1. Ghana Country Programme Evaluation National Roundtable Workshop 2 November 2011 - Accra, Ghana 1 Independent Office of Evaluation

2. Ghana Country Programme Evaluation Covers 13 years of strategy and operations (COSOP 1998, 2006), 6 projects and 9 technical assistance grants Triangulates from multiple sources:  Comprehensive desk review (including past evaluations);  Field visits of projects and selected grants  Interviews with stakeholders  Thematic roundtable discussions (rural finance, agricultural value chains) 2

3. Three levels of analysis Performance of the portfolio (project-level analysis) Performance of non-lending activities (knowledge management, partnerships, policy dialogue) Performance of the COSOP (strategy) 3 Overall Partnership Performance

4. Total projects :16 (since 1980) Total cost:US$ 675 m IFAD lending:US$ 225 m h.c. loans (33%) Gov. funding:US$ 162 m (24%) Co-financingUS$ 288 m (43%) 4 IFAD- Ghana Cooperation Highlights

5. 5 Real GDP per capita in Ghana (1972-2010) constant 2000 US$ Source: WB 2011

6. 6 Prevalence of Poverty (%)

7. Evolution of IFAD’s strategy COSOP 1998 - Geographic concentration on regions in Northern Ghana - Sub-sectors: irrigation, rural finance, agricultural technology transfer, support to decentralisation COSOP 2006 - Shift towards country-wide mono-sectoral programmes (  phasing out of Upper West) - Same subsectors + new focus on value chain development Other important changes IFAD Direct supervision since 2008 IFAD Country presence since 2011 7

8. Portfolio Performance – Overview Overall positive and improving Relevant project objectives, some design flaws Effectiveness varies within and between projects Weak efficiency Impact is mixed: strong on institution and social capital, variable for income & assets; environmental risks Sustainability is improving Innovations introduced but piloting not sufficient. 8

9. Portfolio performance - Rural Finance Relevant and effective at institutional level (regulatory environment, rural banks, credit unions, apexes) Less so at adapting financial products to rural poor clients Introduced “matching grants” as smart subsidies (loan + equity + ma. grant) ; lack of clarity over implementation Contributed to national policy on microfinance (but subsidised credit programmes continue) 9

10. Portfolio performance - Rural Enterprises Business Assistance Centres imparted basic entrepreneurial skills, contributing to growth of micro and small enterprises Rural Technology Facilities strengthened apprenticeship systems, less clear results in technology dissemination Facilitated coordination and public-private partnership in MSE development at district level (legislative initiatives) 10

11. Portfolio performance - Local Government and Community Development Focused on very poor groups, supporting district-level participatory planning Design too optimistic: (i) unclear policy framework (ii) IFAD not supported by experienced development partners; (iii) funding gap  Slow implementation and sustainability threats 11

12. Portfolio performance - Agricultural development Effective at supporting production : (i) higher-yield roots and tubers; (ii) participatory extension approaches (farmers field fora) Value chain support: relevant but difficult to implement. Weak business analysis, unclear mutual obligations in private-public partnerships  Upgrading processing for existing value chains (roots & tubers);  Development of new value chains is challenging (e.g. vegetables) 12

13. “Non-lending” activities Policy dialogue: significant in rural enterprise; rural finance. Matching grants have potential. Limited in other sub-sectors Partnerships strong with Government at national level, growing at local level.  In rural finance, gap with multilateral agencies  Value chain: increasing with private sector, but review of risks and constraints not sufficient Knowledge management is weaker area: poor M&E, impact assessment. Promising “intuitions” in COSOP and project formulation not always supported by technical analysis 13

14. COSOP performance Relevance. Shift of focus between 1998 and 2006 COSOP from geographic targeting to broad-based growth with limited analysis of implications and constraints Effectiveness. Strongest results in rural finance and rural enterprises at institutional level  Mixed results in the North  Value chains: valid concept, early implementation stage, questions on approaches Management issues. Country office established in 2011. M&E has not received enough attention 14

15. General Assessment Performance of the portfolio Moderately Satisfactory: 4 COSOP performance Moderately Satisfactory: 4 15 Rating scale: 1 = highly unsatisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 3 = moderately unsatisfactory; 4 = moderately satisfactory; 5 = satisfactory; 6 = highly satisfactory Overall Partnership Performance Moderately Satisfactory: 4 Non-lending activities Moderately Satisfactory: 4

16. Main Recommendations Strengthen analytical work in COSOP preparation and project design Continue sub-sectoral programmes but increase focus on Upper West More emphasis on testing and scaling up innovations: (i) rural finance and matching grants; (ii) savings and credit products adapted to the poor Value chains. Review successful regional experiences, explore opportunities to cooperate with other initiatives Support national M&E systems in partnership with national and international social science research institutions 16

17. THE END Thank you for your attention 17