Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Annual Performance Review and South-South Cooperation Event
1-6 November 2010Nanning, China
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Presentation outline
1.APR performance
2.Portfolio performance
3.Development results
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
1.APR performance
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
New approvals
2009/2010
Approvals• 9 projects and 1 COSOP approved
• USD 213 million
EffectivenessOld procedure: 9.7 months (or 6.4 months without outliers) against 12 months in 2008/09
Co-financing mobilizedUSD 249 million
USD 1.16 leveraged for each dollar invested by IFAD
Quality at entryOnly 55% of our new projects expected to meet their objectives!!!
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
53 56 62
1.191.23
1.42
5865 68
32 40.5 40.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Nb of projects Value(USD'10,000,000)
Nb of projects Value(USD'10,000,000)
2008
2009
2010
A growing portfolio to manage
Loans and DSF grants
Regional and country grants
111111111
(USD billion) (USD million)
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
How to contain portfolio growth?
5.96 6.38 6.36
8.78
6.11
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0-2 years 2-4 years 4-6 years 6 years + Projectsapproved
duringreviewperiod
Average project duration (in years), by project maturity
Portfolio average
6.55 years
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
How to contain portfolio growth?
22.4524.44
21.96
26.90
22.90 23.67
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
Average loan size (in USD million) per period
Overall portfolio Newly approved projects
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
b) Supervising on-going projects
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
2007/08 – 1st generation issues: Shift from UNOPS; Getting familiar with core supervision requirements and processes; familiarization with key project issues; benchmarking.
2008/09 – 2009/10 - 2nd generation issue: Fine tuning of process; focus on key areas (FM/M&E etc); client feedback; opportunities for learning and sharing for accelerated improvement; appreciative enquiry vs problem identification.
2010/2011 – 3rd generation issue: Ensuring highest quality standards across countries and projects (supervision processes, Aide Mémoires, expertise); Enhancing impact of supervision process on projects’ effectiveness and performance
Direct Supervision – a steep learning curve
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Supervision achievements
• 37 supervision/MTR missions and 17 follow-up missions
• 8 start-up workshops
• 6 PCR missions
• 35 supervision debriefings
• Special meeting organized in April 2009 to discuss problem projects and agree on additional resources for well-targeted implementation support
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Quality of supervision (loan + DSF grants)
Most Aide Mémoires are improving in quality and PMU feedback is usually positive, but:
• Uneven clarity (and usefulness?) of recommendations (from 11 to 126 recommendations/report; average is 41)
• Reporting on results insufficient (lack of impact data)• Sections on sustainability, targeting and KM often poorly
covered• Many reports still lack a clear expression of mission’s
opinion • Fiduciary aspects covered with varying degrees of detail and
audit logs often not attached
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Highly problematic:
• No corporate minimum requirements for grants’ supervision (frequency, quality norms)
• No budget for supervision
• Only 30% of large regional grants supervised
Quality of supervision (grants)
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Loan administration
• 382 WAs processed (representing 20% of all WAs processed in IFAD and 36% of total IFAD disbursements)
• Average APR processing time: 27.46 days (PMD average: 27.06 days)
• Overall processing time: 46 days (IFAD average: 42.6 days)
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Time for processing WAs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
(US
D m
illion
)
APR ESA LAC NEN WCA
Amounts disbursed, per Division
0
10
20
30
40
50
APR ESA LAC NEN WCA
Average WA processing time, by Division and overall
Nb of days in Reg. Div.Nb of days total IFAD
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Knowledge management
• Knowledge products:– Five Newsletters
– Three Occasional Papers
– Two BBC documentaries (700 million viewers worldwide)
• KM infrastructure:– APR, ICT and COM are working on a new multi-purpose
internet environment – IFADASIA (within ifad.org domain) to serve as a home for the APR regional network.
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
2. Portfolio performance
Annex IV: Project Status ReportSummary of Project Status and Ratings
Annex I: Project Status Report SUMMARY OF PROJECT STATUS AND RATINGS
A. Project Performance Ratings
B.1 Fiduciary Aspects Last Current B.2 Project implementation progress Last Current
1. Quality of financial management 1. Quality of project management
2. Acceptable disbursement rate 2. Performance of M&E
3. Counterpart funds 3. Coherence between AWPB & implementation
4. Compliance with loan covenants 4. Gender focus
5. Compliance with procurement 5. Poverty focus
6. Quality and timeliness of audits 6. Effectiveness of targeting approach
7. Innovation and learning
B.3 Outputs and outcomes Last Current B.4 Sustainability Last Current
1. Actual outputs/ component 1 1. Institution building (organizations, etc.)
2. Actual outputs/ component 2 2. Empowerment
3. Actual outputs/ component 3 3. Quality of beneficiary participation
4. Actual outputs/ component 4 4. Responsiveness of service providers
5. Actual outputs/ component 4 5. Exit strategy (readiness and quality)
6. Actual outputs/ component 4 6. Potential for scaling up and replication
J ustification:
Annex IV: Project Status ReportSummary of Project Status and Ratings
A. Overall Assessment and Risk Profile Last Current
C.1 Physical/ financial assets
C.2 Food security
C 1 Overall implementation progress (Sections B1 and B2)
J ustification for rating
C 2 Likelihood of achieving the development objectives (section B 3)
J ustification for rating C 3 Risks Short description of major risks for each section and their impact on achievement of development
objectives and sustainability
Fiduciary aspects
Project implementation progress
Outputs and outcomes
Sustainability
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Portfolio at Risk
37
1
8
32
0
12
30
1
15
41
2
12
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
Actual Problem
Potential Problem
Not at Risk
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Main problem patterns
Nb of projects with low PSR
scores (1,2 or 3)
% (total number of
risk flags)
Disbursement 20 36%
M&E 19 35%
Exit Strategy 18 33%
Financial Management 17 31%
AWPB (plans versus achievements) 14 25%
Gender 13 24%
Institution Building 12 22%
Project Management 12 22%
Audit 12 22%
Innovation and Learning 11 20%
Service Providers 11 20%
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Disbursement (Loans + DSF grants)
7596 91
151
108 100
177
020406080
100120140160180
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
(in USD million)
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Disbursement lags, per country
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Improvement
Deterioration
Stable
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
2010 Country Portfolio Performance Ratings
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
India
Tajikistan
Indonesia
Vietnam
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Maldives
Bhutan
Cambodia
China
Mongolia
Philippines
Average
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Financial management issues
Can have adverse consequences (implementation standstill)
− Problematic for 17 projects (31% portfolio)
− Lowest scores found in three countries
− High proportion of projects with problems in four additional countries
Design issues (flow of funds arrangements) Capacities to comply with IFAD procurement guidelines
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Project management issues
Used to be the main factor explaining overall poor project performance.
Partly explained by rotation of Project Directors and other key staff, but not only (e.g. overly complex implementation arrangements)
− Still problematic for 12 projects (22% portfolio)
− Mostly in 7 countries
− APMAS start shall help (but only few countries)
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
M&E issues
Deprives Project Directors from the ability to steer implementation
Deprives all stakeholders from understanding real project performance and impact
− Unsatisfactory for 19 projects
− Lowest scores found in 4 countries (all older projects)
− New projects however tend to receive higher scores
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
3. Results
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Portfolio alignment with IFAD SF
0
200 000 000
400 000 000
600 000 000
800 000 000
SO1 SO2 SO3 SO4 SO5 SO6 PMU
(Total project funds in USD)
Previous Review Period Current Review Period
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Allocations to cross cutting themes
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Institutionalsupport
Gender CommunityDvt
Social/HumanDvt
closed projects on-going projects
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Development effectiveness, by SO (Self-assessments)
% projects rated 4 or better
07/08 08/09 09/10
SO1: 83% 60% ND
SO2: 72% 61% ND
S03: 56% 57% ND
SO4: 50% 54% ND
SO5: 50% 73% ND
SO6: 59% 74% ND
IFAD Target (2010): 85%
At completion (PCR + Evaluation)
08/09 09/10ARRI 2009
SO1: 88% 75% 27%
SO2: 100% 80% ND
S03: ND 80% ND
SO4: 67% 100% ND
SO5: ND 100% ND
SO6: ND 50% 100%
IFAD Target (2010): 80%
During implementation (PSR)
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Project impacts (Self-assessments)
% projects rated 4 or better
07/08 08/0909/1
0
Incomes 41% ND ND
Food security 39% 50% 82%
Empowerment 70% 74% 80%
Financial assets 41% 52% 84% IFAD Target (2010): 70% to 80%
At completion (PCR + Evaluation)
IFAD Target (2010): 80%
During implementation (PSR)
08/09 09/10 ARRI
Incomes ND 100% 82%
Food security 100% 100% 91%
Empowerment 86% 100% 100%
Financial assets 83% 100% 82%
We reached, or exceeded, all corporate targets
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Concrete results (RIMS)
RIMS data 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/2010
DataNb
projects DataNb
projects DataNb
projects DataNb
projects
Households reporting improved food security
82,689 7 289,974 13 165,894 7 85,475 9
Persons receiving project services
763,671
21 928,593 22 153,632 9 ND 2
Farmers reporting production or yield increased/herd size
132,319
11 679,897 10 24,328 6 120,923 10
Nb of farmers adopting technology recommended by project
218,088
11 807,278 11 68,184 4 616,135 7
Persons trained in crop and livestock production and development
241,526
22 316,630 20 483,178 20 457,251 29
Nb of active savers 502,58
016 939,427 19 777,581 16 2,467,399 15
Active borrowers 263,49
218 456,609 20 816,896 21 814,760 28
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
RIMS Surveys
Survey conducted?RIMS surveys
Baseline MTR Completion
Yes 41 (78%) 9 6
N/A 5 5 5
No 11
Total RIMS projects 52
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Comparison between baseline and MTR (or MTR and completion) - RIMS surveys -
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Chronic malnutrition Acute malnutrition Children underweight
India-1063
Indonesia-1112
Laos-1301
China-1271
Vietnam-1202
Laos-1207
Mongolia-1205
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
Outcome surveys results
% beneficiaries with increased income
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
CMB-1261
IND-1155
IND-1314
IND-1126
% beneficiaries with improved food security or livelihood sources
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
IND-1063
NEP-1119
LAO-1207
BGD-1165
MON-1205
% farmers reporting increase in agricultural production
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
IND-1126
LAO-1207
BGD-1165
BGD-1284
% farmers reporting increase in agricultural productivity
0%
20%40%
60%80%
100%
CMB-1261 PHI-1137 BGD-1284
Annual Performance Review Workshop Nov. 1-3, 2010
APR Action Plan
Action 1 - To strengthen supervision processes and implementation support for problem projects
Action 2 - To strengthen the quality of supervision Aide Mémoires
Action 3 - To continue strengthening project-level financial management and procurement processes
Action 4 - To continue strengthening project-level M&E systems
Action 5 - To develop APR KM regional infrastructure further (IFADASIA roll out)