laos program presentation april 2016

Lao PDR Program PresentationApril 2016

South East Asia Hub

2005 07 2010 2013 2014

Human Dev. Index 0.501 0.53 0.539 0.57 0.575

Agriculture value added (% of GDP) 36.2 34.9 32.7 26.5 27.7

GNI per capita 472 887 1123 1661 1680

Total population (million) 5.88 6.21 6.44 6.77 6.68

Rural population as % of population 73 69 67 64 62.4

Poverty rate based on population 30.7 27.6 26 23.2 -

Main crops production: rice, soybeans, sugarcane, corn, tobacco

Nutrition facts: high malnutrition rate (40%), particularly in rural areas

Population density – Economic Indicators

Source: WB, UNDP

Poverty rate and Poverty density

Share of Agriculture in GDP

20042006

20082010

20120

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

GDP per capita (USD)Agriculture contribution to GDP per capita (USD)Agriculture contribution to GDP per capita (%)

IFAD funded operations

Portfolio

Closed Loans Active Loans Pipelined Loans

(1980-1985) Casier-Sud Pioneer Agricultural Project

(2009-2016) Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Productivity Enhancement Project

GAFSP (2016-2020): Global Agriculture and Food Security Program - 30 million USD

(1984-1986) Agricutural Production Project

(2011 - 2017) Souum Son Seun Jai - Community based Food Security and Economic Opportunities Programme

Livestock project (2016-2020) (with ADB) - 10 million USD

(1988-1992) Rural Credit Project

(2013-2019) Southern Laos Food and Nutrition Security and Market Linkages Programme

(1991-1997) Xieng Khouang Agricultural Development Project

(2006-2014) Rural lovelihoods Improvement Programme in Attepeu and Sayabouri (2007-2013) Northern Region Sustainable Livelihoods through Livestock Development Project

Timeline overview –COSOP (2011-2015), (2016-2020)

Projects 2005 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Rural livelihoods Improvement Programme in Attepeu and Sayabouri

Northern Region Sustainable Livelihoods through Livestock Dev ProjSustainable Natural Resource Management and Productivity Enhancement Project

SSSJ Project

FNML

Pipeline - GAFSP

Pipeline - Livestock program

Closing project – SNRMP

•Program Target group: 11,250 households would benefit from the project

•The main target group comprises two primary sub-groups: (i) poor farming households with proximity to markets (primary in the lowlands; and (ii) poor farmers in upland areas (mostly ethnic minority communities practicing shifting cultivation)

* Total Project cost: $37.8 millionIFAD financing: $15 millionADB: $20 million Government of Laos: $2.8 million

* Project Components:(i) Capacity building for agriculture and natural

resource sector management (ii) Implementation of agricultural activity and

commercialization subprojects(iii) Project management

Active project – SSSJ

* Program Target group: 17,000 rural households in 225 poor upland villages in Northern Sayabouri and Oudomxay

* Total Project cost: $19.3 millionTotal IFAD financing: IFAD DSF Grant: $13.9 million, World Food Program: $3.7 million,GIZ: $0.4 millionGovernment of Laos: $0.8 million,Beneficiaries: $0.3 million

* Project Components:(i) Integrated farming systems(ii) Links to markets

Active project – FNML•Program Target Group: 10,500 households in 175 poor upland villages in target areas

* Main target group: Population of 175 target villages

*Secondary target group: The private buyers of the target products, Smallholders in the target areas

* Total Project cost: $18.82 millionTotal IFAD financing: IFAD DSF Grant: $9.72 million, ASAP Grant: $5.0 million,Government of Laos: $0.54 million,Private sector and Partner Banks: $1.48 million,Beneficiaries: $0.53 million

• Project Components:(i) Food Security and Pro-Poor Market Access(ii) Inclusive Rural Finance Support(iii) Institutional support(iv) Smallholder Adaptation for Climate Change

Component (New Component)

Approved Project– SSFSNP

•Program Target group: The project will be implemented in 12 districts and approximately 400 villages in Oudomxai, Phongsaly, Xieng Khouang and Houaphan provinces in Nothern Laos. The main target group would be within the population of 400 target villages with 34,000 small households.

* Total Project cost: $38.8 millionGAFSP: $30 million (IFAD: $24 million; WFP: $6 million)Local private enterprises: $0.5 millionVillage beneficiary: $2.9 million GoL: $5.4 million

* Project Components:(i) Strengthened public services(ii) Community-driven agriculture-based nutrition

interventions established (iii) Sustainable and inclusive market-driven partnerships

established

Note: Go to EB Approval April- 2016

Project under design– NSLCP

•Program Target group: The project aims to work with a total of 300 livestock production and marketing groups (LPMGs) in the 12 districts, extending the livestock production and marketing support to at least 4500 households. Infrastructure will benefit additional 10 000 households.

* Total Project cost: $31.5 millionIFAD: $10 millionADB: $21 million Government counterpart funds: $0.5 million

* Project Components:(i) Strengthened smallholders and other livestock

value chain actors(ii) Strengthened LVC infrastructure (iii) Improved capacity to access credit

Note: Go to EB Approval December- 2016

Ongoing Grants

01,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,0007,000,0008,000,0009,000,000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Grant amount (mill USD)

% Disbursement (updated)

IFAD-funded Programmes Performance (at country and regional levels)

Overall implementation progress

Over the last 5 years there has been only one instance of a "satisfactory" rating (LDP) Average score for the portfolio is 3.84, bordering between “moderately unsatisfactory” and

“moderately satisfactory” For all 5 years country average score has been consistently lower the APR regional average Average performance dropped from 2014 to 2015 However, SSSJ has recovered from being a “problem project” to having a “moderately satisfactory”

score in 2015

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Overall implementation progress

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5

Overall implementation progress (LAO)

Country averageRegional average

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 4 4 4 4 4,0

LAO1396 4 4 4 5 4,3

LAO1459 3 3 3 4 4 3,4

LAO1608 4 4 4 3 3,8

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,67 3,75 3,75 4,20 3,67 3,84

Regional average 3,90 4,00 4,00 4,20 4,16 4,05

Coherence between AWPB and implementation

Country programme performance as been consistently below the regional average, except for the year 2014

This suggests that most projects struggle to deliver AWPB physical and/or financial targets.

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Coherence between AWPB and implementation 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 4 3 4 4 3,8

LAO1396 3 3 4 5 3,8

LAO1459 4 4 4 4 4 4,0

LAO1608 4 3 4 4 3,8

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,67 3,50 3,75 4,20 4,00 3,84


Performance of M&E

Country average consistently below regional average SSSJ has been continuously rated “moderately unsatisfactory”, SNRMPEP almost consistently

“Moderately Satisfactory”, LDP improved to “Moderately Satisfactory” FNML has started on “Moderately Satisfactory” and effort should be made to improve to a 5

“satisfactory” Overall improvement required for all projects Projects should aim to regularly report on progress at different levels (outcomes, outputs, activities,

etc.) Managers should make use of M&E information for planning and decision-making

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Performance of M&E

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

4

5

Performance of M&E


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

LAO1301 3 3 3 3 3,0

LAO1396 3 3 4 4 3,5

LAO1459 4 4 4 3 4 3,8

LAO1608 4 4 3 3 3,5

LAO1680 4 4 4,0

Country average 3,33 3,50 3,75 3,40 3,67 3,53


Gender focus

Most projects have performed "moderately satisfactorily" with regard to mainstreaming gender in implementation and/or targeting women.

SSSJ has received a score of "3" for the past three years, while LDP’s performance improved towards project completion

For last 5 years average performance for country has been below regional average

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Gender focus

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Gender focus


Since 2013, there has been a marked improvement in the extent to which projects manage to reach poor households effectively, but from a low base

Still, the country programme performance has been consistently below the APR regional average

Best performance is recorded by two projects with a score of "5" in the past two years of implementation: LDP and SSSJ

Poverty focus

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Poverty focus

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Poverty focus


Innovation and learning

This indicator measures the extent to which project activities are generating adequate benefits for project beneficiaries.

Completed projects RLIP and LDP were rated "satisfactory" rating towards completion

Other projects have received a "moderately satisfactory" score for this important indicator

The portfolio average score has been below the APR regional average for most of the period except in 2013 and 2014

Performance against "food security" follows a similar pattern as the indicator "physical/financial assets"

The average score of "4" recorded over the last 5 years for the portfolio as a whole

Important to improve scores especially since most projects are implemented in districts with a large proportion of malnourished children and food-insecure households, as measured by RIMS surveys.

Food security

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Physical/financial assets

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Physical/financial assets


LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Food security

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Food security


Exit strategy

The long-term sustainability of project benefits not well imbedded in project design

and/or actively pursued through an appropriate exit strategy

Trend is similar to that of the entire APR portfolio, but to a lesser extent,

Lao portfolio average has been consistently lower that the regional average.

Most projects rated "moderately satisfactory" LPD seems to have the greatest potential and in fact will

be scaled up in a new project Compared with the APR regional portfolio, Lao portfolio

scores were consistently lower.

Potential for replication and upscaling

LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exit strategy

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Exit strategy


LAO1301

LAO1396

LAO1459

LAO1608

LAO1680

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Potential for scaling up and replication

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

3

4

5

Potential for scaling up and replication


1. Institutional capacity building 2. Effective coordination between central project

coordination unit and provincial/district team3. Delivering AWPB physical and/or financial targets4. Timely and transparent procurement and

disbursement5. M&E: data collection, reporting and use for

programme management

General Issues

1. Improved and timely planning process and programme implementation (faster, cheaper and better)

• Planning and budgeting =>AWPB <= Financial Management • Beneficiaries HHs -> M&E 2. Integrated project management system (e.g. M&E for planning, mapping, MIS in program management, etc.,)3. KM / KS (Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Working group, considering as the highest policy platform in the country / case studies and learning events/routes at country and regional levels in partnership with Procasur, etc.,)4. Partnerships with other DPs to support programme performance (Lux-Dev, AFD, FAO, WFP, CIAT, IRRI, WB, ADB, UN-HABITA, etc.,)5. Coordination/ Capacity building /management to support decentralization initiative• How to strengthen the in-country capacity for the development of effective pro-poor

investment policies and institutions?• How to develop the capacity of key service providers for the delivery of quality services?• How to improve the accountability of public institutions and systems and to ensure

sustainability?6. Implementation Support Missions/ technical coaching

Way forward/areas needing further support

THANK YOU

laos program presentation april 2016

Government & Nonprofit