Annual Performance Review  and South-South Cooperation Event 1-6 November 2010 Nanning, China
Presentation outline <ul><li>APR performance  </li></ul><ul><li>Portfolio performance </li></ul><ul><li>Development result...
<ul><li>APR performance  </li></ul>
New approvals USD 249 million USD 1.16 leveraged for each dollar invested by IFAD Co-financing mobilized Only 55% of our n...
A growing portfolio to manage Loans and DSF grants Regional and country grants 111111111 (USD billion) (USD million)
How to contain portfolio growth? Portfolio average 6.55 years
How to contain portfolio growth?
<ul><li>b) Supervising on-going projects </li></ul>
<ul><li>2007/08  –  1st generation issues:  Shift from UNOPS; Getting familiar with core supervision requirements and proc...
Supervision achievements <ul><li>37 supervision/MTR missions and 17 follow-up missions </li></ul><ul><li>8 start-up worksh...
Quality of supervision (loan + DSF grants) <ul><li>   Most Aide Mémoires are improving in quality and PMU feedback is usu...
<ul><li>Highly problematic: </li></ul><ul><li>No corporate minimum requirements for grants’ supervision (frequency, qualit...
Loan administration <ul><li>382 WAs processed (representing 20% of all WAs processed in IFAD and 36% of total IFAD disburs...
Time for processing WAs
Knowledge management <ul><li>Knowledge products: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Five Newsletters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Three O...
<ul><li>2. Portfolio performance  </li></ul>
Annex IV: Project Status Report Summary of Project Status and Ratings
Annex IV: Project Status Report Summary of Project Status and Ratings
Portfolio at Risk
Main problem patterns 20% 11 Service Providers 20% 11 Innovation and Learning 22% 12 Audit 22% 12 Project Management 22% 1...
Disbursement (Loans + DSF grants)
Disbursement lags, per country Improvement Deterioration Stable
2010  Country Portfolio Performance Ratings
Financial management issues <ul><li>Can have adverse consequences (implementation standstill)  </li></ul><ul><li>Problemat...
Project management issues <ul><li>Used to be the main factor explaining overall poor project performance.  </li></ul><ul><...
M&E issues <ul><li>Deprives Project Directors from the ability to steer implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Deprives all stak...
<ul><li>3. Results </li></ul>
Portfolio alignment with IFAD SF
Allocations to cross cutting themes
Development effectiveness, by SO (Self-assessments) % projects rated 4 or better IFAD Target (2010): 85%   At completion (...
Project impacts (Self-assessments) % projects rated 4 or better IFAD Target (2010): 70%   to 80% At completion (PCR + Eval...
Concrete results (RIMS) 21 16 20 4 6 9 7 Nb projects 816,896 777,581 483,178 68,184 24,328 153,632 165,894 Data 2008/09 28...
RIMS Surveys     52 Total RIMS projects     11 No 5 5 5 N/A 6 9 41 (78%) Yes Completion MTR Baseline RIMS surveys Survey c...
 
Outcome surveys results
APR Action Plan <ul><li>Action 1 - To strengthen supervision processes and implementation support for  problem projects </...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

APR Workshop 2010-APR Performance-Maria Donnat

24,060 views
24,058 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
24,060
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Our loans and DSF grants portfolio is now reaching 62 projects and will reach some 70 project next year. A similar increase is seen in the regional and country grant portfolio: here, however, our 68 grants only represent a total value of 40.9 million highlighting the high transaction costs linked to grant portfolio management. Keeping our portfolio at a manageable size is our main current challenge
  • What can we do contain portfolio growth? There are only two possibilities: Reducing the average project duration and closing project on time Increasing the average loan size in countries where the PBAS allocation allows this to happen Have we done it: As seen in this graph, we have successfully reduced the average project duration, which use to be around 9 years and is now around 6 years.
  • During last review period, we have manage to increase the average loan size from 24.44 million in 2007/07 to 26.9 million. During current review period, average loan size has reduced to 23.67 million, with the explanation that there has not been any new projects approved over the review period for our two largest PBAS countries: China and India.
  • The time it takes us to process WAs is still to high (but is mainly explained by the fact that the Regional Finance Manager has to take mandatory contract breaks and has no assistant) and should be reduced Explanation that given the sheer volume disbursements achieved
  • IFADASIA will be launched in Nov. during our regional portfolio review meeting
  • This year, for the first time since 2006-07 review period, the number of actual problem projects has reduced both in absolute and relative terms. This is a reflection that CPMs’ efforts to improve project performance through improved supervision and implementation support are finally bearing fruits.
  • This table shows what are the main problem patterns, as demonstrated by PSR scores. This list is basically the same as last year in terms of what are the problematic areas; but it shows some improvement in certain areas (green). As far as exit strategies, AWPB and gender mainstreaming are concerned, however, there was a deterioriation in performance this year.
  • Augmentation du volume (WA)
  • The bulk of project resources are still allocated to Microfinance, followed by Agricultural development and Natural Resources management (the latter two objectives having seen, overtime, a reduction in budget allocations). Worthwhile noting, allocations to SO3 (Improved access to markets) have increased overtime, reflecting a shift from support to physical market infrastructure (e.g roads and market places) of earlier projects to softer interventions such as Group development support, value chain development, linkages between producers and traders, etc.) SO1 – Increased access to Natural resources , SO2 - Improved agricultural technologies and effective production services SO3 - A broad range of financial services SO4 -Transparent and competitive markets for agricultural inputs and produce SO5 - Opportunities for rural off-farm employment and enterprise development SO6 - Local and national policy and programming processes
  • This graph shows project budget allocations to cross-cutting themes. Most striking is the increase, overtime of allocations to intitutional support-type of activities and to community development activities; while allocation to social and human development have declined.
  • The first table shows the percentage of project with satisfactory performance under each of IFAD SO, as reported in Supervision Reports. Data shows a deterioration of performance under SO1 and S02, but a reverse trend for all other 4 SOs The second table shows the same, but with a different source: PCR and external evaluations. For the sample of projects which had a PCR or an external evaluation, we see a deterioration in performance under SO1, S)2. Yet, as compared to ARRI results, APR performance in much higher. The first table
  • percentage
  • Chronic malnutrition: stunting (height for age) Acute malnutrition: wasting (weight for height) Underweight (weight for age) Results difficult to interpret as the same project may see improvement in one measure and deterioration for others. There was actually only one project (China) for which the three measures have improved.
  • Reference au taboeau problematic issues
  • APR Workshop 2010-APR Performance-Maria Donnat

    1. 1.  Annual Performance Review and South-South Cooperation Event 1-6 November 2010 Nanning, China
    2. 2. Presentation outline <ul><li>APR performance </li></ul><ul><li>Portfolio performance </li></ul><ul><li>Development results </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>APR performance </li></ul>
    4. 4. New approvals USD 249 million USD 1.16 leveraged for each dollar invested by IFAD Co-financing mobilized Only 55% of our new projects expected to meet their objectives!!! Quality at entry Old procedure: 9.7 months (or 6.4 months without outliers) against 12 months in 2008/09 Effectiveness <ul><li>9 projects and 1 COSOP approved </li></ul><ul><li>USD 213 million </li></ul>Approvals 2009/2010
    5. 5. A growing portfolio to manage Loans and DSF grants Regional and country grants 111111111 (USD billion) (USD million)
    6. 6. How to contain portfolio growth? Portfolio average 6.55 years
    7. 7. How to contain portfolio growth?
    8. 8. <ul><li>b) Supervising on-going projects </li></ul>
    9. 9. <ul><li>2007/08 – 1st generation issues: Shift from UNOPS; Getting familiar with core supervision requirements and processes; familiarization with key project issues; benchmarking. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>Direct Supervision – a steep learning curve
    10. 10. Supervision achievements <ul><li>37 supervision/MTR missions and 17 follow-up missions </li></ul><ul><li>8 start-up workshops </li></ul><ul><li>6 PCR missions </li></ul><ul><li>35 supervision debriefings </li></ul><ul><li>Special meeting organized in April 2009 to discuss problem projects and agree on additional resources for well-targeted implementation support </li></ul>
    11. 11. Quality of supervision (loan + DSF grants) <ul><li> Most Aide Mémoires are improving in quality and PMU feedback is usually positive, but: </li></ul><ul><li>Uneven clarity (and usefulness?) of recommendations ( from 11 to 126 recommendations/report; average is 41) </li></ul><ul><li>Reporting on results insufficient (lack of impact data) </li></ul><ul><li>Sections on sustainability, targeting and KM often poorly covered </li></ul><ul><li>Many reports still lack a clear expression of mission’s opinion </li></ul><ul><li>Fiduciary aspects covered with varying degrees of detail and audit logs often not attached </li></ul>
    12. 12. <ul><li>Highly problematic: </li></ul><ul><li>No corporate minimum requirements for grants’ supervision (frequency, quality norms) </li></ul><ul><li>No budget for supervision </li></ul><ul><li>Only 30% of large regional grants supervised </li></ul>Quality of supervision (grants)
    13. 13. Loan administration <ul><li>382 WAs processed (representing 20% of all WAs processed in IFAD and 36% of total IFAD disbursements) </li></ul><ul><li>Average APR processing time: 27.46 days (PMD average: 27.06 days) </li></ul><ul><li>Overall processing time: 46 days (IFAD average: 42.6 days) </li></ul>
    14. 14. Time for processing WAs
    15. 15. Knowledge management <ul><li>Knowledge products: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Five Newsletters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Three Occasional Papers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Two BBC documentaries (700 million viewers worldwide) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>KM infrastructure: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. <ul><li>2. Portfolio performance </li></ul>
    17. 17. Annex IV: Project Status Report Summary of Project Status and Ratings
    18. 18. Annex IV: Project Status Report Summary of Project Status and Ratings
    19. 19. Portfolio at Risk
    20. 20. Main problem patterns 20% 11 Service Providers 20% 11 Innovation and Learning 22% 12 Audit 22% 12 Project Management 22% 12 Institution Building 24% 13 Gender 25% 14 AWPB (plans versus achievements) 31% 17 Financial Management 33% 18 Exit Strategy 35% 19 M&E 36% 20 Disbursement % (total number of risk flag s) Nb of projects with low PSR scores (1,2 or 3)
    21. 21. Disbursement (Loans + DSF grants)
    22. 22. Disbursement lags, per country Improvement Deterioration Stable
    23. 23. 2010 Country Portfolio Performance Ratings
    24. 24. Financial management issues <ul><li>Can have adverse consequences (implementation standstill) </li></ul><ul><li>Problematic for 17 projects (31% portfolio) </li></ul><ul><li>Lowest scores found in three countries </li></ul><ul><li>High proportion of projects with problems in four additional countries </li></ul><ul><li>Design issues (flow of funds arrangements) </li></ul><ul><li>Capacities to comply with IFAD procurement guidelines </li></ul>
    25. 25. Project management issues <ul><li>Used to be the main factor explaining overall poor project performance. </li></ul><ul><li>Partly explained by rotation of Project Directors and other key staff, but not only (e.g. overly complex implementation arrangements) </li></ul><ul><li>Still problematic for 12 projects (22% portfolio) </li></ul><ul><li>Mostly in 7 countries </li></ul><ul><li>APMAS start shall help (but only few countries) </li></ul>
    26. 26. M&E issues <ul><li>Deprives Project Directors from the ability to steer implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Deprives all stakeholders from understanding real project performance and impact </li></ul><ul><li>Unsatisfactory for 19 projects </li></ul><ul><li>Lowest scores found in 4 countries (all older projects) </li></ul><ul><li>New projects however tend to receive higher scores </li></ul>
    27. 27. <ul><li>3. Results </li></ul>
    28. 28. Portfolio alignment with IFAD SF
    29. 29. Allocations to cross cutting themes
    30. 30. Development effectiveness, by SO (Self-assessments) % projects rated 4 or better IFAD Target (2010): 85% At completion (PCR + Evaluation) IFAD Target (2010): 80% During implementation (PSR) 74% 73% 54% 57% 61% 60% 08/09 ND 59% SO6: ND 50% SO5: ND 50% SO4: ND 56% S03: ND 72% SO2: ND 83% SO1: 09/10 07/08 50% 100% 100% 80% 80% 75% 09/10 100% ND SO6: ND ND SO5: ND 67% SO4: ND ND S03: ND 100% SO2: 27% 88% SO1: ARRI 2009 08/09
    31. 31. Project impacts (Self-assessments) % projects rated 4 or better IFAD Target (2010): 70% to 80% At completion (PCR + Evaluation) IFAD Target (2010): 80% During implementation (PSR) We reached, or exceeded, all corporate targets 52% 74% 50% ND 08/09 84% 41% Financial assets 80% 70% Empowerment 82% 39% Food security ND 41% Incomes 09/10 07/08 100% 100% 100% 100% 09/10 82% 83% Financial assets 100% 86% Empowerment 91% 100% Food security 82% ND Incomes ARRI 08/09
    32. 32. Concrete results (RIMS) 21 16 20 4 6 9 7 Nb projects 816,896 777,581 483,178 68,184 24,328 153,632 165,894 Data 2008/09 28 814,760 20 456,609 18 263,492 Active borrowers 15 2,467,399 19 939,427 16 502,580 Nb of active savers 29 457,251 20 316,630 22 241,526 Persons trained in crop and livestock production and development 7 616,135 11 807,278 11 218,088 Nb of farmers adopting technology recommended by project 10 120,923 10 679,897 11 132,319 Farmers reporting production or yield increased/herd size 2 ND 22 928,593 21 763,671 Persons receiving project services 9 85,475 13 289,974 7 82,689 Households reporting improved food security Nb projects Data Nb projects Data Nb projects Data   2009/2010 2007/08  2006/07  RIMS data
    33. 33. RIMS Surveys     52 Total RIMS projects     11 No 5 5 5 N/A 6 9 41 (78%) Yes Completion MTR Baseline RIMS surveys Survey conducted?
    34. 35. Outcome surveys results
    35. 36. APR Action Plan <ul><li>Action 1 - To strengthen supervision processes and implementation support for problem projects </li></ul><ul><li>Action 2 - To strengthen the quality of supervision Aide Mémoires </li></ul><ul><li>Action 3 - To continue strengthening project-level financial management and procurement processes </li></ul><ul><li>Action 4 - To continue strengthening project-level M&E systems </li></ul><ul><li>Action 5 - To develop APR KM regional infrastructure further (IFADASIA roll out) </li></ul>

    ×