Ifad laos report country program retreat dec 2015 final

RETREAT REPORT
IFAD Country Portfolio
Performance Review in Laos,
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
1

2
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ACRONYMS
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1. Laos: The Land of
1. Opportunities
2. IFAD in Laos
CHAPTER 2
Country Portfolio Performance Review
1. Objectives of the Retreat
2. Porfolio Performance Overview
3. How to improve performance? Enhancing portfolio teamwork
through public consultation
4. Main issues and solutions
CHAPTER 3
Drafting the new COSOP
1. COSOP goals and objectives
2. The New COSOP 2016-2020
3. Way Forward
9
12
17
17
19
20
41
44
47
04
07
TABLE OF
CONTENTS

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
3
LIBRARIES
IFAD background (IFAD Background Documents, IFAD Project Procedure in SEA, IFAD
Strategy in Laos, IFAD Project Cycle)
SWG-ARD (SWG-ARD presentation by Solal Lehec, SWG-ARD 2015 Annual Report, SWG-
ARD Vientiane Declaration, Analytical Note on SWGS and Policy Think-Tank for Laos)
National plans and strategies (8th NSEDP, NGPES, MDG. GMS-ECP, SAD)
Asian Development Outlook 2015: Laos
Portfolio Review (Analytical Maps, Portfolio Review Orientation, Country Portfolio Review
Presentation by Soulivanh Pattivong, Performance Dashboard, PMU orientation, Portfolio
Review 2010-2014)
Project presentations (SSSJ, FNML, SNRMPEP, SSFNP, NSLCP-LDP, IFAD Projects in
Cambodia)
Project Infographs (FNML, SNRMPEP, SSSJ, TSSD)
Thematic presentations (SSSJ AWPB-PP, SSSJ FM, SSSJ KM, SSSJ M&E, SNRMPEP KM and
M&E, FNML KM, FNML M&E, IFAD KS, IFAD M&E and MIS Roadmap, IFAD online PM,
IFAD online M&E and KM, KM pyramid, KM strategy draft for Laos, PADEE MIS, NSEDP
M&E Framework, AWPB procedures, SEAHub Facebook)
Project KM products
COSOP (Old COSOP presentation by Theirry Mahieux, New COSOP presentation by
Thierry Mahieux, COSOP 2011-2015, COSOP Indicators for Laos, Country Portfolio Review
Orientation for the new COSOP)
Interviews with Participants
Video links
IFAD Country Office in Laos
IFAD Asia
South East Asia Rural Developement Hub
CHAPTER 4
Conclusions & Evaluation of the Retreat
1.Tree of Commitments
2. Group Evaluation
3. Interviews and Knowledge Products
ANNEX
Analytical Maps of the Country Portfolio Review
IFAD-Funded Projects and Good Practices in Laos
Project Infographs
Presentations
Project Issues and Solutions
Expectations and Contributions
Better Performance Exercise Outputs
List of Participants
Agenda
51
52
53
All documents, including annexes and references, have been
distributed on USB memory sticks to the participants and are
available at: http://goo.gl/JdNSHC
This report is the result of the joint reflection of ministries and
project teams, IFAD Lao PDR Country Office and PROCASUR
Text and photographs by Gabor Teveli for PROCASUR
Graphic design by Alisa Gantner for PROCASUR
55
59
64
70
82
84
85
86
87

4
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
5
This report contains the outputs and outcomes
of the public consultation and decision-making
process during Country Portfolio Review of
IFAD-Funded Progammes in Laos, held on 9-11
December 2015. A wide range of stakeholders
gathered to report on implementation progress
and make decisionsto improve the performance
of 5 loans and grants projects, as well as on
strategic directions and priorities for the next
COSOP (2016-2020).
Thanks to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
and the Ministry of Planning and Investment of
Laos, the stakeholders found common ground
at the Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office
in Luang Prabang to show their achievements,
share their experiences and formulate solutions
for common issues.
The 3-day Retreat in Luang Prabang stands out
from the regular consultations and reviews that
IFAD has organised in the Lao PDR over the past
35 years in cooperation with the Government
of Laos. The large number and wide range of
participants, the importance of decisions, and
the quality of the consultation process make the
2015 Laos Country Portfolio Review a memorable
milestone on the way forward in the partnership
of Laos and IFAD.
Through an interactive chain of discussions and
exercises managed by project teams, the Retreat
used the opportunity of the public consultation
to move effectively towards its 3 clearly defined
goals:
Objective 1: To review the Country Portfolio
of the Lao PDR, as the first step of the Retreat,
63 development practitioners came together
from all corners of Laos and beyond. National
coordinators, provincial officers and district staff
joined with experts and colleagues from Laos,
Cambodia and Vietnam to see and discuss
the Laos portfolio performance over the past
5 years. IFAD in Laos was represented by Mr.
Soulivanh Pattivong, IFAD CPO from Vientiane
and Mr. Benoit Thierry, IFAD CPM from the South
East Asia subregional office, who shared major
achievements and common issues in need of
improvements in the Country Portfolio.
IFAD sees Laos as a Land of Opportunities
with rural development experience, precious
natural resources, important local knowledge
and one of the fastest growing economies in the
ASEAN, facilitating its integration into the new
common market of the AEC. The Government
of Laos is working hard to prepare the country
for its graduation to middle income status by
2020. To ensure the sustainability of the poverty
alleviation in the Lao PDR, IFAD aligns with the
national strategies to increase market access,
adaptation to climate change and focus on
nutrition, vulnerable households and primarily
the 8th NSEDP (2016-2020) adopted recently.
IFAD’s investment in poverty eradication, NRM
and agriculture has been considerable in Laos
since 1980, when the first IFAD grant was
launched. Since then, IFAD has been seeking
to increase the number and the quality of farmer
beneficiaries through all its 13 programs funded
in the country provinces. Targeting, outreach and
focus on vulnerable groups including women
and ethnics are key issues in the Laos Country
Portfolio, and they were high on the agenda of
the Retreat. The issues in the Country Portfolio
and the measures agreed to improve them are
developed in Chapter 2 of this report.

6
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Objective 2: To identify key implementation
problems and solutions, and to find responsive
remedies for the bottleneck issues in project
delivery, the organizers of the Retreat prepared
a series of exercises and working groups for the
participants. In this respect, the participatory
approach of the stakeholders and Procasur’s
facilitators proved to be an effective way to help
the decisions in the core problems.
Important agreements were reached among
national, provincial and district level professionals
from 3 ongoing IFAD-funded projects (FNML,
SNRMPEP and SSSJ) and 2 upcoming
projects (SSFSNP and NSLCP) teamed up with
colleagues from Cambodia and advisors from
international organizations. Specific solutions
were identified in 6 main areas of improvement:
1) Implementation arrangements; 2) Fiduciary
management; 3) Synergies and differentiated
approach; 4) M&E and Knowledge Management;
5) Partnerships and policy dialogue; and 6)
Targeting and Impact.
Thanks to the well-facilitated discussion and the
valuable input from Laos, Cambodia and IFAD
experts, the solutions and recommendations
in each area of improvement are now available
to be faster, cheaper and better in planning,
targeting, complying with donor requirements,
and managing checks and balances. Tools for
effective management, M&E and communication
are at hand to speed up and standardize
operating processes for a more in-depth, better
used and more widely circulated data collection.
Good examples in digital and online technology
show ways for each project to reach faster and
better results in standardized systems (See
Annex).The Retreat also used this opportunity to
promote closer interaction among IFAD-funded
projects in Laos for a common portfolio approach
and team building.
Objective 3: To prepare the new COSOP,
IFAD’s Country Strategic Opportunities Paper
for the Lao PDR needs to be designed for the
next 5 years (COSOP 2016-2020). IFAD expert
Thierry Mahieux conducted a two-fold exercise:
1) report on the review of the achievement of the
old COSOP (2011-2015) according to its strategic
objectives, and 2) facilitate the public consultation
to draft the new COSOP.
General findings in the 6 areas of portfolio
improvement were included in the new COSOP
structure such as focus on poverty, women, youth
and ethnic groups, opportunities for synergies,
support for farmer organizations etc. Including
these recommendations coming from public
consultation also strengthens the ownership of
the COSOP among the stakeholders.
The new COSOP, with updated guidelines from
IFAD effective since January 2016, is aligned with
the 8th National Socio-Economic Development
Plan of Laos which aims at graduating from
the list of Least Developed Countries, and at
achieving the off-track Millennium Goals by 2020.
A fresh member of the WTO and the ASEAN
Economic Community, Laos is getting more
oriented to international markets, especially the
ASEAN, and this emphasis will be reflected in
the new COSOP.
In conclusion, to collect, synthetize and share
the concrete agreements and decisions reached
during the Retreat in Luang Prabang, IFAD, the
Government of Laos and their funded projects
in the Lao PDR constructed a Roadmap for
the coming years. This calendar of actions with
specific targets, responsibilities and deadlines is
to pave the way to a more organized and effective
teamwork for a better portfolio performance.
Taking advantage of the strengths to overcome
weaknesses is the successful way forward for
programme management and implementation
in Laos. Laos shows great potentials and
opportunities for sustainable rural development.
Opportunities for value-chain development,
farmer organizations, high value products
and market linkages are opening up along the
country’s quick growth. If sustainability and
replication is ensured, these good practices that
IFAD strives to support can make Laos a leading
example in the ASEAN Community.

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
7
ACRONYMS
ACPOR Annual Country Portfolio Review
ADB Asian Development Bank
AFD Agence Française de Développement
APR Asia-Pacific Region
ARD-SWG Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Working Group
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget
CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture
COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities Paper
CPM Country Programme Manager
CPO Country Programme Officer
CPPR Country Portfolio Performance Review
DAFO District Agriculture and Forestry Office
F2F Farmer to Farmer
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FM Finance Management
FNML Southern Laos Food and Nutrition Security and Market
Linkages Programme
GAFSP Global Agriculture Food Security Program
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GoL Government of Lao
HDI Human Development Index
HH Household
IA Implementating Agencies
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
KM Knowledge Management
LDP Livestock Development Project
LogFrame Logical Framework
Lux-Dev Luxembourg Development
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
MAF
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of
Cambodia
MIS Management Information System
NPCU National Programme Coordination Unit
NRM Natural Resource Management
NSLCP Northern Smallholder Livestock Commercialization
Project
PADEE Project for Agricultural Development and Economic
Empowerment
PAFO Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office
PIM Programme Implementation Manual
PP Procurement Plan
PSU Project Support Unit
RIM Risk Management
SEA Hub South East Asia Rural Development Hub
SNRMPEP Sustainable Natural Resource Management and
Productivity Enhancement Project
SNV Netherlands Development Organization
SO Strategic Objective
SSFSNP Strategic Support for Food Security and Nutrition
Project
SSSJ Soum Son Seun Jai: Community-Based Food
Security and Economic Opportunities Programme
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WA Withdrawal Application
WB World Bank
WFP United Nations World Food Programme
WG Working Group
WOCAN Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture &
Natural Resource Management
WTO World Trade Organization

8
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
CHAPTER 1
Introduction

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
9
1. LAOS:The Land of Opportunities
Atthecrossroadsofadynamicandfastdeveloping
region, the Lao PDR is among the fastest growing
economies in Asia, with close to 8% GDP growth
each year during the past 5 years. Laos’ recent
economic boom helped reduce its high poverty
rate, currently below 25%. Out of its population
of 7 million, 64% live in rural areas where most
families rely on subsistence farming, exposed
to weather-induced food insecurity. Among
the most vulnerable people are the country’s
49 ethnic groups, often confined to remote
propelled Laos to record the fastest economic
growth in Southeast Asia over the last two
decades. GDP growth in 2013 was estimated at
7.5%. (See Table 1)
Laos joined theWorldTrade Organization in 2013,
and has set its national plans and strategies in
motion to graduate to middle income status by
2020. IFAD’s operations in Laos support the Lao
Government to achieve sustainable impact in
poverty, natural resource management and the
well-being of the population.
IFAD operations in the Lao PDR, showing the most vulnerable provinces with good
development potentials
Recently,majoreconomicfactorshavecontributed
to Laos becoming the Land of Opportunities in
the region. 2016 welcomed Laos as a member of
the ASEAN Economic Community. In the region,
there is a strong demand for food products and
natural resources coming from Laos, including
non-timber forest products and high value
organic or fair trade products. Industry grew by
8.5%, supported by foreign direct investment
to construct hydropower projects, residential
and commercial developments, and factories in
special economic zones. Also, major transport
corridors have been completed linking Laos
with Vietnam, China and Thailand, including the
provinces where IFAD-funded projects are active.
(Sources: World Bank, UNDP,ADB, IFAD)
mountain areas. Rural
development in these
areas is hindered by
geographic isolation
and exclusion from
the fast-changing
economic landscape.
Economy in Laos is
primarily agrarian
and natural resource-
based. Self-
sufficiency in rice
has been achieved,
but the country is still
highly dependent on
imports. While most
consumer products
are imported, hydro-
power has emerged
as main export next to
timber.The strength of
extractive industries
and hydro-power
Figure 1. Supply-side contributions to growth

10
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Poverty
Opportunities for poverty reduction are plenty in
many poor provinces in Laos, especially in the
target areas of IFAD-funded projects. Both in
the Southern region and the Northern uplands,
valuable resources and rich local knowledge rise
potentials for the rural development projects to
increase the livelihood of poor communities.
Poverty is highest among poor and remote
communities vulnerable to climate change,
marginalized ethnic groups, and women-led
poor households. These rural communities are
often unaware of or do not benefit directly from
the rapid changes. The most disadvantaged
households are in mountainous regions, where
the majority of the country’s ethnic groups live.
In upland areas, due to geographic and social
isolation, the poverty rate can be as high as
43%, compared to 28% in lowlands. Women are
especially vulnerable, with generally more work
and less education than men.
Aligned with government strategies, IFAD seeks
more direct beneficiaries in these vulnerable
households, especially in those areas where
good market potentials can be exploited to
increase livelihoods.
.
Subsistence agriculture
Poor rural people in Laos depend on agriculture
for food and income, but their agricultural
conditions are often unfavorable.Low productivity
combined with the lack of access to information,
technology and markets lead to unbalanced
nutrition, low income and unsustainable use of
natural resources.
For smallholders, rice farming remains pre-
dominantly a subsistence activity, although
attempts have been made to encourage market-
oriented production. Landholdings are often too
small for commercial production, and farmers
struggle to maintain a healthy and balanced diet,
especially when their household is large.
2005 2007 2010 2013
Human Dev. Index 0.51 0.53 0.549 0.569
Agriculture value
added (% of GDP)
36.2 34.9 32.7 26.5
GNI per capita 472 887 1123 1661
Total population
(million)
5.88 6.21 6.44 6.77
Rural population as
% of population
73 69 67 64
Poverty rate based
on population
30.7 27.6 26 23.2
Main crops production: rice, soybeans, sugarcane,
corn, tobacco, etc.
Nutrition facts: high malnutrition rate (40%), particularly
in rural areas
Poverty rate in the Lao PDR (Source: Swiss National
Centre of Competence in Research)
Table 1 Macroindicators of rural development in Laos
(WB). Note the high malnutrition rate, one of the biggest
challenges for the Lao PDR targeting middle-income
status by 2020.
To enhance productivity and to ensure food
security, good practices are being used and
expanded by the IFAD-funded projects in Laos.By
promoting farm diversification, integrated farming
systems and sustainable water management,
the IFAD-funded projects have been contributed
to sustainable agriculture and better nutrition at
household and community level. Opportunities in
household gardening and community collectives
are being exploited for income generation and for
better market access.
Private sector in agriculture, characterized by
small enterprises with limited market linkages,
has more potential to be tapped for faster
development. Agriculture employs nearly 70%
of the workforce in Laos, but accounts for only

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
11
25% of the GDP, due to the weak private sector.
Empowering smallholders and involving the
private sector in agricultural development is a
priority for IFAD’s activities in Laos.
Natural Resource Management
With no access to sea, Laos sees itself as
land-linked, rather than landlocked. Its forests
and rivers, the country’s most valuable natural
resources, provide timber and hydropower
that fuel its rapid economic growth. Extractive
industries, however, contribute to the fast
deforestation in Laos.
Laos has lost much of its forests to logging and
to constructions over the past 40 years. With its
remaining 40% forest cover, Laos still outscores
neighbors like Thailand, making Laos a good
candidate to lead the ASEAN in non-timber forest
products.
Sustainable use of forests, together with climate-
smart agriculture and water management ranks
high in the agenda of IFAD and the Government
of Laos. Good examples in NTFP cooperatives
and community forest management from Laos,
Vietnam and Thailand can be further expanded
to benefit more households.
Institutional management
Rapid growth of foreign investment in agriculture
highlighted the need for capacity building of
government agencies and related organizations
to deal with investments and the effective use of
land and resources. Institutional management
on provincial and district levels are burdened
by difficult communication and mobility that
effects planning and data flow. Improving skills
through capacity building can enhance the
implementation and overall performance of the
Laos Country Portfolio, to reach the expectations
based on the potentials.
In the need to strengthen pro-poor investment
policies and institutions, IFAD promotes policy
linkages, partnerships and capacity building to
develop the key service providers for the delivery
of quality services. Improving the capacity
and accountability of public institutions and
development programmes is crucial to ensure
the desired impact and sustainability.
REFERENCES
8th NSEDP
NGPES
MDG
Strategy for Agricultural Development
Greater Mekong Sub-region Strategy
Asian Development Outlook 2015: Laos

12
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
2. IFAD IN LAOS
IFAD began operations in the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic in 1980. Since then, it has
provided a total of US$122.4 million in loans and
grants for 13 programmes and projects in rural
development. Targeting sustainable agriculture,
poverty reduction and promoting opportunities
for the rural poor to improve their livelihoods,
IFAD offers its funded programmes low interest
rate (0.1%/year) and long term loans.
Throughout the years, IFAD funded numerous
activities aimed to improve rural livelihoods and
incomes, such as irrigation, rural infrastructure,
agricultural practices and inputs, livestock
production, access to financial and technical
services and strengthening of grassroots
organizations. In the past ten years, natural
resource management, access to markets
and climate change adaptation have become
priorities.
In accordance with the consensus that emerged
from the consultation process, IFAD’s strategy
is to ensure that poor rural people are given
better opportunities for sustainable food security
and economic livelihood. Together with the
GovernmentofLaosanditsdevelopmentpartners,
IFAD has identified areas with comparative
advantages where IFAD can complement other
donor activities, as outlined in IFAD’s Country
Strategic Opportunities Programme (COSOP).
IFAD’s COSOP supports the Government of the
Lao PDR in implementing its five year National
Socio-Economic Development Plans (currently
the 8th NSEDP), the National Growth and Poverty
Eradication Strategy (NGPES), and in achieving
its Millennium Development Goals (MDG).
IFAD-funded projects in the LAO PDR
Currently, IFAD is funding three ongoing
projects which are active mostly in the South
of Laos and in two provinces in the Northwest.
The projects target poor and ethnically diverse
households, focusing on the poorest and the
most vulnerable, as well as smallholder farmers
with good potentials for market access. In 2016,
two new projects are being launched in Northern
Laos, focusing on food security, climate change
adaptation and livestock commercialization. (See
IFAD-funded project profiles and good practices
in the Annex)
• SouthernLaosFoodandNutritionSecurity
and Market Linkages Programme (FNML)
works in the poorest districts in Southern
Laos, focusing on food security, nutrition and
income generation;
• SustainableNaturalResourceManagement
and Productivity Enhancement Project
(SNRMPEP) targets resource management
and productivity enhancement in 5 Southern
provinces;
• Soum Son Seun Jai (SSSJ) in the
Northwestern uplands is involved in
enhancing production, market access and
natural resource management;
• Strategic Support for Food Security and
Nutrition Project (SSFSNP) co-funded by
GAFSP, in four Northern provinces;
• Northern Smallholder Livestock
Commercialization Project (NSLCP)
already established in four Northern
provinces as a continuation of the Livestock
Development Project (LDP) co-funded by
IFAD and ADB.
Webpage dedicated to activities in Laos on the IFAD website

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
13
Closed Loans & Grants Ongoing Projects
Pipelined Loans &
Grants
Casier-Sud Pioneer Agricultural Project (1980-1982)
SNRMPEP (2009-2017)
15 million USD
GAFSP (2016-2021)
30 million USD
Agricultural Production Project (1984-1990)
Rural Credit Project (1988-1992)
SSSJ (2011-2017)
14 million USD
LDP (2016-2021)
10 million USD
Xieng Khouang Agricultural Development Project – XADP Phase I (1991-1997)
XADP Phase II (1999-2005)
Bokeo Food Security Project (1995-2003)
Northern Sayabouly Rural Development Project (1998-2004)
FNML (2013-2019)
14.7 million USD
Oudomxai Community Initiative Support Project (2004-2010)
Rural Livelihoods Improvement Programme in Attapeu and Sayabouri (2006-2014)
Northern Region Sustainable Livelihoods Through Livestock Development Project (2007-2013)
New & Upcoming Projects & Grants Amount Comments
Smallholder Climate Change Component (SACCC) ASAP financing for FNML USD 5ml Approved in April 2015
Northern Smallholder Livestock Commercialization Project (NSLCP) USD 5ml Parallel financing with ADB from 2016
Strategic Support for Food and Nutrition Program (SSFNP) USD 5ml To be approved in April 2016
Ongoing Regional Grants Amount
Root and Tuber Crops Research & Dev Programme for Food Security in the Asia and the Pacific Region (CIP) 0.6 million USD
Leveraging pro-poor public private partnership for rural dev.-widening access to energy services for rural poor in Asia and the
Pacific (ESCAP)
1.35 million USD
Improved Forage-Based Livestock Feeding Systems for Smallholder Livelihoods in the Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam (CLV)
Development Triangle (CIAT)
1.5 million USD
Strengthening Knowledge Sharing on Innovative Solutions using the Learning Routes Methodology in Asia and the Pacific
(PROCASUR)
2 million USD
Sustainable Management of Crop-based Production System for Raising Agricultural Productivity in Rainfed Areas (ICRISAT) 1.5 million USD
Climate Risk Management in Agriculture of Laos, Indonesia and Bangladesh (Trustees of Columbia University) 0.7 million USD
Inclusive Business Models to Promote Sustainable Smallholder Cassava Production (SNV) 1.199 million USD
Capacity Building for Women’s Leadership in Farmer Producer Organisations in Asia and the Pacific Region (WOCAN) 0.5 million USD
Medium-term Cooperation Programme with Farmers’ Organizations in Asia and the Pacific Region (AFA) 2 million USD
Strengthening Knowledge sharing and scaling up of sustainable innovation using the Learning Route methodology (PROCASUR) 1 million USD
Table 2 IFAD-funded projects, Loans and Grants in Laos

14
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Partnership with the Lao PDR
IFAD recognizes 2015 as an important year
in its partnership with the Lao PDR. IFAD
aligned its strategic objectives for Laos with
the 8th National Development Plan (NSEDP
2016-2020) to help achieve food security as
an off-track Millennium Development Goal
(MDG) and the country’s graduation to middle
income status by 2020. The strategy includes
a strong focus on developing the agricultural
and natural resources sector by modernizing
agricultural production and creating value-
added food and agricultural products. It aims to
reduce rural poverty, maintain food security and
apply science-based management to natural
resources. IFAD also supports Laos to reap
the full benefit of its most recent membership
to the ASEAN Economic Community.
Thanks to the Government of Laos, their
continuous trust in IFAD as a partner of choice
is evidenced by appointing IFAD as co-chair of
the Agriculture and Rural Development Sector
Working Group. The ARD Sector Working
Group is one of the 10 groups that serve as
coordination and policy dialogue forum for the
Government of Laos and its key development
partners. IFAD has also been requested by the
government to be the supervising agency for
the Global Agriculture Food Security Program
(GAFSP) in Laos.
The team representing IFAD in Laos is headed
by Mr. Soulivanh Pattivong, Country Programme
Officer in Vientiane, and Mr. Benoit Thierry, IFAD
Country Programme Manager, who works from
the regional office in Hanoi and travels regularly
to Laos.
The promotion of a South East Asia Rural
Development Hub by IFAD and the Governments
extends Laos the opportunity of collaboration
beyond borders, sharing the keys to overcome
today’s rural development challenges.
RESOURCES
IFAD Website-Laos
IFAD-Funded Projects in Laos
IFAD’s strategy in the Lao PDR
SWG-ARD presentation
SWG-ARD Annual Report 2015
SWG ARD Partnership Vientiane Declaration
IFAD Procedure in SEA
IFAD Background Documents
Key statistics
IFAD in Laos
Number of programmes: 13
Total cost: 234 million USD
IFAD financing: 122.4 million USD
Direct beneficiaries: 238,875 households

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
15

16
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
CHAPTER 2
Country Portfolio
Performance
Review

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
17
1. OBJECTIVES OF THE RETREAT
ThepurposeofthisCountryPortfolioPerformance
Review (CPPR) is twofold: First, to take stock of
the portfolio of projects in Laos financed jointly
by IFAD and the Government of Laos, to identify
problem areas in program management, and
to make operational recommendations on how
to overcome the bottleneck issues impeding
performance; Second, to review the progress
achieved in development goals, as established
in IFAD’s Country Strategic Opportunities Paper
(COSOP) for Laos. Through public consultation
and participatory discussions, the CPPR in Laos
channeled the identified solutions and specific
recommendations into the new COSOP for Laos,
that is going into effect from mid-January 2016.
The 3 main outcomes of the Portfolio Performance Review
1. Update on progress in projects and Country Portfolio: Identify issues and best practices,
find and align solutions
2. Knowledge sharing: Agreements and networking among a wide group of development
practitioners, project staff, donors, partner organizations, agencies and governing
institutions
3. Integrate solutions and discussion outcomes in the COSOP update for 2016-2020, and
enrich the Roadmap with good initiatives
RESOURCES
Agenda
Concept Note
Expectations from the Retreat
List of Participants
Interviews with participants
2. PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW
The first objective of the Retreat was to review the
Country Portfolio of the Lao PDR, based on the
data gathered and shared by IFAD and its funded
projects (see below). National coordinators,
provincial officers and district staff joined with
experts and colleagues from Laos, Cambodia
and Vietnam to share good practices and to
agree on steps forward to improve the portfolio
performance.
IFAD in Laos was represented, among others, by
Mr.Soulivanh Pattivong, IFAD CPO and Mr.Benoit
Thierry, IFAD CPM. Mr. Soulivanh presented
the Laos Country Portfolio Review of the past
five years, focusing on major achievements
and common issues in IFAD-funded projects.
His detailed presentation highlighted key
areas in programme management that need
improvements on the country level, including
financial management, targeting and impact.
Other areas, such as the quality of programme
management and the quality of results were
found within or above the APR regional average.
Mr. Benoit emphasized the importance of the
portfolio approach and teamwork between
projects in order to achieve better performance.
He praised the active and open discussions
among development practitioners in Laos, as
the Retreat in Luang Prabang has witnessed.
By inviting international colleagues and experts,
IFADmadesurethatgoodpracticesinprogramme
management are shared across borders: the
use of new technologies for M&E and financial
practices from PADEE project in Cambodia and

18
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
on-the-ground experiences from Laos. Among
the key issues, Mr. Benoit identified targeting and
impact of fundamental importance. To comply
with the targets set by IFAD and aligned with the
national strategies, the number and quality of
beneficiaries need to be improved in the future.
(See Project Infographs in the Annex)
To give a clear overview of the Laos Country
Portfolio, IFAD prepared a series of analytical
maps with the key performance indicators rated
by colors. Green highlights show management
areas with satisfactory or moderately satisfactory
performance in different provinces, while red
highlights pinpoint problem areas and bottleneck
issues. These maps provide an instant diagram
of strengths and weaknesses in the Laos Country
Portfolio. (See the Analytical Maps in the Annex)
The review has been carried out by monitoring
and evaluating 5 IFAD-funded projects in the Lao
PDR, during a 5-year period until 2015:
1. RULIP (LAO1301) Rural Livelihoods
Improvement Programme in Attapeu and
Sayabouli
2. NRSLDP (LAO1396) Northern Region
Sustainable Livelihoods through Livestock
Development
3. SNRMPEP (LAO1459) Sustainable Natural
Resources Management and Productivity
Enhancement Project
4. SSSJ (LAO1608) Soum Son Seun Jai
– Community-based Food Security and
Economic Opportunities Programme
5. FNML (LAO1680) Southern Laos Food and
Nutrition Security and Market Linkages
Programme
Three of these projects are still ongoing
(SNRMPEP, SSSJ, FNML), and two projects have
been completed (RULIP, NRSLDP) in 2014 and
2013 respectively. In 2016, two new projects are
being launched, the Strategic Support for Food
Security and Nutrition Project (SSFSNP), co-
funded by GAFSP, and the Northern Smallholder
Livestock Commercialization Project (NSLCP),
co-founded by IFAD and ADB. The two projects
co-financed by the Asian Development Bank
(NRSLDP, SNRMPEP) are supervised by ADB,
and are not supposed to provide RIMS data.
RESOURCES
Laos Portfolio Review Orientation
Country Portfolio Review by Soulivanh Pattivong, IFAD CPO
Analytical Maps
Performance Dashboard
Project profiles and good practices
Project Infographs
Orientation for PMU Performance
LAO portfolio review 2010-2014
Ongoing operations
1. Sustainable Natural Resource Management and
Productivity Enhancement Project
2. Soum Son Seun Jai - Community-based Food
Security and Economic Opportunities Programme
3. Southern Laos Food and Nutrition Security and
Market Linkages Programme

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
19
3. HOW TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE?
Enhancing portfolio teamwork through public
consultation
“The point here is to work together for better performance.”
- Rik Delnoye, LuxDev Lead Advisor to SSSJ, Facilitator of
Day 1
Bouasavath Inthavanh, Deputy Director General of MPI
during the opening ceremony of the Retreat.
From the very beginning of the Retreat it has been
emphasized that projects should move towards
portfolio teamwork to break their isolation. For
this purpose, the public consultation progressed
towards group discussions where participants
were mixed and teamed up with their counterparts
from other projects and institutions. Group works
and discussions of the Retreat followed a multi-
step approach to contribute together to an
effective and result-oriented COSOP for the next
5-year period.
STEP 1 What is better performance?
“Faster, cheaper, better”
The main slogan of the Retreat targeting
better portfolio performance calls for urgent
and substantial improvements in many key
areas of program management, such as
finance management, planning and knowledge
management. The first step focused on the key
aspects of better performance as identified by
the development practitioners at the Retreat.
(See the Outputs of the Better Performance
exercise in Annex)
STEP 2 Identifying issues and finding
solutions
The Retreat worked towards the fast and effective
handling of the issues with self-evaluation and
participatory discussions. Finding solutions
for the bottleneck issues that impede portfolio
performance was facilitated by a “working
groups” exercise, where each group planned the
solutions in 6 main areas of improvement. These
critical areas align with the main guidelines
and objectives of the COSOP. The results
and agreements are to be included in the new
COSOP 2016-2020 and in project management
processes, and will enrich the 2016 Roadmap for
Laos.
H.E. Pen Vuth Deputy Director General GDA, MAFF,
Cambodia, presenting solutions for improvement
STEP 3 Integrating results into project action
plans and the new COSOP (See Chapter 3)
STEP 4 Formulation of Roadmap (See
Chapter 3)
Six areas of improvement
During the portfolio teamwork, issues and
solution were identified and agreements
were reached in 6 areas of improvement:
1. Implementation arrangement
2. Flow of funds, procurement, accounting
3. Synergies and differentiated approach
4. M&E, KM, MIS
5. Partnerships
6. Targeting & impact

20
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
4. MAIN ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
1. Implementation arrangement
• How to improve the accountability of public
institutions and systems?
• How to strengthen capacities to develop
effective pro-poor investment policies?
• How to ensure ownership and sustainability?
Decentralization process shows mixed experiences
in programme management. Partial decentralization
has been achieved, some at central level and more
on provincial level, but overall implementation needs
improvement. It was agreed among the projects
that the process decentralization depends on clear
communication of its process and a strong capacity
building.
Accountability and responsibility of implementing
agencies need to be clear, as emphasized by IFAD
during the Retreat. For this, project coordinators
agreed that the capacity of all implementers should
be further enhanced.Experience points to necessary
changes in the Programme Implementation Manual
which can be unsuitable for certain areas or
stakeholders who have difficulties following it.
Capacity building is another topic where IFAD
and project coordinators agreed on necessary
improvements. The lack of capacities and/or the low
responsiveness of service providers are key issues
faced by the portfolio. To address the issue, more
investment is encouraged in institutional capacity
building activities for local authorities, service
providers and management teams. As a result, all
three ongoing projects improved their ratings in 2015.
Standardization of systems, processes and tools
has been highlighted by IFAD as a much needed
improvement in several areas. New technologies
and software can be adopted by all projects to
standardize accounting and M&E, as shown
during the Retreat (See later in this chapter). IFAD
underlined that significant differences in LogFrame
structures also hinder monitoring and performance.
Long-term sustainability has been a crucial issue
for all projects. As Mr. Thierry Mahieux, IFAD expert
and COSOP advisor said, sustainability tends to
disappear right after project completion. To improve
post-completion sustainability, it was agreed among
projects that the management structure with an
appropriate exit strategy should be integrated in
existing governmental structures of decentralization.
“Sustainability of project benefits is lost almost immediately
after project completion because it is weakly embedded in
the project design.The appropriate exit strategy is not actively
pursued.”
- Soulivanh Pattivong, IFAD Country Programme Officer

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
21
Issues
Actual Solution
(by 2015)
Next Solution
(for 2016)
Stakeholders Deadline Risks
1. Clear responsibility
of all stakeholders
Project Implementation
Manual (PIM)
Revised PIM to be
suitable for area or
implementer
Implementing agencies Onward
PIM not suitable for
some
2. Decentralization of
Project Management
Partial decentralization
More delegations to
provincial and local
authorities
National, sub-national
level
Onward
Human resources,
budget and approach
3. Post-completion
sustainability
Exit strategy from the
start of the project
Actively pursue exit
strategy embedded in
project design
National/provincial/
district authorities;
rural communities and
farmer organizations
Onward
Human resources,
budget and approach
4. Local ownership
Established farmer
groups with common
interest
More capacity building
and more focus on
functionality
Provincial and local
authorities, rural
communities and
farmers groups, private
sector
Onward
Human resources,
budget and approach
5. Implementation
based on strong
capacities
Partial capacity
building
More capacity building
Public and private
service providers,
farmer organizations
Onward
Human resources,
budget and approach
REFERENCES
IFAD Project Cycle
Project Procedure
Table 3 Detailed issues and solutions in implementation arrangement

22
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
2. Flow of funds, procurement, accounting
• How to make annual budget plans viable?
• How to increase delivery?
• How to make fund-flow and procurement
easier and faster?
During the portfolio review it became clear that
financial management has some of the most
pressing issues. Overall, the quality of finance
management showed improvements, mainly due
to the good performance of LDP during its last two
years of implementation. The availability of co-
funding, the quality of audits and the acceptable
disbursement are also above the regional
average in 2015. Procurement and compliance
with the budget plans, however, need quick
improvements. Project coordinators expressed
an urgent need for a shorter decision making
process and simpler procedures in planning,
approval and disbursement. Key bottleneck
issues include compliance in procurement,
disbursement rate and implementation of budget
plans.
Coherence between AWPB and
implementation
Most projects struggle to deliver physical and/
or financial targets set by AWPB and IFAD, and
the overall implementation of AWPB has been
consistently below APR average.
“In general, finance management has to be more realistic
when submitting annual work plans and budgets to the
central unit. Projects should focus on what has been
accomplished, then review realistic targets based on
previous years’ results.”
- Ms. Phouangsavath Phoutphong, SSSJ Finance
Unrealistic budgets relate to problems with
expenditure in the first year due to lack of
activities, and to near budget end when projects
avoid spending. To manage fluctuations, SSSJ
recommends an absolute budget limit based on
experience. All projects agreed that budgets and
plans should be well balanced to avoid negative
impacts. (See in this Chapter: Experiences in
Finance Management:The case of SSSJ)
Compliance with IFAD procurement
guidelines is another bottleneck issue identified
at the Retreat. It has been consistently below
the regional average with only one project (LDP)
making the leap to satisfactory level in five
years. Compliance with procurement is a priority
issue for all projects for an effective programme
operation. As agreed by project coordinators, the
responsibility and accountancy in procurement
also needs to be improved.
During the discussion, Ms. Phouangsavath
Phoutphong, SSSJ Finance Officer underlined
that AWPBs have many procurement plans to
be announced, and too much time is spent on
preparation. She found that budgets are often not
aligned with procurement plans, and the AWPBs
can be too late for some activities. After the
agreements, procurement often comes late and
not according to season. Her experience shows
that when moved to the new year, committed
expenditure creates misunderstandings.
(See in this Chapter: Experiences in Finance
Management: Cambodia)

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
23
Fund flow issues are common in all projects.The
main problem is usually the very late submission
of reports to the central unit resulting in late
fund flow from the donor account. Vinoth Vansy,
National Coordinator of SNRMPEP highlighted
that transfer to subaccounts also takes too much
time. He recommends that when submitting
reports to district, province or government,
the time needed for procurement should be
calculated, and the procurement staff should
note down the timeline of activities on hard copy
for easier use.
No Objection from IFAD often takes too long
because the documents submitted are not
complete. When submitted for No Objection,
plans are revised and changed in light of new
information and requirements of the project.
Standardization of tools is needed in accounting
and other areas of finance management. It was
agreed that the use of IT technology can improve
financial management, but the integration of
new technologies requires specific trainings,
review and adaptation. Project coordinators
encouraged new projects to use standard finance
management software from the start, however,
introducing new tools in current projects can lead
to complications.

24
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Issues
Actual Solution
(by 2015)
Next Solution
(for 2016)
Stakeholders Deadline Risks
Delay in fund flow;
Long processing times for
WALs
Projects speeding
up WAL submission
Reduce information requirements
for WALs and SOEs, simplify the
forms
IFAD, projects FYE 2016 Delay in activity
implementation
Constantly changing FM/
procurement form formats
N-A Easier forms, timely notice on
format changes, feedback on
proposals
IFAD, projects FYE 2016 Confusion and delay in
implementation and reporting
Introduction of smart SOE
systems
N-A Trainings on new SOE systems and
trial runs
IFAD, projects FYE 2016 Projects not ready for SOE
submission using new
systems: fund flow delayed
Changing rules regarding
Direct payment from 20k to
100k
N-A DA ceiling to be increased to
accommodate more payments from
projects.
Timely notice on proposed changes.
IFAD FYE 2016 Waste of work and payments
for WAL processing
Change in financial reporting
standard from cash to IPSAS
cash
N-A All projects to be trained on IPSAS
cash, transition to new standard to
be planned
projects FYE 2016 Delay in financial reporting
and issuing FS; weak ratings
of projects by IFAD missions
Only the NPCU is using the
accounting software, but not
the field offices
N-A Projects should aim for software
implementation project wide, not
limited to central level
projects FYE 2016 Centralization of control in
projects, no capacity building
of field staff
Different projects utilizing
different accounting software
N-A Projects to coordinate purchase of
accounting software, discuss joint
purchasing
projects FYE 2016 No opportunity for
coordination amongst projects
Weak communication
between procurement and
accounting staff
N-A Weekly project meetings to be held
in order to coordinate activities and
funding
projects FYE 2016 No integrated plans of both
sections, diverging goals
within the same project
Delays and cost overruns in
executing procurement plans
and AWPB
N-A IFAD Country Office to help
projects by monitoring execution
of procurement plans on time and
within budget
IFAD, projects FYE 2016 Execution of activities and
implementation is beyond the
budget and AWPB
Splitting of costs between
donors causes complex
accounting and funds mgmt
N-A Where various donors exist, each
donor should finance 100% of
certain costs (categories) rather
than splitting the same category
IFAD, projects FYE 2016 Complex accounting and final
reporting, delays in submitting
reports
Table 4 Detailed issues and solutions in finance management

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
25
FM, PPs and AWPB
Issues Solutions
• Lack of adequate and timely communication and quality reporting from field
level offices to NPCU
• Unusable data provided by field offices to NPCU which needs to modify data
for financial reporting and WAs resulting in delayed submission of WAs to
IFAD
(Note:The project is currently resolving this issue with good improvements)
• Training of field level staff (proper and timely communication and reporting,
type of data, presentation of data, forms and toolkit to be used)
• Training of field offices for producing adequate data
• Better communications between NPCU and field offices, regular feedback
check and quality control. One-stop review by NPCU of provided data
• Weak communication channels between project and IFAD about changes in
FM & Procurement rules and operating procedures
• Timely update mechanism from IFAD on rules and procedures
• Project access to IFAD Asia Portal and PMD intranet for automatic updates
• Use of manual accounting systems by projects, even after purchasing
accounting software
• Projects to install software at project launch
• Projects to dedicate time and FM personnel for full implementation of
purchased software
• Full switchover at NPCU to discontinue inefficient parallel accounting
• Inaccurate activity planning by sub-national offices and partners, resulting in
rushed and haphazard funding requests causing problems and delays in other
planned activities
• Regular (monthly) meetings for all project sections and partners on FM
activity plans and funding (ad hoc meetings only in case of urgency)
• In-advance FM-reports on requirements for their activities to get justification
• Strict enforcement of rules by refusing further fund release until justification
for previous disbursement is received
AWPB-PP
Issues Solutions
• New focus on poor households is an alien concept (Agro-Forestry Offices are
used to target volumes with limited attention to the number or characteristics
of beneficiaries.
• Benchmarking of costs per activity/output is new to implementing agencies
• AWPB format to be based on project’s LogFrame that relates activities to
defined project Outputs & Outcomes
• AWPB to link activities to the budget
• Training of PAFO/DAFO staff in applying formats
• Not realistic perspective when formulating AWPB.
• Inflated activity plans based on excessive budgets with low disbursement/
depletion rates
• Create benchmarks/budget limits per office: 1) based upon past performance
/disbursement rate, and 2) absolute limit
• Balance plans, budget limits and disbursements
• Poor quality data from field offices to be used in AWPB process.
• Training of field level staff
• Better NPCU communication with field level offices for orientation and quality
control
• Under-funding of implementation budgets of MAF for parallel agendas (GoL
priorities vs SSSJ/IFAD priorities)
• More frequent updates on eligibility criteria of IFAD financing as in useful but
not project priority.
• Too many revisions of the AWPB and PPs after No Objection from IFAD,
leading to weak implementation focus
• Too many AWPB formats used (virtually every Supervision Mission
recommended a modified AWPB format and process
• Respect IFAD’s No Objection procedure rules
• IFAD to standardize AWPB format with sufficient guidance to projects, and
room for adaptation
Experiences in Finance Management:The case of SSSJ

26
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Recommendations by SSSJ for easier
and faster procurement
• Timely reporting to avoid problems
with procurement and disbursement.
• Account system in every district,
monthly deadline for district office
report.
• Determine unit need depending on
location (costs must be based on
location access).
• Timely and elaborated finance report
to make use of finance system on
district level.
• Recommended increase of budget
ceiling with timely transfer.
• Accounting software district reports in
Lao are to be translated in English for
WA final reports.
• Documents must be completed for
faster No Objection from IFAD.
• Documents national language is Lao,
project language is English. Official
communication is English.
REFERENCE
SSSJ presentation on FM,AWPB, and PP
by Vish Mannava
Experiences in Finance Management:
Cambodia
The Project Support Unit (PSU) for IFAD-
funded projects in Cambodia was established
in September 1999. It has been involved in
the design of 6 IFAD operations in the country
and has been coordinating 5 IFAD-funded
projects: ADESS (closed), RPRP (closed),
RULIP and PADEE, including the coming-up
ASPIRE. Besides project implementation, the
PSU participated actively in the supervision,
Implementation support and other thematic
missions. PSU is also closely involved in the
process of the COSOP (see Chapter 3).
“The PSU for IFAD-funded projects in Cambodia serves
as a multiple projects platform where good practices and
lessons learned are shared to facilitate practical policies.
We have good experiences to share in key areas like
decentralization, procurement and planning.”
- Hok Khimtourn, PADEE Finance Manager

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
27
Key experiences and good practices
in finance management shared by the
Cambodian delegation at the Retreat
• Endorsed AWPB and Procurement
Plan
• Fund flow (Designated Accounts,
Project Accounts, National/ Provincial
and PPP Account
• Consultancies based on threshold/IA
• Procurement plan updates
• Planning (AWPB meeting, IA
contracting, reflection stakeholder
workshops, monthly district and
provincial meetings, reports, reviews
and work plans)
• Quarterly Request (WA), E-WA
• Frequency spot check and
recommendations by project
leadership/procurement staff
• Joint technical/policy guidance
meeting
REFERENCE
IFAD projects in Cambodia-presentation
by Hok Kimthourn
3. Synergies and differentiated approach
• How to build synergies between activities?
• How to promote peer to peer exchange of
experiences?
• How to make your plans understood by the
villagers?
Synergies between activities are good
opportunities for better impact and faster
implementation, but these synergies are not
adequately explored. Mr. Thierry Mahieux
emphasized that activities need to be closely
interrelated to maximize their impact. Additional
support should be provided by programmes when
planning activities and identifying beneficiaries.
Mr. Mahieux also noted that synergies with good
opportunities must be further improved (see
Kum Ban and Livelihood Initiative for Nutrition
under SSSJ). This approach can provide more
integrated interventions in the agricultural sector
(home garden, livestock, fruit trees, water supply,
and training to raise awareness) but requires a
full and efficient coordination between different
Ministries (agriculture, education and health).
Differentiated strategies are recommended to
better respond to local realities. IFAD’s evaluation
showed that activities have not always been
implemented according to the local realities, the
level of poverty of the villagers, and their status
in value chain development. It was agreed that
the “one size fits all” approach should be avoided
to give way for a more differentiated approach to
respond to village/beneficiary needs. According
to IFAD’s recommendation, target villages
could be disassociated into 2 categories: “pre-
market villages” with focus on food security
and production and “market ready villages” with
focus on production of marketable surpluses. Mr.
Soulivanh Pattivong, IFAD CPO noted that many
solutions may not be adapted to all contexts (e.g.
organic farming), therefore the promotion of agro-
ecology as a common approach is preferred in all
IFAD projects.

28
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Issues
Actual Solutions
(by 2015)
New solutions
(by 2016)
Stakeholders Milestones Risks
Many projects with
different approaches
and ways of working
N/A
Exchange visits,
study tours; Lessons
learnt should be better
considered
Each project team/
director depending on
the themes; Involve
the relevant GoL
counterparts
Yearly thematic
exchange between
projects (agronomy,
livestock, finance…)
No time to meet;
Risk to standardize
assistance (there is no
formula)
Few synergies between
dev. agencies and with
mass organizations
Steering committees,
(usually chaired by
district gov or deputy);
Regular meetings
Gen district gov
committed to appoint
key staff for long term;
Gen agreement at
project formulation
stage
District and province
authorities, Line
departments
ASAP at project
formulation stage or
before start
Steering committee
members turn over
One size fits all is not
relevant
PRA and Village Dev
Plan according to
district strategy and
capacity of project and
villagers
Focus on what villagers
already do and build on
that
DAFO, project team
At start PRA / village
development planning
stage
The plan is not
understood or
endorsed by villagers
Focus on activities
rather than approaches
Make activities as
relevant as possible
based on their needs;
Promote uniformed
development model
Propose approaches
and activities where
communities needs
meet GoL policies
GoL, project team
Need assessment /
project formulation
stage
Policy and/or the
communities’ need are
not well defined
No M&E system; No
common development
indicators to follow
Define and adopt M&E
system and indicators
based on project
Harmonized M&E and
development indicators
MAF ASAP
Table 5 Issues and Solutions in Synergies as emerged from the public consultation

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
29
4. Monitoring & Evaluation and Knowledge
Management
• How to improve documentation and follow
up in M&E?
• How to use available technology and new
tools in creating standardized M&E system?
• How to promote knowledge from Laos
across borders?
Weak M&E/MIS is a heavy trait of the Country
Portfolio. Despite the continuous effort by
international experts to help the projects
in mapping and evaluation, M&E has been
consistently below APR average in the past
5 years. IFAD’s evaluation found that project-
level M&E and MIS systems are not reliable or
functional enough to provide accurate and timely
information of performance and results, while the
available M&E data are generally incomplete to
be used by project management to take informed
decisions.
“There is a significant gap in the reporting on sufficient
beneficiary data which is imperative for good MIS.”
- Vish Mannava, SSSJ Finance, Facilitator of Day 3
It was agreed that the reliability, consistency
and functionality of MIS and M&E systems
must be improved. Although the information on
the field is very rich, it is poorly documented.
For this, improvements are needed in quality
and timeliness of data collection and reporting.
Mr. Soulichan Phonekeo, FNML Program
Coordinator noted that for better results and
impact of activities, relevant key indicators should
be monitored. More detailed information can be
acquired by improving the community market.
All project coordinators and M&E officers agreed
that data must be reviewed, quality controlled
and communicated with the field offices. It was
unanimously stressed that a standardized
M&E/MIS system is required, and that the data
should be used for programme management
and planning. It was agreed that for proper M&E
at field level, capacity building of local staff is
required together with regular meetings and
communication between central and provincial/
district units.
Knowledge Management and communication
is overall good, active and outspoken between
projects. For wider communication, IFAD
recommends thematic knowledge packages that
promote the strengths of Laos internationally,
and regular meetings that go beyond borders.
IFAD encourages projects to communicate with
dedicated people, and to contact and involve
youth, specialized journalists and study writers
who can significantly improve the quality and
outreach of knowledge management.
Developinganddisseminatingbestpracticecases
(videos, leaflets, books, webpage, Facebook)
and further experiences/lessons learned
throughout the portfolio is highly needed. Mr.
Soulivanh Pattivong, IFAD CPO recommended
study tours with research institutes, as well as
Agriculture College for internal and external
networking with institutes and donors. Promotion
of learning centers and extension services at
village, regional and national levels are also
recommended, although SSSJ highlighted their
mixed experiences with Farm Field Schools that
should be reviewed.

30
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Where do we find the right procedures?
The right procedures are hard to find, but a
thorough discussion at the Retreat resulted
in pragmatic answers. IFAD communication
tools are available as well as new technologies
and several good examples from projects and
partner organizations that can be standardized
or adapted to local context.
Nutrition awareness initiative by FNML
Nutrition awareness posters by FNML are
distributed in remote mountain villages by district
level management. Only 6 months after the
distribution of posters, a significant change in diet
was recorded with 5 year old children, the critical
group of malnutrition in remote Laos. Posters
raised awareness of balanced diet which is very
poor in rural communities. Brochures on planting
household crops distributed among poor families
contributed to balanced diet in rural households.
For better outreach and follow-up, nutrition
information should be distributed through partner
organizations and rural groups, and among
doctors, nurses, community leaders and women
with children. Black and white brochures are
recommended for village level distribution.
Follow the knowledge (Procasur on KM)
Procasur Asia-Pacific, one of the facilitators
of the Retreat has gathered vast experience
in knowledge management and knowledge
sharing through many years, working on the
field in many regions. Its Learning Routes,
Learning Territories and Rural Talent
initiatives show excellent sustainability and
scaling up potentials, due to the good flow
of knowledge.
In Laos, there are high expectations
motivatingincentivesforgoodmanagement.
In this context, knowledge becomes an
essential asset in the competition among
projects. Innovative and people-centered
use of knowledge can propel projects to
faster development, as good examples
show from Nepal or Cambodia. Giving
voice and ownership to knowledge owners
will lead to wiser decisions.
“Knowledge Management is not a mere library.
Knowledge is an asset that has to be moved around
to keep up the flow.With no follow up,the knowledge
flow stops.”
- Ariel Halpern, Procasur Vice-President
For more information visit:
asia.procasur.org and
facebook.com/procasur.asia
Ritik Joshi, KM expert at FNML, Facilitator of Day 3
REFERENCES
FNML KM presentation
FNML M&E presentation

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
31
Project Benefit Monitoring & Evaluation
(PBME): PBME is a process of continuously
collecting information about the progress of
the activities. PBME is used by SNRMPEP in
project beneficiary M&E to monitor and evaluate
project impact and benefits and evaluate them in
order to draw recommendations for ensuring the
further project benefits. Regular visits to the field
and a practical M&E matrix ensure follow-up and
documentation.
“On sub-project level, we have a lot of activities. We know
our goals,outcomes,outputs,and we see the impact in the
results. Staff meetings for all agencies are every 3 months.
We use an M&E matrix that plans our M&E system data
flow.”
- Vinoth Vansy,SNRMPEP National Programme Coordinator
SNRMPEP is cooperating with NGOs, agencies
and institutions for better knowledge sharing.
Farmer-to-farmer trainings and study tours are
organized in Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia.
SNRMPEP’s KM system is now online, with
access to partners and ministries.
REFERENCE
SNRMPEP KM and M&E presentation

32
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
New technologies
There are plenty of new tools available to be
proposed to project staff. Difficulties in setting
up modern technologies can be solved with
training to project staff. The use of common
tools can help get the much needed results
quickly. As an example, introducing tablets for
farming techniques, pest management, organic
fertilizing, livestock health management etc.
could dramatically improve M&E.
Available tools should be integrated in activities
at project and country level, and M&E data and
analysis should be communicated more via online
knowledge sharing channels. M&E data can be
then used in planning and decision-making. M&E
must focus on the analysis of the data gathered
at field level, and results must target greater
impact on farmers.
“We should profit from the quick change in technology
that can dramatically improve monitoring on the field and
communicating the evaluated data”.
- Visal Kith, PADEE M&E/MIS Expert, Cambodia
MIS2.0:Cambodia’sexampleinM&Etechnology
Cambodia has been using a dynamic online/
offline M&E tool to improve data flow and quality
from the field in a standardized way. The MIS 2.0
helps with offline data input and analysis, online
updates, data transparency and easy follow up
on integrated platforms (mobile phone, computer,
online network). The system is also integrated in
a network across borders.
The best aspect of the system is that M&E can be
conducted at the level of the individual villager. ID
numbers are assigned to each family. First time
implementation is expensive but replication is
fast and easy. The system must be field tested
first. For IFAD, it took 6 months to install it, but for
project like PADEE and FNML, it can be installed
faster, based on an existing LogFrame.
English is the main language and additional
language can be selected when translations are
ready. Implementation by PADEE and FNML can
be followed by SSSJ and MAF.
The MIS2.0 can be integrated with other systems
such as COSOP indicators via web services
API (Application Programming Interface). Online
project management system is still in the future
but the already working MIS2.0 is a good step
towards the final goal: one common system
where everything is accessible.
REFERENCE
PADEE MIS presentation
IFAD: Digital workflow of M&E
IFAD recommends the following online workflow
in the M&E process. The applicant shall fills and
sends the form automatically as attach to the
request. Forms, photos, videos and maps can
be stored and shared on Google drive (or as a
Dropboxlink),anddiffusedonotherfreeplatforms.
Further, information already collected can and
should be shared on Facebook community
pages (South East Asia Rural Hub, Laos–Land
of Opportunities) and websites that designed
for publishing information (eg. Joomla). The use
of online platforms is highly recommended to
keep up and enhance the data flow, and to build
solidarity among projects. Using Google drive
can be a much better solution for file storage as
all data is always online and backup in the Cloud.
“We are talking about new standards. Field information,
district reports, impact analysis, socio-economic data is
mostly known by local teams only. The new technology
helps store all this information online.”
- Nicolas Granier, IFAD KM Advisor

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
33
Project Management
In the current rundown, the projects follow similar
framework: Design (1 year) – Implementation
(5-6 years) – Closing (6 months). In this process,
projects may spend too much time and focus on
design.
Implementation starts with the logical framework
(LogFrame), followed by planning, contracting
and M&E systems. Realistic documents are to be
delivered in time: plans for AWPB, documents for
contracting, procurement plans, etc.
M&E should be used as management tools
that are disseminated, for which regular good
communication is essential. The next step is
policy enhancement, and developing modalities
of PCPP.
E-libraries are promoted by IFAD to store
digital content such as report documents,
videos, pictures, softwares, etc. Easy sharing
document/reports between teams and other
people have been efficiently working in Africa
for many years.
Advantages of the online M&E MIS system:
• Storing large information
• Building strong reporting and data
analysis
• Building strong APIs based for automatic
sharing to online community.
• Connecting with social media for broader
audiences.
• Establishing E-Library module for
document management, file sharing and
learning materials to promote learning
culture.
REFERENCES
IFAD ME MIS Roadmap
IFAD Online PM, ME, KM
IFAD Program Management Pyramid
The annual report is not an administrative document
but an opportunity to show what you think and do.
It can be distributed, illustrated with maps, pictures
and graphics.
During supervision, when instructions are coming
from higher level, very simple recommendations are
preferred to avoid complications when implemented
on field level.Very simple common tools are needed,
starting with most important: a) project design report;
b) LogFrame; c) annual work plan; d) procurement
plan and e) ME system.

34
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Issues Actual solutions by 2015 New solutions for 2016 Stakeholders
Milestones
(with deadlines)
Lack of ME staff
More ME staff to be
employed
Project management ASAP
Capacity building of current
ME and facilitating staff
needed
Frequent, need-based
trainings to be organized
ME officers/ Project
management
Ongoing with project flow
Revision of data collection
forms
ME officers to meet with
field staff to revise forms for
need-based assessment
management
Quarterly
Activity codes need to be
standardized for log frame
Already working on codes
management
ASAP
Lack of motivation of field
staff
Introduce incentives to boost
the morale of concerned
staff
Project management ASAP
Linkage between projects
needs to be accomplished
for KM and KS purposes
All the projects are working
on it by sharing good
practices
KM specialists and officers ASAP
Standardized MIS needed
for all projects for effective
data collection
Setup MIS system (online
offline)
Concerned IA ASAP
Table 6 Issues and Solutions in KM and ME as agreed at the Retreat
REFERENCES
NSEDP ME Framework
Laos KM strategy draft
Methodological note to streamline KM
SEAHub Facebook presentation
Project KM Products
IFAD Background Documents on ME and KM

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
35
5. Partnerships and Policy Linkages
• How to improve interaction between
projects?
• How to reach international partners?
• How to improve access to rural finance?
Partnerships among projects, international
organizations, the government and the private
sector are strongly encouraged by IFAD. Weak
interaction between projects, their mission
support and international partners results in poor
awareness of the issues going on in the field.
Good collaboration across programme levels
requires stronger information management.
As the Retreat has proved, partnerships with
international development practitioners like Lux-
Dev, AFD, FAO, WFP, CIAT, IRRI, PROCASUR,
WOCAN, ADB and UN-HABITAT can further
improve programme performance. IFAD’s
recommendation to projects is to increase their
impact on government and co-financiers, while
continuing with government leverage.
IFAD also expressed its plan to continue with
Working Groups, and to implement WGs with all
stakeholders, as supported by the government’s
policy. Further participation is needed in sectoral
working groups in agriculture, rural development
and rural finance. IFAD also encourages the
development and empowerment of farmer
organizations for improved extension services.
Enhancing farming communities can further
engage them in agricultural extension. As for
the private sector, monetary and non-monetary
incentives are needed to participate in project
activities.
Mr.Thierry Mahieux, IFAD advisor recommended
the extension of WGs to district level, and also the
separation of WG implementation at provincial
and district level to avoid overlapping.
Experience shared by the Cambodian delegation
revealed that the working groups which work
more closely with farmer organizations have a
better survival rate.
Mr. Soulichan Phonekeo, FNML National
Coordinator recommended further integration of
public sector through capacity building, adding
extension workers.
Policy Dialogue is emphasized in several
stages of IFAD’s strategy as a means to
ensure effective partnership, ownership and
collaboration. All community-based solutions for
poverty alleviation, sustainable NRM and food
security require effective policy dialogue in the
multi-stakeholder effort. IFAD urges efficient
policy dialogue for the development of farmer
organizations, formal recognition of communal
tenure and impact of foreign investment on rural
poverty.
Policy development is overall strong in agriculture
in Laos, with organized government agencies
and policy think tanks. IFAD recommends more
publication on working groups and think tanks,
including summaries, PowerPoint presentations,
etc.
While IFAD’s strategy in Laos is well aligned to
the national plans and policies, projects often
struggle to keep in line with IFAD’s strategic
objectives in key areas such as gender focus,
poverty focus or policy framework. To address
the issue, it was suggested by projects to set up
a work team to consider government policies and
include selected policies into IFAD’s strategy in
Laos to facilitate action plan designs. Experience
shows that review missions spend too little time
on the field, while adequate time is needed to
collect and prepare data for policy discussions
with partners, donors and the government.
REFERENCE
IFAD case study on public policy in Laos

36
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Issues
Actual solutions
(by 2015)
New Solutions
(by 2016)
Stakeholders Deadlines Risks
Poor coordination
among development
partners and
government
Round table meeting
took place in center
level
Coordination at the
provincial, district and
community levels need to
be improved
Development partners,
government
2016
No leading agency to
organize
No funding allocated
Each partner contributes to
funding following the same
rules
Development partners,
donors
2016
May be selected
according to the
regulations of each
partner which can
hinder action
Different timeframe
among partners,
especially budget
timeline
When the performance
of each partner is
different especially
budget
Continue to follow the rules
of the state
Partnership
development for
donors, public, private
and community
2016 – 2017
May be selected
according to the
regulations of each
partner which can
hinder action
Unfair contract farming
The injustice
between private and
manufacturers still high
Update policies in
promoting agricultural
production; reduce service
costs
Improve contracts for fair
trade
Strengthen groups to
directly negotiate contracts
with operators
Reach agreements in
case of natural disasters;
Guarantee prices
Governments,
operators,
manufacturers
2016 – 2017
Holding back
entrepreneurs; Impacts
of market or economy,
and natural disasters
can slow down
production
Table 7 Issues and solutions in Partnerships and Policy linkages as agreed at the Retreat

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
37
6.Targeting impact
• How to better identify and approach the main target
groups?
• How to improve the the number and participation
of beneficiaries?
• How to reach the“missing middle”?
Advocated target groups for IFAD-funded projects
are ethnically diverse communities in rural areas,
highly vulnerable, food-insecure and/or women-led
households, and moderately food-insecure smallholders
with good potentials to access markets and extensions.
Targeting these specific groups of beneficiaries shows
difficulties in most projects. Performance in targeting
and impact is often hindered by remote locations,
cultural differences and weak strategies to approach
beneficiaries.
Effectiveness of targeting approach, a common
weakness for all projects, is consistently below the APR
average. The absence of reliable data on beneficiaries
alters the quality and results of the assessment on the
effectiveness and reliability of the targeting approach.
It is generally not clear how well informed many of the
households are of the real opportunities and the benefits
of the different activities and support available under the
project. IFAD’s evaluation shows that overall, the final
decision-making step in the targeting process appears
to be rather disempowering for target households and
has substantial scope for improvement.
Targeting focus in general is below the APR average,
but poverty focus has been improving since 2012.
FNML and SSSJ show strong focus on poverty and
nutrition, especially through their awareness
campaigns on nutrition, food security, cash
crop production. On the other hand, the
search for poverty pockets in remote places
has resulted in a high cost per beneficiary
ratio and the impossibility for some projects
to reach the intended overall number of
beneficiaries, as observed by IFAD. Gender
focus shows little improvement among the
ongoing projects, and the portfolio indicator
has fallen back to the initial level of 2011.
Focusing on poverty, gender, ethnic groups
and nutrition is a key issue of compliance
with IFAD and government strategies, but so
far only a few solutions have been identified.
Most projects requested clarification of
the main targets, and asked for practical
solutions from advisors in order to reach the
“missing middle”. IFAD recommends regular
local activities to include more women and
advises projects to target local entrepreneurs
to improve the value chain development.

38
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Issues Actual solution (2015) New solution (2016) Stakeholders Deadlines Risks
In practice, real project
beneficiaries are
less than medium or
better off households
rather than poor
remote households as
targeted.
Poor HHs have first
priority in accessing to
production input and
technical support;
Medium and better
off HHs have chance
to get just technical
support and market
linkages
Concerned central
institutions should
clarify the HH wealth
ranking criteria;
Local service providers,
extension staffs and
Kumban staffs should
work closely with
villagers to motivate
them into project
activities;
HH baseline survey
should be implemented
with useful information;
Families planning
should be developed
on the basis of families
potentials.
National Rural
Development
Committee,
National Statistic
Center, National
Assembly, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Ministry
of Public Health,
Ministry of Education
and Sport, MAF
Beginning of 2016
Inequity between
beneficiaries in
villages;
No achievement and
sustainability;
Failure to meet project
indicators;
No poverty reduction
Beneficiary participation and Empowerment
are further bottleneck areas hindering
performance, impact and sustainability. In terms
of programme beneficiaries, both the number
of households reached effectively and the
quality of beneficiary participation need much
improvement. IFAD requires from projects to
contribute to a better investment : beneficiary
ratio with improved strategies for outreach and
impact. The key issues are the overall high
Table 8 Issues and solutions in Targeting and impact as agreed at the Retreat
investment and the low participation/awareness
of beneficiaries. Mr. Benoit Thierry, IFAD CPM
emphasized that an enhanced beneficiary
participation requires improvements in bottom-up
activities, farmer group development, outreach
and targeting strategy among others. IFAD also
recommends the development of local capacities
to implement and monitor pro-poor development
projects.

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
39
“IFAD sees Laos as a Land of Opportunities with rural
development experience, precious natural resources,
important local knowledge, and one of the fastest
economic growth in the ASEAN. IFAD projects works
on poverty alleviation and facilitate integration of small
farmers in the new AEC common market.”
- Benoit Thierry, IFAD CPM

40
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
CHAPTER 3
Drafting the new
COSOP

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
41
IFAD’s Country Strategic Opportunities Paper
(COSOP) for Laos is a firmly result-oriented
framework for strategic choices about IFAD’s
operations in the country for identifying
opportunities in IFAD-financing and management
facilitation. Its central objective is to ensure that
IFAD operations in Laos produce a positive
impact on poverty.
The COSOP offers comparative advantages
in Laos by supporting improved food security,
better livelihood for beneficiaries, targeting poor
and vulnerable groups in rural areas and by
maintaining close institutional partnerships.
1. COSOP Goals and Objectives
The COSOP is built on 3 strategic objectives that
are aligned with national plans and strategies in
the Lao PDR. Many opportunities along these
three main objectives offer good grounds for
innovation and scaling-up, such as land tenure,
agreements on improved access to non-timber
forestry, integrated farming systems, and access
to markets through integrated and enhanced
value chains.
The table on the right compares the goals and
strategic objectives of the old and the new
COSOP, with the recent integration of climate
focus.
Measuring COSOP outcomes
The achievement of the strategic objectives is
supposed to be measured through nine outcomes
and 14 output indicators with very specific
targets. A detailed analysis of projects and
COSOP 2011-2015 COSOP 2016-2020
Goal: Ensure the rural poor have more
opportunities to sustainably improve food
security and economic livelihoods
Stimulate sustainable rural economic growth
for women and men in rural communities with
increased climate resilience
SO2: Development of sustainable, adaptive
and integrated farming systems and access to
advisory services
Sustainable, adaptive and integrated farming
systems are developed
SO3: Linkages to markets for selected produces
Access to local, national and regional markets
is improved through structured value chains and
producers’ organizations
SO1: Community-based access and
management of natural resources and land
Land and natural resources reclaimed and
managed by communities in a sustainable and
climate resilient way
Table 9 Comparison of the Goals and Strategic Objectives of the old and the new COSOP, with the newly added climatic
focus
programmes indicates that no system is in place
that would support a coherent measurement of
COSOP outcome and output indicators. Only a
few indicators (especially under COSOP SO2.)
are reflected in the LogFrame of their respective
investment projects.
Differences in the structure of LogFrames are
also significant. While indicators in the COSOP
LogFrame are organized in two levels of results
(COSOP outcomes and COSOP milestones), the
SSSJ project has four levels (goal, development
objective, outcomes, outputs), the FNML project
three (goal, development objective outcomes,
outputs) and the SNRMP again two levels of
LogFrame indicators (impact and outcomes).
Alignment
The old Lao PDR COSOP (2011-2015) was
not always well aligned with IFAD’s investment
projects in Laos. Thematic focus areas of newer
projects (such as nutrition and climate change
adaptation) are inadequately represented.Project
alignment to the COSOP regarding target focus,
framework etc. is often not satisfactory.
Each IFAD-financed programme that has been
implemented in Laos has its own results chain
logic that defines how activities and outputs are
expected to lead to the achievement of particular
outcomes and goals. COSOP indicators are
not supported by any underlying measurement
system which makes progress reporting against
the strategic objectives of the COSOP very
challenging.

42
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
A certain degree of misalignment between
COSOP and IFAD-financed activities is already
conditioned by the fact that the COSOP requires
an explicit alignment with the national strategies
of Lao PDR (See NSEDP, NGPES, MDGs, SAD
and GMS), whereas projects and grants reflect
these elements rather indirectly.
Effectiveness
The project institutional arrangement, leadership
of project team, project ownership, tools/
implementation approaches development and
risk management are the key factors that ensured
the effectiveness of these projects. Some outputs
related to Strategic Objective 1 have not been
fully met denoting that participating households
were not always organized into groups and
neither were specific environmental plans
prepared for management of natural resources
in a way implied by indicators.
Efficiency
The intervention cost per beneficiary urgently
needs to be improved as it averages at about USD
1 403 per household beneficiary. Furthermore,
synergy between projects has been limited
(exchange between projects, pooling of tools
and approaches etc.) hampering the building of
a country program approach.
The plans designed to improve Country Portfolio
in 2016 must solve bottlenecks in performance
and delivery, while in alignment with IFAD’s new
COSOP and Laos’ 8th NSDP going into effect
this year. In the new fiscal year, activities now
below satisfactory level must double or triple
their quality and impact.

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
43
SO1 Outcomes Outcomes achieved through
Producer interest groups empowered to protect land and natural resources
Formation of public access points to disseminate knowledge community/
individual rights
Producer interest groups plan and oversee non-timber forest products
domestication/harvesting
Support to producer interest groups
Village-based forest management plans elaborated through community-based
approaches
Support to improve tenure security
Improved sub-catchment planning improve sustainable access to and use of
water (HHs and production)
Village water planning, promotion of simple options for water harvesting
Effective forest restoration and catchment protection realized NTFP resource assessment
SO2 Outcomes: Outcomes achieved through
Increased sustainable production through effective use of integrated agricultural
systems
Promotion of integrated production systems inclusive of HH gardens, livestock,
aquaculture, cropping, reliance on NTFPs
Improved post-harvest management of products
Improved nutritional balance among poor HHs
Diversified crop portfolios
Availability of improved genetic material (seeds and breeds)
Improved resilience and adaptability to climatic variability, pest and disease
outbreaks
Simple sloping land conservation practices
Promotion of small-scale irrigation and water harvesting techniques at community
level
SO3 Outcomes: Outcomes achieved through
Improved incomes and benefit flows from enhanced access to functioning value
chains
Road infrastructure from villages to key trading points
Village-based production groups in charge of production, marketing,
conservation, and advocacy efforts
Farmers’ organizations (focal points for technical services delivery; advocacy
bodies; vehicles to link production with markets)
Develop local value added opportunities
Improve distribution of village-based production/value-added products for local/
regional markets
Improved technical, marketing, financial support for production groups
Promotion of forward contracts (access to finance, linkages producers/traders)
Commercial financing of trade and investment through farmers’ organizations
Table 10 Outcomes of Strategic Objectives - COSOP 2011-2015
REFERENCES
Old COSOP presentation by Thierry Mahieux 2011-2015
COSOP 2011-2015
Lao Porfolio Review Orientation for the New COSOP (2016 - 2020)

44
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
2.THE NEW COSOP 2016-2020
The new COSOP, starting in mid-January
2016 is an update of the previous one, based
on the results of the portfolio reviews and the
agreements of the public consultation.
During the public consultation of the drafting
process, the COSOP was generally seen as
well aligned to government plans and national
strategies. Comments from project and portfolio
management in Laos, however, suggest the
need for more detailed overall and strategic
objectives, especially in targeting and focus.
Due to difficulties in reaching the main targets,
weak focus on poverty and gender and mixed
experiences in decentralization, projects asked
further clarifications on these topics.
COSOP Indicators
IFAD’s overarching goals are matched to the
indicators and targets of ongoing IFAD-funded
projects in the Lao PDR (See COSOP indicators
for Laos). Cascading performance and impact
indicators ensure integration and consolidation of
impact at country level. It is necessary, however,
to ensure linkage between the COSOP and
indicators on national (MAF) and project level,
also through better ME.
Few but pertinent indicators must be selected
with strong technical assistance, such as gender
focus, which should be added to indicators.
Baseline surveys are required for general goals
(poverty and gender focus) and the specific
objectives for each project based on their
activities.
Alignment
The COSOP update for 2016-2020 started
with the COSOP alignment to the goals and
objectives of Laos’ 8th National Socio-Economic
Development Plan for the same 5-year period.
The 8th NSEDP approved by the Lao National
Assembly in late 2015 contributes to the goal
to reach middle income status for the country
by 2020. The new COSOP supports this goal,
as well as the recent integration of Laos in the
ASEAN Economic Community.
General recommendation: the COSOP should
be more closely linked to the ASEAN.
COSOP ownership
One of the main shortcomings is the lack
of understanding and ownership of the
COSOP objectives.
“The COSOP is not a mere document to gather
dust on the shelves. It must be understood and
owned by all our stakeholders in Laos.”
Thierry Mahieux,Advisor to IFAD COSOP
The COSOP is a common tool for self-
assessment in order to achieve better
performance.Collaboration among projects
and common ownership of the COSOP
fuels this process.
Country ownership is ensured by wide
and regular stakeholder consultations,
such as the Retreat in Luang Prabang,
and alignment with the country’s long
term strategies and plans. Ownership on
provincial, district and village level is the
most important and needs to be improved.
The lack of ownership (out of the 63
development practitioners present at the
Retreat only a few have read it) results
in the poor alignment of projects with the
COSOP objectives.

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
45
Comments on overall and strategic objectives of the new COSOP
“The new objective focus on climate change adaptation highlights
the importance of education that links all objectives and cost-cutting
themes together. Cross cutting themes should include nutrition, eco-
tourism and capacity building as MAF policies.”
- Mr .Sisovath Phandanouvong, GAFSP National Coordinator
“Overall objective should show percentage of poverty reduction
until 2020.The SO about Market Linkages should add global
focus, because Laos as a WTO member aims international
markets.”
- Mr. Soulichan Phonekeo, FNML Program Coordinator
“The implementation of working groups at provincial level is also
supported by the government policy. It should be extended to district
level.”
- Mr. Soulivanh Pattivong, IFAD CPO
“Preparing and collecting data for the COSOP is often done in a
very narrow timeframe.This is an important process that requires
more time.”
- Mr. Khonesavanh Vongxay, SSSJ National Programme
Coordinator
Overall Objective: Reduced poverty, graduation from Least Developed
Country Status with sustained and inclusive growth through promotion of
national potential and comparative advantages, effective management
and utilization of natural resources and strong international integration
Outcome 1 -
Sustained inclusive
economic growth
with economic
vulnerability
(EVI) reduced
and consolidated
financial, legal and
human resources to
support growth
Outcome 2 - Human
development
enhanced and
achievement of
SDGs enabled
through the provision
and use of services
which are balanced
geographically and
distributed between
social groups with
protection and
development of Lao
culture, political
stability, peace,
order, justice and
transparency
Outcome 3 -
Reduced effects
of natural shocks
and climate change
and sustainable
management of
natural resources
Cross-cutting Themes
• Local innovation and utilization of science, technology and
telecommunications
• Promote gender equality, and services to Juveniles and Youth
• Enhance effectiveness of public governance and administration

46
RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
Integration of the outcomes of the 6 areas of
improvement
During the 3 days of the Retreat, public
consultation and group discussions analyzed
the 6 main areas of improvement (See Chapter
3) that coincide with the areas identified by
the Country Portfolio Performance Review.
Technically speaking, project activities are well
implemented, but several issues in programme
management impede long term outcomes that
can match the COSOP objectives and IFAD’s
funding requirements. It is suggested to set up
a work team to consider government policies
and include selected policies into the COSOP to
facilitate action plan designs.
Targeting Strategy • Inclusive strategy in rural areas with a focus on:
i. Food insecure HHs
ii. Other HHs having potential to grow commercial
iii. Local entrepreneurs for value chain
iv. Strategy will also ensure inclusion of women and youth from all ethnicities
• Reach out more beneficiaries to decrease cost per beneficiary
• As new focus, agro-ecology and hydropower should be considered
Policy Linkages • Alignment with national policies
• Farmers’ organizations empowerment for improved extension services
• Rural finance and agricultural financing; promotion of savings groups
Partnerships • Continue National Working Groups
• Implement working groups at project level with all stakeholders (practical aspects)
• Working groups should be linked to farmer oragnizations for better survival rate
• Monetary and non-monetary incentivization of private sector to participate in
project activities
• Further integration of public sector through capacity building
• Leverage IFAD funds to increase impact (GoL, co-financiers)
Implementation
Arrangements
• Project Management structure embedded in existing governmental decentralized
structures to ensure ownership and post-completion sustainability
• Strong capacity building for all stakeholders and at all level
• Increase accountability and responsibility of locals
• Standardized MIS, ME and accounting systems for all projects (at all levels) and
introduction of new technologies
• Adapt accounting and financial procedures
• Cascading performance and impact indicators from COSOP to projects to ensure
integration and consolidation of impact at country level
• Ensure linkage between COSOP and national indicators (MAF)
• Baseline surveys with a generic part (all projects are aiming at poverty alleviation
and improving livelihoods) and a specific part for each project (based on their
activities)
• Few but pertinent indicators (strong technical assistance)
Knowledge
Management
• Multiply study tours (also with research institutes)
• Develop best practice cases (videos, leaflets, books, webpage)
• Project webpage/Facebook feeding the country programme webpage/Facebook
• Project to project, farmer to farmer exchange of experience and capacity building;
Farmer Schools
Table 11 Integration of the solutions found in the areas of improvement (See Chapter 3)
REFERENCES
New COSOP (2016-2020) presentation by Thierry Mahieux
8th NSEDP
Laos Portfolio Review Orientation for COSOP
COSOP Indicators for Laos

RETREAT REPORT
9-11 December 2015,
Luang Prabang
47
3. Way Forward
The Roadmap
The first step on the Roadmap discussed during
theRetreatisthefinaldraftingandimplementation
of the new COSOP which starts in mid-January
2016. An internal review by IFAD and reviews by
stakeholders and the government of Laos will
lead to the final version of the COSOP 2016-
2020 to be adopted by IFAD and the government.
For projects, the Roadmap helps enhance links
between national and provincial management
leading to increased impact at household level.
Projects plans are required to be aligned with
COSOP, and regular COSOP consultations are
needed.
During the Retreat, projects successfully
identified their solutions for impeding issues, and
the results are available to enrich the Roadmap
for 2016. (See Project Problems and Solutions in
the Annex)
Areas of Work Activity Proposed Dates
1. COSOP
First draft of the COSOP January
Government and IFAD
consultation
December
IFAD Executive Board
presentation
December
2. Portfolio Review
CPIS May
Workshop November/ December
3. Ongoing
Grants WOCAN, CIAT, PROCASUR, SNV
Projects
3.1. SNRMPEP
a) Implementation Support:
PCR Preparation
January
b) Project Completion
Workshop
May
3.2. SSSJ a) Supervision Mission March/April
3.3. FNML
a) Supervision Mission March/April
Implementation Support
Mission
October
3.4. FNML
Implementation Support
Mission
April
Supervision Mission August
4. New Projects
4.1. GAFSP
a) Facilitation (recruitment,
project manual)
March
b) Presentation to IFAD
Executive Board
April
c) Start-Up Workshop/Project
Launch
June, preferably earlier
4.2. Livestock rural
finance
a) Preparation of Documents
for OSC/QE
February
Final design mission/QA September
b) Loan Negotiation/ Executive
Board presentation
December
c) Start-Up Workshop/Project
Launch
January 17
Roadmap for the implementation of the new COSOP, for Portfolio Review and for Projects in the Lao PDR

Ifad laos report country program retreat dec 2015 final

Ifad laos report country program retreat dec 2015 final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ifad laos report country program retreat dec 2015 final

Similar to Ifad laos report country program retreat dec 2015 final (20)

More from Benoît THIERRY

More from Benoît THIERRY (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ifad laos report country program retreat dec 2015 final