The Bamako Action Plan - Achievements, Lessons, Way Ahead Regional project implementation workshop in Western and Central Africa Douala, Cameroon January 2009

Outline Context and objectives of the Bamako meeting Objectives of the Bamako Action Plan Action areas Achievements Improving project performance Moving towards a country programme approach Results Lessons and way ahead

Context and objectives of the Bamako meeting in Workshop was “ground breaking” in 2005 context -IEE ongoing, action plan not yet existent, little awareness of implementation, no specific resources -“Country program approach” yet to be clearly defined, efforts to improve PRSP alignment of COSOPs, policy dialogue, PBAS, RIMS -PA’s vision and experience shaped IFAD’s Institutional Change agenda Objectives of the Bamako workshop -Share information on changes occurring within IFAD; -Identify a limited number of priority actions with “SMART” indicators for an action plan for to improve the implementation of IFAD-funded projects in the region

Objectives of the Bamako Action Plan 1.Improve project implementation performance (risk flags) -poor performance of M&E systems (36%); -poor quality of service delivery (31%) -low disbursement rates (28%) -project management performance (23%) 2.Transition to the country program approach -information and communications -development and management of partnerships -management and sharing of knowledge -dialogue on rural development policies

Action areas 1.Harmonise M&E methods and tools 2.Strengthen project teams’ M&E capacities 3.Provide adequate financial and logistic support to carry out M&E activities 4.Produce and share information on good practices in managing the provision of services 5.Improve the quality of AWPB, ensuring realism, flexibility and incorporation of lessons learned from previous years’ experiences 6.Improve management capacity in IFAD projects, particularly with regard to cash flow management 7.Increase transparency and accountability to provide incentives for reducing delays in the treatment of withdrawal applications 8.Selection of project staff based on their competence and adapted to management needs (creativity, leadership, adaptation, team work, etc.) 9.Involve farmers’ representatives in the whole project cycle, including loan negotiations. 10.Improve access to existing information to support country programme performance 11.Improve user-friendliness of information from IFAD-HQ to key-stakeholders 12.Develop a coherent approach to partnership development and management by strengthening links between key country stakeholders and fostering exchange of experience 13.Strengthen capacity of farmers’ organisations to enhance their effectiveness in policy dialogue

Achievements in improving implementation performance M&E: -All project coordinators and M&E staff trained on RIMS (September 2006) -Regional Grant to strengthen Project M&E effective -RIMS included in TOR of Supervision missions -Specific follow-up missions organized for at least 75% of projects with risk flags on M&E Management Capacity -Management Capacity Strengthening Program operational (> 50% of projects trained) -Specific support missions organized for at least 75% of projects with risk flags on AWPB coherence -Good AWPB format shared between projects across the region

Achievements in supporting the country programme approach Communication and Knowledge Management -Continued work on thematic priorities (CDD, Cassava, rice, IA, RF,... ) -FIDAfrique has successfully supported knowledge sharing and people networking with electronic conferences, physical workshops, dissemination of information, training etc. -PA’s newsletter FIDAction keeps partners informed Partnership and policy dialogue -Country-level stakeholder consultations have become a standard during COSOP design (particularly Farmers’ Organizations) -Exchange visits were organized to enhance learning and knowledge sharing between projects -Grants to strengthen Farmers’ Organizations’ capacity are effective in some countries

Results Project performance -Project M&E (Risk flags 36% → 31%) -Performance of service providers (Risk flags 31% → 24%) -Project management capacity (Risk flags 23% → 31%) -Disbursement rates (Risk flags 28% → 33%) Country programme approach -Information and communications ? -Development and management of partnerships ? -Management and sharing of knowledge ? -Dialogue on rural development policies ?

Lessons and way ahead Unquantifiable results are hard to evaluate Result achievement depends on many factors -Good problem analysis is key -Resources, and long term commitment -Courage to innovate... also the longest trip starts with the first step -Incentive system at all levels (Institutional backstopping and synergies can make the difference) Strengthen capacities for result-based management Direct supervision Systems and resources for learning, sharing and mainstreaming good practice at the most appropriate levels

Thank you!