Implementation completion and results report coraf trust fund p112623 final version

Document of

The World Bank

Report No: ICR00004143

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-99769)

ON A MULTI-DONOR TRUST FUND

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 21.83 MILLION TO THE THE WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (CORAF/WECARD)

FOR A CORAF TRUST FUND

June 27, 2017

Agriculture Global Practice Country, Department: Regional Integration Africa Region

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective June 6, 2017) Currency Unit = CFAF (XOF) US$ 1.00 = CFAF 582.01 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AFAAS African Framework for Agricultural Advisory and Services ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa AU African Union BE Bank Executed CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program CARDESA Centre for Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa CEEAC Communauté Economique des Etats de l'Afrique Centrale (Economic Community of Central African States) CEMAC Communauté Economique et Monétaire des Etats de l'Afrique Centrale (Central African Economic and Monetary Community) CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CILSS Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel CMA-AOC Conférence de Ministers de l’Agriculture de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre (Conference of Ministries of Agriculture of West and Central Africa) CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGS Competitive Grant Scheme CoEs Centers of Excellence CORAF Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et la Développement Agricoles ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework EU European Union FAAP Framework for African Agricultural Productivity FARA Framework for African Agricultural Research FCFA Franc Communauté Financière Africaine FM Financial Management GDP Gross Domestic Product HQ Headquarter IAR4D Integrated Agricultural Research for Development ICR Implementation Completion Report IDA International Development Association IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

INRM IP IPM ISO MDTF M&E MIS MoU MS MTOP MTR NARS NARI NEPAD NGO NRM PAD PDO PMP PO RE REC RF SMART SRO STC TTL UEMOA UN USAID WAAPP WARDA WB WCA WECARD

Integrated Natural Resource Management Innovation Platform Integrated Pest Management International Organization for Standardization Multi-Donor Trust Fund Monitoring and Evaluation Management Information System Memorandum of Understanding Moderately Satisfactory Medium-Term Operational Plan Midterm Review National Agricultural Research System National Agricultural Research Institute New Partnerships for Africa’s Development Non-Governmental Organization Natural Resources Management Project Appraisal Document Project Development Objective Performance Monitoring Plan Producer Organizations Recipient Executed Regional Economic Commission Results Framework Specific, Measurable, Attributable/Attainable, Realistic/Reliable, Time-bound/Timely Sub-regional Organization Scientific and Technical Committee Task Team Leader Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (West Africa Economic and Monetary Union) United Nations United States West African Agricultural Productivity Program West Africa Rice Development Association World Bank West Central Africa West and Central Africa Council for Agricultural Research and Development

Senior Global Practice Director: Sector Manager: Project Team Leader: ICR Team Leader: ICR Principal Author:

Juergen Voegele Simeon Ehui Abdoulaye Toure Aifa Fatimata Ndoye Niane Ismael Ouedraogo

West and Central Africa CORAF TRUST FUND

Contents D A T A S H E E T ................................................................................................... v A. Basic Information............................................................................................... v B. Key Dates ........................................................................................................... v C. Ratings Summary ............................................................................................... v D. Sector and Theme Codes ..................................................................................vi E. Bank Staff ........................................................................................................ vii F. Results Framework Analysis ........................................................................... vii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ............................................................ x H. Restructuring (if any) ........................................................................................xi I. Disbursement Profile ....................................................................................... xii 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ........................................... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .......................................... 8 3. Assessment of Outcomes ...................................................................................... 20 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ..................................................... 28 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ................................................. 29 6. Lessons Learned.................................................................................................... 32 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors........... 33 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing ...................................................................... 34 Annex 2.1 Approved Modified Results Framework, December 2016 (AM) ... Error!

Bookmark not defined.

Annex 2.2 Outputs by Component............................................................................ 37 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................. 46 Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ... 49 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ....................................................................... 50 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ............................................... 52 Annex 7. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR .................... 52 Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders .................. 57 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents .................................................................. 57 MAP .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

DATA SHEET

A. Basic Information Country:

Western Africa

Project Name:

CORAF Trust Fund

Project ID:

P112623

L/C/TF Number(s):

TF-99769

ICR Date:

06/09/2017

ICR Type:

Core ICR

Lending Instrument:

SIL

Grantee:

CORAF

Original Total Commitment:

USD 21.83M

Disbursed Amount:

USD 21.54M

Revised Amount:

USD 21.83M

Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: West and Central Africa Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:

B. Key Dates Process

Original Date

Revised / Actual Date(s)

Process

Date

Concept Review:

02/05/2009

Effectiveness:

09/20/2011

Appraisal:

09/15/2009

Restructuring(s):

08/25/2015 07/21/2016

Approval:

07/22/2011

Mid-term Review:

10/07/2013

11/01/2013

Closing:

09/30/2015

12/30/2016

C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes:

Satisfactory

Risk to Development Outcome:

Moderate

Bank Performance:

Moderately Satisfactory

Grantee Performance:

Moderately Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Moderately Satisfactory Government: Moderately Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Agency/Agencies:

Overall Bank Performance:

Moderately Satisfactory

Overall Borrower Performance:

Moderately Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Performance (if any)

Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No

Quality at Entry (QEA):

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

Yes

Quality of None Supervision (QSA):

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status:

Satisfactory

None

D. Sector and Theme Codes Original

Actual

5

5

76

76

10

10

4

4

5

5

Finance for Development

34

34

Agriculture Finance

34

34

Rural Development

34

34

Rural Infrastructure and service delivery

33

33

Rural Markets

34

34

Major Sector/Sector Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry Public Administration - Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry Agricultural Extension, Research, and Other Support Activities Education Workforce Development/Skills Tertiary Education Industry, Trade and Services Agricultural markets, commercialization and agribusiness Major Theme/Theme/Sub Theme Finance

Urban and Rural Development

E. Bank Staff Positions

At ICR

At Approval

Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop

Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili

Country Director:

Rachid Benmessaoud

Richard G. Scobey

Practice Manager:

Simeon Kacou Ehui

Karen Mcconnell Brooks

Task Team Leader(s):

Abdoulaye Toure

David J. Nielson

ICR Team Leader:

Aifa Fatimata Ndoye Niane

ICR Primary Author:

Ismael S. Ouedraogo

F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The objective of the Project is to support integrated agricultural research for development within West and Central Africa, through the implementation of the Recipient’s Medium Term Operational Plan, with the aim of contributing to sustainable improvements in the productivity, competitiveness and markets of the agricultural systems in West and Central Africa.

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority)

The Project Development Objective (PDO) was not revised. (a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator

Baseline Value

Original Target Formally Values (from Revised approval Target Values documents)

Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target Years

Clients who have adopted an improved agricultural technology promoted by the project (disaggregated by male/female) 36,678 38,223 Value 282 quantitative or (27% women) (42% women) Indicator 1:

Qualitative) Date achieved 01/01/2013 08/25/2015 12/31/2016 This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was exceeded Comments (incl. % (104%). achievement)

Clients who have adopted an improved innovation promoted by the project (disaggregated by male/ female) 10,444 12,091 Value 227 quantitative or (40% women) (46% women) Indicator 2:

Qualitative) Date achieved

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

Comments (incl. % achievement)

This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was exceeded (116%).

Clients with access to technologies and/or innovations supported by the project (disaggregated by male/female) 60,397 69,637 Value 793 quantitative or (26% women) (38% women) Indicator 3:

Qualitative) Date achieved 01/01/2013 08/25/2015 12/31/2016 This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was exceeded Comments (incl. % (115%). achievement)

Targeted clients satisfied with access to technologies and innovations supported by the project (disaggregated by male/female) 80% 83% Value (80% for (% women not quantitative or 0% women) available) Qualitative) Indicator 4:

Date achieved 01/01/2013 08/25/2015 12/31/2016 This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was exceeded Comments (incl. % (104%). achievement) Indicator 5: Direct project beneficiaries (of which female).

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

1,250

81,630 (27% women)

100,240 (44%)

Date achieved 01/01/2013 08/25/2015 12/31/2016 This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was exceeded Comments (incl. % (123%). achievement) (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator

Baseline Value

Original Target Formally Values (from Revised approval Target Values documents)

Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1: Research sub-projects supported by the project Value 4 17 17 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/01/2013 08/25/2015 12/31/2016 This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was achieved Comments (incl. % (100%). achievement)

Indicator 2: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 3: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 4: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 5: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 6: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 7: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved

Technologies and/or innovations disseminated 5

88

170

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was largely exceeded (193%).

Technologies demonstrated in the project areas 5

89

255

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was largely exceeded (287%).

New technologies/ innovation for which information is publicly accessible 5

64

113

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was largely exceeded (177%).

Strategic Policy Options developed and submitted by CORAF for approval

by RECs and national governments 0

42

53

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was largely exceeded (126%).

Innovation Platforms (IPs) in commodity value chains functional.

11

100

130

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was largely exceeded (130%).

Female participation in IPs 1,480

8,949

18,911

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 8: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 9: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 10: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 11: Value (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement)

This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was largely exceeded (211%).

Client days of training provided 212

47,368

99,070

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was largely exceeded (209%).

Number or Clients who benefited from short-term training (disaggregated by gender) 15,450 55,422 373 (35% women) (32% women) (51% women) 01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

This indicator was added following the MTR. The target was largely exceeded (359%).

CORAF ISO certified No

Yes

No

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

This indicator was added following the MTR. The ISO certification process has yet to be completed.

IP joint programs between weaker and stronger countries implemented 0

11

10

01/01/2013

08/25/2015

12/31/2016

This indicator was added following the MTR. This target was not fully achieved (91%). However, this is satisfactory as weaker IP have mostly been in the countries most affected by Ebola, which had made collaborating with them a challenge for a long while.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No.

Date ISR Archived

DO

IP

1 2 3

03/19/2013 12/01/2013 07/02/2014

Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory

Actual Disbursements (USD millions) 2.60 5.93 11.52

4

05/08/2015

5 6 7 8

10/19/2015 01/04/2016 06/29/2016 12/31/2016

Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory

15.43 16.91 17.85 19.92 21.54

H. Restructuring (if any) ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Disbursed at Restructuring Reason for Restructuring & Approved Restructuring Date(s) Key Changes Made PDO Change DO in USD IP millions

08/25/2015

MS

MU

15.87

07/21/2016

S

S

20.30

Critical changes made: (i) a 12-month extension of the closing date (from September 30, 2015 to September 30, 2016) to carry out ongoing subprojects that could not be completed by the original closing date; (ii) a complete reformulation of the Results Framework to redesign key SMART indicators, redraw a baseline as of 2013, and set up new targets; (iii) a reallocation of funds from category 1 to category 2 Important changes: (i) a 3-month extension of the closing date from September 30, 2016 to December 31, 2016 to allow completion of a thorough and comprehensive beneficiary impact assessment; (ii) a reallocation from category 1 to category 2 to complete all remaining key activities

I. Disbursement Profile

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal Region and sector context at appraisal 1.

Agriculture is the single largest economic sector in West and Central Africa.

At appraisal, it accounted for 35 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), over 15 percent of exports, and 65 percent of employment. The sub-region was then home to 320 million people in 22 1 countries — all with low United Nations Human Development Indices (UNHDI), and many among the world’s poorest. Poverty remained highest in the rural areas, and food insecurity was a major concern within the sub-region and a chronic situation in the Sahelian zone, where some of the most acute poverty was found.

2.

Starting from the late 1990s–early 2000s, African countries collectively came to realize the critical role of significant, continual growth in the agricultural sector for addressing these ills. They pledged in 2003 to increase agricultural investments by at least 10% of each national budget. Agricultural growth is dependent upon growth in agricultural productivity, and agricultural technology is fundamental to growth in agricultural productivity. To increase agricultural productivity, the African Union’s New Partnership for Africa’s Development’s (NEPAD) Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) called for doubling investment in agricultural research, extension, and education (CAADP Pillar IV) — along with policy and institutional reforms designed to make these programs more effective. NEPAD then tasked the Forum for African Agricultural Research (FARA), created in 1997, to develop (in 2006) the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) to serve as the implementing tool of CAADP Pillar IV at the continent level.

3.

The Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles (West and Central Africa Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD, henceforth referred to as CORAF) was mandated to collaborate with FARA to implement CAADP Pillar IV at the sub-regional level for the Regional Economic Communities (REC) in West and Central Africa. Established in 1987 as the Conference for African and French Agronomic Research Directors, CORAF has since 1995 expanded in scope and scale. It now assists the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) of 23 countries in West and Central Africa, of which 15 use French, 5 English and 3 Portuguese as their official language. CORAF is the largest sub-regional agricultural research organization (SRO) in the continent. It also serves the largest number (four) of RECs: the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC), Communauté Economique des Etats de l'Afrique Centrale (CEEAC), Economic Community of West

1

Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratici Republic of Congo, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leon, and Togo

1

African States (ECOWAS), and Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (UEMOA).

4.

CORAF’s aim is to (i) promote cooperation, consultation and information exchange between member institutions and partners; (ii) define joint sub-regional and regional research objectives and priorities; (iii) serve as a consultative body for research carried out by regional and international organizations operating at the sub-regional level; (iv) develop and ensure effective implementation of sub-regional research for development programs, aimed at adding value to national programs; and (v) harmonize the activities of the existing research constituents, and facilitate the creation of new regional programs or other operational research units with a regional character.

5.

At appraisal, CORAF had already developed a revised Strategic Plan for 2008–2016, in line with the policy frameworks at the continental and sub-regional levels. The strategic plan included a new programmatic approach to agricultural research and change management. The programmatic approach identified eight research programs covering Technical Research and Efficient Research. The change management required CORAF to (i) embrace the new principles of CAADP and FAAP; (ii) address the issues of poverty reduction and sustainable food security more directly, in particular through the adoption of an integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D) paradigm with a greater focus on small-scale farmers; and (iii) establish better partnerships with RECs within the sub-region. A five-year Medium Term Operational Plan (MTOP) was developed for implementing the first phase (2008–2013) of the Strategic Plan. The MTOP included an 18-month change management process (2009–2010), which covers changes to governance systems, programmatic areas, corporate systems, and core functions.

Rationale for Bank assistance 6.

The International Development Association (IDA) is the single most important external supporter for improving agriculture research and technology dissemination and adoption (Pillar IV of CAADP) in Sub-Saharan Africa. Donors have acknowledged IDA’s leadership in donor coordination, in deciding to place at the Bank the Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTF) for organizations at the sub-regional level to support CORAF, ASARECA (Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa), and CARDESA (Centre for Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa); and at the continental level to support FARA and AFAAS (African Framework for Agricultural Advocacy and Services). The MDTF was seen as the ideal approach to fulfill donors’ long-expressed need to effectively harmonize and coordinate their interventions across countries, and IDA as the ideal agency to implement and leverage it.

7.

IDA is also recognized as a strong technical, as well as financial partner, and was actively supporting the agricultural productivity agenda within the sub-region.

The MDTF was to complement the national level portfolio by providing a sub-regional overlay focused on generating synergies among country programs, and allowing for more efficient use of resources for technology generation and dissemination. It was also to continue complementing the IDA-supported sub-regional West Africa Agricultural

2

Productivity Program (WAAPP), in which CORAF was playing a coordination role at the regional level. The objective in the first phase of the WAAPP was to generate and disseminate improved technologies in the participating countries’ top priority areas that were aligned with the sub-region’s top priorities, as well as developing National Centers of Specialization. The three countries (Ghana, Mali, Senegal) in the first WAAPP had agreed to fund CORAF out of their Bank’s loans, but had strongly desired that funding for CORAF came instead, or in addition, from donors’ grants. The MDTF was to provide that funding to CORAF to cover many more countries.

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved) 8.

The objective of the Project is to support integrated agricultural research for development within West and Central Africa, through the implementation of the Recipient’s Medium Term Operational Plan, with the aim of contributing to sustainable improvements in the productivity, competitiveness and markets of the agricultural systems in West and Central Africa2.

9.

The achievement of the CORAF MDTF Project 3 was to be measured through the Results Framework (RF), which listed the outcome and intermediate outcome indicators shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Original Results Framework (PAD, pp. 32-33) Overall goal (a) High broad-based agricultural growth sustainably established in WCA

Indicators (a) 1. 6% average annual increase in GDP from agricultural sector by 2015 2. At least 6% increase in the agricultural incomes of rural and other small-holder farmers by 2015 3. At least 50% reduction in resources required for basic food purchases in the households of poor and vulnerable groups by 2015 4. Reverse by 10%, the downward trend in the natural resource base-biodiversity, forest cover, land and water by 2015 PDO Project Outcome indicators The objective of the Project Number of appropriate4 technologies/innovations for crops is to support integrated livestock /fisheries available to farmers; (b)

2

This PDO statement is taken from the Grant Agreement (dated July 22, 2011), as the binding document.

The PAD had a slightly different PDO statement.

3

The “CORAF MDTF Project” is being distinguished from the financing instrument, “MDTF,” which supports the project

3

agricultural research for development within West Percentage increase in adoption of technology innovations for and Central Africa, through agricultural production and processing (across the sub-region); the implementation of the (b) (Revised into 2 indicators, for technology and innovation5) Recipient’s Medium Term Operational Plan, with the Number of best practices and methodologies implemented in aim of contributing to knowledge management, advisory services, and integrated sustainable improvements in natural resource management (INRM) practices; (b) the productivity, competitiveness and markets Number of advocated policy options implemented by of the agricultural systems in stakeholders. (b) West and Central Africa.

Intermediate Outcome Intermediate Outcome Indicators Component 1. Research for Development Programs Generation and % of research projects successfully implemented under the dissemination of appropriate competitive grant scheme and commissioned research (b) technologies and innovations Effective knowledge management strategy developed, accepted as well as policy options in and implemented in cooperation with all CORAF/WECARD the proposed research partners, including the use of learning platforms/alliances (a) programs enhanced. % of identified capacity enhancement needs related to the implementation of IAR4D addressed (a) Component 2. CORAF/WECARD Management and Governance Research management of all CORAF constituents improved

% of NARS with demonstrated capacity and knowledge for research management (against the baseline) (a) % of activities are implemented according to CORAF annual work plans (on target, on budgets and on time) (a)

Strategic position of CORAF as a leader in IAR4D is strengthened in WCA

CORAF Secretariat and constituent NARS successfully implement change management process according to plan (a) Agricultural development strategies & programs of CORAF and NARS are reflecting CAADP pillar 4 framework and FAAP principles (a)

(a) Indicators later dropped in first restructuring. (b) Indicators later revised in first restructuring.

5

While “technology” mostly refers to agricultural technology, “innovation” is defined as the creation of value through solutions and processes that meet new needs or represent new value to agents in value chains by providing new ways of maximizing their current level of productivity, access to finance and markets, etc. (Midterm Review)

4

1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 10.

The original PDO was not revised; however, the key indicators were substantially modified in the first restructuring (discussed later). The justifications for modifying the RF were to de-emphasize the high-order objective; reformulate poorly defined outcome and intermediate indicators; introduce new indicators (including core Bank indicators for research and extension); incorporate a gender dimension; and make all key outcome and intermediate indictors more specific, measurable, attainable/attributable, realistic/reliable, and time-bound/timely (SMART). The modification of the RF was also needed to establish a baseline and targets for the M&E. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 11.

The primary target group, as captured by the PDO outcome indicator (Table 1 above), was that of the region’s crops and livestock/fisheries farmers, i.e. the endusers of the technologies and innovations generated by sub-projects. The implementers (NARS) were identified as the beneficiaries of the sub-projects in the PAD and the Grant Agreement. At the Midterm Review (MTR), the revised indicators used a different wording for beneficiaries, “clients,” in order to be consistent with the wording of indicators in the World Bank core indicators on agricultural research and extension. Direct beneficiaries are counted as members of innovation platforms (IP). The M&E manual, however, uses similar terms to define direct beneficiaries6 and clients7 and appears to use them interchangeably.

Primary beneficiaries8 are a subset of these two. The broader group of beneficiaries, if different from clients, was not defined. The IP was the forum promoted by the CORAF MDTF Project to bring together value chain participants around a key common issue that needed resolution.

12.

Important key stakeholders identified in the PAD included the region’s governments, the RECs, and FARA. CORAF had signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with the last two.

1.5 Original Components (as approved) 13.

The project financed two recipient executed (RE) components and one Bank executed (BE) component.

Direct beneficiaries “refer to members of innovation platform (IP), that is, all individuals who have been touched by the intervention of the CORAF MDTF project and have benefitted one way or the other. It refers to persons who directly benefit from the CORAF MDTF project activities, outputs and outcomes, such as training, technology demonstration and any form of assistance/benefit.”

7 “Client refers to all individuals and actors of the value chain. This indicator refers to all actors who have access to technology exchanges by the intervention of the CORAF MDTF project. It refers to persons who directly gain access to technology generated through the activities of IP. “ 8 “Primary beneficiaries may include producers, processors and all other actors of the selected value chan.”

6

5

Component 1. Research for Development Programs (RE) 14.

Component 1.1. Research sub-projects. This component aimed at developing and delivering technologies in eight major research programs and policy options that had been identified in the MTOP as priority for the sub-region. These priorities came from an analysis carried in 2006 by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), which CORAF had commissioned for that purpose. The eight research programs were: (i) Livestock, fisheries and aquaculture; (ii) Staple crops; (iii) Non-staple crops; (iv) Natural resource management; (v) Biotechnology and biosafety; (vi) Policy, markets, trade, institutions, socio-economic research; (vii) Knowledge management; and (viii) Capacity strengthening. Knowledge management and Capacity strengthening were new initiatives in the MTOP, introduced to underscore the importance of dissemination of technology and the capacity building of NARS to adopt an IAR4D paradigm. A Program management unit was also created for each of these eight programs.

15.

Research programs were to fund sub-projects that would be linked to the specific priorities within each program and approved for implementation. Funding for sub-projects was to be through a performance-based, best-practice designed Competitive Grant Scheme (CGS) and Commissioned Research Grant mechanism. Technical advisory groups, key to the selection, implementation, and monitoring of the sub-projects, included representatives from a wide range of stakeholders and were not restricted to researchers. In addition, sub-projects were to be identified for funding where at least three countries could contribute to the resolution of a problem common to three or more countries, even if the solution could be developed only in one-member country; and a sub-regional approach could demonstrate a comparative advantage in terms of economies of scale, benefits or response time.

16.

Component 1.2. Research Program Support. This component aimed at supporting the activities of the eight program managers, whose responsibilities included: (i) planning and priority setting; (ii) coordination and information sharing; (iii) management of sub-project grants, including monitoring and evaluation of sub-projects; and (iv) capacity development and technical assistance. While capacity strengthening was one of CORAF’s eight research programs and would therefore have its own set of activities financed through sub-projects, it was felt that there might also be a role for targeted short term technical assistance managed and financed by the Secretariat (funded through component 2), directed at specific needs by NARS, particularly as they related to development and implementation of sub-projects.

Component 2. CORAF/WECARD Governance, Administration, and Change Management (RE) 17.

Component 2.1. Governance and Administration. This component aimed at supporting the CORAF Secretariat to undertake its core functions: to strengthen the governance and administration of CORAF; and to improve the physical infrastructure of the headquarters (HQ) in Dakar. The strengthening was to include (i) the establishment of CORAF’s internal audit unit; (ii) a review and revision of the CORAF’s constitution, HQ

6

agreement, and governance manual; (iii) establishment of a human resource unit; and (iv) the strengthening of the information and communications units. Among others, this component was to fund the maintenance of the M&E system — although M&E activities were part of Component 1.2 (Research Program Support).

18.

Component 2.2. Change Management. This component aimed at supporting the completion of the then on-going (2009–2010) change management plan, which focused on the organisational and institutional changes required to strategically position CORAF as a regional leader in agricultural research for development. The change process was to establish governance and management mechanisms that would enhance CORAF’s ability to fulfil its mandate. Training and sensitization of CORAF’s constituents at the NARS level was to be provided. External experts were also to mentor and support the various units within CORAF to internalize the changes and enhance performance.

Component 3. Management, Administration and Supervision of the MDTF (BE) 19.

This Bank executed (BE) component was to finance the costs incurred by the World Bank (WB) in its management, administration, and supervision of the CORAF MDTF Project. The Trust Fund was established at, and managed by the World Bank. This management was to include technical supervision in partnership with CORAF. The management included also monitoring of progress and impact of the program, effectiveness and efficiency of resource use, and the proper management and use of funds — as agreed between the WB and CORAF, and between contributing development partners and the WB. 1.6 Revised Components 20.

The original components were not revised.

1.7 Other significant changes 21.

There were no changes in the scope and scale of the project, the basic implementation arrangements, and the total funding of the project.

22.

Critical changes, however, were made during implementation in two restructurings, including: (i) two extensions of the project closing for a 12-month (to September 30, 2016) and 3 months (to December 30, 2016), and two extensions of the final disbursement of funds for 3 months (to March 31, 2017) and additional 3 months to complete the ICR (to June 30, 2017) ; (ii) modification of the original Results Framework (original indicators were dropped or revised, and new ones were added); (iii) set up of a new baseline at 2013; and (iv) two re-allocations of funds, one in each restructuring.

7

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 23.

The vast expanse formed by 20 countries across WCA made coordination difficult. To put this vastness into perspective, CORAF covers twice as many countries9 as ASARECA (11)10, the second largest SRO. Adding to the coordination challenge was the unequal capacities (mostly weak, however) of research implementers across countries, as well as within countries (an inherent risk identified in the design). A complicating element was the very nature of agricultural research, which adheres to seasons and is easily disrupted by slip-ups. This coordination challenge led initially to delays of up to 18 months (from approval to first disbursement) to start projects.

24.

Outside CORAF’s control, conflict and political instability, which plagued several countries in the region, affected the project. Many locations, otherwise suitable for sub-projects, were put off-limits in the affected countries11. Workshops also had to be postponed when intermittent civil unrests flared up12.

25.

In addition, the Ebola outbreak (March 2014 - March 2016) disrupted travels, banned regional meetings, and even prevented countries to continue their participation in the implementation of sub-projects. It also delayed the 2014 start date of the newly recruited M&E specialist, hailing from a then-affected country.

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 26.

The CORAF MDTF Project was prepared in 2009. It was part of five such MDTFs set up to support agricultural research organizations and, as indicated earlier, finally put to practice the harmonization and coordination of donors’ interventions across the continent. These MDTFs included support for CORAF’s two sisters’ SROs (ASARECA and CARDESA), and the two continental apex organizations (FARA and AFAAS). No background analysis was commissioned for the CORAF MDTF Project, presumably because it was following in the footsteps of the already operational ASARECA’s and FARA’s 5-year MDTFs (2008–2013). The lifespans of the two latter MDTFs fit snuggly in their respective organizations’ 5-year MTOPs. The CORAF MDTF Project, however, was proposed for only four years13 and was to be approved for 2011– 2015.

9

FARA covers the entire continent, but it leans on the SROs and deals with differ-rent coordination issues.

Oddly, the Democratic Republic of Congo belongs to both CORAF and ASARECA. 11 Off-limits areas included the so-called “red zones”’ in northern Mali, northern Nigeria, northern Cameroon, and large pockets in the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

12 Civil unrest in Burkina Faso.

13 Although the PAD stated that “The MDTF will finance activities between 2010–2015” (p. 5), it also indicated that “The proceeds of the grant will be disbursed over a maximum of four-years” (p. 59).

10

8

27.

The design covered most requisites in the guidelines. It drew valuable lessons from CORAF’s own experience, competitive grant system (CGS) operations, and regional program implementation.

Lessons from the 2006 review of CORAF’s 1999–2014 Strategic Plan showed the importance of (a) coordination and harmonization, linkages between CAADP’s Pillar IV and the other pillars; (b) adoption of the FAAP to support NARS; (c) mobilization of local funding; and (d) expansion of partnership with the REC. (ii) Lessons learned from earlier WB’s and other operations’ CGS included the following: (a) award of research grants based on explicit criteria; (b) external review at least once in each sub-project’s lifecycle; (c) involvement of strong research institutions and universities; (d) effective linkages with international, regional, and national Centers of Excellence (CoEs); and (e) training of participants at all levels of the production chain. (iii) From regional program implementation, the design incorporated the following lessons: (a) the need for stakeholder consultation during design; (b) early development of implementation mechanisms and identification of the possible problems in the interface between national and regional arrangements; (c) comprehensive training plans and objectives to guide long-term training initiatives; (d) strong support from regional institutions; (e) appropriate allocation of resources for preparation and supervision due to the higher costs associated with regional programs; and (f) the need to include dissemination of technology. (i)

28.

As also required, major risks were clearly identified, broken down into two types: inherent risks at various levels, and control risks of various concerns14. Substantial inherent risks were found at the country level (corruption), entity level (weak capacity of CORAF to manage the Project), and project level (weak capacities of field implementers).

Substantial control risks were found in the accounting procedures, with a manual not yet including the new project, and unfamiliarity with Bank’s financial management (FM) and disbursement procedures; the competency of the external auditor (who was to be hired to mitigate the risk of corruption); the flow of funds, in which CORAF could comingle MDTF with other donors’ funds; and CORAF staff’s lack of knowledge in managing IDA funds.

Mitigation measures were offered, including hiring of a competent external auditor; capacity building at all required levels; accounting manual and software updates; and a dedicated account to avoid the comingling of funds. Overall, the risk rating was substantial, but the residual risk rating was moderate after mitigation measures would have been applied.

29.

In addition, the strengths and weaknesses of CORAF were assessed to suggest a detailed plan of action to deal with these weaknesses. Linkages with other projects, ongoing or in the pipeline were also recommended to enhance the project’s achievements.

This discussion is taken from the annexes of the “final” PAD (pp. 54-57). The main text, however, includes a summary risk table less developed and broken down by sectorial and operational risks (p. 19).

14

9

30.

The design also included the institutional arrangements needed to implement the MDTF Project. It directed the preparation/updating of CORAF Operational Procedures to guide overall implementation of the CORAF MDTF project-funded activities. Four manuals were to be completed: (i) CORAF Governance Manual; (ii) CORAF Financial and Administrative Procedures Manual; (iii) CORAF Programmes Implementation Manual; and (iv) CORAF Competitive Funds Management Manual. The Competitive Funds Management Manual was expected to include: (i) the Monitoring and Evaluation System; (ii) the responsibilities of the executing agencies and other partners in the implementation of the sub-projects; (iii) the criteria and procedures for sub-project approval; and (iv) model forms for sub-project agreements.

31.

For the design, however, the Results Framework (RF) clearly proved to be a chink in the armor. The RF saddled the project with a higher-level goal, spelling out five key indicators that could not be achieved in, or attributed to, a 4-year project. In addition, along with the high-level indicators, the outcome and intermediary indicators did not adhere to the principles of SMART indicators. Further, as the indicators were not SMART, a baseline at the start of the project proved difficult to set. Because of these shortcomings, an effective M&E could not be established at the start of the project. Only after the RF was reformulated, with modified and new SMART15 indicators, and a new baseline created, could an effective M&E system be established. A new M&E manual was produced (November 2014), nearly three years after project’s effectiveness. In short, the design had missed the important lesson of striving for SMART indicators and an efficient M&E system.

2.2 Implementation 32.

The Project was approved on July 22, 2011 and declared effective on September 16, 201116, with the original closing date set for September 30, 2015. The lesser amount finally granted (and lag between appraisal and approval) was due to protracted, but ultimately infructuous attempts to enlist more than the two donors that ultimately committed to the MDTF: the European Union and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The short duration of the project was unfortunate. The short lifespan gives little wiggle room to recoup from an early slip-up in the schedule that could miss the narrow window of the planting season in the Sahelian ecosystem.

33.

Four major determinants came to dominate and profoundly impact the implementation of the CORAF MDTF Project: (i) the establishment of the instrumental innovation platform (IP); (ii) the original flawed RF; (iii) the time-consuming competitive grant system process; and (iv) the irregular up-and-down flow of documents and funds.

15

However, direct beneficiaries and clients appear to be defined similarly in the M&E manual.

The CORAF MDTF Project received its first disbursement in December 2011, and thus basically started in 2012.

16

10

34.

One, the innovation platform (IP) came to be the face of the project for actors in the field. FARA has created the concept of IP to be the instrument of its new paradigm, the IAR4D. The IP is a Box 1: The innovation platform: a truly great process created to bring instrument for IAR4D together different value chain “The one common strength of all the (subprojects) is the actors for exchange and setting up of IP, true lever for development and the transfer of agricultural sustainability of (sub-projects) … Setting up IP to discuss technology and other with stakeholders before any decision is made contributed innovations. The project greatly to their full collaboration… It is clear that actors are operationalized this very pleased to take part in the platforms that have conceptual tool for effectively applied the IAR4D principles in all countries.” implementers in the field. It Excerpts from MDTF End of project evaluation reports. instructed that to be “The innovation platform is the setting par excellence for the functional, an IP must be promotion of functional partnership relationships between active: meet often (at least 3 research institutes and other actors of civil society… The IP times a year); keep records of is an instrument for strengthening partnership among value meetings; have a facilitator chain participants… The IPs constituted a real tool for (the sub-project coordinator); advocacy toward public authorities and donors for support and have evidence of of the dairy value chain.” information exchange among Excerpts from IPs’ participants compiled by M&E. actors. As it was realized that the establishment of IP could take some time, the project intended to encourage stronger IPs to strengthen weaker ones in other countries through exchange program17. The IP was the forum where priorities were identified, technologies/innovations tested, acquired and disseminated. The IP also facilitated data gathering, by providing the sampling frame of direct beneficiaries from whom the project could identify those that gained access, adopted technologies/innovations, and were satisfied or not — with a breakdown by gender. In sum, this clever idea provided a clear and unified process through which the project could focus implementation of field activities to fulfill its beneficiaries’ priorities expectations.

35.

Two, by contrast, the original Results Framework was a glaring shortcoming.

It was a major drag even before the project started, and it continued to stymie the project almost the rest of its lifespan. It was officially resolved just one month (August 2015) before the original closing date (September 2015), with the approved reformulated RF in the first restructuring.

36.

Three, the Competitive Grant System was designed to be objective and transparent, but the project did not fully account for the time required to complete its process. The April 17-19, 2013 aide-memoire noted that it took up to 18 months on average, from launch of the call for proposals to sub-project launch, including up to 3 months between evaluation and notification to the applicants. In fact, the process18 could

17

CORAF MDTF project M&E manual (November 11, 2014).

The process for each program included the following steps: (i) a multiple-country scoping study to identify priority themes (30-90 days); (ii) drafting and review of concept note to serve as call for proposals (30-60 18

11

take even longer because calls for proposals came after multi-country, months-long scoping studies. The fact that the Scientific and Technical Committees (STC) only meets once a year and CORAF’s Board of Directors (BD) only twice a year each at different times can further lengthen the process. Not surprisingly, no sub-project was started in 201119, just a few in 2012, and most in 2013. Given that sub-projects were planned for three years (actually, 4-5 years would have benefited many), the project’s lifespan of 4 years proved shortsighted.

37.

Four, the flow of funds lacked the support of a timely flow of acceptable technical and financial reports. The bottom-up flow of technical and financial documents (from sub-project to CORAF, CORAF to WB, and WB to donors) at times ground to a halt.

Sub-projects could not provide timely technical and financial reports for various reported reasons, including: poor guidance, weak capacities, overload from existing work, and inadequate motivation (lack of financial reward, i.e. mostly per-diem). While sub-projects were instructed to request funds on a quarterly basis, none did so, and some actually only got a total of two transfers20 over 3 years. The top-down flow of funds (from donors to WB, WB to CORAF, and CORAF to sub-projects) also stalled in 2015 and 2016 because of miscommunication21 between the WB and one donor. This in turn slowed down the flow of funds to CORAF. Also, CORAF’s large calls for funds under Component 2, which actually were mostly meant for technical support to sub-projects — now picking up steam — were viewed instead as unjustified requests for a bloated administration.

38.

The working of the last three factors (RF, CGS process, flow of funds) directly led to the two level 2 restructurings, although the CORAF MDTF project was never considered as a project at risk. Making the case for the first restructuring, the Midterm Review (Nov. 1–13, 2013) had reported important implementation delays directly attributed to all three factors. The second restructuring followed the May 2016 supervision mission, which reported a slowdown in implementation attributed to flow of funds issue affecting CORAF (discussed above).

days); (iii) preparation of proposals by applicants (30 days); (iv) technical review and revisions of submissions (30-60 days); (v) Bank’s non-objection for first batches (30-60 days) at 3 stages (draft calls, concept notes, full technical evaluation); (vi) approval by the BD (3-5 days); (vii) contract negotiations among implementers (30-90 days); (viii) signing of grant agreement and training at headquarters (7-15 days); (ix) setting innovation platform (30-60 days); and (x) planning workshop(s) in the field (10-30 days).

19 Eight sub-projects in the MTOP pipeline had been approved by CORAF in May 2011 (before approval and effectiveness of the MDTF) and were officially “launched” in October-November 2011 (before the first disbursement). These sub-projects were delayed for a year for lack of disbursed funds.

20 Not including sub-projects in non-performing countries where funds were purposefully scaled back.

21 The EU, in letter dated 24 March 2015, noted that the WB had provided a technical report covering September 2011–December 2012, but with a financial report covering March 2011–December 2014. The Bank’s request for funds subsequently suffered a 6-month delay. The EU also, in letter dated October 21, 2016, referring to lack of confirmation about commitment of previous funds, only released in December 2016 (MDTF’s closing month) funds requested in May 2016 (a delay over 6 months).

12

39.

The first restructuring was approved on August 25, 201522, toward the end of the original closing date. It introduced critical changes in the project implementation: (i) a 12-month extension of the closing date (from September 30, 2015 to September 30, 2016) was granted to carry out ongoing sub-projects that could not be completed by the original closing date; (ii) a complete reformulation of the Results Framework 23 was undertaken to redesign key SMART indicators, redraw a baseline keyed to 2013, and set up new targets; (iii) a reallocation of funds of US$ 2,034,095 from category 1 (sub-grants) to category 2 (Goods, Civil Works, Non-Consulting Services, Consulting Services, Training, Audit, Operating costs) for the following purpose: scale-up IPs; expand less represented countries and beneficiaries; and cover expenses related to technical support to project beneficiaries, training, governance and administrative costs. There was also a reallocation of funds among the sub-projects, where funds were reduced in non-performing parts of sub-projects to add to well-performing sub-projects in order to scale up their activities. (No sub-project was entirely scrapped, however.)

40.

The second restructuring, approved on July 21, 2016 24 , also introduced important changes: (i) a 3-month extension25 of the closing date from September 30, 2016 to December 31, 2016, to allow completion of a thorough and comprehensive beneficiary impact assessment across 20 countries26; (ii) a reallocation of US$804,585 from category 1 to category 2 to complete all remaining key activities related to the dissemination of high impact project results and unmet project targets; prepare an impact evaluation of the project; and complete all the required closing procedures.

41.

The project also witnessed changes in staffing during implementation. The eight program managers, in position from the start, were reduced to six (staple crops and non-staple crops programs were combined, along with policy/markets and capacity strengthening). The M&E specialist at the start of the project departed and was replaced in 2014. A Gender Advisor position was created and filled in July 2012. Other changes included the positions of Executive Director, Director of Programs, Program manager and Director of Administration and Finance. These four and the Gender Advisor were the only core positions that CORAF has retained when the project closed. With increasing uncertainty over funding beyond the project, exacerbated by the late approvals of

22

Over 4 months elapsed between the MTR (November 13, 2013) and the restructuring paper (March 14, 2014); over 10 months between the later and CORAF’s request for reallocation (January 20. 2015); and over 7 months between that request and Bank’s approval (August 25, 2015) — for a total of over 21 months, almost two years from when the need for restructuring was identified (MTR) and its approval. The long delay was due in part to the difficulty in establishing new SMART indicators agreeable to donors, Bank, CORAF, and NARS. Even parties outside the MDTF (e.g., USAID) were consulted in the process.

23 The formulation of the PDO was slightly changed, with the core being To support IAR4D within W CA. The references to “aim” and “MTOP” were given for context in follow-up sentences.

24 Here, only one month elapsed between CORAF’s request (June 17, 2016) for the reallocation of funds and Bank’s approval (July 21, 2016), and only two months from identification of the issue (May 2016 supervision mission) to its resolution.

25 The MTR lost the case for a 18-month extension in the first restructuring.

26 The 20-country beneficiary impact assessment was not undertaken, however.

13

extensions, program managers were either let go, or left on their own, for opportunities elsewhere before project closing. (The M&E Specialist departed in late April 2017.)

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 42.

The M&E system was designed to manage three complementary functions: (a) planning, monitoring and evaluation of project activities, (b) measuring projects/programs performance, and (c) assessing impact. The system was meant for to (i) collect appropriate data on the activities of the projects and programs; (ii) generate information on the achievement of anticipated results to keep stakeholders timely informed (ambitiously, in real time); and (iii) conduct periodic assessments to measure the achievement of impacts on target groups. The Management Information System (MIS) within the M&E system would share information generated (starting at the sub-project level), with stakeholders, partners and beneficiaries — through coordination meetings, assessment meetings, exchanging experiences, quarterly reports, the web site, an electronic bulletin, and project M&E database. The M&E system was to be the responsibility of CORAF’s established Planning and Impact Orientation Unit (under Component 1.2) which was charged with M&E of the eight CORAF programs and core functions in its operational plan. Funds to support the M&E, however, were to come from Component 2.1. (Governance and Administration). The project-supported M&E was to contribute to CORAF’s overall M&E. 43.

Establishing an effective M&E system was a major challenge for the CORAF MDTF Project. The key issue reported in the MTR was the poor quality of the original indicators, as discussed earlier. The indicators had to be reformulated before a baseline27 could finally be established at 2013 (not, ideally, before or at the start of the project). The delay in establishing the baseline led to the delay in completing the restructuring paper (March 2014) and the 8-month lag between CORAF’s request and Bank’s approval of the reformulated RF. The project, however, did not wait for the officially approved new RF (August 2015) before implementing the recommendations of the restructuring paper (March 2014) and developing a new M&E manual (November 2014). The indicators in the manual did not exactly follow the order in the approved RF, but their reporting subsequently did.

44.

The project was severely tested in the implementation of the M&E system. The first year of operation (2012) provided no field activities to monitor and no sub-projects’ outputs to measure. This was because all 8 initial sub-projects approved by CORAF (May 2011) before approval of the project and officially “launched” (October-November 2011) before project’s first installment (December 2011), had been delayed for a whole year. The implementation of the M&E was initiated with the arrival of a newly recruited M&E manager and the development of the M&E manual (late 2014). The full implementation started in earnest in 2015 28 , with a training related to the new indicators organized in

27

The design originally suggested a baseline made of secondary data culled from various published reports.

28 In previous years, the project was reporting the outputs of the first few sub-projects that had been in operation long enough to produce results.

14

Abidjan (March 2015) and follow-up training sessions organized in the countries, but covering only 9 of the 17 sub-projects. The 10 other sub-projects had to do with a shorter time to implement the M&E before the project closed.

45.

In spite of these challenges, the M&E system has delivered solid results.

Highlights and detailed results of research projects were documented in the semi-annual reports, timely submitted to the WB. Success stories were also highlighted as soon as they took shape. Final reports of all 17-research projects were published. A fact sheets series29 showcased the key results of sub-projects. The M&E has also compiled a comprehensive list of the project’s outputs and a summary of the challenges, recommendations, and lessons learned from the point of view of the projects’ implementers. The M&E system has developed performance monitoring plan (PMP) that have contributed to projects meeting performance targets within implementation period. At the level of the IP, the regular meetings helped disseminate key results and technologies of the project. With the communications unit, a high-level event was organized for the EU Ambassador to visit projects’ sites and assess first-hand the impact of research projects on beneficiaries’ income and wellbeing. Several documentary videos were produced and posted on YouTube, all of which provided great visibility to the donors (EU and CIDA) supporting the project.

CORAF has also developed an online information management platform through the collaborative in-house work of the M&E, and Information and Communications unit. It was designed to be a repository of all CORAF/WECARD documents and to represent the first phase of the development of an integrated Information Management System. This remains, however, a work in progress30.

46.

Monitoring of gender mainstreaming was also improved. Gender mainstreaming efforts were implemented along with the restructuring. The 2013 baseline had revealed women’s low participation in, and access to, technology and innovation. Bold targets, well above the baseline, were set to push implementers to document their efforts in improving this situation. CIDA provided a gender expert to assist the project Gender Advisor in this implementation.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 47.

Social and Environmental Safeguards. The environmental category of the Trust Fund is B and the safeguard-screening category is S2. Implementation of environmental and social safeguard measures is rated “moderately satisfactory” (MS). At preparation of all the sub-projects, CORAF made significant efforts upstream to conduct the required environmental and social safeguards due diligence in compliance with its Environmental and Social Safeguards Management Framework (ESMF) endorsed by the World Bank.

However, monitoring of, and reporting on safeguards implementation has been inconsistent following the departure of the safeguards focal staff in 2016. In the absence of a dedicated

29

Although quite informative, the Facts Sheets, inexplicably, had 3 documents for the same PADEC-ETA sub-project, and 4 for the same SIARP-ESEA one. Also, the Ralstonia sub-project had the Aflatoxin subproject’s background.

30 As of April 28, 2017, the website is a shell that does not include the MDTF.

15

Safeguards Specialist, CORAF was advised to identify a staff to coordinate the monitoring of and reporting on the institution’s safeguards compliance. Per previous recommendations from the Bank, CORAF was advised to carry out the following: (i) remind project coordinators to systematically request project implementers to report on safeguards; (ii) systematically include safeguards reporting in the annual report; (iii) prepare a safeguards implementation report by program; and (iv) file all safeguards reports in the internal official filing system.

48.

Financial Management (FM) and Procurement. The overall assessment of both FM and procurement was rated “satisfactory” and the fiduciary risk of the project was considered “modest.” Overall, the financial arrangements remained adequate during the last years of implementation of the CORAF MDTF project. The overall financial performance of the project was considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons: (a) the project's general accounting was made up to date through the TOM2PRO software; (b) CORAF developed a manual of administrative, accounting and financial procedures, which was used for all projects, and was cleaned following the recent organizational audit; (c) the project financial monitoring reports have always been prepared on a quarterly basis and sent to the World Bank within the 45 days deadline by end of each quarter; and (d) the audit of the financial statements for the last few years has always been certified by Mazars Senegal firm and sent on time to the World Bank before 30 June of each year. Regarding governance and anti-corruption, the various implementation supports missions have examined them since the effectiveness of the project. They have not identified, or been formally informed about any fraud or corruption acts.

49.

Considering the conduct of the procurement, the project procurement plan has been updated and approved regularly by WB. Its implementation was improved over the years, and done without major problems. The organization of the procurement agreed with WB has been maintained. The procurement specialist has attended several procurement training workshops and participated in clinics organized by the procurement team of the WB's office in Dakar. He supported CORAF staff and organized workshops for implementing agencies in the countries covered by the project. Procurement performance at the CORAF Secretariat has progressively improved thanks in part to a knowledgeable and well trained procurement specialist. WB carried out the ex-post procurement review under FY16. Overall, procurement at the project level has been satisfactory.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 50.

Donors have not yet committed to a second phase CORAF/WECARD MultiDonor Trust Fund (MDTF). However, they have been impressed with the positive results the project has achieved through the IAR4D approach. Because of these achievements, some donors appear to be willing to envision some support to CORAF for a while longer.

In return, however, they would like some form of “exit strategy” from CORAF/WECARD (henceforth CORAF) and, most importantly, more ownership and buy-in from African governments in their development assistance. As tenuous as it is, this willingness can form the basis for a post-completion/next phase of the CORAF MDTF Project.

16

51.

Moving forward, CORAF needs strong commitment from, and unambiguous accountability to, the Governments and Regional Economic Communities (REC) of its space. Realistically, CORAF cannot be weaned off donor support in the immediate future - if ever, entirely. However, it can be made part of a healthier relationship with donors and governments/RECs. The relationship spawned by the MDTF-like support is unwholesome: It involves funding from donors to CORAF, and accountability from CORAF to donors, completely bypassing national governments and RECs — yet CORAF’s primary stakeholders. This relationship would be much healthier if it involved funding from donors to RECs, and from RECs to CORAF (even if in principle only) and, in return, accountability from CORAF to RECs, and from RECs to donors. This would be similar to the relationship intended and negotiated in the initial, 3-country West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP).

52.

During the intensive negotiations of the first phase of the initial WAAPP, the three pioneering countries summoned CORAF to discuss their contributions to the association and its regional coordination role under the program. The Bank team was excluded from the closed-doors, half an hour-long tense tête-à-tête. The three ministers of agriculture forcefully made CORAF understand that their Governments were accountable to their people and the Bank for the WAAPP’s loans; that their ministries were accountable to their parliaments and governments for accepting to provide WAAPP’s funds to CORAF; and that they needed, therefore, to make CORAF unequivocally accountable to them for the funds it was to receive. It was agreed with all negotiating parties that CORAF would provide to the countries periodic, verifiable financial and technical accounts of its uses of the countries’ contributions. As such, although clearly CORAF was ultimately dependent upon the Bank for the contributions received under the WAAPP, it was not being held accountable to the Bank, but rather directly to the countries that the Bank was supporting.

A similar construct may be replicated at a higher level and on a larger scale, involving multiple willing donors, the RECs, and CORAF. 53.

A CORAF multi-donor/REC matching grant (trust fund) is the model envisioned31. Such a matching grant would help establish: (i) a more stable funding for CORAF; (ii) a clearer budget line for CORAF to abide by, avoiding the over-budgeting it has been prone to; and (iii) a more wholesome relationship between donors, RECs, and CORAF. Following this proposition, donors would accept to match at a given ratio the four RECs’ commitment to fund CORAF’s 5-year Medium Term Operational Plans (MTOP) — provided the RECs’ funding reaches a threshold32. For example, for every US$1 million committed by the 4 RECs over five years, donors would contribute US$10 million33 over the same period (a 1:10 ratio). Both matching ratio and minimum commitment would be subject to negotiation, but RECs’ minimum commitment should be meaningful, i.e. as much as possible, commensurate both with the African countries’ long-standing pledge to boost funding for agricultural research, and with the need to adequately support CORAF’s

31

The model could be scaled down at the level of a national government and its national research institutes, or scale up at the continental level to involve NEPAD supporting FARA and AFAAS. 32 The 4 RECs would share this global commitment according to their own distribution criteria.

33 To put this into perspective, the funding of the five-year MDTF was US$21.83 million.

17

core functions. Through this mechanism, CORAF’s budget would be made more stable because the funding would be keyed to its 5-year MTOP. In addition, CORAF’s budget line would be clearly determined — and this, as soon as donors and the RECs reach an agreement on the matching ratio and RECs’ minimum commitment. Finally, a healthier relationship would be established: CORAF would be made accountable to its RECs (not donors), and the RECs made accountable to the donors, their development partners in the other CAADP’s pillars, in a more comprehensive manner than at present. CORAF would be made to lobby RECs (and governments) to push them to formally commit their support to agricultural research in an approved budget line item. Arguably, the RECs (sovereign entities) would be in a better position to negotiate with donors (counterpart sovereign entities or their representatives) for support to the region’s development agenda, than CORAF (an association without formal direct government oversight) would be, when facing foreign public officials who are not its scientific counterparts after all.

54.

To allay concerns that the RECs could divert donors’ funding intended for CORAF, this funding would be made to flow directly from donors into CORAF’s account34, once RECs’ contributions have been made to CORAF. The RECs would release their contributions to CORAF based on CORAF’s timely and verifiable financial and technical reports. To mitigate possible funding delays similar to those experienced by the MDTF, CORAF would be allowed to initiate every quarter a funding request for one full semester, i.e. with always a cushion of 90-day fund coverage in hand. Eventual funding delays could stem from: (i) non-harmonized budgetary procedures used by four different RECs (and 22 countries); and (ii) eventual slip-ups in donors’ turnaround from request to release of funds (e.g., the European Commission requires a 90-day turnaround).

55.

This proposition, however, is predicated upon CORAF’s change of status.

According to its statutes (June 12, 2008), CORAF is an international association made of funding members 35 and adhering members. However, CORAF is still officially recognized only as an NGO in its HQ agreement. The four RECs are just adhering members, who also include the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGO), producer organizations, etc. Of particular interest are two other features of CORAF’s statutes: its governance structure and its sources of revenue. (i)

CORAF’s supreme governing body is the General Assembly (GA), whose composition mostly mirrors the association’s membership. The GA has an ephemeral president, chosen among founding members just for the on-going session. Representatives of RECs and governments are given no apparent particular prerogative. Actually, the last time CORAF sought an endorsement and oversight from national governments was in 1996, when were convened a Conference of Ministers of Research of West and Central Africa, and a

34

CORAF could receive additional donor support and revenue from goods and services, but these additional revenues should not so large that they could divert its attention away from its MTOP. CORAF should pursue a deliberate growth strategy, so to avoid a boom and dust cycle. Under the MDTF, CORAF’s payroll ballooned about 9 times from 2011 to 2014 (End of project evaluation report, Component 2).

35 The founding members are the National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARI).

18

(ii)

Conference of Ministers of Agriculture 36 of the same region. Thus, by its current governance structure, CORAF is directly accountable to its members and only indirectly to governments — and this only through its founding members (publicly-funded NARIs).

CORAF’s revenues are dependent upon dues and voluntary contributions of its founding and adhering members; subsidies; revenues from goods and services; and other activities as allowed by the GA. The chronically ill-funded founding members (NARIs) and mostly poorly endowed adhering members only intermittently pay their dues37 — which would be still modest even if paid in full. CORAF has no claim to statutory funding from governments/RECs. Furthermore, CORAF’s GA and BD lack the political clout to lobby governments/RECs to modify budget line items in its favor. Thus, CORAF’s only remaining avenue is to lobby donors for funds and, when successful, to be in return accountable to these benefactors — not really directly to its members, let alone governments/RECs.

56.

CORAF is unlike the two well-known inter-governmental organizations that have been operating in overlapping areas in its space38 (even before it was created, in 1987). AfricaRice, created in 197139, is governed by a Council of Ministers, headed by a minister. The Inter-State Committee to Combat Drought in the Sahel (CILSS), created in 1973, is governed by the Council of Heads of States, chaired by a head of state. These two organizations are directly accountable to governments, but they are also entitled to financial support from these governments40. Furthermore, leaders of these organizations can count on the political support of their governing bodies to lobby governments to introduce, or modify budget line items in their favor. This does not prevent both organizations from successfully lobbying donors for additional funding, however.

57.

Clearly, CORAF’s status has to change for the suggested proposition to work.

CORAF has given itself a meaningful mandate: To implement agricultural research and development policies of member countries at the regional level; and a highly relevant overall objective: To put farmers and other users of research results at the center of IAR4D, rather than researchers themselves as in the past. Its status of association made of founding and adhering members, free from direct government oversight, appeared to fit well these

36

The CMA-AOC organization, referred to later, used this meeting as launchpad.

The GA, under recommendation from the Board of Directors, can expel members who fail to pay their dues, but this has not happened — not to any NARI, anyway.

38 The Conference of Ministers of Agriculture of West and Central Africa (CMA-AOC) organization shares both CORAF’s HQ building and regional coverage, but otherwise little with CORAF to emulate. It is only nominally an inter-governmental organization: It has no government support (except its HQ building and agreement from the host country), no statutes, and no real governance. Against all odds, its first and only director has managed to remain in total control for two decades. In spite of all this, surprisingly, CMA-AOC has received much support from donors (including the WB) over the years. It is now moribund.

39 Created in 1971, the 11-country West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) became Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice) in 2009, and now covers 26 countries in West, North, East and Central Africa. It is a member of the CGIAR system and, as such, it also has a Board of Trustees at the technical level.

40 AfricaRice reportedly still had to fight hard to have countries pay dues decades long in arrears.

37

19

callings, but only with almost complete dependence on donors. Now CORAF is asked for an “exit strategy” from donor support, i.e. more government support. At present, however, CORAF’s status would be akin to asking (i) that national governments/RECs delegate their oversight on regional IAR4D policy, not only to public NARIs, but also to NGOs, the private sector, producer organizations, etc.; and (ii) that these governments/RECs also strongly commit statutory budget line items to CORAF. It is a hard sell. While still keeping its mandate and pursuing its overall objective, CORAF have to modify significantly its statutes to seek more direct government oversight, in return for more support from government/RECs — now that donor support is clearly on the wane.

58.

The options that most readily come to mind would include CORAF becoming: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

An inter-governmental organization, like AfricaRice (likely without CGIAR membership — otherwise, why not also other regional or continental agricultural research organizations?); A specialized technical agency attached to, and financed by, the four RECs — of course with consent from the 22 national governments. (CILSS is a “technical instrument” for ECOWAS and UEMOA, but it is called only upon to execute specific projects and activities for these RECs); or Some combination of the two above, for example: an inter-governmental organization for its 22 countries and a financially supported specialized technical agency of the 4 RECs, i.e. with 4 RECs and 22 governments to lobby persistently.

59.

As CORAF restructures itself, it should also look at ways to cutting costs in running its operations and governance bodies. With a likely leaner budget due to reduced donor support, the share of these administrative costs would likely rise and negatively impact CORAF’s overall performance, if they are not reined in.

3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation Rated: Moderately satisfactory 60.

At its core, the PDO remains highly relevant to the sub-region, NEPAD, and Bank’s assistance, i.e. “To support IAR4D in WCA”. It was this continued high relevance to the region and global priorities that led to the first restructuring being approved at level 2, rather than the initial MTR’s recommendation to also restructure the PDO. The relevance of the PDO is rated Satisfactory or Substantial.

61.

The relevance of the design is rated Moderately Satisfactory because it remains relevant, but only with a much improved Results Framework. The design had failed to incorporate the important lesson of developing SMART indicators as the basis for an efficient M&E system. This development was pursued during implementation, albeit too slowly. The relevance of the design comes from the other elements the project handled much better: incorporating (other) valuable lessons, identifying and providing mitigation

20

measures for inherent and control risks; identifying strengths/weaknesses and drawing an action plan to strengthen the entity; and suggesting the institutional arrangements for managing the competitive grant system.

62.

The relevance of the CORAF MDTF Project implementation is rated Moderately Satisfactory based on the following observations: 

The Project implemented relevant activities that, were consistent with CORAF’s Strategic Plan and MTOP. It carried out all approved 17 sub-projects designed to address various thematic challenges of agricultural productivity and food security, and climate change and adaptation. The sub-projects’ objectives were found to be relevant or highly relevant (end-of-project evaluation report), their results contributed to the attainment of the project targets, and have generated improved, high impact technologies and innovations that are yielding tangible results, with the potential for a significant impact on the region’s agricultural productivity, food security, and poverty reduction.



The Project also strengthened considerably the capacities of the NARS (implementers of sub-projects), in spite of some difficulties (end of project evaluation reports). By the end of the project, NARS had been trained in project preparation, financial management, Bank procedures, M&E, gender mainstreaming, and equally importantly, the set up and operation of functional innovation platforms.



The CORAF MDTF Project and the WAAPP complemented effectively each other, as their designs called for. The MTDF support to strengthen CORAF — its M&E system, gender mainstreaming, and financial management — was key to ensuring CORAF’s quality coordination of WAAPP activities at the regional level.

The same Bank team supervised both projects, carrying out joint implementation missions with participation of both projects, and ensuring that best practices were shared among the two projects’ stakeholders. WAAPP countries befitted from, and helped scale up the IP and innovations developed by the CORAF MDTF Project.

For instance, members of WAAPP–Cote d’Ivoire (8), WAAPP-Mali (10), WAAPP–Ghana (6), WAAPP-Nigeria (20), WAAPP–Niger (10) were on study visit to the integrated aquaculture CORAF MDTF sub-project site in Nigeria.

63.

In many areas, however, the implementation of the CORAF MDTF Project had major shortcomings, including, among others: late development and training of the M&E system; failures in communications with sub-projects regarding contracts, reporting of technical and financial documents, and Bank procedures; and most importantly, delayed funding of sub-projects, which otherwise would have had even more impressive results.

21

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives Rated: Satisfactory 63.

The achievement of the PDO is rated Satisfactory. The CORAF MDTF project exceeded its targets for all five PDO outcome indicators. Agricultural technologies and other innovations generated by the project have been made accessible to clients at a level largely above target (115%). Clients, in turn, have eagerly adopted these technologies (104% over target) and innovations (116% over target). The level of satisfaction of targeted clients has also been satisfactory (104% over target). Finally, the establishment of innovation platforms has attracted and retained direct beneficiaries, whose number reached over 100,000 at the end of the project, 123% over target.

64.

Gender mainstreaming is perhaps the most important achievement of the project, and is rated Highly Satisfactory. Figure 1 shows how women’s lot has dramatically improved at the end of the project compared to the 2013 baseline and assigned target — in the continual quest for a more balanced women’s participation and access to productive assets in Women's access and adoption of ressearch results (%) development.

In particular, their gains 50% in the adoption of technologies and 25% innovations have been impressive, with 0% Technology Innovation Access to Direcct women getting closer adopters adopters tech/innovati beneficiaries to parity with men in on Baseline 15% 21% 23% 17% these areas (42% and Target 27% 40% 26% 27% 46%).

End of project

42%

46%

38%

44%

Figure 1 Gender Mainstreaming in CORAF MDTF Project 65.

In fact, women were mostly the reason why the project exceeded its targets for its outcome indicators41. This can be apprehended by comparing the achievements of men and women over their respective targets, or by calculating the marginal contributions of men and women to the project’s overall relative achievement. To illustrate the first measure, the total number of direct beneficiaries reached at the end of the project was 100,240, against a target of 82,000. However, the resulting 123% achievement over target was entirely due to the swelled number of women involved in the IP. Women have nearly doubled their participation relative to their target (44,293 over 22,283, or 199%). By comparison, the number of men reached (55,947) was slightly below target (59,347, or 94%). This pattern is repeated for the other indicators, except for the indicator for the adoption of innovations (116% over target). Here, the achievements of both men and women were above their respective targets, but women’s achievement was still larger (165%) compared to men’s (103%).

41

Gender breakdown of indicator 4 (satisfaction of targeted clients) was not estimated.

22

66.

The marginal contributions of men and women are shown in Table 2. This measure is intuitive and straightforward, as it indicates that the sum of men’s and women’s marginal contributions make up the total relative change in the project’s achievement.

Table 2 drives the point home that the project owes the achievement of its PDO outcomes to women. Somewhat unexpectedly, the larger women’s contribution was needed to compensate for the less than stellar men’s contribution. Looking again at the direct beneficiaries, the rate of increase of 23% in their total number over the target is due to a 27% rate of increase in women’s number compensating for a 4% negative rate of change in men’s number. The takeaway from Table 2 is that the project gender mainstreaming was highly satisfactory — most likely thanks in large part to the establishment of IPs. Table 2. Marginal contributions of men and women to achievement of outcome targets Outcome indicators Men’s Women’s Total increase contribution contribution over target Technology adoption -13% 17% 4% Innovation adoption 2% 14% 16% Access to technology/innovation -3% 18% 15% Direct beneficiaries -4% 27% 23% Source: Calculated from M&E data 67.

Most intermediate indicators have met or largely exceeded their targets. The achievement of the intermediate indicators is rated Satisfactory. The most critical indicator, number of sub-projects, has remarkably met its target (17) in the face of delays, shortfalls in disbursement, and collaboration made difficult by political strife, and a lifethreatening epidemic. The achievement in the other indicators of component 1 has been outstanding 42 (see Annex 2.1). The project exceeded its target for the number of technologies/innovations for which information is available (113) by 177%; exceeded by 193% the number of technologies/innovations disseminated (170); exceeded by 237% the number of technologies/innovations demonstrated (225); exceeded by 211% the total number of women participating in IP (15,91143). In addition, 235 individuals benefitted from long-term training (BSc, MSc and PhD students), out of a target of 152; and 55,422 individuals benefitted from short-term capacity strengthening initiatives out of a target of 15,450, 359% over target. In short-term training, women have caught up with men in absolute terms (28,528 women for 26,528 men), as they provided the majority (51.47%) of participants in project short-term training programs. Here, the marginal contribution of women is 153% and that of men 106%, for the total rate of increase of 259%. (Much easier

42

Yet, the Project was thought to be overoptimistic when it set these targets very high above the baseline (Annex 2.1).

43

Direct beneficiaries include regular IP participants (attendees) and other actors who visit intermittently the IP for the purpose of acquiring technologies/innovations they learned about from (disseminated by) regular IP participants.

23

to grasp, the normalized scores, with 259% taken to be 1, is 0.41 for men and 0.59 for women.)

68.

The intermediate indicators had only two weak areas. However, even the collaboration between stronger and weaker IPs reaching 91% of its target is satisfactory, weaker IP have mostly been in the countries most affected by Ebola, which had made collaborating with them a challenge for a long while. The only true blemish is the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) certification, which has yet to be completed — if it ever will be, in the immediate future. In retrospect, pursuing the ISO certification, introduced after the MTR, might have been premature. This is because the ISO certification suggests that the certified institution is stable, both in its finances and its core staffing. Unfortunately, CORAF has yet to reach any level of stability in these areas in a sustainable way.

69.

A strong focus of the project supervision on results delivery and an improved M&E system were key to overachieving the targets of the PDO and intermediate indicators set up at mid-term. After the mid-term review, CORAF and the Bank team put more emphasis on ensuring that the sub-projects will deliver tangible results. Similar to the one used in the WAAPP after its mid-term review, a sound strategy was put in place, including: (i) a peer review-like mechanism, with the participation of sub-project coordinators twice a year to a meeting at CORAF to present their results and learn from each other; (ii) a more systematic technical support of CORAF program managers to the sub-projects, through more frequent field visits; and (iii) M&E training and more emphasis on data collection.

70.

The linkages between the components’ outputs (Annex 2.2) and the PDO outcomes are clearly established. The outputs of the sub-projects are the generated technologies and innovations that have been made accessible to, and being adopted by, the number of clients measured in the outcome indicators. Clearly, without the creation and operationalization of the innovation platforms (130), the project could not have attracted and easily measured the number of direct beneficiaries participating, accessing, and adopting technologies and innovations.

71.

The creation of the innovation platforms is, by itself, a success story. It was a novelty in the region. The IP has facilitated the selection of priorities relevant to beneficiaries (and not just to researchers), the exchange and dissemination of the technologies/innovations demanded by beneficiaries, and the positive spillover effects to other actors. The innovation platform was the most popular topic in the feedback given by implementers, as compiled by the M&E system. Nearly all agreed on its positive impact.

Some viewed the IP as a way to empower value chain participants and reduce state’s intervention, while others saw it as a conduit for public agencies and NGO to better target value chain participants for the delivery of extension services. Most importantly, the IP is enduring, as members can continue building on it. It is also replicable; as other projects can emulate the CORAF MDTF project to establish IP in their project areas. Its promotion throughout the region will contribute to further strengthen the NARS, as these become more relevant and responsive to clients.

24

72.

The project has also generated other success stories with enduring impact: 

The project contributed to saving 350,000 infant lives by strengthening the capacity of a local food processor to deliver foodstuffs to feed infants (see box 2).



Improving the capacity of the sub-regional genetic and molecular biology laboratory in Burkina Faso, as part of the Introgression sub-project, has resulted in the establishment of a gene bank for the West African region. The laboratory was instrumental in facilitating animal genetic characterization at a much lower cost than it would have been otherwise possible.

Box 2: Leveraging MDTF’s assistance to save 350,000 infant lives CTRAPA is a food processing enterprise in Burkina Faso, striving to comply with exacting food quality standards, as it tries at the same time to upgrade and expand its operations to compete effectively. He has applied for assistance to the PADEC-ETA project, which supports processors of local food products. Thanks to the project’s assistance, it won a highly competitive bid of over 50 million FCFA to supply OXFAM with 56 tons of food products. The delivery of the products, on time, on budget, and with the required sanitary and quality standards, saved the lives of 350,000 infants, who were at high risk of imminent starvation in northern Burkina Faso.



The short-term and long-term is also considered a success story. As discussed earlier, 55,450 participated in short-term training and 235 in long term training.



Also discussed earlier, is the successful project gender mainstreaming effort in areas such access to, and adoption of technologies/innovations, and strengthening women’s capacities through training.



The Traditional African Vegetables (TAV) sub-project helped vegetable farmers earn as much revenue as average civil servants in Box 3: Vegetable farmers made as well-to-do as civil Cameroon, and pregnant servants by the CORAF MDTF Project women avoid anemia by Mr. and Mrs. Taku Abun, in Ekona, Cameroon, own a consuming nutritious leafy field of about ¼ ha of 50 plots (15 m2 each) of African vegetables.

Nightshade, the Bafoussam, variety introduced from



The most compelling success story, perhaps, is the story of Birame Fall (see box 4), a story which attracted the attention of the EU Ambassador. The combination of artificial insemination on cow natural heat and appropriate supplemental

Worldveg by the Traditional African Vegetables (TAV) sub-project. “We harvest the field twice a week for 4 months,” says Mrs. Abun. And she adds: “Each plot produces an average of 10 bundles per harvest, which sells for at least 100 CFAF” she adds. This translates into an operation of 32 harvests in 4 months for the family, earning them a net income of FCFA 1,600,000 (~USD 2,666) for the four months. This is equivalent to FCFA 400,000 /month (~USD 666), more than the monthly salary of a regular civil servant in Cameroon.

25

feed using local Box 4: An emigrant returns home to find ingredients has been a riches thanks to the CORAF MDTF Project proven winner. The Birame Fall was a struggling emigrant in Italy, now innovative package transformed into a prosperous livestock producer back leads to more calving home. “Emigration is not always the solution,” he says, and increased unit milk from his dairy farm near Kaolack, Senegal. “Returning production and, with home was synonym of progress for me,” he adds. Using adequate attention to the innovative package developed by the hygiene, quickly boosts AMPROLAIT project (artificial insemination on revenue of the dairy natural cow heat, supplemental feed made from local operation. The appeal ingredients, hygiene and quality control), he has found of this package is that it dairy production to be very profitable. He produces is both easy to master 600-700 liters of milk daily for sale at 500-600 FCFA per liter. If it happens he cannot sell all his production (identifying cow one day, he just gives the rest as alms to the poor in the natural heat) and easy village. He is quite happy with his lot. to access (supplemental https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcLjte5Nfnk feed with local ingredients).

Universities, researchers, extension services, who are all taken with this innovation, are most likely to continue working on it to improve it and provide assistance to producers.

3.3 Efficiency Rating: Substantial 73.

Although a comprehensive ex-post economic and financial analysis (EFA) was not conducted for the whole project, its economic returns and efficiency were thoroughly assessed through (i) a review of EFA of similar research and dissemination programs in the region; (ii) the estimation of economic returns of some key CORAF MDTF funded sub-projects covering several countries; and (iii) the impacts study from similar WAAPP sub-projects, targeting the same values chains and intervention areas, and working closely with the project. Given the similarity of such research and dissemination programs, technologies/innovations generated and disseminated, targeted values chains, geographic zones, and partnerships, it may be assumed that similar evidences on economic returns and impacts could applied for the entire CORAF MDTF Project.

74.

Numerous analyses have documented large, positive economic benefits of research and extension investments in Africa. In recently published estimates for subSaharan Africa (Fugile and Rada, 2013), the internal rates of return (IRR) range from 17% to 43%, and the discounted benefit-cost ratios from 1.6 to 4.4, from small (economy) size to large (economy) size countries. It has been showed that investments yielding regional benefits in African agriculture delivered as much as three to four times the gain over and above the direct benefits in the country of origin. Similar rates are likely to be achieved from the CORAF MDTF-funded efforts, especially given that the project only financed regional sub-projects involving 3 or more countries.

26

75.

Furthermore, economic analysis has been done for some CORAF MDTF subprojects. For instance, a sound economic analysis was done with economic returns estimated for the integrated aquaculture sub-project titled “Sustainable Integrated pond based aquaculture with rice and poultry production” and covering Nigeria, Benin, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Production, economic and profitability analyses of the integrated fish, rice, poultry farming system in sub-project areas showed that the fish production capacity of farmers running integrated fish farming have increased by 40%, to an average fish production capacity of 5 tons per acre. Over 60% of farmers trained in the improved practice developed by the sub-project recorded over 50% increase in profitability level on adoption of integrated fish farming system. A production cycle (4 months) for a full integrated poultry, fish and rice system cost on average US$18,400 per acre of land (4,000m2) and returned a total revenue of US$29,950, for a benefit cost ratio of 1.6 on average. Sensitivity analysis showed that 5%, 10% and 15% increases in the cost of fish feed led to reduction in net income by 6%, 8% and 10%. This suggested that bringing down the cost of the feed and getting a good value for the product would help farmers maximize more their profits.

76.

The WAAPP impact analyses may also provide valuable insights to support the CORAF MDTF Project’s efficiency claims as the two projects supported similar value chains. As noted earlier, the CORAF MDTF Project has worked closely with the WAAPP, which CORAF has been coordinating since 2007 at the sub-regional level. In many instances, WAAPP funding served to scale up the adoption of the technologies released under the CORAF MTDF Project. In Nigeria, where the two projects worked very closely, the highly significant difference in the gross margin of rice production (89,897 Naira, or 142% increase) over the period of comparison (2011–2015, before and after WAAPP) showed a real impact of the interventions on the profit of the beneficiaries.

Highly significant, similarly, the difference in aquaculture income (119,052 Naira, or 88% increase) and poultry income (126,070, or 67% increase) over the period of comparison also strongly indicated a real impact of WAAPP’s interventions on the profit of these beneficiaries’ enterprises. These documented impacts clearly suggest a substantial level of efficiency in the use of WAAPP’s funds, which would likely show in the CORAF MDTF Project had it carried out similar impact analyses.

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory 77.

The overall outcome is rated “Satisfactory” for the following reasons: the project objective has remained substantially relevant; the project has exceeded the targets for all PDO outcome indicators; it has achieved nearly all its intermediate results by large margins; the project’s gender mainstreaming, most importantly, was “highly satisfactory.”

The project has developed clever ideas, generated improved technologies and innovations disseminated widely through the IP, trained young scientists at MSc and PhD level, trained a number of farmers over the region including youth as driver of change, and ushered success stories enduring or/and replicable. The overall outcome is not rated “highly satisfactory” because its achievement has been affected by delays, lapses, and miscommunication that impacted on efficiency. Also, a few sub-projects have been questioned as to their sustainability in the end-of project evaluation report.

27

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 78.

Simply put, women were at the center of project achievement of its outcome indicators. This was as much by design, with the early hiring of a Gender Advisor assisted by a CIDA’s expert, as apparently by the eagerness of women to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the establishment of openly welcoming innovation platforms. For the key outcome indicators (access to, adoption of, technologies/innovation, and participation), women’s position relative to men’s was much stronger at the end of the project than before (2013 baseline). That is, women were receiving a much fairer treatment.

This improvement in women’s condition actually contributed the most to the project exceeded its targets. In addition, the project clearly made women its primary focus in shortterm training, as they made up the majority of these capacity building participants. Poverty reduction is generally correlated with improvement in women’s income generation, such as in the following sub-projects: TAV (production and marketing of vegetables), FAMM&COMM (trade in cereals and home-processed foods), AMPROLAIT (milk trade), integrated aquaculture (women fishmongers). (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 79.

The change management process, as envisioned at the preparation stage of the project, was largely achieved. The IAR4D paradigm of program delivery was a major outcome of this process. The IAR4D has been successfully implemented thanks to the establishment of the innovation platforms. In addition, CORAF has reviewed, revised and strengthened its governance framework. CORAF ISO certification, however, had not yet been achieved at project closure due to delays in completing some of the background supporting reports, among them finalization of an institutional audit. The preliminary report of the audit includes a recommendation, among others, for CORAF to establish financial sustainability. This clearly remains a daunting challenge. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 80.

There was no beneficiary survey and/or stakeholder workshop at the whole project level. However, some sub-projects like “Sustainable Integrated pond based aquaculture with rice and poultry production” documented some feedback from beneficiaries as success stories (see annex 5).

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate 81.

The risk to development outcome is moderate. A large number of very promising technologies and innovations have been generated, disseminated, and adopted. The large number of satisfied beneficiaries (104% over target) suggests that these technologies and innovations will continue to be used for some time in the future. Also, importantly, the 28

project has generated replicable success stories, such as the establishment of IP that greatly facilitates IAR4D. In addition, enduring impacts can already be seen in the artificial insemination on cow natural heat and supplemental feed based on local ingredients. Finally, under the project, a large number of actors have Box 5: Treasure troves of data for students to received short-term and longexploit term training. This investment The CORAF MDTF’s sub-projects literally turned out to in large-scale capacity be treasure troves of invaluable, yet readily available building and knowledge scientific data to over 200 students preparing theses. The development can be expected discovery, however, was well planned, rather than left to to pay large dividends and chance. Nearly all sub-projects were implemented with the further enhance the project help of students eager to gain personal experience, as well as prepare for a coveted degree. Data from the development outcome in the improvement of the dairy sector project (AMPROLAIT) future. The sustainability of fed the theses of 10 veterinarians, 8 MSc, and 3 PhD the sub-project’s results, students; data from the project women and commerce in however, requires continued the cotton zone (FAM&COM), the thesis of 5 BSc, 10 attention from beneficiaries MSc, and 1 PhD students; data from the project Traditional and extension services, and in African Vegetables (TVA), 6 BSc (4 females, 2 males), 6 many cases additional MSc (4 females, 2 males) students, etc. research as well.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry

Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 82.

Bank’s quality at entry failed the project by overlooking the shortcomings in the Results Framework and the establishment of the M&E system. These shortcomings were a drag on the project for almost its entire lifespan. The performance is rated “Moderately Satisfactory” because other elements of the design were acceptable. The Bank team included key elements in the design as required, including the incorporation of valuable lessons from CORAF’s own experience; identification and provision of mitigation measures for inherent and control risks; and establishment of best practice steps for managing a competitive grant system. The components and the institutional arrangement were also rightly designed. (b) Quality of Supervision

Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 83.

The World Bank core supervision team has remained remarkably stable throughout the implementation of the project. A TTL change, made early on (March 20, 2012), brought together a core WB team fully proficient in both French and English, as was needed to avoid a language barrier. The team conducted all joint missions with CORAF and one or two donors’ representatives.

29

84.

The supervision missions were proactive from the start. For example, the first two missions delved heavily in the inherited RF issue, the lengthy CGS process, and the flow of fund/low disbursement, CORAF’s infrequent requests for funds and low ceilings.

They made repeated recommendations to CORAF to take corrective measures on these issues. They guided CORAF to improve implementation of the project, for example, identifying in 2012 the need for a gender specialist and the revision of key manuals.

85.

The MTR (November 2013) recommended a complete reformulation of the RF, but only after accepting CORAF’s inadequate effort to do so at the previous (3rd) mission (April 2013). In retrospect, the RF should have been revised earlier than the MTR, at the third or even second mission. As it happened, the restructuring process took very long, almost two years, and was finalized just a month before the original project close date. In addition, in 2015 and 2016, miscommunication with the EU contributed to severely delay funds to the Bank, and thus to CORAF and the sub-projects. The delays were for at least six months in each instance, whereas the EU’s statutory turnaround time from request to disbursement of funds is at most 90 days — and ordinarily much less. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance

Rating: Moderately satisfactory 86.

Overall Bank performance is rated “Moderately Satisfactory” because of flaws at quality at entry related to the RF; quality of supervision related to delays in implementing the first restructuring; and delays in the flow of funds from the EU caused by miscommunications with that donor.

5.2 Borrower Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory (a) Government Performance

Rating: Moderately satisfactory 87.

The justifications for CORAF’s overall performance rating as “Moderately Satisfactory” are as follows: CORAF’s implementation of the sub-projects has led to many outstanding outputs, satisfactory outcomes, and enduring and replicable success stories. CORAF’s implementation of the innovation platform is commendable, and its gender mainstreaming highly satisfactory. CORAF, however, had many shortcomings of its own making, including: not controlling the lengthy CGS process; not closely tracking technical and financial reports from the fields; providing inadequate guidance to implementers in contract negotiations and other procedures; contributing to the funding delays experienced by implementers in the field; providing too little and too late M&E training to many sub-projects; and also missing the agreed upon deadline for submitting the end of project completion report. But it must also be recognized that the project’s overall environment was one of the harshest during implementation of the project: persistent armed confrontations in some countries, lingering political strife in others, and an Ebola epidemic that claimed the lives of thousands and affected the livelihoods of 30

millions more in the region. Coordinating and implementing activities across 20 countries in such an environment is a daunting task, which CORAF nonetheless managed to complete. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance

Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 88.

The performance of the implementing agencies is rated “Moderately Satisfactory.” The implementation of project’s activities in the field may be considered CORAF’s “commander’s intent,” but their execution by implementing agencies is what actually led to their achievements. Implementers were for some time overwhelmed by Bank’s procedures, at times also misguided by CORAF, and constantly frustrated by the delays in funding. They committed mistakes of their own in reporting documents and requesting funds, and contributed to the funding delays they complained about. However, they implanted the IPs, which were appreciated by nearly all actors they interacted with daily; they completed all 17 projects, even with reduced funding; they generated improved agricultural technologies and other innovations; and they carried out the massive training programs for capacity building. Most importantly, perhaps, they were the instruments of the project highly successful gender mainstreaming. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance

Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 89.

The overall borrower performance is rated “Moderately Satisfactory” because both the performance of the implementers and that of CORAF’s are Moderately Satisfactory. Table 3 recapitulates the project performance assessment.

Table 3: CORAF MDTF Project performance assessment Items Relevance of Objective, Design, Implementation Objective Design Implementation Overall Outcome Achievement of PDO Intermediate indicators Gender mainstreaming Efficiency Risk to Development Objective Bank Performance Quality at Entry Quality of Supervision Borrower Performance Government (Grantee) Performance Implementing Agencies’ Performance

31

Rating Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory or Substantial Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Moderate Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory

6. Lessons Learned 90.

Initiate unavoidable changes as soon as possible. The mid-term review should not be seen like a line in the sand that has to be crossed in order to trigger needed critical changes — if these have long before been identified. Under these circumstances, the Bank’s guidelines-recommended proactivity must take precedence over the established customary rule of a review at mid-term to support major actions. Clearly (with added hindsight, admittedly), a much earlier first restructuring of the project was indicated in order to quickly put to rest the long-simmering issue of the flawed RF. Subsequent restructurings would have just concerned reallocations of funds. These reallocations could have been dealt with swiftly, as the project second restructuring was — in just two months.

There are no rules in the guidelines against multiple reallocations, or even restructurings, provided they are clearly justified to help reach the PDO. 91.

Accurate time estimation is crucial for good project management. This aptly applies to the competitive agricultural research grant system. An accurate, or poor estimate of the time needed to complete this system’s many required steps will determine whether, or not, a time-bound research activity can be implemented over the requisite number of growing seasons to yield valid scientific results. The project was caught off guard by the drawn-out competitive grant system’s process when CORAF drove headlong into its implementation without adequately estimating the time it would take to complete it. The project didn’t accurately account beforehand for multi-country scoping studies, multiple reviews, national and sub-regional workshops, communications failures, contracting issues, establishment of innovation platforms, etc. A simulation of this time-consuming process in order to identify best-case, worst-case, and most likely-case scenarios would have also helped at the design stage to suggest, among other things, a more adequate project’s lifespan. A case study of the time it took to launch the completed sub-projects under the CORAF MDTF Project should prove a useful exercise to help determine empirically those scenarios. Such an analysis can help future operations make better use of project management tools, such as Gant chart, MS Project, and other software to more efficiently manage integrated agricultural research for development.

92.

Functional innovation platforms (IP) are effective in helping deliver IAR4D. FARA created the concept of innovation platform to be the instrument of its IAR4D concept. These, however, are not mere theoretical constructs; but the operationalization of IP must be done right. The IP builds of well known, and already widely used concepts (value chain, sub-sector, food system approaches, etc.). However, it differs from these other approaches in the way it brings all stakeholders (primary beneficiaries, researchers, extension services, civil society, etc.) to act on a priority researchable problem identified by these actors. The project offers credible evidence that functional IPs do help facilitate the implementation of IAR4D activities on the ground. Participants are bestowing new roles to the IP, such as advocacy tool, or delivery mechanism for agricultural services to producers. The experience gained by the project is that the establishment of IP may take some time, especially in countries with weak sense of community, but this investment always pays off in the end.

32

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors (a) Grantee/Implementing agencies (b) Co-financiers/Donors

93.

The EU’s overall assessment of the CORAF’s MDTF implementation is positive.

The EU has focused on the end-results, rather than on the outputs and process. It was also pleased that CORAF has enhanced the visibility of the donors (EU and CIDA) through publication and documentary films, and in particular, the exposure giving to the EU Ambassador’s visit to project sites. (c) Other partners and stakeholders

94.

No assessment of partners and stakeholders was available.

33

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)

Components Component 1 Component 2 Total Baseline Cost

Appraisal Estimate (USD millions) 11.16 10.67 21.83

Physical Contingencies Price Contingencies Total Project Costs Project Preparation Costs Total Financing Required

Actual/Latest Estimate (USD millions) 14.40 7.14 21.54

Percentage of Appraisal 129 67 99

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Trust Funds

Type of Cofinancing Grant

34

Appraisal Actual/Latest Estimate Estimate Percentage of (USD (USD Appraisal millions) millions) 21.83 21.54 99

Annex 2.1 Approved Modified Results Framework, December 2016 (AM) PDO level result indicators

Baseline as of End-ofEnd-of-project % of 2013 (under project achievement target CORAF MDTF target achieved project) Project Development Objective (PDO) Support to IAR4D in WCA Indicator One: Clients who have 282 36,678 38,223 104% adopted an improved agricultural (100%) (100%) (100%) technology promoted by the project (disaggregated by male/female) Male 241 26,870 22,008 82% (85%) (73%) (58%) Female 41 9,808 16,215 165% (15%) (27%) (42%) Indicator Two: Clients who have adopted 227 10,444 12,091 116% an improved innovation promoted by the (100%) (100%) (100%) project (disaggregated by male/ female) Male 180 6,266 6,469 103% (79%) (60%) (54%) Female 47 4,178 5,622 135% (21%) (40%) (46%) Indicator Three: Clients with access to 793 60,397 69,637 115% technologies and/or innovations (100%) (199%) (100%) supported by the project (disaggregated by male/female) Male 614 44,580 42,905 96% (77%) (74%) (62%) Female 179 15,817 26,732 169%% (23%) (26%) (38%) Indicator Four: Targeted clients satisfied with access to technologies and innovations supported by the project 0% 80% 83% 104% (disaggregated by male/female).

Male 0% 80% Not available Female 0% 80% Not available Indicator Five: Direct project 1,250 81,630 100,240 123% beneficiaries (of which female).

(100%) (100%) (100%) Male 1,040 59,347 55,947 94% (83%) (73%) (56%) Female 210 22,283 44,293 199% (17%) (27%) (44%) Intermediate Results (Component One): Improved regional adaptive research, dissemination of technologies and innovations and policy environment, Intermediate Result Indicator One: Research sub-projects supported by the 4 17 17 100% project Intermediate Result Indicator Two: Technologies and/or innovations 5 88 170 193% disseminated.

35

Intermediate Result Indicator Three: Technologies demonstrated in the project areas.44 Intermediate Result Indicator Four: New technologies/ innovation for which information is publicly accessible.

Intermediate Result Indicator Five: Strategic Policy Options developed and submitted by CORAF for approval by RECs and national governments.

Intermediate Result Indicator Six: Innovation Platforms (IPs) in commodity value chains functional.

Intermediate Result Indicator Seven: Female participation in IPs. Intermediate Result Indicator Eight: Client days of training provided.

Intermediate Result Indicator Nine: Number or Clients who benefited from short-term training (disaggregated by gender) Male Female

5

89

255

287%

5

64

113

177%

0

42

5345

126%

11

100

130

130%

1,480

8,949

18,911

211%

212 373 (100%)

47,368 15,450 (100%)

99,070 55,422 (100%)

209% 359%

241 (65%) 132 (35%)

10,511 (68%) 4,939 (32%) 152

26,894 (49%) 28,528 (51%) 235

255% 577%

Intermediate Result Indicator Ten: 155% Number or Clients who benefited from 14 long-term training Intermediate Results (Component Two): Improved Governance, Administration and Change Management Intermediate Result Indicator One: No Yes No Not CORAF ISO certified. applicable Intermediate Result Indicator Two: IP joint programs between weaker and 0 11 10 91% stronger countries implemented.

Source: CORAF MDTF Project end of project evaluation (May 2017)

44 45

This is a WB core indicator on agricultural research and extension This includes policy briefs, strategic policy options and legislative texts developed with support from the MDT

36

Annex 2.2 Outputs by Component Component 1: Research Development Programs Objective Outputs  Nine innovation platforms (IP) were established in the participating countries around four priority themes: artificial insemination; hygiene and quality of milk products; improved feed of dairy cows; improvement in cow reproduction  Artificial insemination was optimized (37.45%) by identifying cow in natural heat, and proximity AI was promoted  Physical-chemical and microbiological analyses were undertaken and found that sanitary quality of local milk products, particularly raw milk, was sub-standard.  Four supplemental feed formulas adapted to local conditions resulted in doubling average 1.

Supporting the Improve the milk production (from 2 to 4 liters) in small sustainable productivity and dairy production. improvement, competitiveness of  Harvesting techniques of natural forage were productivity, and dairy sector by demonstrated competitiveness of the addressing the key dairy sector in West and  Inter-calving period was reduced through constraints to the Central Africa improved feeding program development dairy (AMPROLAIT  Production of biogas with cow dung to reduce production: Burkina Faso, Chad, fuel wood consumption, which contributes to Mali, Niger, Senegal) global warming,  Value chain participants were trained in various themes, including 80% in cow’s natural heat for AI, 93% in milk sanitary and quality practices, 27% in forage production and conservation.  The project data were used to produce 6 scientific papers, 4 workshop reports, 4 policy briefs, and 4 technical facts sheets.  21 theses were also based on the project data, including for 10 veterinarians, 9 MSc and 3 PhD students.  Key results of the project were documented in YouTube (see Project

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcLjte5Nfnk

2. Introgression of Sahelian zebu cattle genes into trypanotolerant Bos taurus populations: Strategies for sustainable management of trypanotolerant cattle breeds in West Africa (INTROGRESSION) (Burkina Faso, Benin and Mali, later joined

by Cameroon, Niger,

Contribute to the sustainable conservation of animal biodiversity in West Africa.

    

37

Statistical techniques were developed to assess spatial pattern of variation, whether genetic or phenotypic, 1,500 animals were thus characterized from 9 species A sub-regional breeding strategy document for West and Central African cattle breeds was produced; The molecular genetic laboratory at INERA, Burkina Faso, was upgraded Actions of projects about animal resources have been harmonized across the participating countries.

Project Gambia, Sierra Leone, Chad, and Guinea)

Component 1: Research Development Programs Objective Outputs  The project supported the training of 6 technicians, 4 BSc, 1 MSc, and 2 PhD students

    3. Sustainable Integrated pond based aquaculture with rice and poultry production: Economic, social and Environmental Assessment (SIARP ESEA) (Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Liberia, Benin, Côte d’Ivoire)

Enhance farming systems of integrating aquaculture, rice and poultry in targeted project sites .

     

4. Poverty Eradication and Grassroots Empowerment through Sustainable Integrated Aquaculture Development: Fish cum rice and Piggery production (SAID RP) (Cameroon, Nigeria, Sierra Leone)

  Increase productivity and income, and reduce poverty and unemployment through integrated rice, piggery and fish farming in west Africa.

    

38

Eight innovative platforms (IP) were established Ten technologies/ innovations have been developed with an estimated adoption level of over 60%.

Training manuals, media reviews and CD publications were produced Methodology for waste utilizations through maggot production, fish oil and fish meal production, and production of mineral rich manure were developed 142 smoking kilns were designed and distributed Four new fish products (fish crackers, fillets, smoked and canned fish) were created and available for markets.

The production of floating fish feed pallets generated income and youth employment, as the technology was widely adopted.

Wetland maps were produced for all 3 beneficiary countries 40 demonstration ponds were established in farmers’ plots Laboratory equipment was provided to the implementing institutions to support adaptive research work Two IP were established Mapping of wetland areas were developed for each participating country.

Manual on integrated fish farming were developed and disseminated Fish processing techniques were introduced, including fish filleting and smoking; fish packaging method; smoking kiln Maggot meal was produced, and high quality fish feed and pig feeds developed.

Low fat pork meat was introduced Laboratories/hatcheries were updated and equipped in each participating country.

Project 5. Ecological intensification of extensive family fish farming systems in West Africa and Central from an analysis of the innovation process (SyPiEx) (Benin, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Gabon, DR Congo)

6. Facilitating Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Cocoa Farming Systems in West and Central Africa (Cocoa) (Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana) 7. Optimizing productivity and perennial intercrop diversity tradeoffs in West and Central African cocoa farms (Cocoa Tradeoffs) (Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana)

Component 1: Research Development Programs Objective Outputs  15 IP were established  Eight technologies and innovations have been developed and documented  Six technical sheets and extension materials were produced Improve the  Four booklets from the fishmonger in comic productivity of family strips were designed and disseminated, and one fish farming in West policy note to decision makers was produced; and Central Africa  48 students were trained at the BSc, MSc and .

PhD levels.  Three laboratories were equipped.  Five scientific papers have been published, using data generated by the sub-project  The capacities of 1,000 actors were strengthened  One IP established in each country  3 technologies were developed and disseminated Stimulate adoption of  Five sites were set up to demonstrate the intensive cocoa potential of canopy substitution in rejuvenating farming systems by aged cocoa plantations smallholders in WCA.  An average of 5 new varieties were tested at each site,  An average of eight clones per country were introduced to farmers to rehabilitate the plantations Enhance the capacity  Two appropriate regeneration techniques of cocoa farmers to (grafting and rejuvenation) were adapted to increase and diversify local conditions to facilitate the replacement of production and old trees and optimize plant population. increase income in  10 local tree species with high potential to cocoa agroforestry improve soil fertility were identified for systems (CAFS). multiplication and distribution to farmers.  Optimum shade management options were determined to improve productivity of cocoa while ensuring biodiversity,  60,000 improved cocoa variety planting material were produced and distributed to farmers who maintained optimum cocoa plant populations to improve production.  30 students and 12 researchers benefited from various training engagements while producers had enhanced knowledge and skills in nursery management, regeneration of old plantations and appropriate shade management.

39

Component 1: Research Development Programs Objective Outputs  Socioeconomic analyses were conducted in each country on the role of women in staple and nonstable value chains  16 students (including 9 women) were supported, including 5 BSc, 10 MSc, and 1 PhD candidates.  Short-term training on good cultural practices was conducted for women. In addition, 1,200 Contribute to women trained to collect information on how improvements in the women spend their time, and 700 in collecting sustainability of the farm labor data. development of cotton  6 picture boxes and 3 other instruments were 8. Women in cotton areas, focusing on the introduced to 6,500 producers (including 3,836 production zones: role of women in nonwomen improving their food production  49 ecotypes of soya and 12 of sesame were contribution in the non systems. and collected from producers to better understand food-based value marketing of their variability. chains, from production diversification  Laboratory work was undertaken to broaden the to commercialization products through genetic base of crops.

(FAM&COMM) mobile telephony.  10 policy notes were produced to inform (Benin, Burkina Faso, decision makers on women’s contribution to Togo) development, so that gender mainstreaming would be included in public policies. 800 copies were distributed to decision makers and technical staff.  Websites (http://www.fam-comm.net/, http://www.odafine.net/infos/about) were established about women’s experiences in rural, with a platform (ODAFINE) for sharing socioeconomic data on women working in cotton areas.  3 information bulletins were produced, along with one documentary film on the project.  5 IP were established in 4 countries (one country had 2) To contribute to  Levels of aflatoxin contamination in the peanut improvements in the value chain was assessed: the heaviest 9. Improving food well-being of poor contamination was found in traders’ stocks: security, food quality actors and actresses in 67.43% in Mali and 60.87% in Senegal; and in and revenues of poor the groundnut value peanut cakes: 58.07% in Mali and 42.09% in actors in the groundnut chain in West Africa Senegal. value chain in West  8,415 (including 42% of women) participants Africa through the were sensitized to the effects of aflatoxin reduction of aflatoxin contamination on health and trade, and in control contamination methods (GestAflAr)  9 Aflatoxin resistant varieties known to (Burkina, Ghana, Mali, producers in various countries were Senegal, Gambia) disseminated to other countries’ producers.  21 copies of the “Double Room Improved Attic” method, which can reduce aflatoxin contamination to 5ppb, was disseminated.

Project

40

Component 1: Research Development Programs Objective Outputs  1 aflatoxin proximity analysis equipment was acquired by INERA / CREAF (BF) 10. Integrated pest Develop an integrated  One IP established in each country management in cotton pest management  Four technologies/innovations were generated production through strategy to control and distributed through 1,780 various teaching threshold treatment and pests through and learning tools. harvest splitting in West threshold treatment  40 master producers and 10 extension agents Africa (GIRCOT) and harvest splitting were trained and set up demonstration sites on (Benin, Burkina, Cote integrated management of cotton pests in the 6 d’Ivoire, Mali, Senegal, countries Togo)  200 producers were trained to apply pesticide treatment based on pest infestation threshold and spilling of harvest (early and late harvest).  Mapping of the distribution of the bacterium (R. solanacearum) in Senegal river valley industrial Contribute to the food tomato production zone was produced 11.

Integrated security and  Molecular characterization of strains in infested management of agricultural income by soils was established Ralstonia solanaceanum improving the  38 tomato varieties evaluated, with 3 out of 11 in the context of productivity and varieties in Burkina Faso found to be tolerant increased phytosanitary competitiveness of (unfortunately tests were performed for one risks related to climate tomato and potato season due to delays in funding) change (Ralstonia BLT) crops in the context of  200 participants were trained in grafting on (Burkina, Mali, Ghana, climate variability and eggplants which was known to reduce Senegal) change. infestation of the bacteria  Data generated by the project supported the theses of 1 MSc and 1 PhD students.  One IP was established in each participating country  20 improved traditional African vegetables (TAVs) from the World Vegetable Center were promoted in the target countries, with 1,000 kg of the improved seeds produced and distributed to 5,000 farmers.

12, Enhancing  16,000 people (5,000 males, 6,000 females, and Productivity, Enhance income and 5,000 youth) directly benefited from the project Competitiveness and nutrition among the through training in best practices in TAV Marketing of rural poor in West and production Traditional African Central Africa by (Leafy) Vegetables for  500 guides on good handling and hygienic increasing the Improved Income and practices aimed at reducing TAV postharvest production and Nutrition in West and were published in both English and French consumption of Central Africa for  Four leaflets on TAV processing were promoted traditional African Income and Nutrition in by the Ministry of Higher Education, Scientific Vegetables.

WA (TAV) Research and Innovation of Burkina Faso (Cameroon, Ghana,  1,000 copies of a policy brief entitled Burkina Faso) “Promoting production and consumption of traditional African vegetables in West and Central Africa: Policy lessons from national seed systems” was published in French and English.  3 books on TAV were published in Cameroon and Burkina Faso Project

41

Component 1: Research Development Programs Objective Outputs  Mass media communication (10 prints media, 10 broadcasts, 15 newsletters) has been used to inform stakeholders and beneficiaries on TAVs technologies.  6 BSc students (2 male, 4 female) and 6 MSc (2 male, 4 female) were supported.

13.

Reversing the Identify, assess and  Risks of contamination by biotic contaminants negative effects of control environmental (pathogens) and abiotic (heavy metals) in periagricultural and public health risks urban plots were identified intensification in peri- related to the  Cultural practices limiting risks associated with urban areas: methods intensification of the use of waste were identified: and tools for assessment urban and peri-urban  Alternative practices to mitigate risks of and alternative practices agriculture in a context contamination included: of strong urbanization (Externalities) (i) aerobic composting, useful for (Senegal, Togo, Burkina and increasing food eliminating pathogens, as well as Faso, Sierra Leone, demand, particularly anaerobic composting, which has the Cameroon and Congo) market gardening added advantage of producing methane products and having a residual product called digestate, rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium used as organic fertilizer (ii) treatment of waste water prior to use (iii) crop diversification with the introduction of legumes, cover crops that would limit the risk of invasion by weeds and pests, and would ensure more efficient use of mineral and organic resources (iv) biological control with the introduction of predators of pests, the use of biopesticide / bio-fertilizers based microorganisms.  Seven IP were established, at least one in each country  Socio-economic studies were conducted and a database established in all participating countries. A sub-regional synthesis report was Promote the produced development of 14.

Improve the policies, programs and  18 strategic options were developed and sustainable management validated in participatory workshops for each strategies for the of the exploitation of country, and 10 legal measures were drafted management and natural resources based exploitation of natural  15 policy briefs were produced for each country. on non-timber forest resources based on  4 videos were produced (Burkina, Cameroun, products (NWFP) in NTFPs that are Gabon, and Senegal), as well as radio broadcast West and Central Africa effective, efficient and produced (RDC, which later joined the other (4P-PFNL) equitable in order to countries) (Burkina Faso, enhance the  Each country contracted with an advocacy body, Cameroon, Gabon, contribution of NTFPs which was assigned with specific tasks and Senegal) to the welfare of small services. producers.  44 members of parliament, 25 ministers, and 44 local government officials were sensitized to the strategic options  517 actors (including 185 women) have received short-term training Project

42

Component 1: Research Development Programs Objective Outputs  8 MSc and 1 PhD were supported by the.  Thee IP were established  Three enterprises presenting an environment conducive to quality production were supported to renovate production buildings, latrines, changing rooms, etc.  12 enterprises were supported with various processing equipment (mills, hullers, conditioners, scales, etc.)  Nine companies that improved product 15. Pilot support project presentation and marketing were supported with for the development and Strengthen the biodegradable food packaging competitiveness of technical and processing enterprises  One of 3 supported enterprises won a contract industrial capacities of of local food products for 54 tons of infant’s food products from the beneficiary (PADEC-ETA) OXFAM to save 35,000 infants from starvation enterprises (Burkina Faso, Cote in Northern Burkina Faso d’Ivoire, Mali)  18 prototypes of packaging were developed  24 products were analyzed and characterized  764 producers, processors and other players in the platforms were trained in hygiene and quality of processed products, and management.  30 participants benefited from a training-oftrainers program in setting up contracts  30 small scale enterprises received training to strengthen their capacities  A study was conducted on 11 enterprises to assess their strengths and weaknesses in order to identify investments and innovations they needed to achieve compliance in quality standards.  All approved services and equipment were 16. Partnership between Improve provided to beneficiary enterprises, except for a researchers and competitiveness of hybrid solar seeder for lack of a supplier in the producers’ processed food country. organizations for products in local and  Training was undertaken for 593 IP participants improving the quality regional markets (including 415 women); and marketability of through attractive  145 (106 women) were also trained in processed products of packages and labels, administration and financial management; in the priority value chains and consumer use of equipment and best practices in hygiene, (PROPAQ - Benin, sensitization. processing, waste management Niger, Senegal, Togo)  Microbiological analyses were performed on enterprises’ processed products: pineapple juice, couscous flour, cowpeas, milk, soybeans flour, with the results disseminated online: http://www.ctoptogo.org/articlesSuite.php?id_a rt=235&id_type=2 17.

Strengthened Capacity building for  150 (75 women, 25 youth and 50 men) leaders governance, leadership dialogue, participation of farmers’ organizations (FOs) from West and change and influence of African countries were trained in governance & management skills of producers’ leadership, change management and financial FBOs; demonstrated by organizations (PO) in management; improvement in the national, regional and Project

43

Project marketability and competitiveness of their food products (Civil Society Governance) (ROPPA, West Africa, and PROPAC, Central Africa)

Component 1: Research Development Programs Objective Outputs global processes for  23 value chain participants in WA were trained the development and in food safety/quality and standards, as well as Implementation of in attractive packaging and labeling agricultural and rural  36 participants from Central African countries policies were trained in advocacy, lobbying and negotiation  20 accountants from 13 country chapters and the regional executives of ROPPA secretariat were trained separately in accounting, fiduciary functions of governance, and SYSCOA system of financial reporting  Six national chapters of ROPPA were supported to develop videos on a relevant experience to be disseminated on the organization’s knowledge management platform.

Component 2: Administration, Governance, and Change Management

Objective

Outputs/Achievements  





Strengthen the capacity of the Executive Secretariat to undertake its technical, fiduciary, administrative and governance functions

Provide technical assistance required for the implementation of the Change Management Plan in the areas of, (i) internal operational procedures, (ii) financial management and procurement, (iii) human resource development, (iv) information and Communication capabilities, (iv) training and sensitization of the constituent NARS



  

Priority programs were established and 8 qualified program managers were recruited and were in place at project start.

The capacity to manage huge research grants by the Secretariat and NARS was strengthened through recruitment of additional technical staff: Planning Officer, M&E Officer, Accounts/Finance Support Staff, Procurement; installation of accounting software; associated training of personnel; and development of procedures manuals.

The implementation of sub-regional agricultural research based on priority research themes was implemented through 17 competitive or commissioned sub-regional projects implemented by NARS The Scientific and Technical Committee was restructured and strengthened to include a broader spectrum of specialists The chair of the STC now reports to the CORAF/WECARD’s Biennial Agricultural Science Week The IAR4D approach was institutionalized through: (i) Better understanding of the CAADP and FAAP principles, especially at the secretariat and regional levels (ii) Capacity building of NARS in using innovation platform and value chain approach (iii) A consortium of international research institutions to help sustain capacity building of IPs and value chain approach (iv) Six books published on IAR4D (v) International conference on IAR4D, in which a WCA Network on Agricultural Innovation Systems proposed.

44

    



The M&E and Leaning Unit was strengthened with the recruitment of 3 specialists and complementary support of interns A global M&E system developed with adequate mechanisms to track performance and results A training was conducted on team building & advanced leadership The capacity of NARS in M&E and results-based monitoring (RBM) was strengthened The process for ISO certification, aimed at enhancing scientific quality and performance management of operations for effective and timely results delivery, was initiated. However, it was not completed before project close.

The second Medium-term Operational Plan, 2014 - 2018 (OP 2, 2014-2018) was developed.

Some videos link on projects outcomes and beneficiaries’ witnesses 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VquaCB3HeDc (PADEC in FR) 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tjjkO_gmfo (PADEC in EN) 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inOkS92j6SM (SIARP ESEA FR) 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE0ZEOqsy5Y (SIARP ESEA in EN) 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kIDqe0E3a0&t=44s (TAV in FR) 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxi0VMUKm8Y (TAV in EN) 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo6KlTS9CY0&t=587s (Amprolait in FR) 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcLjte5Nfnk (Amprolait in EN) 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXkQvM6YW2M&t=38s (Introgression in FR) 10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldn-pY0JBcI (Introgression in EN) 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ADyIwNQwQ4 (SYPIEX in FR) 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDTXOSKBe3A (SYPIEX in EN) 13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDGBVgSmXsQ (Gircot in FR) 14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TUdRcR5z5c (Gircot in EN) 15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfyqI4CUqQ8 (Trade in cocoa in FR) 16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mISPYaD7Pk (Trade off in cocoa in EN) 17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwTS1TXtkSo (PFNL in EN) 18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dvLUVpHs8k (PFNL in FR)

45

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis A specific ex-ante economic analysis of MDTF financing for CORAF/WECARD was judged unnecessary, given previous analytical work that demonstrates the generally high rates of return for investments in agricultural research, and the detailed analysis undertaken

by IFPRI in the sub-region in 2006. The work included an ex-ante economic analysis of the potential impact of investments in agricultural research within West and Central Africa.

This latter analysis was commissioned by CORAF/WECARD and served as the basis for determining their priority commodities and focus under the new CORAF/WECARD strategic and operational plans.

Although a comprehensive ex-post economic and financial analysis (EFA) was not conducted for the whole project, its economic returns and efficiency were thoroughly assessed through (i) a review of EFA of similar research and dissemination programs in the region; (ii) the estimation of economic returns of some key CORAF MDTF funded subprojects covering several countries; and (iii) the impacts study from similar WAAPP subprojects, targeting the same values chains and intervention areas, and working closely with the project. Given the similarity of such research and dissemination programs, technologies/innovations generated and disseminated, targeted values chains, geographic zones, and partnerships, it may be assumed that similar evidences on economic returns and impacts could applied for the entire CORAF MDTF Project.

Numerous analyses have documented large, positive economic benefits of research and extension investments in Africa. In recently published estimates for sub-Saharan Africa (Fugile and Rada, 2013), the internal rates of return (IRR) range from 17% to 43%, and the discounted benefit-cost ratios from 1.6 to 4.4, from small (economy) size to large (economy) size countries. It has been showed that investments yielding regional benefits in African agriculture delivered as much as three to four times the gain over and above the direct benefits in the country of origin. Similar rates are likely to be achieved from the CORAF MDTF-funded efforts, especially given that the project only financed sub-regional sub-projects involving 3 or more countries.

Table A3.1: Returns to Agricultural Research in Sub-Saharan Africa Returns to agricultural research BenefitsIRR (%) IRR (%) Countries cost ratio Without CGIAR Large countries Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan Midsize Countries Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, Uganda Small countries Botswana, Burundi, Gabon, The Gambia, Swaziland

4.4

43

36

2.6

29

23

1.6

17

13

Source: Fugile and Rada 2013.

Note: The benefit-cost ratio discounts future benefits at a yearly rate of 10 percent. CGIAR = Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research; IRR = internal rate of return

46

Furthermore, economic analysis has been done for some CORAF MDTF sub-projects.

For example, a sound economic analysis was done with economic returns estimated for the integrated aquaculture sub-project titled “Sustainable Integrated pond based aquaculture with rice and poultry production” and covering Nigeria, Benin, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Production, economic and profitability analyses of the integrated fish, rice, poultry farming system in sub-project areas showed that the fish production capacity of farmers running integrated fish farming have increased by 40%, to an average fish production capacity of 5 tons per acre. Over 60% of farmers trained in the improved practice developed by the sub-project recorded over 50% increase in profitability level on adoption of integrated fish farming system. A production cycle (4 months) for a full integrated poultry, fish and rice system cost on average US$18,400 per acre of land (4,000m2) and returned a total revenue of US$29,950, for a benefit cost ratio of 1.6 on average. Sensitivity analysis showed that 5%, 10% and 15% increases in the cost of fish feed led to reduction in net income by 6%, 8% and 10%. Bringing down the cost of the feed and getting a good value for the product would help farmers maximize profits. Equally important would be the extension of the production cycle (4 months) beyond the rainy season, with irrigation for the rice fields and better water control for the fishponds.

Similarly, in Cameroun, the integration of poultry with fish-rice enterprises led to an increase of farm income through better resource utilization. The integrated systems were profitable.

When integration is undertaken for two systems either as fish along with rice, fish together with poultry or rice in combination with poultry, on average, farmers realized annual net returns of 428,630 FCFA (US$ 857); 785,650 FCFA (US$ 1,571) and 865,990 FCFA (US$ 1,732), respectively. The highest profits of 965,270 FCFA (US$ 1,931) are obtained in the complete integrated fish-rice-poultry system. Fish farming is largely a commercial business for more

than 90% of the farmers with over 75% of their harvests destined for markets. Income earned from integrated system improved household welfare. Some of the households reported that additional income earned was spent on improving household living conditions, such as the purchase of equipment (e.g. TV, radio, bicycle), buying fishing and farming equipment, paying health fees and improving housing, as well as for social expenses (marriage, death celebrations)46.

The WAAPP impact analyses may also provide valuable insights to support the CORAF MDTF project’s efficiency claims as the two projects supported similar value chains. As noted earlier, the CORAF MDTF Project has worked closely with the WAAPP, which CORAF has been coordinating since 2007 at the sub-regional level. In many instances, WAAPP funding served to scale up the adoption of the technologies released under the CORAF MTDF Project. In the Nigeria, where the two projects worked very closely, the highly significant difference in the gross margin of rice production (89,897 Naira, or 142% increase) over the period of comparison (2011–2015, before and after WAAPP) showed a real impact of the interventions on the profit of the beneficiaries (Table

46

Oben, B.O., Molua, E. L. and Oben P. (2015). Profitability of small scale integrated fish-rice-poultry farms in Cameroon. Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 7 (11): 12 – 24.

47

A3.2). Highly significant, similarly, the difference in aquaculture income (119,052 Naira, or 88% increase) and poultry income (126,070, or 67% increase) over the period of comparison also strongly indicated a real impact of WAAPP’s interventions on the profit of these beneficiaries’ enterprises (Table A3.3). These documented impacts on crop and animal productions clearly suggest a satisfactory level of efficiency in the use of WAAPP’s funds, which would likely apply to the CORAF MDTF Project, had it carried out similar impact analyses.

Table A3.2: Impact of Nigeria WAAPP activities on the Gross margin of priority crops Crops

2011

2015

Maize (n=289) Rice (n=114) Sorghum (n=142) Cassava (n=211)

Mean Gm N/ha 59,327.88 63,346.5 21,454.12 42,348.08

Mean Gm N/ha 762,72.28 153,243.6 37,617.08 135,367.65

Mean Difference Mean Gm N/ha 16,944.4 89,897.1 16,162.96 93,019.57

t value

2.79* 3.43* 3.20* 6.57*

Note: * = significant at 1% level

Table A3.3: Impact of Nigeria WAAPP activities on the livestock income of respondents Livestock

2011

2015

Aquaculture (n=113) Poultry (n=111)

Mean N 135,685 187,850

Mean N 254,737 313,920

48

Mean Difference Mean N 119,052 126,070

t value

3.75* 5.22*

Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Names

Title

Unit

Responsibility/ Specialty

Lending/Grant Preparation Helmut Albert

Senior Agriculture Economist

Irene Bomani Bremala Malli David J. Nielson Patrice Sade Wendy A. Wiltshire

Operations Analyst Senior Operations Officer Lead Agriculture Economist Program Assistant Consultant

Ngor Sene

Financial management Specialist

Amadou Konare Supervision/ICR Abdoulaye Toure Irene Bomani Sossena Tassew

Safeguards Specialist Lead Agriculture Economist Operations Analyst Operations Analyst

Sidy Diop

Senior Procurement Specialist

Bella Diallo

Senior Financial Management Specialist

Cheikh A. T. Sagna Yao Alexis Haccandy Mamadou Mansour Mbaye Medou Lo Aifa Fatimata Ndoye Niane Ismael Ouedraogo

Senior Social Development Specialist Consultant Consultant Consultant Senior Agriculture Economist Consultant

49

AFTA1 HIS GFA07 GFA13 GFA05 GGO13 GFA13

Team member

Team member Team member TTL (ADM) Team member Consultant Financial GG026 management Specialist Safeguards Specialist

GFA01 TTL (ADM) GFA07 Team member GFA01 Team member Procurement GGO03 Specialist Financial GGO25 Management Specialist GSU01 Team member GFA01 Team member GGOGI Team member GEN07 Team member GFA01 TTL ICR GFA01 Author ICR

(b) Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle Lending FY 09 FY10 FY11 Total Supervision/ICR FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Total

Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) USD Thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) 6.31 0.00 0.00 6.31

25,474.05 0.00 0.00 25,474.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.85 5.10 15.26

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69,108.39 78,526.51 173,108.95

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results Beneficiary survey was not conducted at the whole project level. However, some subprojects like “Sustainable Integrated pond based aquaculture with rice and poultry production” documented some feedback from beneficiaries as success stories. Among others, two were reported in sub-project completion report as follows:  Number 1: Integrated fish farm improved access to good nutrition and increased household income Monai, New Bussa is a peasant community with limited access to good quality protein products such as animal products. State of knowledge on modern techniques in fish production and technology on integrated livestock and crop production is poor. The farmers are still using traditional method of fishing with limited interest in aquaculture. The yield from these methods are still low with farming culture largely poverty driven and at best, it is done at subsistence level.

In order to demonstrate the unique characteristics of integrated fish farming as means of ensuring food security and improving income level of fish farmers in the region, the farm of Mallam Yinussa was one of the farms used for demonstration of project intervention on integrated fish farming across Nigeria. The technologies/innovations developed by the CORAF/WECARD project team in the area of value addition, facilities design, waste management and few others were demonstrated on this farmer’s plot. Group of farmers consisting 150 farmers (60 females and 90 males) were trained. Knowledge based on modern approaches to fish, crop and livestock management were demonstrated at the onsite farmer’s school.

50

After period of training and integration fish culture with rice and poultry, significant improvement was recorded in terms of fish yield from 0.5 tonnes/acre to 2.5 tonnes/acre with rice harvest of 7.8 tonne per ha. Access to poultry products such as eggs in the village has improved significantly. Previously, all the villagers buy eggs from Mokwa town (about 100 km away), but the establishment of his farm has reduced travel time for those interested in eating eggs at a cheaper rate; thereby improving access to good quality food.

“Coraf has made eggs not to be a luxury for us in monai community”. He explained to the field officer Number 2: Making business out fish farming: the case of integrated fish farming Mr Adewoyin is a retired civil servant engaged in fish farming to sustain himself after retirement. He also planted vegetables on his farm as well as plantain and few other crops.

CORAF/WECARD Project team identified him during one of the interactive fora with farmers (Catfish Farmer Association of Nigeria). His farm was selected for field trial and training of himself along with other farmers. The integrated technology and innovations developed by CORAF/WECARD team was demonstrated on his farm for other farmers to learn.

Parts of the problem he had been encountering over the years was poor yield from his fish farm and total loss of crop due to fish diseases among other factors. Faced with recurrent problems of low yield and poor returns on his fish farming investing (as a result of expensive fish feed and knowledge gap in fish farm management practises), Mr. Adewoyin has resigned to fate and only see fish farming venture as a hobby not as business venture.

However, the bright side of the venture came to fore with the intervention of the CORAF team on integrated fish farming (SIARP-ESEA) with various modules of training taken at the farmers’ training school organised on his farm by the team, where 100 farmers where trained on best management practises procedure on Integrated fish farming with rice and poultry.

The outcomes of the training showed a drastic positive turn around in the knowledge he gained from the training. Now applying the knowledge gained in waste utilisation, feed production and formulation and value addition, Mr. Adewoyin fish farming venture has witness a rapid turnaround with increase of about 80% in the yield from the farm and 60% increase in income level leading to 45% increase in profit on investment. Some of key innovations from the training that has influence the activities on his farm is the method of maggot production using waste from the integration, fish stock management, feed storage and management, value addition, appropriate design from integrated fish farm and water in aquaculture.

“Old habits die hard but CORAF has shown that it can be changed with necessary training and adequate information on how to do the right thing and get expected results” “Training on waste utilization through production maggot from blackfly have really helped me to reduce the cost of feeding by 40%, meaning more naira saved. Thanks to farmers’ training school” Mr. Adewoyin added.

51

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results None Annex 7. Summary of Grantee's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Summary of END OF PROJECT EVALUATION OF THE MULTI-DONOR TRUST FUND (MDTF), 2012 – 2016 DRAF 0 Final Report Presented to The West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD) By the Evaluation Team of Consultants: Dr. Aliou Diagne (Team Leader) Prof. Aboubacar Toguyeni Dr. Sekou Doumbia Dr Aimé Dongmo

i)

Key Findings

The analysis of the performance of the MDTF support to CORAF/WECARD shows that the designs of the funded projects were participatory, inclusive and based on identified needs of the target populations. The relevance of the CORAF MDTF project is indisputable as all its five project R&D thematic areas (Component 1) are rated as highly satisfactory in relevance. This is not surprising because of the proposal selection process, which in principle ensured that only projects whose objectives and expected results are relevant to the Project Development Objectives (PDOs) of the CORAF/WECARD MTOP are funded. Component 2 of the project (“Governance, Administration and Change Management”) was also rated as highly satisfactory in relevance.

With respect to effectiveness, only the “Policy, Institutions, Markets and Trade (PIMT)” thematic area is rated highly satisfactory while the four project thematic areas are rated satisfactory. The effectiveness of gender mainstreaming was generally satisfactory but varied from one project to another. The project component 2 is also rated satisfactory on effectiveness.

Although the evaluation of the efficiency of the projects in terms of use of financial resources was rather difficult and insufficient, the evidence gathered shows very poor efficiency in project start up, timely execution of activities and delivery of results to end users. Efficiency was also found to be relatively poor in project staffing. Consequently, all 52

the project thematic areas are rated less than satisfactory except one, PIMT. The project component 2 was also rated unsatisfactory on efficiency. The less than satisfactory efficiency rating of component #2 is due to the overall delay in the start of the project and the lack of funds for some extended period in 2016. However, the efficiency for the part related to support to CORAF Headquarters seems to be reasonable.

The sustainability of the projects seems to be the most worrying because of a lack of project exit strategy except in few cases. There was a good involvement of development partners working with beneficiaries in almost all the projects. The level of satisfaction of end-users on the results of the projects was also in general very high. But, in general there is no mechanism for coordination and funding of post-project activities. As a result, all the project thematic areas are rated as less than satisfactory on sustainability, although few projects in some thematic areas had a satisfactory rating (PROPAQ in the Capacity Strengthening thematic areas, for example).

With regard to performance on technical and institutional issues, our ratings on the quality of the Science of the project R&D thematic areas ranged from satisfactory (LFA, NRM, Crops, Capacity Strengthening) to highly satisfactory (PIMT), with some projects within LFA and Crops getting highly satisfactory ratings. On the other hand, our ratings of the thematic areas on quality of project management range from less than satisfactory (Crops and Capacity Strengthening) to satisfactory (LFA, NRM and PIMT), with varying ratings for projects within each thematic area. One of the main reasons for less than satisfactory rating is the rather poor performance of CORAF/WECARD in terms of disbursement of project funds, supervision and communication. The project Component 2 was also rated as less than satisfactory on quality of project management. The results of our evaluation indicate that the performance of NARS is commendable in terms of participation in drafting projects, providing resources and making funds available to project teams. However, in terms of monitoring and evaluation, the performance of NARS is inadequate due to a lack of competent staff.

With respect to the application of the principles of Integrated Agriculture Research for Development (IAR4D), three of the project R&D thematic areas were rated as highly satisfactory (LFA, Capacity Strengthening and PIMT) and two (NRM and Crops) as satisfactory. One of the common strengths of almost all the projects is the establishing of Innovation Platform (IPs), which were established in all the projects countries across all the thematic areas (the CS/Governance project being the only exception). The IPs have created great linkages and means of interaction among farmers’ groups, government institution and research institutions using the principles of IAR4D. For many projects Stakeholders, the IP approach to Research and Development was a discovery and a very satisfying experience.

53

ii) Lessons Learned 

Project management and M & E became more effective once managers were trained on the results-based management and the IAR4D approach.



The Innovation Platforms (IP) approach was embraced enthusiastically by almost all the actors in all the project countries. They have created a great linkage and means of interaction among farmers’ groups, government institution and research institutions using the principle of Integrated Agriculture Research for Development (IAR4D).



The success of the Aquaculture projects (SIARP-ESEA, SIARD RP and SyPiEx) has motivated other donors to invest in the integration synergy Aquaculture/Agriculture. Organizations like FAO, WorldFish, ADB, IFAD and other development partners have all buy into the idea of integrated fish farming pioneered in recent times by CORAF/WECARD. The impact of the project in the countries attracted the intervention of other donors and has open up investment into integrated system by private investors.



Acquisition of scientific equipment by the INTROGRESSION project to establish in Burkina Faso (regional coordinating unit of the project), one molecular biology laboratory was a success story. This laboratory has been very useful and facilitated animal genetic characterization. Without this laboratory, the analyses would have been very expensive. Improving the capacity of this sub-regional molecular analysis laboratory has resulted in the establishment of a gene bank for the West African sub region.



The full collaboration of beneficiaries and key development partners such as extension agents, technical partners with additional funding, the commitment of governments in voluntary agricultural policies (subsidy Inputs and ban on the importation of potatoes in Guinea, mass treatment of the cocoa orchard in Ghana) and the motivation of the research teams were the main determinants of success.



The introduction of new equipment, the development of product processing sites under the guidance of researchers, the introduction of improved labeled packaging meeting certification standards has reduced the labor burden for women, increased their processing capacity of quality and better presented finished products.



The advocacy campaign for the NTFPs was a success in almost all the project countries. However, it would have been more effective, if the interpersonal relations were complemented by a much more formal approach based on official transmissions to the competent authorities of study reports and proposals for policy changes. Such use of formal communication channels (in conjunction with the 54

interpersonal and informal contacts) allows traceability, create better awareness and utilization of the evidence behind the advocacy results by authorities and, thus, is more likely to lead to action. iii) Recommendations In order to improve the performance of future CORAF/WECARD projects, the study recommends to: 

Strengthen communication between CORAF and regional and national project coordinators to avoid misunderstandings and delays.



Strengthen the participation of NARS accountants in project implementation and monitoring, particularly during appraisal missions;



Strengthen the managerial capacity and monitoring and evaluation of projects personnel by organizing short training courses for NARS project teams.



Strengthen collaboration between technical coordination teams and financial and accounting services so as to ensure effective and regular monitoring of projects.



Prohibit the awarding of two projects to the same team for the same call for projects to be carried out during the same period;



Ensure that project closing workshops involving all project implementing partner organizations as well as the beneficiaries and other stakeholders are always organized to review of the results obtained and develop a strategy for ensuring the sustainability of project results, including the post-project funding.



Allow CORAF project implementing partners to apply full cost recovery in budgeting for CORAF projects, including salaries of non-permanent staff working on the project. This will avoid having organizations give priority to the work of other projects that pay the salaries of its staff at the expense of CORAF projects. At the minimum, the Staff time of CORAF projects should be fully costed (including permanent staff) and included transparently in the budget as contribution of the organization to the project.



Differentiate the overhead allocated to CORAF with the cost of supervision that must be included as direct cost in any proposed project. Even in case of budget constraints this item should not be erased completely (It is worth repeating that most of the shortcomings noted in the regular supervision of the projects at the regional and national levels were mainly due to insufficient budget earmarked for such supervision).

55



Include a clause in future calls for proposals barring the possibility for awarding two projects to the same teams in one call.



Build on the momentum created by the projects by developing proposals and looking for funding for follow projects that will strengthen the sustainability and effectiveness of CORAF MDTF project results.

The implementation of the project was plagued by a lot of problems that have frustrated almost everybody involved: The Donors, CORAF, the NARS and the evaluation team. But, one has to recognize that the MDTF was new to CORAF/WECARD and to probably most of the NARS Partners, both by the form of the support (institutional) and size (large funding). But, more importantly, it came with quite few new rules and procedures CORAF and NARS implementers were not familiar with. This, naturally, required a lot of learning and adjustment in behavior. Where there is learning, there are mistakes, errors and slowness. Most of the difficulties related to the delays in disbursements of the funds and justifications of expenditures can be attributed to this learning. It will be a waste not to capitalize on the four years of experience gained in implementing the project (with all its successes and failures). This is the “learning from failure” argument, which in the context of research can be more important than success (Perrin, 2002).47 Grantee's Comments on Draft ICR Overall Statement: CORAF/WECARD has reviewed the draft Implementation Completion Report (ICR) of the MDTF program. The report is thorough, factual, and highly educative with many lessons pertaining to design and to implementation. The program has, despite design and implementation challenges, delivered good outcomes, notably on gender and equity with many potentially excellent untold stories that CORAF/WECARD will endeavor to bring out.

CORAF/WECARD will use the lessons learnt in (a) finalizing our 2017-2026 Strategy Plan, (b) developing our 2017-2021 Operational Plan and Resource Mobilization Plan, and (c) revising procedure manuals with regard to competitive or commissioned grant schemes.

CORAF/WECARD reiterates its gratitude to each Contributing Donor Partner (CDP) and to the World Bank for their generous financial support and their engaged supervision in the implementation of the program.

Perrin Burt, 2002. “How to - and How not to Evaluate Innovation,” Evaluation, volume 8 (1): 13-28., 47

56

Specific Comments: CORAF/WECARD has made some suggested edits in track changes and provided a few comments for consideration in finalizing the ICR as follows: Section 6.

It might be useful to delineate the geographical scope of “regional” vs “sub-regional” as the terms seem to be used interchangeably.

Section 19.

CORAF/WECARD believes it is critically important to mention that CDPs established informal-to-semi-structured relationships with CORAF/WECARD that aimed/served to give greater visibility to the CDPs. This came with positive (proximity) and negative (multiplicity of reporting) externalities.

Section 41.

With respect to staff that remained at end of MDTF, we also had the planning officer, the m&e specialist, one programme manager, one programme assistant (capacity building) and several administrative and financial support staff. Departure of some of these personnel occurred after the MDTF had closed.

Section 47.

CORAF had tried to improve environmental compliance by recruiting an Environmental Safeguard Officer. Interviews to that effect were carried out in April 2015 but CORAF could not conclude the process due to lack of funds. However, efforts were made on safeguard issues during field visits. For example, the use of Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) by workers in some Processing Units supported by MDTF in Burkina Faso and Mali became possible thanks to the awareness made by the mission.

Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders Délégation de l'Union européenne en République du Sénégal Merci pour ce rapport que j'ai examiné et que je trouve très complet. Donc je n'ai pas de commentaire sauf vous demander de mentionner la dernière extension de la date limite de déboursement jusqu'au 30 juin 2017 au point 22 du rapport. Merci de bien vouloir nous transmettre la version finale. Nous restons aussi en attente de toute indication pour accéder au rapport financier final.

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents   

CORAF/WECARD Statuts du CORAF/WECARD, 12 juin 2008 CORAF/WECARD, Request for Extension (First Restructuring), January 20, 2015 CORAF/WECARD, Request for Reallocation of Funds, (Second Restructuring), June 17, 2016

57

               

    

CORAF/WECARD MDTF Proposed Restructuring of Subprojects and Reallocation of Grant Funds, June 2016 CORAF/WECARD, Final Evaluation of the CORAF Operational Plan 2008-2013 and the Preparation of the Second Operational Plan 2014-2018, Phase 1 - Final Evaluation Report, November 2013, The IDL Group CORAF/WECARD, M&E Manual, November 11, 2014 CORAF/WECARD MDTF Semi-annual Reports, 2012-2016 CORAF/WECARD Facts Sheets Series, (not dated) CORAF/WECARD M&E, Outputs by Component CORAF/WECARD, Final Evaluation Report for Projects AMPROLAIT, INTROGRESSION, TRADEOFFS IN COCOA, EXTERNALITIES, TRADITIONAL AFRICAN VEGETABLES (TAV), drafted by Dongmo, A. L., April 2017 CORAF/WECARD, End of Project Evaluation of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF), 20121016, (Fisheries projects), drafted by Toguyeni, A., April 2017 CORAF/WECARD, End of Project Evaluation of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF), 20121016, Draft 0 Final Report, and Annexes, drafted by Diagne, A et al. May 15, 2017 (backdated March 28, 2017) European Commission, Strategic Review of DEVCO Support to African Continental and Sub-regional Agricultural Research Organizations: FARA, AFAAS, CORAF/WECARD, ASARECA, and CCARDESA, Final Report, May 2016 European Commission, Dates de paiement et réception des factures (electronic file), May 2017 European Commission, Letter to World Bank, “Contract on EC contribution the MDTF for support to the CORAF - Ref: Your payment request dated January 15, 2015,” dated March 24, 2015 European Commission, Letter to World Bank, “Contract on EC contribution the MDTF for support to the CORAF – Ref1: Your call of funds Request on May 4, 2016; Ref2: Your agreement on the grant amendment on July 21, 2016,” October 21, 2016 World Bank, CORAF/WECARD MDTF Project Appraisal Document (pdf not dated, assumed to be September 2009) World Bank, CORAF/WECARD MDTF Grant Agreement, July 22, 2011 World Bank, CAADP Pillar IV Multi-donor Trust Fund for Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF) Performance Status Report, JanuaryDecember 2013; January-December 2014; January-December 2015; January-March 2016; January-May 2016 World Bank, Aide Memoires of Implementation Supervision Missions: Apr-May 2012, Oct 4-5 & 13, 2012; Apr 17-18, 2013; Nov 1-12, 2013; Apr 28-May 2, 2014; 17-21, Nov 2014; May 18-23, 2015; Nov 9-13, 2015; May 9-13, 2016, Nov/Dec 2016 World Bank, (First) Restructuring Paper, March 14, 2014 World Bank, Notification of Closing Date and Reallocation of Grant Proceeded (First restructuring), August 25, 2015 World Bank, Second Restructuring Paper, July 15, 2016 World Bank, Notification of Closing Date and Reallocation of Grant Proceeds (Second Restructuring), July 21, 2016

58

1