This document provides an overview and summary of Lao PDR's program with IFAD from 2005-2020. It highlights key economic indicators and trends in Laos such as a decreasing poverty rate and increasing GNI per capita. Main projects funded by IFAD are summarized, including objectives, target groups, budgets, and components. Performance of the IFAD portfolio in Laos from 2011-2015 is assessed based on criteria such as implementation progress, M&E, gender focus, poverty focus, and sustainability. General issues identified include capacity building, coordination, delivering targets, procurement, and use of M&E data. Areas for improvement include planning and implementation speed/efficiency as well as knowledge management.

1. Lao PDR Program Presentation
April 2016
South East Asia Hub

2. 2005 07 2010 2013 2014
Human Dev. Index 0.501 0.53 0.539 0.57 0.575
Agriculture value added
(% of GDP)
36.2 34.9 32.7 26.5 27.7
GNI per capita 472 887 1123 1661 1680
Total population
(million)
5.88 6.21 6.44 6.77 6.68
Rural population as % of
population
73 69 67 64 62.4
Poverty rate based on
population
30.7 27.6 26 23.2 -
Main crops production: rice, soybeans, sugarcane,
corn, tobacco
Nutrition facts: high malnutrition rate (40%),
particularly in rural areas
Population density – Economic Indicators
Source: WB, UNDP

3. Poverty rate and Poverty density

4. 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 (%)

5. IFAD funded operations

6. Portfolio
Closed Loans Active Loans Pipelined Loans
(1980-1985) Casier-Sud
Pioneer Agricultural Project
(2009-2016) Sustainable
Natural Resource Management
and Productivity Enhancement
Project
GAFSP (2016-2020): Global
Agriculture and Food Security
Program - 30 million USD
(1984-1986) Agricutural
Production Project
(2011 - 2017) Souum Son Seun
Jai - Community based Food
Security and Economic
Opportunities Programme
Livestock project (2016-2020)
(with ADB) - 10 million USD
(1988-1992) Rural Credit
Project
(2013-2019) Southern Laos
Food and Nutrition Security
and Market Linkages
Programme
(1991-1997) Xieng Khouang
Agricultural Development
Project
(2006-2014) Rural lovelihoods
Improvement Programme in
Attepeu and Sayabouri
(2007-2013) Northern Region
Sustainable Livelihoods
through Livestock
Development Project

7. Timeline overview –
COSOP (2011-2015), (2016-2020)
Projects 2005 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Rural livelihoods
Improvement Programme in
Attepeu and Sayabouri
Northern Region
Sustainable Livelihoods
through Livestock Dev
ProjSustainable Natural
Resource Management
and Productivity
Enhancement Project
SSSJ Project
FNML
Pipeline - GAFSP
Pipeline - Livestock
program

8. Closing project – SNRMP
•Program Target group: 11,250 households would
benefit from the project
•The main target group comprises two primary sub-
groups: (i) poor farming households with proximity to
markets (primary in the lowlands; and (ii) poor farmers
in upland areas (mostly ethnic minority communities
practicing shifting cultivation)
* Total Project cost: $37.8 million
IFAD financing: $15 million
ADB: $20 million
Government of Laos: $2.8 million
* Project Components:
(i) Capacity building for agriculture and natural
resource sector management
(ii) Implementation of agricultural activity and
commercialization subprojects
(iii) Project management

9. Active project – SSSJ
* Program Target group: 17,000 rural households in
225 poor upland villages in Northern Sayabouri and
Oudomxay
* Total Project cost: $19.3 million
Total IFAD financing:
IFAD DSF Grant: $13.9 million,
World Food Program: $3.7 million,
GIZ: $0.4 million
Government of Laos: $0.8 million,
Beneficiaries: $0.3 million
* Project Components:
(i) Integrated farming systems
(ii) Links to markets

10. Active project – FNML
•Program Target Group: 10,500 households in
175 poor upland villages in target areas
* Main target group: Population of 175 target
villages
*Secondary target group: The private buyers of the
target products, Smallholders in the target areas
* Total Project cost: $18.82 million
Total IFAD financing:
IFAD DSF Grant: $9.72 million,
ASAP Grant: $5.0 million,
Government of Laos: $0.54 million,
Private sector and Partner Banks: $1.48 million,
Beneficiaries: $0.53 million
• Project Components:
(i) Food Security and Pro-Poor Market Access
(ii) Inclusive Rural Finance Support
(iii) Institutional support
(iv) Smallholder Adaptation for Climate Change
Component (New Component)

11. Approved Project– SSFSNP
•Program Target group: The project will be implemented in
12 districts and approximately 400 villages in Oudomxai,
Phongsaly, Xieng Khouang and Houaphan provinces in
Nothern Laos. The main target group would be within the
population of 400 target villages with 34,000 small
households.
* Total Project cost: $38.8 million
GAFSP: $30 million (IFAD: $24 million; WFP: $6 million)
Local private enterprises: $0.5 million
Village beneficiary: $2.9 million
GoL: $5.4 million
* Project Components:
(i) Strengthened public services
(ii) Community-driven agriculture-based nutrition
interventions established
(iii) Sustainable and inclusive market-driven partnerships
established
Note: Go to EB Approval April- 2016

12. Project under design– NSLCP
•Program Target group: The project aims to work with
a total of 300 livestock production and marketing
groups (LPMGs) in the 12 districts, extending the
livestock production and marketing support to at least
4500 households. Infrastructure will benefit additional
10 000 households.
* Total Project cost: $31.5 million
IFAD: $10 million
ADB: $21 million
Government counterpart funds: $0.5 million
* Project Components:
(i) Strengthened smallholders and other livestock
value chain actors
(ii) Strengthened LVC infrastructure
(iii) Improved capacity to access credit
Note: Go to EB Approval December- 2016

13. Ongoing Grants
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
Grant amount (mill
USD)
% Disbursement
(updated)

14. IFAD-funded Programmes Performance
(at country and regional levels)

15. 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

16. 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

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. 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

19. 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
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
Food security
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2
3
4
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Food security
Country average
Regional average

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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