2004 Portfolio Review
2005 Project Implementation Workshop, Bamako
2004 Portfolio Review: Main Findings
2004 Portfolio Review
2004 Portfolio Review: Main Findings
• What is the portfolio review?• Status of the regional portfolio • Performance indicators and ratings• Implementation performance • Major problems• Crucial challenges• Proposed indicators to improve the regional
portfolio
2004 Portfolio Review: Main Findings
2004 Portfolio Review
What is the regional portfolio review?
• Tool to analyse and assess the structure and quality of the regional portfolio– identify management issues at IFAD level– provide appropriate responses– basis for corporate reporting to IFAD’s governing bodies– provide input for PBAS– aggregate and analyse RIMS indicators
• Process is staff-driven– Project and country levels: Review of data available– Preparation of project status reports and country programme
issues sheets (based on supervision reports)– Country review meetings with all relevant IFAD staff– Revision, aggregation and analysis of inputs at a regional level– Draft version, comments– Finalisation
• Period covered: 1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004
2004 Portfolio Review
Status of the regional portfolio
• Current portfolio: 18 active countries • 55 loan projects, 39 ongoing, $ 660 million• Geographic imbalance
– 35 ongoing projects in 11 West African countries– only 4 ongoing projects in 3 Central African Countries
• Reactivation of loan portfolio in 3 post-conflict countries (Congo, DR Congo and Sierra Leone)
• No loan projects in 6 countries, Cote d’Ivoire “frozen”
• In general, quality and impact of the regional project portfolio has improved
2004 Portfolio Review
Performance Indicators and Ratings
Classification of ratings
1 Above or on targetGood ratings
2 Mostly on target
3 Substantially below target Risk Flags
for low ratings4 Little or no progress
Rating system:
• Project-at-Risk Methodology
• Indicators influence performance ratings and country allocations
2004 Portfolio Review
Implementation performance
• 20% of effective projects show a disbursement lag of ≥ 40%
• Project management performance remains a concern in many countries
• Performance of Cooperating Institutions– Only in 35% of projects, supervision is found to be
problem-free – 54% with moderate problems– 10% projects with major problems
2004 Portfolio Review
Portfolio Performance
PAR Classification
2004 2003
Number of Projects
% Number of Projects
%
Project Not at Risk 33 85 26 70
Potential Problem Project
0 0 0 0
Actual Problem Project 6 15 9 25
Not Rated 0 0 2 5
Total 39 100 37 100
2004 Portfolio Review
Areas of Low Performance
Indicator
Performance of M&E system 14 36%Performance of service providers 12 31%Disbursement rate 11 28%Project management performance 9 23%Gender focus in implementation 8 21%Timeliness and quality of audits 8 21%Availability of counterpart funds 7 18%Poverty focus in implementation 6 15%Compliance with procurement procedures 5 13%Beneficiary participation in implementation 4 10%Compliance with loan convenants 2 5%
Number of low ratings
% of projects
2004 Portfolio Review
Project management performance remains a concern
• Measures
– Regional Management Capacity Strengthening Programme
– Regional M&E Capacity Strengthening Programme
– Follow-up of case-specific supervision and mid-term review recommendations
– Redesigning problematic project components as appropriate
2004 Portfolio Review
Crucial challenges
• Manage time to achieve results (planning/implementation) of project cycle– Average time laps from approval to loan signature 3.4 months
– Average time laps from signature to start-up 1 year
– Low disbursement performance during implementation
• Manage quality throughout the cycle based on responsibilities assigned to the partners– Government: Ownership and implementation
– Cooperating Institution: Basic Supervision/Implementation Support
– IFAD: Ensure good governance in resource use
2004 Portfolio Review
Proposed indicators to improve the portfolio
• By 2006, resources used annually for implementation support increased by at least 30% depending on needs identified in cooperation with the PCU, CPM and CI.
• By 2006, there are no projects rated at risk in the region.
• By 2007, low ratings are below 10% for all implementation performance indicators in ongoing projects.
• By 2008, all ongoing and new projects have action plans to improve performance of their M&E systems.