SYNTHESIS OF ISSUES & PERFORMANCE, CORAF/WECARD

Transcription

1 Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development SYNTHESIS OF ISSUES & PERFORMANCE, CORAF/WECARD Secretariat and STC Self-Assessment Workshop Jan , Avenue Bourguiba, BP 48- cp Dakar SENEGAL Tel Fax

2 1] Synthesis of Issues and Recommendations IAR4D and Programme Approach Structure Limited capacity in creating synergies between different programmes. The way the research programmes are structured, renders it difficult to address problems of the varied and complex farming systems that exist in the subregion and also especially to the big picture of food security. Difficulties are met in alignment of CORAF/WECARD programmes to those of its key partners, which are mostly based on an integrated approach. CORAF/WECARD needs, therefore, to reflect on ways and means to integrate a systems approach into the present Programme structure for adequately addressing the various agricultural challenges faced by the region, and especially food security. Need for pursing research to solve emerging development issues. The Competitive Grant and Commissioned Project Schemes established to implement research have also encouraged the construction of multi-country, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary teams to carry out research. A significant outcome of this process is the strengthening of regional integration, especially in West Africa. CORAF/WECARD needsto pursue its function of coordinating and facilitating research for development and especially of ensuring spill-over effects to rationalize financial investments in research for development in the subregion. Programmes will, therefore, pursue scoping studies and identification of priority themes. Strategic contradiction programmes structured along commodity/discipline lines, whereas the IAR4D is based on a multi-disciplinary orientation. There is therefore a need to rationalise and realign these strategic and operational arrangements. As part of the organisational review of CORAF/WECARD ensure that the role of Programme Managers utilises their skills in support of a broad-based, multidisciplinary approach which supports the institutionalisation of IAR4D and builds on progress made and lessons learned. [9] In the review of the current organisational structure and the realignment of organisational arrangements to the IAR4D paradigm, wider consultations with other key stakeholders should be carried out to ensure that the proposed changes are adopted, supported and sustained. [2] Communication Develop appropriate methodological [tool-kit] IAR4D-related material and a mechanism for effectively sharing and building capacity in its use including mechanisms for operationalising innovation platforms CORAF/WECARDsupported projects Encourage and support the implementation of the IAR4D approach through use carefully defined criteria in the competitive grant scheme and commissioning of research

3 Encourage the interchange of ideas and experience between proponents and practitioners of IAR4D to develop better understanding and a clearer definition of what the approach entails use information from IAR4D and related experiences Develop mutual accountability frameworks for use in implementing research in the IAR4D paradigm to ensure accountability and transparency linking good performance with an incentive scheme of rewards to ensure sustainability of interest and activity Capacity Biosafety regulations not always supportive of creative biotechnology research High cost of multi-stakeholder processes Slow response of policy makers to implementation of policy initiatives and options Difficulties encountered by NARS to fully embrace the IAR4D, innovation platform and value chain approaches. These were mainly attributed to: o Low levels of understanding of these approaches o Current levels of knowledge and the nature of these approaches within the NARS are not well known or documented o Information and tools to facilitate utilization of the approaches are lacking Objective should be to enhance understanding and ownership of the IAR4D multi-stakeholder innovation platform and value chain approaches and processes among ARD stakeholders in CORAF/WECARD sub-region. Key actions to be promoted should include the following o Empowering stakeholders in IAR4D multi-stakeholder innovation and value chain approaches o Supervising and monitoring the establishment and functionality of IAR4D multi-stakeholder innovation platforms o Encouraging networking among stakeholders o Explore and encourage in-built mechanisms for sustainability of the initiative Cross-cutting Issues-health Cross-cutting issues have not, in many cases, been purposely addressed, and this is especially true of health issues. There is a recognized need to develop a health and nutrition strategy/policy, taking into consideration food safety, as has already been done for Gender and Environment, to ensure their mainstreaming in the MTOP 2. Monitoring and Evaluation Lack of standardised, validated and practical data capture, processes, methods, standards and analysis tools, providing poor quality data. There is a lack of adequate human resources in data management and M&E both internal and external. Remedy:

4 o Create awareness on ICT based M&E at all levels o Establish an ICT infrastructure in CORAF o Establish validated data models and architecture for CORAF o Improve capacity building in ICT based M&E o Identify champions of change within CORAF/WECARD o Development of a computerised, relational database providing information on the policy, objectives and results of CORAF, as well as on the objectives of the projects and programmes. o Organize specific methodologies workshop to harmonize tools and methods for data collection and analysis at each regional projects level (Regional and National Coordination, Programme Manager, M&E specialists and biometricians) o Strengthen capacities of technicians in data collection o Review M&E manual at C/W level M&E not a participatory process with much of the data at the project level, not sub-regional [CORAF/WECARD level], lack of information on performance levels of increasing projects and programmes. Remedy: o Mainstreaming of M&E activities from the design to the implementation o Define and integrate M&E activities into implementation and operations activities involving all stakeholders National researchers are a few and overwhelmed by project work. Remedy: o Increase quality staffing, implement M&E training plan and put incentive system in place Impact assessment reports not published Indicators, roles and reporting not detailed at the onset of the project resulting in a lack of harmonised indicators. Remedy: o Institutionalize a comprehensive Performance Management Plan [PMP] process in place (example, USAID best practices) o CORAF to provide necessary resources (that is, time, funds, expertise) for the preparation of PMP after award and before the project methodology workshop. M&E budget line is not easy to use and to address this it was proposed that there was a clear M&E budget to cater for all aspects, including impact evaluation Each donor has a different procedure for engaging M&E funds and there are sometimes changes in donor policies and strategies resulting in reporting difficulties. There are also occasions when evaluations (mid-term, final and the impact studies) are ineffective due to changing indicators or the nonavailability of baseline data or documentation. Remedy: o Strengthen M&E structurally (i.e., performance monitoring and reporting) to ensure that continuous monitoring happens and informs impact evaluations o Conduct an in-house skills audit and map out gaps needed to support M&E o Restructure M&E Unit ( define clear roles and responsibilities both at programme level and at the CORAF) o Develop M&E work plans tied to performances of individuals.

5 o Develop an overall M&E results objective ; prepare a results agreement for category of M&E personnel and monitor compliance o Capacity empowerment o Experience sharing sessions on M&E alongside monthly programme meetings o Develop performance incentives reward/sanction mechanisms Skills and competencies of project M&E officers are uneven and sometimes inadequate. Remedy: o Focussed capacity building support to specific skills requirements rather than broad based. o Short-term technical assistance/back-stopping /Coaching and mentoring o Supplement human resources through competitive research (faculty) fellows o Assess capacity for M&E among CORAF implementing partners o Conduct an in-house skills audit and map out gaps needed to support M&E o Tailor-made institutional strengthening on key technical areas of M&E o Develop roster for short-term resource persons o Develop call for competitive research fellows, and advertise. No well-designed and complete information system in place. Remedy: o Design and implement an appropriate M&E computerized system o Strengthen capacities of technicians and researchers in data base management o Provide M&E unit with required HR Large range of indicators that are not always compatible, and which do not allow aggregation or the use of nesting techniques. Remedy: o Result frameworks and logframes in CORAF/WECARD are harmonised with the CORAF/WECARD Strategic and Operational Plan frameworks Disjointed knowledge management systems. Remedy: o Improve existing knowledge management system o improve the linkage with M&E system Lack of knowledge and understanding of impact pathways and change and behaviour. Remedy: o Promote RBM at all levels ( Projects NARS and C/W SE) Motivation of staff in projects at national level is low. Remedy: o Define with NARS responsible mechanisms to motivate project teams (overheads) M&E system does not allow complex queries, cross tabulation or metaanalysis, and there is lack of a systematic approach to creating and sharing information. This is further compounded by limited links and relationships between M&E, general agricultural research, and the knowledge management system. Objective should be promoting evidenced-based decision-making, resultsbased management and efficiency, and reporting systems that bear on changes in agricultural productivity, growth and poverty reduction in the CORAF/WECARD region.

6 Synergies should be built between the M&E unit and the Knowledge Management Programme. Conceptual frameworks for undertaking M&E and impact evaluation and assessments should be developed. Linkages should be established between the CORAF/WECARD, FARA and ECOWAP - CAADP M&E frameworks, in order to track indicators at a macro level, such as the 6% average annual growth in AgGDP. 1 Framework should also be developed in line with the NEPAD Mutual Accountability Framework to assess effectiveness and performance of partnerships. Provide continuing support to the current revision of the M&E system and ensure the design captures institutional policy changes as well as behavioural changes (impact) and is able to monitor the IAR4D approach given its learning orientation process. The M&E system should: o take into consideration that it needs to be able to track performance and impact across a large project portfolio and a large number of partners and stakeholders; o Assess and identify skill gaps and include the development of the necessary skills and competencies in M&E within CORAF/WECARD Secretariat as well as key NARS. Develop and institutionalise a harmonised system for data collection, analysis, storage, reporting and sharing to improve harmonisation and standardisation of data collection and analysis. [13] Policy and national-level Engagement Policy makers not been adequately engaged o Inadequate advocacy and sensitization o Need to address advocacy at national level o Weak advocacy at national level for CORAF/WECARD and sub-regional initiatives Low impact (effect) of the CM process at the national level o Inconsistency in the participation of the NARS representations at the workshops o Low funding at the NARS level for implementing CM IAR4D has not been widely adopted o Strategic and operational plans have not been developed and operationalised at national levels o Low levels of understanding of IAR4D paradigm o Donors target specific countries CGS do not appear to cover all countries o Issue related to awareness and understanding of CGS processes greater publicity required 1 There is a lot going on in the area of M&E at the moment with CAADP, NEPAD and the World Bank, which might lead to some significant changes and CORAF/ECARDshould be gearing itself to align with the outputsand outcomes of these reflections.

7 Failure to address informal rules particularly issues of attitude, norms and informal incentives Failure to institutionalise and mainstream gender CAADP and FAAP Insufficient knowledge and ownership of CAADP at National levels Weak collaboration among the different pillars Existence of other continental policy and development initiatives Poor implementation of subsidiary principle Socio economic-political environment Low level of implementation of Maputo declaration [few countries; % allocated to research?] An area for improvement is the scale and scope of NARS-level of understanding of the CAADP and FAAP processes. Whilst this has occurred at the highest levels through CORAF/WECARD initiatives under the change process, it has not trickled down at a national level. The main actions to be undertaken include: RECs o Organizing workshops to promote a shared understanding and ownership of FAAP principles at the NARS level o Encourage mainstreaming of the FAAP principles in operations at the NARS level. Weakness in the application of the agreements of the Central African RECs [Absence of a clear agricultural programme] Lack of clarity in some aspects of institutional relationships between CORAF, PRASAC, CEEAC and CEMAC. Weak link between the agricultural policy of the Central African RECs and NEPAD The RECs do not always apply the principle of subsidiarity The RECS tend to create agencies for the implementation of their agricultural policies [ECOWAS] RECs setting up their own CAADP implementation agencies [eg Setting up the RAAF to coordinate the RAIPs] CGIAR/IARC Uneven visibility of CORAF/WECARD within the CGIAR system Competition for financial resources Effective Partnerships Promote capacity strengthening and empowerment of stakeholders, especially NARS. The CORAF/WECARD institutional capacity assessment of NARS needs to be revised and updated to inform priority setting.

8 The coordination and management of partnership linkages 2 by CORAF/WECARD is also an important thrust. The objective should be to enhance collaboration and coordination among CORAF/WECARD partners on R&D in the West and Central Africa region so as to maximize the benefits of regional economic integration. Specific focus should be on targeting tertiary education services including those of universities and especially faculties of agriculture, agricultural advisory services, private sector institutions and creating partnership linkages to enable them take part in CORAF/WECARD activities and vice versa. Further development and dialogue is required with the RECs, especially those in Central Africa (ECCAS and CEMAC) for them to take active part in CORAF/WECARD activities and vice versa. Strength partnerships with FARA and SROs, CGIAR and other advanced research institutions. This will help in the development of an African Science Agenda for Agriculture, which will also facilitate these institutions to align to the CAADP objectives and adequately provide research support to the NARS in implementing their various National Agricultural Investment Programmes (NAIPs), all in support to the implementation of CAADP. Coordination Increased focus on monitoring the outputs of project coordinators and ensuring science quality. Objective should be to decentralize CORAF/WECARD ES functions, devolve more responsibilities to project coordinators whilst ensuring scientific quality. This, however, should be accompanied by incentive packages. Main activities should include: ( o Encouraging the integration of a publication strategy within each project which it coordinates o Defining clearly the responsibilities of sub-regional Project Coordinators within NARS and proposing incentive packages for them based upon deliverables o Defining clear reporting lines o Organising special training for Coordinators to assume this role effectively Reflect on how to achieve a better balance between projects, programmes and strategic coordination, with more focus being given to the latter. [1] Advocacy Deepen partners appreciation of the Strategic Plan. This is important for both national research and development partners as both need to have an appreciation of the logic through which CORAF/WECARD activities will achieve impact and of the range of different research and capacity building activities that will be needed to operationalise this.[3] Develop a credible documented evidence base of the progress and impact that CORAF/WECARD has achieved through its first OP framed by its 2 This encompasses the Clearing House Mechanism Idea that was presented by CORAF/WECARD during the GCARD II Meeting in October 2012

9 Strategic Plan. Documentation of is essential to justify activities and the funding of activities. Documentation is also essential if CORAF/WECARD is to play a more active advocacy role in national arena, arguing for the institutional and policy changes needed to support a shift to IAR4D. Enabling advocacy of this type would be highly complementary to CORAF/WECARD s capacity building role and efforts. [4] Knowledge management A regionally based and managed scientific web-based portal is an untapped niche that is greatly needed not only for the scientific community but also for a multitude of international development actors that regularly carry out research in West and Central Africa. A comprehensive knowledge management system would serve as a wide platform for CORAF/WECARD to coordinate general scientific research, M&E project data, and stakeholder contributions. Communication and periodic informational materials could also originate from the knowledge management system. Raise the profile of the current knowledge management programme to ensure that it plays a truly cross-cutting role, embedded in all CORAF/WECARD activities. [5] Use innovation platforms as a source of lessons on how to achieve and use these in wider institutional and policy development processes associated with CORAF/WECARD s capacity building role. [6] CORAF/WECARD should position itself as a broker of learning on IAR4D. This requires stronger learning systems and the use of platforms at a more strategic level to generate the policy dialogue needed to institutionalise the approach. [7] Central Africa focus Organise an information workshop for Central African policy makers (especially from Chad, Cameroon and the Congo) on the experience of the development and funding of the WAAPP. [16] Seize the opportunity to engage in further dialogue with the President of Chad in his present capacity as chairman of the ECCAS, where he has the potential of playing a strategic role in bringing agricultural development on the agenda and initiating the CAADP. [17] Implement a special programme to strengthen the capacity of stakeholders in agricultural research and development and formulate specific activities to build capacity in ECCAS and CEMAC, in collaboration with FARA and PRASAC. [18] Donor alignment Pursue the development of sustainable financing mechanisms and models. More effort should be made to attract the support of, and the funds from, national governments. CORAF/WECARD should, in this regard, clearly articulate its unique selling points including its purpose and benefits to the region. [19]

10 Encourage donors to diversify their funding portfolio from project funding to core funding to improve flexibility in programme delivery and to enhance CORAF/WECARD s administrative capacity. [20] In consultation with its development partners, explores whether the reserve fund could be curved out of the existing financial agreements. [21] Organisation and Governance Many of the NARS need to clarify the new and changing roles of the stakeholders within them under the guidance of the NARI[s] including reviewing and revising their functions and organisational structures Appropriate NARI need to be identified and supported as focal institutes and the roles of the centres of excellence need to be clarified Improve networking and linkages between NARS stakeholders, nationally and sub-regionally [communication strategy] through CORAF/WECARD Secretariat The Strategic Plans of the NARS members, and specifically those of the NARIs should align with CAADP Pillar IV and those of CORAF/WECARD General Assembly should have better participation from NARS through improved advocacy and information Address issues of information flow and sharing through identifying and changing informal rules governing attitudes and norms that currently restrict this Encourage more effective advocacy to ensure high level engagement of decision makers mechanisms such as development of a specific plan to promote more effective advocacy, invitations to targeted workshops and improved communication and support and recognition of, champions of change Institutionalisation and mainstreaming of a gender sensitive approach to all CORAF/WECARD activities Revision and alignment of the formal rules and governance of the national institutions required to align them with CAADP Improved communications through better translations of CORAF/WECARD documentation and manuals General Assembly Inadequate presentation of the NGO Poor representation of inter-governmental institutions Inadequate representation of NARS [universities and extension and advisory services not represented] Governing Board Inadequate representation of NARS [universities and extension and advisory services not represented] Lack of expertise in audit and finance STC

11 Lack of internal self-evaluation mechanism Inadequate representation of technical needs and breadth of experience Strategic R&D orientation Mechanism for selecting members not sufficiently broad-based and selective Poor perception by some stakeholder groups on the competency of the STC Procurement and Financial Management Poor Information sharing, despite transparent processes in theory Slow establishment of procurement commissions Slow and inadequate reactions to non-objection requests Poor intervention mechanisms between departments Extra work of Accountants [are also dealing with other tasks - financial management, etc.] The Accounting Procedure Manual is not updated Software for handling finances not well understood and implemented Poor formal mechanisms for financial management of programmes Low rate of disbursement Weakness in mastering the donor procedures and taxation issues Insufficient human resources Change Management Plan drafted by the Change Management Team [June 2010] not implemented. Outlines activities around weaknesses in five key areas: o Providing and facilitating technical support and mentoring to NARS-based initiatives for implementing change o Information sharing and dissemination o Evidence-based advocacy o Changes to attitudes and behavioural norms with priority given to addressing gender issues incentives o Understanding/information relating to IAR4D paradigm Ensure that support to change management is explicitly integrated into the new OP so that the inevitable changes required are financially supported throughout the course of its implementation. The process should include all of CORAF/WECARD s stakeholders. [8] Administrative procedures Implement the existing procedures with a greater degree of flexibility and remove restrictive timelines in the design of projects under the competitive grant mechanism. [10] Financial Management

12 Simplify the financial reporting procedures by introducing a common electronic financial reporting system that integrates with its centralised information and financial management system. [11] Review CORAF/WECARD s statutes with a view to amending or abolishing membership subscription fees. [12] Reflect on options to address the under-emphasis of institutional and policy dimension of capacity strengthening. Options include seeking core budget support from donors for such activities and revising the programme structure to give stronger to consolidating the progress with achieved to date with innovation platforms. [14] Place greater emphasis on knowledge management as a route to capacity development, with a focus on 2 dimensions through supporting the establishment of learning-orientated M&E systems at the project level facilitating the exchange of experiences across projects and countries, and between projects and policy-making processes. [15]

13 2] Synthesis of Achievements and DAC Performance Coordination Coordination of NARS is highly relevant. There is a clearly defined need in the region and this underpins the rationale for CORAF/WECARD s existence. CORAF/WECARD has been effective in playing this coordination role as it has set up the mechanisms to align its project portfolio with regional priorities and processes. In terms of coordinating NARS through the development of a portfolio of projects CORAF/WECARD has been highly efficient. Looking to the future, and given the possibility of an expanding project portfolio, this may require a shift towards fewer larger projects and a clustering of projects around themes. This would provide a more efficient way of administering and managing the portfolio, freeing up resources to give increased emphasis to strategic coordination, such as assisting in the alignment of national and regional plans. Given that CORAF/WECARD has established mechanisms for the coordination of NARS activities through its project portfolio, and the mandates assigned to it under CAADP, FAAP and ECOWAS, we view this role as sustainable. The impact of CORAF/WECARD s coordination role is significant although it is hampered in Central Africa by under-developed sub-regional frameworks. In addition its impact could be accelerated by defining a more strategic coordination role that involved coordinating planning processes as well as project coordination. Capacity Strengthening CORAF/WECARD s role in strengthening regional and national research for development systems is highly relevant. There is a strong need which is reflected in the rationale for CORAF/WECARD and the implementation of its Strategic Plan. There is clear evidence that CORAF/WECARD has been effective in a number of elements of its role of building regional capacity: notably its portfolio of multicountry projects, its IAR4D and other training and its project-based innovation platforms. However at a national level insufficient attention has been given to the institutional and policy development aspects of the capacity development task. A portfolio of good IAR4D projects is necessary, but not sufficient, to fully address this aspect of the capacity development. CORAF/WECARD has been efficient in undertaking the capacity building aspects it has tackled. However its efficiency could be improved by tackling the wider institutional and policy development dimension of capacity building as these would add value and sustainability to the current focus on training. In terms of building regionalised research capacity CORAF/WECARD s efforts are sustainable, as this type of multi-country project is now an accepted and routine way of conducting research, although Central African countries still need to brought in more fully. At the national level in many countries capacity building associated with innovation platforms and the IAR4D approach is not sustainable because supportive institutional and policy developments have not been put in place to allow this to become a routine way of working.

14 There are tangible signs of impact arising from CORAF/WECARD s capacity building role and if sufficient attention was given to the institutional and policy development dimensions this could be very significant CORAF/WECARD has been highly successful in establishing itself as a recognised and credible regional initiative. This is evidence by: CORAF/WECARD is well integrated into national and regional processes in West Africa; Successful advocacy for donor funding based on the strength of its Strategic and Operational Plans and its credibility within its regional constituency of research and development stakeholders; A database of information is available; Successful advocacy for the adoption of IAR4D as a guiding framework for CORAF/WECARD projects; Establishment of a considerable portfolio of innovation platforms, thus progressing towards developing dialogue in national development arenas as a source of experimental learning. Advocacy CORAF/WECARD s advocacy role is highly relevant and a key dimension of its goal of enabling the emergence of an effective regional research for development system. CORAF/WECARD has been highly effective and efficient in in fulfilling its advocacy role particularly in terms of creating awareness and credibility of this regional initiative and being able to attract donor support. The sustainability of this role is weakened by the limited availability of documented evidence of the effectiveness of the projects and innovation platforms put in place and of the IAR4D approach more generally. This documentation is needed for leveraging continued funding support and policy and institutional change in national systems. The impact of CORAF/WECARD s advocacy role has been significant as it has mobilised funding to create a significant portfolio of projects that are delivering tangible impact on the ground. Knowledge Management and Capacity Development CORAF/WECARD has established dedicated knowledge and capacity development programmes. This has been used to coordinate both specific capacity development programmes such as SCARDA and DONATA (both part of continental level initiatives coordinated by FARA), as well capacity development support across projects. Notably, significant efforts have been made in training programmes on IAR4D in support of the implementation of innovation by projects. Key tools deployed have been websites, workshops, and training programmes. In addition, innovation platforms have provided an opportunity for experiential learning for project implementers, their partners and other stakeholders. Future plans for mentoring these innovation platforms will strengthen the experiential learning associated with them. CORAF/WECARD s knowledge management role is highly relevant and critical to the delivery of its strategic plan. However effectiveness of this knowledge

15 management role has been relatively weak. The main reason for this is that it has mainly concentrated on a limited set of information dissemination tasks and not tackled the wider set of activities that are involved in this role. CORAF/WECARD has, however, been efficient in the tasks that it has implemented. The sustainability of the knowledge management role is weak as it has not been fully institutionalised across CORAF/WECARD s programmes, and arrangements have not been put in place to embed innovation platforms in an effective learning system that would support their role in driving experimental learning. The weaknesses of the current M&E system (discussed below) further undermine the sustainability of knowledge management. Knowledge management has so far had relatively limited impact. Change Management A review of the indicators confirmed that the intended results had been largely delivered and that CORAF/WECARD s functional paradigm had been sustainably established. The findings were confirmed by an external DFID evaluation, conducted end of This largely still holds, in that commitment for implementation of change management exists within CORAF/WECARD Secretariat and that changes have largely been institutionalised. More specifically, the change process enabled CORAF/WECARD to review, revise and strengthen its governance frameworks. There is general consensus amongst stakeholders that there has been an irreversible impetus towards the IAR4D paradigm of programme delivery and this has helped CORAF/WECARD to engender significant goodwill from its stakeholders. The change management process was relevant in that it supported the shift to the IAR4D paradigm and also underpinned the reorientation of CORAF/WECARD from network-based operational framework to a programme based framework. Likewise, the Team finds that the change management processes was fairly efficient, but the outcome was somewhat marred by the lack of support and engagement once the external facilitation and mentoring was completed. Itseffectiveness was limited and did not sufficiently extend to the NARS. The targeted intervention was limited to 15 months and mostly comprised workshop interventions coupled with some mentoring support at the Secretariat level. Although representatives of NARS attended some of the workshops it was reported that the process did not penetrate deep enough due to resource constraints. Termination of the external support after 15 months of implementation and lack of effective follow-though on activities and tasks which had been identified for on-going implementation during the remaining period of the OP, undermined both the sustainability and impact of the process and that results could have been more profound if the implementation support had been extended over a longer period. Momentum created by the CMP has continued to generate some positive results in implementation of IAR4D (through establishment of IPs) and that CORAF/WECARD management has continued to seek improvements in

16 programme delivery. However these efforts appear to be reflexive and uncoordinated. Consequently we would rate both sustainability and impact as fair. Programme Management Programme Manager [PM] positions have been properly aligned to the CORAF/WECARD programmes and are currently filled by highly qualified and experienced scientists. The importance of the role is well appreciated and management has taken measures to reinforce this area by recruiting additional programme support staff. The PMs are working hard to support the implementation of a large number of projects in a large number of countries. It is therefore the view of the Team that the PMs have successfully played their designated role in programme implementation in CORAF/WECARD. CORAF/WECARD s institutional capacity and roles and responsibilities are fairly relevant to the organisation s mandate and regional priorities. There is a clear strategic contradiction between structuring PMs positions on a commodity/discipline basis, whereas IAR4D is oriented towards multi-disciplinary organisational arrangements. There is therefore a need to review the roles and responsibilities of the PMs (and, indeed, other positions) to better align the organisational management arrangements to the IAR4D mode of operating. Efficiency and effectiveness is similarly rated as fair, principally because CORAF/WECARD is currently understaffed vis-à-vis the size of its current portfolio. In addition the central role that PMs play in delivering CORAF/WECARD s mandate and the issues identified above, quite obviously undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of programme delivery. In this context both the sustainability and impact of existing institutional arrangements is limited. CORAF/WECARD has evolved significantly within the OP period, however the management structure very little and performance would have been much stronger with adequate staffing levels and with a different institutional configuration and different assignment of roles and responsibilities than is the case at the moment. Competitive Grants Competitive grants have provided a strong basis for transparency and fairness in the allocation of grants for IAR4D and that they have improved ownership of results and their quality and acted as an opportunity for shaping research best practices. The grant management process has been underpinned by transparent, well-defined and elaborate accountability mechanism and procedures. The portfolio of projects under implementation has grown and both capacity and ownership at NARS level have been enhanced CORAF/WECARD s administrative processes are quite relevant. The processes have been tailored to their requirements and are well aligned to its strategic objectives. Specifically, the competitive grants approach to project delivery is aligned to the principles of IAR4D. In terms of effectiveness, grantees and other stakeholders find the processes easy to understand and follow. The competitive grants approach, in particular, has attracted a wide variety of research organisations to CORAF/WECARD.

17 Efficiency of the processes is fair. This is because the various timelines built into project structures, and the rigidity with which the retirement and accountability procedures are observed, has resulted in long delays and high levels of frustration in project implementation. The processes themselves are effective making them sustainable in the longer term. The projects established through the competitive grant provide lessons and a basis for sustained IAR4D implementation within the WCA region. The prospects for long-term impact are good. In particular the competitive grants approach has helped to establish innovative projects that are creating real impact in agricultural research delivery in the region. Financial Management CORAF/WECARD has successfully established functioning, financial management systems. The high level of donor support is not just an indication of endorsement of CORAF/WECARD Strategic Plan by donors, but it is also a testimony to the fact that donors have confidence in the organisation s financial processes. The current process places much emphasis on reporting and accountability and is built around strong risk management principles and procedures, multiple accountability levels and verification processes. This makes CORAF/WECARD an attractive and safe destination for donor funds. The relevance of CORAF/WECARD s financial systems to its overall strategic objectives is good. CORAF/WECARD has been able to attract and mobilise financial resources for its OP, the mobilisation efforts attracted USD 118 million and this is more than the USD 112 million that was budgeted for under the OP. In addition, another USD 340 million has been secured for direct support to member governments. This is evidence that CORAF/WECARD s programmes are relevant to, and in alignment with, the objectives of the region and that adequate financial systems underpin the programmes. The financial systems are implemented and managed well and demonstrate good fiduciary responsibility and financial management prudence but the rigidity of implementation has resulted in practical implementation challenges as described above. Accordingly the effectiveness of financial systems as fair. Given that there is widespread dissatisfaction and frustration with project implementation delays that are mainly caused by the rigidity of financial procedures the efficiency of financial systems is rated as poor and both sustainability and impact as fair. While the financial systems are technically sound, the way they are being implemented could threaten sustainability because grantees could become disillusioned and disaffected with CORAF/WECARD programmes and stop responding to competitive grants. The slow rate of disbursements and fund absorption is also likely to undermine the long-term impact of CORAF/WECARD programmes. Capacity Strengthening CORAF/WECARD has made good progress on strengthening research skills through collaborative projects and training. It has also undertaken extensive IAR4D training in support of the implementation of innovation platforms. The establishment of innovation platforms has also been an important element of capacity development.

18 The training dimensions of CORAF/WECARD s capacity building activities have all been highly relevant by addressing key skills needs, the relevance of these has been undermined by lack of attention to institutional and policy dimension of the task. In the same way the effectiveness of these efforts has also been weakened, although the activities implemented have been undertaken efficiently. A key finding of the review concerns the limited sustainability of the capacity building efforts in support of a shift to IAR4D. The training provided and the support to platform development in projects has been valuable and widely appreciated. However without the necessary institutional and policy changes this new way of doing research for impact and development will not be institutionalised. There has been impact as a result of the capacity building activities supported by CORAF/WECARD, but finds that there is large scope for deepening and sustaining this impact through institutional and policy change that supports the shift to IAR4D. Monitoring and Evaluation There is a strong focus on accountability and delivery through the M&E and financial systems. National systems within CORAF/WECARD have a good understanding of the importance of a good monitoring system in order to assess whether results and outputs are being delivered. Within the CORAF/WECARD governance structure, the OP provides a clear definition of its roles and responsibilities with regard to M&E. A Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation Unit is in place, and an M&E manual and a M&E strategy document have been developed. The national agricultural research institutes and other national partners have dedicated personnel with responsibility for M&E and an individual responsible for M&E is assigned to all projects. Result frameworks and logframes have been developed for all projects, and each project has specific budget lines to support M&E activities. Projects stakeholders have been trained in M&E and are involved in the elaboration of these result frameworks. Since December 2012 CORAF/WECARD has been implementing a major revision of the current M&E system, based on a consultative stakeholder workshop which assessed strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and developed solutions to utilise and address these. CORAF/WECARD s M&E system is fully coherent with CAADP and FAAP and with targeted outcomes that CORAF/WECARD aims to deliver in a given timeframe, and if certain critical assumptions hold true, a M&E system which can monitor and assess of the achievement of results, outputs and impacts is considered as highly relevant. In terms of measuring and monitoring achievements the current M&E System has not been effective 3 and efficient 4 in providing a mechanism for adequately 3 Effectiveness: A measure of the extent to which the objectives in the OP were achieved. 4 Efficiency: A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are used to obtain the results and outputs.

19 tracking and documenting progress, delivery and achievements (technical, organisational institutional and strategic) from OP implementation. The database remains incomplete and insufficient, project data are not uploaded on a regular basis, and the process is cumbersome in the absence of a computerised system, making the effectiveness of data collection low. The current M&E system has had weak influence and impact on the experiential learning processes associated with IAR4D, as it has been weakly implemented and designed primarily to measure activity completion and result delivery. Regional Coordination and Partnerships There is a general recognition in CORAF/WECARD that Central Africa is an important region with a significant potential and CORAF/WECARD has throughout the implementation of the OP tried to address this low level of engagement by increasing the dialogue and involvement of Central African partners. CORAF/WECARD s programmes are supported by a large pool of donors and interest appears to be growing. This is both an indication of the level of buy-in to CORAF/WECARD s Strategic Plan and an endorsement or expression of confidence in its fiduciary processes and responsibility. Currently the funding from donors is in two main forms firstly through contribution to a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) which has been set up as a basket fund in 2011 to finance the implementation of CORAF/WECARD projects, and secondly, through direct project funding whereby donors have set up their own projects and commissioned CORAF/WECARD to undertake or facilitate their implementation. During the OP period, CORAF/WECARD was able to mobilise 118 million USD against a target of 112 million USD. An additional 340 million USD was leveraged for direct support to member governments. The relevance of CORAF/WECARD programmes to donor initiatives is quite good. Donors see CORAF/WECARD as the avenue for support to national governments and to the region. This provides the strongest evidence of relevance and alignment of CORAF/WECARD programmes to donor initiatives and expectations. The effectiveness of the relationship is good in so far as CORAF/WECARD has been able to mobilise the resources it needed for implementation of its OP and to use its strategic position as a regional entity to raise more funds for direct funding of member governments programmes. However there are some concerns regarding CORAF/WECARD s coordinating role and this, in turn, raises issues of whether resources are being deployed appropriately and efficiently. Consequently the efficiency of the relationship is rated as fair. Sustainability is considered as good because donors appear to be committed to supporting CORAF/WECARD. With their support, CORAF/WECARD s activities have attracted more investment in agricultural research in the region and the results of the research are likely to have longer term impact for the member countries and for the region more generally Delivery of results CORAF/WECARD has advanced significantly during the period of its first OP. The following achievements should be especially highlighted:

20 1. Significant progress has been made in delivering the four Results through the various projects which makes it largely on track to achieving the Specific Objective of its OP as well as addressing the issues and principles of its SP; 2. CORAF/WECARD is visible and credible in the WCA region, although different stakeholders have different perceptions of their role; 3. CORAF/WECARD has learned a huge amount in the process of implementing the present OP and is fully aware of what the challenges are; 4. The change management process has produced significant achievements within CORAF/WECARD Secretariat and STC and to a lesser extent in the Governing Board and at national level. However the successful implementation of the present project portfolio is not sufficient to fully achieve the results set out by the OP and SP. The key issue concerns the range of capacity building (institutional and policy development) activities that are needed to institutionalise the IAR4D paradigm in national research and development systems. Currently, projects are the main vehicle for introducing IAR4D. Achievement of Specific Objective CORAF/WECARD has advanced significantly during the period of its first OP. The CORAF/WECARD Secretariat has developed and implemented a series of important institutional innovations allowing it to execute an OP that contributes to its Strategic Plan. These include: The establishment of a programme structure The development of a competitive funding mechanism The development of governance structures that both help with alignment to regional plans and priorities as well as ensuring the quality, effectiveness and inclusiveness of CORAF/WECARDs OP The development of trust with, and considerable support from, donors for an ambitious regional programme CORAF/WECARD has established a large project portfolio of 56 projects. In addition, through the process of these projects, and in particularly the innovations platforms, CORAF/WECARD has established effective research uptake mechanisms across the region that will deliver additional benefits in the future. Through the adoption of IAR4D as a core guiding principle for the implementation of project-based activities, CORAF/WECARD has established innovation platforms across the region; capacity building organised by CORAF/WECARD has contributed to this. These are delivering real impact by helping organise the demand for research and building stronger links between research and a wider set of non-research actors. Impact through the innovation platforms is also providing a vehicle for stimulating institutional and policy change in national and regional arenas which is necessary for research to contribute to productivity and other regional development targets. The four evaluations of CORAF/WECARD s Results, and the Team s findings, show that CORAF/WECARD is well on its way to achieving its Specific Objective of Broad-based agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets sustainably

21 improved in West and Central Africa. These achievements evidence a highly efficient implementation of the OP with laudable progress towards regional impact targets and in developing the capacities in the region to sustain these impacts into the future. CORAF/WECARD has grown substantially and has been efficient in mobilising funds for the OP, from USD 5.4 million in 2009 to USD 112 million in 2012, but this rapid growth has not been without challenges, especially in regards to M&E and project and financial management However, the M&E system does not permit CORAF/WECARD to document these achievements and a number of organisational and institutional issues have revealed themselves during the implementation of the OP which will need further adjustment and adaptation to help CORAF/WECARD fully operationalise the SP. Contribution to General Objective The Strategic Plan strongly supports implementation of the OP. The Plan sets an ambitious and farsighted framework for CORAF/WECARD s work and in particular the use of IAR4D as a guiding paradigm. It is important to note that this paradigm places great emphasis on continuously learning how to strengthen organisational and institutional arrangements in order to reach objectives. Given the progress made towards the delivery of Results and achievement of the Specific Objective, the Team believes it is reasonable to assume that CORAF/WECARD is making, and will continue to make, a significant contribution to its General Objective (High broad-based agricultural growth sustainably established in WCA), however at this level attribution remains difficult and will be a challenge for the redesigned M&E Unit under OP2. Overall assessment of OP1 according to DAC criteria Relevance The Objectives, Results and Activities in the OP are highly relevant. The roles of CORAF/WECARD defined by the OP meet a clearly defined need in the region. The way CORAF/WECARD has implemented these roles and the programme structure and management arrangements, including the M&E system, have all been relevant to achieving the Objectives of the Operational Plan. Effectiveness CORAF/WECARD has in general been effective in the implementation of the OP. Independent evaluations of the four Results as indicated that the OP is broadly on track to meet key indicators for each of its specified result areas. A significant portfolio of projects has been established, guided and aligned by regional frameworks. Innovation platforms have been successfully established across the region. However, both the Result Evaluations and Final Evaluation highlighted some gaps that need to be addressed if the Objectives of the SP are to be fully achieved. These gaps include: A better balance between strategic and project coordination with greater emphasis needed on the latter; Greater emphasis to facilitating the institutional and policy changes needed to transform national agricultural research and development systems through a