Performance Assessments (PPAs)

34. A comparison of the

final project ratings from the latter PPAs and Project Completion Review Validations with those provided by APR PSRs (in project completion reports) are largely consistent (see Annexes, Table 11). The PSR scores for Mongolia-RPR and Cambodia-RPRPP appear slightly higher (by 1 point) as compared to PPA scores for, respectively, six and eight criteria. For China-RFSP and BGD-1165, an opposite trend is noted, the PSR scores being below the PPA scores for, respectively, four and three criteria. The next chapters summarize key PPA and CPE findings and important lessons learned.

32

KHM-1464, IND-1418, VNM-1477 33

MDV-1377, PAK-1514, NPL-1471, IDN-1258, AFG-1460, BTN-1482, PHL-1253 34

For the following projects: Mongolia – RPRP, Cambodia-RPRPP, China-RFSP, BGD-1165.


40

Key lessons from Project Performance Assessments (PPAs)

Two of the PPAs conducted during the review period concerned microfinance projects, which 165.scored higher for overall project achievements and impact than the broader investment projects in Mongolia and Cambodia. The China-RFSP PPA concluded that the project has successfully increased access to microfinance by poor rural producers and women and has enhanced their livelihoods through the capacity building and financial support it provided to the Chongqing Rural Commercial Bank and the Shaanxi Rural Credit Cooperative Union. These two partners, which are institutionally and financially viable, have developed new financial products targeting small clients and are expected to continue to service them beyond project completion. The project did not, however, achieve its ambitious policy impact objectives nor did it participate in systemic policy reforms due to a lack of proper institutional arrangements, its inability to cope with the fast paced reform process and an inadequate understanding of the complex rural finance sector.

With respect to Bangladesh-MMSFP, the PPA concluded that it made significant and innovative 166.contributions to enhancing access to finance by marginal and small farmers by introducing a lump-sum repayment modality that better matched the borrowers’ cash flows instead of the weekly repayments that had been previously required. At completion, the project had reached some 208,000 borrowers, including 84% women, with a large share of the credit being used for productive purposes. However, due to insufficient focus on marketing and business development support, the project missed the opportunity to promote profitable on- or off-farm enterprises. Nevertheless, the PPA concluded that prospects for sustainability are good.

Generally, infrastructure investments common in three of the projects reviewed by PPA were 167.considered relevant and effective. The Mongolia-RPRP PPA concluded that this now completed project was most successful in providing key basic services to remote herders through the construction of “social” infrastructure, such as hospitals, school dormitories and kindergartens, noting that the latter were a successful innovation in the country context. The infrastructures visited by the PPA missions were found soundly built, well-equipped, well-staffed and sustainable, and they are expected to lead to improvements in social indicators. In Sri Lanka, the impact evaluation of the DZLiSPP concluded that the irrigation rehabilitation works that benefited some 17,250 poor households are of good quality, even though the relative weakness of many Water Users’ Associations is an issue of concern for their sustainability. These contrasts with the results achieved by the Cambodia-RPRPP, as the PPA noted that the infrastructural projects (mainly rural roads and irrigation canals) financed through the Community Infrastructure Development Funds did not have the expected impact and may not be sustainable due to poor designs and lack of adequate maintenance. Also, the PPA noted that the irrigation rehabilitation activities mainly benefitted farmers with access to a pump and consequently did not reach all the intended beneficiaries, while questioning IFAD’s decision to rehabilitate existing, poorly designed and dysfunctional irrigation schemes as opposed to constructing new systems where feasible.

All three projects aimed at improvement, intensification or diversification of agricultural and/or 168.livestock production through provision of appropriate extension services and inputs. Mongolia-RPRP was successful in supporting income diversification through the promotion of vegetable and crop production as evidenced by the substantial growth in commercial farming. Mixed results were however noted for livestock related activities and the PPA found little evidence of increase in herding productivity or herders’ income. Under DZLiSPP in Sri Lanka, primary and secondary sources point to the adoption of improved techniques by farmers, diversification of crops and improved yields. The support it provided project to livestock development, initially not a major area of emphasis, succeeded in integrating livestock production systems into dryland farming. The project was also broadly effective, with outreach figures as high as 120,000 households (compared to the appraisal target of 80,000 households), plus successfully establishing linkages between farmers and private firms in cofinancing processing and collection centres for agricultural and dairy produce. In Cambodia, the PPA concluded that new agricultural technologies were successfully adopted by beneficiary farmers when they involved cost-saving measures and productivity gains that would generate gross margins higher than the daily agricultural wage.

For all PPAs and evaluations conducted during the review period, the lack of impact data, due 169.to the weaknesses of most projects’ M&E systems, was identified as a key evaluation


41

constraint. Even in the case of Bangladesh-MMSFP and Sri Lanka-DZLiSPP, two projects for which the evaluators found a good amount of data from project-led studies and surveys, the statistical rigour and reliability of data was questioned and evaluators needed to find alternative data from secondary sources in order to triangulate and validate some of the survey findings.

Country Programme Evaluations

The China CPE for the period 1999-2013 had its main mission in August-September 2013 and 170.held its roundtable learning workshop in Beijing on 17 July 2014 to discuss its findings and recommendations. It concluded an overall satisfactory performance and that the strongest points in the country programme include: high achievement of targets and efficiency; valuable contributions to sustainable improvements in household income and assets, plus food security and agricultural productivity; and successful introduction of more participatory and demand-driven approaches to grassroots development. However, it found, the impact on developing sustainable rural organizations, and contributions to government policies and institutions were less strong. Similarly, opportunities exist for greater achievements in natural resources & environmental management, and rural financial services. While, there was evidence of contributions towards promoting and scaling up innovations in smallholder agriculture development, the CPE concluded that more can be done. The performance of non-lending activities (partnership building, policy dialogue and knowledge management) is assessed as moderately satisfactory. While more needs to be done on those aspects too, the CPE acknowledged that in the latter part of the CPE period, IFAD increased its efforts in knowledge management within and outside the portfolio, which is good a foundation to now build on.

VIII. Portfolio management

Supervision A.

During the review period, there were 60 ongoing projects in APR for which 53 are directly 171.supervised by IFAD and 7 are supervised by cooperating institutions (CIs) like the World Bank IDA and Asian Development Bank. A total of 93 missions were conducted for IFAD directly supervised projects including loan component and DSF grants projects, and 17 for CI-supervised (see Annexes Table 12). The average duration of the mission is about 11 days. Missions generally seek to spend at least 50% of their time in the field in order to check the pulse of project delivery, assess effects in the field and encourage the project to maintain a people-centred approach to programming. The PMU feedback received through post-supervision surveys often includes a request for more time in the field and specific skills to resolve technical problems.

Intensive supervision has brought concrete improvements in delivery for a number of 172.challenged projects. Projects in Cambodia, China, India, Philippines and Viet Nam have seen concentrated budget utilization and support over periods of 12-18 months that were able to identify and agree on resolution plans. Together with engaged follow-up by IFAD country officers, this has led to a reduction in the number of problem projects and risk flags in the portfolio. In general, such support to problem solving has been easier to leverage in larger countries, which can more easily cross-subsidize supervision processes or that can more easily front load supervision budgets in the first two years of implementation and counterbalance this with reductions later in implementation. Smaller country programmes would likely need individual project increments in supervision budgets.

Five projects are supervised by each of the World Bank and the ADB. IFAD has engaged 173.closely with these CI’s in the start-up and supervision of these projects, often taking a proactive, leading role in problem-solving, and the two concerned projects (KHM-TRPRSDP and LA-SNRMP) have moved out of problem status since last year, as a result.

With respect to the 27 effective stand-alone grants, 10 had supervision missions and 4 have 174.recently had start-up missions. The rest is monitored through regular consultation with the country teams; mission planned at the end of 2014, or did not hold a supervision mission due to budget constraint.

Multiple province/state projects continue to present challenges to project supervision given the 175.difficult travel requirements and diversity in contexts, such as different agro-ecological and cultural environments (as is the case in Viet Nam, Laos and India). These require above


42

average IFAD supervision budgets, more complex management structures in the field, and more effective coordination mechanisms. This historically expedient design approach is being phased out, in favour of a simpler, single state model.

Using experienced country office staff from one country to lead or join missions elsewhere in 176.the region is reaping benefits and should be expanded. Not only does this bring valuable operational experience to the individual project concerned, it also provides an incentive for staff to further develop their international experience. Similarly, it would be prudent to consider ranking local consultants currently operating exclusively in their home country, and consider using the best candidates to operate more widely throughout the region.

Implementation support B.

A total of 47 implementation support missions were undertaken during the review period, 177.ranging from field visits and technical support to follow-up meetings with project management, local partners and oversight committees. CPMs and IFAD counterparts both value this follow-up immensely, as it ensures continuity in dialogue and follow-up on critical implementation bottlenecks. As such, the value-added of these missions is complementary and cannot easily be discerned separately from the supervision process.

Nonetheless, the importance of Implementation Support is well demonstrated and indeed 178.amplified for projects with short durations. It is particularly challenging to ensure appropriate sequencing of community level planning, formation of community groups and producer organizations (with the associated technical, administrative and business training) as has been illustrated in the long establishment period in Cambodia RULIP, or with placing infrastructure in appropriate locations in support of value chains. New Management Units also need time to understand and develop administrative procedures and understand the basic project design. Slow start up of such projects is common, especially in remote areas (e.g. Nepal HVAP).

In some instances, MTRs are being scheduled based on the original timetable after 2-3years, 179.by which time only 12 to 18 months of real implementation may have transpired. Unfortunately, there are also cases where even the PIM has not been finalized until well into year 2 or even later (e.g. Bangladesh Char CDSP IV). Apart from simplifying project designs, if budget permits, an alternative would be to spend more time in the final stages of design to fully prepare the early groundwork for implementation. Overall, experience demonstrates that there is a need for more front loading of budget in years 1 and 2, and more intensive supervision on at-risk projects. This may require some adjustment to flat budgeting processes currently applied for earmarking funds to country programmes.

With the express aim of delivering more cost effective supervision and implementation support, 180.APR has launched several processes during the review period. First, targeted strengthening of the employment of the ICO staff in the supervision and implementation support processes. This has been particularly successful in those countries with strong (in terms of numbers and/or skills mix) ICO teams including for China, India, Viet Nam, Philippines, and Sri Lanka, whose CPOs and other staff actively led and/or participated in many missions, in or outside their home country, during the review period. Second, APR has started to put in place a complete decentralisation agenda, comprised of 5 sub-regional hubs serving clusters of country teams with 1 to 2 out-posted CPMs and 1 to 2 CPMs at headquarters. The objective of the proposed cluster structure includes: greater horizontal working for more efficient use of APR staff resources; more cross fertilization and better transfer of knowledge both within and between the cluster team members; better services to countries in the region without an ICO (9 in total); and more opportunities for career development through more regional exposure and experience.

The cluster structure put in place during the review period is comprised of: Beijing Hub, serving 181.country teams in charge of the People’s Republic of China, Korea (DPRK), Korea (ROK), Mongolia, and the Philippines; the Hanoi Hub serving Cambodia, Laos PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Viet Nam; the Jakarta Hub, serving Indonesia, Pacific Islands, Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia; the Dhaka Hub serving Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan; and the Delhi Hub, serving Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. The cluster work plans developed and approved include: inter-cluster supervision support and support to other missions (MTR/PCR); organisation of trainings on financial management and monitoring and evaluation; providing cluster-based CPMT support to strengthen design processes within the cluster; and development of a cluster consultants database. Already two CPMs have been


43

out-posted to the Hanoi hub, and one CPM each is on stand-by to lead the Jakarta and New Delhi hubs. Also budget approval is obtained to increasing the staffing of all the 5 hubs during 2014-2015.

Risks35 C.

The analysis of the risks for the APR portfolio this year was undertaken through a reiterative 182.process. The quality assurance review of the project supervision reports and their PSRs/GSRs, with the help of an independent consultant, was the first opportunity to look at the risks. Then, the Portfolio Review Team also held meetings with the CPM and his/her team to review and validate the CPIS and PSRs, including looking closer at the risks faced by the portfolio. At the end of that process the key risks noticeably impacting the APR portfolio during the review period may be summarised as follows: disbursement lags due to weak financial management and procurement delays; weak M&E systems that do not strengthen management capabilities of the project teams; weak capacities of project management teams and implementing partners leading to poor sustainability of project benefits; tenuous security situations and the ongoing conflict in fragile states or fragile situations in otherwise stable countries; natural disasters like adverse climate events hitting the project areas; price escalation of agricultural inputs; market volatility for agricultural products; remoteness and inaccessibility of project areas due to poor rural infrastructure; lack of credit discipline and policy reversals by governments under political pressure undermining the sustainability of rural financial services; commercial land concessions encroachment on the usufruct rights of the target groups; cumbersome local procedures and processes compounded by political instability and/or poor governance.

The mitigation measures for those risks within the remit of the IFAD funded projects will entail 183.focusing further on: careful project designs that remain simple and based on clear and mainstreamed institutional arrangements; persistent and coherent capacity building and knowledge sharing; scaling up results and best practices through ensuring full ownership and commitment of local stakeholders from the design stages; sustainable projects by building into the designs appropriate exit strategies. For those risks beyond the competencies of the projects, the designs of the projects will need to ensure they: incorporate climate smart designs; are implemented through local partners with the right capabilities and socio-political savviness, such as civil society organisations; are embedded in the UN’s early warning security systems were necessary; or simply avoid politically unstable regions where all else fails.

Portfolio at risk D.

APR actively managed its portfolio at risk throughout the review period. Consequently, with 184.intensive implementation support from IFAD and attention by the project teams, the number of actual problem projects (APPs) fell from last year’s nine projects to six this year, while the number of potential problem projects (PPPs) dropped from three last year to two this year.

Consequently, the portfolio not at risk 185.(NAR) has improved from 81% to 88% over the two years period (Figure 10). All the six APPs are in South Asia, while both of the PPPs are in Southeast Asia and are co-financed and supervised by the ADB. It is noteworthy that the three countries mostly affected by time over-runs (India, Nepal, and Pakistan) are the same having the largest number of persistent problem projects. Of the six APPs, half were registered as APPs during the last review period.

35

Refer to Table 13 “’Risk matrix”’ in the Annex.

Figure 10: Portfolio Performance 2010 - 2011


44

The key factors causing the problems leading to projects falling into APP and PPP status 186.include: (a) delays in recruiting and mobilising implementing partners, especially those from the civil society or private sector (NGOs, service providers, and private companies expected to join PPPP schemes), and poor performance of those that are mobilised; (b) weak project management, often due to slow mobilisation of sufficient numbers of qualified and skilled staff that are committed, coupled with heavy staff turnover due to political expediency, and further compounded by the lack of motivation for skilled staff to work in remote and isolated project areas (like in the far atolls of the Maldives), all of which cause disruptions in implementation progress and focus; (c) slow disbursement rates due to lack of competent accounting staff, which invariably results into the inability to provide satisfactory statements of expenditure for activities already pre-financed or planned and poor financial management causing serious fiduciary risks which slow down progress; (d) inadequate and untimely counterpart funding provisions, sometimes due to lack of political commitment from provincial or national commitments, and other times due to weak governance; (e) natural disasters, like the 2012 floods in Uttarakhand in India that affected major parts of the areas of intervention of the Integrated Livelihoods Support Project there; (f) long drawn out electoral processes that can delay project implementation (e.g. India 2014 general elections) or big shifts in government priorities or policy focus; (g) incompatibility or mistrust between the stakeholders expected to join forces in pro-poor public-private partnerships (PPPPs), and the complex requirements of the marketing chains under some innovative value chain development projects; (h) inability of project teams and lead project agencies to understand the complexities of design of some project activities and components, such as the financial architecture of equity financing of value chain companies and trusteeship arrangements aimed at facilitating the participation of smallholder famers in the share capital of agribusiness companies or corporations.

Table 21: Actual and potential problem projects 2013 - 2014

APR teams continue to focus on reducing further the problem projects in the portfolio through 187.various means. First, they will continue to work with the concerned government partners to clean up the portfolio to the maximum extent possible, by encouraging timely and orderly closure of loan and grant accounts more aggressively, especially for APPs and PPPs. Second, APR will enhance the supervision and implementation support provision, which will by necessity have to be innovative, in the context of the current budget crunch, by relying more on carefully mixing locally and internationally recruited consultants in the missions and make more use of ICO staff plus staff in the five sub-regional hubs that will be capacitated with more staff and the out-posting of senior CPMs so that they can more cost effectively supervise projects and provide timely support where needed. Third, efforts will be made to reinforce training and capacity building of project teams, including working with governments to mitigate staffing weaknesses, like staff-turnover, through arrangements that may include best practices of seconding locally recruited technical assistance to strengthen project teams at crucial junctures and the identification of deputy project directors or managers capable of ensuring business continuity when necessary. Fourth, while APR cannot shy away from innovative design of projects, efforts will have to be made to simplify such designs, especially where weak and fragile institutional spaces exist. Fifth, efforts will ensure that crucial members of future project

CountryProject

ID

Project

Name

2012/13

Average

risk flag

2013/14

Average

risk flag

Time from

approval to

first disb.

(months)

Project

Fiduciary

Risk rating

as at June

2014

Disb. lag

as at

June 30

2014

Time

left

(years)

MTR

date

Problem

project

last

review?

Actual problem

India 1381 WELP 3.5 3.5 46.9 Medium risk 80% 3.5 Oct-13 Yes

India 1617 IULSP 3.7 3.5 21.0 Medium risk 88% 4.8 Not yet No

Maldives 1377 FADIP 3.5 3.5 29.0 Medium risk 65% 0.3 Sep-12 Yes

Nepal 1602 Biu-Bijan 3.8 3.5 8.5 Medium risk 54% 5.5 Not yet No

Pakistan 1514 SPPAP 3.6 3.5 33.2 Medium risk 50% 2.3 Not yet Yes

Sri Lanka 1457 NADeP 3.1 3.0 15.2 High risk 79% 0.8 Sep-12 No

Total 6 3.5 3.4 25.6 69%

Potential problem

Cambodia 1464 TSPRSDP 3.1 3.3 12.9 Medium risk 78% 3.2 Not yet Yes

Laos 1608 SSSJ 3.8 3.6 2.6 Medium risk 37% 3.5 Not yet No

Total 2 3.5 3.5 7.8 58%


45

management teams are involved in the design of projects, to the maximum extent possible, to ensure full comprehension and ownership of the inbuilt provisions. Last, APR teams must be willing to undertake an early restructuring of projects and programmes that underperform for two consecutive years.

The APR portfolio exhibited satisfactory performance, and/or encouraging trends in 188.improvements, with respect to some of the PSR ratings designated as risk flags, including “responsiveness of service providers” which is the area of best performance this year, “innovation and learning”, and “quality of project management”. However, with respect to a number of other important risk flags APR’s performance worsened or continues to hover around levels that need to be improved still with more focused attention and effort.

The main areas of persistent problems across the portfolio, where PSR ratings were 3 or lower, 189.include: disbursement lag, which is again the worst area of performance for the divisional portfolio, with a worsening of performance to 52% of projects registering a score of 3 or lower, as compared to 46% in 2012/2013, and 49% in 2011/2012; weak M&E systems, in which area APR maintained the level of last year’s performance of around 30% that is still too high even though it is an improvement over the performance in 2011/2012; “quality and timeliness of audits” (related to increased fiduciary risks) where the performance of APR’s portfolio has improved markedly since 2011/2012, but remains a cause for concern; and “coherence between AWPB & implementation” where performance seems to stagnate at around 18% of the portfolio registering a score of 3 or lower.

Problem patterns E.

In the area of disbursement lag the main underlying causes of problems are often related to 190.inefficient internal cash flow management, delays in submitting invoices, pre-financing of categories by local authorities (using government budgetary processes) or implementing partners (like NGOs or private sector partners using different methods) who then encounter delays in submitting appropriate withdrawal applications, delays in government budget approval processes sometimes due to governance challenges, untimely and incorrect processing of withdrawal applications compounded by delays in making payments, shortage of full-time staff and weak capacity of financial management staff compounded by staff turnover, and inappropriate or inefficient accounting systems sometimes due to governments refusing to adopt newer systems for their projects. In addition, the recent changes in IFAD’s financial management systems (Flexcube, in particular) have caused disruptions and delays in the processing of withdrawal applications. CFS is working on this, however, with the hope of resolving all issues before the next review period.

The other areas where performance needs to be continuously monitored and improved include: 191.compliance with procurement; exit strategy (readiness and quality); quality of financial management, institutional building (organizations, etc.); and quality of project management. The performance of APR’s portfolio in all of these areas has witnessed great improvements over the course of the last three review periods, since 2011, thanks to substantial efforts and inputs on implementation support by the country programme management teams. Some risk flags have seen improvements of up to 20 percentage points over this period. However, there is no room for complacency, as performance in many of them is fragile to the extent that slight changes can cause major disruptions overnight. A case in point

Table 22: Problem patterns - PSR risk flags (% of projects with a rating of 3 or lower)


46

CountryProject

ID

Project

Name

2012/13

Average

risk flag

2013/14

Average

risk flag

No. of impl.

Support/ Follow-

up/SM /MTR

during the

review

PAR Status as of

30 June 2014

Variance

average risk

flag

Actual problem: 2012-2013

Cambodia 1464 TSPRSDP 3.1 3.3 2 Potential Problem

India 1381 WELP 3.5 3.5 2 Actual problem 0

India 1418 MPOWER 3.2 3.7 1 Not at risk

Laos 1459 SNRMP 3.8 4.2 2 Not at risk

Nepal 1119 WUPAP 3.5 4.0 2 Not at risk

Pakistan 1514 SPPAP 3.6 3.5 2 Actual problem -0.1

Philippines 1395 CHARM II 3.5 4.6 5 Not at risk

Sri Lanka 1457 NADeP 3.1 3.0 3 Actual problem -0.1

Viet Nam 1483 3EM 3.5 3.8 1 Not at risk

Total 9

Proactivity index

2013/14

Reduced index

2013/14

67% 0%

Potential problem: 2012-2013

China 1454 DAPRP 3.6 4.3 1 Potential Problem Not at risk

Maldives 1377 FADIP 3.5 3.5 4 Potential Problem Actual problem

Sri Lanka 1316 SPEnDP 3.5 3.9 4 Potential Problem Not at risk

Total 3

is project management, which is heavily interdependent on risk flags like good M&E systems that are known to be under threat of weak performance across the portfolio.

Pro-activity F.

While APR’s 192.proactivity index has improved for the third consecutive year to 67% during this review period from 58% during the last, the reduced risk index this year is zero. Consequently there is no room for complacency as there is scope for improvement and vigilance in ensuring that those problem projects that become chronic are restructured drastically or cancelled so as to improve the efficiency of the portfolio.

Of the nine APPs registered during the last review period, only three (IND-1384, PAK-1514, and 193.LKA-1457) are still in that category, while a fourth project (TSPRSDP of Cambodia) has moved into the PPP status which means its improvement is not complete and is probably fragile still.

It is noteworthy that of the three projects that have remained in the APP status none have been 194.able to register any improvements in their risk flag ratings of 3.5/3.6 over the two years, thus resulting in a reduced risk index of zero. This is an indication that the problems are serious enough to warrant a major restructuring or even cancellation. These considerations will be reviewed by APR during the coming months.

IX. Conclusions and the way forward

Conclusions A.

The APR portfolio in 2013/2014 is improving

The Asia-Pacific region registered strong economic growth in the period, but also had to deal 195.with big challenges, not least of which is how to cater for the needs of two-thirds of the world’s poor of over 750 million people who live in their rural areas. IFAD contributed towards meeting the challenge through the APR investment portfolio of US$ 1.82 billion (out of a total project investment of US$ 4.26 billion), which is estimated to reach a cumulative total of around 29 million people. The contribution of co-financiers, amounting to US$ 2.44 billion, is significant and implies that IFAD is edging, albeit with some difficulty, towards improving its performance in reaching the IFAD corporate target of 1:1.6 co-financing ratio. From last year’s performance on co-financing of a ratio of 1:1.1, APR has reached during this review period a significant boost of 1:1.34. In actively pursuing the co-financing agenda APR has taken the decision to simultaneously strengthen partnerships with both the ADB and the World Bank, traditionally the strongest co-financiers of IFAD projects, to leverage more of their large resources for the rural and agricultural sectors, and seek increased counterpart co-financing, particularly from the governments of MICs in the region. This dual track approach is beginning to bear fruit already, but its full impact will only be felt in future review periods.

Disbursements under the APR portfolio during the review period reached about US$ 192 million 196.for the loans, DSF grants and loan component grants, plus an extra approximately US$ 11 million for the regional/global and country specific grants, making total disbursements of


47

US$ 202 million in the 12 months period. This accounted for 31% of the total disbursements for IFAD with an increase of approximately 7% more than the previous period. This impressive achievement was possible thanks to the support received from CFS and others. To maintain, and even improve, the positive trend it will be required for APR and CFS to continue to work together in providing tailored training of project staff in the preparation of Withdrawal Applications and on IFAD financial rules and fiduciary requirements. Where necessary, especially in projects involving the use of cooperating institutions (in APR these are only ADB and WB), this must involve the CIs too. With such close and joint efforts the equally encouraging performance of APR on the six fiduciary indicators over the period will be improved, which auger well for the average disbursement lag currently around 20% for the portfolio whose disbursements are lagging 40% or more. APR will need all the support it can get to deliver on that promise.

APR's portfolio continues to see improvements in M&E performance, albeit there is no room for 197.complacency. With an average PSR score of moderately satisfactory more should be done. Many more of the projects need to start adopting appropriate tools and methodologies for outcome measurement, for which they will need more and better trained staff. Also the best practice of carrying out Annual Outcome Survey (AOS), which is an APR self-imposed requirement (where appropriate); will need to be considered for wider adoption in the division. It enables projects to ensure that the various technologies promoted, and training/extension activities provided, are resulting in improved yields and/or increased production. The broad adaption of AOS, however, will depend on whether the budgets can remain reasonable and within the reach of the projects. The overall portfolio performance with respect to implementation progress has also steadily improved over the past four years, with 91% of projects rated as moderately satisfactory (4) or better in 2013/14. Twenty-three percent of the projects received a score of satisfactory (5) or above. The six projects that scored below par (3 or 2) face challenges and implementation delays that also jeopardize the likelihood that these projects can meet their development objectives. Some 87% of projects had a score of 4 or above for the indicator “physical and financial assets” and about 31% received a score of 5, during the reporting period. Project assessments suggest that inclusive rural finance services, training, and strengthening organisations of rural producers were important contributors to improvements in households’ incomes and assets.

Despite these encouraging performance improvements, APR remains concerned that there are 198.still six APPs and two PPPs in the portfolio, although their numbers have diminished this period, resulting in an increased proactivity index of 67% percent. More vigilance will still be needed to weed out chronic APPs and PPPs in future. This will need determination and good negotiation skills to convince the concerned governments about the merit of restructuring portfolios and/or cancelling portions of non-performing projects (or specific components or activities of projects).

APR is aware that while its portfolio during the review period is relatively young, with nearly half 199.of the 60 ongoing projects and programmes being less than three years old, some country programmes do need to rejuvenate their portfolio. These countries, including India (3 projects of 7 years, 11 years, and 17.6 years old) and Nepal (2 of 8.8 years and 11.5 years), have seen big efforts during the year to add new projects. Unfortunately, the top-ups introduced in those countries in fact make the portfolios older than they really are as the life of the projects benefitting from the top-ups shows as a continuation of the old.

APR’s grants portfolio is strong and linked closely to the investment portfolio for the most part, 200.although there are some cases of disconnect that needs to be looked into closely. The temporary reversal of the division’s pledge to consolidate the grant portfolio by reducing the number of grant funded projects will have to be addressed in the coming periods. The main explanation for this year’s increase was the decision to focus on large regional/global grants, which increased from 13 to 17, in search of improved technologies and documenting best practices for broader dissemination. APR nevertheless succeeded in maintaining the downward trend of reducing small country grants, which dropped from 12 in 2011/12 to 6 last year and five now. The plan is to reinforce this trend in the next period too.

The decentralisation agenda of APR

The emerging reinvigorated APR, under the, by then, one year old management, can be said to 201.have truly started to take root during the present review period. The first major issue APR tackled during the period, after a lot of soul searching, including three divisional staff retreats (in


48

March 2013 in Hanoi, Vietnam, September 2013 in Tivoli, Italy, and February 2014 in Rome, Italy) plus many staff meetings, concerns all the inter-related matters affecting the structure of the division. They pertain, in particular , to the new focus on the decentralisation agenda that would entail moving away from IFAD headquarters in Rome and getting the closest possible to the ground where the action is. Moreover, doing so in the most cost effective way.

By the time the period came to a close on 30 June 2014 APR was preparing to work in a 202.decentralised context. For this, it was decided to establish five sub-regional hubs throughout the Asia-Pacific region to support, and be supported, by the satellite offices at twelve IFAD country offices (ICOs) that were authorised by the EB, including the two new ones in Afghanistan and Myanmar approved during the period under review. This new architecture will become the main drivers of all IFAD operations in the region, starting immediately. The five hubs are Beijing for East Asia, Hanoi for Southeast Asia, Jakarta for the Pacific Rim, Dhaka for Southwest Asia, and Delhi for South Asia. Once fully operational, each hub will have at least one out-posted CPM to be in charge of the IFAD programme in the hosting country (China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Dhaka, and India respectively), one Country Programme Office, one or two Associate CPOs as needed, and one Country Programme Assistant (CPA), plus adequate operational budgets. In addition, consideration may be given, on a case-by-case base, to accommodating one professional from some of the other units of IFAD, especially PTA and CFS. Also, some of the hubs, like Hanoi, may host two CPMs at a time, with one being in charge of the host country and the other looking after other surrounding country programmes.

The key rationale for re-distributing the workload in the region between 5 contiguous 203.geographic clusters is to facilitate: greater horizontal working arrangements for a more efficient use of APR staff and other resources; more cross fertilization and better transfer of knowledge, both within and between the cluster team members; better delivery of services to countries in the region, including the nine countries that will not have an ICO soon, given that the IFAD Executive Board approved the establishment of only twelve of them out of the current nineteen active country programmes; and the generation of more opportunities for career development for staff, through more regional exposure and experience that should enable all the different categories of the staff establishment to strengthen their competencies.

Another important pillar of the decentralisation agenda is the out-posting of as many CPMs as 204.possible. In view of this, APR has been working closely with the governments of Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Pakistan, to finalise the respective Host Country Agreements for the establishment of either a joint Country Office plus sub-regional hub, or that of only a country office. Many of these negotiations are now about to be concluded and the HCAs signed. Meanwhile, HCAs have already been signed with Viet Nam and Laos PDR, both of which have one out-posted CPM already. By the end of the year the intention is to have at least, three more HCAs signed and implemented for China, India, Indonesia, and hopefully Nepal or Sri Lanka.

The way forward B.

APR is now poised to carry forward with a number of big ticket items. First, the consolidation of 205.the decentralisation agenda through the full layout of the 5 sub-regional hubs plus the out-posting of another three more CPMs before the end of 2014 will be a major target of the division. This will be undertaken simultaneously with the conclusions of at least four HCAs which should facilitate the implementation of all the pillars of the decentralisation agenda.

Second, APR will work on one of the most important issues affecting the impact of IFAD 206.projects on the ground, namely disbursement lag. By intensifying efforts already started, APR will seek to engage CFS, the project teams, and the governments and cooperating institutions (where applicable), to make a concerted effort to: reduce the disbursement lag of all affected projects in APR to increase project efficiency; ensure the implementation readiness of new projects using both IFAD’s implementation support budget and grant resources, where feasible; and provide tailored training in preparing withdrawal applications (WA) and on IFAD financial rules. APR will further use the occasion of the forthcoming APR Portfolio Performance Review workshop in Siem Reap, Cambodia, in December 2014 to pay special attention to the disbursement lag.

Third, APR will push forward the agenda of putting more emphasis on the supervision of, and 207.

provision of implementation support to, the whole portfolio. This is one of the key rationales for


49

putting so much effort into deepening and broadening the division’s decentralisation agenda

towards stronger ICOs and the 5 sub-regional hubs serving clusters of country teams. The

proximity of all these teams to the ground will enable a more engaging supervision and

implementation support exercise. By the time the decentralisation agenda would be completely

implemented no less than 6 CPMs will be out-posted and at least 12 ICOs will be operational,

hopefully not later than the end of 2016. To complement the decentralisation effort, APR is

putting in place a strong Portfolio Advisory Group (PAG), comprised of the Lead Portfolio

Advisor, Procurement Officer, Programme Officer in charge of results, Programme Officer in

charge of knowledge management, Programme Assistant in charge of Portfolio Review, and a

long term consultant Portfolio Analyst, who should help the country teams as and when needed

and appropriate. The PAG will be strengthened by the Lead Regional Economist as needed.

Fourth, APR will work with all sections of IFAD and the governments towards mitigating the 208.various challenges confronting the country programmes where it is reasonable to expect they are within the remit of IFAD and its partners, namely: weak M&E systems that do not strengthen management capabilities of the project teams; weak capacities of project management teams and implementing partners leading to poor sustainability of project benefits; tenuous security situations and conflict in fragile states or fragile situations in otherwise stable countries; natural disasters like adverse climate events hitting the project areas; price escalation of agricultural inputs; market volatility for agricultural products; remoteness and inaccessibility of project areas due to poor rural infrastructure; lack of credit discipline and policy reversals by governments under political pressure undermining the sustainability of rural financial services; commercial land concessions encroachment on the usufruct rights of the target groups; cumbersome local procedures and processes compounded by political instability and/or poor governance. This will entail focusing further on: careful project designs that remain simple and based on clear and mainstreamed institutional arrangements; persistent and coherent capacity building and knowledge sharing; scaling up results and best practices through ensuring full ownership and commitment of local stakeholders from the design stages; sustainable projects by building into the designs appropriate exit strategies.

For those risks beyond the competencies of the projects, the designs of the projects will ensure 209.they: incorporate climate smart designs; are implemented through local partners with the right capabilities and socio-political savviness, such as civil society organisations; are embedded in the UN’s early warning security systems were necessary; or simply avoid politically unstable regions where all else fails. These are already being meticulously addressed in the design of projects that started during the period under review. Some examples of execution of already emerging action plans concerns the decision to revise the RB-COSOP for Sri Lanka before submitting it to the EB for endorsement, even if that would mean delays in its processing. The same revisions are taking place at the time of the preparation of this report for a number of projects too, like the Smallholder Tea and Rubber Revitalisation Project.

Fifth, APR is committed to the scaling up and impact agenda by working primarily with the 210.governments in the region to build the outline of a road map for mainstreaming scaling up into IFAD’s country programmes. For this IFAD needs to continue to emphasize its participatory design approach that aligns innovations to local needs and conditions, implementation through existing institutional systems, and growing emphasis on learning, knowledge management and exchange or diffusion. IFAD and the Governments can build on the foundation already existing in many countries to: promote the spread, and not just the growth, of innovations; conducting research on the quality of scaling up in terms of its distributional effects; addressing some of the environmental obstacles to scaling up mentioned above (e.g. post-project finance, support for downstream activities, and cooperative management); systematically align KM activities and systems with scaling up; devoting greater time and resources to policy dialogue to ensure post-project financial, policy and political support for scaling up.

As first steps for the scaling up agenda, IFAD’s projects should each develop outlines for 211.integrating scaling up into their work, detailing both their objectives, broad strategies, and the types of training, technical support and additional resources needed to fill in these strategies. This principal activity should be complemented by further documentation of the cases of scaling up in this report and of additional cases, experimentation with cross-provincial knowledge sharing, development of knowledge management tools to identify scalable innovations early during project implementation, and a sensitization workshop for government officials on IFAD’s


50

approach to scaling up and the implications for project budgets, resources and implementation. The activities for scaling up should be considered for coverage in any of the future gatherings of APR, including the forthcoming APR Portfolio Performance Celebration Event (Opportunities & Challenges for Growth of the APR Family) to be held in Cambodia in December 2014.

Sixth, building strong and cordial relations with various partners through various channels and 212.for various mutually reinforcing objectives. The first of these partnerships to nurture will be the finalisation of the proposed Framework Co-financing Agreement with the Asian Development Bank in the coming months. The main objective of that partnership as the name suggests is to collaborate on the identification of projects and programmes to be considered for co-financing during a specified period, as well as seizing opportunities to leverage this co-financing platform to mobilize additional funds. The second of these types of engagements will be the south-south cooperation and knowledge management window through what is now known as the APR Learning Series, which started with Korea and is planned to evolve further into working with other countries in the region, like China, Indonesia, and similar interested countries. If successful, these types of ventures may even evolve into the development of Trust Funds lodged with IFAD by the countries for use in the exchange of knowledge and eventually even for development work in other developing countries.

Seventh, APR has started consulting a number of countries in the region about the prospects of 213.introducing a new line of business, namely the Reimbursable Technical Assistance (RTA). IFAD is interested in pursuing dialogue with countries such as the richer provinces of China that have persistent large pockets of rural poverty, and some of the MICs in the region like Thailand, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. In line with IFAD’s Policy on “Engagement with Middle-Income Countries” APR hopes to provide evidence-based knowledge services, like RTAs, in its areas of comparative advantage and expertise. This may include: business advice, smallholder sector investment support, technical services, and knowledge solutions; and policy advice, research, partnerships, and brokerage/facilitation of triangular South-South Cooperation. In providing the technical advisory services special attention will be paid to business planning, investment design, supervision and implementation support, while some of the areas of policy advice where IFAD has a comparative advantage include “climate-smart” agriculture, inclusive and equitable pro-poor rural development.

Eighth, APR should diversify its investment portfolio by reintroducing global innovations and 214.best practices on rural financial services into the country programmes, plus starting to pilot test models of interventions that leverage remittances and migrants’ savings for facilitating investment into local economic development in their home regions. For this purpose, two actions will be pursued. The ongoing RuFBEP (Project to Document Global Best Practices on Sustainable Models of Pro-Poor Rural Financial Services in Developing Countries), which started in April 2014 will be pursued so that its outputs and outcomes can be fed back into the investment portfolio through both ongoing and new projects. And actions have been initiated with PTA to develop a grant funded Remittances and Diaspora Investment for Rural Development-Regional Programme, which will seek to develop three different types of financial products, all of which will channel savings by migrants and their family members into local and rural economic development. Lessons from the pilot will be fed back into the projects and programmes in APR’s portfolio.

APR Portfolio Performance Report - Main Report and Appendices Annual Review July 2013- June 2014 Appendix 1: List of Ongoing Investment Projects on 30 June

1

Appendix 1: List of Ongoing Investment Projects on 30 June

Country Project Id Project name Approval Date Signing Date Effective DateCompletion

DateClosing Date Project status

Afghanistan 1100001460 Rural Microfinance and Livestock Support Programme 30/04/2009 07/07/2009 24/08/2009 30/09/2016 31/03/2017 Available for Disbursement

Afghanistan 1100001637 Community Livestock and Agriculture Project 13/12/2012 08/04/2013 08/04/2013 30/06/2019 31/12/2019 Available for Disbursement

Bangladesh 1100001355 National Agricultural Technology Project 13/12/2007 22/01/2008 25/03/2008 31/12/2014 30/06/2015 Available for Disbursement

Bangladesh 1100001466 Participatory Small-scale Water Resources Sector Project 15/09/2009 06/11/2009 06/11/2009 31/12/2017 30/06/2018 Available for Disbursement

Bangladesh 1100001537 Char Development and Settlement Project IV 22/04/2010 09/05/2011 09/05/2011 30/06/2018 31/12/2018 Available for Disbursement

Bangladesh 1100001647 Coastal Climate Resilient Infrastructure Project 10/04/2013 28/06/2013 28/06/2013 30/06/2019 31/12/2019 Available for Disbursement

Bangladesh 1100001585 Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project - Climate Adapation and Livelihood Protection 15/09/2011 18/07/2012 18/07/2012 30/09/2020 31/03/2021 Available for Disbursement

Bhutan 1100001482 Market Access and Growth Intensification Project 15/12/2010 22/04/2011 22/04/2011 30/06/2015 31/12/2015 Available for Disbursement

Cambodia 1100001350 Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project in Kratie, Preah Vihear and Ratanakiri 18/04/2007 28/05/2007 31/08/2007 30/09/2014 31/03/2015 Available for Disbursement

Cambodia 1100001464 Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and Smallholder Development Project 17/12/2009 15/02/2010 15/02/2010 31/08/2017 28/02/2018 Available for Disbursement

Cambodia 1100001559 Project for Agricultural Development and Economic Empowerment 03/04/2012 08/06/2012 08/06/2012 30/06/2018 31/12/2018 Available for Disbursement

China 1100001400 Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Rural Advancement Programme 13/12/2007 12/02/2008 12/11/2008 31/12/2014 30/06/2015 Available for Disbursement

China 1100001454 Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction Programme 17/12/2008 19/02/2009 19/08/2009 30/09/2015 31/03/2016 Available for Disbursement

China 1100001555 Guangxi Integrated Agricultural Development Project 13/12/2011 20/01/2012 20/01/2012 31/03/2017 30/09/2017 Available for Disbursement

China 1100001627 Hunan Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Improvement Project 21/09/2012 21/09/2012 21/09/2012 30/09/2017 31/03/2018 Available for Disbursement

China 1100001629 Yunnan Agricultural and Rural Improvement Project 13/12/2012 31/01/2013 31/01/2013 31/03/2018 30/09/2018 Available for Disbursement

China 1100001699 Shiyan Smallholder Agribusiness Development Project 11/12/2013 30/01/2014 30/01/2014 31/03/2019 30/09/2019 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001040 North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas 29/04/1997 20/05/1997 23/02/1999 30/09/2016 31/03/2017 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001155 Orissa Tribal Empowerment and Livelihoods Programme 23/04/2002 18/12/2002 15/07/2003 31/03/2015 30/09/2015 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001348 Post-Tsunami Sustainable Livelihoods Programme for the Coastal Communities of Tamil Nadu 19/04/2005 11/11/2005 09/07/2007 31/03/2017 30/09/2017 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001418 Mitigating Poverty in Western Rajasthan Project 24/04/2008 17/10/2008 11/12/2008 31/12/2016 30/06/2017 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001314 Tejaswini Rural Women's Empowerment Programme 13/12/2005 12/10/2006 23/07/2007 30/09/2017 31/03/2018 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001381 Women's Empowerment and Livelihoods Programme in the Mid-Gangetic Plains 14/12/2006 11/12/2008 04/12/2009 31/12/2017 30/06/2018 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001470 Convergence of Agricultural Interventions in Maharashtra's Distressed Districts Programme 30/04/2009 30/09/2009 04/12/2009 31/12/2017 30/06/2018 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001617 Integrated Livelihood Support Project 13/12/2011 01/02/2012 01/02/2012 31/03/2019 30/09/2019 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001649 Jharkhand Tribal Empowerment and Livelihoods Project 21/09/2012 04/10/2013 04/10/2013 31/12/2021 30/06/2022 Available for Disbursement

India 1100001715 Livelihoods and Access to Markets Project 08/04/2014 Board/President Approved

Indonesia 1100001258 Rural Empowerment and Agricultural Development Programme in Central Sulawesi 02/12/2004 22/11/2006 18/11/2008 31/12/2014 30/06/2015 Available for Disbursement

Indonesia 1100001341 National Programme for Community Empowerment in Rural Areas Project 11/09/2008 18/11/2008 17/03/2009 31/03/2016 30/09/2016 Available for Disbursement

Indonesia 1100001621 Coastal Community Development Project 21/09/2012 23/10/2012 23/10/2012 31/12/2017 30/06/2018 Available for Disbursement

Indonesia 1100001509 Smallholder Livelihood Development Project in Eastern Indonesia 11/05/2011 05/07/2011 05/07/2011 31/01/2019 31/07/2019 Available for Disbursement

APR Portfolio Performance Report - Main Report and Appendices Annual Review July 2013- June 2014 Appendix 1: List of Ongoing Investment Projects on 30 June

2

Country Project Id Project name Approval Date Signing Date Effective DateCompletion

DateClosing Date Project status

Laos 1100001459 Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Productivity Enhancement Project 17/12/2008 18/02/2009 23/07/2009 30/09/2016 31/03/2017 Available for Disbursement

Laos 1100001608 Soum Son Seun Jai - Community-based Food Security and Economic Opportunities Programme 13/12/2011 22/12/2011 22/12/2011 31/12/2017 30/06/2018 Available for Disbursement

Laos 1100001680 Southern Laos Food and Nutrition Security and Market Linkages Programme (LOT) 07/09/2013 13/09/2013 13/09/2013 30/09/2019 31/03/2020 Available for Disbursement

Maldives 1100001377 Fisheries and Agricultural Diversification Programme 12/09/2007 02/04/2008 15/09/2009 30/09/2014 31/03/2015 Available for Disbursement

Maldives 1100001624 Mariculture Enterprise Development Project 06/09/2012 09/01/2013 09/01/2013 31/03/2018 30/09/2018 Available for Disbursement

Mongolia 1100001455 Project for Market and Pasture Management Development 11/05/2011 17/06/2011 26/08/2011 30/09/2016 31/03/2017 Available for Disbursement

Myanmar 1100001654 Fostering Agricultural Revitalisation in Myanmar 08/04/2014 Board/President Approved

Nepal 1100001285 Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme 02/12/2004 07/06/2005 07/09/2005 30/09/2014 31/03/2015 Available for Disbursement

Nepal 1100001119 Western Uplands Poverty Alleviation Project 06/12/2001 05/02/2002 01/01/2003 15/07/2016 31/12/2016 Available for Disbursement

Nepal 1100001450 Poverty Alleviation Fund Project II 13/12/2007 08/05/2008 31/07/2008 30/06/2017 31/12/2017 Available for Disbursement

Nepal 1100001471 High-Value Agriculture Project in Hill and Mountain Areas 17/12/2009 05/07/2010 05/07/2010 30/09/2017 31/03/2018 Available for Disbursement

Nepal 1100001602 Kisankalagi Unnat Biu-Bijan Karyakram 21/09/2012 02/12/2012 02/12/2012 31/12/2019 30/06/2020 Available for Disbursement

Pakistan 1100001514 Southern Punjab Poverty Alleviation Project 15/12/2010 30/09/2011 30/09/2011 30/09/2016 31/03/2017 Available for Disbursement

Pakistan 1100001515 Gwadar-Lasbela Livelihoods Support Project 11/05/2011 31/01/2013 31/01/2013 31/03/2019 30/09/2019 Available for Disbursement

Pakistan 1100001676 Livestock and Access to Markets Project 11/12/2013 Board/President Approved

Papua New Guinea 1100001480 Productive Partnerships in Agriculture Project 22/04/2010 14/09/2010 14/09/2010 30/06/2016 31/12/2016 Available for Disbursement

Philippines 1100001395 Second Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project 24/04/2008 04/06/2008 14/11/2008 31/12/2015 30/06/2016 Available for Disbursement

Philippines 1100001485 Rapid Food Production Enhancement Programme 17/12/2008 02/09/2009 09/11/2009 31/12/2016 30/06/2017 Available for Disbursement

Philippines 1100001475 Integrated Natural Resources and Environmental Management Programme 13/12/2012 12/04/2013 12/04/2013 30/06/2020 31/12/2020 Available for Disbursement

Sri Lanka 1100001457 National Agribusiness Development Programme 17/12/2009 23/02/2010 23/02/2010 31/03/2015 30/09/2015 Available for Disbursement

Sri Lanka 1100001600 Iranamadu Irrigation Development Project 13/12/2011 30/01/2012 30/01/2012 31/03/2017 30/09/2017 Available for Disbursement

Sri Lanka 1100001316 Smallholder Plantations Entrepreneurship Development Programme 14/12/2006 08/05/2007 06/11/2007 31/12/2017 30/06/2018 Available for Disbursement

Timor-Leste 1100001576 Timor-Leste Maize Storage Project 13/12/2011 14/05/2012 14/05/2012 30/06/2015 31/12/2015 Available for Disbursement

Tonga 1100001628 Tonga Rural Innovation Project 03/04/2012 25/05/2012 25/05/2012 31/12/2017 31/12/2017 Available for Disbursement

Viet Nam 1100001664 Project for Adaption to Climate Change in the Mekong Delta in Ben Tre and Tra Vinh Provinces 11/12/2013 28/03/2014 28/03/2014 31/03/2020 30/09/2020 Enter into Force

Viet Nam 1100001477 Pro-Poor Partnerships for Agroforestry Development Project 17/12/2008 16/02/2009 27/05/2009 30/06/2015 31/12/2015 Available for Disbursement

Viet Nam 1100001552 Agriculture, Farmers and Rural Areas Support Project in Gia Lai, Ninh Thuan and Tuyen Quang Provinces 15/12/2010 25/02/2011 25/02/2011 31/03/2016 30/09/2016 Available for Disbursement

Viet Nam 1100001483 Project for the Economic Empowerment of Ethnic Minorities in Poor Communes of Dak Nong Province 22/04/2010 09/11/2010 09/11/2010 31/12/2016 30/06/2017 Available for Disbursement

Viet Nam 1100001662 Sustainable Rural Development for the Poor Project in Ha Tinh and Quang Binh Provinces 19/09/2013 27/11/2013 27/11/2013 31/12/2018 30/06/2019 Available for Disbursement

No. of projects 60


Appendix 2: List of Ongoing Grant Projects on 30 June

3


Grant No. Recipient Project title

Actual

Approval

Date

Enter into

Force Date

Completion

DateClosing Date

IFAD

Financing

Amount US$

Disb. Rate

as at 30

June 2014

Regional/Global Large

G-I-R-1227- IRRI

Programme for improving livelihoods and overcoming poverty in the

drought-prone lowlands of South-East Asia 07/10/2010 16/12/2010 31/12/2014 30/06/2015 1 200 000 31%

G-I-R-1239- CIP

Root and Tuber Crops Research and Development Programme for

Food Security in Asia and Pacific Region 05/12/2010 22/03/2011 31/03/2015 30/09/2015 1 450 000 91%

G-I-R-1244- ESCAP

Leveraging Pro-poor Public-Private Partnerships (5Ps) for Rural

Development – Widening Access to Energy Services for Rural Poor in

Asia and the Pacific 05/12/2010 10/08/2011 30/09/2015 31/03/2016 1 350 000 19%

G-I-R-1284-

WATERCOPE,

University of

Kassel

Supporting national research capacity and policy development to cope

with dwindling water resources and intensifying land use in the trans-

border Altay-Dzungaria region of Mongolia and China 04/05/2011 29/07/2011 30/09/2015 31/03/2016 1 485 000 54%

G-I-R-1286- FAO

Pro Poor Policy Approaches to Address Risk and Vulnerability at the

Country Level 04/05/2011 13/02/2012 31/03/2016 30/09/2016 1 500 000 35%

G-I-R-1304- PROCASUR

Strengthening Knowledge Sharing on Innovative Solutions Using the

Learning Routes Methodology in Asia and the Pacific 29/08/2011 27/10/2011 31/12/2015 30/06/2016 1 000 000 100%

G-I-R-1308- CIAT

Improved Forage-based Livestock Feeding Systems for Smallholder

Livelihoods in the Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Development Triangle 29/08/2011 16/09/2011 30/09/2015 31/03/2016 1 500 000 23%

G-I-R-1363- ICRISAT

Sustainable Management of Crop-based Production Systems for

Raising Agricultural Productivity in Rainfed Asia 07/04/2012 07/05/2012 30/06/2016 31/12/2016 1 500 000 45%

G-I-R-1386-

IRI, Trustees of

Colombia

University

Climate risk management in Agriculture with demonstration sites in

Indonesia, Laos, and Bangladesh 12/08/2012 07/12/2012 31/12/2014 30/06/2015 700 000 44%

G-I-R-1396- SNV

Inclusive Business Models to Promote Sustainable Smallholder

Cassava Production 14/10/2012 13/12/2012 30/06/2015 31/12/2015 1 199 000 36%

G-I-R-1403- APRACA

Enhancing the Access of Poor Rural People to Sustainable Financial

Services through Policy Dialogue, Capacity-Building and Knowledge-

Sharing in Rural Finance 30/11/2012 21/01/2013 31/03/2016 30/09/2016 1 100 000 30%

G-I-R-1447- AFA

Medium Term Cooperation Programme with Farmers’ Organizations in

Asia and the Pacific Region, Phase II 07/07/2013 04/09/2013 30/09/2018 31/03/2019 2 000 000 45%

2000000102 ICIMOD

Improving Livelihoods and Enhancing Resilience of the Rural Poor in

the Hindu Kush Himalayas to Environmental and Socio-Economic

Changes 25/11/2013 17/03/2014 31/03/2017 30/09/2017 1 200 000

2000000108 APRACA

Project to Document Global Best Practices on Sustainable Models of

Pro-Poor Rural Financial Services in Developing Countries 09/12/2013 28/02/2014 31/03/2018 30/09/2018 1 100 000 44%

2000000270 PROCASUR

Strengthening Knowledge Sharing and Scaling up of Sustainable

Innovation Using Learning Route Methodology - Phase /II 16/06/2014 23/06/2014 1 000 000

Regional/Global Large 19 284 000


Appendix 2: List of Ongoing Grants Projects on 30 June

4


Actual

Approval

Date

Enter into

Force Date

Completion

DateClosing Date

IFAD

Financing

Amount US$

Disb. Rate

as at 30

June 2014


Regional/Global AR4D 19 284 000

G-I-R-1451- IRRI

Reducing Risks and Improving Rice Livelihoods in South-East Asia

through the Consortium for Environments Unfavourable Rice 07/07/2013 13/03/2014 31/03/2018 30/09/2018 1 500 000

G-I-R-1452-

World Agroforestry

Centre

Climate-smart, tree-based co-investment in climate change adaptation

and mitigation in Asia 07/07/2013 13/03/2014 31/03/2017 30/09/2017 1 500 000

Grand Total Regional/Global Large 17 22 284 000

Regional/Global small

G-I-R-1271- IPRCC

Promoting South-South Cooperation with China in Poverty Reduction

through Knowledge Sharing 20/12/2010 24/05/2011 31/12/2014 30/09/2015 338 000 35%

G-I-R-1347- WOCAN

Capacity Building for Women's Leadership in Farmer Producer

Organisations in the Asia and the Pacific Region 26/11/2011 22/12/2011 31/12/2014 30/09/2015 500 000 40%

G-I-R-1421- SPC

Development and Pilot Implementation of Integrated Pacific Island

Organic/Ethical Trade Initiatives 17/12/2012 21/12/2012 31/12/2014 30/09/2015 500 000 60%

G-I-R-1433- IFPRI

Collaborative research and capacity strengthening for monitoring and

evaluation and impact assessment of IFAD projects in India and

Bhutan 20/12/2012 08/03/2013 31/03/2016 30/09/2016 500 000 90%

Total Regional/Global Small 4 1 838 000

Grand TOTAL REGIONAL/GLOBAL 21 24 122 000

Country Specific Large

2000000382Department of

FinancePH_Response to Typhoon Haiyan 31/12/2013 02/04/2014 30/06/2015 31/12/2015 4 050 000 94%

Total Country Specific Large 1 4 050 000

Country Specific Small

G-I-R-1430- PCDF Partnerships in High Value Agriculture 17/12/2012 21/12/2012 31/12/2014 30/09/2015 500 000 55%

G-I-R-1444- WFP

Tools for Strategy Development on Food Security, Poverty Reduction

and Climate Change Adaptation 01/02/2013 11/02/2013 31/03/2015 30/09/2015 477 000 90%

2000000101

Ministry of National

Development

Planning

Sustainable economic development through south-south and triangular

cooperation in Indonesia 02/10/2013 28/11/2013 31/12/2015 30/09/2016 500 000 80%

G-I-R-1400-

Ministry of Border

Affairs

Strengthening Capacity of the Department of Rural Development for

Coordination of Rural Development Activities to Implement the

Government's Poverty Alleviation and Rural Development Action Plan 26/11/2012 16/07/2013 31/03/2015 31/12/2015 300 000 50%

2000000111

Ministry of

Livestock and

Fisheries Developing Scalable Smallholder Livestock Models in Myanmar 16/02/2014 500 000

2000000264 UNOPS

Project Management Capability of the Ministry of Agriculture and

Irrigation 10/12/2013 17/12/2013 30/06/2015 31/12/2015 500 000 90%

Total Country Specific Small 6 2 777 000

TOTAL COUNTRY-SPECIFIC 6 827 000

APR overall grant portfolio (regional and country grants excluding loan component grants) GRAND TOTAL 30 949 000



5


Actual

Approval

Date

Enter into

Force Date

Completion

DateClosing Date

IFAD

Financing

Amount US$

Disb. Rate

as at 30

June 2014

OTHER GRANT SOURCES

ASAP Grants

G-C-ASP-847-A BANGLADESH HILIP-CALIP 19/09/2013 15 047 000

2000000434 VIET NAM AMD 11/12/2013 12 000 000

Total ASAP Grants 2 27 047 000

GEF Grants

G-G-FSP-9- CHINA

An IEM Approach to the Conservation of Biodiversity in Dry land

Ecosystems - under the PRC-GEF Partnership on Land Degradation in

Dry land Ecosystem Program 06/05/2009 15/04/2011 15/04/2016 15/10/2016 4 545 000 34%

G-G-FSS-1- MONGOLIA

Livestock Sector Adaptation Project (GEF ID 3695) to Complement

Project for Market and Pasture Management Development (IFAD Loan

No. 836-MN) 03/02/2011 26/08/2011 30/09/2016 31/03/2017 1 500 000 33%

G-G-FSP-5- SRI LANKA

Participatory Coastal Zone Restoration and Sustainable Management

in the Eastern Province of Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka Project, Component

of the Post-Tsunami Coastal Rehabilitation and Resource

Management Programme (IFAD Loan No.664-LK) 23/01/2008 10/09/2009 30/09/2015 31/03/2016 6 919 915 29%

Total GEF Grants 12 964 915

Supplementary/Bi-lateral Financing

G-C-EC-767- PHILIPPINES RAFPEP: EUROPEAN COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTARY FUND 02/09/2009 09/11/2009 31/12/2016 30/06/2017 13 149 000 100%

G-C-NL-807- BANGLADESH CDSP IV: NETHERLANDS SUPPLEMENTARY FUND 22/04/2013 14/05/2013 30/06/2018 31/12/2018 4 831 700 24%

2000000205 FLANZ PNG Fairtrade: SOUTH KOREA SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDS 02/10/2013 08/11/2013 31/12/2015 30/09/2016 360 000 56%

2000000210 MARAG Mobiles for Mobility: SOUTH KOREA SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDS 16/10/2013 31/10/2013 31/12/2015 30/09/2016 360 000 56%

2000000214 UNCCD-19 PADEE e-platform: SOUTH KOREA SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDS 02/10/2013 31/10/2013 31/12/2015 30/09/2016 380 000 53%

G-C-SEC-824- BHUTAN MAGIP: SWEDISH COMPLEMENTARY FUND 15/12/2010 22/04/2011 30/06/2015 31/12/2015 2 000 000 61%

Total Supplementary/Bi-lateral Financing 21 080 700

TOTAL OTHER GRANT SOURCES 61 092 615


Appendix 3: PSR Ratings of Ongoing Projects

6


C.1 C.2 IP DO

Co

un

try

Pro

ject Id

Pro

ject N

am

e

Effe

ctive

ne

ss d

ate

IFA

D C

urr

en

t F

ina

ncin

g

(US

D '0

00

)

Tim

e le

ft fo

r co

mp

letio

n

(ye

ars

)

To

p-u

p

Co

op

era

tin

g In

stitu

tio

n

Fin

an

cia

l m

an

ag

em

en

t

Dis

bu

rse

me

nt ra

te

Co

un

terp

art

fu

nd

s

Lo

an

co

ve

na

nts

Pro

cu

rem

en

t

Au

dits

Pro

ject m

an

ag

em

en

t

M&

E

AW

PB

& im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

Ge

nd

er

Po

ve

rty

Ta

rge

tin

g

Inn

ova

tio

n &

le

arn

ing

Clim

ate

an

d

en

vir

on

me

nt fo

cu

s

Institu

tio

n b

uild

ing

Em

po

we

rme

nt

Be

ne

ficia

ry p

art

icip

atio

n

Se

rvic

e p

rovid

ers

Exit s

tra

teg

y

Sca

lin

g u

p &

re

plica

tio

n

Ph

ysic

al/fin

an

cia

l a

sse

ts

Fo

od

se

cu

rity

Na

tura

l a

sse

st

imp

rove

me

nt a

nd

Im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

pro

gre

ss

De

ve

lop

me

nt o

bje

ctive

s

Ris

k fa

cto

rs

Ris

k fla

gs a

ve

rag

e

Pro

ject sta

tus

20

12

/20

13

Afghanistan 1460 RMLSP 24 Aug 09 29 895 2.3 ○ IFAD 3 4 5 3 5 3 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 4 2 4.2 NAR

Afghanistan 1637 CLAP 08 Apr 13 58 001 5.0 ○ IFAD 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3.7 NAR

Bangladesh 1355 NATP (LOT) 25 Mar 08 19 450 0.5 WB 4 3 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 0 4.5 NAR

Bangladesh 1466 PSSWRSP 06 Nov 09 32 000 3.5 ○ AsDB 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3.8 NAR

Bangladesh 1537 CDSP IV 09 May 11 47 300 4.0 IFAD 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 0 4.5 NAR

Bangladesh 1585 HILIP - CALIP (LOT)18 Jul 12 71 140 6.3 ○ IFAD 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 2 4.5 NAR

Bangladesh 1647 CCRIP 28 Jun 13 40 512 5.0 IFAD 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 3.9 NAR

Bhutan 1482 MAGIP 22 Apr 11 8 490 0.3 IFAD 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 5 4 3 3.9 NAR

Cambodia 1350 RULIP 31 Aug 07 12 014 1.0 ○ IFAD 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4.3 NAR

Cambodia 1464 TSPRSDP 25 Feb 10 13 380 3.2 AsDB 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 4 5 2 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 4 4 4 5 3.3 PPP

Cambodia 1559 PADEE 08 Jun 12 35 000 4.0 IFAD 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 0 4.6 NAR

China 1400 IMARRAP 12 Nov 08 30 001 0.5 IFAD 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 0 4.8 NAR

China 1454 DAPRP 19 Aug 09 31 875 1.3 IFAD 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 1 4.2 NAR

China 1555 GIADP 20 Jan 12 47 000 2.8 IFAD 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 1 4.3 NAR

China 1627 HARIIP 21 Sep 12 47 000 3.3 IFAD 5 3 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 1 4.5 NAR

China 1629 YARIP 31 Jan 13 46 700 3.8 IFAD 5 2 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 5 4 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4.1 NAR

India 1040 NERCORMP II 23 Feb 99 42 900 2.3 ○ IFAD 4 4 6 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 6 5 4 5 5 4 0 4.7 NAR

India 1155 OTELP 15 Jul 03 34 996 3.3 ○ IFAD 5 3 6 5 4 4 5 5 6 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 0 4.7 NAR

India 1348 PT-Tamil Nadu 09 Jul 07 29 916 2.8 ○ IFAD 4 3 6 4 3 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 4.3 NAR

India 1314 TWEP 23 Jul 07 54 448 3.3 ○ IFAD 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 0 4.5 NAR

India 1381 Mid-Gangetic Pl. 04 Dec 09 30 169 3.5 IFAD 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 3 4 5 3 3 5 3 4 6 3.5 APP

India 1418 MPOWER 11 Dec 08 30 969 2.5 IFAD 4 2 5 5 3 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3.7 NAR

India 1470 C-AIM 04 Dec 09 41 109 3.5 IFAD 3 2 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.7 NAR

India 1617 IULSP 01 Feb 12 89 910 4.8 IFAD 4 1 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 5 5 2 4 3 4 3 3 3 na 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3.5 APP

India 1649 JTELP 04 Oct 13 51 001 7.5 IFAD 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3.7 NAR

Indonesia 1258 READ 18 Nov 08 21 582 0.5 IFAD 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 1 3.9 NAR

Indonesia 1341 PNPM 17 Mar 09 68 530 1.8 WB 3 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4.3 NAR

Indonesia 1509 SOLID 05 Jul 11 50 190 4.6 IFAD 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9 NAR

Indonesia 1621 CCDP 23 Oct 12 26 200 3.5 IFAD 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 1 4.3 NAR

Project data B.1: Fiduciary aspects B.2: Pr. implement. progress B.3: Sustainability

On

go

ing

(>

6 m

on

ths

)



7



8

C.1 C.2 IP DO

Co

un

try

Pro

ject Id

Pro

ject N

am

e

Effe

ctive

ne

ss d

ate

IFA

D C

urr

en

t F

ina

ncin

g

(US

D '0

00

)

Tim

e le

ft fo

r co

mp

letio

n

(ye

ars

)

To

p-u

p

Co

op

era

tin

g In

stitu

tio

n

Fin

an

cia

l m

an

ag

em

en

t

Dis

bu

rse

me

nt ra

te

Co

un

terp

art

fu

nd

s

Lo

an

co

ve

na

nts

Pro

cu

rem

en

t

Au

dits

Pro

ject m

an

ag

em

en

t

M&

E

AW

PB

& im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

Ge

nd

er

Po

ve

rty

Ta

rge

tin

g

Inn

ova

tio

n &

le

arn

ing

Clim

ate

an

d

en

vir

on

me

nt fo

cu

s

Institu

tio

n b

uild

ing

Em

po

we

rme

nt

Be

ne

ficia

ry p

art

icip

atio

n

Se

rvic

e p

rovid

ers

Exit s

tra

teg

y

Sca

lin

g u

p &

re

plica

tio

n

Ph

ysic

al/fin

an

cia

l a

sse

ts

Fo

od

se

cu

rity

Na

tura

l a

sse

st

imp

rove

me

nt a

nd

Im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

pro

gre

ss

De

ve

lop

me

nt o

bje

ctive

s

Ris

k fa

cto

rs

Ris

k fla

gs a

ve

rag

e

Pro

ject sta

tus

20

12

/20

13

Bangladesh 1165 SCBRMP 14 Jan 03 21 973 0.0 IFAD 5 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 5 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5.5 NAR

Bangladesh 1322 MIDPCR 22 Sep 06 24 947 0.0 IFAD 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 4 5 6 6 1 5.2 NAR

Bangladesh 1402 FEDEC 08 Feb 08 35 031 0.0 IFAD 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 0 5.2 NAR

China 1323 MRDP - XUAR 29 Apr 08 25 148 0.0 IFAD 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 1 4.6 NAR

Laos 1301 RLIP 15 Mar 06 20 491 0.0 IFAD 4 5 6 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 4 1 4.3 NAR

Laos 1396 NRSLLDP 10 Jul 07 2 994 0.0 AsDB 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 0 4.7 NAR

Maldives 1347 PT-AFReP 21 Apr 06 4 296 0.0 ○ IFAD 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 2 4.3 NAR

Pakistan 1413 PRISM 07 May 08 35 006 0.0 IFAD 5 4 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 6 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 0 5.1 NAR

Philippines 1253 RuMePP 31 Oct 06 19 130 0.0 IFAD 4 5 6 3 5 4 5 3 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 2 4.6 NAR

Solomon Is. 1565 RDP 11 Nov 11 3 996 0.0 WB 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 0 4.5 NAR

Sri Lanka 1346 PT-CRReMP 16 Oct 06 29 877 0.0 ○ IFAD 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 1 4.5 NAR

Viet Nam 1422 DBRP 06 May 08 35 550 0.0 IFAD 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 0 4.7 NAR

Total PSRS 67 Avg. 2.4 14 Avg. 4.1 3.5 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.3 1.8 4.2

2012/2013 Avg.4.0 3.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0

2011/2012 Avg.3.8 3.5 4.4 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.8 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0

Project data B.1: Fiduciary aspects B.2: Pr. implement. progress B.3: Sustainability

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1

C

om

ple

ted

4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2

4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1


Appendix 4: GSR Ratings of Ongoing Grants

9

Appendix 4: GSR Ratings of Ongoing Grants

Grant management & performance Implementation progress

Alternate

Account

Number Recipient Name Window Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e o

f g

ran

t

rec

ipie

nt

Co

he

ren

ce

be

twe

en

AW

PB

&

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Ac

ce

pta

ble

dis

bu

rse

me

nt

rate

Qu

alit

y a

nd

tim

elin

es

s

of

fin

an

cia

l re

po

rts

Qu

alit

y a

nd

tim

elin

es

s

of

tec

hn

ica

l re

po

rts

Re

lev

an

ce

to

IFA

D

targ

et

gro

up

Ge

nd

er

foc

us

En

vir

on

me

nt

&

clim

ate

fo

cu

s

Inn

ov

ati

on

Kn

ow

led

ge

sh

ari

ng

&

ma

na

ge

me

nt

Lin

ka

ge

s t

o

inv

es

tme

nt

po

rtfo

lio

Sc

alin

g u

p

Ov

era

ll

imp

lem

en

tati

on

pro

gre

ss

G-I-R-1227- IRRI GR-LG 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5

G-I-R-1239- CIP GR-LG 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

G-I-R-1244- UNESCAP GR-LG 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4

G-I-R-1284-

University of

Kassel-

Watercope

GR-LG 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 5

G-I-R-1286- FAO GR-LG 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 na 4 4 3 na 4

G-I-R-1304- PROCASUR GR-LG 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5

G-I-R-1308- CIAT GR-LG 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4

G-I-R-1363- ICRISAT GR-LG 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5

G-I-R-1386-

IRI, Trustees of

Colombia

University

GR-LG 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4

G-I-R-1396- SNV GR-LG 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5

G-I-R-1403- APRACA GR-LG 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4

G-I-R-1447- AFA/MTCP 2 GR-LG 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 5

2000000102 ICIMOD GR-LG 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2000000108 APRACA GR-LG 5 5 4 na 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 na 5

G-I-R-1114- SARCCAB 5 5 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 5

G-I-R-1451- IRRI GR-ARFD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

G-I-R-1452- ICRAF GR-ARFD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

G-I-R-1108- IRRI GR-LG 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 6 6

G-I-R-998-A AIT GR-LG 3 4 3 3 4 5 6 4 5 5 6 4 4

Total 19 Average 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.6


Appendix 5: Projects with Delays in Signing/Entry-into-Force

10

Appendix 5: Projects with Delays in Signing/Entry into force

Country Project Id Project Name Board Approval

Approval to

Date (mths)

Approved IFAD

Amt (US$ million)

India 1715 LAMP 08 Apr 14 2.7 50.00

Myanmar 1654 FARM 08 Apr 14 2.7 19.50

Pakistan 1676 LAMP 11 Dec 13 6.6 35.10

Total 3 4.0


Appendix 6: Disbursement Performance of Investment Projects

11


Country

PPMS

no. GRIPS FI no.

Entry into

Force

Duration

(yrs)

Original

completion

date

Planned

Implmn

period (yrs)

Loan/DSF

amount (SDR)

Disb.

30/06/14

(SDR) % Disb

Expected Disb

(SDR)

Expected

% Disb

Disb.

Lag

Afghanistan 1460 1000003385 24/08/2009 4.85 30/09/2013 4.10 16 000 000 14 091 750 88% 11 962 139 75% -18%

1637 1000004454 08/04/2013 1.23 30/06/2019 6.23 37 650 000 918 774 2% 4 819 153 13% 81%

Average 3.04 5.17 53 650 000 15 010 524 45% 16 781 292 32%

Bangladesh 1165 1000002472 14/01/2003 11.47 31/03/2014 11.22 17 550 000 17 214 625 98% 17 549 685 100% 2%

1402 1000002930 08/01/2008 6.48 31/03/2014 6.23 23 150 000 22 707 360 98% 23 149 585 100% 2%

1355 1000002996 25/03/2008 6.27 31/03/2013 5.02 12 300 000 10 450 940 85% 12 299 779 100% 15%

1466 1000003518 06/11/2009 4.65 31/12/2017 8.16 14 160 000 2 577 332 18% 10 586 493 75% 76%

1537 1000003696 09/05/2011 3.15 30/06/2018 7.15 30 860 000 10 504 233 34% 14 205 461 46% 26%

1466 1000003702 18/10/2010 3.70 31/12/2017 7.21 6 525 000 1 152 602 18% 3 649 278 56% 68%

1585 1000004078 18/07/2012 1.95 30/09/2020 8.21 34 450 000 5 617 487 16% 6 886 194 20% 18%

1647 2000000060 28/06/2013 1.01 30/06/2019 6.01 26 100 000 1 681 074 6% 3 340 767 13% 50%

4.83 7.40 165 095 000 71 905 653 47% 91 667 241 32%

Bhutan 1482 1000003960 22/04/2011 3.19 30/06/2015 4.19 5 600 000 3 559 074 64% 2 577 789 46% -38%

3.19 4.19 5 600 000 3 559 074 64% 2 577 789 -38%

Cambodia 1350 1000002819 31/08/2007 6.84 30/09/2014 7.09 6 400 000 6 397 766 100% 6 399 885 100% 0%

1350 1000004137 08/06/2012 2.06 30/09/2014 2.31 850 000 524 931 62% 231 013 27% -127%

1464 1000003593 15/02/2010 4.37 31/08/2017 7.55 4 250 000 601 505 14% 2 797 490 66% 78%

1559 1000004241 08/06/2012 2.06 30/06/2018 6.06 11 300 000 6 563 174 58% 3 071 117 27% -114%

1464 1000003592 15/02/2010 4.37 31/08/2017 7.55 4 250 000 601 505 14% 2 797 490 66% 78%

1350 1000004136 08/06/2012 2.06 30/09/2014 2.31 850 000 524 931 62% 231 013 27% -127%

1559 1000004239 08/06/2012 2.06 30/06/2018 6.06 11 300 000 3 672 759 33% 3 071 117 27% -20%

3.40 5.56 39 200 000 18 886 571 49% 18 599 126 -33%

China 1323 1000002729 29/04/2008 6.17 30/06/2014 6.17 16 700 000 15 852 086 95% 16 699 700 100% 5%

1400 1000002997 12/11/2008 5.63 31/12/2014 6.14 19 100 000 18 347 016 96% 17 543 507 92% -5%

1454 1000003238 19/08/2009 4.87 30/09/2015 6.12 21 438 000 12 492 628 58% 16 027 770 75% 22%

1555 1000004138 20/01/2012 2.44 31/03/2017 5.20 29 650 000 7 431 131 25% 8 058 285 27% 8%

1627 1000004334 21/09/2012 1.77 30/09/2017 5.03 30 250 000 7 826 455 26% 6 046 658 20% -29%

1629 1000004416 31/01/2013 1.41 31/03/2018 5.16 30 450 000 1 940 956 6% 3 897 562 13% 50%

3.72 5.64 147 588 000 63 890 272 51% 68 273 482 9%



12

Country

PPMS

no. GRIPS FI no.

Entry into

Force

Duration

(yrs)

Original

completion

date

Planned

Implmn

period (yrs)

Loan/DSF

amount (SDR)

Disb.

30/06/14

(SDR) % Disb

Expected Disb

(SDR)

Expected

% Disb

Disb.

Lag

India 1155 1000002492 15/07/2003 10.97 31/03/2013 9.72 16 050 000 15 678 519 98% 16 049 712 100% 2%

1314 1000002600 23/07/2007 6.94 30/09/2015 8.19 27 750 000 18 570 983 67% 27 749 502 100% 33%

1348 1000002610 19/01/2009 5.45 30/09/2015 6.70 10 400 000 647 647 6% 8 705 157 84% 93%

1381 1000002730 04/12/2009 4.57 31/12/2017 8.08 20 400 000 3 020 079 15% 15 251 727 75% 80%

1418 1000003100 11/12/2008 5.55 31/12/2014 6.06 18 460 000 5 900 785 32% 16 955 661 92% 65%

1470 1000003372 04/12/2009 4.57 31/12/2017 8.08 26 820 000 5 942 305 22% 20 051 535 75% 70%

1040 1000003600 12/07/2010 3.97 30/09/2016 6.22 12 600 000 7 759 662 62% 7 046 881 56% -10%

1155 2000000396 27/01/2014 0.42 31/03/2015 1.17 9 900 000 0 0% 99 000 1% 100%

1617 1000004130 01/02/2012 2.41 31/03/2019 7.16 56 700 000 1 832 055 3% 15 409 941 27% 88%

1649 1000004336 04/10/2013 0.74 31/12/2021 8.25 33 550 000 1 943 207 6% 2 147 200 6% 10%

4.56 6.96 232 630 000 61 295 243 31% 129 466 316 53%

Indonesia 1258 1000002559 18/11/2008 5.62 31/12/2014 6.12 14 300 000 12 972 317 91% 13 134 667 92% 1%

1341 1000003176 17/03/2009 5.29 31/03/2016 7.04 42 033 300 35 990 422 86% 35 183 316 84% -2%

1509 1000004014 05/07/2011 2.99 31/01/2019 7.58 30 300 000 5 243 148 17% 11 091 312 37% 53%

1621 1000004349 23/10/2012 1.68 31/12/2017 5.19 15 870 000 2 690 392 17% 3 172 246 20% 15%

3.90 6.48 102 503 300 56 896 279 53% 62 581 542 17%

Laos 1459 1000003240 23/07/2009 4.94 30/09/2016 7.19 10 100 000 8 239 276 82% 7 551 100 75% -9%

1301 1000004016 23/12/2011 2.52 31/03/2014 2.27 1 550 000 1 536 378 99% 567 377 37% -171%

1608 1000004131 22/12/2011 2.52 31/12/2017 6.03 8 850 000 2 053 056 23% 3 239 542 37% 37%

1680 2000000229 13/09/2013 0.79 30/09/2019 6.05 6 470 000 788 240 12% 414 080 6% -90%

1301 1000002576 15/03/2006 8.30 31/03/2014 8.05 11 300 000 10 507 691 93% 11 299 797 100% 7%

1396 1000002734 10/07/2007 6.98 30/09/2013 6.23 2 000 000 1 770 129 89% 1 999 964 100% 11%

4.34 5.97 40 270 000 24 894 769 66% 25 071 860 -36%

Maldives 1624 1000004342 09/01/2013 1.47 31/03/2018 5.22 1 650 000 194 148 12% 211 198 13% 8%

1347 1000002611 12/10/2006 7.72 30/06/2011 4.72 1 450 000 1 373 961 95% 1 449 974 100% 5%

1377 1000002931 15/09/2009 4.79 30/09/2014 5.04 2 350 000 617 983 26% 1 756 939 75% 65%

4.66 5.00 5 450 000 2 186 092 44% 3 418 111 63% 26%

Mongolia 1455 1000004018 26/08/2011 2.85 30/09/2016 5.10 7 250 000 2 752 723 38% 2 653 862 37% -4%

2.85 5.10 7 250 000 2 752 723 38% 2 653 862 -4%



13

Country

PPMS

no. GRIPS FI no.

Entry into

Force

Duration

(yrs)

Original

completion

date

Planned

Implmn

period (yrs)

Loan/DSF

amount (SDR)

Disb.

30/06/14

(SDR) % Disb

Expected Disb

(SDR)

Expected

% Disb

Disb.

Lag

Nepal 1450 1000003036 31/07/2008 5.92 30/09/2012 4.17 2 500 000 2 417 748 97% 2 296 271 92% -5%

1471 1000003605 05/07/2010 3.99 30/09/2017 7.24 4 750 000 1 287 738 27% 2 656 562 56% 52%

1285 1000004244 30/04/2012 2.17 30/09/2013 1.42 975 000 465 721 48% 264 986 27% -76%

1602 1000004341 02/12/2012 1.58 31/12/2019 7.08 12 850 000 962 379 7% 2 568 580 20% 63%

1119 1000002482 01/01/2003 11.50 31/03/2014 11.25 15 600 000 9 789 199 63% 15 599 720 100% 37%

1285 1000002560 07/09/2005 8.82 30/09/2013 8.07 7 150 000 7 150 000 100% 7 149 872 100% 0%

1285 1000004243 30/04/2012 2.17 30/09/2013 1.42 975 000 330 800 34% 218 139 22% -52%

1471 1000003604 05/07/2010 3.99 30/09/2017 7.24 4 750 000 1 287 738 27% 2 186 915 46% 41%

1602 1000004340 02/12/2012 1.58 31/12/2019 7.08 12 850 000 962 379 7% 2 114 479 16% 54%

4.63 6.11 62 400 000 24 653 702 46% 35 055 524 13%

Pakistan 1514 1000003962 30/09/2011 2.75 30/09/2016 5.01 26 350 000 2 006 417 8% 7 940 217 30% 75%

1515 1000004020 31/01/2013 1.41 31/03/2019 6.16 18 550 000 977 587 5% 1 954 602 11% 50%

2.08 5.58 44 900 000 2 984 004 6% 9 894 819 62%

PNG 1480 1000003697 14/09/2010 3.79 30/06/2016 5.80 9 220 000 2 621 325 28% 4 244 918 46% 38%

3.79 5.80 9 220 000 2 621 325 28% 4 244 918 38%

Philippines 1253 1000002577 30/10/2006 7.67 31/12/2013 7.18 12 350 000 12 168 239 99% 11 877 161 96% -2%

1395 1000003101 14/11/2008 5.63 31/12/2015 7.13 16 150 000 6 125 581 38% 12 211 469 76% 50%

1485 1000003241 09/11/2009 4.64 31/12/2016 7.15 10 685 000 10 062 394 94% 6 576 209 62% -53%

1475 1000004452 12/04/2013 1.22 30/06/2020 7.22 13 250 000 401 505 3% 1 396 144 11% 71%

4.79 7.17 52 435 000 28 757 719 58% 32 060 983 16%

Solomon Islands 1565 1000003958 11/11/2011 2.64 30/11/2013 2.05 2 550 000 2 550 000 100% 768 408 30% -232%

2.64 2.05 2 550 000 100% 768 408 -232%

Sri Lanka 1346 1000002580 16/10/2006 7.71 31/12/2011 5.21 9 400 000 9 398 675 100% 8 406 123 89% -12%

1346 1000002612 18/09/2008 5.78 31/12/2011 3.28 10 950 000 10 736 857 98% 7 698 954 70% -39%

1316 1000002735 06/11/2007 6.65 31/12/2017 10.16 15 250 000 9 234 996 61% 12 384 026 81% 25%

1457 1000003608 23/02/2010 4.35 31/03/2015 5.10 15 550 000 1 654 410 11% 7 835 097 50% 79%

1600 1000004132 30/01/2012 2.42 31/03/2017 5.17 14 350 000 2 485 574 17% 2 985 404 21% 17%

5.38 5.79 65 500 000 33 510 512 57% 39 309 605 14%



14

Country

PPMS

no. GRIPS FI no.

Entry into

Force

Duration

(yrs)

Original

completion

date

Planned

Implmn

period (yrs)

Loan/DSF

amount (SDR)

Disb.

30/06/14

(SDR) % Disb

Expected Disb

(SDR)

Expected

% Disb

Disb.

Lag

Timor-Leste 1576 1000004139 14/05/2012 2.13 30/06/2015 3.13 3 200 000 2 552 180 80% 665 735 21% -283%

2.13 3.13 3 200 000 2 552 180 80% 665 735 -283%

Tonga 1628 1000004248 25/05/2012 2.10 30/06/2017 5.10 2 600 000 631 233 24% 540 909 21% -17%

2.10 5.10 2 600 000 631 233 24% 540 909 -17%

Viet Nam 1422 1000002992 06/05/2008 6.15 30/06/2014 6.15 22 300 000 20 879 567 94% 16 813 876 75% -24%

1477 1000003243 27/05/2009 5.10 30/06/2015 6.10 14 110 000 11 573 983 82% 8 905 144 63% -30%

1483 1000003698 09/11/2010 3.64 31/12/2016 6.15 12 800 000 4 746 694 37% 5 397 674 42% 12%

1552 1000003963 25/02/2011 3.35 31/03/2016 5.10 31 500 000 13 082 279 42% 10 933 018 35% -20%

1662 2000000237 27/11/2013 0.59 31/12/2018 5.10 14 900 000 1 289 610 9% 719 000 5% -79%

3.76 5.72 95 610 000 51 572 133 53% 42 768 712 44% -28%

Total 2 177 142 600 890 647 885 41% 1 130 031 755 52% 21%

Expected disbursement is calculated as at 30/6/2014.

Percentage disbursement is calculated against the loan amount net of cancellations.

Projects with closed loans have been excluded.

Source: FlexCube/PPMS



15

APR Region - Disbursement Performance of Loans and DSF Grants with Disbursement Lag of 40 or more

Country

PPMS

no. GRIPS FI no.

Entry into

Force

Duration

(yrs)

Original

completion

date

Planned

Implmn

period (yrs)

Loan/dsf

amount (SDR)

Disb. 30/06/14

(SDR) % Disb

Expected Disb

(SDR)

Expected

% Disb Disb. Lag

Afghanistan 1637 1000004454 08/04/2013 1.23 30/06/2019 6.23 37 650 000 918 774 2% 4 819 153 13% 81%

Bangladesh 1647 2000000060 28/06/2013 1.01 30/06/2019 6.01 26 100 000 1 681 074 6% 3 340 767 13% 50%

Bangladesh 1466 1000003702 18/10/2010 3.70 31/12/2017 7.21 6 525 000 1 152 602 18% 3 649 278 56% 68%

Bangladesh 1466 1000003518 06/11/2009 4.65 31/12/2017 8.16 14 160 000 2 577 332 18% 10 586 493 75% 76%

Cambodia 1464 1000003592 15/02/2010 4.37 31/08/2017 7.55 4 250 000 601 505 14% 2 797 490 66% 78%

Cambodia 1464 1000003593 15/02/2010 4.37 31/08/2017 7.55 4 250 000 601 505 14% 2 797 490 66% 78%

China 1629 1000004416 31/01/2013 1.41 31/03/2018 5.16 30 450 000 1 940 956 6% 3 897 562 13% 50%

India 1418 1000003100 11/12/2008 5.55 31/12/2014 6.06 18 460 000 5 900 785 32% 16 955 661 92% 65%

India 1470 1000003372 04/12/2009 4.57 31/12/2017 8.08 26 820 000 5 942 305 22% 20 051 535 75% 70%

India 1381 1000002730 04/12/2009 4.57 31/12/2017 8.08 20 400 000 3 020 079 15% 15 251 727 75% 80%

India 1617 1000004130 01/02/2012 2.41 31/03/2019 7.16 56 700 000 1 832 055 3% 15 409 941 27% 88%

India 1348 1000002610 19/01/2009 5.45 30/09/2015 6.70 10 400 000 647 647 6% 8 705 157 84% 93%

Indonesia 1509 1000004014 05/07/2011 2.99 31/01/2019 7.58 30 300 000 5 243 148 17% 11 091 312 37% 53%

Maldives 1377 1000002931 15/09/2009 4.79 30/09/2014 5.04 2 350 000 617 983 26% 1 756 939 75% 65%

Nepal 1471 1000003605 05/07/2010 3.99 30/09/2017 7.24 4 750 000 1 287 738 27% 2 186 915 46% 41%

Nepal 1471 1000003604 05/07/2010 3.99 30/09/2017 7.24 4 750 000 1 287 738 27% 2 656 562 56% 52%

Nepal 1602 1000004340 02/12/2012 1.58 31/12/2019 7.08 12 850 000 962 379 7% 2 114 479 16% 54%

Nepal 1602 1000004341 02/12/2012 1.58 31/12/2019 7.08 12 850 000 962 379 7% 2 114 479 16% 54%

Pakistan 1515 1000004020 31/01/2013 1.41 31/03/2019 6.16 18 550 000 977 587 5% 1 954 602 11% 50%

Pakistan 1514 1000003962 30/09/2011 2.75 30/09/2016 5.01 26 350 000 2 006 417 8% 7 940 217 30% 75%

Philippines 1395 1000003101 14/11/2008 5.63 31/12/2015 7.13 16 150 000 6 125 581 38% 12 211 469 76% 50%

Philippines 1475 1000004452 12/04/2013 1.22 30/06/2020 7.22 13 250 000 401 505 3% 1 396 144 11% 71%

Sri Lanka 1457 1000003608 23/02/2010 4.35 31/03/2015 5.10 15 550 000 1 654 410 11% 7 835 097 50% 79%

Total 413 865 000 48 343 487 12% 161 520 470 39% 70%

Expected disbursement is calculated as at 30/6/2014.

Percentage disbursement is calculated against the loan amount net of cancellations.

Projects with closed loans have been excluded.

Source: FlexCube/PPMS


Appendix 7: Relative Share of Co-financiers in Ongoing Portfolio

16

Appendix 7: Relative Share of Co-financiers in Ongoing Portfolio

Table 1: Relative share of co-financiers in ongoing portfolio

Financier

No. of

project Country

Current

Financing

amount

(US$'000) %

AsDB 7 Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines 327 683 38.9%

World Bank 4 Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea 300 390 35.7%

Spanish Fund 3 Bangladesh, Indonesia, Viet Nam 47 546 5.7%

United Kingdom/DfID 1 India 40 014 4.8%

Netherlands 1 Bangladesh 20 625 2.5%

WFP 3 India, Laos, Nepal 20 088 2.4%

EC 1 Philippines 13 149 1.6%

OFID (OPEC Fund) 1 Philippines 10 000 1.2%

Germany/KfW 1 Bangladesh 8 839 1.1%

European Union 1 Papua New Guinea 7 798 0.9%

Finland/FINNIDA 1 Cambodia 5 748 0.7%

United States/USAID 1 SPEnDP 5 456 0.6%

GEF 3 Mongolia, Philippines, Viet Nam 4 651 0.6%

Heifer Int 1 Nepal 2 500 0.3%

Swedish Complementary 1 Bhutan 2 002 0.2%

SNV (NGO) 3 Bhutan, Cambodia, Nepal 1 771 0.2%

FAO 3 Afghanistan, Cambodia, Philippines 1 269 0.2%

UNDP 1 Cambodia 1 163 0.1%

Germany/GIZ 1 Laos 435 0.1%

iDE 1 Cambodia 378 0.0%

To be determined 3 Bangladesh, India, Philippines 19 995 2.4%

Total 841 500 100%

2012/13 2013/14 2012/13 2013/14

International Co-financing US$ '000 USD '000 % %

Multilateral Donors 543 301 665 244 14% 16%

Bilateral Donors 142 396 151 612 4% 4%

International NGOs 4 649 4 649 0% 0%

To be determined 21 273 19 995 1% 0%

Subtotal 711 619 841 500 18% 20%

2012/13 2013/14 2012/13 2013/14

Domestic financing US$ '000 US$ '000 % %

Financing institution 367 676 386 843 10% 9%

Governments 694 719 850 693 18% 20%

Private sector 22 595 26 140 1% 1%

Beneficiaries 143 175 217 509 4% 5%

Local NGOs 29 654 24 170 1% 1%

Other 62 217 90 392 2% 2%

Subtotal 1 320 036 1 595 747 35% 37%

Total co-financing 2 031 655 2 437 247 53% 57%

IFAD FINANCING 1 816 691 1 824 528 47% 43%

TOTAL FINANCING 3 848 346 4 261 775 100% 100%

Co-Financiers Share in Total Financing 53% 57%

DOMESTIC FINANCING share in total co-financing 65% 65%

International CO-FINANCIERS share in total co-financing 35% 35%

Leveraging factors : 1.12 1.34


Appendix 7: Relative Share of Co financiers in Ongoing Portfolio

17

Table 2: Regional//Global grants co-financing generated

Project ID

Alternate

Account

Number Project Short Name Recipient Name

IFAD Financing

Amount (US$)

Co-financing

amount (US$)

Total Grant

amount (US$)

1000003832 G-I-R-1227- DROUGHT-PRONE LOWLANDS

International Rice Research

Institute 1 200 000 320 000 1 520 000

1000003895 G-I-R-1239-

ROOT AND TUBER CROPS

RESEARCH International Potato Centre 1 450 000 600 000 2 050 000

1000003911 G-I-R-1244-

LEVERAGING PRO-POOR

PUBLIC-PRI

United Nations Economic and

Social Commission for Asia

and the Pacif ic 1 350 000 530 000 1 880 000

1000004005 G-I-R-1284-

UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL:

SUPPORT

University of Kassel-

Watercope 1 485 000 2 013 000 3 498 000

1000004008 G-I-R-1286-

PRO-POOR POLICY

APPROACHES

Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United

Nations 1 500 000 900 000 2 400 000

1000004070 G-I-R-1304- PROCASUR Asia

Corporación Regional de

Capacitacion En Desarrollo

Rural 1 000 000 400 000 1 400 000

1000004071 G-I-R-1308-

IMPROVED FORAGE-BASED

LIVESTOC

International Center for

Tropical Agriculture 1 500 000 500 000 2 000 000

1000004229 G-I-R-1363-

RAINFED CROP-BASED

PRODUCTION

International Crops Research

Institute for Semiarid Tropics 1 500 000 1 000 000 2 500 000

1000004302 G-I-R-1386- Climate risk management

Trustees of Colombia

University, Earth Institute 700 000 140 000 840 000

1000004356 G-I-R-1396- Inclusive business models

SNV Netherlands

Development Organization

Nepal 1 199 000 250 000 1 449 000

1000004382 G-I-R-1403- SUSTAINABLE FIN SERVICES

Asia-Pacif ic Rural and

Agricultural Credit Association 1 100 000 1 000 000 2 100 000

2000000074 G-I-R-1447- MTCP-2

Asian Farmers' Association

for Sustainable Rural

Development 2 000 000 3 000 000 5 000 000

2000000102 200000010200 Livelihoods and Resilience HKH

International Centre on

Integrated Mountain

Development 1 200 000 800 000 2 000 000

2000000108 200000010800 Sustainable Financial Services

Asia-Pacif ic Rural and

Agricultural Credit Association 1 100 000 423 000 1 523 000

2000000270 2000000270

PROCASUR Asia ROUTASIA-

Phase II

Corporación Regional de

Capacitacion En Desarrollo

Rural 1 000 000 380 000 1 380 000

2000000094 G-I-R-1451- CURE 2 - South-East Asia

International Rice Research

Institute 1 500 000 900 000 2 400 000

2000000099 G-I-R-1452- Adaptation and mitigation World Agroforestry Centre 1 500 000 750 000 2 250 000

Total 17 22 284 000 13 906 000 36 190 000


Appendix 8: Projects Completed during Period under Review

18


Table 1: Projects completed during the review period

Table 2: Projects expected to be completed and closed as at 31 December 2014

Country

Project

Id Project Name

IFAD Current

Financing

(USD '000)

Loan

Effectiveness

Project

Completion

Date

Current

Closing

Project

Status as at

30 June 2014

Bangladesh 1165 Sunamganj 21 973 14 Jan 03 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14 Completed

Bangladesh 1322 MIDPCR 24 947 22 Sep 06 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 Closed

Bangladesh 1402 FEDEC 35 031 08 Jan 08 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14 Completed

China 1323 MRDP - XUAR 25 148 29 Apr 08 30 Jun 14 31 Dec 14 Completed

Laos 1301 RLIP 20 491 15 Mar 06 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14 Completed

Laos 1396 NRSLLDP 2 994 10 Jul 07 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 Completed

Maldives 1347 PT-AFReP 4 296 21 Apr 06 31 Dec 13 30 Jun 14 Completed

Pakistan 1413 PRISM 35 006 07 May 08 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 Closed

Philippines 1253 RuMePP 19 130 31 Oct 06 31 Dec 13 30 Jun 14 Completed

Solomon Islands 1565 RDP 3 996 11 Nov 11 30 Nov 13 30 Jun 14 Completed

Sri Lanka 1346 PT-CRReMP 29 877 16 Oct 06 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 Completed

Viet Nam 1422 DBRP 35 550 06 May 08 30 Jun 14 31 Dec 14 Completed

Total 12 258 439

Country

Project

Id Project Name

IFAD Current

Financing

(USD '000)

Loan

Effectiveness

Project

Completion

Date

Current

Closing

Completion

Bangladesh 1355 NATP 19 450 25 Mar 08 31 Dec 14 30 Jun 15

Cambodia 1350 RULIP 12 014 31 Aug 07 30 Sep 14 31 Mar 15

China 1400 IMARRAP 30 001 12 Nov 08 31 Dec 14 30 Jun 15

Indonesia 1258 READ 21 582 18 Nov 08 31 Dec 14 30 Jun 15

Maldives 1377 FADiP 3 505 15 Sep 09 30 Sep 14 31 Mar 15

Nepal 1285 LFLP 14 708 07 Sep 05 30 Sep 14 31 Mar 15

Total 6 101 260

Closing

Bangladesh 1165 Sunamganj 21 973 14 Jan 03 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14

Bangladesh 1402 FEDEC 35 031 08 Jan 08 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14

China 1323 MRDP - XUAR 25 148 29 Apr 08 30 Jun 14 31 Dec 14

Laos 1301 RLIP 20 491 15 Mar 06 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14

Viet Nam 1422 DBRP 35 550 06 May 08 30 Jun 14 31 Dec 14

Total 5 138 193



19

Table 3: Grants completed during the review period

Grant No. Recipient Approved date

Completion date Extension

Closing date Disb.


G-I-R-1108- IRRI 30-Apr-09 30-Sep-13

31-Mar-14

G-I-R-998-A APMAS 15-Sep-09 31-Dec-13 ● 30-Jun-14

Country Specific -Large

G-I-R-1114- IRRI 30-Apr-09 30-Sep-13 ● 31-Mar-14

Country Specific -Small

G-I-R-1214- CENESTA 19-Aug-10 31-Dec-13

30-Sep-14

G-I-R-1257- DPAP 17-Dec-10 31-Dec-13

30-Sep-14

Total 5

Table 4: Loan accounts closed during the review period

Table 5: Grant accounts closed during the review period

Country

Project

ID Loan No. Project Name

Original

Loan/Grant

Amount

(US$ '000)

Final loan

amount

(US$ '000)

Cancelation

amount at

closing

(US$ '000) Closing Date

Actual

Closure

Delay in

closing

(months)

Loan amount

cancelled as

of original

amount (%)

Bangladesh 1322 L-I--681- MIDPCR 26 990 24 848 2 141 31-Mar-14 22-Jul-14 3.7 8%

BHUTAN 1296 L-I--659- AMEPP 14 305 14 267 38 31-Dec-12 07-Mar-14 14.2 0%

CHINA 1271 L-I--673- SGPRP 31 162 31 162 0 31-Mar-13 24-Dec-13 8.8 0%

CHINA 1478 L-I--778- SPEAR 30 002 30 002 0 31-Mar-13 24-Dec-13 8.8 0%

INDIA 1226 L-I--624- LIPH 43 147 36 309 6 837 30-Jun-13 17-Dec-13 5.6 16%

INDIA 1348 L-I--662- PT-Tamil Nadu 15 387 15 383 5 10-May-14 16-May-14 0.2 0%

MALDIVES 1347 L-I--663- PT-AFReP 2 165 2 163 2 30-Jun-12 24-Jul-13 12.8 0%

PAKISTAN 1078 L-I--554- Southern FATA 20 723 5 591 15 132 31-Mar-11 08-May-14 37.3 73%

PAKISTAN 1182 L-I--558- NWFP Barani 17 243 9 444 7 799 31-Dec-09 20-Jan-14 48.7 45%

PAKISTAN 1245 L-I--625- AJK 23 584 22 054 1 530 31-Mar-13 30-Jun-14 15.0 6%

PAKISTAN 1324 L-I--683- MI&OP 28 301 27 889 412 31-Mar-12 07-May-14 25.2 1%

PAKISTAN 1413 L-I--727- PRISM 35 337 35 287 50 31-Mar-14 26-Jun-14 2.9 0%

Sri Lanka 1254 L-I--636- Dry Zone 23 222 23 040 182 30-Sep-13 22-Jul-14 9.7 1%

Total 13 311 567 277 438 34 129 14.8 12%

Grant Description Grant Number Recipient

Original Grant

Amount

US$('000)

Reduction

amount

US$('000)

Closing

Date

Entry into

Force Date

Completion

Date

Actual

Closure

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-880- SRI LANKA 552 08/11/2010 08/05/2007 08/05/2010 17/12/2013

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-902- FAO 609 30 31/03/2013 20/09/2007 30/09/2012 21/08/2013

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1031- CIAT 1 500 30/09/2013 14/01/2009 31/03/2013 18/02/2014

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1034-A SEWA 337 45 31/12/2012 17/06/2009 30/06/2012 05/09/2013

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1034- FAO 1 083 58 30/09/2013 23/11/2009 23/11/2009 08/04/2014

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1089-A CHINA 200 17 30/09/2012 04/11/2009 31/12/2011 07/05/2014

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1180- FAO 1 500 1 453 31/03/2014 29/06/2011 30/06/2013 19/05/2014

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1263- FLANZ 500 30/09/2013 23/12/2010 31/12/2012 09/12/2013

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1389- ICIMOD 150 17/12/2013 27/09/2012 30/06/2013 18/12/2013

DSF SELF-STANDING GRANTS G-I-DSF-8017- NEPAL 870 78 30/03/2012 28/05/2008 30/12/2011 17/07/2013

DSF SELF-STANDING GRANTS G-I-DSF-8066- LAOS 500 50 30/09/2013 17/12/2010 31/12/2012 08/05/2014

SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDS GRANTS G-C-FN-004- BHUTAN 150 30/06/2012 17/02/2009 31/12/2011 03/06/2014

Total 14 12 701 1 730



20

Table 6: Project expected to close over review period but not yet closed (Expired accounts)

Table 7: Unclosed grant accounts (Expired accounts)

Country

Project

ID

Loan/DSF

No.

Current

Financing

Amount

(US$ '000)

Contract

Effective

Date

Project

Completion

Date

Current

Closing

Date

Disbursement

(%)

Delay in

closing

(months)

Philippines 1253 L-I--661- 19 130 30/10/2006 31/12/2013 30/06/2014 99 0.0

Sri Lanka 1346 L-I--664- 14 187 16/10/2006 30/09/2013 31/03/2014 100 3.0

Sri Lanka 1346 L-I--693- 15 640 18/09/2008 30/09/2013 31/03/2014 98 3.0

Maldives 1347 L-I--692- 4 296 12/10/2006 31/12/2013 30/06/2014 100 0.0

Laos 1396 L-I--711- 2 994 10/07/2007 30/09/2013 31/03/2014 89 3.0

Solomon Islands 1565 G-I-DSF-8070- 3 996 11/11/2011 30/11/2013 30/06/2014 100 0.0

Total 6 60 243 Average 1.5

Grant Description

Alternate

Account

Number Recipient

Original

Grant

Amount Closing Date

Entry into

Force Date

Completion

Date

Lags (delays

in closing) as

of 30 June

2014 (month)

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1064- VIET NAM 200 30/09/2013 20/05/2009 31/12/2012 9

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1081- FSPI 1 500 30/06/2012 27/04/2009 31/12/2011 24

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1108- IRRI 1 500 31/03/2014 28/07/2009 30/09/2013 3

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1113- ICIMOD 1 500 31/12/2013 28/07/2009 30/06/2013 6

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1114- IRRI 700 31/03/2014 23/07/2009 30/09/2013 3

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-998-A AIT 1 400 30/06/2014 18/12/2009 31/12/2012 0

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1157- IPSARD 200 30/09/2013 14/12/2010 30/06/2013 9

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1188- UNDP-04 200 31/12/2013 08/01/2010 31/03/2013 6

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1010-A AIT 200 30/06/2013 28/04/2010 31/12/2012 12

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1213- WORLDFISH 500 31/03/2014 09/09/2010 30/06/2013 3

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1223- SNV VN 199 30/09/2013 13/10/2010 31/12/2012 9

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1235- NEDA PH 200 30/09/2013 19/11/2010 30/06/2013 9

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1265- BHUTAN 200 30/06/2013 18/02/2011 30/09/2012 12

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1267- UNIMAS 100 30/09/2013 29/12/2010 31/12/2012 9

IFAD FUNDED GRANTS G-I-R-1314- BHUTAN 200 31/12/2013 23/09/2011 31/03/2013 6

DSF SELF-STANDING GRANTS G-I-DSF-8076- ADB 500 31/03/2014 11/05/2011 30/06/2013 3

SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDS GRANTS G-C-IT-59- VIET NAM 1 541 30/06/2014 17/09/2008 05/12/2013 0

Total 17 Average lag 7


Appendix 9: Project Extensions during Period under Review

21

Appendix 9: Project Extensions during Period under Review

Table 1: Project extensions during the review period

Table 2: Projects with time overruns of more than 15%

Country

Project

ID Project

Supervisi

ng Inst.

Original

completion

Current

completion

Disb.

Rate

Time

left

(yrs)

Current

closing

No. of

extensions

Time

overrun

Afghanistan* 1460 RMLSP IFAD/IFAD 30-Sep-13 30-Sep-16 89% 2.3 31-Mar-17 2 73%

Bangladesh 1355 NATP WB: IDA 31-Dec-14 31-Dec-14 85% 0.5 31-Dec-14 2 35%

India* 1155 OTELP IFAD/IFAD 31/03/2013 31-Mar-15 98% 0.8 30-Sep-15 2 21%

India* 1314 TWEP IFAD/IFAD 30/09/2015 30-Sep-17 67% 3.3 31-Mar-18 1 24%

Total 4

Country

Project

ID Project

Supervisi

ng Inst.

Original

completion

Current

completion

Disb.

Rate

Time

left

(yrs)

Current

closing

No. of

extensions

Time

overrun

Additional

financing

Afghanistan 1460 RMLSP IFAD/IFAD 30-Sep-13 30-Sep-16 89% 2.3 31-Mar-17 2 73% O

Bangladesh* 1355 NATP WB: IDA 31-Dec-14 31-Dec-14 85% 0.5 31-Dec-14 2 35%

India 1155 OTELP IFAD/IFAD 31-Mar-13 31-Mar-15 98% 0.8 30-Sep-15 2 21% O

India 1314 TWEP IFAD/IFAD 30-Sep-15 30-Sep-17 67% 3.3 31-Mar-18 1 24% O

India 1348 PT-Tamil Nadu IFAD/IFAD 30-Sep-15 31-Mar-17 52% 2.8 30-Sep-17 0 18% O

India 1418 MPOWER IFAD/IFAD 31-Dec-14 31-Dec-16 33% 2.5 30-Jun-17 1 33%

Nepal 1119 WUPAP IFAD/IFAD 31-Mar-14 15-Jul-16 63% 2.0 31-Dec-16 1 20%

Nepal* 1450 PAF II WB: IDA 30-Sep-12 30-Jun-17 20% 3.0 31-Dec-17 2 114% O

Total 8


Appendix 10: Recommendations of Evaluation and Follow-up

22


Country/

Evaluation

type

Findings Key Recommendation

Bangladesh

PPA

(Project

Performance

Assessment)

The PPA concluded that the project made significant and innovative contributions to enhancing access to finance by

marginal and small farmers by introducing a lump-sum repayment modality that better matched the borrowers’

cash flows instead of the weekly repayments that had been previously required by MFIs. Partners’ MFIs were also

provided with a sustainable source of funding for seasonal and agricultural lending, and such products were

mainstreamed in their routine operations. At completion, the project had reached some 208,000 borrowers,

including 84% women, with a large share of the credit being used for productive purposes. Combined with the

technical support also provided by the project, the credit thus used contributed to an increase in agricultural

production, yield increase and cost reduction. However, due to an insufficient focus on marketing and business

development support, the project did not manage to promote really profitable on- or off-farm enterprises.

Nevertheless, the PPA concluded that prospects for sustainability are good.

1. Support for strengthening commercial orientation and business skills of borrowers

2. Service delivery modality and products by NGO-MFIs.

3. Measuring results and impact.

Cambodia

PPA

Noting that the project was implemented at a time of significant, favourable economic and social changes for the

country, the PPA concluded that the project was largely successful in enhancing agricultural productivity and income

diversification, with positive impact on beneficiaries’ income and food security. The project made also significant

contributions to the strengthening of the on-going decentralization process by working with provincial, district,

commune and village institutions and by establishing community interest groups. Due to poor designs and lack of

adequate maintenance the PPA however noted that the infrastructural projects (rural roads, irrigation canals)

financed through the Community Infrastructure Development Funds did not have the expected impact. The PPA also

found that the extension services provided to project beneficiaries were too narrowly focused on animal diseases

prophylaxis and curative treatments and recommended that future project designs should embrace other important

areas such as genetic improvement, animal husbandry or marketing. Also, the PPA questioned IFAD’s decision to

rehabilitate existing, poorly designed and dysfunctional irrigation schemes and recommended that future projects

should instead focus on new systems where feasible.

1.Further upgrading of post-harvest handling and linkages to markets.

2. Further support to development of new irrigations systems.

3. Broaden the role of village animal health workers.

There is a need to broaden the scope of livestock extension services to embrace other areas such as:

• Genetic improvement;

• Feeding and nutrition;

• Animal management using pens and sanitation facilities;

• Continuation and improvement of the disease prevention and treatment activities;

• Animal marketing.

China

PPA

The PPA concluded that the project has successfully increased access to microfinance by poor rural producers and

women and has enhanced their livelihoods through the capacity building and financial support it provided to the

Chongqing Rural Commercial Bank and the Shaanxi Rural Credit Cooperative Union. These two partners, which

are institutionally and financially viable, have developed new financial products targeting small clients and are

expected to continue to service them beyond project completion. The project did not, however, achieve its ambitious

policy impact objectives and it did not participate in systemic policy reforms due to a lack of proper institutional

arrangements, its inability to cope with the fast paced reform process and an inadequate understanding of the

complex rural finance sector. Furthermore, the PPA noted that the lead central agency in charge of regulating the

rural finance sector was insufficiently consulted during project design and surprisingly not selected as key project

implementer, a decision that explains in part project’s failure in the area of policy impact.

1. Future direction of rural finance reform: There is a need and scope for future reform in the rural finance

sector in China.

•lack of strong competition in the rural areas;

•potential effectiveness of village and township banks as they are initiated by RCCs or RCBs;

•ownership structure of various institutions and prudential regulatory issues; and

•strengthening of governance are all areas where further research and reforms are needed.



23

Country/

Evaluation

type

Findings Key Recommendation

China

CPE

The CPE assesses the performance of the IFAD-financed project portfolio between 1999-2013 as satisfactory. In

fact, 100 per cent of projects evaluated by the CPE in China are moderately satisfactory or better in terms of overall

project achievement, as compared to 83 per cent of projects evaluated by IOE in the Asia and Pacific region between

2002 and 2012. The strongest points in the portfolio include a generally high achievement of targets, and valuable

contributions to sustainable improvements in household income and assets as well as in food security and

agricultural productivity. IFAD has also supported China in introducing more participatory and demand-driven

approaches to grassroots development. The impact on developing sustainable rural organizations is more modest,

and contribution to government policies and institutions has also been somewhat limited. Similarly, further

opportunities exist for greater achievements in natural resources and environmental management.

Overall, the CPE concludes that the China-IFADpartnership is strong and the aggregate performance of loan

portfolio, non-lending activities and COSOPs is satisfactory. The main challenge in the future partnership is to

enhance the emphasis on non-lending activities, which will need to be linked to an adequate investment project

portfolio that focuses on promoting innovation and scaling up.

1. Strengthen targeting in a changing rural context.

2. Strengthen knowledge-sharing.

3. Sharpen the focus on scaling up.

4. Promote South-South and triangular cooperation.

5. Strengthen partnership with the Government and other in-country stakeholders.

6. Enhance the ICO by out-posting the Country Programme Manager.

Mongolia

PPA

The PPA concluded that this now completed project was successful in providing key services to remote herders

through the construction of hospitals, schools dormitories and kindergartens, while successfully supporting income

diversification through the promotion of vegetable and crop production (as evidenced by the substantial growth in

commercial farming recorded). Mixed results were however noted for the activities implemented for the purpose of

enhancing livestock productivity, such as the establishment of Rangeland Management and Monitoring Committees

(RMMCs), and the PPA found little evidence of increase in herding productivity or herders’ income. In this regard, a

key lesson learned is that the assumption that rich households would participate in the necessary collective action,

such as pasture management, without being targeted by the project (and therefore not receiving commensurate

benefits), did not hold true. Also, the PPA pointed out that the notion of “carrying capacity” that was at the heart of the

concept of sustainable rangeland management has in fact little meaning in highly variable environments, pasture

production being largely determined by random events (such as frost episodes). As for prospects of sustainability,

they appear reasonable only for the health and education services, since their delivery was taken over by the Ministry

of Education and Health.

1. Underlying assumptions . IFAD should clarify the issues around grazing ecosystem functioning – for

example carrying capacity and overgrazing - which are relevant to project design and objectives.

2. Herder institutions. The RMMCs created by the project are still weak. Their status needs to be clarified

and plans for future institutional development decided and discussed with herders.

3. Targeting. The nature and methods of targeting in a pastoral environment need to be clarified.

4. Risk management. IFAD should in future projects in the pastoral domain ensure that a comprehensive

risk management strategy is included as a key project component

Sri Lanka

Impact

Evaliation

The evaluation found that the project design was originally relevant, but subsequent efforts to realign some design

features – such as a sharpened focus on high-value crops and on market linkages – made it even more pertinent.

Although the quality of implementation was not always up to expectations, the project was found broadly effective

and had an impressive outreach (at least 120,000 households supported against an appraisal target of 80,000

households). The lack of baseline data and of a control group, as well as issues with the quality of M&E data,

impeded the quantification of project impact but there are indications that the project has had, overall, a positive

impact on farmers’ skills and the modernization of agricultural practices, with more nuanced results in terms of

income increase. It also included many innovative features, while contributing to the development of grassroots

networks of Water Users’ Associations and Producers’ Groups, in many of which women held the positions of

president, secretary or treasurer. Although the evaluation found strong elements for post-project sustainability, a

follow-up phase was nevertheless recommended in order to consolidate results and in recognition of the fact that

pioneering interventions (in particular the Farmers’ Field School approach that is new to the country context), require

sustained support over many years.

1. Need for a follow-up phase and advocacy from IFAD

2. A more selective project format is required, revisiting several components and concepts.

3. Continued advocacy on policy issues.

4. Project commitments need to be honoured.

5. Better accuracy and quality control in M&E data is required.

6. Selected methodological considerations for future similar work at IFAD.

7. Timing of the survey.


Appendix 11: Action Plan for Improving Portfolio Performance

24


Generic country issues Project affected Recommended follow-up Responsibility Target date

Afghanistan

InsecurityRMLSP, CLAP

Focusing in areas where insecurity, and/or the risk of insecurity, is lower than the rural average. Country programme team and

Governmentongoing

Inadequate performance of contracted service

providersRMLSP

Performance-based parameters in service provider contracts over the extension will be

considered

Country programme team and

Government

During the contracts'

extension negotiations

Weak project financial managementRMLSP

Ongoing process of capacity building of project/MAIL staff in financial management MAIL, supported by country

programmeongoing

Limited prospects for sustainabilityRMLSP

Organise gradual handover of activities from service providers to MAIL and community

organisations as appropriateMAIL, supported by country

programme

During the project extension

phase

Implementation delaysRMLSP, CLAP

IFAD to accelerate its review and clearance of processes and documents (service provider

contracts, PIM, procurement reviews, etc) in accordance with stipulated guidelinesCountry programme team Urgent priority

Bangladesh

There is a need to strengthen exchange and

learning within the Country Programme All

Continuation of country programme team meetings, involving all PDs and issue-based

specialists; Organisation of workshop with all stakeholders to discuss COSOP review;

strengthen utilization of regional grants to build capacity and strengthen network between

projects; recruit CPO.

CPM, CPO On-going/ December 2014

There is a need to reduce start-up and

implementation delays CALIP, CDSPIV

Follow up proactively with GoB on DPP revisionsPMU, CPM, CPO July 2014

There is a need to strengthen financial

management capacity of projects All, particularly HILIPImplementation support through financial management specialist; close follow up on any issues

identified during supervision through CFS CPM, CFS On-going/ December 2014

There is a need to enhance IFAD visibility in

BangladeshAll

Continue country programme newsletter, IFADAsia and blogs; further strengthen KM Community

of practice among projects; utilize opportunities, such as project start up and completion, for pro-

active communications activities; utilize events by other donors to showcase IFAD experience

(such as UN Days)

CPM, KM Officer On-going/ December 2014

Bhutan

Improved Financial ManagementMAGIP Orient Dzongkhag/district finance staff on IFAD’s fiduciary aspects; Ensure timely audit for MAGIP. CPO & CPM + PCU MAGIP November 2014

Knowledge Management

MAGIPOne KM orientation event for key project staff of MAGIP; At least 2 case studies on good practices

from any component of intervention; Improved usage of IFADAsia web portal by project.CPO & CPM +PCU MAGIP December 2014

Improving Gender MainstreamingMAGIP

Improved gender disaggregated data from project results and at least 2 case studies on gender

related project impacts.CPO & CPM + PCU MAGIP December 2014

Implementation Support MissionMAGIP

Carry out implementation support mission to MAGIP; Review the status/progress of action taken

on the recommendations of the last supervision. CPO & CPM April 2014

Supervision Mission MAGIP

Ensure timely supervision for MAGIP; Ensure senior mission leaders for supervision and some

continuity of consultants.CPO & CPM November 2014

Strengthening programme management

capacityMAGIP

Capacity building / exposure visits for the programme coordination unit (PCU) of MAGIP;

Ensure/facilitate participation of PCU in the various capacity/ cluster events organised by IFAD.CPO & CPM + PCU MAGIP December 2014

Annual Outcome Survey and RIMS ReportMAGIP

Facilitate successful conduct and submission of report for AOS 2013; Facilitate timely

submission of Annual RIMS Report.CPO & CPM May 2014

APR Portfolio Performance Report - Main Report and Appendices Annual Review July 2013- June 2014 Appendix 11: Action Plan for Improving Portfolio Performance

25


Cambodia

Delays in implementation of TSSPTonle Sap Smallholder

Project

Implementation of the interim measure to ensure that a significant number of LIGs can receive

training and funds to undertake activities for the upcoming wet season of 2014. It is thus

proposed that these activities be ‘kick-started’ in order to get the LIG Mentoring contract finalized,

by providing financial training to the CEWs and supporting the collaboration with the LIGs. The

training should be focused on: (i) prepare and discuss the Group Internal Rule / Group Status,

including how they decide interest rates and borrowing scheme; (ii) open a group account; (iii)

appraise the training needs; (iv) prepare loan proposals; (v) appraise loan proposals with the

participation of the co-liability group members; (vi) agree on administration cost of the group

leader and their fees; and (vii) Group Revolving Fund recording.

NCDD April 2014

Need to improve M&E, learning and knowledge

management through coordinated approach

TSSP, PADEE, ASPIRE and

AIMS

ASPIRE design to include provision for coordinating M&E and knowledge management across all

RB-COSOP programmes.ASPIRE design team Mid-2014

Need to move towards Programme Based

Approach and strengthen partnership and

alignment with RGC and development partner

programmes

TSSP, PADEE, ASPIRE and

AIMS

ASPIRE explicitly to prepare for PBA in extension sub-sector and to trial programmatic elements

including programme budgeting, coordination of knowledge management and M&E and

strengthening and deepening of partnerships. Some programmatic features will include

coordination with on-going projects (mainly PADEE).

CPMT and project teamsMid-2014 for design of

ASPIRE; on-going process

China

Low disbursement rates compared to the

financial achievements reported by the

projects

All projects

Proactive follow up with projects, and provide action and results oriented guidance and training.

Joint review with MOF and adopt program approach to introduce peer and external support PMO/ICO (Han Lei) Continuous

Disbursement driven implementation mindset

leading to inadequate emphasis to project

implementation quality for some componentsDAPRP, YARIP

Projects assisted with reviews to identify inadequacies and mitigations required, and to

exchanges with other successful PMOs to share and learn PMO/ICO Continuous

Inadequate attention to M&E and reporting,

especially at county and levels belowMRDP, DAPRP,YARIP,

GIADP

Capacity building through cross project learning and community of practice among IFAD projects;

Develop M&E operational guideline; Standardize logframe, RIMS and M&E forms of all projects

following country program approach

PMO/ICO (Liu Ke) By October 2014

Limited knowledge capturing and sharing at

country program and project levelsAll projects

Development KM action plan at country and project level and conduct activities to increase

dissemination of KM products; and provide training and capacity building for PMOsPMO/IFAD (Liu Ke) By December 2014

Project Specific Issues

Slow progress at project start upYARIP, SSADeP

Intensified counselling from ICO;Training of CPMO staff by the provincial PMO;

coordination with MOFPMO-ICO (Sun) Continuous

Low capacity of PMOs and IAs staffDAPRP, YARIP, SSADeP

Capacity building in planning and management for PMOs and module implementation modalities

for implementing agencies.PMOs/IVO December 2014

Limited capturing of outcome results of project GIADP, IMARRAP, MRDP,

DAPRP

RIMS + survey be expanded to incorporate additional indicators to capture outcome informationPMO/ICO (Liu Ke) By September 2014

Limited comprehension of module/activity

strategies affects effectiveness DAPRP, YARIP,

Capacity building to IAs and PMOs through counselling and exchange visitsIFAD/PMO By 31 Dec 2014

India

Poor Financial Management

All projects

FM consultant to be recruited for all JRMs; CFS to provide close follow-up on FM; Procurement

specialist to be recruited on retainer contract to advise on no-objections to procurement actions;

Periodic FM training events organized for project FM staff.

Sriram Subramanium to monitor

this from the India Country Office

(ICO). Claudio Mainella to

monitor from HQ.

December 2014

Persistent problem projects

ILSP, WELP

Provide Implementation Support where needed; Critically assess performance during JRM and

make recommendations regarding future of the project; Discuss with DEA and the state

government about the plan for taking the projects out of problem category, and partial

cancellation/reallocation if necessary.

ICO December 2014



26


India

Insufficient KM and knowledge sharing within

and between projects and outside. All projects

JRMs to follow up action taken by the project for implementing KM strategies; 2 newsletters

prepared by ICO with inputs from projects; On going capacity support for project KM staff by ICO;

Better loans-grants synergies.

ICO to lead December 2014

Frequent rotation of Project Directors

Most projects

Where possible negotiate with state government to provide additional charge of the projects to the

PDs in case they are transferred; have full time competent APDs recruited from the open market

with competitive salary packages.

ICO to monitor this December 2014

Low disbursement rates All projects

In-country assistance from ICO in processing high quality of Withdrawal Applications, and

frequent follow-up with projects. Sriram Subramanium in ICO December 2014

Large size of on-going country programme (10

ongoing projects) and some two-state projects

leads to very low unit costs for JRMs.

All projects (in particular

WELP and TRWEP)

Process fewer larger loans covering only one state. Two loans per PBAS cycle instead of three.

CPM December 2014

Indonesia

There is increased demand for IFAD support

and services in Indonesia. There are

opportunities to strengthen the performance of

the ongoing country programme and also

deepen the level of upstream engagement and

policy level assistance.

All projects

Establishment of IFAD Office in Indonesia; IFAD to hold 3 country country programme

management team meetings in 2014; Support strengthening National Steering Committee in

Indonesia; Formalize agreements with universities to assist in building in-country network

support for country programme.IFAD CPM/ CPO December 2014

Procurement has been a challenging area for

the IFAD country programme and is a sensitive

area for Government. In 2011, the GoI issued a

new procurement decree to which IFAD has

made significant attempts to align with.

However, capacity remains low.

All projects

Procurement specialist to be retained to support procurement activities under the IFAD portfolio.

IFAD to continue to liaise with LKPP (National Procurement Authority) to discuss procurement

issues and harmonisation with IFAD. Procurement technical specifications developed as a part of

AWPB process

IFAD CPM/ CPO coordinating

CPMT December 2014

As an ambitious middle income country,

Indonesia is seeking a different partnership

and cooperation with IFAD based on

knowledge innovation and learning This

necessitates that IFAD raise its profile and

management of knowledge in the country.

All projects

Development of IFAD partnership and resource mobilization strategy for Indonesia. Allocation of

professional IFAD HQ based staff to manage strategy. Continue implementation of KM Strategy

for country programme with enhanced focus on developing media links. Develop various

knowledge products for country programme. Further develop dissemination approach for policy

studies under READ

IFAD CPM/ CPO coordinating

CPMT December 2014

The quality of project management is a key

determinant of overall project performance.

The quality of project management is variable

and needs additional support from IFAD

All projects

Retain local technical assistance as project management advisors for each of IFAD’s ongoing

proejcts. The establishment of an IFAD office in Indonesia will facilitate closer communication

and assistance with the country programme. IFAD CPM/ CPO December 2014

Indonesia is interested in partnership with

IFAD based on development cooperation and

knowledge. As in the past IFAD’s performance

has been below par, more intensive technical

support and guidance from IFAD is required

and expected to ensure delivery of results.

All projects

IFAD to continue practice of conducting 2 full missions undertaken for each project in 2014 (one

full joint review and one follow up mission). The establishment of an IFAD office in Indonesia will

facilitate closer communication and assistance with the country programme. IFAD CPM/ CPO coordinating

CPMT December 2014

Laos

Poor Financial Management All projectsFM consultant to be recruited for all supervision missions in 2014. Periodic FM training events or

ad hoc support from CFS organized for project FM staff.CPM, CPO, CFS December 2014

Insufficient KM All projectsPeriodic KM events (at least once a year) and recruitment of KM officers under new projects.

Systematic collection and dissemination of good practices. CPM and CPO December 2014

Limited capacity in M&E and data quality and

availabilityAll projects

Periodic implementation support missions on M&E. Support will be provided to the Programme

Management Division of MAF through an IFAD-FAO initiativeCPM, CPO, FAO December 2013


27


Laos

Limited capacity in M&E and data quality and

availabilityAll projects

Periodic implementation support missions on M&E. Support will be provided to the Programme

Management Division of MAF through an IFAD-FAO initiativeCPM, CPO, FAO December 2013

Too many projects All projects

In 2014 there are 4 on-going projects. These projects are covering Northern Laos and Southern

Laos. The strategy for Laos is to shift from a project-based approach to a country programme

approach (less projects and bigger programmes)

CPM and CPO December 2017

Low Disbursement rates SSSJ and FNML projects Support from CFS and FM consultants on AWPB and WAs preparation and submission. CPM and CPO, CFS On-going

Staff turnover Potentially allFacilitate LPAs to expedite the recruitment process for vacant posts, and to explore options such

waivers on service years for good performing staffIFAD country team Ongoing

Maldives

M&E system FADIP, MEDEPM&E system becomes functional, resuming the use of M&E database and strengthened field data collection and analysis.PIU/MoFA, with IFAD country

team supportFebruary 2014 & ongoing

KM FADIP, MEDEPA KM strategy is developed and implemented.

PIU/MoFAFebruary 2014, with

implementation ongoing

Project planning MEDEP An overall implementation plan is developed for all the project activities delineating the sequence among activities to improve the effectiveness of planning.PIU/MoFA From April 2014

Mongolia

Recruitment of a team of individual value chain

experts to provide support and services for the

implementation of the Market Development

Component (covering value chain

development, small enterprise development,

loan guarantee schemes).

PMPMD Review of the TORs for individual consultants and RFPs. PMU and IFAD Completed in October 2013

Recruitment of one service provider for pasture

management and one for women groups for

enterprise development.

PMPMD Review of the TORs for individual consultants and RFPs. PMU and IFAD Completed in February 2014

On-lending of the USD 500 000 credit line to

participating bank to provide access for the

PMPMD target group members to financial

services.

PMPMD Implementation support MOF Completed in April 2014.

Making arrangements for the financing of the

operations of the Loan Guarantee Facility

under MOF for sustainability.

PMPMD MTR Mission MOF and IFAD July 2014

A comprehensive review of the project

performance and preparation of a roadmap for

the remaining 2 years for project

implementation

PMPMD MTR Mission MOF and IFAD July 2014

Nepal

Weak Project Management All projectsImprovements in financial management, M&E and KM of the project management team through

appointment of key technical staff at the Joint Programme Support Unit - Sahayatri

CPO/APO/Projects, CPO/CPM,

CPM/CPO

May 2014, Ongoing,

Ongoing

Fully implement selected accounting software; CPO/Projects July 2014

FM training event to be organized for all FM staff; CPM/CPO August 2014

FM consultant to be recruited for all supervision missions; CPO/CPM Ongoing

Make sure CPISU financial manager is operational. CPM/CPO December 2014

Ensure continuity of consultants (national and international) in the missions. CPM/CPO December 2014

Plan implementation support and follow up mission every 3 months to monitor the status of

projects and intervene immediately in case of problemsCPM/CPO Ongoing

Weak Financial Management

All projects

Implementation Support and Follow up

missionAll projects



28


Nepal

Engage in dialogue with the government to fulfil all (government) positions; Continuous

Ensure all contracted positions are timely filled up;

Increase the use of national technical assistance positions; July 2014

Ensure project staff performance and regular evaluations. Continuous

Improve Sahayatri role in policy dialogue with Government and partners; January-July 2014

Establish a common library for Knowledge Sharing September 2014

Effective functioning of CPMT for knowledge sharing and problem solving. Ongoing

Pacific Islands

Poor planning and Reporting, including

difficulty in preparing AWPB, late audit reports,

late progress reports

Tonga, TRIP; Fiji, PHVA;

Kiribati, Outer Islands

Implementation support from CPO, explore opportunities for training, timely TA in Kiribati project

start-up, On-the-job training, Tonga ICO, CPMJuly 2014, Kiribati, Fiji,

September 2014 Tonga

Concern over likelihood of continued benefits

and institutions after external assistance ends

SPC regional POETCom,

PIFON in MTCP 2

Exploration of options with implementing agencies, possible development of capacity building

technical assistance project w/ supplementary funds. CPM, Follow up during Fiji design

missions Nov/Dec 2014

Frequent natural disasters, constant threat to

agriculture and the environment posed by

climate change

Solomon Islands RDP 2,

Fiji, FAPP

Incorporation of provisions for coping with natural disasters and specific measures for adaptation

in agriculture to climate change in all new project designs CPM, CPOSolomon Islands, Dec 2014,

Fiji April 2015

Increase level of contact and networking with fellow donors. More frequent consultations with

Pacific governmentsICO to lead , support by CPM July 2014 – June 2015

Engage with WB in response to GOT and WB request for collaboration in Tonga sector plan CPM, ICO, technical advisors tbc July/August 2014

Engage with govt of Fiji on possible multi-donor facility for micro-states APR Director, CPM September 2014

Philippines

The RaFPEP/IRPEP top up financing agreement has not been countersigned by the government

since September 2012, which seriously delayed the project implementation. If not signed by end

of June 2014, IFAD will initiate possible cancellation of the top up financing.

CPM, CPO, DA, BFAR and DAR By 30 June 2014.

Constantly follow-up with NEDA on the government review and approval of the two pipeline

projects of FishCORAL and Converge.CPM, CPO, PA, DA By 31 July 2014.

Assist DA/BFAR on the FishCORAL documentation for DA Tech Com review and NEDA ICC

review.CPM, CPO and DA/BFAR By 31 July 2014.

Coordinate with NEDA and DAR in the review of CONVERGE feasibility studies for timely approval

by NEDA BoardCPM, CPO and DAR By 31 July 2014.

Closely coordinate with SSD, RuMEPP and pool of consultants for the timely conduct of RuMEPP

impact studyCPO Beginning January 2014

Guide RuMEPP to prepare a project completion report reflecting outcomes and impact should the

SSD assisted impact study will not be delivered on timeCPM/CPO June/July 2014

Assist CHARMP2 and RaFPEP/IRPEP in the conduct of their outcome studies CPO Beginning 3rd quarter 2014

RuMEPP to include in its report sustainability measures in the PCR. RuMEPP PMU June/July 2014

CHARMP2 to submit its exit strategy to IFAD for review by end of October 2014 CHARMP2 PSO End of October 2014

Closely monitor projects’ timely withdrawal applications and IFAD disbursement CPA, CPO, CPM, PA Beginning January 2014

Follow-up IFAD CFS on the timely processing of withdrawal applications and the projects’

compliance to CFS clarification and further documentation requirementCPA, CPO, CPM, PA Beginning January 2014

High turnover and vacant project staff positions

All projects

Joint Programme Support Unit /Sahayatri

OfficeWUPAP,HVAP and ISFP

CPO

CPO/APO

Need for further pipeline development for 2016-

2019 and better donor coordination

All portfolio

Expediting processing of Withdrawal

Application CHARMP2,

RaFPEP/IREP/HARP,

INREMP

Delayed government processing

Top up financing

RaFPEP/IRPEP,

CONVERGE and

FishCORAL

Timely reporting on project outcomes and

impactRuMEPP, CHARMP2,

RaFPEP/IRPEP, grant

projects

Sustainability Planning RuMEPP, CHARMP2


29


Pakistan

Security situation Portfolio Keep low profile and consider the local sensitivities CPMT/GoP On-going

Delays in start-up Portfolio Follow up with GoP & provincial authorities and provide Implementation support CPMT/GoP On-going

Implementing capacity of partners PortfolioEnsure appropriate adaptive measures and technologies and (b) provide additional support to

project for adaptationCPMT/GoP On-going

Financial management and Knowledge

Management Portfolio Provision of FM and KM support to projects/programmes and at the country programme level CPMT On-going

Non-compliance of rigorous targeting criteria

by projects and investment modalities for food

insured segments

PortfolioMissions to review result-based progress reports and Implementation Support & Supervision

Follow-upsCPMT/GoP On-going

Macro-economic instability Portfolio

Ensure continued political and institutional support; (b) ensure that project initiatives are owned

by local stakeholders and that these partners are not being forced to participate; & (c) ensure the

appointment of competent project management teams.

CPMT/GoP On-going

Sri Lanka

ICO office space Country programme Establish physical ICO in Colombo IFAD (APR & FSU) December 2014

M&E SPENDP, NADEP & IIDP Support M&E system development (NADEP & IIDP), & capacity building (all) IFAD country team support Ongoing

KM SPENDP, NADEP & IIDP Develop good KM products and project news bulletins

SPENDP NPCU, NADEP PMU &

IIDP PMO, with country team

support

Ongoing

Staff turnover Potentially allFacilitate LPAs to expedite the recruitment process for vacant posts, and to explore options such

waivers on service years for good performing staffIFAD country team Ongoing

Viet Nam

Enhancing Policy Impact: the Link between

Project Experience, Government and PartnersAll projects

Improve connection between central level policy dialogue/national programmes, IFAD projects

focus the policy messages around the market-based agriculture for poverty reduction approach

and public-private partnership (PPP) approach (More concrete...)

Country Programme Team Continuous

Using Knowledge Management for Impact All projectsCo-ordinate and oversee enhanced production and dissemination of communication and

advocacy materials, including brochures, posters, pamphlets, and press releases;Country Programme Team Continuous

Resources' permitting improve

implementation follow up All projects

Ensure a pool of expertise on strategic areas for the country programme; (To be more developed

later by office meeting) Country Programme Team Continuous

APR Portfolio Performance Report - Annexes Annual Review July 2013- June 2014

ANNEXES

TABLES 1 - 15


1

Table 1: CFS Project fiduciary risk rating

Country Project

IDLoan/DSF

TI corruption

index-2013

RSP Score

E(ii)/2013

Project

Fiduciary

Risk @

Design

Project

Financial Risk @

Implementation

Audit Report

Assessment-2013

Financial Report

Assessment-2013

PSR

Fiduciary

Rating

2012/2013

PSR

Fiduciary

Rating

2013/2014

2013/2014

Quality of

FM only

(PSR)

Project

Fiduciary Risk

rating as @

June 2014

Afghanistan 1460 8033 0.80 2.81 Medium Risk Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.00 3.8 3.0 Medium Risk

Afghanistan 1637 8112 0.80 2.81 Medium Risk Medium Risk - - na 3.7 4.0 medium Risk

Bangladesh 1165 567 2.70 3.13 Low Risk Satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 5.00 5.3 5.0 Low Risk

Bangladesh 1322 681 2.70 3.13 Low Risk Mostly satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 5.00 4.8 5.0 Low Risk

Bangladesh 1402 725 2.70 3.13 Low Risk Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.00 5.5 5.0 Low Risk

Bangladesh 1355 739 2.70 3.13 Medium Risk Mostly satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 4.00 4.2 4.0 Medium Risk

Bangladesh 1466 786&808 2.70 3.13 Medium Risk - - 4.00 3.7 4.0 Medium Risk

Bangladesh 1537 807 2.70 3.13 Medium Risk Satisfactory Highly satsifactory 3.00 4.2 4.0 Medium Risk

Bangladesh 1585 847 2.70 3.13 Medium Risk - - 4.00 4.3 4.0 Medium Risk

Bhutan 1482 824 6.30 5.00 Low Risk Mostly satisfactory Satisfactory 4.00 4.0 5.0 Medium Risk

Cambodia 1464 793&8048 2.00 3.19 - - 4.00 3.8 4.0 Medium Risk

Cambodia 1350862,8005,

8005A2.00 3.19 Medium Risk - - 4.00 3.8 4.0 Medium Risk

Cambodia 1559 870&8101 2.00 3.19 Low Risk Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.00 4.5 4.0 Medium Risk

China 1323 709 4.00 3.75 Medium Risk - - 4.00 4.8 4.0 Low Risk

China 1400 740 4.00 3.75 Medium Risk - - 4.00 4.8 5.0 Medium Risk

China 1454 766 4.00 3.75 Medium Risk Mostly satisfactory Partially satisfactory 3.00 4.2 4.0 High Risk



China 1629 885 4.00 3.75 Medium Risk - - na 4.0 5.0 Medium Risk

China 1699 2000000431 4.00 3.75 Medium Risk - - na na na Medium Risk

India 1155 585&585-GB 3.60 3.88 Medium Risk Mostly satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 4.00 4.5 5.0 Medium Risk

India 1348 662&691 3.60 3.88 Medium Risk Partially satisfactory Partially satisfactory 3.00 3.8 4.0 Medium Risk

India 1314682 MP&682

MH3.60 3.88 Medium Risk Satisfactory Partially satisfactory 3.00 4.2 4.0 Medium Risk

India 1381 710 3.60 3.88 Low Risk Mostly satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 3.00 3.0 3.0 Medium Risk

India 1418 748 3.60 3.88 Medium Risk Mostly satisfactory Partially satisfactory 3.00 3.7 4.0 Medium Risk

India 1470 779 3.60 3.88 Low Risk Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.00 3.3 3.0 Low Risk

India 1040 444&794 3.60 3.88 Low Risk Satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 4.00 4.5 4.0 Low Risk

India 1617 856 3.60 3.88 Medium Risk Medium Risk - - 4.00 3.2 4.0 Medium Risk

India 1649 879 3.60 3.88 Medium Risk - - na 3.8 4.0 Medium Risk

India 1715 LAMP 3.60 3.88 Medium Risk - - na na na Medium Risk


2

Country Project

IDLoan/DSF

TI corruption

index-2013

RSP Score

E(ii)/2013

Project

Fiduciary

Risk @

Design

Project

Financial Risk @

Implementation

Audit Report

Assessment-2013

Financial Report

Assessment-2013

PSR

Fiduciary

Rating

2012/2013

PSR

Fiduciary

Rating

2013/2014

2013/2014

Quality of

FM only

(PSR)

Project

Fiduciary Risk

rating as @

June 2014

Indonesia 1258 645&726 3.20 3.88 Medium Risk Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.00 4.0 4.0 Medium Risk

Indonesia 1341 755 3.20 3.88 Medium Risk - - 3.00 4.3 3.0 Medium Risk

Indonesia 1509 835 3.20 3.88 High Risk - - 4.00 3.8 4.0 High Risk

Indonesia 1621 880 3.20 3.88 Low Risk NA - - 4.00 4.2 4.0 Medium Risk

Laos 1301 660/8082&781 2.60 3.06 High Risk - - 4.00 4.7 4.0 High Risk

Laos 1396 711 2.60 3.06 - - 5.00 4.8 5.0 Medium Risk

Laos 1459 8025 2.60 3.06 - - 4.00 4.3 4.0 Medium Risk

Laos 1608 8089 2.60 3.06 Medium Risk - - 4.00 3.8 4.0 Medium Risk

Laos 1680G-I-DSF-8117-

LA2.60 3.06 - - 4.0 4.0

Maldives 1347 663&692&783 2.69 Medium Risk - - 5.00 4.5 5.0 Medium Risk

Maldives 1377 726 2.69 Medium Risk Mostly satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 4.00 3.3 3.0 Medium Risk

Maldives 1624 8104 2.69 Medium Risk - - na 4.5 4.0 Medium Risk

Mongolia 1455 836 3.80 2.88 Low Risk Mostly satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 4.00 3.8 4.0 Medium Risk

Myanmar 2.10 2.88 High Risk - - na na na High Risk

Nepal 1119 8010&576 3.10 2.88 High Risk Partially satisfactory Partially satisfactory 2.00 4.0 4.0 High Risk

Nepal 1285 646 3.10 2.88 High Risk - - 3.00 3.7 4.0 High Risk

Nepal 1471 796NP,

DSF8050 3.10 2.88 Medium Risk Mostly satisfactory Satisfactory 5.00 4.3 5.0 Medium Risk

Nepal 1450

8014 DSF top

up DSF 8809

and loan 887

3.10 2.88 Medium Risk Mostly satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 5.00 3.7 4.0 Medium Risk

Nepal 1602L-I--881-,G-I-

DSF-8106-3.10 2.88 Mostly satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 4.00 3.3 3.0 Medium Risk

Pakistan 1413 727 2.80 3.38 Medium Risk Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.00 5.0 5.0 Medium Risk

Pakistan 1514 825 2.80 3.38 Medium Risk - - 4.00 3.3 3.0 Medium Risk

Pakistan 1515 837 2.80 3.38 Medium Risk - - 4.2 5.0 Medium Risk

Papua New Guinea 1480 809 2.50 2.50 - - 4.00 4.2 4.0 Medium Risk

Philippines 1253 661&782 3.60 3.31 Medium Risk - - 5.00 4.5 4.0 Medium Risk

Philippines 1395 749 3.60 3.31 Medium Risk Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.00 4.7 5.0 Medium Risk

Philippines 1485 767 3.60 3.31 Medium Risk - - 4.00 4.2 4.0 Medium Risk

Philippines 1475 890 3.60 3.31 NA - - 3.7 4.0 Medium Risk

Solomon Islands 1565 8070 3.00 Mostly satisfactory Mostly satisfactory 4.00 4.7 4.0 Medium Risk


3

Country Project

IDLoan/DSF

TI corruption

index-2013

RSP Score

E(ii)/2013

Project

Fiduciary

Risk @

Design

Project

Financial Risk @

Implementation

Audit Report

Assessment-2013

Financial Report

Assessment-2013

PSR

Fiduciary

Rating

2012/2013

PSR

Fiduciary

Rating

2013/2014

2013/2014

Quality of

FM only

(PSR)

Project

Fiduciary Risk

rating as @

June 2014

Sri Lanka 1316 712 3.70 3.56 Medium Risk - - 3.00 3.7 3.0 Medium Risk

Sri Lanka 1457 797 3.70 3.56 Medium Risk - - 2.00 2.7 2.0 High Risk

Sri Lanka 1346 664 & 693 3.70 3.56 Medium Risk - - 4.00 4.2 4.0 Medium Risk

Sri Lanka 1600 857 3.70 3.56 Medium Risk - - 4.00 4.0 4.0 Medium Risk

Timor Leste 1576 8093 3.00 3.06 - - 4.00 4.2 4.0 Medium Risk

Tonga 1628 8099 2.75 Low Risk Highly satisfactory Highly satisfactory 3.00 4.3 5.0 Low Risk

Viet Nam 1422 741 3.10 4.00 Medium Risk - - 4.00 4.5 4.0 Medium Risk

Viet Nam 1477 768 3.10 4.00 Low Risk - - 5.00 4.5 5.0 Low Risk

Viet Nam 1483 810&1200 3.10 4.00 Medium Risk - - 4.00 3.8 4.0 Medium Risk

Viet Nam 1552 826 3.10 4.00 Medium Risk Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.00 4.0 4.0 Medium Risk

Viet Nam 1662

L-I-901-VN,

GIC1458 and

L-E_21-VN

3.10 4.00 Medium Risk - - na 4.0 4.0 Medium Risk

Vietnam 1664

IFAD Loan -

2000000433

and Grant

2000000434

3.10 4.00 Medium Risk - - na na na Medium Risk

Note: The overall f iduciary risk assessment of project includes not only quantitative and qualitative project data but also takes into consideration over context in w hich the project operations( country regulations, capacity /

quality of lead implementing agency)


4

Table 2: Average disbursement processing time (days)

Country 2012/13 2013/14 Variance

AFGHANISTAN 20 31 11

BANGLADESH 13 7 -6

BHUTAN 19 22 3

CAMBODIA 21 25 4

CHINA 17 12 -5

INDIA 17 15 -2

INDONESIA 20 22 2

LAO PDR 11 29 18

MALDIVES 15 43 28

MONGOLIA 41 29 -12

NEPAL 39 42 3

PAKISTAN 20 17 -3

PNG na 28 na

PHILIPPINES 16 17 1

SRI LANKA 17 20 3

TIMOR-LESTE 16 9 -7

TONGA 18 6 -12

VIET NAM 12 33 21

Average 18 22 4


5

Table 3: Inclusive financial services

Inclusive financial services 2011 2012 2013

Nb. of projects Results Nb. of projects Results Nb. of projects Results

Nb. of savings and credit groups formed and strengthened 18 23,387 22 79,164 18 74,875[1]

Nb. of persons in savings and credit groups formed or strengthened 15 213,351 22 975,151 18 1,356,212

Of whom, women: 13 179,023 14 956,493 14 1,211,931

Nb. of savings/credit groups w ith w omen in leadership positions 12 12,257 14 72,267 12 73,471

Nb. of active borrow ers 19 991,963 26 1,023,434 23 1,092,858

Of whom, women: 16 923,577 22 946,782 19 1,005,043

Nb. of voluntary savers 9 294,966 13 1,273,443 16 413,929

Of whom, women: 9 218,550 11 1,167,285 14 278,987

Nb. of active borrow ers (enterprises) 3 165,472 3 20,856

Nb. of apex organizations formed or strengthened 5 136 5 127 6 151

[1] As per RIMS on-line data, this figure includes 68,538 credit and savings groups for the

project India-1314 alone.

[1] As per RIMS on-line data, this figure includes 68,538 credit and savings groups for the project India-1314 alone.

Table 4: Empowerment and social capital

Empowerment and social capital Nb. of projects 2013 Results

Nb. of community groups formed or strengthened 13 2,125

Nb. of community groups w ith w omen in leadership positions 6 887

Nb. of community w orkers or volunteers trained 8 18,440

Nb. of drinking water systems constructed or rehabilitated 13 907

Nb. of groups managing social infrastructure formed or strengthened 3 620

Nb. of groups managing social infrastructure w ith w omen in leadership positions 2 608

Nb. of persons in community groups formed or strength. 14 40,912

Nb. of persons trained in community management topics 15 91,081


6

Table 5: Agricultural Technologies and Production Services

Table 6: Natural Resources

Natural Resources 2011 2012 2013


Nb. of groups involved in NRM formed/strengthened 7 749 9 918 7 827

Nb. of persons in NRM groups formed/strengthened 6 10,593 8 19,281 5 17,849

Nb. of NRM groups w ith w omen in leadership positions 2 21 6 150 3 65

Nb. of persons trained in NRM 6 9,072 12 8,288 11 19,914

Of whom, women 5 3,957 10 2,641 4 5,490

Nb. of environmental management plans formulated 5 1,785 4 185 4 464

Nb. of ha of common property resources under improved management practices 2 11,839 2 4,438 2 32,109

Nb. of ha. of land under irrigation schemes constructed/rehabilitated 8 5,467 11 12,661 10 2,557

Nb. of f ish ponds constructed/rehabilitated 4 32 6 54 5 130

Nb. of ha of land under improved management practices 12 15,799 14 72,499 8 60,437

Agricultural Technologies and Production Services 2011 2012 2013


Nb. of agricultural or livestock production groups formed or strengthened 2 52 9 380 12 3,037

Nb. of persons in agricultural/livestock production groups 1 386 7 7,710 11 52,121

Of whom, women: 1 386 6 2,949 8 14,697

Nb. of agricultural/livestock production groups w ith w omen in leadership positions 1 20 5 586 5 476

Nb. of persons trained in crop production practices and technologies 24 417,127 30 146,022 31 189,319

Of whom, women: 21 162,080 26 67,593 26 95,286

Nb. of persons trained in f ish production practices and technologies 8 42,740 10 3,199 6 38,946

Of whom, women: 6 8,879 8 1,582 6 22,236

Nb. of persons trained in livestock production practices and technologies 16 53,020 23 51,585 23 68,265

Of whom, women: 15 31,929 20 21,822 22 37,361

Nb. of persons accessing facilitated advisory services 9 30,761 11 50,975 8 36,458

Of whom, women 6 11,576 9 18,244 5 5,993

Nb. of staff of service providers trained 19 14,668 18 2,965 18 5,432

Of whom, women: 12 1,697 16 1,499 15 1,884

Nb. of households receiving animals from distribution/restocking 7 37,811 8 5,549 12 11,580

Nb. of households receiving facilitated animals health services 7 21,855 7 43,041 7 26,946


7

Table 7: Markets

Markets 2011 2012 2013


Nb. of marketing groups formed or strengthened 11 1,427 15 986 19 10,526

Nb. of persons in marketing groups formed or strengthened 7 33,841 10 39,124 15 109,108

Of whom, women: 5 9,674 8 17,416 12 39,266

Nb. of marketing groups w ith w omen in leadership positions 4 23 4 42 6 157

Nb. of groups managing productive infrastructure formed/strengthened 5 135 9 500 11 756

Nb. of groups managing productive infrastructure 3 31,545 6 18,452 8 23,185

Of whom, women: 2 5,157 5 3,834 7 8,211

Nb. of groups managing productive infrastructure w ith w omen in leadership positions 2 5 22 7 584

Nb. of persons trained in post-production, processing or marketing 15 11,313 16 27,922 17 62,927

Of whom, women: 12 4,504 14 17,791 15 30,979

Nb. of market facilities constructed/rehabilitated 11 322 14 138 14 58

Nb. of processing facilities constructed/rehabilitated 5 69 7 91 7 87

Nb. of km. of roads constructed or rehabilitated 15 2,408 19 1,031 24 886

Nb. of persons receiving vocational training 9 45,451 7 49,432 9 96,400

Of whom, women: 7 40,344 6 47,034 7 94,122

Nb. of persons trained in business or entrepreneurship 12 59,271 17 38,830 17 34,187

Of whom, women: 8 54,678 11 30,351 11 8,068

Nb. of enterprises accessing facilitated f inancial services 9 156,960 12 125,746 9 84,405

Nb. of enterprises accessing facilitated non-financial services 7 8,649 7 8,116 8 15,998


8

Table 8: Examples of innovative project features

Cambodia

KHM-1559: The project includes a small country grant funded by Republic of Korea to pilot the use of digital technology by commune Extension

Workers and Farm Business Advisors in order to enhance the quality of extension services. The project is also introducing the “Parachute Rice”, a

new technology in the country context that w ill prevent back-pain by rice farmers and increases yields.

China

In the new ly designed CHM--1699 and CHN-1701 projects, a guarantee fund w as introduced to leverage liquidity from commercial banks to lend to

beneficiary households and agribusinesses w hich w ere so far constrained by collateral requirements for normal lending. The special support to

agribusinesses to forge linkages w ith target beneficiaries is also an innovative approach in the Chinese context.

Indonesia IDN-1621: This new project w ill introduce an innovative, sustainable market-based approach for engaging in poor coastal communities.

Maldives MDV-1347: The project funded the development of the boat building code, w hich w as made available on the MOFA w ebsite for easy access.

MongoliaMNG-1455: The PMPMD w ill pilot loan guarantees as an instrument for providing access to f inance and leveraging other sources of f inancial services

from participating banks to provide f inancial services for smallholders.

NepalA project-level Management Information System (MIS) system using information technologies (Android-driven tablet-based system) has started on a

pilot basis.

PNG

Papua New Guinea: The innovative partnership arrangements betw een traders and smallholders in Papua New Guinea has been very strong and

continues to grow and hold promise; the government is engaged to borrow more IFAD and WB resources to as much as double the initial investments

to expand this approach to more producers.

Timor-LesteTLS-1628: The project is supporting local communities in raising on their ow n financing from various sources (remittances, tourism) for the financing

of Community Development Plans.

Sri LankaLKA-1316 project is piloting models for the diversif ication of smallholder production w hile other projects are piloting partnerships w ith the private

sector for the provision of marketing facilities or the establishment of forw ard sales or buy-back contracting.

Examples of innovative project features


9

Table 9: GEF projects and achievements

Country /

RegionProject Current Status and Achievements

ASEAN

(Regional)

Rehabilitation and sustainable use of peatlands in

South-East Asia (APFP)

The project w as implemented in the ASEAN countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Viet

Nam over the course of 5.5 years. GEF funding of US$4.3 million led to the improvement of

institutional framew orks and capacities of government, local authorities, and farmers through the

development of National Action Plans on Peatland Management; establishment of a fire danger

rating system and early w arning; promotion of sustainable agro-forestry; local community

engagement in demonstration sites for peatland management; and production of detailed peatland

maps at country level. Currently, IFAD, the ASEAN Secretariat and Global Environment Centre

(GEC) are preparing a second phase for the implementation of the ASEAN Sustainable

Management of Peatland Ecosystems 2014-2020 initiative.

Viet NamSustainable forest and land management in the

Viet Nam Uplands

This project had GEF funds of US$0.65 million and w as closed on 30 June 2014. Albeit a small

envelope of GEF funds, this project w as able to achieve the follow ing successes: forest

certif icates w ere issued to 7, 773 households covering 23,810 ha; 80 community forest

management plans w ere prepared the adjacent villages; reforestation using native species w as

undertaken; and successful implementation of a payment for environmental services initiative for

improving ecosystem functions and services of Ba Be Lake.

Sri LankaParticipatory coastal zone restoration in the

Eastern Province

This project has a GEF allocation of US$6.9 million and the follow ing have been achieved to date:

an Ecosystem Restoration and Adaptation Unit has been established; a biodiversity profile of

pigeon island w as developed; boundary marking of 1000 ha of Kinya mangrove forest and 30 km

of lagoon reservation at Vakarai w ere completed; solid w aste management practices w ere

adopted in Kinya; 11183 coconut and 1000 cashew trees have been planted. Currently the

disbursement rate is 36% but it is anticipated that subsequent to the conclusion of the planning

phase in 2014, larger outlays of funds over the next 32 months w ill increase disbursement.

ChinaIEM approach to the conservation of biodiversity

in dryland ecosystems

This is a 5-year GEF project w ith a GEF allocation of US$ 4.5 million and w ill be completed by April

2016. Major achievements to date include: designation of 1 national protected area; 25 Village

Development Environmental Plans under implementation; 14700 ha of natural grasses restored; and

alternative income generation from medicinal herbs, mushroom and biogas for buffer zone

communities. The disbursement rate of the GEF reached slightly less than US$40% by the MTR in

July 2014 (mostly due to the slow project start up and financial management arrangement

diff iculties in Shanxi Province) but implemented 76% project activities.

MongoliaProject for Market and Pasture Management

Development (PMPMD)

This is the first fully blended IFAD loan and GEF project in APR w ith US1.5 M GEF funds and US$

11.5 M IFAD Loan; it is slated for completion in March 2017. Progress assessed by the MTR include

the formation of 120 Pasture Herder Groups (PHG); 1640 PHG members trained for pasture

management; 29 soum officers trained in animal health and breeding; 900 herders trained for

index-based livestock insurance; 43 young and poor herders trained in vocational training; 15

w inter shelters built; and 2 fodder storage and hay shelter constructed.


10

Table 10: ASAP project focus and activities

Country Project Focus Activities

Bangladesh

(Additional

financing)

ASAP :

US$ 15 million

PBAS:

US$ 55 million

Climate Adaptation and

Livelihood Improvement

Project (CALIP)

CALIP focuses on building

resilience of communities by

developing early w arning systems,

protective infrastructure and

diversifying income sources

The follow ing activities are the focus: f lash flood

early w arning system, robust infrastructure to

w ithstand annual f loods, diversif ied food

production systems, and climate sensitive pro-

poor policy dialogue that strengthens local

access, control and management of natural

resources

Viet Nam

(Fully-blended)

ASAP:

US$15 million

PBAS:

US$ $22 m

Climate Change

Adaptation in the Mekong

Delta (AMD)

AMD seeks to build the adaptive

capacity of communities,

institutions and smallholder farmers

to help contend w ith predicted

climate change impacts

Activities focus on developing climate-resilient

agricultural systems, salinity-tolerant f ish

varieties, automated salinity monitoring and

forecasting, small-scale community infrastructure

for adaptation, off-farm livelihood opportunities,

and climate-informed provincial level planning.


11

Table 11: Comparison between PSR cores and PPA scores

Assessment criteria PSR PPA Dif. PSR PPA Dif. PSR PPA Dif. PSR PPA Dif.

Relevance 4 4 5 4 1 4 4 4 5 -1

Effectiveness 5 4 1 5 4 1 4 5 -1 5 5

Efficiency 4 4 5 4 1 4 4 5 5

Project performance 4.3 4 0.3 5 4 1 4 4 4.67 5 -0.33

Households income and assets 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5

Human, social capital and empow erment 5 4 1 5 4 1 4 4 4 5 -1

Food security and agricultural productivity 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5

Natural resources, environment and climate change 4 3 1 5 4 1 na na 4 4

Institutions and policies 4 3 1 5 4 1 4 4 5 5

Rural poverty impact 4 4 na 4 5 5 5 5

Sustainability 4 3 1 5 3 2 4 5 -1 5 5

Innovation and scaling up 4 4 4 4 4 5 -1 4.5 5 -0.5

Gender equality and w omen's empow erment 5 5 3 5 -2 4 4 5 5

Overall project achievements 4 4 na 4 4 5 -1 5 5

IFAD performance 4 4 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 5

Government performance 4 4 0 5 4 1 4 4 5 5

BGD-1165MNG - 1455 KHM-1261 CHN-1227


12

Table 12: Ongoing projects – list of missions (July 2013 – June 2014)

No. Country Project id Project short name Mission TypeDuration

2013Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Duration

2014Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

1 Afghanistan 1637 CLAP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 7 IS

2 Bangladesh 1165 SCBRMP Supervision Mission 13

3 Bangladesh 1355 NATP CI Implmnt Supprt Mission 12

4 Bangladesh 1355 NATP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 11 IS

5 Bangladesh 1402 FEDEC Supervision Mission 12 SM

6 Bangladesh 1466 PSSWRSP CI Implmnt Supprt Mission 15 IS

7 Bangladesh 1466 PSSWRSP Mid-Term Review 18 MTR

8 Bangladesh 1537 CDSP IV ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 10

9 Bangladesh 1537 CDSP IV Supervision Mission 14 SM

10 Bangladesh 1585 HILIP - CALIP Supervision Mission 17

11 Bhutan 1482 MAGIP Supervision Mission 23 SM

12 Bhutan 1482 MAGIP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 18 IS

13 Cambodia 1350 RULIP Supervision Mission 13

14 Cambodia 1464 TSPRSDP Supervision Mission 15 SM

15 Cambodia 1464 TSPRSDP Supervision Mission 14 SM

16 Cambodia 1559 PADEE Supervision Mission 12 SM

17 Cambodia 1559 PADEE Supervision Mission 12

18 China 1323 MRDP - XUAR Supervision Mission 14 SM

19 China 1400 IMARRAP Supervision Mission 13 SM

20 China 1454 DAPRP Supervision Mission 13 SM

21 China 1555 GIADP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 7 IS

22 China 1555 GIADP Mid-Term Review 15 MTR

23 China 1627 HARIIP Supervision Mission 13 SM

24 China 1627 HARIIP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 6 IS

25 China 1629 YARIP Supervision Mission 14 SM

26 China 1629 YARIP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 6 IS

27 India 1040 NERCOMP Supervision Mission 15 SM

28 India 1155 OTELP Supervision Mission 16

29 India 1314 Tejaswini - MP Supervision Mission 12 SM

30 India 1314 Tejaswini - MH Supervision Mission 12 12 SM

31 India 1348 PT-Tamil Nadu Supervision Mission 16 SM

32 India 1348 PT-Tamil Nadu Supervision Mission 12 SM

33 India 1381 Mid-Gangetic Plains Mid-Term Review 17

34 India 1382 Mid-Gangetic Plains ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 3 IS

35 India 1418 MPOWER Supervision Mission 10 SM

36 India 1470 C-AIM Mid-Term Review 21

37 India 1617 IULSP Supervision Mission 9 9 SM

SM

MTR

MTR

SM

IS

IS

SM

SM

SM


13



Duration


38 Indonesia 1258 READ ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 16 IS

39 Indonesia 1341 PNPM Supervision Mission 12 SM

40 Indonesia 1509 SOLID ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 9

41 Indonesia 1621 CCDP Supervision Mission 11 SM

42 Indonesia 1621 CCDP Supervision Mission 15

43 Laos 1396 NRSLLDP Supervision Mission 15 15

44 Laos 1459 SNRMP Supervision Mission 12 SM

45 Laos 1459 SNRMP Supervision Mission 8 SM

46 Laos 1608 Soum Son Seun Jai Supervision Mission 12 SM

47 Maldives 1347 PT-AFReP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 5 IS

48 Maldives 1347 PT-AFReP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 4 IS

49 Maldives 1377 FADiP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 6

50 Maldives 1377 FADiP Supervision Mission 17 SM

51 Maldives 1377 FADiP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 5 IS

52 Maldives 1377 FADiP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 4 4 IS

53 Maldives 1624 MEDEP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 14 IS IS

54 Maldives 1624 MEDEP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 5 IS

55 Maldives 1624 MEDEP Supervision Mission 15 SM

56 Mongolia 1455 PMPMD ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 6 IS



59 Nepal 1119 WUPAP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 13 IS

60 Nepal 1119 WUPAP Supervision Mission 16 SM

61 Nepal 1285 LFLP Supervision Mission 18

62 Nepal 1450 PAF II Supervision Mission 6 6 SM

63 Nepal 1471 HVAP Mid-Term Review 23 MTR

64 Nepal 1602 Biu-Bijan Supervision Mission 15 SM

65 Pakistan 1514 SPPAP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 6

66 Pakistan 1514 SPPAP Supervision Mission 14

67 Pakistan 1515 GLLSP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 16 IS

68 Pakistan 1515 GLLSP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 1 IS

69 Pakistan 1676 LAMP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 1 IS

70 Papua New Guinea 1480 PPAP Mid-Term Review 21

71 Papua New Guinea 1480 PPAP Supervision Mission 7 SM

72 Philippines 1253 RuMePP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 3 IS

73 Philippines 1253 RuMePP Supervision Mission 16

74 Philippines 1253 RuMePP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 2 IS

SM

MTR

IS

IS

IS

SM

IS

SM

SM

SM


14



Duration


75 Philippines 1395 CHARM II ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 3 IS



78 Philippines 1395 CHARM II Supervision Mission 13 SM


80 Philippines 1475 INREMP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 3 IS



83 Philippines 1485 RaFPEP Mid-Term Review 17

84 Solomon Islands 1565 RDP Supervision Mission 12 SM

85 Sri Lanka 1316 SPEnDP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 3 IS

86 Sri Lanka 1316 SPEnDP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 4

87 Sri Lanka 1316 SPEnDP Mid-Term Review 19 MTR

88 Sri Lanka 1316 SPEnDP Supervision Mission SM 2 SM

89 Sri Lanka 1346 PT-CRReMP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 1 IS

90 Sri Lanka 1457 NADeP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 6 IS



93 Sri Lanka 1600 IIDP Supervision Mission 15 SM

94 Sri Lanka 1600 IIDP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 4 IS

95 Sri Lanka 1600 IIDP ImplmSuprt/Fllwup Mission 4 4 IS

96 Sri Lanka 1600 IIDP Supervision Mission 16

97 Timor-Leste 1576 TLMSP Supervision Mission 13

98 Tonga 1628 TRIP Supervision Mission 17 SM

99 Viet Nam 1422 DBRP Supervision Mission 10 SM

100 Viet Nam 1422 DBRP Supervision Mission 10 SM

101 Viet Nam 1483 3EM Mid-Term Review 11 MTR

102 Viet Nam 1552 TNSP Supervision Mission 11 SM






635 561

MTR

IS

SM

SM


15

Table 13: Risk Matrix

Risk category Risk type Details

Mg

t thro

ug

h

IFA

D

inte

rven

tion

Mitig

ate

d b

y

pro

ject m

gt

Exte

rnal to

pro

ject Probability Impact Affected project/portfolio

External risk ( Beyond IFAD's control)

Political and institutional

environment

Bureaucratic bottlenecks w hich slow dow n

start-up and implementation

▪ Lengthy process and delays in

decision w ithin government (e.g.

approval of project staff posts,

ratif ication of project.)

▪ Policy/ Regulation change, constrain

○ High High

BD-NATP, IN-CAIM, IN-IULSP,

MV-FADiP, MV-PT-AFReP, LK-

SPEnDP, LK-NADeP, PH-

RaFPEP, VN-TNSP

Political engagement / Election Change in leadership, social unrest ○ Medium High IN-IULSP

Political/ Social unrest/ security/ conflictDiff icult to undertake missions, limits

implementation (due to strikes, etc.)○ Medium Medium

AF-RMLSP, BD-MIDPCR, IN-

NERCOMRP, IN-OTELP, PK-

SPPAP

Natural disaster/ Climate

Disaster intervention/ extreme w eather

event

▪ Priority shift to relief efforts

▪ Damage to implementation/outcomes○ Medium High IN-IULSP, TO-TRIP, VN-3EM

Internal risk

Fiducially Aspects Low disbursementSlow internal processing of

WAs/Slow disbursement○ High High

IN-WELP, IN-CAIM, MV-FADiP,

Across the portfolio

Government pre-finances eligible

activities○ Low Medium

CN-DAPRP, CN-GIADP,CN-

HARIIP, CN-YARIP

Delays in budget/national

programmes announcement w hich

pressures disbursement

○ Medium High

BD-NATP, NP-WUPAP, NP-

LFLP, NP-PAF II, NP_HVAP, NP-

Biu-Bijan

Delay in the w ithdraw al especially f irst WANew requirement to approve the

opening of designated account○ Low High

CN-GIADP,CN-HARIIP, CN-

YARIP

Fulf ilment of the IFAD disbursement

condition○ Medium High Across the portfolio

Quality and procedure of accounting systemQuality of accounting (staff capacity,

softw are/system)○ Medium Medium

BD-HILIP, BD-MIDPCR, IN-

MPOWER, LK-PTCRReMP, LK-

NADeP, LK-IIDP, VN-TNSP

Government does not allow the

project to use a non-government

provided accounting softw are

○ Low Medium PH-CHARMII

Quality and timeliness on audit Low quality and procedures of audit ○ High MediumBD-CDSPIV, IN-TWEP, PH-

RuMePP

Timely preparation of AWPB Delays in submission of AWPB ○ Medium High KH-PADEE

Low AWPB financing progress ○ Medium Medium CN-HARIP, Across the portfolio


16


Mg

t thro

ug

h

IFA

D

inte

rven

tion

Mitig

ate

d b

y

pro

ject m

gt

Exte

rnal to

pro


Internal risk

Fiducially Aspects ProcurementDelays in procurements of service

provider○ High High

KH-RULIP, KH-TSPRSDP, IN-

IULSP, PK-SPPAP

Setting evaluation criteria ○ Low Medium KH-PADEE

Lack of delegation of procurement

authority○ Low Low IN-MPOWER

Low quality due to lack of staff

capacity, vacancy ○ ○ High Medium

IN-NERCOMPII, LK-SPEnDP, LK-

NADeP

Changes in government

procedures/lengthy process○ Low High PK-SSPAP

Counterpart funds Timely deliver of counterpart fund ○ High HighCN-IMARRAP, CN-DAPRP, CN-

YARIP, VN-3EM, VN-TNSP

Funds flowInefficient internal cash flow

management○ High High

KH-RULIP, LA-SSSJ, Across

the portfolio

Financial managementWeak staff capacity, vacancy of

staff○ High High

IN-IULSP, NP-LFLP, LK-SPEnDP,

LK-IIDP, Across the portfolio

Failure to fully compliance loan covenantsNo compliance of Financial

agreement○ ○ Low Medium

AF-RMLSP, MV-FADiP, PH-

RuMePP,

Cancellation / Non-utilization fundPartial non-utilization of programme

funds○ ○ Low Low

IN-TWEP, IN-WELP, MV-

PTAFReP, PK-PRISM

Internal control Weak internal control ○ ○ Medium HighPH-RAFPEP, LK-PTCRReMP, LK-

SPEnDP,

Contract managementDelays and w eak monitoring of

contract○ Low Medium LK-IIDP

Financial monitoring and reporting Weak monitoring and reporting ○ ○ High Medium LK-SPEnDP, LK-NADeP

Project implementation Quality of project managementWeak staff capacity, inadequate

human resources and turnover ○ ○ High High

KH-PADEE, IN-TWELP, ID-

SOLID, MV-FADiP, NP-PAFII, PK-

SPPAP, VN-3PAD, VN-TNSP

Start-up and implementation delayDelays linked to the capacity of

projects staff○ High High Across the portfolio

Quality of M&E Lack of staff capacity, w eak M&E ○ ○ High MediumKH-PADEE, IN-MPOWER, NP-

Biu-Bijan, LA-SNRMP

Weak MIS system Weak monitoring and reporting ○ Medium Medium KH-PADEE, IN-MPOWER


17


Mg

t thro

ug

h

IFA

D

inte

rven

tion

Mitig

ate

d b

y

pro

ject m

gt

Exte

rnal to

pro


Internal risk

Project implementationQuality and effectiveness of implementing

agencies and service providersInadequate technical capacity ○ High Medium

CN-DAPRP, IN-OTELP, IN-PT

Tamil-Nadu, IN-CAIM, MV-FADiP

Inadequate government support and

resourcesWeak government support ○ Medium Medium MV-FADiP, VN-3EM

Slow implementation

Delay in engagement of service

providers, initiating the process of

social mobilization

○ Medium High ID-SOLID, LK-IIDP

Outputs and OutcomesWeak capacity of SHG group

Capacity building and technical

support○ Low Medium IN-PT Tamil-Nadu,

Quality of survey Unable to determine the outcome data ○ ○ Medium Medium BD-FEDEC

Sustainability Quality of beneficiary participation

Beneficiaries confidence in the

project○ ○ Low Medium KH-TRPRSDP

Weak institutional sustainability Weak institutional sustainability ○ ○ ○ Medium Medium LK-PTCRReMP

Convergence w ith national strategyLow level of convergence w ith

various national and state programme○ ○ Medium Medium IN-CAIM, IN-NERCOMPII

Sustainability of project activity, groups Sustainability risk ○ ○ High MediumKH-RULIP, KH-PADEE, IN-

MPOWER, IN-CAIM


18

Table 14: PAR country programme 2012 - 2014

Country NAR PPP APP Total PAR NAR PPP APP Total PAR NAR PPP APP Total

Pre

MTR

Post

MTR PAR*

Afghanistan 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 6 2 0 0 2 1 1 5

Bangladesh 6 0 0 6 5 7 0 0 7 6 8 0 0 8 3 5 6

Bhutan 2 0 0 2 6 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 0 1 6

Cambodia 1 0 1 2 4 2 0 1 3 4 2 1 0 3 2 1 4

China 5 0 1 6 5 6 1 0 7 5 6 0 0 6 2 4 5

India 7 0 2 9 3 7 0 2 9 4 7 0 2 9 2 7 4

Indonesia 2 1 0 3 3 4 0 0 4 5 4 0 0 4 2 2 5

Laos 1 2 1 4 2 3 0 1 4 4 4 1 0 5 2 3 4

Maldives 0 0 2 2 3 1 1 0 2 3 2 0 1 3 1 2 4

Mongolia 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 1 0 6

Nepal 4 0 0 4 4 4 0 1 5 4 4 0 1 5 1 4 4

Pakistan 4 0 0 4 4 2 0 1 3 4 2 0 1 3 2 1 4

Papua New Guinea 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 0 1 6

Philippines 2 0 1 3 5 2 0 1 3 4 4 0 0 4 1 3 5

Solomon Islands 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 0 1 6

Sri Lanka 3 0 1 4 4 3 1 1 5 3 3 0 1 4 1 3 4

Timor-Leste 4 1 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 1 0 5

Tonga 1 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 1 0 5

Viet Nam 3 1 2 6 3 3 0 1 4 4 5 0 0 5 2 3 5

Total (Average for PAR) 44 4 11 59 4.3 51 3 9 63 4.7 59 2 6 67 25 42 4.9

% 75% 7% 19% 100% 81% 5% 14% 100% 88% 3% 9% 100%

2012 2013 2014

Note: Country PAR calculated based on annual performnace for each review period.


19

Table 15: 2013/2014 Actual and potential problem projects

Country

Project

ID

Project

Name Identified problem issues Recommended follow-up

Actual problem

India 1381 WELP

The late start and initial issues w ith the NGOs selected in a number of districts

impacted the programme adversely. During 2012-13, expenditure did not keep

pace w ith expectation on account of delays in seeking reimbursements by

FNGOs and also inability to expand the outreach as planned. Programme

expenditure w ill increase only w hen FNGO costs are claimed and settled

expeditiously and also livelihood up-scaling related activities are taken up for

f inancing. Risk of under-utilization of f inancial resources remains.

● Discuss w ith DEA and the state government about the

plan for taking the projects out of problem category, and

partial cancellation/reallocation if necessary.

● Concerted efforts on strengthening CSCs is required.

Similarly the livelihoods development for the SHG

members is an area requiring urgent and focused

attention.

India 1617 IULSP

A slow bureaucratic process for the signing of subsidiary agreements,

follow ed by a series of external events (the flood disaster of June 2013 and

ensuing request from Government to re-allocate funds for an emergency

response; changes in political leadership; and the preparation of the electoral

campaign for the parliament elections) have resulted in a tw o-year

implementation delays. The project has suffered ever since there w as a

change of Government at State level follow ing IFAD Board approval of the

project.

● A high priority is the need to fill the many vacancies

taking into account that the recent restructuring added

three more districts to the project area.

● In addition to the current inadequate level of staff ing,

IFAD w ill need to closely monitor the impact of the

proposed transfer of UGVS support staff to a state-

ow ned service provider.

Maldives 1377 FADIP

The project never recovered from initial delays occasioned by an early re-

design (from three large value chain companies to a larger number of smaller

cooperatives) and the inability of PMU staff to cope w ith the volume of w ork

occasioned by these radical changes in initial design. A court ruling on the use

of public funds that made it is impossible to release projects funds for PPP value

chain initiatives w hich is a main activity for this project. With only few months of

implementation left, only 26% of the IFAD loan could be disbursed.

● Potential remedies of cancellations, etc.

● Financial service (Component 2) may be removed

from the programme.

Nepal 1602 Biu-Bijan

The project remains at an idle stage after nearly tw o years of effectiveness

and there is practically no field operation of observable scale for the three

technical components. Less than 1% of total f inancing target achieved. Key

problems are the lack of technical capacities w ithin the PMU at the central and

district levels and the lack of effective partnerships betw een project

implementation partners. Low budget spending approved by the government for

PY1 and PY 2 may lead to target built-up for the follow ing years and pressure

for disbursement.

● Complete the recruitment of technical team and

provide intensive training.

● The operational f lexibility is urgently required, w ithout

compromising any fundamentals, in order to help the

project effectively take off.

● Quarterly implementation support to address the short-

comings and a joint review scheduled for Dec 2014.

Pakistan 1514 SPPAP

Project start-up w as delayed by almost tw o years from effectiveness and the

first planned interventions have just been initiated. Since last supervision, the

project has been picked up pace in part due to increased attention by

government, project authorities and staff. How ever, given that only three years

are left for implementation, any further delays in recruitment of key PMU

positions or in procurement w ould necessarily pose serious risks for

implementation success and quality of results.

● Careful follow -up and implementation support w ill be

necessary over the next 6 months to monitor progress

in accelerating execution.

● MTR is recommended for early 2015.

● Replace unsafe projects areas w ith more secure

areas.

Sri Lanka 1457 NADeP

Bureaucratic bottleneck by MOFP adversely affected NADEP in a signif icant

w ay, due to the prolonged delays by MOFP in the submission of the government

off icial request for loan amendment. The bottleneck w as caused primarily by

tw o factors: 1) staff turnover at ERD due to reassignment / promotion /

retirement, resulting in a new group of off icials dealing w ith IFAD matters

(including new DG, new division Director and new Assistant Director); and 2)

decentralization of operational decision-making authority w ith the MOFP

Secretary. The country team tried its best to regularly approach and netw ork

w ith the new counterparts at ERD, to help familiarize them w ith the country

programme.

Intensive implementation support w as undertaken,

involving numerous meetings and discussions w ith

MOFP (including the Secretary), MED and the PMU.

Months's efforts eventually started bearing fruits

tow ards end-2013 , a tangible outcome of w hich w as

the f inal consensus reached on NADEP amendment. [the

amendment w as processed after an IFAD technical

review mission in January 2014, and w as approved by

the President.]

Total 6

Potential problem

Cambodia 1464 TSPRSDP

The implementation progress of this AsDB co-financed and supervised project

is slow due to compliance of the AsDB policies/procedures, and problems in the

original implementation arrangement.

● Due to intense follow -up w ith AsDB to boost the

progress and disbursement, speed-up No Objections to

procurement actions by ADB, the project show s the

improvement in the bottleneck issues. (Upgraded to

Potential problem status)

● Although the disbursement rate improved to 14%

(previously 5%), the project still need further progress

in disbursement, project activities.

Laos 1608 SSSJ

After a slow start, some progress is being made on implementation, despite

entrenched traditional approaches w ithin DAFO senior staff and a scarcity of

competent people w illing to w ork in the field. Main concerns are the feasibility is

low for current delivery channels and mechanisms to deliver on the plan during

the remaining project period w hile safeguarding quality. Rate of expenditure in

certain categories and fund flow is a concern and risk to overall project

implementation.

Key issues for the planned MTR in Nov 2014,

● Delivery system of extension services, especially

how to improve effectiveness of DAFO

● Flow of funds (process at provincial and district

levels)

● Partnership betw een public, private, NGOs and

Ministries.

Total 2

asia and the pacific division - ifad

Documents