1. BASIC INFORMATION

a. Basic project data

Project title: Export Marketing and Quality Awareness Project (EMQAP)

Project code: P-GH-AA0-027 Instrument number(s): 2100150010245

Project type: Lending Sector: Agriculture & Agro-industry

Country: Ghana Environmental categorization (1-3):2

Processing Milestones Key Events Disbursement and Closing date

Date approved: 13 July 2005 Cancelled amount: NIL Original disbursement deadline: 31 March 2012

Date signed: 29 July 2005 Supplementary financing: NIL Original closing date: 31

December 2011

Date of entry into force: 24

March 2006

Restructuring: Revised disbursement deadline: 31

March 2014

Date effective for 1st

disbursement: 31 May 2006

Extensions (specify dates): Once (from

31 December 2011 to 30 December 2013

Revised closing date: 30

December, 2013

Date of actual 1st: 8 December

2006

b. Financing sources

Financing source/ instrument

(MUA)

Approved amount

(MUA) :

Disbursed amount

(MUA) :

Percentage disbursed

(%):

Loan: 17.00 14.98 88.14

Government: 1.84 1.07 58.21

Other (ex. Co-financiers):

TOTAL: 18.84 16.06 85.22

Co-financiers and other external partners:

Execution and implementation agencies:

c. Responsible Bank staff

Position At approval At completion

Regional Director

Sector Director

Sector Manager

Task Manager

Alternate Task Manager

PCR Team Leader

PCR Team Members

d. Report data

PCR Date: 31 May 2014

PCR Mission Date: From: 7 April 2014 To:22 April 2014

PCR-EN Date:

Evaluator/consultant: Tesfaye Teklu Peer Reviewer/Task Manager:

PCR EVALUATION NOTE FOR PUBLIC SECTOR OPERATIONS

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The African Development Bank approved financing the Export Marketing and Quality Awareness

Project (EMQAP in July 2005. The Government of Ghana and the Bank signed the loan agreement in

July 2005, and committed to implement it over a period of five years. The purpose of the project was to

increase incomes of horticulture crop farmers and exporters in four Regions (Central, Eastern, Greater

Accra and Volta), and thereby improve the export earnings of the country. EMQAP started operation in

May 2006 and completed in December 2011, after a nearly two-year extension.

a. Rationale and expected impacts:

Ghana has a comparative advantage in production of non-traditional horticulture crops. However,

several factors constrain the production and marketing of these crops. The thrust of the project was to

address these constraints through production and productivity enhancement; export market promotion

and infrastructure improvement; and capacity building, mainly through training in good agricultural

practices. The expected impacts of the project were to increase incomes of horticulture crop farmers and

exporters, and consequently improve their living conditions (i.e. reduce rural poverty).

b. Objectives/Expected Outcomes:

The sector goal of the project was to increase export earnings from non-traditional agricultural products.

The specific objective was to increase incomes of horticulture crop farmers and exporters in four

Regions (Central, Eastern, Greater Accra and Volta). The expected outcomes were increased

participation in horticulture crop production for export, adoption of improved agricultural practices and

technology, increased profitability from improvements in productivity and value addition, and improved

living conditions (i.e. reduced household poverty). The target beneficiaries were mainly members of the

associations for horticultural export crops (SPEG, VEPEAG and FAGE) who comprise nucleus farmers

and smallholder out-growers linked to the nucleus farmers.

c. Outputs and intended beneficiaries:

The following were the key outputs expected to contribute to the expected outcomes by component:

Component 1: Production and Productivity Enhancement (demonstration centers established, GAP

manual and guidelines published and distributed, and improved seeds and planting material produced

and disseminated).

Component 2: Export market promotion and infrastructure improvement (one study on local and

regional, feeder roads built, pack houses constructed, temperature controlled trucks procure; small dams

built, and one laboratory constructed).

Component 3: Capacity building (farmer groups formed, beneficiaries trained in good agricultural

practices (GAP), agricultural professional staff trained in GAP, export traders trained, and executives of

farmer groups and private sector trained in export documentation, financing and business management).

Component 4: Project management (project implementation unit strengthened through technical,

institutional and logistic support).

d. Principal activities/Components:

The project was designed to achieve its expected outputs, outcomes and project objectives through the

following components and associated activities:

Component 1: Production and Productivity Enhancement (establishment of demonstration centers;

production, publishing and distributing GAP manual; and production and dissemination of improved

seeds and planting material).

Component 2: Export market promotion and infrastructure improvement (study on local and regional

markets for horticultural crops undertaken; construction/maintenance of feeder roads; construction of

pack houses, construction of laboratory; and building small dams).

Component 3: Capacity building (sensitization and formation of farmer groups; training of farmers in

good agricultural practices (GAP); training of agricultural professional staff in GAP; training of export

traders; and training of executives of farmer groups and private sector in export documentation,

financing and business management).

Component 4: Project management (strengthening project implementation unit through technical,

institutional and logistic support).

3. PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

RELEVANCE

a. Relevance of the project development objective:

EMQAP sought to contribute towards Ghana's economic growth and poverty reduction through

increased non-traditional agricultural products for both domestic and export markets. Its specific

objective was to increase incomes of horticulture crop farmers and exporters in four Regions (Central,

Eastern, Greater Accra and Volta).

The project objective remained consistent from appraisal to completion with the main policy documents

of the Government of Ghana namely, the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS for XX ), the

Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA for 2010-2013), the Food and Agricultural

Sector Development Policy (FASDEP I and II) and the Medium Term Agricultural Sector Investment

Plan (METASIP for 2011-2015).

The alignment is evident, for example, in the following policy statements/guidelines:

Promote the development of selected traditional and exotic vegetables for exports

Identify successful lead firms with access to assured export markets and apply viable model(s) of

linkage with smallholders

Facilitate the training of out-grower farmers on all the processors required under GAP (Good

Agricultural practices) with emphasis on the harvesting and handling of horticultural crops and

exotic vegetables

Promote formation of viable farmer groups and Farmer-Based Organisations to enhance their

knowledge, skills, and access to resources along the value chain, and for stronger bargaining

power in marketing

Provide relevant technology, market infrastructure (cold chain), and financing to enable

operators to respond to the changing needs of markets

Develop standards and promote good agricultural practices along the value chain (including

hygiene, proper use of pesticides, grading, packaging, standardisation)

Encourage partnership between private sector and District Assemblies to develop trade in local

and regional markets

Build capacity and adequately resource relevant stakeholders for international trade negotiations

The project was also consistent with the Bank’s strategy as outlined in the existing Country Strategy

Paper as well as with the Bank’s Agriculture Sector Strategy (AgSS) 2010-2014 and Ten Year Strategy

(TYS) 2013-2022.

Beneficiaries (horticultural farmers) who were interviewed during the Project Results Assessment

(PRA) Mission also confirmed the relevance of the EMQAP objectives to their needs.

In agreement with the PCR, the PCREN rates the relevance of the EMQAP objective highly satisfactory

(4) -- it was aligned with Ghana’s development policies and strategies, the Bank’s sector strategies and

the beneficiary needs throughout of the project cycle.

b. Relevance of project design (from approval to completion):

The appraisal report establishes the rationale and the logic of the export marketing and quality

awareness project (EMQAP). Ghana has a comparative advantage in production of non-traditional

horticulture crops such as pineapple, papaya, mangoes, and vegetables. However, several factors

constrain the production and marketing of these crops (insufficient quantity and quality of production

inputs, limited applications of improved knowledge and technology, high cost of transport, and

undeveloped marketing and processing value chains). The thrust of EMQAP was to address these

constraints through three pillars, namely: (1) production and productivity enhancement; (2) export

market promotion and infrastructure improvement; and (3) capacity building, mainly sensitization and

training in good agricultural practices.

The project design involved intensive consultations with the operators in the industry, farm communities

and donors financing the sector. The Bank’s experience in implementing its projects and the experience

from other donor-funded projects in Ghana also influenced the design of the project. However, as

evident in the quality of entry and implementation effectiveness, there were design deficiencies related

to incomplete/incorrect assumptions (e.g. inadequate capacities to meet loan effectiveness conditions,

and incorrect assumption about the availability of water for irrigation for demonstration centers), and

inadequate risk assessment and hence lack of inbuilt appropriate mitigation measures in the project

design. The project responded to these inadequacies through restructuring and modifications during the

implementation phase.

Overall, the PCREN considers the design was relevant at appraisal but adjustments were required in

scope and key activities during the implementation phase, which were done satisfactorily (e.g.

discontinuation of the cassava component of the project, and discontinuation of farmer group formation

to avoid duplications). PCREN rates design relevance 3 (satisfactory), a downgrade to the PCR rating

of 4 (highly satisfactory).

EFFECTIVENESS

c. Effectiveness in delivering outputs:

The project achieved the following key outputs by component with ratings of their performance (relative

to targets set at appraisal):

Component 1: Production and Productivity Enhancement

Establishment of Demonstration Centres (DCs), 4 (100%).

Publication and distribution of guides and GAP manual, 43,000 (143%)

Production & Dissemination of improved seeds & planting material, variable by crop but

average performance rate was 104.6%

All four (4) demonstration centres programmed for establishment as centres for the dissemination of

Good Agricultural Practices were duly set up and fitted with requisite equipment and tools. A total of

43,000 production guides and manuals were developed and distributed to various actors of the industry

over the project implementation period to enhance horticultural technology dissemination to farmers. In

addition, 484,000 MD2 suckers and 364,000 smooth cayenne suckers were produced and distributed to

farmers in response to change in varietal demand in export markets.

Component 2: Export market promotion and infrastructure improvement

Study on local and regional markets for horticultural crops, 1 (100%)

Infrastructure –feeder roads, 181.45 km (44.5%)

Infrastructure –pack house, 1 (25%)

Infrastructure –demonstration centers, 4 (100%)

Infrastructure –small dams, 4 (100%)

Infrastructure –laboratory, 1 (100%)

Procurement of temperature controlled trucks, 2 (100%)

Under the Export Marketing and Infrastructure Improvement Component, a study on local and regional

markets for horticultural crops was successfully conducted, and the study identified a large potential

market for horticultural crops produced in Ghana. Following a downward revision of the original target

for feeder road rehabilitation from 407km to 207.10 km, 181.45km of roads was successfully

constructed. Only one of the four planned pack houses were constructed. Two trucks (One 20-tonner

and one 10-tonner temperature controlled trucks) were procured for SPEG (Sea-Freight Pineapple

Exporters of Ghana) and VEPEAG (Vegetable Producers and Exporters Association of Ghana). One

residue analysis laboratory was constructed for the Ghana Standards Board

Note the significant of the construction of pack house and acquisition of temperature controlled trucks

for enhancing cold chain infrastructure in the project’s catchment areas. Improved road infrastructure

coupled with the cold chain infrastructure are significant for improved value chain of high perishable

produce.

Component 3: Capacity building

Sensitization and mobilisation of farmers into groups, 30,000 (37.5%).

21,134 beneficiaries trained in good agricultural practices (260%), female (21%)

1471 agricultural extension agents and District Crop Officers (DCOs) were trained in GAP in

pineapple, mango, citrus and vegetable production (122%), female (20%)

130 export traders trained (11%), female (30%)

About 980 executives of farmer groups and private sector actors were trained in export

documentation, financing and business management, female (17%)

Under the Capacity Building component, the mobilisation of farmers into groups discontinued to avoid

redundancy with another Government of Ghana project. The targeted numbers of beneficiaries

earmarked for training exceed the appraisal targets except for the training of export trade services staff

which recorded only 10.8%. A total of 5333 horticultural farmers were sensitised on HIV/AIDS, whilst

a further 6200 farmers benefitted from sensitisation on malaria prevention.

Overall, the project took longer than the planned timeframe but largely achieved its planned outputs at

project closure albeit its notable under achievements in construction of feed road and pack houses for

budgetary reason. PCREN nevertheless rates 3 (satisfactory) in line with the PCR.

d. Effectiveness in delivering outcomes:

EMQAP was expected to contribute to the attainment of the sector goal of increasing export earnings

from non-traditional agricultural products by 50%. But the increase was modest (14.3%).

The PCR reported considerable increases in household incomes of horticulture crop farmers at project

closure (increase in annual household gross incomes of pineapple farmers, mango farmers, papaya

farmers, and bird’s eye chillies). The Project Results Assessment (PRA) confirms from case farmers

interviewed that farmers in the project catchment experienced increased incomes.

It is hard for the PCREN to establish the credence of the reported gains in income in absence of

adequately developed outcome monitoring M&E. In light of the substantial output performance, and the

emerging evidence of improved agricultural practices, utilization of improved inputs and reduction in

post-harvest loss; the PCREN concurs significant improvements in household income, particularly

pineapple and mango farmers.

PCREN rates the project’s outcome performance satisfactory (3) in line with the PCR

e. Project development outcome:

As per the rating methodology recommended in the Staff Guidance Note on project completion

reporting and rating, the PCREN rates the development objective of the project satisfactory (3) since

both the outcome and output performance are rated satisfactory. The project is very likely to achieve its

development objective – raise the incomes of horticulture farmers.

f. Beneficiaries:

Using evidence, the evaluator should provide an assessment of the relevance of the total number of

beneficiaries by categories and disaggregated by sex.

21, 134 beneficiaries trained in good agricultural practices, female (21%)

1471 staff trained, female (20%)

130 export traders trained, female (30%)

g. Unanticipated additional outcomes (positive or negative, not taken into consideration in the

project logical framework):

Quality evaluation and certification of locally produced food products.

Pesticide research work being done in academic and research institutions.

Recognition as a regional testing and training centre in pesticide residue analysis and participation in

African Union Project on Pesticide Residue Data Generation.

EFFICIENCY

h. Timeliness:

The project became effective for disbursement on 31 May 2006 and its implementation ended on 31

December 2013. That is, it took a period of 7 years and 7 months. The ratio of planned (5 years) and

actual implementation time (7.7) is 0.71. PCR rates 2 (unsatisfactory) and PCREN concurs.

i. Resource use efficiency:

As per the PCR, the ratio of the median percentage physical implementation and commitment rate is

1.06. In accordance to the IPR guidelines, this indicates a high efficiency in resource use for a given

budget. The PCR rates the resource use efficiency of the project 4 (the project delivered all or more than

expected with the available budget).

Is a point estimate of 1.06 good enough to conclude the project delivered all or more outputs than

expected with the available budget? This question is pertinent in the case of this project since there were

delays in delivery of outputs (suggesting higher implied cost). In addition, the static measure does not

account for rate of utilization of outputs (some of the outputs were not fully utilized). Furthermore,

some of the key output targets were not achieved (e.g. road network and construction of pack houses).

For example:

Construction of the physical infrastructure was completed only during project extension in years

6 and 7 instead of year 4 and 5 as programmed at appraisal with attendant cost escalations.

The major economic assets such as the state-of-the-art pack house and the two temperature

controlled trucks have been lying idle since the project completion. In addition, the

demonstration centres have ceased functioning and demonstration plots located in some of the

pineapple growing communities have been abandoned.

The PCREN rates the resource use efficiency 3 (i.e., the project largely delivered the outputs expected

within the available budget).

j. Cost-benefit analysis:

The Economic and Financial analysis at appraisal was based on assumption that project benefits would

accrue from: (1) quality improvements in horticultural produce; (2) increased exports of horticultural

produce from both small scale out growers and large commercial producers; (3) increased profit margin

due to reduction in costs associated with improved feeder roads, construction of processing and pack

house facilities as well as supply of refrigerated vehicles to facilitate transportation. The economic rate

of return (ERR) at appraisal was 24%.

The PCR noted that aggregate financial benefits from horticultural production, processing and

marketing when computed against the investment costs for the project activities generated an estimated

EIRR of 20.29% at project completion. Whilst the project had still a positive NPV, the ERR was lower

than projected at appraisal.

The PRA revisited the assumptions that informed the computations in the PCR. Because major

economic assets such as the state-of-the-art pack house, the two Temperature controlled trucks, and the

demonstration centres were not fully functional, it expressed its expectation of a lower ERR at

completion. The PRA rates the project moderately unsatisfactory.

The PCREN rates 3 (satisfactory), in line with the PCR.

k. Implementation progress:

PCR: Rated 2 solely on the timeliness of the project (time overran). Not demonstrated the PCR

evaluated the IP criteria. PCREN: had no access to relevant project documents to assess the

implementation performance of the project. PRA rates unsatisfactory

Evidence on some of the IP criteria shows the following:

Compliance with general and specific conditions set in the legal documents for loan

effectiveness: there were substantial delays (10 months between loan signature and

effectiveness) that contributed to delays in project implementation and a two-year extension.

Compliance with environmental and social safeguards: Judged low environmental risk project,

ESMP was developed and implemented.

Audit compliance: As per the Borrower’s project completion report, the project has met its

reporting obligations in respect of the submission of audit reports to the Bank. The audit reports

submitted for years between 2007 and 2012 were certified.

Procurement: The Borrower’s project completion report indicates the performance was

satisfactory, i.e. the Bank and the PCU acted promptly on most of the procurement documents

and there was conformance with procurement methods agreed at appraisal

M&E performance: As per the Borrower’s PCR, the project team met all the scheduled reporting

requirements for the period. The project (Borrower) submitted a total of 27 quarterly reports,

seven (7) annual reports, eight (8) annual work plans, budgets and procurement plans to Bank

within scheduled time frames.

Disbursement: As reported in the Borrower’s PCR, 80% of ADF loan funds were disbursed at

the closure of the project.

Budget commitment rate: 85.2%

Counter part funding: 58%

No co-finance funding

These IP performance scores suggest the overall project implementation effectiveness was satisfactory

(3) in line with the PCR..

SUSTAINABILITY

The satisfactory rating of DO in section 3C suggests the project was very likely to achieve its

development objective. Whether the benefits would continue after completion is the topic of assessing

sustainability. There are financial, institutional, technical and environmental risks that could limit the

sustenance of continued flow of benefits.

l. Financial sustainability:

There are at least three steps in evaluating financial sustainability of projects; (1) determining if there is

a recognition of threat to financial sustainability since the design phase, (2) identifying the specific

modality in place for sustainability, and (3) assessing the sufficiency of these modalities to ensure

continued flow of benefits associated with the projects after completion using the four-point rating scale

prescribed in the PCR guidelines.

Farmers have confirmed that income gains from growing the crops under EMPAQ using the

technologies and knowledge acquired are substantially higher than traditional practices. Some of the

farmers have already integrated the improved technologies and practices into their farming systems. The

incentives are sufficient for those already in the project to sustain their income gains.

But to sustain the adoption of improved agricultural practices and adaptation to emerging technology

and market trends it would be necessary for MOFA and its collaborating partners continue development

of horticultural technologies and delivery of adequate horticultural advisory services to famers. In

addition, it would be necessary to maintain the key assets (i.e., demonstration centers, pack house, cold

chains, and feeder road) to continue their operation.

However, as noted in the PCR, the project had not effected a cost recovery or revenue generation model

for use of these facilities and infrastructure at the time of the PCR mission. The public financing option

was not yet proven viable to consolidate and sustain the gains achieved by the project. As the PRA

findings show, the project’s key assets were not functional in the period after the project closure.

The PCREN questions the PCR rating of satisfactory (3) and its conclusion that “there is likelihood that

both the beneficiaries and the Government (DAs and Central Government) will continue financing

activities that will further stimulate the appropriation of project benefits (e.g., utilization of

infrastructure).” The PCREN rates financial sustainability 3 (unsatisfactory) since reliance on public

financing is not sufficient to ensure continued flow of benefits associated with the project after

completion.

m. Institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities:

The following are some of the contributions of the project towards institutional sustainability and

strengthening capacities:

The mobilization and formation of farmer groups was notable for instituting participatory

management system. Members of these groups were positioned to enhance their knowledge,

skills, and access to resources along the value chain, and for stronger bargaining power in

marketing.

The project had carried out various types of training targeted to different groups; for example,

beneficiary farmers trained in good agricultural practice, agricultural extension agents and

district crop officers trained in good agricultural practices, and executives of farmer groups and

private sector actors trained in export documentation, financing and business management.

The project developed capacities to respond effectively to change in consumer preferences in

export commodities as demonstrated in the EMQAP capacity to respond effectively to change in

demand from Smooth Cayenne to MD2 variety of pineapples. In addition, the project developed

crop surveillance systems to ensure export horticulture crops are free from pest.

Although the country’s research capacity in horticultural crops was weak at the beginning, there

was some progress in developing the capacities of researchers to resolve emerging issues

Staff drawn from various Directorates of Ministry of Food and Agriculture and its partnering

implementation agencies gained experience in the implementation of EMQAP. Modalities were

developing to utilize the experience to further advance development of the horticultural industry

in the country.

EMQAP supported the construction of pesticide residue analysis laboratory for the Ghana

Standard Authority (GSA) for conducting pesticide residue analysis in horticulture crops in

support of the industry. The facility was recently identified by the African Union as one of the

most established laboratories in Africa

The PCR rates institutional sustainability highly satisfactory (4) because there was was no risk in

terms of the Executing Agency overseeing the appropriateness and adequacy of the technical

solutions. Such reasoning fails to adequately characterize the efforts built in institutional

sustainability. The PCREN recognizes the multiple initiatives and efforts, and judges the project’s

significant contribution to institutional sustainability and capacity strengthening (rated 3).

n. Ownership and sustainability of partnerships:

The primary stakeholders of the project were members of the associations for horticultural export crops

(SPEG, VEPEAG and FAGE) who comprise nucleus farmers and smallholder out-growers linked to the

nucleus farmers. These associations were among the groups consulted in the preparation and appraisal

of the project. The members benefited from the various activities of the project intended to improve

their horticulture crop productivity and profitability.

The project procured two temperature controlled trucks in 2010 for SPEG and VEPEAG for moving

highly perishable produce from pack houses to export points (airports and seaports). SPEG and

VEPEAG were expected to utilize funds generated from the operations of the temperature controlled

trucks for the maintenance of the trucks. However, the assets were not handed over to SPEG and

VEPEAG at the project closure. As the PRA missions reported, these key assets necessary for

functioning cold chain (i.e., the pack houses and temperature controlled trucks) were not fully utilized

and deteriorating after the project completion.

The PCREN rates the contribution of the project towards the realization of the key assets of the project

among the primary beneficiaries unsatisfactory, given their limited participation in the preparation and

appraisal of the project, and non-ownership of the key assets.

The PCREN rating of 2 (unsatisfactory) is in line with the PCR.

o. Environmental and social sustainability:

The project was classified as category II, implying that the activities had minor adverse environmental

impacts and those foreseeable could be mitigated during project implementation. The Environmental

and Social Management Plan (ESMP) was developed and implemented to mitigate adverse

environmental consequences with a high degree of success (PRA).

PCREN rates environmental sustainability satisfactory (3) and PCR rates 3 (highly satisfactory).

4. PERFORMANCE OF STAKEHOLDERS

a. Bank performance:

The Bank was responsive to the Borrower (Government of Ghana) request for ADF loan to support

growth in horticulture production and export marketing. The project identification, preparation and

appraisal involved consultations with relevant stakeholders including prospective beneficiaries. The

Bank also factored lessons from its previous experiences in the country. However, the quality at entry

was not satisfactory as evident in late and slow start-up of implementation due to delays in meeting

some of the conditions for effectiveness.

The Bank enforced fiduciary requirements and safe guards. The procurement processes were mostly

done within acceptable timeframe. The exceptions were the longer period for recruitment of consultant

for the design and supervision of residue laboratory, demonstration centre and pack house. The Bank

supported development of staff capacity for improved delivery of services to beneficiaries. It also

supported establishment of the project’s M&E system and this was instrumental in enabling the

Borrower to meet its reporting requirements on schedule. ADF loan disbursement was slow at the

beginning but attained 80% at project closure.

The Bank facilitated the implementation of the project through supervision missions. As per the country

PCR report, the Bank fielded fifteen (15) implementation support missions. These missions reviewed

status of project implementation, identified constraints facing the project and proposed solutions, and

agreed on prioritized list of activities that should be implemented for the attainment of project

objectives. The Bank showed some flexibility in addressing problems/issues as evident in modifications

of the scope of the project following the mid-term review. The establishment of the AfDB Field Office

in Ghana assisted in more speedy resolution of problems encountered by the project. However, there

were few implementation challenges that arose mainly from frequent change in task managers (14 Task

Managers during the project implementation period).

Overall, the performance of the Bank in quality-at-entry and implementation effectiveness is rated 3

(satisfactory)

b. Borrower performance:

The Borrower participated in the formulation of the project was in line with its long-term development

strategy and policy. It signed on to long-term loan agreement and committed to fulfill loan conditions

including provision of counterpart funds. However, the design of the projects was not adequately

developed in terms of aligning the size of the project to its readiness for implementation. The quality at

entry was not satisfactory as evident in late and slow start-up of project implementation due to delays in

meeting some of the conditions for effectiveness.

The Borrower performed reasonably well in complying generally with the Bank’s fiduciary

requirements by preparing and submitting annual audited project financial statements and adhering to

the Bank’s disbursement regulations. It ensured project’s compliance with environmental safeguards. In

addition, the Borrower monitored the performance of the project (i.e. input/output performance,

procurement performance, and financial performance including disbursement) and reported on schedule

to the Bank. In addition, the Borrower was responsive to supervision recommendations as evident in

adjustments following the mid-term review. However, the Borrower was not in compliance with

meeting its commitment to the level of counterpart funding. Moreover, there was no adequate exit

strategy for financial sustainability after project closure.

Overall, the performance of the borrowers in design and readiness as well as implementation was

satisfactory (rated 3).

c. Performance of other stakeholders:

Among the key other stakeholders were the various consultants and contractors. The performance of

these providers was assed in the country PCR in terms of quality of work performed, timeliness of

execution of contracts, and quality of management and financial soundness. Performance rating of the

various providers varied but the majority scored satisfactory. These were few contracts terminated due

to non-performance or inability to rectify identified defects.

The PCR rates the performance of other stakeholders satisfactory (3) in line with the PCR.

5. SUMMARY OF OVERALL PROJECT PERFORMANCE

a. Overall assessment:

The project is rated satisfactory in its relevance. It achieved most of its output targets. Few beneficiary-

focused surveys whose methodology could not be verified indicate improvements in household

horticulture productivity, quality and income in the catchment areas. There was reasonable expectation

that the project would achieve its development objectives. There was some weakness in the project’s

economic worthiness over the course of the project implementation, which might be related to weak

operational efficiency and underutilization of key assets of the project. There was no adequate exit

strategy for financial sustainability, but there was notable progress towards institutional sustainability

and strengthening capacity, and environmental sustainability is satisfactory.

The PCREN rates satisfactory (3) the overall performance of the project in design, implementation and

results.

b. Design, implementation and utilization of the M&E (appreciation of the evaluator):

Often the M&E system designed and implemented for monitoring project performance is basic; it

focuses on collecting, analyzing and reporting performance in project activities and outputs (I/O

monitoring), procurement, and financial management including audit reports. Missing is systematically

monitoring project’s outcomes, which are necessary to assess performance towards achieving the

project’s objectives.

The performance of the basic M&E system was satisfactory. The project met all the scheduled reporting

requirements by producing 27 quarterly reports and seven annual report. In addition, the Project

submitted audit reports to the Bank within scheduled time frames. Missing was properly designed

monitoring of the project’s outcomes such as change in profitability of horticulture production and

exports to the beneficiaries.

PCREN rates 3 (satisfactory) in line with the PCR.

6. EVALUATION OF KEY LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

a. Lessons learned:

Inadequate time and resources devoted to project appraisal, which should be thorough, ensuring very wide

consultation and ownership.

Involvement of key government departments -- retention of the Department of Feeder Roads to supervise the

work of contractors was useful in ensuring quality and timeliness

b. Recommendations:

None for the PCR to adopt

7. COMMENTS ON PCR QUALITY AND TIMELINESS

The PCR was complete in coverage of the dimensions of evaluation (relevance, efficacy in output and outcome,

efficiency, sustainability, Borrower and Bank performance). Access to data/evidence was limited. Quality of

analysis in terms of rigor and objectivity was poor. There were notable inconsistencies between rating and

explanation.

Overall, the performance of the PCR is 2 (unsatisfactory).

8. SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION This is a summary of both the PCR and IDEV ratings with justification for deviations/comments. Appropriate section of the PCR

Evaluation should be indicated in the last column in order to avoid detailed comments. The evaluator must provide a reasonable

explanation for each criterion the PCR rating is not validated by IDEV. Consequently, the overall rating of the project could be “equally

satisfactory”.

Criteria PCR PCREN Reason for disagreement/ Comments

RELEVANCE 4

Relevance of project development objective 4 4

Relevance of project design 4 3 The discussion in the PCR was not about the

design of the project, i.e. rationale for its

choice, its internal logic, the extent the

design was informed, assessment of its

realism, and adjustment in scope over the

whole project life cycle, and relevance ex

post. The PCR rating is unrelated to the text.

EFFECTIVENESS

Development objective (DO) 3 3

EFFICIENCY

Timeliness 2 2

Resource use efficiency 4 3

Cost-benefit analysis 3 3

Implementation progress (IP) 3 3 The PCR rates on a single metrics of time

overrun. The PCREN had limited access to

the relevant documents, and hence the IP

rating was based on some (not all) the

suggested IP criteria.

SUSTAINABILITY 3

Financial sustainability 3 2 The PCR is not addressing the issues of the

recognition of the extent of threat

Institutional sustainability and strengthening

of capacities

4 3 Considerable disconnect between the rating

and the text in the PCR

Ownership and sustainability of partnership 2 2

Environmental and social sustainability 3 3

OVERALL PROJECT COMPLETION

RATING

3.25

Bank performance: 3 3 The rating in the PCR was based on a

narrow set of issues as compared to the ones

suggested in the PCR guidelines. The

PCREN was not able to access the Bank’s

supervision reports and IPR.

Borrower performance: 3 3 The rating in the PCR was based on a

narrow set of issues as compared to the ones

suggested in the PCR guidelines. The

PCREN was not able to access the Bank’s

supervision reports and IPR.

Performance of other shareholders: 3 3 Referring mainly to consultants and

contractors

Overall PCR quality: 2

9. PRIORITY FOR FUTURE EVALUATIVE WORK: PROJECT FOR

PERFORMANCE EVALUTION REPORT, IMPACT EVALUTION,

COUNTRY/SECTOR REVIEWS OR THEMATIC EVALUATION STUDIES:

- Project is part of a series and suitable for cluster evaluation

- Project is a success story

- High priority for impact evaluation

- Performance evaluation is required to sector/country review

- High priority for thematic or special evaluation studies (Country)

- PPER is required because of incomplete validation rating

Major areas of focus for future evaluation work:

a) Performance evaluation is required for sector/ country review

b) Cluster evaluation (institutional support)

c) Sector evaluation (budgetary support or public finance management reforms)

Follow up action by IDEV: Identify same cluster or sector operations; organize appropriate work or consultation mission to

facilitate a), b) and/or c).

Division Manager clearance Director signing off

Data source for validation:

Task Manager/ Responsible bank staff interviewed/contacted (in person, by telephone or email)

Documents/ Database reports

Attachment:

PCR evaluation note validation sheet of performance ratings

List of references

Appendice 1

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT EVALUATION NOTE Validation of PCR performance ratings

PCR rating scale:

Score Description 4 Very Good – Fully achieved with no shortcomings 3 Good – Mostly achieved despite a few shortcomings 2 Fair – Partially achieved. Shortcomings and achievements are roughly balanced 1 Poor – very limited achievement with extensive shortcomings

UTS Unable to score/rate NA Non Applicable

Criteria Sub-criteria PCR

work

score

IDEV

review Reasons for deviation/comments

RELEVANCE Relevance of the project

development objective

(DO) during

implementation

4 4

Relevance of project

design (from approval to

completion)

4 3

OVERALL RELEVANCE SCORE

EFFECTIVENESS* Effectiveness in delivering outcomes

Sector goal -- increase

in export earning at

project closure, 15%

Modest gain recorded at national level

Increase in household

income of horticulture

farmers

Recorded substantial improvements

Effectiveness in delivering output

Established 4

demonstration Centres.

100%

Published and

distributed 43,000

guides and GAP

manual.

143%

Production &

Dissemination of

improved seeds &

planting material,

variable by crop

104.6%

Criteria Sub-criteria PCR

work

score

IDEV

review Reasons for deviation/comments

One study on local and

regional markets for

horticultural crops

100%

181.45 km of feeder

roads, 181.45 km

44.5% The rate was XXX relative to the revised target level

One of the four pack

houses built

25.0%

4 demonstration centers

were established

100%

30,00 farmers sensitized

and mobilized into

groups

37.5% The activity was discontinued to avoid duplications

with another Government of Ghana project

(MiDA) 21,134 beneficiaries

trained in good

agricultural practices

260%

1471 staff trained 122%

130 export traders

trained

11%

Development objective (DO)

Development objective

rating

3

Beneficiaries

Beneficiary1

Beneficiary2

Unanticipated outcomes (positive or negative not considered in the project logical

framework) and their level of impact on the project (high, moderate, low)

Institutional

development

Gender

Environment & climate

change

Poverty reduction

Private sector

development

Regional integration

Other (specify)

EFFECTIVENESS OVERALL SCORE

Criteria Sub-criteria PCR

work

score

IDEV

review Reasons for deviation/comments

EFFICIENCY Timeliness (based on the

initial closing date)

Resource used

efficiency

Cost-benefit analysis

Implementation progress

(from the IPR)

Other (specify)

OVERALL EFFICIENCY SCORE

SUSTAINABILITY Financial sustainability

Institutional

sustainability and

strengthening of

capacities

Ownership and

sustainability of

partnerships

Environmental and

social sustainability

Criteria Sub-criteria PCR

Work

score

IDEV

review Reasons for deviation/comments

BANK

PERFORMANCE Proactive identification and

resolution of problems at different

stage of the project cycle

3

Use of previous lessons learned

from previous operations during

design and implementation

3

Promotion of stakeholder

participation to strengthen

ownership

2

Enforcement of safeguard and

fiduciary requirements

3

Design and implementation of

Monitoring & Evaluation system

3

Quality of Bank supervision (mix

of skills in supervisory teams, etc)

3

Timeliness of responses to

requests

3

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE

BORROWER

PERFORMANCE

Quality of preparation and

implementation

3

Compliance with covenants,

agreements and safeguards

3

Criteria Sub-criteria PCR

work

score

IDEV

review Reasons for deviation/comments

Provision of timely counterpart

funding 2

Responsiveness to supervision

recommendations

3

Measures taken to establish basis

for project sustainability

2

Timeliness of preparing requests 3

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE 3

PERFORMANCE

OF OTHER

STAKEHOLDERS

Timeliness of disbursements by

co-financiers NA

Functioning of collaborative

agreements

NA

Quality of policy dialogue with

co-financiers (for PBOs only) NA

Quality of work by service

providers 3

Responsiveness to client demands ?

OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF OTHER

STAKEHOLDERS

DESIGN, IMPLEMENTAION AND UTILIZATION OF MONITIRING AND

EVALUATION (M&E)

Criteria Sub-criteria IDEV

Score Comments

M&E DESIGN M&E system is in place, clear,

appropriate and realistic

Monitoring indicators and

monitoring plan were duly

approved

Existence of disaggregated gender

indicator

Baseline data were available or

collected during the design

Other, specify

OVERALL M&E DESIGN SCORE

M&E

IMPLEMENTA-

TION

The M&E function is adequately

equipped and staffed

OVERALL M&E IMPLEMENTATION SCORE

M&E

UTILIZATION The borrower used the tracking

information for decision

OVERALL M&E UTILIZATION SCORE

OVERALL M&E PERFORMANCE SCORE

PCR QUALITY EVALUATION

Criteria PCR-EVN

(1-4) Comments

QUALITY OF PCR

1. Extent of quality and completeness of the PCR

evidence and analysis to substantiate the ratings of

the various sections

2 Covered all the evaluation dimensions, but often

incomplete in factoring required evaluation criteria

for rating.

2. Extent of objectivity of PCR assessment score 2 Empirical based for some of the evaluation criteria

such as project’s outputs and measures of

operational efficiency. Otherwise, limited

objectivity.

3. Extent of internal consistency of PCR assessment

ratings; inaccuracies; inconsistencies; (in various

sections; between text and ratings; consistency of

overall rating with individual component ratings)

2 Often notable divergence between text and ratings.

4. Extent of identification and assessment of key

factors (internal and exogenous) and unintended

effects (positive or negative) affecting design and

implementation

2 No such frame of analysis to uncover influential

factors affecting performance or result

5. Adequacy of treatment of safeguards, fiduciary

issues, and alignment and harmonization

3

6. Extent of soundness of data generating and

analysis process (including rates of returns) in

support of PCR assessment

2 Apparently, the PCR had limited access to

data/evidence necessary for sound technical

analysis as evident from the low-objectivity and

consistency in PCR ratings.

7. Overall adequacy of the accessible evidence (from

PCR including annexure and other data provided)

2 Limited and problematic for the PCREN

validation

8. Extent to which lessons learned (and

recommendations) are clear and based on the PCR

assessment (evidence & analysis)

1 Too many lessons that are not necessarily learned

from the project experience

9. Extent of overall clarity and completeness of the

PCR

2

Other (specify)

PCR QUALITY SCORE 2

PCR compliance with guidelines (PCR/OM ; IDEV)

1. PCR Timeliness (On time = 4; Late= 1) 4

2. Extent of participation of borrower, Co-financiers

& field offices in PCR preparation

3

3. Other aspect(s) (specify)

PCR COMPLIANCE SCORE 3.5

*** rated as Very Good (4), or Good (3), or Fair (2), or Poor (1)

References

African Development Bank Group. 2014. Project completion report for public sector operations (PCR) --

Export Marketing and Quality Awareness Project (EMQAP).

African Development Bank Group. 2012. Staff guidance on project completion reporting and rating.

Quality Assurance Department (ORQR).

African Development Bank Group. 2011. Staff guidance on implementation progress and results (IPR) for

public sector operations. Quality Assurance Department (ORQR).

African Development Fund. 2005. Republic of Ghana: Export Marketing and Quality Awareness Project

(EMQAP). Appraisal Report. Agriculture and Rural Development, OCAR.

Government of the Republic of Ghana, Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Undated. Ghana: Project

completion report for the export marketing and quality awareness project.

African Development Bank. Undated. EMQAP – Project Results Assessment. IDEV

References

Note the following documents were not available to the PCREN: EMQAP Mid-Term

Review (September 2010) and the project’s IPR (April, 2014).