the world bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/676561563297383487/pdf/we… · sdgs sustainable...

Document of

The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No: ICR00004793

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT

ON TWO CREDITS

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 38.70 MILLION (US$60 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA

OF SDR 38.70 MILLION (US$60 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL

AND TWO ADDITIONAL FINANCING IN THE AMOUNT

OF SDR 38.70 MILLION (US$60 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MALI

OF EUR 18.40 MILLION (US$20 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL

FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF THE SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR THE WEST AFRICA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM (2A)

June 27, 2019

Agriculture Global Practice

Africa Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective {June 24, 2019})

Currency Unit =

XOF575 = US$1

US$1.39 = SDR 1

EUR 1.22 = SDR1

FISCAL YEAR July 1 ‐ June 30

Regional Vice President: Hafez M. H. Ghanem

Country Director: Deborah L. Wetzel

Senior Global Practice Director: Juergen Voegele

Practice Manager: Marianne Grosclaude

Task Team Leader(s):Abdoulaye Toure,Kadir Osman Gyasi, Aifa FatimataNdoye Niane

ICR Main Contributor: Amadou Ba

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AF Additional Financing

AfDB African Development Bank

APL Adaptable Program Lending

AARP African Agricultural Research Program

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme

CARGS Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Scheme

CAS Country Assistance Strategy

CCAFS Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

CORAF/WECARD Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricole/West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development

DQA Data Quality Assessments

EAs Environmental Assessments

ECOWAP ECOWAS’ regional agricultural policy (ECOWAP

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

EMPs Environmental Management Plans

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

FAAP Framework for Africa’s Agricultural Productivity

FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

FBO Farmer‐Based Organizations

FFS Farmer Field Schools

GoS Government of Senegal

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

ICRAF International Council for Research in Agroforestry

IDA International Development Association

IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center

IP Implementation Progress

IRI Intermediate Results Indicators

ISO International Organization for Standardization

ISR Implementation Status and Results Report

ISTA International seed testing association

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

NAIP National Agricultural Investment Program

NARS National Agricultural Research System

NCoE National Center of Excellence

NCoS National Center of Specialization

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO Non‐Governmental Organization

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PCU Project Coordination Unit

PDO Project Development Objectives

PMP Pest Management Plan

RCoE Regional Center of Excellence

R&D Research and Development

R&E Research and Extension

RF Results Framework

RIAS Regional Integration Assistance Strategy

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SMEs Small and medium enterprises

SRI Système de Riziculture Intensive / Intensive Rice Production

T&I Technology and Innovation

TAAT Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation

WAAPP West African Agricultural Productivity Program

WB World Bank

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DATA SHEET ............................................................................................................................. I

I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ........................................................ 1

A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL ........................................................................................................... 1

B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) ........................................ 7

II. OUTCOME ........................................................................................................................ 8

A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs ................................................................................................................ 8

B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) ....................................................................................... 10

C. EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................................................. 16

D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING ..................................................................... 17

E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 18

III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 20

A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION..................................................................................... 20

B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................. 20

IV. WORLD BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENTOUTCOME ............................................................................................................................. 21

A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ............................................................. 21

B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ..................................................... 23

C. WORLD BANK PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................ 23

D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ........................................................................................ 24

V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 25

LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................................................. 25

REGIONAL ASPECTS ............................................................................................................... 25

TECHNOLOGY . ...................................................................................................................... 26

OTHER TOPICS ....................................................................................................................... 26

ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ............................................................ 29

ANNEX 2. WORLD BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ............ 54

ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT............................................................................. 56

ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 57

The World Bank West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program 2A (P129565)

Page i of iv

DATA SHEET

BASIC INFORMATION

Product Information

Project ID Project Name

P129565 West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program 2A

Country Financing Instrument

Western Africa Investment Project Financing

Original EA Category Revised EA Category

Partial Assessment (B) Partial Assessment (B)

Organizations

Borrower Implementing Agency

Republic of Ghana, Republic of Senegal, Ministry of

Finance, Ministry of Economy, Finance and Plan Technical and Fiduciary Coordination Unit (TFCU)

Project Development Objective (PDO)

Original PDO

The development objective of WAAPP‐2A is to scale‐up the generation, dissemination and adoption of improved technologies in theparticipating countries’ priority agricultural commodity areas.


Page ii of iv

FINANCING

Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$)

World Bank Financing

IDA‐51360 60,000,000 59,816,093 55,930,341

IDA‐51350 60,000,000 60,000,000 55,340,508

IDA‐52860 60,000,000 60,000,000 55,906,304

IDA‐58110 20,000,000 20,000,000 19,449,390

Total 200,000,000 199,816,093 186,626,543

Non‐World Bank Financing 0 0 0

Borrower/Recipient 15,000,000 0 0

Total 15,000,000 0 0

Total Project Cost 215,000,000 199,816,093 186,626,544

KEY DATES

Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing

22‐May‐2012 12‐Dec‐2012 26‐Oct‐2015 31‐Dec‐2017 31‐Dec‐2018

RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING

Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions

27‐Jan‐2017 144.47 Reallocation between Disbursement Categories

22‐Aug‐2017 175.41 Reallocation between Disbursement Categories

11‐Jan‐2018 181.83 Change in Loan Closing Date(s)

KEY RATINGS

Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality

Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Substantial


Page iii of iv

RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Actual

Disbursements (US$M)

01 15‐Dec‐2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0

02 27‐Oct‐2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 20.03

03 30‐May‐2014 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 37.31

04 05‐Dec‐2014 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 49.17

05 18‐Jun‐2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 76.73

06 11‐Jan‐2016 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 93.02

07 30‐Jun‐2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 116.83

08 05‐Jan‐2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 137.30


10 28‐Dec‐2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 181.83


12 31‐Dec‐2018 Satisfactory Satisfactory 186.63

SECTORS AND THEMES

Sectors

Major Sector/Sector (%)

Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 89

Agricultural Extension, Research, and Other Support Activities

74

Public Administration ‐ Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry 15

Industry, Trade and Services 11

Agricultural markets, commercialization and agri‐business

11


Page iv of iv

Themes

Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%) Private Sector Development 60

Business Enabling Environment 35

Innovation and Technology Policy 35

Regional Integration 25

Public Sector Management 6

Public Finance Management 3

Public Expenditure Management 3

Public Administration 3

Transparency, Accountability and Good Governance

3

Urban and Rural Development 35

Rural Development 35

Rural Infrastructure and service delivery 35

Environment and Natural Resource Management 14

Climate change 14

Mitigation 1

Adaptation 13

ADM STAFF

Role At Approval At ICR

Regional Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Hafez M. H. Ghanem

Country Director: Elizabeth Laura Lule Deborah L. Wetzel

Senior Global Practice Director: Jamal Saghir Juergen Voegele

Practice Manager: Karen Mcconnell Brooks Marianne Grosclaude

Task Team Leader(s): Abdoulaye Toure Aifa Fatimata Ndoye Niane, Abdoulaye Toure, Kadir Osman Gyasi

ICR Contributing Author: Amadou Ba


Page 1 of 62

I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL

Context

1. Agriculture is a key economic sector in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Itcontributes approximately 30 percent of the region’s gross domestic product (GDP), 28 percent of totalexports, and provides employment to two thirds of the population.

2. Despite the generally favorable agro‐ecological conditions at appraisal, the sector was facing manychallenges:

Dominance of subsistence farming: Agricultural production was dominated by small familyfarms that primarily focus on food crop production. The owners of these small subsistence farmshave limited access to inputs technologies, extension advice, and credit.

Weak R&E systems: Research and extension (R&E) services, built up in the 1970s and 1980s withdonor support, were unsustainable and increasingly irrelevant for today’s agriculture. With amore than 50 percent decline in donor funding between 1980 and 2006, most public nationalagricultural services virtually stopped operating and implementation of research and technologydissemination programs suffered.

Limited role of the private sector: Private investments in R&E and technology and innovation(T&I) generation including production at scale of these technologies and innovations wereconstrained due to inadequate policies and weak incentives provided to private investors andentrepreneurs.

High but inefficient government interventions: Government supported policies and programswere focusing on achieving food security through provision of substantial input subsidies tofarmers that had modest impact on overall farm productivity.

Limited trade/exchange of agriculture T&I and products: Intra‐regional trade in agriculturalproducts, efficiently linking consumer markets to competitive production areas, was perceivedas key to the region’s agricultural development through structural transformation of theagricultural sector in West Africa.

High vulnerability to climate change: West Africa was experiencing a rapid change in climateconditions characterized by a widespread warming, a recovery from the monsoonalprecipitation, and an increase in the occurrence of climate extremes such as unusually hightemperatures, droughts, and excessive rain and floods.

Gender disparities: R&E in West Africa have not adequately addressed the needs and concernsof women producers despite the empirical evidence that women play a key role in food valuechains.

3. The ECOWAS members, which are all low‐income countries with the exception of Ghana, were facingan urgent need to address these challenges so as to: (i) satisfy food needs of their growing and


Page 2 of 62

increasingly urbanized population; (ii) promote sustainable economic growth and reduce rural poverty; and (iii) build a strong regional agricultural market for primary and agricultural products. To this end,

ECOWAS has initiated a regional approach through its agricultural policy (ECOWAS’ Regional Agricultural Policy ‐ ECOWAP) and supported the formulation and implementation of harmonized

National Agricultural Investment Programs (NAIP).

4. The West African Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) was meant to be a two‐phase, ten‐year, horizontal and vertical Adaptable Program Lending (APL) to support the implementation of ECOWAP’s agricultural research and development (R&D) pillar, as reflected in the NAIPs and the regional mobilizing program. The R&E pillar was further articulated within the Framework for Africa’s Agricultural Productivity (FAAP). Under the overall coordination of Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) at continental level, the mandate for agricultural research for West Africa was given to the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development/Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Developpement Agricoles (CORAF/WECARD), henceforth referred to as CORAF. The expected outcome at the end of the 10‐year program was: (i) 30 percent productivity increase (farmers’ yields) achieved over the control technology in at least two of the region’s top priority commodity sub‐sectors in each participating country; and (ii) adoption of improved varieties by at least 70 percent of project beneficiaries with clear spill‐over effects across participating countries.

5. WAAPP covers 13 of the 15 ECOWAS countries. Under the first phase of WAAPP, the Board approved three series of projects, including WAAPP‐1A (Mali, Senegal, and Ghana) in 2007; WAAPP‐1B (Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire and Nigeria) in 2010 and WAAPP‐1C (Benin, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Niger, Sierra Leone, The Gambia, and Togo) in 2011. Only WAAPP‐1A was followed up with WAAPP‐2A.

6. WAAPP‐1A started in 2007. It was a highly successful operation that reached all the triggers for moving from the first to the second phase. These triggers were: (i) the participating countries have ratified the common ECOWAS regulations for the registration of genetic materials and pesticides; (ii) they have established their national registration systems for plant materials and pesticides; (iii) National Centers of Specialization (NCoS) have been established; and (iv) competitive research grant schemes are satisfactorily operating in each country. The key lesson learned during the implementation of the first phase of WAAPP‐1A was the need for the second phase of the program to adopt a two‐pronged approach built around strengthening regional cooperation and scaling‐up technology generation, dissemination, and adoption. Specific lessons learned identified the need to: (i) strengthen CORAF’s capacity to carry out R&D regional planning, exchange, and monitoring mechanisms; (ii) adopt a value chain approach in R&D activities and include research institutions that specialize in processing and post‐harvest; (iii) involve public and private extension services and partner with farmers’ organizations and the private sector; (iv) strengthen complementarities between agricultural R&D at the national , regional (CORAF) and international (CGIAR) levels; and (v) integrate WAAPP within regional and national agricultural investment programs.

7. WAAPP‐2A followed the successful completion of the first phase for the first series of countries, namely Ghana, Senegal, and Mali. WAAPP‐2A continued to provide a regional framework for ECOWAS countries to collaborate in the implementation of national and regional agricultural strategies for technology generation, dissemination, and support to local farming systems.

8. The WAAPP‐2A Project was approved by the Board on May 22, 2012 for Ghana and Senegal. The credit amount was US$120 million equivalent (US$60 million for each of the two countries). The Mali operation was postponed due to the political situation at the time and the consequent temporary


Page 3 of 62

suspension of World Bank (WB) activities in the country. The credit for Mali of US$60 million equivalent was processed as Additional Financing ‐ AF to WAAPP 2A and approved by the Board on June 28, 2013. Each country has a NCoS with Ghana focusing on root and tuber crops, Senegal on drought resistant cereals, and Mali on rice, the most important staple crop in the ECOWAS sub‐region. CORAF received one‐fifteenth (1/15) of the proceeds of each participating country’s IDA financing. CORAF used approximately 1/3rd of the proceeds for the regional coordination activities and 2/3rd for the regional Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Scheme (CARGS). The countries provided US$15 million as counterpart to the IDA financing.

9. An AF for Senegal within WAAPP‐2A was approved on May 17, 2016 for an amount of US$20 million equivalent in response to the Government of Senegal’s (GoS) urgent request for assistance to its groundnut value chain reform agenda. The WAAPP‐2A project was selected for this AF because it was instrumental in rebuilding the country’s seeds system for several crops of high economic and food security importance in Senegal and across West Africa. This AF was only from national IDA funding and no additional regional IDA was provided.

10. Rationale for the World Bank. The WAAPP was aligned with Pillar III of the World Bank’s Regional Integration Strategy for Sub‐Saharan Africa (RIAS) approved in 2008 and the RIAS update in 2011. Pillar III prioritizes support for cross‐country collaboration to provide regional public goods including promotion of agricultural productivity. The program also supported the implementation of the Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) of the participating countries and contributed to achieving two principal objectives: (i) improving agricultural productivity and sustainability to improve food security, reduce poverty, and contribute to economic growth; and (ii) supporting regional integration. The WAAPP was also the World Bank’s response to ECOWAS’ request to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) agricultural research and development (R&D) pillar.

11. More specifically, with its support to WAAPP, IDA sought to assist the West African countries in: (i) creating the enabling conditions for technological cooperation by harmonizing regulations; (ii) marshalling the financial and human resources to develop a sound research program for each priority commodity within NCoS; (iii) sharing technologies that are already available as well as the technologies that will be developed and released by the NCoS; and (iv) scaling up the regional adoption of these technologies by developing common strategies to promote the use of improved genetic materials, yield‐enhancing technologies, postharvest technologies and best practices to accelerate sustainable, positive change in agricultural productivity. Since sustained agricultural productivity growth within the ECOWAS countries cannot be achieved with one single investment operation, IDA chose as its lending instrument a regional 10‐year horizontal and vertical APL consisting of two phases, each lasting five years. WAAPP‐2A was the start of the vertical APL by providing IDA financing for the first series of projects under the second phase of the APL.


Page 4 of 62

Theory of Change (Results Chain)

12. To address the challenges outlined above, WAAPP‐2A focused on some of the key drivers of change for scaling‐up the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved technologies in Ghana, Senegal, and Mali. The key drivers for change considered were:

a) Create the enabling conditions for regional cooperation in the generation, dissemination, and

adoption of agricultural technologies. This was to be achieved through: (i) implementation of

the ECOWAS common regulations on genetic materials, pesticides, fertilizers, and veterinary

products and (ii) mainstreaming of regional strategies into national action plans related to such

topics as knowledge management, gender, climate change, sustained funding mechanisms for

research and development, intellectual property rights (IPR), and environmental and social

management safeguards.

b) Strengthening National Centers of Specialization (NCoS). Upgrade the NCoS into Regional

Centers of Excellence (RCoE).

c) Support Demand‐driven Technology Generation, Dissemination, and Adoption. Strengthen

priority‐focused, demand‐driven agricultural R&D, scale‐up technology dissemination and

adoption within participating countries and facilitate access to improved genetic material.

See Figure 1 for illustration of the results chain.


Page 5 of 62

Figure 1: Theory of Change Diagram for WAAPP2‐A (Soure of information : WAAPP‐2A Project Appraisal document)

Problem Statement: Shortage of food supply in Senegal, Ghana, and Mali is linked to low productivity of subsistence

farmers, which is mainly due to limited availability, access, knowledge, and uptake of agriculture T&I by value actors,

especially farmers.

PDO: To scale‐up the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved technologies in the participating countries’

priority agricultural commodity areas.

Project Development Objectives (PDOs)

13. The development objective of WAAPP‐2A is to scale‐up the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved technologies in the participating countries’ priority agricultural commodity areas.


Page 6 of 62

Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators

The expected outcome at the end of the 10‐year program were: (i) 30 percent productivity increase (farmers’ yields) of achieved over the control technology in at least two of the region’s top priority commodity sub‐sectors in each participating country; and (ii) adoption of improved varieties by at least 70 percent of project beneficiaries with clear spill‐over effects across participating countries. With the addition of the Mali AF, the PDO Level Results Indicators (see PAD of Mali of June 5, 2013) were as follows:

Table 1: Project outcome indicators

Indicator Original target

Changes with AF Mali

Revised targets

Direct project beneficiaries of which 40 Percent female

1,400,000 (560,000)

700,000 (280000)

2,100,000 (840,000)

Beneficiaries who are using technologies generated by other countries

280,000 140,000 420,000

Technologies generated by the Project with at least 15 percent productivity increase over the control

43 16 59%

Producers with knowledge of technologies generated/released by the Project

80% 0 8%

Area under new technologies 1,100,000 600,000 1,700,000

Processors/producers who have adopted at least one new technology

820,000 420,000 1,240,000

With the addition of the AF for Senegal, PDO Indicator Nr. 1 “Direct project beneficiaries” was increased by 150,000.

Components

14. As specified in the PAD, the Project had four components:

15. Component 1: Enabling Conditions for Regional Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination, and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies (US$7.9 million of which US$7.2 million IDA). This component aimed at strengthening the mechanisms and procedures for the exchange of technologies, so as to allow participating countries to benefit fully from the regional cooperation in technology generation and exchange. The component included two sub‐components: (i) Sub‐component 1.1: Implementation of ECOWAS common regulations on genetic materials, pesticides, fertilizer, and veterinary products; and (ii) Sub‐component 1.2: mainstreaming regional strategies into national action plans via implementation of regional WAAPP strategies. More specifically, activities for sub‐component 1.2 included: (i) Knowledge management, information, and communications systems; (ii) Mainstreaming Gender; (iii) Mainstreaming Climate Change; (iv) Sustained mechanism to financing agricultural research and development; (v) Intellectual Property Rights (IPR); and (vi) Environmental and social management safeguards.

16. Component 2: National Centers of Specialization – NcoS (US$28.42 million of which US$27.26 million IDA). This component aimed at strengthening regional cooperation in technology generation by aligning national priorities with the regional ones. It supported the upgrading of the NCoS into Regional Centers of Excellence (RCoE). It also was to strengthen relevant national research centers associated with NCoS in the development of the value chain and facilitate synergies with relevant research institutes of the


Page 7 of 62

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and other international research centers. It financed mainly construction and rehabilitation of core infrastructure, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification of the NCoS, capacity building, grants to implement core research activities and capacity strengthening for CORAF (technical assistance to NoS, regional research planning workshops and workshops to promote partnership with CGIAR centers, and regional policy research and market integration initiatives to improve R&D sustainability

17. Component 3: Support to Demand‐driven Technology Generation, Dissemination, and Adoption (US$84.7 million of which US$75.1 million IDA). This component aimed at strengthening priority‐focused, demand‐driven agricultural R&D, scaling‐up technology dissemination and adoption within participating countries and facilitating access to improved genetic material. It included three sub‐components: (i) Sub‐component 3.1: Demand‐driven Technology Generation that will continue to strengthen the regional CARGS managed by CORAF and the existing CARG scheme in each of the participating countries; (ii) Sub‐component 3.2: Support to Accelerated Adoption of Released Technologies that will scale‐up the adoption of released technologies to continue bridging the gap between farmers’ and researchers’ yields for selected priority commodities. The strategy consisted of disseminating technologies developed under WAAPP‐1A by the NCoS and strengthening the technology delivery systems, in order to achieve rapid but sustainable impact on the ground. In this regard, the Project worked closely with government subsidy programs as well as with other projects and programs intervening along the targeted value chains; and (iii) Sub‐component 3.3: Facilitated Access to Improved Genetic Material that was to increase the availability of and producers’ access to improved genetic materials (seed, planting materials, and animal breeds) for the targeted priority value chains.

18. Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$10.8 million of which US$10.3 million IDA). The Project continued to be coordinated: (I) at the national levels by existing national coordinating units, which successfully coordinated the implementation of WAAPP‐1A; and at the regional level by CORAF on the basis of a well‐defined mandate agreed by the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) under the Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B). CORAF received funding under the various projects for its services.

B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE)

Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets

19. The PDO and its indicators were modified during implementation as shown in para 13 With the AF for Mali, targets were increased and for the AF Senegal, targets were also increased, and new intermediate results indicators were added.

Revised Components

20. The AF for Mali did not change components, only resources to cover the activities of Mali WAAPP2‐A. Under the Additional Finance (AF) for Senegal’s groundnut value chain, the original Component 3 of WAAPP‐2A: “Support to Demand‐driven Technology Generation, Dissemination, and Adoption” was expanded to introduce four new intermediary results indicators to measure the achievements of the new activities funded under the AF as follows:

Groundnut certified seeds distributed by the Project to farmers (in tons), of which distributed through the e‐subsidy platform (in %);


Page 8 of 62

Performance contract between the Government of Senegal and Suneor elaborated during the transition period;

Transaction advisory services provided to the Government to complete the bidding process for Suneor cession;

New policy development letter for the groundnut value chain completed and validated by the Government.

Other Changes

21. The original closing date of 31 Dec. 2017 for WAAPP‐2A was extended: (i) for the AF for Mali for an additional year, to 31 Dec. 2018 to allow Mali to fully implement its activities, and (ii) for the AF for Senegal’s groundnut value chain also by one year to 31 Dec. 2018. The closing date for Ghana was also extended from 31 Dec. 2017 to 30 June 2018 and two reallocations of funds between categories were approved on May 22, 2012. The reallocations for CORAF were primarily to promote the dissemination of improved technologies at the regional level and in the case of the Senegal AF resources were reallocated form disbursement category 2A (goods and services) to category 1 (works).

Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Theory of Change

22. In the case of Mali, the AF in 2013 was a consequence of the temporary suspension of World Bank activities in the Country which meant that WAAPP‐2A started out only with Ghana and Senegal. In the case of Senegal, the AF in 2016 corresponded to a series of requests from the Government of Senegal (GoS) which asked for support to its objective of enhancing the performance of the groundnut value chain that plays a vital role in the country’s economy.

23. The changes in both cases only implied an enlargement of the geographic area (addition of Mali, with emphasis on Northern Mali) and the value chains covered (addition of groundnuts in Senegal). They had no direct implications for the original theory of change.

II. OUTCOME

A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs

24. Project Development Objective. WAAPP‐2A’s PDO to scale‐up the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved technologies in the participating countries’ priority agricultural commodity areas continues to be highly relevant. It was and remains a key strategy to: (i) increase the availability of food, (ii) raise living standards in rural areas, (iii) deal with poverty, and (iv) create jobs, especially for youth in the agricultural sector. It is fully consistent with the agricultural development strategies of the three countries involved, as well as the World Bank’s country assistance strategies and its regional strategy for agricultural development. The PDO responds to ECOWAS’ regional agricultural policy (ECOWAP), which in turn is aligned with the Africa‐wide initiatives of CAADP and NEPAD. It is fully in line with the current continental wide initiative on Technologies for African Agricultural


Page 9 of 62

Transformation (TAAT), which aims at transforming agriculture by supporting production systems with the needed agricultural technologies. It is also consistent with the African Agricultural Research Program (AARP) whose objective it is to increase the productivity and competitiveness of African agriculture by increasing the availability of science‐based technologies, practices and the complementary policy, institutional and market innovations required for adoption and adaptation on a large scale by countries.

25. The specific targets defined in the Project Appraisal Documents (PAD for Ghana and Senegal, AF Mali, and AF Senegal) for the PDO level results indicators were all very ambitious as were the intermediate results indicators. These targets were based on the outcome and experience under WAAPP1‐A and intensive discussions between the WB and the WAAPP teams in the three countries during appraisal. For example, the Indicator for the number of processors/producers who have adopted at least one new technology and the Indicator for area under new technology (ha) are crucial for yield increases, incomes and overall agricultural production. In the first case, the baseline was 105,000 and the target 1,6 million processors/producers and for the other indicator, the baseline was 135,000 and the target 1,85 million ha under new technologies. This represents in both cases a more than 10‐fold increase over the without project situation and is more than adequate for the economic justification of the project. Similarly, the targets for the PDO indicators for: (i) number of beneficiaries (male/female); (ii) number of technologies generated by the project with at least 15 percent productivity increase over the control; and (iii) producers with knowledge of generated technologies by the project were a multiple of the baseline situation.

26. Project design. The Projects’ continued relevance is underscored by the fact that: (i) the program expanded rapidly to practically all the ECOWAS countries; (ii) it served already as a model for other World Bank agricultural programs in Sub‐Saharan Africa, and (iii) it serves as the basis for an even more ambitious program which will go beyond technology generation and diffusion to address key factors for speeding up technology adoption and regional agricultural trade. These key factors include: (i) support to start‐ups with disruptive technologies, (ii) support for suppliers of T&I, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs); and (iii) vouchers for T&I adoption to small‐scale producers and processors with a focus on youth and women.

Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating

27. Substantial. The PDO of WAAPP2‐A was highly relevant. Its continued relevance is underscored by its adoption by the African Union of the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation in January 2014. In the Declaration, Heads of State recommitted to the CAADP, including achieving the 10 percent target for public spending on agriculture, doubling agricultural productivity and sustaining at least 6 percent annual growth in the agricultural sector. The relevance of the PDO was further underscored in September 2015 as the United Nations (UN) adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG2, “to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture”. WAAPP2‐A relevance to its higher‐level objectives is also reflected by the fact that it is aligned with the FARA Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa and the African Development Bank’s (AfDB) initiative “Feed Africa: Strategy for Agricultural Transformation in Africa, 2016‐2025,” aiming at ending hunger and rural poverty within the next decade.


Page 10 of 62

B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY)

Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome.

Results framework ‐ Status of achievement of indicators:

28. To assess achievement of the PDO the PAD used six project level results indicators (PDOs):

a. Direct project beneficiaries (number) of whom are female

b. Beneficiaries who are using technologies generated by other countries

c. Technologies generated by the Project with at least 15 percent productivity increase over the control

d. Producers with knowledge of technologies generated/released by the Project

e. Area under new technologies (ha)

f. Processors/producers who have adopted at least one new technology

29. The six specific PDO indicators agreed upon initially remained the same. They were not changed but with the addition of the AF for Mali and Senegal (groundnut value chain) the targets were revised (see Table 1 below, figures are rounded). For the baseline figures at the start of the Project see Table 1, Annex 1 – Results Framework and Monitoring All data are from the M&E Unit of CORAF.

Table 2: Status of PDO Indicators for WAAPP2‐A

Indicator Target Actual Status % achieved

PDO 1: Direct Project beneficiaries (Nr.) Main results Total Senegal Ghana Mali % female

2,250,000 850,000 700,000 700,000 40

2,735,000 959,000 876,000 900,000 41

122 113 125 129

PDO 2: Beneficiaries are using technologies generated by other countries (Nr.) Main results Total Senegal Ghana Mali

420,000 140,000 140,000 140,000

297,000 61,000 85,000 151,000

71 44 61 108

PDO 3: Generated/released technologies by the Project with at least 15 percent productivity increase over the control (Nr.) Main results Total Senegal Ghana Mali

59 26 17 16

112 41 47 24

190 158 276 150

PDO 4: Processors/producers who have adopted at least one new technology (Nr.) Main results Total

1,240,000 420,000

1,619,000

131


Page 11 of 62

Senegal Ghana Mali

400,000 420,000

641,000 528,000 450,000

153 132 107

PDO 5: Producers with knowledge of generated/released technologies by the Project ( percent) Main results Total Senegal Ghana Mali

80 80 80 80

77 90 85

PDO 6: Area under new technologies (ha) Main results Total Senegal Ghana Mali

1,700,000 500,000 600,000 600,000

1,850,000 526,000 614,000 710,000

109 105 102 118

30. Achievement of PDO indicators varied slightly from country to country, but the Project attained or surpassed all the PDO targets, except for PDO 2.

PDO Indicator 1: Direct project beneficiaries reached a total of 2,735,000 compared to an original target of 2,250,000. In all three countries was the target overachieved (Senegal – 113 percent, Ghana – 125 percent, and Mali – 129 percent). Female participation was also slightly higher than originally expected (41 percent versus 40 percent). Besides farmers, there were other beneficiaries, namely key participants in the generation and dissemination of technology, including researchers, public and private extension services and advisory agencies, research institutions, universities, NGOs, and government agencies included in the value chains management of key crops.

PDO Indicator 2: Beneficiaries who are using technologies generated by other countries. This target was overachieved in Mali (108 percent) but underachieved in Senegal (44 percent) and Ghana (61 percent). However, it should be noted that this target was most likely overambitious. A project timeframe of six years does not allow for the necessary testing of imported technologies before they can be widely promoted and adopted. The fact that even so 297,000 farmers in the three countries benefitted from “imported” technologies is remarkable and should be considered as a success.

PDO Indicator 3: Number of generated/released technologies by the Project with at least 15 percent productivity increase over the control. The number of technologies was 112 versus a target of 59. The target was largely surpassed, especially in Ghana where 47 new technologies came on stream versus a target of 17. Actual yield increases in farmers’ fields are discussed below for the case of Senegal where several impact studies of various technologies were carried out in 2016.

PDO Indicator 4: Processors/producers who have adopted at least one new technology (Number). The actual number was 1,619,000 versus the target of 1,240,000 and all three countries overachieved their targets. For the benefits accruing to agro‐processors see the Ghana study summarized below.


Page 12 of 62

PDO Indicator 5: Producers with knowledge of generated/released technologies by the Project ( percent). The figures were 85 percent in Mali and 90 percent in Ghana. Only in Senegal was there an underachievement: 77 percent actual versus the target of 80 percent.

PDO Indicator 6: Area under new technology (ha). The area of improved technologies disseminated under the Project reached 1,850,000 hectares compared with the target of 1,700,000. Mali did better than Senegal or Ghana, with achievement rates of 118, 105 and 102 percent respectively.

31. Based on the aforementioned achievements, the efficacy of this Project’s outcome is rated substantial.

32. Achievement of intermediate results indicators. Based on the results framework kept by CORAF, there were 21 intermediate results indicators for the four project components. Fifteen of the intermediate results indicators were fully achieved, while six were only partially achieved. Country differences in the degree of achievement varied considerably. Noteworthy is that Ghana generated and registered many more varieties in the regional catalogue than either Senegal or Mali. Concerning the use of Web‐based information regarding agricultural technologies, Ghana is markedly ahead of the other two countries. The analysis of achievements of the intermediate results indicators is presented by component in the paragraphs below and further detail is provided in Annex 1: Results Framework and Key Outputs.

Analysis of the activities and achievements by component

33. An analysis of achievements of the intermediate results indicators (IRI) by component shows the following:

34. Component 1. Enabling conditions for Sub‐Regional Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination, and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies.

IRI 1: The number of pesticide products/genetic materials registered by national committees went from a baseline of 409 to 1,198 at completion beyond the original target of 810.

IRI 2: The certification of laboratories with ISTA/ISO is incomplete. In Ghana, two laboratories out of a target of three and in Senegal three out of five were certified, whereas in Mali no laboratory has been certified so far out of four that had been planned.

IRI 3: Technologies with International Property Rights (IPR): the Project achieved 75 against a target of 78. Mali achieved 70, Senegal 4 and Ghana 1.

IRI 4: Concerning the number of varieties generated by NCoS and registered in the Regional Catalogue, the actual achievement was 96 versus a target of 77. However, while Ghana largely surpassed its target (40 actual versus 15 planned), Senegal just met the target, and Mali slightly underperformed.

IRI 5: Hits for the regional/national Web‐based information system on agricultural technologies. The CORAF web site has a large following and has received over 4.5 million hits. Ghana’s information‐based information system is also frequently visited. Its web site has received nearly 900,000 hits compared to the original target of 10,000. In Senegal and Mali, the web‐based information site is hardly accessed, and achievements are below target. With most ECOWAS countries being covered by WAAPP, the network effect has become important


Page 13 of 62

and links with the CGIAR system are getting stronger. Concerning the use of Web‐based information regarding agricultural technologies, it is mostly the website of CORAF that is accessed by users and Ghana is far ahead of the other two countries in the use of e‐extension.

IRI 6: Considering the number on national action plans developed on gender, communication and climate change‐disaggregated by country, the project exceeds the target (9) without marked differences between the three countries.

35. Outcome: Although changing regulatory rules is a process that needs to be continuously pursued, much progress has been achieved in the implementation of ECOWAS common regulations on genetic materials, pesticides, fertilizers, and veterinary products. With the increased exchange of these products across national borders the Region has become more outward looking and open to benefits of regional and international cooperation in the field of agricultural technology generation and diffusion.

36. Component 2. National Centers of Specialization (NCoS). This component also sought to improve the quantity and quality of technology generation by strengthening relevant national research centers associated with NCoS in the development of a value chain approach by research. A further objective was to facilitate synergies with relevant Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The following key Intermediate Results Indicators (IRI) were used:

IRI 1: Qualifying criteria met by the NCoS to become RCoE : At the end of the project this indicator was met in Ghana and Senegal but not in Mali.

IRI 2: Number of NCoS/RCoE with certification from the International seed testing association (ISTA) and the International Organization of Standardization (ISO). This activity has been completed in Ghana and Senegal.

IRI 3: Number of Technologies generated by NCoE and demonstrated in at least three other ECOWAS countries. Achieved at completion were 21 against a target of 17. Ghana and Senegal performed according to expectation and Mali was able to achieve more that had been the target (ten versus six). Adaptive research projects were carried out with the involvement of NGOs, Universities, and the private sector.

IRI 4: Number of study sponsorship (MSc and PhD). The capacity building effort was particularly successful and the number of study sponsorship to the MSc and PhD level was at the end of the Project: 309 MSc and 192 PhD versus an original target of 128 MSc and 85 PhD Unfortunately, 51 students in Mali could not complete their studies as the IDA credit was already fully disbursed.

IRI 5: Scientific exchange visits. Eighty‐six exchange visits were planned and 104 were actually carried out. Ghana was the country that availed itself most of this possibility (62 actual versus 32 planned).

37. Outcome : Overall, when considering : (i) the upgrading of two NCoS into RCoE (dry cereals in Senegal and tuber and roots in Ghana) (ii) ISTA/ISO certification of RCoE in Ghana and Senegal; (iii) the substantial increase in the quantity and quality of technologies developed by the NCoS/RCoS; (iv) the large number of agricultural students trained to the MSc and PhD level; (v) the significant number of scientific exchange visits, and, last but not least, the production of certified foundation seed in more


Page 14 of 62

than the originally targeted amounts, agricultural research in the three countries has become more vibrant and is able to play its key role in the quest for productivity increases in the agricultural sector.

38. Component 3. Support to Demand‐driven Technology Generation, Dissemination, and Adoption. The following key Intermediate Results Indicators (IRI) were used to judge performance of the dissemination and adoption activities of WAAPP2‐A.

IRI 1: Multi‐country research proposals financed by the regional CARGS. CORAF carried out seven multi‐country research projects versus four that had originally been planned. The two most important ones focused on: (i) climate change and its implications for agriculture and (ii) research on making crops more nutritious through biofortification. These research projects were carried out in collaboration with a consortium of CGIAR (CCAFS‐ICRAF‐AGRHYMET) and “Harvest Plus”. Other CGIAR and international research partners of CORAF were CIMMYT and IFDC.

IRI 2: National demand‐driven research proposals financed by the national CARGS. The number of national research projects executed was 218 compared to the target of 197. Only Ghana underachieved (51 actual versus 65 planned). The national research projects not only covered production aspects (variety development) but also involved research on other topics along the value chain (processing, conservation, storage).

IRI 3: Demonstration plots established. 179,500 demonstration plots were established by the public and private extension services intervening in the Project. This compares to a target of 119,500 (150 percent achievement). In addition to demonstration plots, under the Project several other tools were used to speed up the dissemination of information (national dissemination plans, extension workshops, stakeholder fora, e‐extension and use of the internet).

IRI 4: Number of Technologies generated by NCoE and demonstrated in at least three other ECOWAS countries. Achieved at completion were 21 against a target of 17. Ghana and Senegal performed according to expectation and Mali was able to achieve more that had been the target (ten versus six). Adaptive research projects were carried out with the involvement of NGOs, Universities, and the private sector.

IRI 5: Beneficiary satisfaction. The number of targeted clients (male or female farmers or business owners) that were satisfied with extension services was overall 67 percent. This is slightly less than the original target of 70 percent.

IRI 6: Certified foundation seeds produced (metric tons)

Table 3: Certified seeds per metric ton

Original Target

Actually Achieved at Completion

% Achievement

Rice 3,500 4,600 131

Maize 3,500 6,000 171

Cassava (Ha) 3,000 4,780 159

Sorghum 2,000 2,007 100

Millet 2,000 2,576 129


Page 15 of 62

39. The number of direct beneficiaries, beneficiaries using technologies generated by other countries, the number of processors/producers who have adopted at least one new technology, producers with knowledge of generated/released technologies by the Project, and areas under new technologies are discussed above (PDO 1 to 6).

40. An impact study of WAAPP agricultural technologies on livelihoods and social conditions of beneficiaries in Ghana was carried out by the African Institute of Economics and Social Policy Research, Ghana, August 2017. Some 600 farmers (300 beneficiaries and 300 non‐beneficiaries) and 300 agro‐processors were interviewed to determine the impact of the different technologies promoted by the Project. The baseline survey was conducted before the commencement of WAAPP2‐A interventions and the follow‐up survey was conducted in 2017. Results of the key variables were as follows:

Average farm size increased by two hectares during the period

The number of farmers who used their own produced seeds decreases by 28 percent

The rate of adoption of improved varieties increased by 46 percent in districts with WAAPP activities

The average annual crop income of beneficiary farmers increased by US$307 and was much higher in the southern parts (US$1,367) and forest belt (US$889)

For agro‐processors the weekly revenue increased by US$559 and led to an increase in employment by 11 employees.

41. Another study evaluating the impact of a rice technologies, including the system known as intensive rice production (SRI) developed in Madagascar was carried out in Senegal by the Consortium pour la Recherche Economique et Social (CRES) and published in October 2016. The study did not cover the irrigated rice perimeters along the Senegal river but rather the other parts of the country. The sample size was 789 (687 beneficiaries and 102 non‐beneficiaries). The key results were as follows:

The rate of adoption of the proposed technologies was 59 percent and 21 percent by project beneficiaries and non‐beneficiaries respectively

Areas under rice decreased slightly

Between 2014 and 2015, yields of beneficiaries using the varieties: Nerica 6 and Sahel 108 and SRI per hectare were as follows: 1,756 kg, 1,728 kg, and 2,248 kg whereas the yields of non‐beneficiaries were 1,432 kg/ha.

The profitability in 2015 for the three technology packages (Nerica, Sahel, SRI) were between 23 and 56 percent higher.

42. Similar studies on the adoption and impact of particular technologies were commissioned by the PCU in Dakar, Senegal in 2016. The studies covered: (i) improved varieties of maize, (ii) sorghum, (iii) millet, (iv) village chicken production, (v) fight against fruit flies attacking mango production. The results in all five cases were similar to the results for rice presented above.

43. The technologies with the most impact that were released by the respective research centers and transferred to or imported from neighboring countries were:


Page 16 of 62

Ghana – new higher yield varieties of: (i) cassava, (ii) sorghum, (iii) sweet potato, and (iv) yam. In addition, technologies for producing High Quality Cassava Flour, plantain fufu flour, and composite bread technologies (flour for sweet potato, cocoyam, water, yam, maize, millet, and sorghum) were transferred. These bread technologies allow to reduce wheat imports by substituting wheat with locally grown agricultural crops. One of the most successful technology transfers was the thermostable NDI‐2 vaccine for the prevention of Newcastle disease in poultry. This vaccine is inexpensive, easy to apply and has helped to protect millions of chickens in West Africa.

Senegal – climate‐smart varieties of millet, sorghum, maize, and groundnuts; disease resistant cassava varieties and technologies to transform cassava and local cereals into flour for bread making; techniques to fight the mango fruit fly; and technologies for the transformation and conservation of all kinds of fruits and vegetables.

Mali – improved rice varieties for different seasons, hybrid rice and corn, small‐scale agricultural equipment, the Wassache chicken, a local race that is highly appreciated by farmers, propagation methods for bananas, the drying of meat, and agroforestry species.

44. Component 4. Project Coordination, Management and Monitoring and Evaluation. Performance varied considerable between countries, with the PCU of Mali having the greatest difficulties of executing procurement activities as planned. Under the leadership of the PCUs in each country and with support from CORAF, national action plans on gender, communication, and climate change were developed and sub‐projects with environmental management plans were implemented effectively. Beneficiary assessments showed that 67 percent in Senegal, 80 percent in Ghana, and 76 percent in Mali of targeted clients were satisfied with extension services. These differences show that extension services in Senegal are relatively weak and that farmers in Ghana benefit from e‐extension promoted under the Project.

Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating

45. Based on these results, overall achievement of the PDO is rated substantial. The targets for all six PDO indicators were met, except one. Fifteen out of twenty one intermediate results were achieved and six partially achieved. The conditions for sub‐regional cooperation have been strengthened, two of the three NCoS have become RCoE, demand‐driven technology generation, dissemination, and adoption proceeded according to plans, and production of certified foundation seed and improved breed stocks also met targets. The agricultural scientific community has been reinvigorated and regional agricultural technology transfer has taken off.

C. EFFICIENCY

Assessment of Efficiency and Rating

46. An ex‐post economic and financial analysis (EFA) was done as part of the ICR activities. The main sources of information for this ex‐post EFA are the national completion reports of the WAAPP 2A and an economic and financial analysis prepared as part of the ICR.

47. The financial analysis was performed from the perspective of project beneficiaries. The private cost‐benefit analysis, based on farm budgets, computed the costs and benefits experienced by the


Page 17 of 62

beneficiaries when adopting the promoted technologies and uses market prices. The financial ex‐post analysis covered 9 models of small businesses based on technologies disseminated by the Project and aimed at improving the performance and competitiveness of the dry cereals, rice, roots and tubers, livestock and aquaculture sectors. The approach adopted for the financial analysis is based on a cost‐benefit / benefit analysis. The benefits / benefits considered are: (i) the generation, dissemination and adoption of improved production and processing technologies; (ii) enhanced technology spillovers between WAAPP participating countries arising from cross‐border transfer of technologies; and (iii) sound communication and agriculture advisory services to enhance the Project's effectiveness in the field of dissemination.

48. The financial analysis of the budgets of the priority crops shows the impact on financial profitability to be large, with all crop models financially viable. The agricultural yields increased in situation with project compared to the situation without project. The increases in agricultural yields of different crop models vary between 45 percent and 90 percent with the use of improved technologies and crop / production practices. These rates are higher than those of the ex‐ante financial analysis estimated between 25 percent and 60 percent. Increases in income per ha on farms that have adopted the improved technologies released by WAAPP‐2A range from 44 percent to 103 percent

49. The economic ex‐post analysis of WAAPP‐2A takes into account investments in: (a) productive goods; (b) economic public goods with their direct financial return on investment. The economic analysis is fundamentally based on the assumption of yield/productivity due to the adoption of technologies disseminated by WAAPP.

50. EIRR and NPV. Based on these assumptions, the analysis shows that the project is economically viable at regional level. The Net Present Value (NPV), consolidated at the regional level is approximately US$47.5 million. The Economic Rate of Return (EIRR) for the entire project is estimated at 15 percent.

51. Sensitivity analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed using some of the main variables affecting the model. The results are also encouraging even when one considers rising cost of 30 percent, decrease benefits of 30 percent and a two‐year delay in the generation of benefits. The corresponding EIRR with these three scenarios are respectively 13.18 percent, 12.48 percent and 12.47 percent and the corresponding NPV are US$20.3 million US$ 6.1 million and US$6.5 million.

52. Based on these results, overall project efficiency is rated Substantial.

D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING

Rating: Satisfactory 53. The overall outcome rating is Satisfactory, based on the substantial rating of PDO relevance the substantial

rating of achievement of the PDO and the intermediate outcome indicators and the substantial rating of

Efficiency. WAAPP2‐A consolidated the capacity of the three participating countries to generate

agricultural productivity growth. It revamped the process of generation, dissemination, and adoption of

new technologies and innovations; strengthened the physical research infrastructure and built up the

human and institutional research capacity; strengthened the capacity of other actors involved in

agricultural R&D; and fostered regional cooperation to optimize the use of scarce financial and human

resources. Also, the Project is still relevant under the new strategies of the respective Governments,

ECOWAS and the Bank strategy that aim to transform agriculture by giving emphasis to regional and

national agricultural technology generation, diffusion, and adoption.


Page 18 of 62

E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS

Gender

54. The original objective of the Project to have among the beneficiaries at least 40 percent female was

surpassed, as 41 percent benefitted from technologies and innovations promoted under the Project. This

was achieved due to a regional gender strategy developed by CORAF and national gender action plans

developed in each of the three countries with the WB team advice. At the beginning of the Project,

female participation was low and slow to take off. This changed, when the CORAF focal person in charge

of gender and her colleagues got together and started to evaluate all the technologies from the

perspective of their relevance and possible access by women. They realized that traditional agricultural

production activities are linked to land and therefore to the ownership of land. Consequently, they are

mostly the domain of men and technologies and innovations linked to agricultural production per se

tend to favor men over women. However, if one looks at the entire value chain from production to

processing to marketing one can see that women are much more active in the latter two activities (food

processing, smoking of fish, raising of chicken and small livestock, sale of produce). Efforts have been

done to target as much as possible women having land plots and particularly women’s groups through

training on seed multiplication and facilitating their access to improved technologies including new

varieties, best practices and improved machinery. Consequently, technologies that favor women became

a key selection criterion and their number was considerably increased.

Institutional Strengthening

55. Under WAAPP2‐A, the silent revolution that started under the first phase continued – the development

of entrepreneurs and professional cooperatives that produce seeds and seedlings, and that engage in

commercial agriculture and invest in agro‐processing continued. The development of hire‐services for

agricultural equipment and innovation platforms that bring together all stakeholders in a value chain

from producers to marketers, is providing an incentive for farmers to get organized. The use of e‐

extension with call in centers is amplifying the reach of extension organizations and allows them to better

know their farmers and respond to their needs. Since its creation in 1987, CORAF has continuously

evolved and has fully assumed its responsibility to coordinate and facilitate groundbreaking and cutting‐

edge research outputs needed to unlock the agricultural potential of West and Central Africa. It

connected the national research systems to each other, and to regional and global fora, and fostered

partnerships and networking through face‐to‐face events and online communities. It has become a

repository of regional agricultural technologies that are web‐based. With the training of over 500 MSc

and PhD students in one of the agricultural sciences, the scientific base in the participating research and

extension organizations has been greatly strengthened and deepened. Finally, the transition of NCoS

into RCoE with ISO label certification is a game changer that will lay the basis for pursuing regional

research priorities.


Page 19 of 62

Mobilizing Private Sector Financing

56. Throughout the Project, through stakeholder platforms at various levels, the private sector has been

closely associated with the process of research priority setting and in analyzing the implications of

research results along various commodity chains for their own agro‐businesses. In all three countries,

the private sector is starting to see the agriculture sector as a business and to various degrees is starting

to invest in small‐scale irrigation schemes, fruit and vegetable production for the export market and

agro‐processing. There are also numerous examples of entrepreneurial farmers (men and women) that

are significantly enlarging the areas that they cultivate due to higher productivity and farm incomes and

by hiring agricultural labor. Under WAAPP, a number of seed cooperatives well organized are growing

their business, getting access to financial services (credit and insurance) and even having contract

farming with some agro‐industries (oil industries and bakeries). In addition, a significant number of

former government employees and higher‐level military personnel use their connections in retirement

to start agricultural activities. Finally, several technical staff (agronomists, veterinarians, agricultural

scientists) that are retiring from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock are using their knowledge to

start their own farms and businesses.

Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity

57. Data from: (i) Beneficiary Assessment in Senegal of August 2018 prepared for the Project and (ii) Impact

Study of WAAPP Agricultural Technologies on Livelihoods and Social Conditions of Beneficiaries in Ghana

by the Africa Institute of Economics and Social Policy Research, August 2017, showed that social

conditions of beneficiaries, especially their food security, had improved. Also, the Project, especially in

Ghana, led to increases of farm sizes (1/2 ha), increases in annual crop income (US$307), and the average

weekly revenue of agro‐processors rose by US$559. The impact on employment in the agro‐processing

sector was positive, with an average increase in employment by 11 employees per processor.

Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts

58. WAAPP‐2A contributed to some extent to the regional integration connecting ECOWAS countries,

enabling sharing of knowledge, technologies and innovations, creating mobility for agricultural scientists

including young scholars, extension officers and other stakeholders including farmers and their

organizations and other value chains actors. A number of field visits were made across countries.

59. WAAPP‐2A contributed developing solidarity and cross‐countries’ support in case of emergency. In fact,

WAAPP‐2A contributed on Ebola‐response in providing affected countries with quality certified seeds to

mitigate expected adverse effects of the shock on agriculture and farmers’ livelihood. WAAPP‐2A

contributed to develop regional seed market by increasing country seed production and improving and

harmonizing regional market regulations to allow seed crossing borders with less challenges despite

much improvement still need to be done. A regional seed market platform called West Africa Seed

Information Exchange (WASIX accessible on www.wasix.net) was designed by CORAF to connect seed

cooperatives and other seed companies with the buyers over the region.


Page 20 of 62

60. WAAPP‐2A had a positive impact on mitigating climate change risk. Despite irregular and short rainfall

over the last years, multiplication and distribution of high‐yielding, early‐maturing and drought‐resistant

varieties of seeds contributed to save countries from crop failures and improved farmers resilience to

climate risk.

III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME

A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION

61. Preparation of WAAPP2‐A could build on the experience and lessons learned under WAAPP1‐A. Also, a

certain continuity of staff inside the Project Coordinating Units (PCU) and the fact, that most stakeholders

were long‐standing institutions (example: research institutes and extension services) with staff that had

participated in the first phase facilitated the design of the new project.

62. At the outset of the preparation for WAAPP‐2A, the three countries (Senegal, Mali, and Ghana) moved at the same pace. However, the political and military crisis in Mali during March 2012, led to the suspension of World Bank activities in the country, which put the Project preparation at a halt. The Mali AF only became effective on 2014. The preparation of the Senegal AF in 2015‐16 builds on the World Bank’s familiarity with the groundnut sector and was speedy due to the government’s keen interest in the operation.

63. Overall, implementation of WAAPP2‐A went according to plan. Achievement of the project development objective (PDO) during all 12 implementation support missions (ISM) was rated as satisfactory. Implementation progress was equally rated as satisfactory except during the period of May 2014 to January 2016 when project progress was slow as measured by disbursement performance. Once the procurement teams in the PCUs were familiar with their tasks, procurement and disbursements accelerated.

64. A mid‐term review (MTR) was carried out from October 19 to November 21, 2015. This MTR for WAAPP‐

2A was combined with an implementation support mission for WAAPP‐1B (Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire,

Nigeria) and WAAPP‐1C (Benin, Gambia, Guinea, Liberia, Niger, Sierra Leone, Togo). The period under

review was marked by the coup attempt in Burkina Faso, continued unrest in Mali, and the Ebola crisis.

The MTR besides reviewing overall project progress concentrated on: (i) defining a coordinated response

to the countries affected by Ebola (distribution of breeder, foundation and certified seeds), (ii) support to

the upgrading of NCoS into RCoE (review of the status of achievement of the criteria for this transition),

(iii) increase in the financing of academic training, and (iv) review of studies carried out by CORAF

regarding sustainable funding mechanisms for agricultural research and development and suggestions to

Governments on how to implement such mechanisms. The MTR also made detailed recommendations on

how to improve the visibility on WAAPP within each country using communication for development

strategies.

65. However, for Mali, the difficult security situation had serious implications for carrying out supervision

and implementation support missions. While the generation and diffusion of new technologies and

innovations continued relatively unhindered, IDA and CORAF support missions were limited to visit the

B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION


Page 21 of 62

capital Bamako but could not go to the field to observe project progress. Toward the end of the Project,

starting in 2016, the PCU showed serious signs of weaknesses in the planning and management of

procurement. Several contracts (rehabilitation of core infrastructure, seeds acquisition) remained unpaid

at project closing. Also, the administration of the capacity building program to train scientists to the MSc.

and PhD level posed problems. A total of 51 students were not able to finish their degree programs before

project closing and have started to complain to the PCU, the Government and the World Bank. Part of

these problems were caused by the fact that the Government did not fulfill its obligations regarding the

amount and timing of counterpart funding.

66. For Senegal, the Additional Financing (AF) for the groundnut value chain was problematic. The financing

came at Government request and was nominally part of WAAPP2‐A, but no regional IDA was used. Only

national IDA was used for the AF and CORAF did not benefit funding from this AF destined to pursue

groundnut seed to support Government subsidy program and the re‐privatization process of Suneor, the

State‐owned oil industry. The comprehensive technical assistance as a building block for longer‐term

sustainability of the groundnut value‐chain and economic diversification in the groundnut producing areas

was carried out and helped clarify options for policy decision makers. The purpose of supporting

Government seed subsidy program was to promote the use of the e‐voucher platform built by WAAPP

with about 800,000 farmers registered to allow better targeting, transparency and efficiency in the

distribution. However, because of lack of political will and vested interest, the e‐voucher platform was not

used as wished. The Suneor scoping study was completed but the advisory transaction service could not

be done because of an incomplete re‐nationalization of Suneor becoming Société Nationale de

Commercialisation des Oléagineux du Sénégal (SONACOS) with a contract pending for approval by the two

parties namely the Government of Senegal and Advens Group, the major shareholder. Through a

continuous WB policy dialogue, the Government prepared a new development policy strategy for the

groundnut value chain. The policy strategy was shared with WB and the different stockholders but is yet

to be officially adopted.

67. For Ghana, program implementation went according to schedule and there were no special factors

affecting project execution.

IV. WORLD BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME

A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E)

M&E Design

68. Rating: substantial. The M&E design built on the first series of WAAPP operations and the results

framework is comprehensive. Six PDO level results indicators were defined and for each project

component there were a series of intermediate results indicators, over 20 altogether. Most of the

indicators are quantitative in nature and can be measured. A well thought out M&E operations manuals

was prepared by CORAF for the regional level and by each country. Basically, all key concepts and variables

were clearly defined, including who to count as beneficiary. The manual defined: (i) data sources, (ii)

method of data collection including rapid appraisals and various survey methods, (iii) frequency of data

collection, and (iv) responsible entities for data collection and processing. Nevertheless, the number of


Page 22 of 62

indicators is on the high side and some concepts, such as “technology” in PDO Indicator 3: “Technologies

generated by the Project with at least 15 percent productivity increase over the control” merit to be

further refined. A higher number of unspecified technologies that are limited in the number of farmers

who can apply them is not necessarily better than fewer technologies that can have a great national or

regional impact. Also, qualitative aspects such as the articulation and integration of WAAPP within

regional and national agricultural sector investment programs could have been a useful PDO indicator.

M&E Implementation

69. Rating: Substantial. M&E implementation was taken very seriously by the three participating countries

and CORAF and considerable human and financial resources were deployed. CORAF played a leading role

in the M&E set‐up and organized several workshops and support missions to national teams to make sure

data collection was done in a professional manner. Focal points responsible for M&E were in place in each

country and in CORAF. A regional web‐based M&E platform was established by CORAF to allow countries

to upload regularly their result framework and to get the aggregated results at regional level. The number

of beneficiaries and the areas planted under improved varieties were closely monitored, as were the

spillover effects of technologies and innovations promoted by the Project. During implementation and

especially during the Mid‐term Review indicators were reviewed to clarify definitions and to harmonize

concepts.

M&E Utilization

70. Rating: Substantial. During implementation support missions, all the indicators were regularly compared

in a transparent manner, where each country had to justify the level of achievement of the different PDO

and intermediate results indicators. This led to a spirit of emulation and countries lagging in a particular

area made great efforts to improve their performance by the time of the next project implementation

support mission. Also, as soon as abnormally high or low indicators were reported, CORAF’s M&E

specialist intervened in collaboration with his or her M&E counterpart to find the explanation and to take

the appropriate action. CORAF, as part of its mandate (regional coordination and regional CARGS

management), always had a M&E specialist that followed up with his or her counterpart in the three

countries and compiled the situation for the Project’s Result Framework. For this type of agricultural

research and extension project where it is not easy to quantify the key variable: “beneficiaries” and

“benefits” and there is a risk of double counting a very determined effort was made to produce reliable

date. CORAF and the entities implementing the Project in the participating countries used new

technologies (digital media, the internet) in addition to traditional media to communicate Project results

effectively to different groups of stakeholders. WAAPP2‐A results, technology success stories, and other

achievements have been featured on radio, television and online. As the next step in improving M&E,

CORAF is considering introducing procedures for data quality assessments (DQA).

Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E

71. Rating: substantial. M&E had a well‐prepared results framework and great attention was given by all

stakeholders to collect reliably the necessary data and conduct needed studies. Results of M&E were fed


Page 23 of 62

back into the operations and determined corrective actions as appropriate. Only the economic impact

evaluation at project closing was not done in time. The latter is commissioned by CORAF and the report

is due in July 2019.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE 72. This was a Category‐B project due to the fact that the potential social and environmental impacts were

expected to be local, site‐specific and manageable. The ESMF and PMP of the first project (WAAPP1‐A)

were adapted and followed. A capacity building plan for the focal points for ESMF and PMP was carried

out, including national and regional workshops. During implementation, close supervision of the safeguard

measures was conducted by the social and environmental safeguard specialists of the World Bank.

Integrated pest management practices were applied and environmental impact assessments for minor civil

works were done. The environmental impact assessment for the ethanol plant in Ghana has yet to be

carried out.

73. No significant negative social impacts occurred. The research projects financed by the national and regional

CARGs were mainly directed to the needs of small‐scale farmers, particularly women. This was part of

CORAF’s regional gender strategy that mainstreamed gender considerations in technology generation and

adoption. The World Bank’s involuntary resettlement policy (OPBP 4.12) was not triggered.

74. Fiduciary compliance overall was moderately satisfactory due to the fiduciary issues noted in Mali.

Financial and procurement specialists were in place in CORAF and each of the three PCUs. Financial

management (FM) and procurement assessments were conducted by World Bank specialists during

project preparation which concluded that in all three countries existing arrangements were adequate to

meet the World Bank’s minimum fiduciary requirements. Audit reports and interim financial reports from

the various executing agencies were received, albeit at times with delays. Annual procurement plans were

established and regularly reviewed during project implementation review missions. Efforts were made to

close the Project without unfinished and unpaid contracts. However, in the case of Mali several buildings

(guest house in Niono) and irrigation works at the experimental site of the research station in Sikasso

remain unfinished and a number of students (mostly MSc at the Bamako University of Science and

Technology) have not finish their studies by project closing.

C. WORLD BANK PERFORMANCE

Quality at Entry

75. Rating: Satisfactory. The Project was well designed, and the components nurtured strong and

productive interactions between research, extension, private enterprise, producer organizations, and

civil society. Lessons learned from the implementation of the first phase of WAAPP‐1A and the

preparation of the series that followed (WAAPP‐1B and 1C) were incorporated in the preparation of this

operation. The specific lessons learned and incorporated were the need to: (i) strengthen CORAF’s

capacity to carry out R&D regional planning, exchange and monitoring mechanisms; (ii) adopt a value

chain approach in R&D activities and to include research institutions that specialize in processing and

post‐harvest; (iii) involve public and private extension services and to partner with farmers’ organizations

and the private sector; (iv) strengthen complementarities between agricultural R&D at the national


Page 24 of 62

(NCoE), regional (CORAF) and international (CGIAR) levels; and (v) integrate WAAPP within regional and

national agricultural investment programs. The WB ensured that CORAF and the three countries fully

participated in project preparation, including the definition of indicators and the setting of targets to be

achieved. Regional planning exercises at design stage allowed to optimize regional exchanges and

synergies. For Mali, the incorporation of the delayed AFwas done without problems. For Senegal, the AF

for the groundnut value chain was processed under pressure from the Government and CORAF was not

involved in its preparation because mostly directed to fund Government groundnut seed subsidy

program and the re‐privatization of the state‐owned oil industry.

Quality of Supervision

76. Rating Moderately Satisfactory. Implementation support missions were conducted regularly and the fact

that they regrouped most of the ECOWAS countries participating under WAAPP allowed for an open,

transparent and public assessment of achievements of project outcomes and intermediate outcome

indicators for each country. This practice of benchmarking in performance rating was continued from the

previous operations and generated a healthy emulation among all the countries, with each country

working hard to improve project implementation. However, implementation support missions in Mali

were seriously hampered by the problematic security situation in the country. Missions were mostly

conducted only out of the capital Bamako and few field visits were possible.

77. World Bank implementation support missions continuously promoted innovative ideas and concepts and

encouraged south‐south collaboration for global knowledge sharing and the movement toward

development of viable private seed companies. They also continued to look for effective ways to

accelerate the spread of generated technologies within the countries and across national borders by

promoting different extension tools such as e‐extension, innovation platforms, farmer field schools, and

use of local radio and the internet.

Justification of Overall Rating of World Bank Performance

78. Overall World Bank performance: Moderately Satisfactory. Adaptive learning was used, and the team

addressed proactively issues as they arose. Most noteworthy was the constant probing for ways of how to

accelerate dissemination and adoption of research results within the countries and especially across

national borders given WAAPP‐2A‘s flexible design. All fiduciary aspects were monitored. However,

Although the Bank performed very well in the Project supervision in Ghana and Senegal, several fiduciary

issues have been recorded at the end of the project with unpaid balance to suppliers and civil works not

complete due to lack of resource.

D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME

Rating: Moderate

79. The immediate risk to the development outcome is moderate but increasing the longer it takes to put

a follow‐up operation into effect. More and more of the momentum that was built up under WAAPP

in general and WAAPP2‐A in particular will be lost in the interim. Also, until and unless national

sustainable funding mechanisms for agricultural research and extension are effectively put in place,


Page 25 of 62

the ECOWAS countries will continue to depend to a substantial degree on donor funding. The follow‐

on regional West Africa Agriculture Project should provide the needed support to sustain the

achievements of the WAAPP program.

80. Sector‐level risks are Moderate. CORAF has developed a regional coordination capacity through the

implementation of the various WAAPP projects, including for the animation of networks of operation

specialists (M&E, Safeguard, Fiduciary, and Communication). Regional research planning took place

through annual meetings organized by each RCoE to align regional and national R&D priorities. The

establishment of recognized Regional Centers of Excellence (RCoE) with Memoranda of Understanding

with CGIAR institutions allowed to undertake priority research activities responding to key constraints

along the value chain. This heightened the value of research for the private sector. The very ambitious

capacity building program with the on‐the job and academic training for young researchers reduced

the risks posed by: (i) aging research and extension staff, and (ii) the brain drains across national

agricultural research institutions. The planning capacity in Ministries of Agriculture is slowly improving

also through capacity strengthening. The limited harmonization of sector support programs is being

addressed through the development of national agricultural investment programs and countries such

as Ghana are setting up common sector program coordination units to harmonize donor interventions.

81. Political risk to development outcome is High. The future of regional technology cooperation and

exchange will be intertwined with political stability and the economic process of establishing a more

closely integrated economic space in the ECOWAS countries. In Mali, project supervision was

constrained by the country’s security situation. This situation leaves efforts to improve agricultural

productivity countrywide vulnerable. Continued effective implementation and use of e‐vouchers

systems that seek to rationalize the distribution of inputs will depend on decisions by national policy

makers. and to make it more transparent and targeted will depend on decisions by national policy

makers and particular their political will.

V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lessons Learned

Regional Aspects

Regional Adaptable Program Lending (APL). The regional approach with an adaptable program lending instrument was the key to WAAPP’s success in general and for WAAPP‐2A in particular. This is probably the only strategy that allows to harness the benefits of modern technology and to bring about agricultural productivity increases for millions of farmers in the small countries of West Africa that are too small to produce meaningful results on their own. The collaboration and the sharing of technology across borders as well as agricultural trade in inputs and outputs is vital. Equally important is long term program lending since by its nature, the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved technologies in a coordinated fashion requires an institution building effort that takes many years to develop.

Strengthening CORAF and RCoE. The regional approach to: (i) strengthening CORAF and (ii) upgrading the NCoS that were supported under the first phase into RCoE, was key to success. Without CORAF’s on the ground support coordinating the program as well as leading the preparation and dissemination of


Page 26 of 62

studies, but especially participating jointly with the World Bank in the supervision of the program, this would not have been possible. In the same way, without the coordinated regional research effort and the creation of RCoS there would have been little first‐class research, little research cooperation among the countries, and no synergies with relevant Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) or other international research centers. No vibrant agricultural scientific community could have developed.

Technology .

Starting point of agricultural technology development. Technologies should only be developed through the national and regional research centers if no solutions to a given problem already exists in other parts of the world. WAAPP‐2A has enabled local researchers to visit other countries and to study their technologies. Such in depth reviews of existing agricultural technologies existing elsewhere in the world should be obligatory. Small‐scale agricultural technologies and equipment exist especially in Asia where the agrarian structure is similar and their importation by the private sector should be encouraged. A prime example of a transformative and highly successful small‐scale agricultural equipment is the “tricycle,” a relatively inexpensive means of transport that is spreading like wildfire all over Africa, and this without government support, simply because the technology is appropriate, not too expensive and available in the market.

Support to transformative technologies. Under WAAPP‐2A, several highly promising and transformative technologies have been developed. However, these technologies are far from being used to their full potential. Some of them require: (i) trade policy actions to favor substituting and mixing local cereals or root crops with imported wheat; (ii) industrial policy action to encourage production of mechanical harvesters for cassava on a large scale and thereby reduce production costs; and (iii) adoption of licensing/patent regimes that help cover the costs of production as in the case of production of thermostable vaccines against Newcastle disease in poultry. Other promising technology simply need to be further developed and refined. This should happen automatically, and continuous founding should be provided within a 5‐year project period rather that to spread scarce research resources over too many topics. Repeated funding of certain successful technologies should be the norm and all constraints for such technologies along the value chain should be tackled.

Agricultural Mechanization. Research into agricultural mechanization needs a paradigm shift. Production of prototypes of small‐scale equipment is not enough if afterwards there is no commercial production that can satisfy the demand for this equipment. The strategy should not be based only on the very limited number of researchers in the West African research systems but should take as starting point small‐scale agricultural equipment that is already commercially produced in other parts of the world. Selected foreign manufacturers should be contacted to see whether they would be willing to produce the respective equipment within one of the ECOWAS countries. Modalities, including incentives, would need to be developed and the foreign firms could be asked to train locals as part of the deal so that they could take the operation over after a stipulated time limit. The African Union (AU) has developed the Sustainable Agriculture Mechanization Framework (SAM) putting private sector at the center. The future World Bank follow‐up project to WAAPP could provide the necessary financial and technical support to get the SAM operational in partnership with other partners such as FAO and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Other topics E‐voucher system. The e‐voucher system that seeks to rationalize the distribution of subsidized inputs


Page 27 of 62

(mainly certified seeds and fertilizers, and some agricultural equipment), to make it more transparent and to allow to target specific farmers, namely the poor is a good policy. Its application in practice requires the full political support of Governments, which is in some cases missing. The widespread adoption of this tool in Senegal, Ghana, and Mali will only happen if it becomes part of the overall economic dialogue between the World Bank and the three countries and whenever possible is supported by conditionality linked to budget support operations combined with a strong government reform agenda on subsidies.

Sustainable Funding Mechanism. WAAPP2‐A efforts to create sustainable funding mechanisms in Ghana, Senegal, and Mali was so far only partly successful. Under the leadership of CORAF, the topic was widely analyzed and discussed, and workshops and study tours were organized. In all three countries, special official working committees proposed possible funding mechanisms to national policy makers. However, since this is a complex political undertaking legislative action has not yet been taken and will only happen provided there is a minimum of consensus among key stakeholders which so far is lacking. Ghana is the most advanced in the process of creating a sustainable funding mechanism and a Bill will go to Parliament in 2019. The Bill foresees the creation of a Tree Crops Development Authority and would initially involve oil palm, rubber, cashew and shea.

Recommendations.

Social organizations in the process of agricultural transformation and modernization. Agriculture in West Africa is at a turning point. The dominance of subsistence farming is slowly receding, and political and technical solutions must be found to help these hitherto subsistence farmers adapt to the changing economy. For them to have access to new technologies, especially mechanization, requires either appropriate small‐scale technology or changes in their degree of social organization. More attention should be given to reviewing existing social organizations in other parts of the world (cooperatives, equipment hire‐services, out‐grower schemes, different models of sharing of equipment) and to test them in West Africa. To this end, social research inside CGIAR, CORAF and the national research systems should be encouraged and increased.

Institutional set‐up for agricultural transformation projects. As the agricultural sector develops and becomes more interlinked with the rest of the economy, and agro‐processing and marketing become more important, agricultural productivity projects such as WAAPP and especially its successor operation should reflect this in the institutional set‐up and especially in the composition of the steering committees. These kinds of projects should no longer be entrusted exclusively to Ministries of Agriculture/Livestock and their agencies but should formally associate such Ministries as Trade and Industry. To the extent that gender and youth issues play a crucial role, these Ministries should also be part of the management oversight set‐up.

Importance of seeds and seed industry. So far, in all three countries, there is heavy government involvement in seed research, production and distribution and seed reforms are only slowly taking roots. Overall, the ECOWAS common regulations on genetic materials are still restrictive. As farmers start adopting new varieties on a large scale, government breeding programs are unlikely to supply the rate of new varieties farmers need. Opening the market to private seed companies and professional associations of seed growers will allow for the necessary expansion of seed production and under WAAPP this process has started but needs to be encouraged further. Indeed, most successful seed systems in the world have all transferred responsibility for commercial seed production and sale as well as some regulatory oversight of the industry to the private sector.


Page 28 of 62

Subsidization of technology adoption. To speed up the adoption and diffusion of agricultural technologies and innovations under WAAPP2‐A, and thereby to reach quickly a large number of beneficiaries, one of the tools can be the subsidization of inputs, especially mini‐kits of seeds and planting material, and limited number of improved breeds of animals and to a lesser extent, small agricultural equipment. If these inputs are distributed to farmers either cost free or at highly subsidized rates, this creates risks. This strategy is successful in the short run but can be counterproductive in the longer term. Unless farmers are able and willing to buy these inputs, Governments will not be able to finance these subsidies indefinitely and there will be no incentives and opportunities for the private sector to come in to supply them.


Page 29 of 62

ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS

A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators

Objective/Outcome: To scale‐up the generation, dissemination, and adoption of improved technologies in the participatin

Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Formally Revised

Target

Actual Achieved at Completion

Direct project beneficiaries Number 236000.00 2100000.00 2735584.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Direct project beneficiaries ‐ Senegal

Number 80000.00 700000.00 959124.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Female beneficiaries Percentage 0.00 40.00 42.00

Direct project beneficiaries ‐ Ghana

Number 100000.00 700000.00 875920.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Page 30 of 62

15‐Nov‐2017

Direct Project Beneficiaries ‐ Mali

Number 56000.00 700000.00 900540.00

19‐Mar‐2014 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Comments (achievements against targets):


Target


Beneficiairies who are using technologies generated by other countries ‐ disaggregated by country

Number 0.00 420000.00 297254.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Beneficiairies who are using technologies generated by other countries ‐ Senegal

Number 0.00 140000.00 60993.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Beneficiairies who are using technologies generated by other countries ‐ Ghana

Number 0.00 140000.00 85061.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Beneficiairies who are using Number 0.00 140000.00 151200.00


Page 31 of 62

technologies generated by other countries ‐ Mali

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Generated/released technologies by the Project with at least 15% productivity increase over the control – disaggregated by country

Number 42.00 59.00 112.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Generated/released technologies by the Project with at least 15% productivity increase over the control for SENEGAL

Number 18.00 26.00 41.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Generated/released technologies by the Project with at least 15% productivity increase over the control for GHANA

Number 10.00 17.00 47.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Generated/released technologies by the Project with at least 15% productivity increase over

Number 8.00 16.00 24.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 32 of 62

the control for MALI



Target


Processors/ producers who have adopted at least one new technology ‐disaggregated by country

Number 105000.00 1240000.00 1619055.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Processors/ producers who have adopted at least one new technology ‐ Senegal

Number 30000.00 420000.00 641652.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Processors/ producers who have adopted at least one new technology ‐ Ghana

Number 25000.00 400000.00 527790.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Processors/ producers who have adopted at least one new technology ‐ MALI

Number 50000.00 420000.00 450000.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Producers with knowledge of Percentage 13.00 80.00 83.00


Page 33 of 62

generated/released technologies by the Project

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Producers with knowledge of generated/released technologies by the Project for SENEGAL

Percentage 10.00 80.00 77.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Producers with knowledge of generated/released technologies by the Project for Ghana

Percentage 20.00 80.00 90.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Producers with knowledge of generated/released technologies by the Project for MALI

Percentage 10.00 80.00 85.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Area under new technologies ‐ Disaggregated by country

Hectare(Ha) 135000.00 1700000.00 1849987.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Area under new technologies for SENEGAL

Hectare(Ha) 40000.00 500000.00 526127.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 34 of 62

Area under new technologies for GHANA

Hectare(Ha) 50000.00 600000.00 613533.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Area under new technologies for MALI

Hectare(Ha) 45000.00 600000.00 710327.00

18‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators

Component: Component 1: Enabling conditions for Sub‐Regional Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technolo gies


Target


Pesticide products/genetic materials registered by national committees

Number 409.00 756.00 1198.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Pesticide products/genetic materials registered by national committees for SENEGAL

Number 205.00 216.00 344.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Pesticide products/genetic materials registered by national committees for

Number 204.00 465.00 862.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 35 of 62

GHANA

Pesticide products/genetic materials registered by national committees for MALI

Number 0.00 75.00 113.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Laboratories with ISTA/ISO certification

Number 0.00 12.00 5.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Laboratories with ISTA/ISO certification for SENEGAL

Number 0.00 5.00 3.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Laboratories with ISTA/ISO certification for GHANA

Number 0.00 3.00 2.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Laboratories with ISTA/ISO certification for MALI

Number 0.00 4.00 0.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Page 36 of 62


Target


Technologies with International Property Rights

Number 53.00 78.00 75.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Technologies with International Property Rights for SENEGAL

Number 0.00 8.00 4.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Technologies with International Property Rights for GHANA

Number 0.00 5.00 1.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Technologies with International Property Rights for MALI

Number 0.00 65.00 70.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Varieties generated by NCOS registered in the Regional Catalogue

Number 0.00 77.00 96.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Varieties generated by NCOS registered in the Regional Catalogue for

Number 0.00 12.00 14.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 37 of 62

SENEGAL

Varieties generated by NCOS registered in the Regional Catalogue for GHANA

Number 0.00 15.00 40.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Varieties generated by NCOS registered in the Regional Catalogue for MALI

Number 0.00 50.00 42.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Hits for the regional/national Web‐based information system on agricultural technologies and research skills

Number 0.00 350000.00 4549859.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Hits for the regional/national Web‐based information system on agricultural technologies and research skills for CORAF

Number 0.00 200000.00 3614429.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 38 of 62

Hits for the regional/national Web‐based information system on agricultural technologies and research skills for SENEGAL

Number 0.00 50000.00 26062.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Hits for the regional/national Web‐based information system on agricultural technologies and research skills for GHANA

Number 10000.00 50000.00 878068.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Hits for the regional/national Web‐based information system on agricultural technologies and research skills for MALI

Number 0.00 50000.00 31300.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


National action plans developed on gender, communication and climate change‐disaggregated by country

Number 3.00 9.00 12.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 39 of 62

National action plans developed on gender, communication and climate change ‐ Ghana

Number 1.00 3.00 3.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

National action plans developed on gender, communication and climate change ‐ Senegal

Number 1.00 3.00 4.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

National action plans developed on gender, communication and climate change ‐ MALI

Number 1.00 3.00 5.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Component: Component 2: National Centers of Specialisation (NCOS)


Target


Qualifying criteria met by the NCoS to become RCoE ‐ disaggregated by country

Number 0.00 6.00 9.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Qualifying criteria met by the NCoS to become RCoE ‐ GHANA

Number 0.00 6.00 9.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 40 of 62

Qualifying criteria met by the NCoS to become RCoE ‐ MALI

Number 0.00 6.00 8.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Qualifying criteria met by the NCoS to become RCoE ‐ SENEGAL

Number 0.00 6.00 9.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


NCoS/RCoE with ISO certificate ‐ disaggregated by country

Yes/No N N Y

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

NCoS/RCoE with ISO certificate ‐ GHANA

Yes/No N Y Y

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

NCoS/RCoE with ISO certificate ‐ MALI

Yes/No N Y N

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

NCoS/RCoE with ISO certificate ‐ SENEGAL

Yes/No N Y Y

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Page 41 of 62


Target


Technologies generated by NCoS and demonstrated in at least three ECOWAS countries outside the country of origin ‐ disaggregated by country

Number 2.00 18.00 30.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Technologies generated by NCoS and demonstrated in at least three ECOWAS countries outside the country of origin ‐ Ghana

Number 0.00 6.00 6.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Technologies generated by NCoS and demonstrated in at least three ECOWAS countries outside the country of origin ‐ Senegal

Number 0.00 6.00 14.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Technologies generated by NCoS and demonstrated in at least three ECOWAS countries outside the country of origin ‐ Mali

Number 2.00 6.00 10.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Page 42 of 62


Target


Study sponsorship‐ desegregated by country and MSc and PHD

Number 31.00 213.00 505.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Study sponsorship ‐ Ghana Number 16.00 73.00 104.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Study sponsorship ‐ Senegal Number 9.00 70.00 249.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Study sponsorship ‐ MALI Number 6.00 70.00 97.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Scientific exchange visits ‐ disaggregated by country

Number 18.00 104.00 114.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Scientific exchange visits ‐ Ghana

Number 12.00 32.00 62.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 43 of 62

Scientific exchange visits ‐ Senegal

Number 4.00 29.00 32.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Scientific exchange visits ‐ MALI

Number 2.00 22.00 20.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Component: Component 3: Support to Demand‐driven Technology Generation, Dissemination and Adoption


Target


Multi‐country research proposals financed by the regional CARGS ‐ disaggregated by country ‐ CORAF

Number 4.00 7.00 7.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


National demand‐driven research projects financed by the national CARGS ‐ disaggregated by country

Number 97.00 197.00 218.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 44 of 62

National demand‐driven research projects financed by the national CARGS ‐ Ghana

Number 30.00 65.00 51.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

National demand‐driven research projects financed by the national CARGS ‐ Senegal

Number 37.00 62.00 85.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

National demand‐driven research projects financed by the national CARGS ‐ Mali

Number 30.00 70.00 75.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Demonstration plots established – disaggregated by country

Number 8100.00 80000.00 119471.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Demonstration plots established ‐ Ghana

Number 400.00 25000.00 63387.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Demonstration plots Number 700.00 20000.00 3584.00


Page 45 of 62

established ‐ Senegal 22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Demonstration plots established ‐ Mali

Number 7000.00 35000.00 52500.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Number of technologies demonstrated – disaggregated by country

Number 23.00 50.00 103.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Number of technologies demonstrated ‐ Ghana

Number 10.00 22.00 38.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Number of technologies demonstrated ‐ Senegal

Number 5.00 10.00 40.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Number of technologies demonstrated ‐ Mali

Number 8.00 18.00 25.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Page 46 of 62


Target


Targeted clients (male and female farmers or businesses) satisfied with extension services – disaggregated by country

Percentage 0.00 81.00 67.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Targeted clients (male and female farmers or businesses) satisfied with extension services – Ghana

Percentage 0.00 70.00 80.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Targeted clients (male and female farmers or businesses) satisfied with extension services – Mali

Percentage 0.00 70.00 76.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Targeted clients (male and female farmers or businesses) satisfied with extension services – Senegal

Percentage 0.00 70.00 87.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target



Page 47 of 62

Certified foundation seeds and improved breed stock produced ‐ Cassava

Hectare(Ha) 400.00 3000.00 4780.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Certified foundation seeds and improved breed stock produced ‐ Maize

Metric ton 385.00 3350.00 6000.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Certified foundation seeds and improved breed stock produced ‐ Rice

Metric ton 736.00 4600.00 3600.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Certified foundation seeds Metric ton 170.00 300.00 2576.00


Page 48 of 62

and improved breed stock produced ‐ Millet

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Certified foundation seeds and improved breed stock produced ‐ Sorghum

Metric ton 165.00 300.00 2007.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Component: Component 4: Project Coordination, Management and Monitoring and Evaluation


Target


Procurement activities executed in conformity with the timing of the procurement plan ‐ disaggregated by country

Percentage 0.00 80.00 91.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Procurement activities executed in conformity with the timing of procurement plan ‐ Ghana

Percentage 0.00 80.00 90.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 49 of 62

Procurement activities executed in conformity with the timing of the procurement plan ‐ Senegal

Percentage 0.00 80.00 100.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Procurement activities executed in conformity with the timing of procurement plan ‐ Mali

Percentage 0.00 80.00 83.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Target


Disbursement rate of IDA funds ‐ disaggregated by country

Percentage 0.00 100.00 97.34

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 14‐Nov‐2018

Disbursement rate of IDA funds ‐Ghana

Percentage 0.00 100.00 99.53

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Disbursement rate of IDA funds ‐ Senegal

Percentage 0.00 100.00 99.63

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018

Disbursement rate of IDA funds ‐ MALI

Percentage 0.00 100.00 99.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018


Page 50 of 62



Target


Subproject granted with environmental management plan that have been implemented effectively ‐ disaggregated by country

Percentage 0.00 100.00 100.00

22‐May‐2012 14‐Nov‐2018 31‐Dec‐2018



Page 51 of 62

B. KEY OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT

Objective/Outcome 1

Outcome Indicators 1. Conditions for regional cooperation in the generation, dissemination and adoption of agricultural technologies have been created – disaggregated by country

Intermediate Results Indicators

1. Pesticide products/genetic materials have been registered by national committees 2. Demonstration plots have been established 3. Laboratories have received ISTA/ISO certification 4. New varieties generated have been registered in the regional catalogue 5. Technologies are protected under international property rights 6. Regional/national web‐based information systems on agricultural technologies and research skills have been accessed 7. Technologies have been demonstrated

Key Outputs by Component (linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 1)

1. 1,198 pesticides/genetic materials were registered by national committees versus a target of 810 2.119,000 demonstration plots were established versus a target of 80,000 3. x laboratories have received ISTA/ISO certification versus a target of 12 4. 54 varieties were generated by NCoS and registered in the Regional Catalogue versus a target of 47 5. 117 technologies were protected with international property rights (IPR) versus a target of 78 6. 4.5 million hits for the regional/national Web‐based information systems on agricultural technologies were recorded versus a target of 350 thousand. 7. 103 technologies have been demonstrated versus a target of 55

Objective/Outcome 2

Outcome Indicators 1. National Centers of Specialization have been strengthened – disaggregated by country

Intermediate Results Indicators 1. Qualifying criteria by the NCoS to become RCoE have been met


Page 52 of 62

2. NCoS/RCoE have ISO certificate 3. Technologies generated by NCoS have been demonstrated in at least three ECOWAS countries outside the country of origin 4. MSc and PhD studies have been sponsored 5. Scientific exchange visits have taken place

Key Outputs by Component (linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 2)

1. 20 qualifying criteria for NCoS to become RCoE were met versus a target of 27 2. NCoS in Ghana and Senegal received ISO certificates 3. 21 technologies were demonstrated outside the country where they were created versus a target of 17 4. 505 MSc and PhD were sponsored versus a target of 213 5.104 scientific exchange visits took place versus a target of 86

Objective/Outcome 3 Outcome Indicator Demand driven Technology Generation, Dissemination and Adoption has been

supported – disaggregated by country

Intermediate Results Indicators 1.Multi‐country research proposals have been financed by the regional CARGs 2. National demand‐driven research projects have been financed by the national CARGs 3. Certified foundation seeds/seedlings have been produced: ‐ rice ‐ maize ‐ cassava ‐ sorghum ‐ millet ‐ groundnuts


Page 53 of 62

Key Outputs by Component 1.7 multi‐country research proposals were financed versus a target of 5 2.218 national demand‐driven research projects were financed by national CARGs versus a target of 197 3. Certified foundation seeds and improved breed stock (metric tons) was produced as follows:

Target Achieved

‐ Rice 3,500 4,000 ‐ Maize 3,500 6,000 ‐ Cassava 3,000 4,780 ‐ Sorghum 2,000 2,000 ‐ Millet 2,000 2,570 ‐ Groundnuts

Objective/Outcome 4

Output Indicators Project Coordination, Management and Monitoring and Evaluation has been executed as planned – disaggregated by country

Intermediate Results Indicators 1.Targeted clients (male and female farmers of business) are satisfied with extension services 2. Procurement activities are executed in conformity with the timing of the procurement plan 3. Disbursement rate of IDA funds is satisfactory 4. National action plans on gender, communication and climate change are in place

Key Outputs by Component 1. 67 percent of targeted clients (male or female farmers or businesses) were satisfied with extension services versus a target of 70 percent 2. 75 percent versus target of 80 percent of procurement activities were executed according to plan 3. As of December 31, 2018, 97.34 percent of IDA funds were disbursed 4. All countries have national action plans on gender, communication and climate change


Page 54 of 62

ANNEX 2. WORLD BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION

A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS

Name Role

Preparation

Supervision/ICR

Abdoulaye Toure, Kadir Osman Gyasi, Aifa Fatimata Ndoye Niane

Task Team Leader(s)

Mahamadou Bambo Sissoko, Boubacar Diallo Procurement Specialist(s)

Bella Diallo Financial Management Specialist

Lydia Sam Team Member

Sossena Tassew Team Member

Rose Abena Ampadu Team Member

Cheikh A. T. Sagna Social Specialist

Mamadou Mansour Mbaye Team Member

Boury Ndiaye Team Member

Salam Hailou Team Member

Mariame Bamba Team Member

Melissa C. Landesz Team Member

Anita Bimunka Takura Tingbani Environmental Specialist


Page 55 of 62

B. STAFF TIME AND COST

Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost

No. of staff weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs)

Preparation

FY12 13.500 101,212.32

Total 13.50 101,212.32 Supervision/ICR

FY13 12.437 40,585.24

FY14 48.586 130,797.25

FY15 34.234 121,027.12

FY16 36.473 157,144.10

FY17 55.816 136,122.66

FY18 45.290 196,459.47

FY19 22.366 133,355.81

Total 255.20 915,491.65


Page 56 of 62

ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT

Components Amount at Approval

(US$M) Actual at Project Closing (US$M)

Percentage of Approval (US$M)

Component 1: Enabling conditions for Sub‐Regional Cooperation in the Generation, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technolo gies

10.9

8.8

0

Component 2: National Centers of Specialisation (NCOS)

42.3 40.8

0

Component 3: Support to Demand‐driven Technology Generation, Dissemination and Adoption

131.1

120.0

0

Component 4: Project Coordination, Management and Monitoring and Evaluation

14.7

17.0

0

Total 200 186.6 0.00


Page 57 of 62

ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS

Summary 1. WAAPP 2A was implemented from 2012 to 2017 under the supervision of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture for Ghana and the Ministries of Agriculture for Mali and Senegal. A coordination unit and a Technical and Fiduciary Coordination Unit (UCTF) were set up / reinforced respectively in Ghana and Senegal to coordinate the project. In Mali coordination has been entrusted to the National Committee for Agricultural Research (CNRA). CORAF coordinated the program at the regional level. The successful implementation of the program was based on, among other things: (i) maintaining and strengthening existing steering committees and project coordination units (PCUs) on the one hand and strong relations between countries and CORAF on the other hand; (ii) the development of new synergies with some regional organizations, which have a wide coverage of the network, including the African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS), the Network of Farmers Organizations and Farmers' Organizations of the West Africa (ROPPA), West African Seed Alliance (WASA), CGIAR Centers (IITA, ICRISAT, AfricaRice), International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) ), the African Association of Seed Traders (AFSTA), the West African Women's Association (WAWA) and the Association for the Promotion of Livestock Harvesting in the Sahel and Savannah (APESS). 2. The cost of WAAPP 2A has been estimated at US$197.7 million (CFAF 104.8 billion), including IDA $ 180 million. These costs were deemed necessary for the implementation of the four components of the project: (i) Component 1: Regional Cooperation in Agricultural Technology Development, Dissemination and Adoption, (ii) Component 2: National Centers for specialization, (iii) Component 3: Support for Development, Dissemination and Adoption of Technologies, (iv) Component 4: Project Coordination, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation. The Component 3 is the largest with a cost of nearly 57 percent of the total cost of the program. Nearly one‐fifteenth (1 / 15th) of the amount of each participating country financed by IDA was to be made available to CORAF. It was to use about 1/3 of the amount for regional coordination activities and about 2/3 for Regional Agricultural Research Grant Programs (CARGS). WAAPP‐2A was closed in December 2018, five (05) years after the start of its implementation. 3. WAAPP‐2A was designed to continue, consolidate and scale up the technologies developed under WAAPP‐1A, in order to help overcome major constraints that hinder the improvement of productivity and competitiveness of agro‐sylvo‐pastoral sectors in the ECOWAS zone. These major constraints are: (i) low use of efficient and resilient agricultural technologies, (ii) insufficient harmonization of laws and other laws governing the circulation and trade of quality agricultural inputs, (iii) insufficient supply of goods and services (training, financial services, technical and management support, post‐harvest processing / production services, processing services) adapted to the needs, in terms of quality, quantity and price, (iv) low availability and low accessibility stakeholders in the sectors with efficient and adapted technologies and techniques, (v) a weak incentive for the institutional, legislative and financial environment to support the development and competitiveness of companies and their products / services. 4. This paper presents the ex‐post economic and financial analysis of WAAPP 2A. It aims to (i) assess the efficiency of the use of resources by the project and (ii) measure the financial viability and sustainability of the investments as well as their effects and impact on the beneficiaries and the country having developed the technologies as well as those who adopted the technologies and in the ECOWAS.


Page 58 of 62

Financial Analysis 5. WAAPP‐2A has, inter alia, promoted technologies aimed at improving the productivity and competitiveness of value chains including dry cereals, rice, roots and tubers, livestock and aquaculture. At the level of these sectors, the project has facilitated the development and dissemination of improved and resilient seeds and plants / cutting, chicks, kids and culture / rearing systems, soil preparation equipment, post treatment ‐ Harvesting, storage / storage and processing of products. These technologies therefore concern each link in the sectors (production, processing, conservation, marketing). 6. Methodology. Based on the experiences of other projects and techno‐economic data available at the level of the WAAPP 2A coordination units and the project implementation stakeholders, nine (09) financial models based on priority type of crop and livestock production have been developed : (i) millet / sorghum, (ii) irrigated rice, (iii) System of Rice Intensification (SRI), (iv) wassachie poultry, (v) ) the red goat of Maradi, (vi) cassava, (vii) cowpea (niebe), (viii) peanut oil treatment table and (ix) Sorghum cropping system. 7. The approach adopted for the financial analysis is based on a cost‐benefit analysis. The benefits considered are agricultural yields / productivity and the income generated by productive investments at the level of the enterprises / farms that adopted the technologies disseminated under the WAAPP‐2A. These benefits are easily and objectively quantifiable (technology adoption component 3 component). The benefits of structural investments (rehabilitation / construction and equipment of laboratories, national centers of specialization, development and irrigation of plots of selection and production of seeds and seedlings, etc.), capacity building (continuing and graduating training of researchers and extension workers, communication, mobility of researchers and extension workers, etc.) (components 1 and 2) and the technology development and dissemination component (component 3) are quite positive, but difficult to quantify. No attempt has been made to quantify them. These benefits have therefore been taken into account in calculating the profitability of the project only through farms/companies that have adopted these technologies developed and disseminated. 8. Results of the financial analysis. They are the agricultural yield, the gross income, the internal rate of return (IRR) and the net present value (NPV) attributable to the project. The results obtained were then compared with those of the ex‐ante financial analysis. The financial analysis of the financial models made shows that these models are all financially viable. 9. Agricultural yields / productivity. They increased in situation with project compared to the situation without project. The increases in agricultural yields of different financial budget crop models vary between 45.5 percent and 90.0 percent with the use of improved technologies, seeds and improved agricultural practices. These rates are higher than those of the ex‐ante financial analysis estimated between 25 percent and 60 percent. Increases in income per ha on farms that have adopted the improved technologies released by WAAPP 2A range from 44.1 to 214.0 percent as shown in the table below.


Page 59 of 62

Table 1 : Gross Margin ($US) par modèles financiers

Financial Model

Production capacity

Margin without project

Margin with Project Variation

percent

1‐Sen_Cowpea 10ha 267,0 460,4 193,4 72,4

2‐ Sen_peanut_processing 325,7 1023,1 697,4 214,1

3‐ Sen_Sorghum 10ha 550,1 1116,8 566,7 103,0

4‐Sen_Rice_ SRI 10ha 3644,3 5935,1 2290,8 62,9

5‐ Sen_Maradi Red Goat 20 goats 256,4 702,0 445,6 173,8

6‐ Mali_Irrigated Rice 10ha 5233,0 8703,8 3470,8 66,3

7‐Mali_Sorghum 10ha 2415,1 3479,2 1064,2 44,1

8‐Mali_Poultry_wassaché 10 hens et 500 poulets 1650,9 2615,0 964,1 58,4

9‐ Ghana_cassava 4.8ha 49,1 77,1 28,1 57,2

10 This table shows that the incomes of technology adopters in WAAPP‐2A (situation with project) on average almost doubled their income compared to non‐adopters of these technologies (situation without project). The minimum growth rate is 44.1 percent for Malian sorghum producers. 11. IRR before and after Financing. The IRR before financing corresponds to the intrinsic profitability of the analyzed financial model. The IRR after financing is that obtained by taking into account the project grant and / or credit. For all financial models analyzed, post‐grant IRRs are higher than pre‐financing IRs as shown in the table below. Table 2: IRR per financial model

Financial Model Production capacity IRR before financing

IRR after financing IRR variation

1‐Sen_Cowpea 10ha 32,6% 70,6% 53,9%

2‐ Sen_peanut_processing 10ha 28,2% 59,2% 36,7%

3‐ Sen_Sorghum 10ha 24,7% 51,0% 47,1%

4‐Sen_Rice_ SRI 10ha 37,9% 56,3% 26,8%

5‐ Sen_Maradi Red Goat 20 goats 12,3% 47,8% 33,9%

6‐ Mali_Irrigated Rice 10ha 37,4% 40,1% 18,8%

7‐Mali_Sorghum 10ha 18,8% 25,4% 17,2%

8‐Mali_Poultry_wassaché 10 hens et 500 poulets 27,9% 66,4% 58,4%

9‐ Ghana_cassava 4.8ha 22,9% 23,8% 33,8%

12. Net Present Value. It is presented in the graph and table below for the financial models. They present the results in pre‐financing and post‐financing situations.


Page 60 of 62

Table 3 : NPV per financial model

Modèles financiers NPV before financing

NPV after financing NPV variation

1‐Sen_Cowpea 2036.5 2831.8 795.2

2‐ Sen_peanut_processing 1712.0 2482.4 770.4

3‐ Sen_Sorghum 1850.3 3024.8 1174.5

4‐Sen_Rice_ SRI 5803.0 6863.2 1060.1

5‐ Sen_Maradi Red Goat 90.3 1861.7 1771.4

6‐ Mali_Irrigated Rice 21651.3 22513.6 862.3

7‐Mali_Sorghum 1176.1 10378.6 9202.5

8‐Mali_Poultry_wassaché 2011.0 3120.5 1109.4

9‐ Ghana_cassava 61.7 72.3 10.6

13. As for IRR, the NPV is positive. The value after financing is superior to the one before financing. This confirms that WAAPP‐2A is financially profitable. The NPV also shows that the project has improved the cash flow of the project beneficiaries and thus the results of their activities. Economic analysis Methodology and main assumptions. 14. The calculations are based on the technical and economic monitoring data of the activities collected from the coordination units of the WAAPP 2A projects and the stakeholder structures of the implementation, the project documents made available to the mission. completion, impact study reports, farm budgets, etc.). 15. Consistent with the ex‐ante analysis, the economic analysis is based on the assessment of the project's minimum impact at the national level. This method identifies the minimum annual growth rate of farm income, (based on the percentage of producers applying the innovations), resulting from the increase in yield necessary to achieve an internal rate of return (IRR) of 12% percent corresponding to the cost of long‐term capital opportunity for agriculture production. This rate can also correspond to the breakeven point for a 20‐year project, assuming a proportional increase in production costs resulting from the adoption of technologies requiring a higher intensity of inputs. This method identifies the minimum of additional benefit streams that would justify the proposed investments. 16. The basic assumption of the economic analysis is that half of the increases in output obtained in the innovating country (housing the National Specialization Center or the Regional Center of Excellence) is the yield increase used to estimate the spillover effects for other countries. 17. Other factors/assumptions considered are: (i) the project had a gradual adoption rate starting in the


Page 61 of 62

second year, until 40 per cent of domestic producers are affected and 20 per cent of producers in the event of spin‐offs for neighboring countries; (ii) extension services begin to disseminate technologies developed under WAAPP; (iii) an increase in production will be maintained until year 20 as the adoption of technologies expands. 18. The sensitivity analysis was conducted with emphasis on the values of variables that could affect the project and its additional benefits, such as adoption (additional area and yield used) and magnitude of impact from the innovator country. for other countries. 19. The total annual project costs from year 1 to year 5 were generated by Costab. The recurrent cost of the project corresponding to variable costs and fixed costs were taken into account from year 1 to year 20, being the period considered for the analysis of project benefits. 20. As in the ex‐ante economic analysis, the benefits of regional spillovers were estimated through three (03) scenarios: (i) conservative scenario, based on the assumption that the technologies only benefit the innovator, ( ii) a reasonable scenario, in which technologies also benefit neighboring countries with an agro‐climatic environment and similar production systems, (iii) an optimistic scenario in which technologies benefit all West African countries . Table 4 : Economic analysis

Assumption EIRR

EIRR (Spillover Neighboring countries)

EIRR (Spillover ECOWAS countries) NPV (FCFA)

NPV(million $US)

Base 15.00% 7.50% 3.00% 25169.87 47.5

Benefits decrease by 10% 14.29% 7.14% 2.86% 17852.69 33.7



Benefits rising by 20% 16.18% 8.09% 3.24% 39804.24 75.1



Cost increase by 10% 14.35% 7.18% 2.87% 20369.67 38.4

Cost increase by 20% 13.75% 6.87% 2.75% 15569.48 29.4

Cost increase by 30% 13.18% 6.59% 2.64% 10769.28 20.3

Benefits delayed by one year 13.74% 6.87% 2.75% 13774.27 26.0

Benefits delayed by two years 12.47% 6.23% 2.49% 3470.25 6.5

21. The analysis of this table shows that the adoption of efficient and resilient technologies generates wealth (economic growth) in the innovating country, the neighboring countries that imported them and disseminated them and at the level of the sub‐region. 22. This table also shows that the profitability of the project is very sensitive to the variation in the benefits


Page 62 of 62

and repercussions in terms of yield / productivity and the area covered. Confirming the ex‐ante results, which stipulate that the WAAPP 2A economic analysis is fundamentally based on the assumption of yield / productivity due to the adoption of technologies disseminated in WAAPP 2A. 23. The increase in agricultural yields / productivity in the manufactured financial models is based essentially on both the increase in the quantity of inputs used (quality / certified seeds, fertilizers, phytosanitary products, approved and adapted veterinary products), improvement of the quality and availability of these inputs, production techniques mobilized, accessibility to timely agro‐meteorological information, increased numbers of labor and materials agricultural, crop treatment, post‐harvest processing and processing processes mobilized within the project (soil preparation, drying, harvesting, handling and transportation of project‐related outputs, etc.). The project will need to ensure that these conditions are met to hope to ensure the viability and sustainability of the benefits and benefits.