Interim evaluation

Introduction

The purpose of this interim evaluation mission – required by IFAD policy – was to evaluate whether the results and impact on the target population justify a continuation of the project, or whether the original approach should be reviewed and modified, and if a change was called for, to issue proposals for restructuring the current activities or components.

The evaluation mission was especially important since the project was in a difficult financial situation because of the high amount of road infrastructure work already done. As a matter of fact, at the time of the mission the project was no longer able to meet its commitments to its service providers.

Mission and Methodology

The mission began on 22 January 2003 with a two-day briefing at IFAD headquarters in Rome. It arrived in Conakry on the 24th, where it held working meetings with the line ministries and the project management team. Finally, it went to the field from 28 January to 6 February to evaluate the project accomplishments. The mission ended with a debriefing meeting on 11 February at the Ministry of Agriculture.

The methodology used was based on the following questions:

• Were the project objectives achieved in terms of impact on living conditions in all meanings of the term?
• Were the actions undertaken effective, and relevant to the needs of the rural populations and the project objectives?
• Were the project’s main partners productive?
• Were the specific themes identified by the Core Learning Partnership pertinent?

Considering the geographic area of the project, the mission proceeded as follows:

• Workshops were held in three representative locations in the project area with participation at each of representatives of the following groups: (i) beneficiaries (farmers, women, youth); (ii) structures introduced by the project (farmer organizations, economic interest groups, Rural Development Communities (RDCs)); (iii) the Government; and (iv) economic intermediaries (merchants, carriers, etc.).
• The objective of these workshops was to highlight the project impacts as experienced by the beneficiaries themselves and to reveal any shortcomings or inconsistencies, again from the perspective of the beneficiaries. These meetings were structured according to the questionnaire IFAD prepared as part of the Common Project Evaluation Framework: "Key Questions for Impact Assessment in Rural Communities Affected by the Project".
• A fourth workshop was held at the project headquarters in Dubréka. It was attended by the participants from the three regional workshops as well as central government officials, to whom the mission was able to present a summary of its fieldwork. The objective of this workshop was to consider possible future paths for the main project components, i.e. what were the future prospects for: (i) the RDCs; (ii) the financial services associations; and (iii) the economic interest groups and farmer organizations?

Project area and target groups

Located in north Lower Guinea in the first foothills of Fouta Djallon, the project covers an area of 21 243 km2, or approximately 10% of the national territory. This region has rugged topography and is very difficult to access, which impedes the development of its agricultural potential. Further, major problems with access to water and basic services (e.g. health care, schools, community centres) have made it one of the poorest regions in the country.

The region’s population is estimated to be approximately 700 000 (or about 10% of the national population). The population in the project area is calculated at 480 835 people living in 481 villages or 145 districts, for a total of 79 348 farms distributed among 27 RDCs and two urban areas.

An estimated 47% of the population in the project zone is expected to benefit – directly or indirectly - by project activities. Two target groups were identified among this population: (i) households consisting of seven people and farming an average of 1.5 ha; and (ii) households of ten people farming an average of 2.2 ha.

The project target group thus consists of approximately 168 000 persons (or approximately 35% of households in the project area) on 28 500 farms distributed among 228 villages.

Partnership and Institutional Arrangements

The Government of the Republic of Guinea is financing the project with loans from: (i) IFAD, in the amount of SDR 10.2 million (or USD 15.25 million), and (ii) the OPEC Fund, in the amount of USD 4 million out of a total amount requested equivalent to USD 6.7 million.

The government is contributing an amount equivalent to USD 2.92 million and the direct beneficiaries are contributing USD 660 000.

The cooperating institution selected by IFAD and the OPEC Fund is UNOPS/OPS, Africa II Division, UNOPS Abidjan.

Project objectives and components

The project objectives, as defined in the Appraisal Report, are: (i) to increase agricultural production, especially of rice; (ii) to increase food security and improve living conditions for the beneficiary population, especially women and youth; (iii) to develop rural infrastructure; and (iv) to reinforce grass-roots institutions. The project also seeks to increase income and protect the environment. These objectives align perfectly with the government’s poverty-reduction strategy.

To achieve these objectives, the project was subdivided into four components:

• Support for grass-roots institutions: promotion and consolidation of the participatory approach is the cornerstone of the project strategy, with close involvement by local residents throughout the programming and implementation of activities.
• Support for production, processing and marketing: increased agricultural production, especially of rice, on hillsides and in valley bottoms as a result of improved seed varieties, introduction of new technological packages, development of valley bottoms, reforestation, and marketing and processing activities form the main project component, aimed at improving the living conditions of beneficiary populations by boosting incomes and reinforcing food security.
• Support for rural infrastructure development: the project zone is very difficult to access and suffers from a substantial deficit in social and community infrastructure (health training, schools, village water supply, developed valley bottoms, etc.). This component thus was intended to make the existing road system profitable, to increase support services and improve accessibility.
• Support for the project management unit (PMU): given a light structure and placed under the supervision of a director, the PMU consists of the heads of the various components and an administrative and financial section. The unit does not directly perform the work, except for facilitation activities.

Analysis of Results

Project start-up occurred almost simultaneously with the introduction of decentralized institutions at the national level. The project took the opportunity to make the RDCs its partner institution, which were then involved in the planning process at the district level.

Among the grass-roots organizations, that is, those directly affecting farmers and reflecting their wishes, it is the financial services associations that have had the greatest impact on the population. The concept of "local banking" has become nearly synonymous with security and the disappearance of usury. The major concern will be seeing whether managers will be able to run these financial services associations if the project ends, and what their institutional future will be.

The viability of the farmer organizations (OPs) will depend on their ability to structure themselves to evolve into truly professional producer groups. There is still much to be done in terms of training and support.

The component to provide support for production, processing and marketing, originally considered as the main project activity, did not achieve the desired results foreseen in the initial planning. This could be explained by the fact that the extreme remoteness of most of the populations caused a certain wait-and-see attitude vis-à-vis start-up of agricultural production activities. The lines of transport and marketing are now a reality, and productive activities are being put in place. Many findings from the research done during the first phase are available in terms of improved varieties and rangeland techniques. They need to be disseminated to the farmers hand-in-hand with support for monitoring and training. Here as well, if the project ends, it will be to the detriment of the continuity of these activities.

As for rural infrastructure, the demand from the populations was such that this component became the number one priority, especially regarding roads. At this level, the impact of project achievements was considered very positive by all beneficiaries since it met one of their most basic needs. The main problem that will arise shortly is management and maintenance of this new infrastructure. Communities are aware that these tools are theirs and that they need to maintain them, but they are also aware that they do not have the resources to handle major requirements.

Overall evaluation of the project

The mission noted that all the objectives stated in the Appraisal Report were relevant. However, the objective concerning the environment did not receive much attention from the project in terms of activities or budgetary allocation.

Given the difficulty in accessing this area, before the project was launched, agricultural production could be considered as subsistence farming. One of the first activities to be undertaken therefore was to improve cropping conditions and boost production.

In view of the degree of abandonment of most of the communities until now, all activities that could improve their living conditions, for women and youth in particular, would be absolutely pertinent.

Regarding integration of the project into the decentralization process undertaken by the Government through the support of the RDCs, the mission considers this approach very pertinent given that it tends to support the strategy of the group approach, considered very effective.

As for project efficiency, progress made towards achieving the objectives defined in the Appraisal Report was rather mixed. This was mainly the result of financial problems encountered almost from the very beginning, which were a major factor in suspending or postponing certain activities at times when they surely should not have been interrupted.

At the time of the mission’s visit, the project was struggling with financial problems that are still not resolved. It is clear that these problems originated at the time the project activities began, more precisely following the project start-up workshop held from 21 to 27 March 1997. The changes made during this workshop, especially in terms of increase in infrastructure, took place after signature of the loan agreements and entailed cost overruns on the order of 25% over the original financing. These changes were made in the presence of IFAD and UNOPS representatives, who approved them without commenting on the anomaly of the cost overruns involved in these changes.

In any event, the difficult financial situation of the project at present is in great danger of undermining the good results noted elsewhere, which require support and close monitoring for some time still in order to be sustainable.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations for a Possible Second Phase

It would be a good idea to refocus project activities on representative zones in the five districts currently covered, in order to manage better the actions to be introduced and, especially, to provide follow-up in terms of their adoption and extension.

Any new action should basically target farming so as to maximize the benefits of the rural infrastructure (development of cereal banks, processing structures, production groups organized around activities in the valley bottoms).

It should also be noted that significant results were achieved during the first phase in the area of adaptive research, and these results can be disseminated immediately.

In view of the encouraging results obtained to date, the participatory approach should be reinforced and even expanded to include monitoring the activities, in order to foster ownership through the process of analysing achievements.

Likewise, the village approach could be explored as a way to involve all residents without requiring membership in a specific group.

Special attention should be given to institutionalization of the financial services associations, as well as the need to provide sustained assistance to their members.

For the future, the project should target increased participation by the RDCs and other local partners in the organization and day-to-day management of activities. This would be effective in terms of strengthening project personnel and would also allow for better training of the local partners.

In conclusion, although the Smallholder Development Project in North Lower Guinea was – and in fact still is – faced with a difficult financial situation, it has nevertheless succeeded in accomplishing significant work that should be continued in the interest of the populations affected by its action. A second phase of the project, if it occurs, should be centred on training, extension and dissemination of information to beneficiaries, and rigorous monitoring and evaluation providing the PMU with a true management tool for the various project actions.

---

The evaluation was conducted by Scanagri Denmark, located in Copenhagen; the mission was composed by: Mr. O. Olsen, Team Leader, (agronomist); Mr. G. Lorette, consultant (grassroots institutions and credit); and Mr. K. Kimmage, consultant, (rural sociologist). Mr. F. Nichols, the IFAD lead evaluator assisted the mission in the initial phase and in the finalising of the report findings and recommendations. The mission also benefitted from the constant support provided by the Project Director and his staff while in the field.