Interim Evaluation

Introduction

In accordance with the Evaluation Policy of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Office of Evaluation (OE) conducted an Interim Evaluation¹ of the Upper East Region Land Conservation and Smallholder Rehabilitation Project - Phase II in Ghana in May-June 2005, given the interest of both the Government of Ghana and IFAD's Western and Central Africa Division (PA) to proceed with further investments in the area. This evaluation adopts the standardized IFAD methodological framework for project evaluations.

Macro-economic and poverty indicators. Located in West Africa, Ghana has an estimated population of 20.5 million, of which 63% is rural. The structure of the economy is characterised by a large (in relative terms) services sector (42% of the total GDP), compared to 34% for agriculture and 24% for industry. It has an annual GDP per capita of USD 304 and the GDP growth has averaged 1.8% in the last ten years (i.e., below population growth) although this has increased recently. Agriculture continues to be the mainstay of the economy, employing about 60% of the labour force. Ghana is classified as 131st out of 175 countries according to the UNDP Human Development Index (2003). The percentage of households below USD 1 per day has been estimated at 44.8%, while the percentage of poor households at nearly 40% according to a national poverty line (World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2004).

Northern Ghana consists of three regions, Upper East (UER), Upper West (UWR) and Northern Region (NR). By many indicators, these regions are the poorest in Ghana and are indeed comparable in poverty to some of the poorest countries in the world. IFAD had projects in each of them: the Upper East Region Land Conservation and Smallholder Rehabilitation Project (LACOSREP) for the UER, the Upper West Agricultural Development Project (UWADEP) for UWR and the Northern Region Poverty Reduction Programme for the NR. The first phase of LACOSREP was designed in 1990, became effective by 1991/1992 and was given an interim evaluation in 1998. LACOSREP II was appraised in December 1998, became effective in January 2000 and will close in December 2006, after a one-year extension.

The most recent agricultural polices in Ghana are reflected in the: (i) Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Development Strategy (AAGDS); the Food and Agricultural Sector Development Policy (FASDEP); and the (ii) Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS) 2002-2004, currently under revision. The AAGDS broadly aims at the intensification and modernisation of agriculture, while the FASDEP further emphasizes the importance of food security. The GPRS of 2003 recognises that rural farmers and fishermen are particularly at risk, and specifically mentions Northern Ghana (UER, UWR and NR) as a locus of perennial food deficits. Women are identified as particularly disadvantaged in this context and instruments to promote gender equality are emphasised. Although the document notes the importance of environmental factors in increasing vulnerability, it does not propose concrete measures to reduce risk in agriculture. Beginning with 2003, some donors, in addition to their conventional "project approach", have also tested multi-donor budget support as an additional instrument in sectors such as health and education². Agriculture and water sectors have not experienced major shifts to budget support.

The project area: serious problems of environmental degradation. LACOSREP II is located in the UER, the smallest region of Ghana (slightly over 3% of the total land area), with an estimated population of 920 000 people (80% employed in agriculture) and the highest population density in the country (104 persons/km2). Access to markets and off-farm opportunities is constrained in UER by poorly maintained feeder roads and lack of transportation services. According to the Ghana Living Standards Survey, the percentage of the population living in poverty is 88% in UER³. This is also reflected in the stunting rate for children below five years, which is higher than the national average (31.7% against 25%), although infant mortality rates are lower (33 per 1 000 against 68 per 1 000). UER is notable for its high levels of environmental degradation, deforestation and loss of soil cover, broadly as a result of extremely high population densities not accompanied by agricultural intensification.

The rationale for LACOSREP II was summarised in the Appraisal Report as: (i) strong existing demand for dam rehabilitation in rural communities; (ii) the potential for water user associations (WUA) to be sustained and assure food security in the region; and (iii) building on existing credit experience to establish effective mechanisms for rural financial institutions.

Basic project data. The total project cost was USD 13.9 million, out of which IFAD provided USD 11.5 m. As of mid-August 2005, 73.5% of the total loan amount had been disbursed. IFAD was the only international financier of the project, supervised by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). The Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) was the agency responsible for the implementation at the national level, although the day-to-day management was entrusted to the regular regional staff of MoFA.

The objectives of LACOSREP II, as per appraisal, were to: (i) further develop irrigation in UER; (ii) increase productivity through farmer training and demonstrations of new technologies for increasing productivity of crops, livestock and fish; (iii) build the capacity of government institutions which provide technical and social services district and sub-district levels; (iv) construct rural infrastructure to reduce the female labour burden and take measures to mitigate the possible risks of health and negative environmental impacts. The components of LACOSREP II were as follows; (i) agricultural development (applied research, extension, livestock development, 15% of total base costs); (ii) water resources development (rehabilitation and construction of dams, environmental and human health protection, 33%); (iii) rural infrastructure (road improvement, dug wells and latrines, 19%) (iv) income-generating activities (rural credit, 18%); and (v) project organisation and management (14%).

Project interventions were to be implemented by: (i) MoFA district and regional staff; (ii) research specialists; (iii) Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and agencies specialised in group formation; (iv) private sector; (v) consultants; and (vi) community-based organisations (CBOs). The Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) was specified as the sole responsible agency for ensuring that the dams were built to high technical standards. The management of project interventions would be undertaken at district or regional level according to the scope and financing levels. The Project Coordination Unit (PCU) (integrated in the regional MoFA office) in particular would be responsible for all interventions that cut across districts, such as research.

Implementation status

Agricultural development: extension, farmer training and demonstrations. From 2000, the first year of the project, 197 of the 300 Farmer Training Demonstrations (FTDs) were conducted. Total participating farmers were 6 266, some 70% of the envisaged target, of which 3 898 were men and 2 546 women. However, it is important to note that the introduced technologies have spread well beyond the initial participating farmers and total adoption of FTD technologies is estimated as 8 756, clearly exceeding the original target of 6 000. Some progress has been made in marketing and processing: improved storage structures for onions has reduced loss from 50% plus to 25-40% over three to five months, when onions can be sold for as much as ¢300 000 compared to ¢80 000 per 73 kilo bag at harvest. Much remains to be done with more perishable species such as tomatoes.

Water resources development. This component experienced serious implementation delays. Out of the 32 dams to be constructed or rehabilitated, as of June 2005, contracts for 24 dams had been awarded. The rehabilitation of six dams and the construction of one dam had been completed, while the others were at various stages of construction. As a result, only 80 ha of the planned 372 ha are currently available for farmers (22% of planned irrigable area). Health and environmental interventions under LACOSREP II related principally to water-borne diseases, catchment protection, and the maintenance of soil fertility and agrobiodiversity. The introduction and development of composting has clearly been successful and the idea is apparently spreading even outside the project area. Environmental permits were issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to all LACOSREP II dam rehabilitations/constructions, although these were not renewed when delays in construction started. Catchment protection activities, including planting trees and creating bunds were carried out at LACOSREP I sites, and targets were largely achieved. Water quality analysis results carried out for hand-dug wells and in dams must be urgently made available.

Rural infrastructure. Spot improvements in roads (75 kilometres) of all designated areas were achieved during project life, although re-graveling was not carried out. Appraisal targets were generally met in the area of hand-dug wells and latrines, although many are not yet fitted with pumps (60%).

Income-generating activities. The component trained some 12 243 individuals in loan management (about 32% of the original target) and provided group loans without collateral, relying on group pressure to guarantee the repayment, to 10 251 individuals. No medium-term loan was granted for asset acquisition by any of the participating banks, apparently because they are uncomfortable with their management. The provision of financial services by the Agricultural Development Bank enabled savings to be mobilized and credit accessed from all six districts.

Performance of the project

Relevance

UER is the second poorest region of Ghana and overall living standards have hardly improved in the past ten years. The components of LACOSREP II are designed to add value to rural production and are, in general, valuable for the poor farmers. Clearly the funds of LACOSREP I and II allowed only partial geographical coverage. Ghana has signed up to various international undertakings to reduce poverty and LACOSREP II has this as its direct focus. The project is also in line with the goals for agriculture mentioned in policies and strategies such as AAGDS and FASDEP. Its value added consists of a clearer geographical targeting and a set of concrete measures to reduce poverty and help reduce or reverse environmental degradation. With the benefit of hindsight, two elements were not adequately focused. First, the project provided for a higher number of dams to be rehabilitated (23) than constructed ex novo (9). Communities without dams lack important production infrastructure (particularly in low rainfall areas) and need to be better targeted. Second, the experience from the sister project UWADEP in the adjacent region shows that it is possible to target specific irrigation interventions to special categories such as the blind and physically impaired. This experience deserves consideration for any further intervention⁴.

Effectiveness

In spite of the delays in the water resources (irrigation) component and the limited coverage of the income-generating activities (credit) component, LACOSREP has moved in the right direction in tackling the basic problems of the poor in UER. The development of the irrigation infrastructure and the improvement of agricultural practices through farmers' training and demonstration have benefited households in terms of improved income sources, assets and food security. The livestock development sub-component, with its emphasis on small ruminants and guinea fowl seems well placed, given the importance that they have in the project area. However, national policies dictating a switch to cost-recovery veterinary services create serious problems. Expenses of ¢ 1 000 to 2000 per livestock head are enough to discourage very poor farmers from vaccinating their livestock and diseases may wipe out years of investment.

Multi-component projects bear the risk of limited coordination between different interventions, which is also the case of LACOSREP II. For example, some farmers' training and demonstration activities can be very successful in themselves (such as introduction of improved varieties and certified seeds), but their effectiveness may be limited when inputs from other components are not provided timely (such as credit or seed at district and regional levels) or are not provided at all at the same sites. As different agencies are normally responsible for different components, the issue of synergies and integration between interventions needs to be carefully considered already at the design stage.

One of the objectives at appraisal was to construct infrastructure to alleviate women's work and provide mitigating measures for water-related diseases and negative environmental impact. Concerning the environmental impact, measures for catchment area protection and soil conservation proved successful in preventing erosion. Hand-dug wells were constructed to reduce women's workload in fetching water but they are not all functional and very little was done for protection from water-borne diseases.

Finally, concerning the objective of building capacity of formal and informal institutions to provide demand-driven social services, the picture is mixed. There are positive and important project achievements such as active and dynamic WUAs and Functional Literacy Groups (FLGs). On the other hand, there are two important limitations that need to be considered. First, there is a tendency for government field staff to spend a disproportionate amount of time in ‘sensitising' communities on benefits of certain interventions even when people are perfectly aware of their usefulness. One example of this comes from the irrigation component: some communities had filed application for dam construction or rehabilitation even before the start-up of LACOSREP II and yet it was decided to conduct a number of field workshops to explain how irrigation was important for them. Time and money would have been better invested in starting studies for infrastructure works and in involving representatives of the communities in those preparatory works. Second, the project contracted out some services to research institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). However it did not really seize the opportunity to build a real ‘partnership' with them, it did not actively involve them in assessing community needs and testing new technology that was directly responsive to the elicited needs. Some NGOs had accumulated experience in this sense that could have been built upon.

Efficiency

In this report the notion of efficiency is explored mainly for the irrigation and the rural finance components. In the case of irrigation, unit costs of construction (per ha) are compared with benchmarks in the country. In the case of the rural finance component, the administrative cost of providing a dollar of credit is compared with a peer group of microfinance institutions in the region. The unit cost of dam construction for LACOSREP II dams varied from USD 477 to 1338.7/ha⁵. A study prepared by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (1998) showed ranges of costs per ha between USD 400 and 5 000 per ha in Ghana. This suggests that LACOSREP II construction costs were relatively inexpensive compared to typical benchmarks. In terms of water conservation, new technology based on piped systems has been introduced in northern Ghana by international NGOs and this technology should be considered carefully in future interventions as it would improve efficiency in water conveyance and distribution.

As far as rural finance is concerned, administrative costs of lending for the participating banks are about one-third of the average of a group of rural finance institutions in the region (Microbanking Bulletin 2004). From a cost-effectiveness point of view, the project appears to perform well, although water delivery efficiency can be improved, quality of water infrastructure needs to be monitored because many dams have not been completed, and the rural finance component exhibits problems in credit discipline (low repayment rates, as explained further below).

Rural poverty impact

Methods. In assessing the project impact, the evaluation triangulated among multiple sources: (i) the available M&E data, (ii) a quantitative survey of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries; (iii) a qualitative survey of five dam sites; (iv) an ad hoc survey of non-beneficiaries; and (v) participants' observations as recorded by mission members. Following the evaluation policy, the project conducted a self-assessment exercise which was also considered by the evaluation team. Detailed results are presented in the main report.

Significant impact on physical and financial assets. The evaluation surveys compare households that have been assisted by LACOSREP with households that have not benefited of such assistance (control group). Data suggests that assets of project users (both household and agricultural assets) have increased significantly in the past years, while increases for the control group were less evident. Qualitative interviews during the field visits confirm that this is the case. Those households that have received financial services from participating banks have reported benefits in terms of better opportunities for investments in trading, farming but also activities that do not directly generate income but contribute to household welfare, such as health and schooling (as further explained below).

Important impact on farming practices and literacy, limited progress on human health issues. The evaluation surveys provided quantitative evidence of increased adoption of improved farming practices, including composting and improved seeds. The predominant approach in relation to farmers' knowledge was that of the field school which focused on practical cases and problems. Improved small ruminant management, including housing, nutrition and health care has been taken up, by farmers and communities involved in the livestock components. The promotion of FLGs was an element not foreseen in the original design, which was strongly appreciated by the communities and also helped strengthen social capital (as explained below). Instead, limited progress was made concerning human health (risk of water borne diseases, such as schistosomiasis and malaria), which had been flagged as a significant issue towards the end of LACOSREP I. In the course of visits to WUAs, the team evaluation found no evidence of training or advice to the communities.

Social capital and empowerment. Training programmes and activities were carried out during LACOSREP II for the newly established WUAs of LACOSREP II as well as for groups created under LACOSREP I. There is every sign that many WUAs are vibrant organisations capable of handling their affairs, although some require further training in irrigation practices, such as irrigation scheduling and methods of field water application. The introduction of FLGs enhanced the dynamism of groups. One weakness of WUAs is the limited amount of financial resources they can raise, compared to major maintenance needs. This is not a surprising result but should be taken into consideration by MoFA and the donors when budgeting for project maintenance costs.

Enhanced food security. In the absence of a baseline anthropometric survey, the evaluation has to rely on qualitative perceptions elicited during interviews, as well on indirect evidence, such as the increased yields due to improved varieties or cropping rates in the dry season. All the beneficiaries interviewed acknowledged that the project has enhanced their food security, both through access to credit (consumption smoothing effect), cash earned during the dry season and better skills in marketing. Some use their profits or part of the loan to stock food for the hunger period. While some report having adequate food during the hunger period, others have the food scarcity of the hunger period reduced.

Environmental impact. The serious environmental degradation problems in UER required LACOSREP II to emphasise soil and water conservation. The project has had a considerable positive impact both on direct increase of soil productivity in project areas and improving participant and neighbouring communities' awareness about soil conservation. Catchment protection activities including tree planting and creating bunds were carried out at LACOSREP I sites, and the targets were largely achieved.

Impact on institutions and policies is generally limited. Village institutions such as WUAs and FLGs are clearly viable but it is more difficult to see a major shift in the attitudes of government staff. For example, the time taken at the inception of LACOSREP II ‘sensitising' communities to the need for dams, when many had lodged applications with the Regional Assembly as early as 1998 suggests that much needs to be done in this area. NGOs were used principally to carry out services for the LACOSREP II, such as the use of Rural Aid in hand-dug wells and ActionAid in the REFLECT literacy strategy. They were not generally involved in testing new technologies or assessing community well-being, in spite of the experience that they had accumulated. Change in mentality takes time, but IFAD could help by facilitating communication and dissemination of experiences from the ground. The project did not promote the strengthening of rural finance institutions: banks were seen more as conduits for credit rather than institutions that need to become financially sustainable. Finally, an area yet to be addressed relates to policy dialogue on cost-recovery requirements for livestock vaccination. As previously noted, such requirements exclude many farmers from access to animal health services.

Gender. LACOSREP II employed a gender officer on a contract basis to ensure that the objectives of appraisal were met, and this has been an effective strategy. Women were not traditionally land owners in this region, but the WUA system has given them direct access to irrigated land. The FLs have also provided an arena for women to co-operate and organise collective income generation.

Sustainability threats can be considered under three key dimensions: (i) maintenance of dams; (ii) environmental sustainability; and (iii) financial sustainability of rural finance operations. Responsibility for maintenance of dams had not been clearly spelled out: some maintenance operations are beyond the operational and financial capacity of WUAs and sometimes even local government budget availability. In terms of environmental sustainability, there are technical innovations in agriculture that can be continued even after project support, such as composting and vegetable production. Irrigation increases cropping rates and the extraction of soil nutrients. This could be countered by adequate agroforestry packages and the integration of leguminous crops into rainfed cropping cycles, and there is a need for more emphasis on these. Concerning the rural finance component, financial sustainability risks stem from two reasons: first, the repayment rates are low because of high transaction costs (bank offices are far away from their clients, untrained bank staff and insufficient products to serve the poor); and secondly, the banks are forced to lend at interest rates that do not allow them to cover their costs.

Innovations, scaling-up and replicability. The most successful innovations promoted by the project are those that can spread from farmer to farmer with little capital investment. Guinea fowl raising, composting, the use of neem for crop protection and formation of literacy groups were not diffused in the UER before LACOSREP II but are now being increasingly adopted. They are all examples of such innovations, for which there is evidence of this type of spread, since they have been replicated even outside the project area. Several interventions (improved livestock care, effective response to plant pathogens) are within the technical and financial capacity of MoFA and can be replicated without additional donor funding. However, to construct new dams or rehabilitate the existing ones, donor funds are needed.

The overall impact of LACOSREP II on beneficiary communities has been considerable in the areas of food security, income generation, corporateness, literacy and promotion of gender issues, in spite of implementation constraints and delays. The achievements of both phases of LACOSREP should be seen against the trend of increasing poverty and environmental degradation in the UER.

Performance of partners

IFAD has rightly insisted on the LACOSREP approach which has important potentials for poverty reduction in the UER. There are, however, certain flaws in the original project design which deserve further reflection: first the whole rural finance component did little to enhance the financial sustainability of the participating banks; second, the limited degree of integration between components (which was partly dealt with during the implementation phase); and third, the over-reliance on the GIDA to screen private contractors for the irrigation component. This created delays in the execution and did not ensure high quality of works. The lack of IFAD field presence in Ghana constrains implementation support as well as policy dialogue and coordination with other donors. Problems such as the inadequate performance of GIDA in the irrigation component are difficult to address through a two-week UNOPS mission per year. On the other hand, experiences such as that of LACOSREP I and II should be more systematically brought to the attention of other donors as well as local research institutions and NGOs active in the country.

UNOPS has been responsible for the supervision of LACOSREP, with yearly visits of about ten days. Reportedly, these missions have been conscientiously carried out and the detailed reports were critical but fair. However, there was a perception by MoFA staff that in recent years it was more difficult to have a dialogue with the UNOPS team, that the missions were more adversarial, perhaps due to a sense of frustration with delayed implementation.

The Government. In general, the PCU/MoFA performed creditably, and problems with day-to-day running have been resolved successfully in many cases. All types of training and sensitisation were carried out in a timely manner and there was a certain adaptation and flexibility in their implementation. In the area of irrigation infrastructure, the problems of managing contractors and an over-reliance on GIDA should have been resolved much earlier. In terms of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities, the monitoring part was quite accurate, while the evaluation of the socio-economic impact weak. However, the contribution of GIDA as the sole consultant for the irrigation infrastructure on the project was a weak one, causing many problems in project execution, as well as delays in implementation. National policies on cost-recovery of livestock vaccination do not represent a conducive environment for projects such as LACOSREP II. They are among the root causes of low vaccination coverage and expose farmers to the risk of livestock losses to epidemics.

Research and extension. The project collaborated with a number of research organisations on small ruminant husbandry, guinea fowl husbandry, improved crop and pest management in rice and improved method of parboiling rice. The performance of the four research institutes involved, Animal Research Institute, Tamale, University of Ghana; Crop Research Institute, Kumasi; and Food Institute, Accra, were all considered satisfactory to good by the project. In most cases however, the tendency was for the project to contract out individual survey assignments rather than establishing a partnership, which involves needs assessment, follow up and modification/direction for future applied research. The performance of the major research partner as envisaged at project appraisal, the Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), was weak. Despite the considerable infrastructure support given to the institute during the previous phase, it was not able to give effective advice to counter the serious problem of the tomato disease complex.

Banks. The role of the Central Bank of Ghana was to set up and manage the disbursements and replenishment of the Revolving Credit Fund for the participating banks. Although it was required that the clearing accounts of the participating banks be debited on due dates, as at March 2005, all the participating banks had balances overdue since December 2004. As explained above, the performance of the participating banks was weak, due to low repayment rates. This resulted in poor portfolio quality. The lowest rate of 27% for Portfolio at Risk (>30 days) achieved by Naara Rural Bank is weak by any standard. Building sustainable financial institutions was not a major ingredient in the project design.

Private contractors. Timeliness and quality of work by local contractors was a major problem throughout LACOSREP II. Procurement procedures for contractual services were adopted to conform with the World Bank standards and to ensure transparency and objective choice, but with weak results.

NGOs. Rural Aid, the main NGO concerned with excavation of hand-dug wells and household latrines, generally performed satisfactorily. ActionAid, whose methodology was used in the formation of FLGs was evidently successful. Instead, the three NGOs which worked in partnership with the rural banks had limited experience in rural finance and failed to provide continued assistance.

Overall assessment

The most important conclusion is that overall, and in spite of implementation delays in the second phase, both phases of LACOSREP have benefited poor communities in UER, have increased levels of food security, enhanced capacity for collective action, improved material well-being and effectively heightened gender awareness. However, dilatory construction and completion of dams and the likelihood that many will be unfinished after closure of the project is a serious problem. Central government officers in Accra have argued that development investments in Northern Ghana have been ineffective. However, this evaluation is of the opinion that the relative success of LACOSREP II rather shows that there are experiences which deserve further support, clearly within an improved framework.

Insights and recommendations

Insights

Integration and sequencing of components. If IFAD is to consider further investment in UER, then the evaluation of LACOSREP II suggests the rethinking of some elements in project design. A key problem is that projects with many components, but without a strong integrative strategy, are open to activities being carried out with no linkages, which result in high management costs. Project design should consider sequencing more carefully.

Considerations of equity. LACOSREP II and comparable projects such as UWADEP also raise broader concerns. Focusing on the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure does little for communities that have not benefited from outside assistance in the past. Similarly, protection of special categories such as the blind or the physically impaired was not part of LACOSREP II design, but experience from UWR shows that this can be made to work and it should be included in future project design.

What type of intervention? In Ghana, in some sectors such as health and education, donors have started to fund multi-donor budget support initiatives for national strategies. Although the pressure is not yet strong in the agriculture and water sector, the question is whether area development intervention deserves receiving further funding in the future. The experience of LACOSREP illustrates that there is a very significant need on the ground for projects and programmes that clearly focus on a well-defined geographical area and deliver services and inputs to impoverished farmers. While the area development focus can be retained, as previously noted, IFAD should promote a stronger integrative strategy, not only through a more careful consultation at the design phase but also by promoting better discussion and dissemination of ‘lessons from the ground'. Moreover, rural finance interventions will not be effective unless they aim at strengthening rural finance institutions. One option could even consist of having a dedicated programme for rural finance. If this choice is made, clearly the dovetailing and synchronising of rural finance with other interventions becomes a crucial issue.

Whatever the problems, the contention that development interventions in UER have not resulted in improved wellbeing is not supported by the empirical data gathered by the evaluation. Moreover, equity considerations, the contribution of labour from UER to national development and the Government's ratification of various poverty agendas all argue for continuing and indeed expanded investment, within an improved framework. In future investments, the priority of improving the design should be matched by the search of strategic partners, as the availability of IFAD resources allows only limited coverage.

Recommendations

Immediate tasks: completion of irrigation infrastructure and health issues. LACOSREP II will close in about a year and a significant part of the dam infrastructure remains unfinished. Completion of existing works is a major priority, but will only be a useful exercise if closer supervision of works is introduced, preferably using alternative arrangements (as elaborated upon). Health issues (especially the risk of water-borne diseases) need to be addressed to avoid that health conditions of the beneficiaries deteriorate after project closure.

Communicating and discussing project experience as a contribution to policy dialogue. The two phases of LACOSREP offer important lessons that are grounded in the reality of the field. These experiences should be documented and widely discussed not only at the district and regional levels, but also at the national level, taking the opportunity of the donors' coordination group in the agricultural sector. This report has highlighted areas of weak institutional impact, resulting, for example, in little evidence of interactive approaches where ideas and concepts from the village make their way to project design. The same can be said in the case of livestock vaccination: donor-driven policies of cost-recovery were clearly not working because of widespread cash shortages with consequent economic losses due to animal deaths. On the other hand, a number of good practices (e.g., a strong commitment by WUAs, soil and water management) have emerged from the two phases of LACOSREP and more can be learned from other experiences. A first step in policy dialogue would be to facilitate discussion of the lessons stemming from the project experience at the local (district, region) and national levels.

M&E and supervision. Collection of quantitative data on project delivery was relatively accurate. The missing part was the assessment of impact on household welfare, food security and health. Supervision was conscientiously carried out within the constraints of the arrangements between UNOPS and IFAD which allow for two-week mission per year only. Both these findings relate to the "discrete" and short-term nature of implementation support arrangements within IFAD project. For effective M&E and project implementation, project staff would rather develop a more responsive relationship with adviser(s)/facilitator(s) who would be available on a more regular basis.

Irrigation

Quality control and phased contracting of consultancy services. Opening the consulting for the irrigation infrastructure to a wide range of professional companies should be non-negotiable. Proposals should be sought from other qualified consultants to compete for the assignment in the downstream phase even where the consultant has performed satisfactorily. Consulting services should be divided into phases according to the project implementation schedule, and contracts signed separately, subject to satisfactory performance. In order to better understand bottlenecks, IFAD may consider conducting an audit of contract awarding during project implementation.

Dam construction technology. New methods of dams construction are available that save a considerable amount of water. ‘Closed' systems are being introduced by international NGOs and this technology should be considered carefully in the future interventions.

Pumping water from the White Volta River for riverside horticulture was introduced in the final year of the project. Although not in the project design, it has been introduced to allow cultivation of three crops per year. This method is simple and effective, but requires pumps and diesel fuel as inputs. However, the nutritional and income-generating benefits suggest that small-scale credit could rapidly extend the benefits to a wide range of farmers, as has been shown in other countries such as Nigeria.

Agricultural support

Action research and extension. The present evaluation has highlighted the need for stronger partnerships between projects, research organisations and NGOs that would translate into support for the most needed technological packages. MoFA and the project unit could also facilitate farmer-to-farmer communication through cross visits and a more extensive use of the already existing radio programming.

Processing and marketing. Crop diversification, dissemination of new techniques in marketing and a variety of crop processing strategies could rapidly increase incomes and reduce nutritional insecurity in UER. A review of these issues and action should be taken by MoFA because much knowledge already exists in neighbouring countries, notably Burkina Faso, so some type of farmer exchange is recommended.

Additional Area for Streamlining: FLGs

FLGs, originally not included in the project design, have seen considerable success, both increasing numeracy and literacy and establishing solidarity among groups for other purposes such as collective work and micro-finance. Strategies to further develop FLGs should be worked out with NGOs, such as ActionAid, that have piloted them.

Rural Finance Issues

While credit was appreciated by the beneficiaries, coverage was limited and the project did not significantly contribute to promoting sustainable rural finance institutions. It is important that: (i) rural banks be allowed to apply interest rates that cover all costs and allow for profits; (ii) partners, including the Bank of Ghana, contribute to better coordination and regulation; (iii) training be provided to participating banks' staff using regional rural finance hubs; (iv) discussions be held with participating banks on available techniques and products that can help reduce transaction costs in rural areas; and (v) the rural finance component is fine-tuned and well sequenced with other components.

---

1/ The Office of Evaluation of IFAD conducted an evaluation mission of LACOSREP II and UWADEP from 23rd May to 30th June 2005.  Field visits in the UER took place between 26th May and 10th June. Sites of both LACOSREP I and II were visited, the former to better understand key sustainability issues. The mission members were Mr Roger Blench (Team Leader), Mr David Andah (Credit and Micro-finance), Ms Liz Kiff (Agricultural Extension) and Ms Gordana Kranjac (Water resources and Rural Infrastructure). Preliminary quantitative and qualitative surveys were carried out by Mr Hippolite Bayor and Mr Edward Aboagye in early 2005. An ad hoc survey of non participant households was conducted in concomitance with the mission, under the direction of the Team Leader. Mr Fabrizio Felloni (Lead Evaluator, IFAD-OE) designed the evaluation methodology, made a pre-evaluation visit in April 2005, accompanied the mission for its first and final days in Ghana and supervised the evaluation process throughout.  An aide-mémoire and an associated PowerPoint presentation were circulated at a workshop in Bolgatanga on 10 June 2005 under the chairmanship of the Regional Minister.  A final presentation of the first findings from LACOSREP II and UWADEP was made in Accra on June 30th. The mission is grateful to national and regional authorities as well as to the project staff for their support.

2/ The ten donors involved in multi-donor budget support in Ghana are: the African Development Bank, Canada, Denmark, the European Union, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the World Bank and the United Kingdom.  Japan, the United States and the United Nations are observers.

3/ Consumption-based estimates, GPRS, 2003. Usual caveats on monetary-based estimates for rural areas apply also to this case.

4/ UWADEP, the sister-project in UWR, has at least one dam site, Karni, where assistance to the blind, disabled and single mothers is a major element, showing that this can be made to work.

5/ There are no precise data for maintenance costs.