2004 Portfolio Review 2004 Portfolio Review: Main Findings What is the portfolio review? Status of the regional portfolio Performance indicators and ratings Implementation performance Major problems Crucial challenges Proposed indicators to improve the regional portfolio 2004 Portfolio Review: Main Findings
2004 Portfolio Review What is the regional portfolio review? Tool to analyse and assess the structure and quality of the regional portfolio –identify management issues at IFAD level –provide appropriate responses –basis for corporate reporting to IFAD’s governing bodies –provide input for PBAS –aggregate and analyse RIMS indicators Process is staff-driven –Project and country levels: Review of data available –Preparation of project status reports and country programme issues sheets (based on supervision reports) –Country review meetings with all relevant IFAD staff –Revision, aggregation and analysis of inputs at a regional level –Draft version, comments –Finalisation Period covered: 1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004
2004 Portfolio Review Status of the regional portfolio Current portfolio: 18 active countries 55 loan projects, 39 ongoing, $ 660 million Geographic imbalance –35 ongoing projects in 11 West African countries –only 4 ongoing projects in 3 Central African Countries Reactivation of loan portfolio in 3 post-conflict countries (Congo, DR Congo and Sierra Leone) No loan projects in 6 countries, Cote d’Ivoire “frozen” In general, quality and impact of the regional project portfolio has improved
2004 Portfolio Review Performance Indicators and Ratings Classification of ratings 1Above or on target Good ratings 2Mostly on target 3Substantially below target Risk Flags for low ratings 4Little or no progress Rating system: Project-at-Risk Methodology Indicators influence performance ratings and country allocations
2004 Portfolio Review Implementation performance 20% of effective projects show a disbursement lag of ≥ 40% Project management performance remains a concern in many countries Performance of Cooperating Institutions –Only in 35% of projects, supervision is found to be problem-free –54% with moderate problems –10% projects with major problems
2004 Portfolio Review Portfolio Performance PAR Classification 20042003 Number of Projects % % Project Not at Risk33 85 2670 Potential Problem Project 0000 Actual Problem Project 6 15 9 25 Not Rated0025 Total3910037100
2004 Portfolio Review Project management performance remains a concern Measures –Regional Management Capacity Strengthening Programme –Regional M&E Capacity Strengthening Programme –Follow-up of case-specific supervision and mid-term review recommendations –Redesigning problematic project components as appropriate
2004 Portfolio Review Crucial challenges Manage time to achieve results (planning/implementation) of project cycle –Average time laps from approval to loan signature 3.4 months –Average time laps from signature to start-up 1 year –Low disbursement performance during implementation Manage quality throughout the cycle based on responsibilities assigned to the partners –Government: Ownership and implementation –Cooperating Institution: Basic Supervision/Implementation Support –IFAD: Ensure good governance in resource use
2004 Portfolio Review Proposed indicators to improve the portfolio By 2006, resources used annually for implementation support increased by at least 30% depending on needs identified in cooperation with the PCU, CPM and CI. By 2006, there are no projects rated at risk in the region. By 2007, low ratings are below 10% for all implementation performance indicators in ongoing projects. By 2008, all ongoing and new projects have action plans to improve performance of their M&E systems.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.