Extract of Agreement at Completion Point

Interim evaluation¹

The core learning partnership and the users of the evaluation

In 2005, the Office of Evaluation of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) conducted an Interim Evaluation of the second phase of the Land Conservation and Smallholder Rehabilitation Project, LACOSREP II, in the Upper East Region (UER), Ghana. An approach paper was discussed with partners in Ghana in April 2005, and socio-economic surveys were fielded between April and June of the same year. A core learning partnership (CLP) was formed comprising representatives of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), the Department of Agriculture in UER, the LACOSREP II Project Coordinating Unit (PCU), UNOPS, IFAD's Western and Central Africa Division, and the Office of Evaluation of IFAD. The main evaluation mission took place from 22nd May to 10th June 2005. A draft evaluation report was distributed in August 2005. A final evaluation workshop was organised in Accra on 9 November, 2005, to take stock of the evaluation findings and prepare this Agreement at Completion Point (ACP). The workshop was attended by the members of the CLP and other stakeholders. The ACP reflects the stakeholders' understanding of the evaluation, findings and recommendations, their proposal to implement them, and their commitment to act upon them.

The main evaluation findings

Implementation progress. The following achievements were made as of June 2005 (the project will close in December 2006) and relate to the main physical outputs. A more detailed discussion is presented in the main evaluation report. a) Income-Generating Activities. This component trained some 12 243 individuals and provided group loans without collateral to 10 251 individuals, relying on group pressure to guarantee the repayment, which corresponds approximately to 21% of the originally targeted number of clients. b) Dams and irrigation infrastructure. At project completion point, 24 (out of 36 planned) dams had been awarded and were at various stages of construction. Seven dams (19% of target) became operational (six rehabilitations and one new dam) during project life. As a result, only 80 ha of the planned 372 ha are currently available for farmers (22% of planned irrigable area). c) Farmer Training and Demonstrations (FTDs). According to project figures, 197 of the 300 FTDs were conducted from the first year of the project, in 2000. The lower than planned number was a result of delays in dam construction, as several trainings were planned for new irrigators. Total participating farmers were 6 266, some 70% of the envisaged target of which 3 898 were men (60%) and 2 546 women (40%).

Major strengths - (i) relevance. UER is the second poorest region of Ghana. The components of LACOSREP II are designed to add value to rural production, and where they have been implemented successfully, they have clearly made a difference to livelihoods in rural communities. But, due to resource constraints, LACOSREP I and II could only cover a fraction of the communities in UER.  Ghana has signed up to various international undertakings to reduce poverty and LACOSREP II has this as its direct focus.  LACOSREP II was undoubtedly relevant to IFAD's mandate.  In retrospect, one important lessons learned from an IFAD project implemented in the Upper West is the feasibility of social protection, devising better strategies to assist the socially excluded, such as the disabled and single mothers. ²

Major strengths - (ii) impact.  The analysis of primary data collected by the evaluation suggests that households served by the project had significantly increased their assets.  Those households that received financial services from participating banks have reported benefits in terms of better opportunities for investments in trading and farming, but also in activities that do not directly generate income but contribute to household welfare such as health, schooling and the situation of women.  All the beneficiaries interviewed acknowledged that the project has enhanced their food security, through access to credit to generate income, cash earned during the dry season and better skills in marketing. There is every sign that Water Users' Associations (WUAs) are viable organisations capable of handling their affairs. Women were not traditionally land owners in this region, but the WUA system has given them direct access to irrigated land.  Functional Literacy Groups (FLGs) have been formed since 2003 using the REFLECT methodology to teach numeracy and literacy in indigenous languages. These have been very successful and have additionally provided an arena for women to co-operate and organise collective income-generation activities and also initiate small development projects. The overall impact of LACOSREP II on beneficiary communities has been considerable in the areas of food security, income generation, cohesion, literacy and promotion of gender issues. The achievements of LACOSREP should be seen against the trend of increasing poverty and environmental degradation in the UER.

Design weaknesses.  Marketing was not adequately addressed. The viability of the interventions depended heavily on the market and this was problematic, especially for perishable crops such as tomatoes. Monitoring prices and facilitating market access, along with the promotion of crop diversification should have been integral to project design. Supervision of engineering.  The use of a single agency, Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA), to carry out both irrigation infrastructure design and construction has led to low-grade outcomes. Community mobilisation.  The design required spending more than two years ‘sensitising' communities on the importance of irrigation.  In retrospect, this was a waste of time, as communities had already submitted applications for dams prior to the inception of LACOSREP II.  As a result, many dams were uncompleted at the time of project closure. Micro-finance. The promotion of subsidised credit has resulted in very limited commitment to term loans by the banks involved.

Implementation weaknesses.  Timeliness and quality of work by local contractors was a major problem throughout LACOSREP II. The recently employed Chinese contractor still suffers from inadequate supervision. Access to credit by farmers remains at low levels and may decline further with the closure of the project. Collaboration with NGOs has not been successful in the credit sphere. Rather than jointly developing strategies, the PCU typically employed NGOs as executing agents without adequate emphasis on their feedback.  Health issues were only partially addressed by the project in spite of evidence of an increase in water-borne diseases throughout the region.

Threats to sustainability. Roads, latrines and hand-dug wells require less maintenance and will probably be sustained locally; the problems relating to dams, where maintenance is sporadic and completion of many is more of a problem.  Responsibility for maintenance has not been clearly spelled out, as some maintenance problems are beyond the WUA capabilities and even local government budget availability. WUAs vary substantially in their perception of responsibility for maintenance while their capacity to maintain the irrigation facilities is linked to their ability to mobilise internal and external financial resources. Technical innovations in agriculture seem to be sustainable, notably composting and vegetable production.  Concerning the rural finance component, the operational sustainability of all the participating banks except Bessfa RB is very low.

Main weaknesses in partners' performance.  IFAD has rightly insisted on the LACOSREP approach, which has important potential for poverty reduction in UER.  However, the weaknesses of the credit component, the limited integration between components and the over reliance on GIDA are all examples of flaws in the project design.  The PCU has performed creditably, and problems with the day-to-day running of the project have been resolved successfully in many cases.  Nonetheless, in the area of irrigation infrastructure, the problems should have been resolved much earlier.  Despite the adoption of the World Bank procurement standards, the process of selection of contractors was below expectations.  The provisions for M&E in the appraisal document look rather optimistic in the light of actual achievements. The performance of the major research partner, Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), was weak. Despite the considerable infrastructure support given to the institute during the previous phase, LACOSREP I, and the complete renovation and improvement of the Regional Station at Manga, no effective advice to counter the tomato disease complex was given. All the participating banks have focus persons but, apart from Ghana Commercial Bank, these persons are variously engaged on non-project assignments, contributing to low repayment rates and poor record keeping and reporting.  Record keeping and reporting at the participating banks leave much to be desired and reconciliation by the Bank of Ghana is irregular. Timeliness and quality of work by local contractors in the irrigation component was a major problem throughout LACOSREP II.  Rural Aid, the main NGO concerned with excavation of hand-dug wells and household latrines, generally performed satisfactorily. ActionAid, whose REFLECT methodology was used in the formation of FLGs, was evidently successful.

Recommendations

Assuming the mutual desire to continue and consolidate the successes of the project while reducing its weaknesses, a number of key strategic issues need to be addressed.  The emphasis here is to build on the good practices and internal learning already developed, while mitigating those factors which reduce the effectiveness of the project. The following recommendations start from those tasks that should be undertaken before the closure of the project and proceed to those strategic and operational issues to be considered in the design and implementation of future interventions, should the corresponding activities be part of them.

Immediate tasks: completion of irrigation infrastructure and health issues

LACOSREP II will close in December 2006 and much of the irrigation infrastructure remains unfinished. Completion of existing works is a major priority, but will only be a useful exercise if closer supervision is introduced, preferably using alternative arrangements.

Summary recommendation:

• PCU to complete civil works and seek alternative consultants for supervision and contractors for execution of civil works.

Partners involved: PCU, MoFA, IFAD, UNOPS.

Health issues need to be addressed urgently to avoid the deterioration of the beneficiaries' health after project closure. There is evidence of high levels of soil-transmitted helminths throughout Northern Ghana associated with standing water, and an absence of public health measures in relation to small dams which could lead to increased incidence of related infections, with debilitation and greater susceptibility to a range of other pathologies, especially among children. Such issues were not adequately tackled during the life of the project, apparently due to the absence of key partners in MoH. To judge by available documents, in-country expertise exists to conduct such monitoring in institutions such as the Ghana Health Service and through the Parasitic Diseases Research Centre (PRDC), based in Tamale.  NGOs such as the Catholic Relief Services and ADRA have both shown interest in health monitoring and awareness and are likely partners with MoH in this area.

Summary recommendations:

• PCU to establish effective sustainable monitoring system in conjunction with NGOs and the MoH.

• PCU, in consultation with MoH, to initiate public health campaign based on results monitoring, using MoH funding and LACOSREP II loan balance.

Suggested timing: Immediate: progress to be reported prior to next supervision mission.

Partners involved: MoFA, PCU, in consultation with NGOs and MoH.

The future intervention concept

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 regional but also at the national level, using donors' coordination mechanisms.  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.  On the other hand, a number of good practices (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 discuss the lessons stemming from the project experience with other IFAD projects with the Government and other donors.

Integration and sequencing of components. If IFAD is to consider further investment in UER, then the evaluation of LACOSREP II recommends rethinking some elements in project design. A key problem is that projects with so many components, but no clear integrative strategy, are open to activities being carried out with no linkages, with the consequence that management costs are high.  Project design should consider sequencing more carefully.

Considerations of equity. LACOSREP II and comparable projects such as UWADEP raise broader concerns. Basing a development strategy on the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure risks perpetuating inequality.  Although hunger remains widespread and may be increasing throughout UER, there are also ‘bypassed communities', i.e., those in remote areas where there is no government infrastructure and no NGOs operate. Such communities need to be clearly targeted in future interventions.  Similarly, targeting of special categories, such as the physically impaired, was not part of LACOSREP II design but experience with these groups from the sister project UWADEP in UWR (Karni site) shows that some components have the potential to assist the socially excluded and this should now be considered essential.

Improve M&E systems.  The collection of quantitative data on project delivery was relatively accurate, although the assessment of impact was missing.  For future projects, longer-term support for M&E is required. Background data collection.  Projects should collect relevant background data including climatic, market and socio-economic indicators.

Summary recommendations:

• IFAD to take the opportunity donor's coordination mechanisms to present and discuss the main lessons learned from its experience in UER.  In view of its lack of field presence, IFAD should estimate the level of human and financial resources to be devoted to it.

• Project formulation to draw on the lessons learned by stakeholders at all levels.  In the design of a future operation, IFAD (and indeed other multi-laterals) should take care not to waste funds and the time of potential beneficiaries with ‘sensitisation workshops', as, by and large, they have already fully articulated their requirements.

• IFAD, GoG and other stakeholders to articulate clearer sequencing and integration of components at inception and formulation. Typically, the project components are listed and the links between them are somehow taken for granted. But in implementation, components are often executed independently. Project design must clearly spell out all the envisaged links, both in terms of its argument and practical action by the PCU.

• Communities without irrigation infrastructure and special categories of users, following a successful case in UWADEP, should be the target of future interventions.

• IFAD to discuss M&E support requirements, including in-country expertise, with MoFA. Henceforth, monitoring should be conducted in conjunction with communities and be subject to joint assent. Projects should collect relevant background data.

Suggested timing: At design of future interventions.  Communication and discussion on lessons learned to be a continuous element of IFAD's strategy.

Partners involved: IFAD, in consultation with: MoFA, PCU, NGOs, other donors.

Components of future projects

Irrigation component

Quality control and phased contracting of consultancy services.  A different approach should be considered in the future, as opening the consulting 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 consultants have performed satisfactorily. Procurement of services should be in line with the Public Procurement Act No. 663 (2003). Services should be segregated into phases according to a project implementation schedule and contracts signed separately, subject to satisfactory performance. A validation forum should be organised after design completion and before construction start-up, involving: MoFA, district assemblies, consultants, contractors and WUAs. This should be followed with regular work progress review meetings.  Payment schemes to the consultant should include performance incentives, not lump sums. In order to better understand bottlenecks, IFAD may consider conducting an audit of contract awarding during project implementation.

Irrigation infrastructure construction methods. Much of the irrigation infrastructure constructed under LACOSREP II (and its sister-project, UWADEP) use open channel irrigation methods which waste considerable quantities of water. ‘Closed' systems are now being introduced by many organisations, including international NGOs and even other projects under MoFA; successor operations should look carefully at these technologies.

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 allows cultivation of three crops per year, therefore significantly increasing farmers' income. This method is simple and effective, but requires pumps and diesel fuel as inputs. However, the nutritional and income-generation 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.

Irrigation infrastructure needs maintenance, some of which is beyond the capacity of WUAs.  This situation should be addressed by realistic budgeting and assignment of responsibility in such cases to MoFA, the regional and district departments of agriculture and donors.

Summary recommendations:

• Contracting and procurement of all phases of dams and other civil engineering works must conform to recent government guidelines [Public Procurement Act No. 663 (2003)].

• An option is for IFAD to consider requesting an audit of contract awarding under LACOSREP II.

• New, more environmentally -sound methods of irrigation infrastructure construction, such as those introduced in new dams built by NGOs and others, to be considered a high priority by both IFAD and other donors for future projects.

• MOFA, in consultation with NGOS, should identify most cost-effective technology options (for example those tested in Burkina Faso and Nigeria) and packages for riverside horticulture (e.g., overhead irrigation using pumps) and disseminate information about these.

• Realistic assignment of responsibility for different levels of maintenance. MoFA to clarify with WUAs what types of maintenance are their responsibility, what problems can be assigned to defective work by contractors and what problems should be brought to the notice of the regional/district department of agriculture.  IFAD (and any other donor), in consultation with MoFA, to estimate the availability of maintenance funds within government agencies and provide for those operations that may exceed existing budgets and should be dealt with by extra-systemic assistance.

Suggested timing: Design and implementation of future interventions.

Partners involved: MoFA, PCU, NGOs, IFAD.

 Agricultural Action Research and Extension

The present evaluation has highlighted the absence of a real partnership for farm-oriented action research, particularly in the area of Integrated Crop Pest Management, and very limited use of media (radio) to encourage the adaptation and adoption of sound farming practices.

Summary recommendations:

• In view of the constraints of the existing research institutions, IFAD to discuss alternative arrangements for action research with MoFA, RELCs and NGOs.

• MoFA - PCU to facilitate farmer-to-farmer communication through cross visits and consider the use of vernacular radio programmes addressing pertinent problems.

Suggested timing: Specify these requirements at design.

Partners involved: MoFA, PCU, IFAD, Ghana Broadcasting Corporation and private radio stations, SARI.

Processing and marketing issues

Producers remain at the mercy of buyers with high monopoly power and only in Bawku has the presence of an all-weather road and mobile phones begun to subvert the stranglehold on the market. 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 by MoFA and PCU should be undertaken. Much knowledge already exists in neighbouring countries, notably Burkina Faso, so some type of farmer exchange is recommended.  Moreover, some local NGOs have accumulated experience in this area.

Summary recommendations:

• MoFA to conduct reviews and disseminate recommendations on:

• Crop diversification to reduce the problem of bottlenecks in the market and crop processing to increase storage flexibility and allow farmers to ‘play' the market.

• Spreading of information on market prices (radio, farmers' organisations) allowing producers to confront buyers more effectively.

Suggested timing: Specify these requirements at design.

Partners involved: PCU, MoFA, NGOs.

Additional area for inclusion

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 microfinance.

Summary Recommendation:

• Work with NGOs on strategies to develop FLGs (review experience of ActionAid) and ensure that writing systems are in line with standard Ghanaian orthographic conventions.

Suggested timing: FLGs to be considered in coming operations, as appropriate.

Partners involved: IFAD, MoFA in consultation with NGOs.

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.  There is a wide range of credit options, especially offered by NGOs and government programmes that include subsidized rates.   Some may create problems for interventions based on market rates. It is important that: (i) rural banks be allowed to apply interest rates that cover all costs and allow for profits; (ii) partners work towards strategy harmonisation (in particular by avoiding interest rate subsidisation in public programmes); (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.

Summary recommendation:

• Review with the participating banks, BoG, and with the help of specialists and regional rural finance hubs those options and products that can make rural finance both viable economically and practical for beneficiaries. Review and discuss the experiences in institutional strengthening and policy dialogue stemming from the Rural Financial Services Project.

Suggested timing: During future project design.

Partners involved: IFAD, the Bank of Ghana, rural banks, Micro Finance and Small Loan Centre (MASLOC), Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Apex Bank, Ghamfin, RFSP.

---

1/ This agreement reflects an understanding among the key partners to adopt and implement recommendations stemming from the evaluation.  The agreement was formulated in consultation with the members of the Core Learning Partnership (CLP).  The CLP members that attended the workshop were: Hon. Ernest Debrah, Minister of Food and Agriculture (MoFA); Hon. Boniface Gambila, Regional Minister for the Upper East; Hon. Ambrose Dery, Regional Minister for the Upper West; Mr Kwaku Owusu Baah Chief Director MoFA; Mr Roy Ayariga, Regional Director of Agriculture (Upper East) and Project Coordinator, LACOSREP II; Mr Emmanuel D. Eledi, Regional Director of Agriculture (Upper West) and Project Coordinator, UWADEP; Mr Joseph Y. Faalong, National Coordinator, AgSSIP-MoFA; and Mr. Mohamed Manssouri, Country Programme Manager (IFAD/PA).  The workshop was also attended by Ms Caroline Heider, Deputy Director (IFAD/OE); Mr Fabrizio Felloni, Lead Evaluator (IFAD/OE); Mr Mark Keating, Evaluation Information Officer (IFAD/OE); Mr Roger Blench, consultant, Evaluation Mission Leader; Ms Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic, consultant, irrigation specialist; and Mr David Andah, consultant, rural finance specialist.  A list of workshop participants is provided in the appendices to the main report.

 

 

2/ UWADEP, the sister-project in UWR, does have at least one dam site, Karni, where social protection (assistance to the blind, disabled and single mothers) is a major element, showing that this can be made to work.