Interim Evaluation¹

The purpose of the interim evaluation mission (IEM) – required under IFAD policy – was to determine whether the programme results and impact warrant pursuing the project and, if so, to consider whether the original approach ought to be modified or changed and formulate recommendations accordingly.

The mission arrived at Conakry on 21 November 2004, and met with the appropriate ministries and departments and the PRAADEL team. The mission worked in the field from 24 November to 9 December 2004. A feedback meeting took place on 15 December at the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, with participation of PRAADEL and other partners.

The mission evaluated the following: (1) the programme's impact on living conditions for beneficiaries (smallholders, women and young people); (2) the appropriateness and effectiveness of actions undertaken relative to the needs of the rural populations and programme objectives; and (3) performance by the project partners. Specific themes were also analysed, including the Gestion des terroirs approach, synergy with other projects and methodology for targeting beneficiaries.

PRAADEL covers 21 500 km2 and a rural population of 460 000. The objective was to reach some 300 villages, and specifically 22 000 smallholdings (maximum 1 ha) and 145 000 people. Priority groups included small-scale producers; women (including heads of household), who were to comprise at least half the beneficiaries; and young people, in particular unemployed young people.

Overall objectives were stated as follows: to improve living conditions for the target groups in terms of income, food security and health; to check gradually the degradation of natural resources and improve the sustainability of agriculture; and to promote local development based on grass-roots organizations representing the target groups.

Immediate objectives are: (i) increasing productivity, production and marketing of crop and livestock output; (ii) fostering local participatory management of natural resources under the Gestion des terroirs approach; (iii) strengthening grass-roots organizations and promoting effective participation of target groups in management and implementation of activities and improving the status of women through increased participation in programme activities; (iv) improving the accessibility of villages (rural tracks) and expanding drinking water supply (improving nutritional and health conditions); (v) putting in place a viable system of beneficiary-managed local financial services.

In order to achieve these objectives, PRAADEL was structured in three components: (i) Gestion des terroirs and local development; (ii) development of financial services associations (ASFs); (iii) development of rural infrastructure (rural tracks, management of waterholes and valley bottoms); and a programme coordination unit (UCP). Under the Gestion des terroirs approach, activity planning and implementation is organized around agro-ecological areas (natural resource areas). Moreover, under its faire-faire strategy, the project plans and coordinates but leaves implementation up to the stakeholders concerned (beneficiaries, public services, enterprises, peasant organizations and NGOs) with whom it has a contractual relationship. 

Evaluation Findings

The programme objectives remain valid and consistent with the rural development policies of both the Guinean Government and IFAD, and with the 2001 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). The latter currently serves as a framework for all activity in relation to poverty reduction, although it has not yet been applied at the sector level.

At the time of the mission, more than five years after programme start-up, the IFAD loan has been 64% disbursed, but results are far from achieving the fundamental objectives. PRAADEL start-up was delayed, and processing of the IFAD loan by the Guinean Government has been irregular. However, this does not justify the discrepancies in implementation and poor results in the field: 6 sub-prefectures (Rural Development Councils or CRDs) of the 40 planned have been covered, 133 villages of 347 have participated, and Gestion des terroirs has been applied to 15 local units (terroirs) out of 25. The Local Investment Fund (FIL) has not been set up, promotion of production chains and strengthening of women's groups have been very weak, and 10 ASFs have been set up of the 21 planned for. In addition, 140 km of rural tracks have been established of the anticipated 400 km, 12 bridges and fords built of 70, and 20 waterholes established of 200. Finally, just 38 ha of valley bottoms have been treated of the 200 ha projected.

Analysis of Programme Performance

The implementation of PRAADEL has suffered a considerable delay. Pilot phase duration has been cited variously by different sources as two to four years, and the PRAADEL team's understanding is that the project is still in the pilot phase. Moreover, consistency between objectives and expected results as presented in the text and in the logical framework of the appraisal report was never established, nor was the original logical framework revised accordingly. Neither the UCP nor the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) nor IFAD took part at the time of start-up to ensure harmony between the content of the text and the logical framework, and/or later to arrive at a more realistic version of the projections as a whole.

The Gestion des terroirs approach requires that staff first of all, and then beneficiaries, master the methodology and the tools for long-term participatory implementation. Therefore, a certain amount of time is needed to be allowed for information and awareness-raising campaigns, for preparation of village development plans, and for establishing collaboration with CRDs in order to render the approach operational. Nevertheless, taking into account IFAD's presence in the same geographical area since 1990, these conditions ought to have been in evidence at the time of programme design and built into the planning. Accordingly, it is clear either that planning has not been optimal, or that the approach has been less efficient than anticipated.

Programme impact

The programme's achievement rate is low, and its impact can be observed only in cases of large-scale intervention. The programme has had an overall impact on the three beneficiary groups, but has made no significant changes in income-generating activities for women and young people.

Impact on material and financial resources. The target groups have seen an impact on a one-off basis following the planting of living hedges and fences and treatment of valley bottoms. Impact is negligible with respect to crop and livestock equipment. The construction of rural tracks has improved transport conditions for people and goods, as reflected in the construction of village buildings and the opening of markets.

Impact on human resources. Water points improvement has enhanced living conditions in 25 villages and reduced workload, in particular among women and children. The creation of health care stations has improved access to health care and birthing services for some 2 000 people. The construction of primary schools has raised the percentage of children (including girls) in school. The literacy level has risen in some locations.

Impact on social capital and collective capacities. The application of the Gestion des terroirs approach, planning (local development plans – PDLs) and institutional development (land development committees – CDTs) has contributed positively to improving social cohesion and self-help. The creation of ASFs and their committees has improved financial management in the villages concerned. For local populations, introduction of the Gestion des terroirs approach has strengthened awareness of the need for active participation in local development and stronger relationships with the private sector. The implementation of the Gestion des terroirs approach has also improved women's participation in public affairs, although most are still timid about taking part in discussions and decision-making. 

There has been a positive impact in the area of food security and household economies in cases where valley bottoms have been treated successfully. Access to financial services has enabled (married) women to position themselves more favourably in small livestock trade.

A positive impact on the environment and natural resources is evident in a greater willingness to respect the recommended frequency for burning to clear land, limit forest fires and thus protect greenery. The establishment of nurseries has facilitated reforestation and protection of certain locations, in particular headwaters. No overall reduction in the risk of environmental degradation has been observed.

Impact on institutions, policy and the regulatory framework is taken into account through the creation of 15 CDTs and their participation in implementing national policy. The existence of ASFs has helped mobilize savings among villagers. Some 2 000 member shareholders are active in the ASFs, and knowledge about small rural credit systems has improved.

Impact on women's status and gender issues. In this area, impact relates to the positive effects of infrastructure and financial services, the establishment of CDTs and the Gestion des terroirs approach as a whole. Impact in the form of strengthening women's production, women's groups and economic interest groups (GIE) is negligible. 

Sustainability of impact. With respect to the Gestion des terroirs approach, the building of infrastructure and the ASFs, there is a positive impact, but it will need to be consolidated to ensure sustainability. Impact in the areas of agriculture and the environment is very limited.

Validated innovations and potential for replication. The Gestion des terroirs approach is new in Guinea and will need to be supported if collaboration is to be assured among CDTs, CRDs, prefectures and the region. Potential replicability exists for CDTs and PDLs. The ASFs are also an innovation in Guinea and remain in a testing phase. In their current form, they can answer well the demands of small business but not the needs of agricultural development.

Other impact on poverty – targeting of beneficiaries. The direct beneficiaries of PRAADEL (small-scale producers, women and young people) are involved through the Gestion des terroirs approach, the existence of committees and village development plans (CDTs, PDTs) and tools to identify development needs. The programme has reached 133 villages, 2 583 families and, in terms of individuals, 8 500 men and 11 333 women. Impact in the form of changes in the economic situation of women and young people is negligible. Capacity among CDTs has not yet achieved a level that would enable them to undertake a more in-depth identification of needs for training, small business creation, organization of transportation, product processing, etc.

Overall assessment of impact and results compared to expectations. Considering that the initial objectives and projections remain unchanged, the overall impact of PRAADEL's activities is very limited. Globally, agricultural production has not improved, income-generating activities have not changed for women and young people, the exodus of the young remains undiminished and there is no change in the ageing of labour in villages.

Assessment of Performance by Partners

The mission has not identified any major deficiencies on the part of IFAD as the lead financial institution. However, it would appear that preparation of the IFAD programme was overly optimistic in terms of quantitative projections.

No major problems have been identified with respect to UNOPS as a cooperating institution. At times, agreement on payment authorizations took longer than planned, owing to difficult communication conditions in Guinea. Given the duration of PRAADEL and the considerable delay in achieving results under the programme, the mission regrets that there was no intervention on the framework of the partnership, which might have led to a review of expected results and the logical framework. 

The Government of Guinea. There have been considerable delays in the transfer of counterpart funds, leading to interruptions in PRAADEL operations.

With respect to the programme coordination unit (UCP), the mission made the following observations: public involvement in PRAADEL implementation has been very limited, and there have been cases where contracts with partners have not been respected, as well as irregular payment delays. The role of PRAADEL within the framework of regional coordination is seen as weak by a number of partners. The UCP has evolved in isolation, without developing any real synergy with other projects or programmes operating in the area. There is no training programme to build capacity among staff. Of the 34 people (14 of them professionals) employed by the programme, there is only one woman.

Also, the lack of consistency between anticipated results as stated in the text and the logical framework included in the appraisal report and its update indicate a lack of interest on the part of the UCP, UNOPS and IFAD in the baseline data and documents as instruments for programme management.

The majority of infratructural works (under the supervision of control missions) have been performed well (over 80%) and in accordance with the state of the art. Delays in works execution have never been attributable to villagers, who have always complied with the terms of contracts by contributing construction materials and supporting entrepreneurs and their employees. Among NGOs and consulting firms which are partners, there are some shortcomings in contract preparation, or the terms of reference for operators are not defined with precision.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In view of the relevance of the objectives to the situation in the programme area, as well as their alignment with the Government's agricultural policy, and in view of the pressing needs prevailing in the project area owing in part to the low level of achievement by PRAADEL, the mission feels that extending activities in Fouta Djallon, supported by IFAD financing, is justifiable should the Government of Guinea and IFAD so desire. Nevertheless, it is clear that certain elements of the current programme need to bear close scrutiny given the low achievement rate and changes attributable to progress on decentralization.

First of all, the Gestion des terroirs approach will be the main issue for review, in particular its usefulness in the current policy and administrative context. This approach is warranted above all with respect to natural resource management, where organization based on agro-forestry-ecological considerations is in order. Nevertheless, in view of the diversity of PRAADEL activities, one might well wonder whether this continues to be the same project and whether, as many kinds of public activities and services are involved, it might not be more relevant to plan and implement them on the basis of the corresponding administrative units in charge of such activities and services rather than the territorial unit or terroir. More specifically, it would seem reasonable to base the planning of valley bottom development on the terroir. However, with respect to roads, water supply, schools and health centers, such an approach appears illogical. An in-depth analysis of the nature of future activities and the most appropriate modalities for their planning and implementation should therefore be undertaken. Replicability and sustainability should be part of this analysis.

The local population has expressed appreciation for the activities carried out under the current programme, not surprisingly, since they have improved living conditions, and the mobilization of the population around such activities has had a positive effect on political and social capital creation. The question is whether these positive effects can be safeguarded or created if a different implementation approach is selected in the future. Opportunities for cooperation should be explored between this programme and the Village Communities Support Project (PACV) that provides support for the decentralization process, as well as with other projects operating in the area.

The beneficiaries of PRAADEL do not participate as employers in the awarding or payment of contracts for works and goods, unlike the procedures governing other projects (e.g. PACV).

Recommendations: (i) an in-depth study of the relevance of the Gestion des terroirs approach in view of decentralization and geographical boundaries; (ii) a comparative study of intervention mechanisms applied by PRAADEL and PACV; (iii) an analysis of the possibility of a gradual shift from the faire-faire approach to a faire-avec approach to give greater accountability to local communities; (iv) the programme should develop true synergies with other projects and programmes in the area; (v) in view of the priority accorded under the programme to women and young people as beneficiaries, the mission believes that including women among lead personnel would be helpful.

With respect to the UCP, administrative processing has been very slow, leading to frequent delays in activities considered important and urgent by populations. Additional constraints are: (i) a lack of cohesion between component leaders and the UCP; (ii) low morale among staff; and (iii) a lack of regular staff training.

Recommendations: (i) Improve the dissemination of information and build management capacity; (ii) apply a recruitment policy based on professional criteria as well as gender; (iii) draw up an action plan favouring collaboration with other regional development actors. 

The Gestion des terroirs component has been slow, and it would have been relevant to separate it from agricultural development and natural resource management. Planning methods did not give sufficient attention to the beneficiary groups targeted. At the time of the mission, field activities were being conducted by five people who had to cover all three project areas. Some service providers have not performed effectively. The FIL has not been set up. Income-generating activities and training to involve young people and women have not materialized. The strategies of research/action, development of product chains and economic interest groups and marketing for crop and livestock output were not properly elaborated. The agronomic and economic expertise (for individual and collective business plans) needed to promote production chains is lacking.

Recommendations: (i) Divide the component into two parts: one covering cross-cutting planning and the approach overall, and another covering agricultural development and natural resource management activities; (ii) have one or two responsible officers at the component level perform agro-economic activities; (iii) prepare business plans for key producers, a number of GIEs, groups and processing units; (iv) improve diagnostic techniques to better involve young people and women in needs identification and planning; (v) a range of income-generating activities and training aimed specifically at young people should be developed.

The ASF component was to have a service provider, but no contract was ever signed, reducing the component's effectiveness. Budget resources were not redistributed as a result. The lack of physical premises for ASFs has led to uncertainty in the safekeeping of funds at the village level.

Recommendations: i) build offices for ASFs; (ii) strengthen capacity in the ASF component of the UCP.

The rural infrastructure component encountered difficulties in connection with: (i) a population oriented towards schools and sanitary infrastructure rather than production infrastructure; (ii) delays in payments to entrepreneurs and service providers; (iii) large price increases; (iv) the departure and lack of replacement of component leaders; (v) the failure to complete the village tracks maintenance fund study, and the resulting lack of maintenance equipment at the village level; (vi) the lack of teachers in some schools.

Recommendations: (i) hire a component leader; (ii) provide training and equipment to village tracks maintenance committees; (iii) orient future investment towards profitable activities (development of valley bottoms, small livestock, silviculture, processing units, multi-use platforms, etc.).

---

1/ The evaluation was conducted by the Scanagri Denmark consulting firm based in Copenhagen, with the following  team members:  Mr Ole Olsen, Lead consultant, agronomist specializing in rural development; Ms Kristina Grosmann Due, sociologist; Mr Mamadou Baïlo Sidibe, rural infrastructure specialist; Mr Boubacar Barry, economist and rural credit specialist; Ms Djenabou Barry, sociologist. Mr F. Nichols, Lead Evaluator from the IFAD Office of Evaluation assisted in finalizing the work, conclusions and recommendations. During its work, the mission benefited from support provided by Mr Diallo, project coordinator, as well as his collaborators.