multinational - nerica rice dissemination project (mnrdp ......annual rice demand in west africa is...

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP

Department of Agriculture and Agro-industry

(OSAN 2)

MULTINATIONAL - NERICA RICE DISSEMINATION PROJECT (MNRDP)

COMPLETION MISSION

MAIN REPORT

Prepared by:

M.L KANE, Agro-economist, OSAN 2

A. DJIRO, Agronomist, OSAN 2

M.A.B. SY, Consultant

M.H. SNANE, Consultant February 2012

1

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT A. PROJECT DATA AND KEY DATES I. BASIC INFORMATION

Project Number Project Name Country (ies)

BEN: P-Z1AAO-068; MAL: P-Z1AAO-072; GU: P-Z1AAO-071; GA: P-Z1AAO-069; GH: P-Z1-AA0-070; NG: P-Z1-AAO-073; SL: P-Z1-AA0-074; AR: P-Z1AAO-058

Multinational - NERICA Rice Dissemination Project

Benin (BEN); Mali (MA); Guinea (GU); Ghana (GH); The Gambia (GA); Nigeria (NG); Sierra Leone (SL); Africa Rice (AR).

ID Number of all Lending Instrument(s) Department Environmental Classification

BEN: 2100150007159 GU: 2100150007162; GH: 2100150007161; MA: 2100150007163; NG: 2100150007158; SL: 2100150007164; GA: 2100150007160; WARDA: 2100155001970

Rural development Environmental-II

Original Commitment Amount

Amount Cancelled

Amount Disbursed Percent Disbursed

BEN: UA 1 450 000.00 ; GU: UA 3 000 000.00; GH: UA 2 650 000.00; MA: UA 2 920 000.00; NG: UA 5 570 000.00; SL: UA 2 850 000.00; GA: UA 1 560 000.00; WA (grant): UA 2 000 000.00

BEN: UA 1 052 700.43; GU: UA 2 131 500; GH: UA 2 572 878.45; MA: UA 2 905 743.33; NG: UA 4 559 989.25; SL: UA 2 253 280.32; GA: UA 1 264 010.63; WA: UA 2 000 000.00

BEN: 72.60% ; GU: 71.05% ; GH : 97.08% MA: 99.5% ; NG: 81.87% ; SL: 82.03% GA: 81.02%; WA: 100%

Borrower

Executing Agency(ies) [List the main Ministries, Project Implementation Units, Agencies and civil society organizations responsible for implementing project activities.]

BEN: Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery, National Institute of Agronomic Research GU: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Water and Forestry/ National Promotion and Extension Service GH: Ministry of Food and Agriculture/ Crop Services Department MA: Ministry of Agriculture/ Institute of Rural Economy NG: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development/ National Food Security Programme SL: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security GA: Ministry of Agriculture/ National Agricultural Research Institute WA: Africa Rice/ARI.

2

Co-financers and other External Partners [List all other sources and amounts of financing, technical assistance or other resources used in this project]

Country Government Beneficiaries

Benin UA 280 000 UA 100 000

Guinea UA 640 000 UA 100 000

Ghana UA 490 000 UA 100 000

Mali UA 550 000 UA 130 000

Nigeria UA 1 290 000 UA 180 000

Sierra Leone UA 510 000 UA 100 000

The Gambia UA 250 000 UA 80 000

II. KEY DATES

Project Concept Note Cleared by Ops. Com.

Appraisal Report Cleared Board Approval

Not applicable Not applicable 26 September 2003

Restructuring(s)

Not applicable

Original Date MM/DD/YY

Actual Date MM/DD/YY

Difference in months

EFFECTIVENESS 5 February 2005

MID-TERM REVIEW 3 August 2006 March 2009 31 months

CLOSING 31 December 2010 30 June 2011 for Mali

30 June 2012 for Guinea 30 December 2011 for others

Mali: 6 months Guinea: 18 months Others:12 months

3

III. RATINGS SUMMARY

Insert notes from the relevant tables in the different sections of the PCR. For example, please insert the “Overall Output score” in Section D.I. in the “Achievement of Outputs” box below.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA RATING

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of Outputs (insert score from Section D.I.)

BE: 1.95; ML: 2.77; GU: 2.10; GA: 2.11; GH: 2.42; NG: 1.84; SL: 2.02 Average: 2.17

Achievement of Outcomes (insert score from Section D.II)

2.05

Timeliness (insert score from Section F.4) 3.1

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME [Score is calculated as an average of the ratings]

2.5

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness (insert score from Section I.I) 2.79

Supervision (insert score from Section I.I) 3.33

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE [Score is calculated as an average of the ratings]

3.06

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness (insert score from Section I.I) 1.5

Implementation (insert score from Section I.I) 2.2

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE [Score is calculated as an average of the ratings]

1.85

IV. RESPONSIBLE BANK STAFF

POSITIONS AT APPROVAL AT COMPLETION

Regional Director C. SPENCER J. LITSE

Sector Director C. SPENCER A. BEILEH

Task Manager B. BOEDTS E. ATTIOGBEVI-SOMADO

PCR Team Leader L. KANE

PCR Team Members L. KANE; A. DJIRO;

2 Consultants

4

B. PROJECT CONTEXT

Summarize the rationale for Bank assistance. State: -what development challenge the project addresses, -the Borrower's overall strategy for addressing it, -Bank activities in this country (ies) and sector over the past year and how they performed, and -ngoing Bank and other externally financed activities that complement, overlap with or relate to this project. Please cite relevant sources. Comment on the strength and coherence of the rationale.

[300 words maximum. Any additional narrative about the project's origins and history, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]

Annual rice demand in West Africa is estimated at over 8 million tonnes. Since the 1970s, rice production has grown at the rate of 5.1 % per year, 70 % of which is attributable to extension of cultivated areas, and only 30 % to increased yields. According to the FAO, annual imports have increased to over 4 million tonnes for a cost of 1 billion dollars per year on the countries’ meagre foreign currency resources. It is in this context and with the aim of enhancing agricultural production that the NERICA Rice Dissemination Project (NRDP) was initiated. It is expected to disseminate NERICA rice varieties developed by Africa Rice, for instance WARDA. The NRDP will organize farmers of the project area into NERICA rice farmers’ groups and unions, in order to assist them in producing quality seeds and competitive commercial rice. They were to be provided with the necessary basic seeds, optimum rice production technologies, supervision, as well as experimentation, production and processing equipment and storage and product marketing infrastructure and post-harvest equipment. In 2011, the Bank’s portfolio in the agricultural sector comprised a number of projects: Mali (8); Benin (4); Guinea (1); Ghana (7); The Gambia (2); Nigeria (4); Sierra Leone (2).

C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

1. State the Project Development Objective(s) (as set out in the appraisal report)

The project has as sector goal to contribute to poverty reduction and food security in seven (7) West African countries (Benin, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria and Sierra Leone). The project’s specific objective is to enhance rice production and rice import substitution through improved access to high-yielding NERICA rice varieties.

2. Describe the major project components and indicate how each will contribute to achieving the Project Development Objective(s).

The project has four components: a) technology transfer; b) production support; c) capacity building; and d) project coordination. Technology transfer: ADF grant resources will enable WARDA to produce NERICA basic seed. WARDA will produce nearly 16 tonnes of seeds, during the project implementation period, for distribution in the participating countries. The project will finance adaptive on-farm research by national agricultural research institutions supported by WARDA. Production support: The project will support extension services existing in the project area so as to ensure effective technical assistance to beneficiaries. Capacity building: Farmers’ groups will serve as relay structures for provision of services, especially

5

extension services, training and group credit management. The project will support PCUs, extension institutions and agricultural research institutions involved in the project. Project coordination: Existing, competent and experienced project coordination units (PCUs) have been identified to take care of project coordination activities. The borrowers will each post a monitoring/evaluation specialist to the PCUs, so as to improve the monitoring and evaluation of project activities.

3. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the project objectives along the following 3 dimensions. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING

SCORE

RELEVANT

a) Relevant to the country's development priorities

The NRDP is fully consistent with the seven countries’ National Rice Development Strategy to reduce poverty and achieve food security.

4

ACHIEVABLE

b) Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected timeframe

The two pillars of the project are research and extension services. With the exception of Sierra Leone, a post-conflict country, the other countries are fairly well-equipped in operational research and extension services to achieve project objectives within the expected timeframe.

3

CONSISTENT

c) Consistent with the Bank's country or regional strategy

The Project is fully consistent with the Bank Group’s intervention strategy, which aims to contribute to economic growth with a view to reducing poverty. This strategy focused especially on the intensification of rice farming through the introduction of high-yielding, short-cycle NERICA rice varieties adapted to difficult conditions. It is in line with ECOWAS’s strategy.

4

d) Consistent with the Bank's corporate priorities

Project objectives are consistent with the Bank’s corporate priorities in agricultural production diversification and development, human resources development, improvement of the precarious situation of rural people and the fight against deterioration of the natural environment.

4

6

4. Summarize the log. frame. If a log. frame does not exist, complete the table below, indicating the overall project development objective, the major components of the project, the major activities of each component and their expected outputs, outcomes, and indicators for measuring the achievement of outcomes. Add additional rows for components, activities, outputs or outcomes if needed.

OBJECTIVES

ACTIVITIES

OUTPUTS

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

INDICATORS TO BE MEASURED

Overall objective: Poverty reduction and enhancement of the country’s food security.

Reduce poverty and enhance the country’s food security.

The annual income of 241 000 rural families increases by USD 235.80/ha by PY5. The calorie intake improves by PY3.

Improvement of farmers’ living conditions.

Number of households with increased incomes. Number of households with improved calorie intake.

Specific objectives: Production enhancement and diversification

Increased rice production and rice import substitution.

54 000 t of NERICA seeds produced and marketed. Increased production of 600 000 t of NERICA rice by PY5. Savings of nearly USD 4 million made by PY3.

Agricultural production increase and diversification. Reduction of foreign exchange expenditure for the purchase of imported rice.

Agricultural production statistics. Macroeconomic statistics.

Component A : Technology Transfer

1. Adoption of NERICA varieties and farming techniques.

1.1 Supply of pre-basic seeds to SNRAVs by ARI.

1.2 Research on improvement of rice varieties.

1.3 Organization of participatory variety selection at the level of research (PVS-R) and extension (PVSE).

1.4 Support to research on adopted rice

1.1 1.4 T of pre-basic seeds delivered by ARI to the SNRAVs of each country.

1.2 Rice varieties are improved by the NARESs and ARI for various ecological conditions.

1.3 Some 10

varieties are

1.1 Pre-basic seed varieties are tested by SNRAVs.

1.2 Production of high-yielding pre-basic seed varieties adapted by NARESs and ARI.

1.3 The needs of basic seed producers (private and government)

1.1 Quantities of pre-basic and basic seeds supplied by Africa Rice (ARI).

1.2 Number of new high-yielding varieties discovered by research.

1.3 Quantities of pre-basic seeds produced by research.

1.4 Trend of intensive rice cropping areas.

1.5 Trend of cleared areas.

7

varieties. identified for the PVS-R and PVS-V, 2 to 3 of which will be adopted/ registered by site.

1.4 Complementary technology tests

on these varieties to attain the target yield of 2.5 T/ha.

in foundation seeds are met by NARESs and NAESs.

1.4 Farmers have adopted crop intensification rather than land extension to increase production

2. Production of basic seeds.

2.1 Production of basic seeds by specialized institutions

2.1 Production of basic seeds by specialized institutions and farmers’ groups.

2.1 Farmers’ needs in certified seeds are met in basic seeds of adopted NERICA varieties.

2.1 Basic seed production statistics.

3. Biodiversity conservation.

3.1 Local rice varieties are catalogued and conserved

3.1 Some one hundred local rice varieties are catalogued and conserved at the national, regional or international level

3.1 Conservation of the productive potential of rice varieties through crossing with local varieties.

3.1 Quantities and number of local rice varieties conserved in cold rooms

4. Production of basic seeds.

2.1 Production of basic seeds by specialized institutions

2.1 Production of basic seeds by specialized institutions and farmers’ groups.

2.1 Farmers’ needs in certified seeds are met in basic seeds of adopted NERICA varieties.

4.1 Basic seed production statistics.

5. Biodiversity conservation.

4.1 Local rice varieties are catalogued and conserved

3.1 Some one hundred local rice varieties are catalogued and conserved at the national, regional or international level.

3.1 Conservation of the productive potential of rice varieties through crossing with local varieties.

5.1 Quantities and number of local rice varieties conserved in cold rooms

6. Technology of farming techniques

5.1 Demonstration of farming techniques

5.2 Training on the use of adapted pre- and post-

1.1 Adoption of new farming techniques to

4.1 Number of each type of equipment procured by

8

and processing techniques

4.2 Demonstration of rice processing techniques

harvest equipment procured by the project.

5.3 Training on the use of rice processing equipment procured by the project.

improve labour force productivity.

The value added of rice production is improved at the community level.

communities using credit resources.

Number of each type of rice processing equipment procured by communities using credit resources.

Component B : Production support

1. Farmer mobilization and training

1.1 Mobilization and training of farmers and stakeholders of the rice subsector.

1.2 Training of field technicians and extension agents

1.1 33 000 farmers, traders, financiers and processers sensitized, trained, organized and supervised

1.2 400 000 ha of upland rice will be cultivated with increased yields of from 0.8 T to 2.5 T/ha.

1.3 Claiming of new land and conversion of other upland crops (cotton, maize) to rice cultivation.

1.1 Farmers and other stakeholders have organized themselves into groups and other types of association.

1.3 Solid ties have been established between various links in the chain of stakeholders of the rice subsector.

1.1 Number of farmers and stakeholders organized and trained by the project.

1.2 Number of

persons trained by category of persons and training themes.

1.3 Trend of cultivated area and rice yields.

2. Community system for the production of certified seeds.

2.1 Multiplication of adopted/registered rice varieties

2.1 Some 54 135 t of certified seeds will be produced in the project sites.

2.2 Seed producers supervised and trained in the conservation of the varietal purity of seeds

2.1 The rice certification institution operational in the country.

2.2 The needs in certified seeds of adopted/registered rice varieties are met.

2.1 Number of seed leaders controlled by seed institutions.

2.2 Quantities of certified seeds produced

3. Infrastructure

3.1 Improvement of feeder roads

3.1 1 350 km of roads are

3.3 Reduction of the production and

3.1 Length and quality of roads

9

to production areas.

3.2 Other civil engineering works

improved by PY3.

3.2 Construction of seed stores, white rice stores, drying floors and marketing sheds by PY3.

marketing costs of rice inputs, equipment and by-products.

3.2 Improvement of incomes through reduction of losses at the level post-harvest production handling.

improved and trend of traffic on these roads.

4.1 Number of infrastructure constructed and operational

4. 4.1 Training of beneficiaries on themes indirectly linked to production.

4.2 Studies on seeds, storage and marketing of seeds and inputs.

4.3 Study on the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP).

4.1 Farmers are sensitized on HIV/AIDS, malaria and gender aspects

4.2 Two studies are conducted at the regional level on policy review in matters of seeds, rice and input storage, credit access and marketing

4.3 Implementation of the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)

4.1 Labour force productivity is improved. Negative impacts of endemic diseases, the non-involvement of women and the use of products.

4.2 The market for rice seeds and production inputs mastered. Quantities of seeds and inputs are available.

4.3 The project environment is protected; negative impacts are mitigated and positive impacts enhanced.

4.1 Evolution of diseases in health centres. 4.2 Impact of studies conducted 4.3 Number of environmental negative impacts mitigated and positive impacts enhanced

Component C: Capacity building

1. Impact studies

1.1 Socio-economic study and survey on the impact of project activities.

1.1 Institution of an information system for operational rice markets.

1.1 The national rice subsector is becoming profitable and poised for competition with the imported rice subsector.

1.1 Evolution of rice imports.

2. Training and logistics

2.1 Training of researchers and equipping of research institutes

2.1 Participation of researchers in courses, conferences and regional and international scientific events. Supply

2.1 Sustainability of upland rice cultivation through the conservation of the genetic potential of varieties and the use of advanced technology

2.1 Number of beneficiary researchers and technicians. Number of scientific articles published.

10

of materials and equipment.

packages

2.2 Training and equipping of the extension service and Project Coordination Unit staff.

2.2 Staff have taken part in courses and scientific events at the national and regional level. Procurement of equipment and supplies.

2.2 Sustainability of investments made by the project through capacity building for the country’s permanent institutions

2.3 Project activities have effectively been implemented

2.2 Number of publications, documents and brochures distributed.

2.3 Number and type of equipment procured.

Component D: Project coordination

1. National project coordination

1.1 Establish the PCU

1.2 Set up a NERICA Rice Promotion Committee (NRPC) and the National Steering Committee (NSC).

1.1 Appointment of PCU staff. Preparation of the procedures manual and computerization of the accounting system.

1.2 Preparation and monitoring of agreements and contracts signed with operators.

1.3 Meetings and workshops organized by the NRPC and the NSC.

1.4 ARI takes part in project implementation and organizes and coordinates activities at the regional level, through the steering committee set up.

1.1 Supervision and efficient monitoring of the project’s physical and financial activities

1.2 Effective involvement, by operators, of beneficiaries in the implementation of project activities.

Programming and efficient implementation of project activities.

1.1 The staff’s consistency with the PAR. 1.2 Quality of the project’s procurement and financial management. 1.3 Reports of operators and contractors. Number of NRPC and NSC meetings.

2. Regional project coordination

2.1 Monitoring and evaluation.

2.1 ARI coordinates the rice market information system and the

2.1 Annual programmes drawn up by national steering committees. 2.2 Regional

2.1 Number of coordination meetings held.

11

work of national research institutes

cooperation and integration in the production and marketing of NERICA rice seeds.

5. For each dimension of the log. frame, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the extent to which the log. frame achieved the following. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1. If no log. frame exists, score this section as a 1 (one).

LOG. FRAME DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

LOGICAL

a) Presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives

The logical framework as presented does not show a logical causal chain for achieving project objectives. It was drawn up using the former format.

2

MEASURABLE

b) Expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable

The impacts of most project activities (production, area, incomes of beneficiaries, environmental and social impact) are not quantified and measured. The baseline situation by district/State and even by country has not been established.

2

THOROUGH c) States the risks and key assumptions

The logical framework states key assumptions for the project’s success The exogenous risks for the contracting authority (high inflation, capacity of contractors) proved to be significant.

2

12

D. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

I. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTPUTS

In the table below, assess the achievement of actual vs. expected outputs for each major activity. Import the expected outputs from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outputs were achieved. Weight the scores by the activities' approximate share of project costs. Weighted scores are auto-calculated by the computer. The overall output score must be calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. Override the calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES

Working Score

Share of Project Costs

in percentage (as stated

in Appraisal Report)

Weighted Score

Expected Outputs Actual Outputs

Component A: Technology transfer

Supply of foundation and basic seeds by Africa Rice to NARESs: BEN: 1.400 T; ML: 2.300 T GU: 2.250 T; GA: 1.6; GH: 1.6 T; NG: 3.0 T; SL: 1.6 T.

Foundation and basic seeds supplied by ARI to NARESs: BEN: 10.2 T; ML: 1.3 T GU: 0.890 T; GA: 1.3T; GH: 0.9 T of foundation + 4.9 T of basic; NG: 6.9 T (foundation + basic); SL: 1.7 T.

BEN: 4; ML: 3; GU: 2; GA: 3; GH: 4; NG: 4; SL: 4

0.02

BEN: 0.08; ML: 0.06; GU: 0.04; GA: 0.06; GH: 0.08; NG: 0.08; SL: 0.08.

Conduct PVS-Rs and PVS-Es for adoption and registration of varieties (Number): BEN: 6 to 10; ML: 6 to 10 GU: 6 to 10; GA: 6 to 10 GH: 6 to 10; NG: 9 to 18 SL: 6 to 10 ;

Varieties adopted/ registered: BEN: 10 adopted/0 registered; ML: 9 adopted/0 registered; GU: 8 adopted/0 registered; GA: 7; GH: 5 adopted/0 registered; NG: 7 adopted/0 registered; SL: 8 adopted/0 registered.

BEN: 2; ML: 2; GU: 2; GA: 2 GH: 2; NG: 2 SL: 2.

0.016

BE: 0.048; ML: 0.048; GU: 0.048; GA: 0.048; GH: 0.048 NG: 0.048; SL: 0.048

Tests on complementary technologies (fertilization, weeding, row planting) Number of sites/ Number of themes: BEN: 6 themes; ML: 6 themes; GU: 6 themes; GA: 6 themes GH: 6 themes; NG: 6 themes; SL: 6 themes.

Number of themes adopted by farmers and brochures developed (Number of themes/ number of brochures) : BEN: 4 themes ; ML: 4 themes ; GU: 4 themes ; GA: 4 themes GH: 4 themes ; NG: 4 themes/ongoing (agreement);

BEN: 3; ML: 3; GU: 3; GA: 3; GH: 3; NG: 3; SL: 3.

0.01


13

Average yield targeted in the project area: 2.5 t/ha

SL: 4 themes. The average yield obtained in the project area is less than 2.5 t/ha following the non-generalized adoption of themes. Chemical weeding was not much used.

Production of basic seeds by country (PN) : BE: 59 t; ML: 167 t; GU: 45 t; GA: 65 t; GH: 134 t; NG: 110 t; SL: 122 t.

BE: 3; ML: 2; GU: 2; GA: 4; GH: 4; NG: 3; SL: 2.

0.018

BE: 0.054; ML: 0.036; GU: 0.036; GA: 0.072; GH: 0.072; NG: 0.054; SL: 0.036.

Traditional rice varieties are identified and conserved in cold rooms. BEN: 122; ML: 667; GU: 100; GA: 30 GH: 60; NG: 60; SL: 30

Traditional rice varieties identified/ conserved: BEN: 122/0; ML: 167/0 GU: 100/0; GA: 15/0 GH: 30/0; NG: 60/20; SL: 30/0


0.001

BE: 0.002; ML: 0.002 ; GU: 0.002; GA: 0.002; GH: 0.002; NG: 0.003; SL: 0.002.

Production equipment supplied for experimental purposes Thresher (thresh.), rototiller (roto.), seed drill (seed.), manual harvester (harvest.) and tractors (tract.): BEN: 8 thresh., 1 shell., 20 weed. ML: 8 thresh., 20 weed. GU: 6 thresh., 6 roto., 6 seed. GA: 3 thresh., 3 roto., 3 seed., 3 harvest.; GH: 3 thresh., 3 roto., 3 seed., 3 harvest.; NG: 6 thresh., 6 roto., 6 seed., 6 harvest.; SL: 4 thresh., 4 roto., 4 seed., 4 harvest.

Production equipment procured/experimented: BEN: 18 thresh., 170 seed., 20 weed.; ML: 17 thresh., 13 dry., 59 seed., 27 weed.; GU: No information on the purpose and state of procured equipment GA: 12 thresh., 12 roto., 18 seed., 2 tract. (CA); GH: 3 thresh., 5 roto., 5 pump.: (unmaintained) NG:18 thresh., 12 harvest., 60 seed., 3 tract. (CA) SL: 4 thresh. (uninstalled), 4 tract. (CA). The score given also takes into account their impact (training, new procurements using credit). The maintenance of distributed machines leaves something to be desired.

BEN: 2; ML: 3 GU: 1; GA: 3 GH: 2; NG: 1 SL: 1

0.024

BE: 0.048; ML: 0.072; GU: 0.024; GA: 0.072; GH: 0.048; NG: 0.024; SL: 0.024

Processing equipment (number of small-scale rice mills) : BEN: 5; ML: 5; GU: 3; GA: 3;

Processing equipment procured and experimented: BEN: 0; ML: 1 tested; GU:


0.052

BE: 0 ; ML: 0.052 GU: 0.104 ; GA: 0.104

14

GH: 3; NG: 6 together; SL: 5.

3 tested; GA: 6 (one tested); GH: 3 (only one tested). NG: 12 (none tested). SL: 4 (none tested). The score takes into account their impact.

GH: 0.104; NG: 0.052; SL: 0.052.

Component B: Production support

Number of farmers organized into groups and trained (farmers including women /groups) : BEN: 3 000/120 including 96 women ML: 4 752/190; GU: 3 696/280 including 75 women; GA: 80 000/700 (overestimation). GH: 33 500; NG: 25 000/360; SL: 4 500 including 3 600 women/180.

Farmers mobilized and trained farmers/groups: BEN: 3 402/133 including 109 women; ML: 3 200/330; GU: 4 115/335 including 65 women’s groups; GA: 18 300/258 (80% of women); GH: 22 570/318; NG: 15 000 including 5 000 women/1 200; SL: 5 638 including 3 121 women/ 345.


0.103

BE: 0.412; ML: 0.309; GU: 0.412; GA: 0.309; GH: 0.309; NG: 0.309; SL: 0.412.

Additional areas cultivated to upland rice (ha/T) : BEN: 17 750 ha; ML: 57 600 ha; GU: 26 800 ha; GA: 12 000 ha in the three sites; GH: 20 000 ha; NG: 108 000 ha (162 000 T); SL: 70 000 ha.

Areas of upland NERICA cultivated: BEN: 17035 ha; ML: 54 000 ha/2 485 farmers; GU: 48 134 ha ; GA: 63 000 ha for the entire country; GH: 12 230 ha NG: 10 141 ha (19 782 T); SL: 7 400 ha.

BEN: 3; ML: 3 GU: 4; GA: 4 GH: 3; NG: 1; SL: 1.

0.061


Quantities of certified seeds produced: BEN: 950 T; ML: 7 799 T GU: 6 000 T; GA: 10 000 T GH: 1000 T; NG: 14 616 T SL : CBSS = 3365 T, Others = 2 136 T

Quantities of certified seeds produced: BEN : 1 014 T; ML: 6 160 T; GU: 6 710 T; GA: 10 656 T GH: 1 300 T; NG: 2946 T; SL: CBSS = 190 T, Others = 415 T.


0.06

BE: 0.24; ML: 0.18; GU: 0.24; GA: 0.24; GH: 0.24; NG: 0.06; SL: 0.06.

The NSS in each country ensures enhanced quality control services: BEN: DPQC; ML:

The agreements signed with these structures are not often efficiently implemented: BEN: Agreement signed. ML: Agreement signed. GU: Agreement signed.

BEN: 3; ML: 3;

15

DCP/DA –LABOCEM; GU: DNA; GA: Seed Council/PTS-NARI; GH: GSID NG: NASC; SL: No NSS.

GA: PTS-NARI (PTS not involved). GH: GSID not approved. NG: NASC approved. SL: No NSS. Done by SLARI.

GU: 3; GA: 2; GH: 2; NG: 3; SL: 2.

0.03 BE: 0.09; ML: 0.09; GU: 0.09; GA: 0.06; GH: 0.06; NG: 0.09; SL: 0.06.

Rehabilitation of feeder roads: BEN: 130 km; ML: 194.4 km GU: 200 km; GA: 130 km GH: 270 km; NG: 450km SL: 270 km

Feeder roads rehabilitated (Km contracted: Progress in %: BEN: 0 km; ML: 70 km; GU: 0 km; GA: 0 km; GH: 20 km/100%; NG: 450 km/19%; SL: 270 km/35%.

BEN: 0; ML: 2 GU: 0; GA: 0 GH: 1; NG: 1 SL: 1.

0.3

BE: 0; ML: 0.6 GU: 0; GA: 0 GH: 0.3; NG: 0.3; SL: 0.3.

Infrastructure construction Number by type : BEN: 7 ms, 5mg, 5 as, 5 ev; ML: 25 mg, 9 as, 9 ev; GU: 27; GA: 6 x (ms, mg, ev, as); GH: 6 x (ms, mg, ev, as); NG:13 x (ms, mg, ev, as); SL: 8 x (ms, mg, ev, as).

Operational infrastructure. Number/% work progress: BEN: 7 ms, 5 mg, 5 as, 5 ev; ML: 19 mg, 18 as, 16 ev ; GU: 27/100% ; 44/60% ; 50/0% ; GA: 6 mg, 7 as/ongoing; GH: 3 x (ms, mg, as)/100% ; NG: Studies and plans/ 0%; SL: 4 x (ms, mg, ev, as)/18%.

BEN: 3; ML: 3 GU: 2; GA: 3 GH: 3; NG: 1 SL: 2.

0 .04

BE: 0.12; ML: 0.12; GU: 0.08; GA: 0.12; GH: 0.12; NG: 0.04; SL: 0.08.

Sensitization of target farmers, NGOs, and traders on HIV/AIDS and malaria.

Agreement /% implemented: BEN: with DNSP/20%; ML: with DNSP/100%; GU: with DNSP/60%; GA: with DSH, NAS and CCF; GH: with GHS (UA 28 850)/100%; NG: Workshop with technicians; SL: MOU (LE 195 million)/100%.


0.016

BE: 0.016; ML: 0.048; GU: 0.032; GA: 0.048; GH: 0.048; NG: 0.016; SL: 0.032.

Conduct of the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) by country.

ESMP/% disbursed: BEN: not conducted; ML: conducted/not implemented; GU: conducted/70% implemented; GA: No contract; GH: contract with EPA/40%; NG: No contract; SL: MOU with MLHE/28%.

BEN: 0; M: 2 GU: 3; GA: 0 GH: 2; NG: 0 SL: 1

0.014

BE: 0; ML: 0.28; GU: 0.042; GA: 0; GH: 0.028; NG: 0; SL: 0.014

16

Conduct of two studies on seeds, rice and input storage, credit access, and marketing by country.

BEN: not conducted; ML: 1; GU: 1; GA: 1 (seed storage); GH: 1 study conducted; NG: Not conducted; SL: Agreement with Statistics (50%)


0.017 BE: 0; ML: 0.017 GU: 0.017; GA: 0.034; GH: 0.034; NG: 0; SL: 0.017


Studies: (i) rice subsector (ii) rice market information system, (iii) baseline situation, (iv) impact study.

Number of studies. Reference study conducted late. BEN: 2 (baseline, impact); ML: 2 (baseline, impact); GU: 2 (baseline, impact); GA: 2 (baseline, impact). GH: 3 (baseline, impact, rice subsector); NG: 2 (baseline, impact); SL: 2 (baseline, impact, NERICA rice).


0.038 BE: 0.076; ML: 0.076; GU: 0.076; GA: 0.076; GH: 0.114; NG: 0.076; SL: 0.114

The material and human capacity of research institutions built.

The research institutes of the majority of countries were strengthened in transport, office and research equipment.


0.062 BE: 0.186; ML: 0.186; GU: 0.186; GA: 0.248; GH: 0.186; NG: 0.186; SL: 0.186.

The material and human capacity of institutions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Public Works and the PCU built.

Field services of the Ministries of Agriculture were provided with transport and office equipment. The other departments (roads, infrastructure) were not strengthened in terms of equipment.

BEN: 3; ML: 3 GU: 3;GA: 2 GH: 3; NG: 3 SL: 3

0.07 BE: 0.21; ML: 0.21; GU: 0.21; GA: 0.21 GH: 0.21; NG: 0.21; SL: 0.21.

Component D: Project management

Establishment of the Coordination Unit and adequate staffing.

The Unit was established and staffed. Certain countries witnessed changes in staffing (Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone).

BEN: 3; ML: 3; GU: 3; GA: 3 GH: 3; NG: 3 SL: 3

0.025 BE: 0.075; ML: 0.075; GU: 0.075 GA: 0.075; GH: 0.050 NG: 0.050; SL: 0.050.

Setting up of a NERICA promotion team, a Steering Committee and a monitoring and evaluation system at the national and regional level (ARI).

Meetings of the regional Steering Committee were regular. NSC meetings were not regular in certain countries (The Gambia, Nigeria). Most countries did not comply with the work plan and annual budgets.


0.027 BE: 0.081; ML: 0.081; GU: 0.081; GA: 0.054; GH: 0.081; NG: 0.054; SL: 0.081.

17

OVERALL OUTPUT SCORE [Score is calculated as the sum of weighted scores]

BE: 1.951; ML: 2.773; GU: 0.103; GA: 2.106; GH: 2.422; NG: 1.844; SL: 2.024.

Check here to override the calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the calculated score

BE: 1.951; ML: 2.773; GU: 0.103; GA: 2.106; GH: 2.422; NG: 1.844; SL: 2.024.

II. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES

1. Using available monitoring data, assess the achievement of expected outcomes. Import the expected outcomes from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outcomes were achieved. The overall outcome score must be calculated as an average of the working scores. Override the calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

OUTCOMES Working Score Expected Actual

Component A: Technology transfer

Research institutes have started producing pre-basic seeds for their countries.

No research institute has started producing pre-basic seeds of NERICA varieties. ARI has not supplied the quantities of foundation seeds planned for each country.

1

Basic seeds of NERICA varieties produced by specialized institutions (SRNA and NASC) and seed leaders are available in sufficient quantities.

The SRNAs of the majority of countries have not produced the necessary quantities of basic seeds contracted with the project. Basic seeds supplied by NASC (Nigeria) contain impurities. Seed leaders were not involved in the production of basic seeds.

2

Farmers are more interested in intensifying crops (application of complementary technology) than extending cultivated areas to increase production.

Increased NERICA production is due more to extension of cultivated areas than the intensification of crops, especially on land with mechanization and input support. The rate of recovery in kind of this contribution by the project is average.

2

Conservation of the productive potential of rice varieties through crossing with local varieties.

The local varieties have not been catalogued. The absence of operational cold rooms in the research institutes of the majority of countries does not allow for conservation of local seed varieties. Local

2

18

germplasms are conserved in other countries abroad. Crossing with local varieties has not been started in most countries, except for Ghana.

Extension of rice-growing areas and the improvement of labour force productivity through mechanization of farming techniques.

The extension of cultivated areas is tangible. On the other hand, failure by beneficiaries to use pre- and post-harvest equipment has not helped in improving labour force productivity and attaining the target of additional cultivated areas in project sites.

2

The value added of rice production is improved at the community level by processing equipment.

The late procurement of experimental rice packaging and processing equipment has not helped in sensitizing the communities to obtain equipment using medium-term credit resources. The production value added did not improve during the project.

1

Component B: Production support

Farmers and other operators organized themselves into groups and other types of associations. Solid ties were established between various links in the chain of rice subsector operators.

The considerable number of NERICA seed producers made the organization of the seed sector difficult The intervention of the project and government institutions in the marketing of seeds produced by these farmers and in the supply of inputs helped to fill the existing gap regarding the involvement of NGOs and other operators in structuring the rice subsector

2

The rice certification institution strengthened and operational in the country. Benin: DPQC; Nigeria: NASC; The Gambia: Seed Council/NARI; Ghana: GSID; Mali: DCP/DA, LABOPSEM ; Guinea: DNA; Sierra Leone: SLARI.

For certain countries, specialized services were in charge of seed control (Benin, Nigeria, Mali, and Guinea). For the other countries, there was no contract with specialized institutions. Consequently, very few producers eliminate impurities from their fields for lack of supervision. Seed producers recycle their own seeds over several years for want of supervision.

3

Needs in certified seeds of selected rice varieties are met.

In the project sites, NERICA seed supply seems to exceed demand. However, public structures. encounter difficulties in selling the surplus Nevertheless, the quality of certain stored seeds leaves much to be desired (low rate of germination in Sierra Leone, impurities of seeds in Nigeria)

3

Boosting of incomes by facilitating the marketing of inputs, equipment and rice by-products and through reduction of post-harvest losses

The delays and weaknesses noted in the improvement of roads and the construction of production storage and marketing infrastructure has not facilitated the marketing of inputs and other factors of production and in reducing losses.

1

19

Labour force productivity is improved thanks to the improved health of the rural population and the full involvement of women

The contracts signed with health institutions were implemented in certain countries and fell behind in others. But, the absence of statistics in the health centres of project sites, as concerns endemic diseases, makes it impossible to assess the impact of this action.

2

Negative impacts linked to extension of rice farms (loss of fertility and soil erosion) and intensification (chemical products), are contained.

For the majority of countries, the ESMP was not conducted. The contracts signed with environmental institutions were only partially implemented. The natural vegetation areas cleared for rice farming were not offset by reforestation activities.

1

Response to the food crisis

The food crisis was contained thanks to the supply of factors of production.

To curb the food crisis, seeds, agricultural equipment, fertilizers and herbicides were distributed to farmers living both in and out of project sites. These activities helped to increase production; however, the share attributable to these activities was not clearly established.

2

Response to the food crisis is sustainable. Production equipment procured during the crisis is not efficiently managed (Frequent breakdowns of tractors, harvesters and other poorly maintained equipment). The increased yields and the profits made did not bring about recourse by beneficiaries to financial institutions for the procurement of inputs the likes of which they got from the project. The working capital made available in kind operates with difficulty. This has contributed to the precarious impact obtained.

2


The national rice subsector is becoming profitable and will compete with the imported rice subsector.

Thanks to NERICA, the harvest essentially covers all operating costs. Incomes have increased and farmers’ living conditions have improved. Cotton farmers are switching to the cultivation of NERICA rice, which competes well with imported rice.

3

Sustainability of upland rice farming through conservation of the genetic potential of varieties and the use of technology packages.

Farmers have witnessed an increase in their production through the use of improved farming techniques and improved NERICA varieties. This explains their enthusiasm for this crop’s extension and augurs well for its sustainability. Nevertheless, there is a real risk of degeneration of the seeds of these varieties as a result of the non-renewal of pre-basic and basic seeds.

3

20

Sustainability of investments by the project through capacity building for the country’s institutions.

The capacity of institutions involved in the project’s implementation was, for the most part, built and these institutions are conveniently carrying out their sovereign missions. However, the achievements need to be consolidated through a 2nd phase or from the country’s own resources.

3

Component D: Project management

Supervision and efficient control of the project’s physical and financial activities.

The procedures manual and the computerized monitoring and evaluation system have not been established in the vast majority of countries. Frequent changes in the PCU team in certain countries (Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and Guinea) and the extension of its activities to other unscheduled regions impacted on activity implementation timeframes.

2

Effective involvement of beneficiaries in project implementation.

Thanks to agreements and protocol agreements, and to coordination, sensitization, training and meetings, beneficiaries were fully involved in the implementation of project activities. But their contribution in cash and kind has not been effective, especially in the execution and maintenance of infrastructure works.

2

Scheduling and efficient implementation of project activities.

The annual work programme and the related budget are prepared and approved by the National Steering Committee. Compliance with this schedule was inadequate.

2

OVERALL OUTCOME SCORE [Score is calculated as an average of the working scores]

2.05

Check here to override the calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the calculated score 2.05

2. Additional outcomes. Comment on the project's additional outcomes not captured in the log. frame, including cross-cutting issues (e.g., gender).

For all countries, part of the budget of project works was reallocated to the food crisis. This created an imbalance between the activities of the “Production support” component likely to jeopardize the sustainability of production increases achieved from providing beneficiaries with considerable quantities of inputs and the extension of cultivated areas through mechanization (tractors and harvesters). This budget reallocation, which varies according to country (from UA 290 000 to UA 500 000), should have been charged to the “Contingencies” and “Goods” categories, so as to avoid jeopardizing the sustainability of this production increase on account of the absence of the necessary road infrastructure to support this additional production.

21

3. Risks to sustained achievement of outcomes. State the factors that affect, or could affect, the long-run or sustained achievement of project outcomes. Indicate if any new activity or institutional change is recommended to help sustain outcomes. The analysis should draw upon the sensitivity analysis in Annex 3, where appropriate.

The outcomes achieved in varietal selection, production of certified seeds, consumption rice and their marketing are still weak, and their sustainability could be affected, if the following consolidation measures are not taken: (i) The first production and post-harvest equipment procured early (2008) by certain countries (Ghana,

The Gambia) have, for the most part, broken down, as a result of their intensive use for production rather than for tests and the training of beneficiaries. The equipment procured towards the end of the project by a majority of countries, even though not yet allocated to or installed in communities, will suffer the same fate on account of ignorance by beneficiaries of the latter’s purpose. This equipment must be considered as a training tool and used as tests for the mechanization of NERICA production activities, the only factor capable of making NERICA’s productivity and production very viable.

(ii) The non-construction of all the 1 350 km of roads has made certain sites inaccessible at certain

periods of the year, which makes the transportation of produce from production areas to consumption areas difficult.

(iii) the non-conduct of ESMP for the majority of countries, and sensitization campaigns on endemic

diseases for some (Nigeria), exposes the natural environment to anthropogenic activities, and the population to disease risks that can make them unfit to develop agricultural activities (loss of productivity).

E. PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the extent to which the Bank and the Borrower ensured the project was commensurate with the Borrower’s capacity to implement by designing the project appropriately and by putting in place the necessary implementation arrangements. Consider all major design aspects, such as extent to which project design took into account lessons learned from previous PCRs in the sector or the country (please cite key PCRs); whether the project was informed by robust analytical work (please cite key documents); how well Bank and Borrower assessed the capacity of the implementing agencies and/or Project Implementation Unit; scope of consultations and partnerships; economic rationale of project; and provisions made for technical assistance.

[250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative]

The project was designed with Project Coordination Units, with four experts seconded from Ministries and devoted entirely to the project’s coordination. The recruitment of an NGO and consultants was envisaged to supervise and mobilize specialized government structures for the implementation of major components of the project namely, research, training, extension, sensitization, capacity building and works study and control.

The project aims to disseminate upland NERICA rice varieties in seven West African countries. Thus, Africa Rice was entrusted with the project’s regional coordination for the seven countries. Indeed, ARI received a Grant of UA 2.91 million from the Bank from 1991 to 1997 to develop NERICA rice varieties. Between 1999 and 2000, ARI received another Grant of UA 400 000 from the Bank.

22

The project took into account lessons learnt from other PCRs in the sector, especially as a majority of countries have not had any experience in upland NERICA rice farming (Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana, Benin), whereas the others benefited from other upland rice farming projects financed by other donors (The Gambia, Guinea). Thus, in addition to NERICA rice dissemination, the following activities were scheduled: i) structuring of the certified seed production sector; ii) training of beneficiaries on small-scale equipment for pre- and post-harvest farming techniques and for rice packaging; iii) partial improvement instead of rehabilitation of access roads to production areas, and iv) the construction of light and non-mechanized structures for the drying and storage of production. In March 2003, the project preparation team visited five out of the seven countries to identify the adequate potential areas and chose 3 to 6 sites per country. It took into account rice farming projects being prepared and implemented with financing from other donors (bilateral cooperation, IFAD, World Bank). During implementation, project activities extended to several other sites and even to the entire country, as is the case with the Gambia.

2. For each dimension of project design and readiness for implementation, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences). Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS

ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

REALISM

a) Project complexity is matched with country capacity and political commitment.

The analysis of the institutional framework shows that specialized national structures (research, extension, technical support) need capacity building to enable them to accomplish the missions assigned to them. This was selected as a project component. The seven countries chosen belong to NEPAD.

3

RISK ASSESSMENTAND MITIGATION

b) Project design includes adequate risk analysis.

The assumptions/risks of the logical framework proved to be exact during project implementation. Other risks not mentioned occurred during implementation such as climate change (dry years)

3

USE OF COUNTRY SYSTEMS

c) Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems are based on those already in use by government and/or other partners.

The procurement procedures applied are those of the Government and the Bank. Very long delays were observed. The procedures manual as well as the monitoring and evaluation system are not available at project closure.

2

23

For the following dimensions, provide separate working scores for Bank performance and Borrower performance:

WORKING SCORE

Bank Borrower

CLARITY d) Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined.

The responsibilities of various stakeholders and beneficiaries were clearly defined at appraisal. The Borrower took them into account, despite the non-involvement of NGOs, and the low participation of APEs for the ESMP and the DNS (HIV/AIDS, Malaria) and the administrative delays recorded.

2 2

PROCUREMENT READINESS

e) Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal.

The necessary implementation documents were not ready at appraisal. Implementation studies needed to be conducted, infrastructure bidding documents prepared and the baseline situation established to define advisory support activities.

2 1

MONITORING READINESS

f) Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon before project launch.

There is neither a monitoring and evaluation manual nor an operational database. Steering Committee meetings hold regularly. The Bank’s supervision missions were regular.

2 2

BASELINE DATA

h) Baseline data were available or were collected during project design.

Very few baseline data were available at the start of the project. The baseline situation study was conducted for all countries during the project (2010).

2 1

24

F. IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the major characteristics of project implementation with reference to: adherence to schedules, quality of construction or other work, performance of consultants, effectiveness of Bank supervision, and effectiveness of Borrower oversight. Assess how well

the Bank and the Borrower ensured compliance with safeguards. [300 words maximum. [Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative.]

Effectiveness and start-up took place in 2005 for a period of five years and the completion date initially planned for 31 December 2010 was extended to 30 December 2011. There was a delay in the effectiveness and actual start-up of the project specific to each country, due to the non-fulfilment of conditions precedent to the first disbursement. Thus, road and infrastructure works were retarded as a result of cumulated delays in studies, preparation of BDs and the control of works often carried out by government services, on the one hand, and the inability of contractors to comply with implementation timeframes, on the other hand. Guinea could only catch up with this serious cumulated delay six months before the project’s closure by taking adequate measures to address these shortcomings. The underestimation of unit prices for road works and the reallocation of “Works” category funds to the Food Crisis only partially explain the inadequate performance of these activities. The operator in charge of environmental management did not comply with the schedule of this activity such that, for the majority of countries, the ESMP was either not prepared or was not implemented. Compliance with the schedule of activities linked to the adoption of NERICA rice varieties and complementary technologies by groups ensured this crop’s high acceptance by beneficiaries. On the other hand, late implementation and lack of harmonization between activities related to the adoption of pre- and post- harvest and rice processing techniques did not allow for the popularization of these techniques. The quality of some activities implemented in certain countries leaves much to be desired. Despite the achievement of the quantitative objective of seeds produced, certification and marketing of rice seeds are poorly structured such that problems of bad germination, seed impurities, and drop in sales and poor storage continue to arise.

2. Comment on the role of other partners (e.g. donors, NGOs, contractors, etc.). Assess the effectiveness of co-financing arrangements and of donor coordination, if applicable.

The project, which started in Benin, the Gambia, Guinea, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, was supported by several donors, including the Government of Japan, the UNDP, the Rockefeller Foundation, the CFC, USAID, IFAD, SG2000, the FAO, the ADB and the World Bank. ARI’s mandate was extended to East and Central African countries for NERICA’s dissemination (WARDA, 2003).

25

3. Harmonization. State whether the Bank made explicit efforts to harmonize instruments, systems and/or approaches with other partners.

In most countries, other projects attached to rice production, in general, and NERICA, in particular, are underway. Unfortunately, no synergy or harmonization of activities was developed between these projects and the NRDP. Thus, for instance, for the Gambia, GREP is financed by Taiwan TM, GEAPP by EU and the IBRD, PIWAMP by IFAD and the FMRIP by the ADB. The role played by these partners in the achievement of project objectives is difficult to assess now without an analysis of supervision mission and/or completion reports of the projects of these donors.

4. For each dimension of project implementation, assess the extent to which the project achieved the following. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) and insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT

WORKING

SCORE

TIMELINESS

a) Extent of project adherence to the original closing date. If the number on the right is: below 12, "4" is scored between 12.1 to 24, "3" is scored between 24.1 to 36, "2" is scored beyond 36.1, "1" is scored

Difference in months between original closing date and actual closing date or date of 98% disb. rate.

The delay in closing corresponds globally to the delay in implementation.

BEN: 3;

ML: 4;

GU: 3;

GA: 3;

GH: 3;

NG: 3; SL: 3; AR: 3.

BEN: 12 months;

ML: 6 months;

GU: 18 months;

GA: 12 months;

GH: 12 months;

NG: 12 months;

SL: 12 months;

AR: 12 months.

BANK PERFORMANCE

b) Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

The Bank classified the project under category II. But it did not monitor the implementation of this component.

3

Fiduciary Requirements

Supervision missions all analysed the project’s financial management. The Bank honoured its commitments.

3

Project Covenants

The Bank honoured its commitments as set forth in the Loan Agreement.

4

c) Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix and practicality of solutions

The Bank was able to monitor NRDP’s implementation, through various supervision missions: BEN (12), ML (11) GU (10), GA (8), GH (10), NG (1), SL (08), and AR (9).

3

26

d) Bank provided quality management oversight

The audit reports, submitted annually by the borrowers, were validated by the Bank and their recommendations were carefully monitored.

3


e) Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

In general, the ESMP was not conducted and the agreements signed were not implemented. No environmental safeguards were taken.

2

Fiduciary Requirements The counterpart contribution was paid regularly, despite delays.

3

Project Covenants

The Borrower did not honour its commitments as set forth in the Loan Agreement; certain envisaged protocol agreements were not signed.

2

f) Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations

The Borrower was globally responsive to the recommendations of supervision missions. It did not sign agreements with certain ministries (Works, Environment, and Health).

2

g) Borrower collected and used monitoring information for decision making

Most recommendations of supervision missions were not fully implemented.

2

27

G. COMPLETION

1. IS THE PCR DELIVERED ON A TIMELY BASIS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH BANK POLICY?

Date project reached 98% disb. Rate (or closing date if applicable)

Date PCR was sent to [email protected] MM/DD/YY

Difference in months

WORKING SCORE if the difference is 6 months or less, a 4 is scored. If the difference is 6.1 or more, a 1 is scored

BEN: 30 December 2011; ML: 30 June 2011; GU: 30 June 2012; GA: 30 December 2011; GH: 30 December 2011; NG: 30 December 2011; SL: 30 December 2011

BEN: NA; ML: NA; GU: NA; GA: NA; GH: August 2011; NG: NA; SL:NA

BEN: 4 months; ML: 4 months; GU: 4 months; GA: 4 months; GH: 4 months; NG: 4 months; SL: 4 months.


2. Briefly describe the PCR Process. Describe the Borrower’s and co-financers' involvement in producing the document. Highlight any major differences of opinion concerning the assessments made in this PCR. Describe the team composition and confirm whether a site visit was undertaken. Mention any major collaboration from other development partners. State the extent of field office involvement in producing the report. Indicate whether comments from Peer Reviewers were received on time (provide names and positions of Peer Reviewers). [150 words maximum]

The completion mission comprised two rural engineering consultants (one for Francophone countries and one for Anglophone countries), an agronomist and an agro-economist from the Bank. Their profiles are consistent with the project’s two main activities: infrastructure and agricultural production support. Certain PCUs prepared an incomplete completion report inconsistent with the required format. The PCUs assisted mission members in office work as well as in field visits. The PCR is the fruit of participatory work, involving all stakeholders and incorporating lessons learnt from frank discussions held with the various operators.

H. LESSONS LEARNED

Summarize key lessons for the Bank and the Borrower suggested by the project’s outcomes [300 words maximum. Any additional narrative about lessons learned, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]

(i) Identify key activities, from project start , so as to give them the required priority in scheduling and implementation;

(ii) Give greater importance to clauses relating to the technical, material and financial capacity of contractors during the preparation and evaluation of BDs for works;

(iii) Clearly define the regional or multilateral institution’s prerogatives and financing in a multinational project so as to avoid an unbalanced reallocation of funds between the various countries;

(iv) Ensure that the multinational institution’s coordination role is not only limited to providing goods and services to their counterparts at the national level, but also to assisting them to achieve self-

28

sufficiency in these services and for the effective transfer of new technologies; (v) In Federal States, the contracting authority and principal contractor planned at project appraisal

should, preferably, be decentralized government bodies; (vi) The capacity and availability of financing from micro-finance institutions existing in the project

areas must be well analysed in the PAR for projects needing their involvement.

I PROJECT RATINGS SUMMARY All working scores and ratings must be found in the relevant section in the PCR. For example, please insert the “Overall Output score” in Section D.I. in the “Achievement of Outputs” box below.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA WORKING

SCORE

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of outputs (insert score from Section D.I.) 2.17

Achievement of outcomes (insert score from Section D.I.) 2.05

Timeliness (insert score from Section F.4.) 3.1

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME SCORE (score average) 2.44

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness

Project Objectives were relevant to country development priorities. (insert score from Section C.3.)

4

Project Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected time frame. (insert score from Section C.3.)

3

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s country or regional strategy (insert score from Section C.3.)

4

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s corporate priorities (insert score from Section C.3.)

4

The log frame presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives. (insert score from Section C.5.)

2

The log frame expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable. (insert score from Section C.5.)

2

The log frame states the risks and key assumptions. (insert score from Section C.5.)

3

Project complexity was matched with country capacity and political commitment. (insert score from Section E.2.)

3

Project design includes adequate risk analysis. (insert score from Section E.2.) 3

Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems were based on those already in use by government and/or other partners. (insert score from Section E.2.)

2

Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined. (insert score from Section E.2.)

2

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal. (insert score from Section E.2.)

3

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon during design. (insert score from Section E.2.)

2

Baseline data was available or were collected during design. (insert score from Section E.2.)

2

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SUB-SCORE (score average) 2.79

Supervision:

Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards (insert score from Section F.4.) 3

Fiduciary Requirements (insert score from Section F.4.) 3

29

Project Covenants (insert score from Section F.4.) 4

Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix provided and practicality of solutions. (insert score from Section F.4.)

3

Bank provided quality management oversight. (insert score from Section F.4.) 3

PCR was delivered on a timely basis (insert score from Section G) 4

SUPERVISION SUB-SCORE (score average) 3.33

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE (score average) 3.06


Design and Readiness

Responsibilities for project implementation are clearly defined. (insert score from Section E.2)

2

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) are ready at appraisal. (insert score from Section E.2)

1

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan are agreed upon 2

Baseline data are available or are being collected. (insert score from Section E.2)

1

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SCORE (score average) 1.5

Implementation

Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards (insert score from Section F.4) 2

Fiduciary Requirements (insert score from Section F.4) 3

Project Covenants (insert score from Section F.4) 2

Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations. (insert score from Section F.4)

2

Borrower collected and used of monitoring information for decision-making. (insert score from Section F.4)

2

IMPLEMENTATION SUB-SCORE (score average) 2.2

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE (score average) 1.85

J. PROCESSING

STEP SIGNATURE AND COMMENTS DATE

Sector Manager Clearance

Regional Director Clearance

Sector Director Approval

30

APPENDIX 1

Scale for Working Scores and Ratings

SCORE EXPLANATION

4 Very Good- Fully achieved with no shortcomings

3 Good- Mostly achieved despite a few shortcomings

2 Fair- Partially achieved. Shortcomings and achievements are roughly balanced

1 Poor- Very limited achievement with extensive shortcomings

NA Non Applicable

Note: The formulas round up or down for decimal points. Only whole numbers are computed.

I

Annex 1

COMMENTS ON ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The project’s economic analysis at completion was done using data on input costs, production selling prices and crop

yields obtained by the mission during discussions with beneficiaries. The economic rate of return was calculated based

on the project’s additional benefits over a period of 20 years. The additional benefits retained are those that are easily

quantifiable, and stem from increased agricultural production of rain-fed and irrigated crops.

Rice yields in West Africa averaged 1.8 t/ha on farmers’ plots, varying from 1.5 t/ha to 2.5 t by country and by type of

rice variety. NERICA rice plots had average yields estimated at 3 t/ha. It is estimated that about 200 000 ha are farmed

for NERICA rice, with a production of about 700 000 t. The operating accounts were established consequent upon the

yields attained, which are linked to gradual implementation of technology packages (inputs, farming techniques) and

the level of support measures and advisory support provided to farmers by various project partners. The production

costs of a tonne of paddy rice are estimated averagely at USD 200. The total benefit accruing from NERICA rice

farming in the project area was determined by multiplying this net income per ha by the area added or converted to

NERICA rice farming.

A recent study conducted in April 2011 by an FAO, CILSS, WFP and CIRAD team, shows that NERICA has a

significant impact on increased areas under rice cultivation, which rose from 5 million ha in 2006 to 6.2 million ha in

2009. The self-sufficiency rate increased for Benin from 23% in 2006 to 34% in 2009, for Mali from 79% to 90%, and

for Guinea from 125% to 130%. The growth rate of rice imports slowed down very considerably. Indeed, the imports

increased from 5 million tons in 2006 to only 5.2 million tons in 2009, whereas they increased from 3.2 million tons to

4.9 million tons, over the period 2001-2005.

Sierra Leone. Ghana. Nigeria. The Gambia.

The production cost of one ha of NERICA rice varied from one country to another. Thus, it stood at

GMD 12 000, NGN 66 650, SLL 3.15 million, respectively, for The Gambia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. The production

cost for Ghana stands at USD 220 per ton. The cultivated areas varied gradually for the duration of the project to reach

and, in a good year, even exceed the surface areas indicated in the Appraisal Report. These areas stand at 63 000 ha, 10

141 ha, 7 400 ha and 12 230 ha, respectively, for The Gambia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Ghana.

Sierra Leone

- Cultivated areas: 7 400 ha - Average yield: 2.5 t/ha - Production costs of a ton of paddy rice: USD 200 - Rice farm-gate price: USD 250 on average

Ghana


The Gambia

- Cultivated areas: 63 000 ha - Average yield: 2 t/ha - Production costs of a ton of paddy rice: USD 210 - Rice farm gate price: USD 250 on average.

II

Nigeria


Starting from a reference yield of 2t /ha, the project’s internal rate of return reached 27%, 26%, 39% and

31%, respectively, for Sierra Leone, Nigeria, The Gambia and Ghana, on project sites. The Gambia’s 39%

IRR is attributable to experience acquired by this country in NERICA’s adoption for more than a decade,

enabling it to optimize the production costs of one ha of rice.

Benin, Guinea, Mali

The surface areas stand at 17 035 ha, 48 000 ha and 54 000 ha, respectively, for Benin, Guinea and Mali.

Benin

- Cultivated areas: 17 035 ha - Average yield: 2.5 t/ha - Production costs of a tonne of paddy rice: USD 150 - Rice farm-gate price: USD 250 on average

Guinea

- Cultivated areas: 48 000 ha - Average yield: 2 t/ha - Production costs of a tonne of paddy rice: USD 150 - Rice farm-gate price: USD 250 on average

Mali

- Cultivated areas: 54 000 ha - Average yield: 3 t/ha - Production costs of a tonne of paddy rice: USD 180 - Rice farm-gate price: USD 300 on average

The project’s internal rate of return reached 36 % for Mali on project sites. For Benin and Guinea, they are

estimated at 25%.

III

Annex 2

GAMBIA

RATE OF RETURN

(Thousand GMD)

Year Year Investment Operating Operating Net

costs income Income

1 2006 6 373 48 000 -28 000 -82 373

2 2007 1 704 38 372 -22 000 -62 076

3 2008 5 920 17 704 96 000 72 376

4 2009 16 681 5 920 96 000 73 399

5 2010 1 716 681 96 000 93 603

6 2011 4 301 30 284 96 000 61 415

7 2012 31 537 35 699 96 000 28 764

8 2013 0 12 436 96 000 83 564

9 2014 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

10 2015 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

11 2016 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

12 2017 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

13 2018 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

14 2019 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

15 2020 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

16 2021 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

17 2022 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

18 2023 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

19 2024 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

20 2025 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

SORTED over 20

years

39%

IV

SIERRA LEONE

Annex 3

RATE OF RETURN

Year Year Investment Operating

costs

Operating

income

Net income

1 2006 1 877 407 7 277 407

-500 000 -9 654 814

2 2007 2 945 408 6 345 408

400 000 -8 890 816

3 2008 2 951 994 4 351 994

5 000 000 -2 303 988

4 2009 4 092 885 3 492 885

8 000 000 414 230

5 2010 2 879 536 279 536

10 000 000 6 840 928

6 2011 4 200 509 399 491

13 600 000 9 000 000

7 2012 0 6 600 000

15 600 000 9 000 000

8 2013 0 7 400 000

18 000 000 10 600 000

9 2014 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

10 2015 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

11 2016 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

12 2017 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

13 2018 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

14 2019 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

15 2020 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

16 2021 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

17 2022 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

18 2023 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

19 2024 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

20 2025 0 7 400 000

19 500 000 12 100 000

SORTED over 20 years 27%

V

NIGERIA

RATE OF RETURN

(Thousand NAIRA)

Year Year Investment Operating costs Operating income Net income

1 2006 51 294 200 000 55 000 -196 294

2 2007 23 120 201 294 126 000 -98 414

3 2008 94 000 123 120 140 000 -77 120

4 2009 264 000 144 000 170 000 -238 000

5 2010 274 136 214 000 210 000 -278 136

6 2011 225 275 174 136 390 000 -9 411

7 2012 271 783 25 275 560 000 262 942

8 2013 0 21 783 750 000 728 217

9 2014 0 300 000 750 000 450 000

10 2015 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

11 2016 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

12 2017 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

13 2018 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

14 2019 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

15 2020 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

16 2021 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

17 2022 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

18 2023 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

19 2024 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

20 2025 0 300 000 770 000 470 000


Annex 4

VI

Annex 5

GHANA

RATE OF RETURN

(GHC)

Year Year Investment

Operating profits Net profits

Operating costs

1 2006 844 335

844 210 -125

2 2007 17 996 993

3 628 623 -14 368 370

3 2008 1 096 488

393 488 -703 000

4 2009 984 125

3 840 675 2 856 550

5 2010 490 702

4 781 948 4 291 246

6 2011 248 415

6 850 675 6 602 260

7 2012 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

8 2013 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

9 2014 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

10 2015 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

11 2016 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

12 2017 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

13 2018 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

14 2019 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

15 2020 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

16 2021 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

17 2022 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

18 2023 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

19 2024 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933

20 2025 589 667

8 940 600 8 350 933


VII

Annex 6

MALI

RATE OF RETURN

(Thousand CFAF)

Year Year Investment

Operating income Net income

Operating costs

1 2006 3 150

2 800 -350

2 2007 8 500

3 500 -5 000

3 2008 8 700

10 500 1 800

4 2009 14 200

15 300 1 100

5 2010 16 150

18 300 2 150

6 2011 17 750

20 150 2 400

7 2012 17 750

20 150 2 400

8 2013 17 750

20 150 2 400

9 2014 17 750

20 150 2 400

10 2015 17 750

20 150 2 400

11 2016 17 750

20 150 2 400

12 2017 17 750

20 150 2 400

13 2018 17 750

20 150 2 400

14 2019 17 750

20 150 2 400

15 2020 17 750

20 150 2 400

16 2021 17 750

20 150 2 400

17 2022 17 750

20 150 2 400

18 2023 17 750

20 150 2 400

19 2024 17 750

20 150 2 400

20 2025 17 750

20 150 2 400

SORTED over 20

years 36%

multinational - nerica rice dissemination project (mnrdp ......annual rice demand in west africa is...

Documents