This document provides an overview of the performance of IFAD-funded programs in Laos from 2011-2015. It analyzes performance based on financial management, project management, and other criteria. Key findings include: - Financial management of projects improved from an average rating of 3.3 in 2011 to 4.0 in 2015, moving from moderately unsatisfactory to moderately satisfactory. - Disbursement rates also improved but remained at a moderately satisfactory level of 3.8 in 2015. - Counterpart funding availability improved and was rated at 4.4 in 2015, moderately satisfactory. - Project management quality slightly improved over time but remained at a moderately satisfactory level of 4.05. - Compliance with procurement

1. IFAD Country Office, Benoit Thierry, CPM
Soulivanh Pattivong, CPO
IFAD-Laos Project Retreat/Workshop
9-11 December, 2015, Luangprabang, Lao PDR
Overview of IFAD-Funded Programmes Performance in Laos

2. Introduction
1. Background of Lao PDR (linked to IFAD support)
2. IFAD-Laos COSOP (2011-2015)
3. On-going programmes
4. IFAD-funded Programmes Performance (at country
and regional levels)
5. General Issues concerning programmes
performance
6. Way forward/areas needing further support

3. 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
Population density – Economic Indicators
(source: WB, UNDP)

4. Poverty rate and Poverty density

5. Share of Agriculture in GDP
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
GDP per capita (USD)
Agriculture contribution to GDP per capita (USD)
Agriculture contribution to GDP per capita (%)

6. Three Strategic Objectives:
SO1: Community-based access to, and management of, land and natural resources
SO2: Access to advisory services and inputs for sustainable, adaptive and
integrated farming systems
SO3: Access to markets for selected produces
Cross-cutting issues that are common to all three strategic objectives:
1. Capacity-building of government, beneficiaries and service providers
2. Engagement with ethnic groups
3. Engagement with women as key partners in all production and marketing
systems
4. Strategic infrastructure related to farming systems (e.g. small-scale village
irrigation) or markets (e.g. farm-to-market roads)
5. Formation of farmer and producer common-interest groups
6. Resilience to climate-related risks and enhanced capacity to adapt to climate
change.
IFAD-Laos COSOP (2011-2015)

7. Portfolios
Closed Loans / grant Active Loan / grant Pipelined grant / loan
1. (1980-1982) Casier-Sud Pioneer Agricultural
Project
1. (2009-2016) Sustainable Natural
Resource Management and
Productivity Enhancement Project
($15 mill)
1. GAFSP (2016-2020): Global
Agriculture and Food Security
Program - 30 million USD
2. (1984-1990) Agricultural Production Project
3. (1988-1992) Rural Credit Project
2. (2011 - 2017) Soum Son Seun
Jai / Community based Food
Security and Economic
Opportunities Programme ($14 m)
2. Livestock project (2016-2020)
(with ADB) - 10 million USD
4. (1991-1997) Xieng Khouang Agricultural
Development Project - XKADP
5. (1999-2005) XADP – Phase II
6. (1995-2003) Bokeo Food Securiy Project
7. (1998-2004) Northern Sayabouly Rural Dev
Project
3. (2013-2019) Southern Laos Food
and Nutrition Security and Market
Linkages Programme ($14.7)
8. (2004-2010) Oudomxai Community Initiative
Support Project
9. (2006-2014) Rural Livelihoods Improvement
Programme in Attapeu and Sayabouri
10. (2007-2013) Northern Region Sustainable
Livelihoods through Livestock Development
Project

8. IFAD funded operations

9. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
IFAD-funded Programmes Performance
(at country and regional levels)

10. Quality of financial management
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
LAO1301 3 3 4 4 3,5
LAO1396 3 3 5 5 4,0
LAO1459 4 4 4 4 4 4,0
LAO1608 4 4 4 4 4,0
LAO1680 4 4 4,0
Country average 3,33 3,50 4,25 4,20 4,00 3,9
Regional average 3,70 3,80 4,00 4,10 4,05 3,9
 Portfolio average score improvement in 5 years: 3.3 (moderately unsatisfactory) in 2011
to 4.0 (moderately satisfactory) in 2015
 In 2014 only one project had a “satisfactory” (5) rating for FM: LDP
 Other projects were rated “moderately satisfactory” (4) for FM
 Increase in average country score has been due to the marked improvement in
performance of LDP during its last two years of implementation.
 In 2015 Laos avg. is below regional avg. by 0.05 points.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO1680
Quality of financial
management
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Quality of financial management
Country average Regional average

11. Acceptable disbursement rate
 Country avg in 2015: 3.8, borderline “moderately satisfactory”. However, it is above regional avg.
 2014: The highest reported rating was “satisfactory” (5) for RLIP and SNRMPEP, lowest rating was
“moderately unsatisfactory” (3) for SSSJ
 LDP after an "unsatisfactory" score during its early years of implementation, only gradually
improved toward its completion
 SNRMPEP has followed the same patterns, but managed to reach satisfactory disbursement
levels at completion in 2015
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO1680
Acceptable disbursement
rate
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Acceptable disbursement rate
Country average Regional average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
LAO1301 5 5 5 5 5,0
LAO1396 2 2 3 4 2,8
LAO1459 3 3 4 5 3,8
LAO1608 4 3 3 3,3
LAO1680 4 4,0
Country average 3,33 3,50 3,75 4,20 3,8
Regional average 3,40 3,50 3,40 3,50 3,5

12. Availability of counterpart funding
 Avg score for country portfolio in 2015: 4.4 “moderately satisfactory”
 In 2015, counterpart funding were found to be both timely and sufficient for all projects
but FMNL.
 Best scores are recorded by SNRMPEP, which received a "highly satisfactory" rating for
two consecutive years since 2014.
 After being lower than the APR regional average in 2011 and 2012, average country
scores are higher since 2013.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO1680
Availability of counterpart
funding
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Availability of counterpart
funding
Country average Regional average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
LAO1301 4 4 6 6 5,0
LAO1396 4 4 4 5 4,3
LAO1459 4 4 4 5 5 4,4
LAO1608 4 4 4 5 4,3
LAO1680 4 4 4,0
Country average 4,00 4,00 4,50 4,80 4,67 4,4
Regional average 4,4 4,4 4,3 4,5 4,443

13. Quality and timeliness of audits
 Since 2013 the country average has been the same or higher than the regional average
 In 2015 the country average is 4 “moderately satisfactory”
 The quality and timeliness of the last audits of LDP and SSSJ were rated as “satisfactory” (5)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO1680
Quality and timeliness of
audits
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Quality and timeliness of audits
Country average Regional average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
LAO1301 3 3 4 4 3,5
LAO1396 4 4 4 5 4,3
LAO1459 4 4 4 4 4 4,0
LAO1608 4 4 4 5 4,3
LAO1680 4 4 4,0
Country average 3,67 3,75 4,00 4,20 4,33 4,0
Regional average 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,07

14. Quality of project management
 The average over 5 years: Country portfolio rating very slightly above regional rating
 The quality of project management improved in the past two years, mostly due to the
improved ratings for LDP and SNRMPEP
 On an avg project management rating is still largely “moderately satisfactory” (4)
 It is very crucial to bring this rating higher to “satisfactory” (5) from the initial years of
the project
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Quality of project management
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Quality of project
management
Country average
Regional average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
LAO1301 3 4 4 4 3,8
LAO1396 4 4 4 5 4,3
LAO1459 4 4 4 5 5 4,4
LAO1608 4 4 3 4 3,8
LAO1680 4 4 4,0
Country average 3,67 4,00 4,00 4,20 4,33 4,05
Regional average 3,90 4,00 4,10 4,20 4,18 4,08

15. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

16. Compliance with procurement
 The lack of compliance with IFAD procurement guidelines is one of the key issues of the
portfolio
 Country average significantly below regional average in 2015
 Most projects receiving, at best, a "moderately satisfactory" rating over the period
 The exception is LDP, which received a "satisfactory" rating during its last year of
implementation.
 The score of the newly started FNML was downgraded to “moderately unsatisfactory" in 2015
 This is a priority issue to be addressed by all projects
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1301 1396 1459 1608 1680
Compliance with
procurement
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Compliance with procurement
Country average Regional average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
1301 3 3 4 4 3,5
1396 4 4 4 5 4,3
1459 4 4 4 4 4 4,0
1608 4 4 4 4 4,0
1680 4 3 3,5
Country average 3,67 3,75 4,00 4,20 3,67 3,9
Regional average 3,90 3,90 4,00 4,10 4,20

17. Performance of M&E
 Country average consistently below regional average
 SSSJ has been continuously rated “moderately unsatisfactory”, SNRMPEP almost consistently
“Moderately Satisfactory”, LDP improved to “Moderately Satisfactory”
 FNML has started on “Moderately Satisfactory” and effort should be made to improve to a 5
“satisfactory”
 Overall improvement required for all projects
 Projects should aim to regularly report on progress at different levels (outcomes, outputs, activities,
etc.)
 Managers should make use of M&E information for planning and decision-making
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Performance of M&E
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Performance of M&E
Country average
Regional average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
LAO1301 3 3 3 3 3,0
LAO1396 3 3 4 4 3,5
LAO1459 4 4 4 3 4 3,8
LAO1608 4 4 3 3 3,5
LAO1680 4 4 4,0
Country average 3,33 3,50 3,75 3,40 3,67 3,53
Regional average 3,60 3,50 3,90 4,00 4,05 3,81

18. Coherence between AWPB and implementation
 Country programme performance as been consistently below the regional average,
except for the year 2014
 This suggests that most projects struggle to deliver AWPB physical and/or financial
targets.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Coherence between AWPB and
implementation
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
LAO1301 4 3 4 4 3,8
LAO1396 3 3 4 5 3,8
LAO1459 4 4 4 4 4 4,0
LAO1608 4 3 4 4 3,8
LAO1680 4 4 4,0
Country average 3,67 3,50 3,75 4,20 4,00 3,84
Regional average 3,70 3,80 3,90 4,10 4,08 3,92

19. Responsiveness of service providers
 Ratings for country portfolio consistently below APR average
 The weak capacities and/or lack of responsiveness of service providers are the key issues
faced by the country programme portfolio
 An improvement is however noted in 2015 for three projects, which received a score of
"4"
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Responsiveness of service
providers
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6
Responsiveness of service
providers
Country average
Regional average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
LAO1301 4 4 4 4 4,0
LAO1396 2 2 3 4 2,8
LAO1459 3 3 3 4 4 3,4
LAO1608 4 3 3 4 3,5
LAO1680 4 4 4,0
Country average 3,00 3,25 3,25 3,80 4,00 3,47
Regional average 3,90 3,90 3,90 4,30 4,31 4,06

20. Overall implementation progress
 Over the last 5 years there has been only one instance of a "satisfactory" rating (LDP)
 Average score for the portfolio is 3.84, bordering between “moderately unsatisfactory” and
“moderately satisfactory”
 For all 5 years country average score has been consistently lower the APR regional average
 Average performance dropped from 2014 to 2015
 However, SSSJ has recovered from being a “problem project” to having a “moderately satisfactory”
score in 2015
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Overall implementation
progress
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Overall implementation
progress (LAO)
Country average
Regional average
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average
LAO1301 4 4 4 4 4,0
LAO1396 4 4 4 5 4,3
LAO1459 3 3 3 4 4 3,4
LAO1608 4 4 4 3 3,8
LAO1680 4 4 4,0
Country average 3,67 3,75 3,75 4,20 3,67 3,84
Regional average 3,90 4,00 4,00 4,20 4,16 4,05

21. TARGETING

22. Gender focus
 Most projects have performed "moderately
satisfactorily" with regard to mainstreaming gender in
implementation and/or targeting women.
 SSSJ has received a score of "3" for the past three years,
while LDP’s performance improved towards project
completion
 For last 5 years average performance for country has
been below regional average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO1680
Gender focus
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Gender focus
Country average
Regional average
 Since 2013, there has been a marked improvement in
the extent to which projects manage to reach poor
households effectively, but from a low base
 Still, the country programme performance has been
consistently below the APR regional average
 Best performance is recorded by two projects with a
score of "5" in the past two years of implementation:
LDP and SSSJ
Poverty focus
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO1680
Poverty focus
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Poverty focus
Country average
Regional average

23. Effectiveness of targeting approach
 Until 2013, few projects were assessed as adequately
reaching out to their intended target groups, especially
in the initial years
 Three projects received a low score of "3" or "2" in their
early years of implementation.
 Although the gap has decreased, the average country
programme average score has been consistently below
the APR regional average
 The quality of beneficiary participation has been
found "moderately satisfactory" for most projects
during the period under review (except for LDP
with a 5)
 The country programme performance is broadly
at par with the APR regional portfolio
 But the closure of LAO1396 has caused a recent
decline in the country average score
Quality of beneficiary participation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO1680
Effectiveness of targeting
approach
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Effectiveness of targeting
approach
Country average
Regional average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO1680
Quality of beneficiary
participation
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Quality of beneficiary
participation
Country average
Regional average

24. QUALITY OF RESULTS

25. Innovation and learning
 Starting from a low base (3.33 was the average country
score in 2011), the portfolio average score is higher that
the average APR regional score since 2013
 Two projects (LDP and SNRMPEP) received the highest
score ("5") towards completion
 These scores accounted for the sharp improvement in
country portfolio score between 2012 and 2013/4.
 Project-level focus on climate change and the
environment is only rated "moderately satisfactory“ for
most projects
 The average country portfolio score is also lower that
the APR regional average,
 A sharper focus on these important issues - that have a
critical bearing on target groups' livelihoods means -
need to be better reflected in project design and/or
implementation.
Climate and environment focus
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Innovation and learning
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Innovation and learning
Country average
Regional average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Climate and environment
focus
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Climate and environment
focus
Country average
Regional average

26. Institution building and learning
 The performance of most projects in strengthening
capacities of local institutions was rated "moderately
satisfactory"
 Except for the year 2013, the average country
programme score was below the average APR regional
score
 In a context of low capacities, this is certainly an issue of
concern that deserves adequate attention and more
investment in institutional capacity building activities
 Only SNRMPEP managed to receive a score of "5" during
its last two years of implementation
 Two projects, RLIP and SSSJ had low score for
empowerment
 Overall, the country portfolio average scores has been
consistently lower than the APR regional average
Empowerment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Institution building and
learning
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Institution building and
learning
Country average
Regional average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Empowerment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Empowerment
Country average
Regional average

27. Innovation and learning
 This indicator measures the extent to which project
activities are generating adequate benefits for project
beneficiaries.
 Completed projects RLIP and LDP were rated
"satisfactory" rating towards completion
 Other projects have received a "moderately
satisfactory" score for this important indicator
 The portfolio average score has been below the APR
regional average for most of the period except in 2013
and 2014
 Performance against "food security" follows a similar
pattern as the indicator "physical/financial assets"
 The average score of "4" recorded over the last 5 years
for the portfolio as a whole
 Important to improve scores especially since most
projects are implemented in districts with a large
proportion of malnourished children and food-insecure
households, as measured by RIMS surveys.
Food security
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Physical/financial assets
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Physical/financial assets
Country average
Regional average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Food security
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Food security
Country average
Regional average

28. IMPACTS

29. Institution building and learning
 Most projects rated "moderately satisfactory"
throughout the period under review
 In a context of low capacities, this is certainly an issue of
concern that deserves adequate attention and more
investment in institutional capacity building activities.
Except for the year 2013, the average country
programme score was lower that the average APR
regional score.
Empowerment: Of the five projects, only LAO1459 managed
to receive a score of "5" during its last two years of
implementation for the indicator "empowerment". Two
projects, one completed (LAO1301) and one on-going
(LAO1608) were provided a low score of "3". For the latter
project, important changes in implementation approaches
may be recommended. Overall, the country portfolio
average scores has been consistently lower than the APR
regional average, which should call for action and correction.
Empowerment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Institution building and
learning
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Institution building and
learning
Country average
Regional average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Empowerment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Empowerment
Country average
Regional average

30. Exit strategy
 The long-term sustainability of project benefits not well
imbedded in project design
 and/or actively pursued through an appropriate exit
strategy
 Trend is similar to that of the entire APR portfolio, but
to a lesser extent,
 Lao portfolio average has been consistently lower that
the regional average.
 Most projects rated "moderately satisfactory"
 LPD seems to have the greatest potential and in fact will
be scaled up in a new project
 Compared with the APR regional portfolio, Lao portfolio
scores were consistently lower.
Potential for replication and upscaling
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Exit strategy
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Exit strategy
Country average
Regional average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301LAO1396LAO1459LAO1608LAO1680
Potential for scaling up and
replication
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Potential for scaling up and
replication
Country average
Regional average

31. Quality of natural assets and climate resilience
 Project impact on improving resilience to climate change has been rated
"moderately satisfactory" for all projects since this new indicator was
introduced.
 This compares unfavourably with the APR regional average.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LAO1301 LAO1396 LAO1459 LAO1608 LAO1680
Quality of natural assets and climate resilience
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Quality of natural assets and climate resilience
Country average Regional average

32. 1. Institutional capacity building
2. Effective coordination between central project
coordination unit and provincial/district team
3. Delivering AWPB physical and/or financial
targets
4. Timely and transparent procurement and
disbursement
5. M&E: data collection, reporting and use for
programme management
General Issues

33. 1. Improved and timely planning process and programme implementation (faster,
cheaper and better)
• Planning and budgeting =>AWPB <= Financial Management
• Beneficiaries HHs -> M&E
2. Integrated project management system (e.g. M&E for planning, mapping, MIS in
program management, etc.,)
3. KM / KS (Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Working group, considering as the
highest policy platform in the country / case studies and learning events/routes at
country and regional levels in partnership with Procasur, etc.,)
4. Partnerships with other DPs to support programme performance (Lux-Dev, AFD, FAO,
WFP, CIAT, IRRI, WB, ADB, UN-HABITA, etc.,)
5. Coordination/ Capacity building /management to support decentralization initiative
• How to strengthen the in-country capacity for the development of effective pro-poor
investment policies and institutions?
• How to develop the capacity of key service providers for the delivery of quality services?
• How to improve the accountability of public institutions and systems and to ensure
sustainability?
6. Implementation Support Missions/ technical coaching
Way forward/areas needing further support

34. Thank You
IFAD Country Office
Benoit Thierry, CPM
Soulivanh Pattivong, CPO