The Douala Action Plan – A preliminary assessment

Regional project implementation workshop in Western and Central Africa

Accra, GhanaDecember 1-4, 2009

Outline

• Context and objectives of the Douala meeting

• Objectives of the Douala Action Plan

• Action areas

• Achievements

• Results

• Preliminary conclusions

Context of the Douala meeting

• Shared responsibility for achieving results- IFAD Direct Supervision, increased attention to

implementation performance and achievement of development objectives

- Strengthened monitoring systems

- Performance counts in PBAS

- Shared interest to make it happen

Objectives of the Douala meeting

• Objectives of the Douala workshop

- Share information on changes occurring within IFAD

- Review progress made since Bamako action plan, draw lessons and design a realistic new action plan

- Strengthen collaboration among Governments, project staff, IFAD and civil society partners

- Encourage the sharing of experience and knowledge among all projects and partners

Objectives of the Douala Action Plan

1. Improve Partnership between IFAD, Governments and other partners in Programme and Project steering by strengthening the role of CPMTs

2. Improve the management of loans and support for project implementation and performance by borrowers

3. Improve system for M&E, RIMS and project sustainability

4. Knowledge management and innovation

Action areas

1. Systematically set up CPMTs in all countries and communicate their roles, objectives and TOR to Governments and partners

2. Strengthen Presence of IFAD, and the Director in particular, by means of field visits in Countries at risk (at least one visit per year)

3. Develop partnerships at the national and regional level4. Improve recruitment and performance evaluation for project personnel5. Organize training sessions to build project capacity6. Improve project management and monitoring7. Strengthen consistency between national procurement procedures and IFAD

guidelines8. Improve project auditing process9. Improve project M&E system10. improve participation and coordination by departments and partners in direct

supervision missions and in the implementation of recommendations by audit/supervision missions

11. Support governments in conducting ex-post evaluations12. Build knowledge management into project design, implementation and supervision13. Strengthen project team capacity in capitalizing on experiences14. Encourage the dissemination and sharing of project innovations and experiences15. Improve the circulation of information between research grants and national

projects (research projects, results)

“Resolution” of analysis

• A preliminary overview after only 10 months of implementation

• Sample size: about 50% of the active countries are covered by the analysis – not complete

• Objective is to have a rough idea of the main tendencies, achievements, weaknesses and lessons

Preliminary overview of achievements so far: Action area 1

Improved partnership in programme steering - CPMTs are set up in > 67% of the countries

• Formalized in less than 33 % of the countries

• National-level meetings are organized to discuss country programme implementation (formal COSOP implementation reviews, eg. Mali)

- 2 regional meetings in 2009 (Douala, Accra)

- Initial delays in implementation of field presence, but picking up: Burkina Faso, Ghana, Senegal;

- Volume of missions increased;

Preliminary overview of achievements so far: Action area 2

• Improve the management of loans and support for project implementation and performance by borrowers

> 67% of projects • improved personnel selection process (written tests, professional

requirements etc.)

• training on implementation (AWPB, disbursement, procurement)

• workshops to familiarize with basic documents

• with qualified auditors recruited and audit completed in time

• receive interim supporting audits (risk projects)

> 33% of design missions • analyzed country procurement systems for consistency with IFAD guidelines

< 33% of projects • with rigorous internal M&E systems• 360 degree evaluations for teams

Preliminary overview of achievements so far: Action area 3

• Improve system for M&E, RIMS and project sustainability

> 67% of projects • benefited in RIMS workshops at country or at regional level

• ex-post evaluations (incl. completion) are conducted under leadership of Government

• received support to put in place their M&E system as of year 1 (new projects)

> 33% of projects• have adequate RIMS indicators for annual reporting

• RIMS indicators are built in lead ministries’ M&E systems

< 33% of projects • received joint supervision missions of co-financing agencies under

Government’s leadership

Preliminary overview of achievements so far: Action area 4

• Improve system for M&E, RIMS and project sustainability (KM)

> 67% of• Projects have KM built into project design, supervision missions and

AWPBs • Supervision missions identify best practices for sharing purposes• Projects have a training plan• Participate in FIDAfrique activities

> 33 % of projects• benefited in workshops to

strengthen their capacity in capitalization on experiences

< 33% of projects • benefited from coaching on KM

Other activities in KM

• FIDAfrique website is being improved

• Webpages for implementation workshops have been developed

• Learning sheets (loan administration, procurement)

• Information sheets on project and grant results

• Specific initiatives (eg. small grant on sharing knowledge in small scale irrigation, country programme newsletters, etc.)

• Exchange visits

Results and remaining challenges

• 2009 - Proportion of projects with risk flags on: - Disbursement rates: 33%- Financial management: 35%- M&E systems: 30%- Project management performance: 28%- Availability of counterpart funds: 26%- Performance of service providers: 20%- Gender focus in implementation: 15%- Compliance with loan covenants: 15%- Compliance with procurement procedures: 9%- Poverty focus in implementation: 9%

Conclusions

• Many actions do not have an immediate effect on implementation performance indicators

• Result achievement depends on many factors

- Good problem analysis - Alignment of systems- Leadership of implementing

agencies is key• Direct supervision has helped

to improve problem analysis and prioritize implementation support areas; results however not yet measurable

• M&E performance remains challenge