1. The Douala Action Plan – A preliminary assessment Regional project implementation workshop in Western and Central Africa Accra, Ghana December 1-4, 2009

2. Outline Context and objectives of the Douala meeting Objectives of the Douala Action Plan Action areas Achievements Results Preliminary conclusions

3. Context of the Douala meeting Shared responsibility for achieving results -IFAD Direct Supervision, increased attention to implementation performance and achievement of development objectives -Strengthened monitoring systems -Performance counts in PBAS -Shared interest to make it happen

4. Objectives of the Douala meeting Objectives of the Douala workshop -Share information on changes occurring within IFAD -Review progress made since Bamako action plan, draw lessons and design a realistic new action plan -Strengthen collaboration among Governments, project staff, IFAD and civil society partners -Encourage the sharing of experience and knowledge among all projects and partners

5. Objectives of the Douala Action Plan 1.Improve Partnership between IFAD, Governments and other partners in Programme and Project steering by strengthening the role of CPMTs 2.Improve the management of loans and support for project implementation and performance by borrowers 3.Improve system for M&E, RIMS and project sustainability 4.Knowledge management and innovation

6. Action areas 1.Systematically set up CPMTs in all countries and communicate their roles, objectives and TOR to Governments and partners 2.Strengthen Presence of IFAD, and the Director in particular, by means of field visits in Countries at risk (at least one visit per year) 3.Develop partnerships at the national and regional level 4.Improve recruitment and performance evaluation for project personnel 5.Organize training sessions to build project capacity 6.Improve project management and monitoring 7.Strengthen consistency between national procurement procedures and IFAD guidelines 8.Improve project auditing process 9.Improve project M&E system 10.improve participation and coordination by departments and partners in direct supervision missions and in the implementation of recommendations by audit/supervision missions 11.Support governments in conducting ex-post evaluations 12.Build knowledge management into project design, implementation and supervision 13.Strengthen project team capacity in capitalizing on experiences 14.Encourage the dissemination and sharing of project innovations and experiences 15.Improve the circulation of information between research grants and national projects (research projects, results)

7. “Resolution” of analysis A preliminary overview after only 10 months of implementation Sample size: about 50% of the active countries are covered by the analysis – not complete Objective is to have a rough idea of the main tendencies, achievements, weaknesses and lessons

8. Preliminary overview of achievements so far: Action area 1 Improved partnership in programme steering -CPMTs are set up in > 67% of the countries Formalized in less than 33 % of the countries National-level meetings are organized to discuss country programme implementation (formal COSOP implementation reviews, eg. Mali) -2 regional meetings in 2009 (Douala, Accra) -Initial delays in implementation of field presence, but picking up: Burkina Faso, Ghana, Senegal; -Volume of missions increased;

9. Preliminary overview of achievements so far: Action area 2 Improve the management of loans and support for project implementation and performance by borrowers > 67% of projects improved personnel selection process (written tests, professional requirements etc.) training on implementation (AWPB, disbursement, procurement) workshops to familiarize with basic documents with qualified auditors recruited and audit completed in time receive interim supporting audits (risk projects) > 33% of design missions analyzed country procurement systems for consistency with IFAD guidelines < 33% of projects with rigorous internal M&E systems 360 degree evaluations for teams

10. Preliminary overview of achievements so far: Action area 3 Improve system for M&E, RIMS and project sustainability > 67% of projects benefited in RIMS workshops at country or at regional level ex-post evaluations (incl. completion) are conducted under leadership of Government received support to put in place their M&E system as of year 1 (new projects) > 33% of projects have adequate RIMS indicators for annual reporting RIMS indicators are built in lead ministries’ M&E systems < 33% of projects received joint supervision missions of co-financing agencies under Government’s leadership

11. Preliminary overview of achievements so far: Action area 4 Improve system for M&E, RIMS and project sustainability (KM) > 67% of Projects have KM built into project design, supervision missions and AWPBs Supervision missions identify best practices for sharing purposes Projects have a training plan Participate in FIDAfrique activities > 33 % of projects benefited in workshops to strengthen their capacity in capitalization on experiences < 33% of projects benefited from coaching on KM

12. Other activities in KM FIDAfrique website is being improved Webpages for implementation workshops have been developed Learning sheets (loan administration, procurement) Information sheets on project and grant results Specific initiatives (eg. small grant on sharing knowledge in small scale irrigation, country programme newsletters, etc.) Exchange visits

13. Results and remaining challenges 2009 - Proportion of projects with risk flags on: -Disbursement rates: 33% -Financial management: 35% -M&E systems: 30% -Project management performance: 28% -Availability of counterpart funds: 26% -Performance of service providers: 20% -Gender focus in implementation: 15% -Compliance with loan covenants: 15% -Compliance with procurement procedures: 9% -Poverty focus in implementation: 9%

14. Conclusions Many actions do not have an immediate effect on implementation performance indicators Result achievement depends on many factors -Good problem analysis -Alignment of systems -Leadership of implementing agencies is key Direct supervision has helped to improve problem analysis and prioritize implementation support areas; results however not yet measurable M&E performance remains challenge