Introduction

The Agreement at Completion Point is based on the deliberations and discussions of the partners on the findings and recommendations from the March 2003 Interim Evaluation report, and contains the essential issues the Core Learning Partnership have agreed to include in preparations for a subsequent intervention.

Given the accelerated schedule for preparations for the second phase, the proposal for this agreement was made on the basis of discussions by the partners on how to formulate this phase, including the debriefing on 2 May 2003 of the formulation mission. The proposal was submitted and discussed as such on 5 May 2003. Therefore, it is to be expected that the points of consensus in this agreement will be pursued quickly during the completion of the formulation of the future project.

The main partners involved in the discussions in Conakry were: representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, the Planning Ministry, the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Finance, and the Unit for Project Management and Control; the director of the current project; the head of the M&E Unit, the team leader of the second-phase formulation mission; the IFAD Country Portfolio Manager for Guinea. The process was facilitated by the Office of Evaluation of IFAD.

General findings and recommendations

Evaluation findings

The first evaluation finding is that when looking at the project zone, the surface area covered (over 21 000 km2) is so vast that it seems impossible to cover it effectively and in a consistent manner. The mission noted that this geographic dispersion caused some very real problems:

• it was impossible to provide inputs on time to all sectors, which hindered the effectiveness of extension work;
• it was difficult to monitor all the various activities (tests, demonstration fields, etc.), which led to gaps in reliable data; and
• it was difficult to organize meetings among the peasants as a means of fostering exchanges, which are very beneficial for disseminating new techniques.

The second finding was a noteworthy focus on social infrastructure, considering the project had been designed specifically to promote agricultural development in the zone. Although the population had requested and appreciated these activities, IFAD’s mandate and technical capacity should be kept in mind.

The project results, particularly in terms of the use made of budget funds, leaves as a first impression that this was a roads project, not a project to promote agricultural development.

The basic assumption of the first phase – that increased accessibility should be provided simultaneously with the promotion of agriculture – has proven to be false in the sense that it was necessary to open up the area before agricultural improvement could proceed. With the recent completion of the road works, one could consider from an agricultural development perspective that the project is in its first year.

The mission found that increased accessibility in the project area had had an extremely positive economic and sociocultural impact on the population.

Finally, it should be noted that the Guinean authorities have clearly stated that, in terms of combating poverty, the positive impact generated thus far provides ample justification for continuing with the increased access component in a future phase of the project.

Recommendations

• The mission recommends that the project area be reduced in order to improve actual coverage. It supports the recommendation already made by the Mid-term Review Mission to refocus the project activities on the ten rural development communities (RDCs) (two in each of the original project districts), selected according to their conditions and the concentration of activities. This approach would allow a continued presence in all original prefectures while increasing the emphasis on training and closer monitoring in certain better-targeted zones.
• It also recommends that interventions be refocused on the original agricultural objectives so as to make the roadwork investments profitable.
• The authorities want the future project to be refocused not only on a geographical basis but also to take into account the increased access from production zones (the valley bottoms) toward the main roads. Such an approach would require that cofinancing be sought.

Agriculture: support for production, processing and marketing

Evaluation findings

The mission found that the results vis-à-vis the original objectives were weakest in agriculture: development of valley bottoms, production, processing and marketing. Nonetheless, significant results were seen during the first phase in the area of adaptive research, especially for improved seeds.

It also found a serious coexistence problem between farmers and livestock-raisers, as well as land tenure problems in the valley bottoms. Half of the population is involved in livestock-raising and serious problems could arise with valley-bottom development if timely action is not taken.

Regarding environmental issues, the shortening of the fallow period, the use of slash-and-burn techniques, and the planting of off-season crops have contributed to impoverishing the soil. These phenomena could be reduced if the valley bottoms were quickly developed and rational management were introduced for their cultivation. Deforestation (firewood, charcoal and lumber) has reached a problematic level. Some tentative first steps were taken in a few RDCs in an attempt to rectify the situation (community forests and active awareness-raising through the media).

Recommendations

• The actions in a second phase should focus on agriculture in order to maximize benefits of the road infrastructures: development of cereal banks, processing structures and organization of production groups around agricultural activities, especially in valley bottoms. Finally, the adaptive research results could be disseminated immediately.
• With regard to the environment, the reforestation actions begun by charcoal-burners and their cooperatives in some locations – together with the media campaign – should be continued rigorously and reinforced with supplementary activities to halt deforestation.

Support for rural infrastructure development

Evaluation findings

The roads component was doubled over original plans, and still little consideration was given to increased access to the valley bottoms, a priority objective in the pre-appraisal document. It seems unrealistic to seek to develop the valley bottoms if they lack access, so this problem should be studied if a second phase is formulated.

Infrastructure maintenance will pose a problem at the local level over the medium term, as the communities will not spontaneously take an active financial part in this; ownership will need to be fostered (through ongoing training) and regulations will need to be applied strictly. The problem is currently not very significant, since the infrastructure is new and requires only light maintenance. The financial status of the communities and RDCs needs to be monitored in order to avoid financing infrastructure on unrealistic maintenance assumptions.

The social infrastructure works had a positive impact in the areas where they were implemented. It is too soon to draw any lessons, but in any event, the impact is very limited owing to the modest coverage of these achievements.

Recommendations

• There is no reason for planning additional infrastructure, except for access roads to connect the valley bottoms to the road system built during the first phase. Emphasis should instead be placed on promoting ownership by the beneficiary populations to ensure maintenance and management of these new infrastructures.
• Before planning rural infrastructure works for the second phase, the local financing situation for maintenance of such works should be examined in depth to find a sustainable balance between investment and operation.
• In order to re-focus the project - and bearing in mind IFAD’s mandate and specificity and practical reasons of training beneficiaries and monitoring activities - any new interventions not falling within the scope of the Ministry of Agriculture should be kept to a minimum.

Support for grass-roots institutions

Evaluation findings

Given the encouraging results obtained to date, the participatory approach of the project should be reinforced and even expanded to include monitoring activities, so that beneficiaries will feel and be responsible up through the process of analysing achievements. The grass-roots structures, though promising, are still fragile, and this could jeopardize the sustainability of a number of project accomplishments.

The rapid establishment of the financial services associations was one of the project’s very promising achievements, considering their impact on the economic situation of beneficiaries (reduction in debt to money-lenders and creation of new economic options) in the target . At the same time, it is clear that growth will cause management problems, as it will not be possible to manage large financial services associations with the same flexibility as smaller ones.

Farmers’ organizations have assisted in the area for a long time, but some of them are now facing a potentially significant, if not yet definite, development process. This potential can only be achieved through professionalization leading to better organization of producers’ groups.

The project was not designed as a programme to support institutional reform, but it was associated with the decentralization process when the were established in 1999. The mission felt that the represent the best local-level structure to be associated with the planning and monitoring of a new phase, including infrastructure maintenance. Since their actual implementation is still in progress, the mission could not take a final position on their capacities and possible need for support.

A project to support the decentralization process began in 1999 Village Communities Support Project with cofinancing from IFAD (25%) and the rest from the World Bank, the African Development Fund and the French Development Agency. In principle, this project provides support to local elected representatives (training, operation, etc.) but it also provides a contribution of GNF 100 million (USD 50 000) to the infrastructure operation and maintenance budget.

Recommendations

• A subsequent phase should include significant support for grass-roots institutions: farmers’ organizations, financial services associations and .
• During the programming phase, it should be kept in mind that farmers’ organizations are part of the private sector.
• The financial services associations should begin to work towards becoming officially recognized financial institutions. What kind of steps should be taken for them to acquire an administrative and legal status allowing continued growth and broader geographic coverage, while still being considered as village banks?
• For the future, the project should aim at increasing RDC participation in the organization and day-to-day management of activities. This would not only be effective in terms of strengthening project personnel but it would also allow for better, consolidated training of local partners.

Project management – including project management unit

Evaluation findings

Without a doubt, the main failure in project management was the failure to conduct a budgetary review immediately after the project start-up workshop in 1997, to adjust for changes in the work programme. The lack of a timely review led to a difficult financial situation in several areas and ultimately to a sudden, drastic revision by the mid-term review.

Though the problem had long been acknowledged by all the partners but had never been addressed, it ended up having impact beyond the project’s financial arena. Although it was a matter of financial management and control of the project, the responsibility does not lie solely with the finance and accounts unit of the project. A review of the project files has not revealed why no action was taken in the light of what all partners realized, namely that the project was heading towards a financial breakdown. More regular support (supervision) from the line ministries and/or the cooperating institution and financiers could have averted such a situation.

Gaps were observed in the circulation of information and reports among the financing partners and the cooperating institution, as well as in the follow-up on reports.

Recommendations

• There is a need at all levels (Project, Ministry of Agriculture, ACGP [Major Projects Administration], Planning Ministry, Economic Affairs and Finance Ministry, United Nations Office for Project Services [UNOPS], IFAD and OPEC) to step up the monitoring of activities through much stricter budgetary control (approval of disbursements and monitoring of withdrawal requests) and commitments (compliance with programme estimates) to avoid having considerable unexpected overruns.
• Regarding involvement of the various financing partners and the cooperating institution, participation in a joint yearly monitoring mission would certainly make it possible to prevent situations such as those being experienced currently by the project, with the participants being able to decide together, and immediately, on how to address any special situations that may arise.