ghana

1. Ghana Country Programme Evaluation
National Roundtable Workshop
2 November 2011 - Accra, Ghana
1
Independent Office of Evaluation

2. Ghana Country Programme Evaluation
• Covers 13 years of strategy and operations (COSOP 1998,
2006), 6 projects and 9 technical assistance grants
• Triangulates from multiple sources:
 Comprehensive desk review (including past evaluations);
 Field visits of projects and selected grants
 Interviews with stakeholders
 Thematic roundtable discussions (rural finance,
agricultural value chains)
2

3. Three levels of analysis
Performance of the portfolio
(project-level analysis)
Performance of non-lending
activities
(knowledge management,
partnerships, policy dialogue)
Performance of the COSOP
(strategy)
3
Overall
Partnership
Performance

4. Total projects : 16 (since 1980)
Total cost: US$ 675 m
IFAD lending: US$ 225 m h.c. loans (33%)
Gov. funding: US$ 162 m (24%)
Co-financing US$ 288 m (43%)
4
IFAD- Ghana Cooperation Highlights

5. 5
Real GDP per capita in Ghana (1972-2010)
constant 2000 US$
GDP per capita (data from 2006 follow the rebasing proposed by Ghana Statistical
Service)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1
9
7
2
1
9
7
4
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
8
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
8
Source: WB 2011

6. 6
Prevalence of Poverty (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
National Northern Upper
West
Upper
East
52
63
88
67
29
52
88
70
1991/92
2005/06

7. Evolution of IFAD’s strategy
COSOP 1998
- Geographic concentration on regions in Northern Ghana
- Sub-sectors: irrigation, rural finance, agricultural technology
transfer, support to decentralisation
COSOP 2006
- Shift towards country-wide mono-sectoral programmes
(phasing out of Upper West)
- Same subsectors + new focus on value chain development
Other important changes
• IFAD Direct supervision since 2008
• IFAD Country presence since 2011
7

8. Portfolio Performance – Overview
• Overall positive and improving
• Relevant project objectives, some design flaws
• Effectiveness varies within and between projects
• Weak efficiency
• Impact is mixed: strong on institution and social capital,
variable for income & assets; environmental risks
• Sustainability is improving
• Innovations introduced but piloting not sufficient.
8

9. Portfolio performance - Rural Finance
• Relevant and effective at institutional level (regulatory
environment, rural banks, credit unions, apexes)
• Less so at adapting financial products to rural poor
clients
• Introduced “matching grants” as smart subsidies
(loan + equity + ma. grant) ; lack of clarity over
implementation
• Contributed to national policy on microfinance (but
subsidised credit programmes continue)
9

10. Portfolio performance - Rural Enterprises
• Business Assistance Centres imparted basic
entrepreneurial skills, contributing to growth of micro
and small enterprises
• Rural Technology Facilities strengthened apprenticeship
systems, less clear results in technology dissemination
• Facilitated coordination and public-private partnership
in MSE development at district level (legislative
initiatives)
10

11. Portfolio performance - Local Government
and Community Development
• Focused on very poor groups, supporting district-level
participatory planning
• Design too optimistic: (i) unclear policy framework
(ii) IFAD not supported by experienced development
partners; (iii) funding gap
 Slow implementation and sustainability threats
11

12. Portfolio performance - Agricultural
development
• Effective at supporting production : (i) higher-yield roots
and tubers; (ii) participatory extension approaches
(farmers field fora)
• Value chain support: relevant but difficult to implement.
Weak business analysis, unclear mutual obligations in
private-public partnerships
Upgrading processing for existing value chains (roots &
tubers);
Development of new value chains is challenging (e.g.
vegetables)
12

13. “Non-lending” activities
• Policy dialogue: significant in rural enterprise; rural finance.
Matching grants have potential. Limited in other sub-sectors
• Partnerships strong with Government at national level,
growing at local level.
In rural finance, gap with multilateral agencies
Value chain: increasing with private sector, but review of
risks and constraints not sufficient
• Knowledge management is weaker area: poor M&E, impact
assessment. Promising “intuitions” in COSOP and project
formulation not always supported by technical analysis
13

14. COSOP performance
• Relevance. Shift of focus between 1998 and 2006 COSOP
from geographic targeting to broad-based growth with
limited analysis of implications and constraints
• Effectiveness. Strongest results in rural finance and rural
enterprises at institutional level
 Mixed results in the North
 Value chains: valid concept, early implementation stage,
questions on approaches
• Management issues. Country office established in 2011.
M&E has not received enough attention
14

15. General Assessment
Performance of the
portfolio
Moderately Satisfactory: 4
COSOP performance
Moderately Satisfactory: 4
15
Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory;
3 = moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory;
5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory
Overall
Partnership
Performance
Moderately
Satisfactory: 4
Non-lending activities
Moderately Satisfactory: 4

16. Main Recommendations
• Strengthen analytical work in COSOP preparation and
project design
• Continue sub-sectoral programmes but increase focus on
Upper West
• More emphasis on testing and scaling up innovations:
(i) rural finance and matching grants; (ii) savings and credit
products adapted to the poor
• Value chains. Review successful regional experiences,
explore opportunities to cooperate with other initiatives
• Support national M&E systems in partnership with national
and international social science research institutions
16

17. THE END
Thank you for your attention
17