AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP

Department of Agriculture and Agro-industry

(OSAN 2)

MULTINATIONAL - NERICA RICE DISSEMINATION PROJECT (MNRDP)

COMPLETION MISSION

MAIN REPORT

Prepared by:
M.L KANE, Agro-economist, OSAN 2
A. DJIRO, Agronomist, OSAN 2
M.A.B. SY, Consultant
M.H. SNANE, Consultant February 2012
 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

A. PROJECT DATA AND KEY DATES

I. BASIC INFORMATION

Project Number Project Name Country (ies)

BEN: P-Z1AAO-068; Multinational - NERICA Benin (BEN); Mali (MA); Guinea (GU); Ghana (GH);
MAL: P-Z1AAO-072; Rice Dissemination The Gambia (GA); Nigeria (NG); Sierra Leone (SL);
GU: P-Z1AAO-071; Project Africa Rice (AR).
GA: P-Z1AAO-069;
GH: P-Z1-AA0-070;
NG: P-Z1-AAO-073;
SL: P-Z1-AA0-074;
AR: P-Z1AAO-058
ID Number of all Lending Instrument(s) Department Environmental
Classification
BEN: 2100150007159 Rural development Environmental-II
GU: 2100150007162; GH: 2100150007161;
MA: 2100150007163; NG: 2100150007158;
SL: 2100150007164; GA: 2100150007160;
WARDA: 2100155001970
Original Commitment Amount Amount Disbursed Percent Disbursed
Amount Cancelled
BEN: UA 1 450 000.00 ; BEN: UA 1 052 700.43; BEN: 72.60% ;
GU: UA 3 000 000.00; GU: UA 2 131 500; GU: 71.05% ;
GH: UA 2 650 000.00; GH: UA 2 572 878.45; GH : 97.08%
MA: UA 2 920 000.00; MA: UA 2 905 743.33; MA: 99.5% ;
NG: UA 5 570 000.00; NG: UA 4 559 989.25; NG: 81.87% ;
SL: UA 2 850 000.00; SL: UA 2 253 280.32; SL: 82.03%
GA: UA 1 560 000.00; GA: UA 1 264 010.63; GA: 81.02%;
WA (grant): UA 2 000 000.00 WA: UA 2 000 000.00 WA: 100%
Borrower

Executing Agency(ies) [List the main Ministries, Project Implementation Units, Agencies and civil
society organizations responsible for implementing project activities.]
BEN: Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery, National Institute of Agronomic Research
GU: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Water and Forestry/ National Promotion and Extension Service
GH: Ministry of Food and Agriculture/ Crop Services Department
MA: Ministry of Agriculture/ Institute of Rural Economy
NG: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development/ National Food Security Programme
SL: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security
GA: Ministry of Agriculture/ National Agricultural Research Institute
WA: Africa Rice/ARI.

1
Co-financers and other External Partners [List all other sources and amounts of financing, technical
assistance or other resources used in this project]

Country Government Beneficiaries

Benin UA 280 000 UA 100 000
Guinea UA 640 000 UA 100 000
Ghana UA 490 000 UA 100 000
Mali UA 550 000 UA 130 000
Nigeria UA 1 290 000 UA 180 000
Sierra Leone UA 510 000 UA 100 000
The Gambia UA 250 000 UA 80 000

II. KEY DATES

Project Concept Note Appraisal Report Cleared Board Approval

Cleared by Ops. Com.
Not applicable Not applicable 26 September 2003

Restructuring(s)
Not applicable

Difference in
Original Date Actual Date
months
MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY

EFFECTIVENESS
5 February 2005
3 August 2006 March 2009 31 months
MID-TERM REVIEW
31 December 2010 30 June 2011 for Mali Mali: 6 months
CLOSING 30 June 2012 for Guinea Guinea: 18 months
30 December 2011 for others Others:12 months

2
III. RATINGS SUMMARY

Insert notes from the relevant tables in the different sections of the PCR. For example, please insert the
“Overall Output score” in Section D.I. in the “Achievement of Outputs” box below.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA RATING

BE: 1.95; ML: 2.77;
GU: 2.10; GA: 2.11;
Achievement of Outputs (insert score from Section D.I.) GH: 2.42; NG: 1.84;
SL: 2.02
Average: 2.17
PROJECT OUTCOME Achievement of Outcomes (insert score from Section 2.05
D.II)

Timeliness (insert score from Section F.4) 3.1

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME 2.5
[Score is calculated as an average of the ratings]

Design and Readiness (insert score from Section I.I) 2.79

BANK
Supervision (insert score from Section I.I) 3.33
PERFORMANCE
OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE 3.06
[Score is calculated as an average of the ratings]

Design and Readiness (insert score from Section I.I) 1.5

BORROWER
Implementation (insert score from Section I.I) 2.2
PERFORMANCE
OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE 1.85
[Score is calculated as an average of the ratings]

IV. RESPONSIBLE BANK STAFF

POSITIONS AT APPROVAL AT COMPLETION

Regional Director C. SPENCER J. LITSE

Sector Director C. SPENCER A. BEILEH

Task Manager B. BOEDTS E. ATTIOGBEVI-SOMADO

L. KANE
PCR Team Leader
L. KANE; A. DJIRO;
PCR Team Members
2 Consultants

3
B. PROJECT CONTEXT

Summarize the rationale for Bank assistance. State:

-what development challenge the project addresses,
-the Borrower's overall strategy for addressing it,
-Bank activities in this country (ies) and sector over the past year and how they performed, and
-ngoing Bank and other externally financed activities that complement, overlap with or relate to
this project.

Please cite relevant sources. Comment on the strength and coherence of the rationale.

[300 words maximum. Any additional narrative about the project's origins and history, if
needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]
Annual rice demand in West Africa is estimated at over 8 million tonnes. Since the 1970s, rice
production has grown at the rate of 5.1 % per year, 70 % of which is attributable to extension of
cultivated areas, and only 30 % to increased yields. According to the FAO, annual imports have
increased to over 4 million tonnes for a cost of 1 billion dollars per year on the countries’ meagre foreign
currency resources. It is in this context and with the aim of enhancing agricultural production that the
NERICA Rice Dissemination Project (NRDP) was initiated. It is expected to disseminate NERICA rice
varieties developed by Africa Rice, for instance WARDA. The NRDP will organize farmers of the project
area into NERICA rice farmers’ groups and unions, in order to assist them in producing quality seeds
and competitive commercial rice. They were to be provided with the necessary basic seeds, optimum
rice production technologies, supervision, as well as experimentation, production and processing
equipment and storage and product marketing infrastructure and post-harvest equipment. In 2011, the
Bank’s portfolio in the agricultural sector comprised a number of projects: Mali (8); Benin (4); Guinea (1);
Ghana (7); The Gambia (2); Nigeria (4); Sierra Leone (2).

C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

1. State the Project Development Objective(s) (as set out in the appraisal report)
The project has as sector goal to contribute to poverty reduction and food security in seven (7) West
African countries (Benin, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria and Sierra Leone).
The project’s specific objective is to enhance rice production and rice import substitution through
improved access to high-yielding NERICA rice varieties.
2. Describe the major project components and indicate how each will contribute to
achieving the Project Development Objective(s).
The project has four components: a) technology transfer; b) production support; c) capacity building;
and d) project coordination.
Technology transfer: ADF grant resources will enable WARDA to produce NERICA basic seed. WARDA
will produce nearly 16 tonnes of seeds, during the project implementation period, for distribution in the
participating countries. The project will finance adaptive on-farm research by national agricultural
research institutions supported by WARDA.
Production support: The project will support extension services existing in the project area so as to
ensure effective technical assistance to beneficiaries.
Capacity building: Farmers’ groups will serve as relay structures for provision of services, especially
4
extension services, training and group credit management. The project will support PCUs, extension
institutions and agricultural research institutions involved in the project.
Project coordination: Existing, competent and experienced project coordination units (PCUs) have been
identified to take care of project coordination activities. The borrowers will each post a
monitoring/evaluation specialist to the PCUs, so as to improve the monitoring and evaluation of project
activities.
3. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the project objectives along the
following 3 dimensions. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

WORKING
PROJECT OBJECTIVES DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT
SCORE

a) Relevant to the The NRDP is fully consistent with the seven 4

country's countries’ National Rice Development Strategy
RELEVANT
development to reduce poverty and achieve food security.
priorities
The two pillars of the project are research and 3
b) Objectives could in extension services. With the exception of
principle be achieved Sierra Leone, a post-conflict country, the other
ACHIEVABLE with the project countries are fairly well-equipped in
inputs and in the operational research and extension services to
expected timeframe achieve project objectives within the expected
timeframe.
The Project is fully consistent with the Bank 4
Group’s intervention strategy, which aims to
contribute to economic growth with a view to
c) Consistent with the reducing poverty. This strategy focused
Bank's country or especially on the intensification of rice farming
regional strategy through the introduction of high-yielding, short-
cycle NERICA rice varieties adapted to difficult
conditions. It is in line with ECOWAS’s
CONSISTENT
strategy.
Project objectives are consistent with the 4
Bank’s corporate priorities in agricultural
d) Consistent with the production diversification and development,
Bank's corporate human resources development, improvement
priorities of the precarious situation of rural people and
the fight against deterioration of the natural
environment.

5
4. Summarize the log. frame. If a log. frame does not exist, complete the table below,
indicating the overall project development objective, the major components of the project, the
major activities of each component and their expected outputs, outcomes, and indicators for
measuring the achievement of outcomes. Add additional rows for components, activities, outputs
or outcomes if needed.
EXPECTED
OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS INDICATORS TO BE
OUTCOMES
MEASURED

Overall objective: Reduce The annual Improvement of Number of households

Poverty reduction poverty and income of farmers’ living with increased incomes.
and enhancement of enhance the 241 000 rural conditions. Number of households
the country’s food country’s food families with improved calorie
security. security. increases by intake.
USD 235.80/ha
by PY5.
The calorie intake
improves by PY3.
Specific objectives: Increased rice 54 000 t of Agricultural Agricultural production
Production production and NERICA seeds production increase statistics.
enhancement and rice import produced and and diversification.
diversification substitution. marketed. Reduction of Macroeconomic
Increased foreign exchange statistics.
production of expenditure for the
600 000 t of purchase of
NERICA rice by imported rice.
PY5.
Savings of nearly
USD 4 million
made by PY3.

Component A : Technology Transfer

1. Adoption of 1.1 Supply of pre- 1.1 1.4 T of pre- 1.1 Pre-basic 1.1 Quantities of pre-
NERICA basic seeds to basic seeds seed varieties basic and basic
varieties and SNRAVs by ARI. delivered by are tested by seeds supplied by
farming 1.2 Research on ARI to the SNRAVs. Africa Rice (ARI).
techniques. improvement of SNRAVs of 1.2 Production of 1.2 Number of new high-
rice varieties. each country. high-yielding yielding varieties
1.3 Organization of 1.2 Rice varieties pre-basic discovered by
participatory are improved seed varieties research.
variety selection by the adapted by 1.3 Quantities of pre-
at the level of NARESs and NARESs and basic seeds produced
research (PVS- ARI for various ARI. by research.
R) and extension ecological 1.3 The needs of 1.4 Trend of intensive
(PVSE). conditions. basic seed rice cropping areas.
1.4 Support to producers 1.5 Trend of cleared
research on 1.3 Some 10 (private and areas.
adopted rice varieties are government)

6
 varieties. identified for in foundation
the PVS-R and seeds are met
PVS-V, 2 to 3 by NARESs
of which will be and NAESs.
adopted/ 1.4 Farmers have
registered by adopted crop
site. intensification
1.4 Complementary rather than
technology tests land extension
on these to increase
varieties to production
attain the
target yield of
2.5 T/ha.
2. Production 2.1 Production of 2.1 Production of 2.1 Farmers’ 2.1 Basic seed
of basic basic seeds by basic seeds by needs in production statistics.
seeds. specialized specialized certified seeds
institutions institutions and are met in
farmers’ basic seeds of
groups. adopted
NERICA
varieties.
3. Biodiversity 3.1 Local rice 3.1 Some one 3.1 Conservation 3.1 Quantities and
conservatio varieties are hundred local of the number of local rice
n. catalogued and rice varieties productive varieties conserved in
conserved are catalogued potential of cold rooms
and conserved rice varieties
at the national, through
regional or crossing with
international local varieties.
level
4. Production 2.1 Production of 2.1 Production of 2.1 Farmers’ 4.1 Basic seed
of basic basic seeds by basic seeds by needs in production statistics.
seeds. specialized specialized certified seeds
institutions institutions and are met in
farmers’ basic seeds of
groups. adopted
NERICA
varieties.
5. Biodiversity 4.1 Local rice 3.1 Some one 3.1 Conservation 5.1 Quantities and
conservatio varieties are hundred local of the number of local rice
n. catalogued and rice varieties productive varieties conserved in
conserved are catalogued potential of cold rooms
and conserved rice varieties
at the national, through
regional or crossing with
international local varieties.
level.
6. Technology 5.1 Demonstration 5.2 Training on the 1.1 Adoption of 4.1 Number of each type
of farming of farming use of adapted new farming of equipment
techniques techniques pre- and post- techniques to procured by
7
 and 4.2 Demonstration harvest improve communities using
processing of rice equipment labour force credit resources.
techniques processing procured by productivity. Number of each type of
techniques the project. The value added rice processing
5.3 Training on the of rice equipment procured
use of rice production is by communities using
processing improved at credit resources.
equipment the
procured by community
the project. level.

Component B : Production support

1. Farmer 1.1 Mobilization 1.1 33 000 1.1 Farmers and 1.1 Number of
mobilization and and training of farmers, other stakeholders farmers and
training farmers and traders, have organized stakeholders
stakeholders of financiers and themselves into organized and
the rice processers groups and other trained by the
subsector. sensitized, types of project.
1.2 Training of field trained, association.
technicians organized and 1.3 Solid ties have 1.2 Number of
and extension supervised been established persons
agents 1.2 400 000 ha of between various trained by
upland rice will links in the chain category of
be cultivated of stakeholders of persons and
with increased the rice subsector. training
yields of from themes.
0.8 T to 2.5 1.3 Trend of
T/ha. cultivated area
1.3 Claiming of and rice yields.
new land and
conversion of
other upland
crops (cotton,
maize) to rice
cultivation.
2. Community 2.1 Multiplication 2.1 Some 54 135 t 2.1 The rice 2.1 Number of
system for of of certified certification seed leaders
the adopted/regist seeds will be institution controlled by
production of ered rice produced in operational in the seed
certified varieties the project country. institutions.
seeds. sites. 2.2 The needs in 2.2 Quantities of
2.2 Seed certified seeds of certified seeds
producers adopted/registered produced
supervised and rice varieties are
trained in the met.
conservation of
the varietal
purity of seeds
3. Infrastructure 3.1 Improvement 3.1 1 350 km of 3.3 Reduction of the 3.1 Length and
of feeder roads roads are production and quality of roads

8
 to production improved by marketing costs of improved and
areas. PY3. rice inputs, trend of traffic
3.2 Other civil 3.2 Construction of equipment and by- on these
engineering seed stores, products. roads.
works white rice 3.2 Improvement of 4.1 Number of
stores, drying incomes through infrastructure
floors and reduction of losses constructed
marketing at the level post- and
sheds by PY3. harvest production operational
handling.
4. 4.1 Training of 4.1 Farmers are 4.1 Labour force 4.1 Evolution of
beneficiaries sensitized on productivity is diseases in health
on themes HIV/AIDS, improved. centres.
indirectly linked malaria and Negative impacts 4.2 Impact of
to production. gender aspects of endemic studies conducted
4.2 Studies on 4.2 Two studies diseases, the non- 4.3 Number of
seeds, storage are conducted involvement of environmental
and marketing at the regional women and the negative impacts
of seeds and level on policy use of products. mitigated and
inputs. review in 4.2 The market for positive impacts
4.3 Study on the matters of rice seeds and enhanced
Environmental seeds, rice and production inputs
and Social input storage, mastered.
Management credit access Quantities of
Plan (ESMP). and marketing seeds and inputs
4.3 Implementation are available.
of the 4.3 The project
Environmental environment is
and Social protected;
Management negative impacts
Plan (ESMP) are mitigated and
positive impacts
enhanced.
Component C: Capacity building
1. Impact studies 1.1 Socio- 1.1 Institution of an 1.1 The national rice 1.1 Evolution of rice
economic information subsector is imports.
study and system for becoming
survey on operational rice profitable and
the impact markets. poised for
of project competition with
activities. the imported rice
subsector.
2. Training and 2.1 Training of 2.1 Participation of 2.1 Sustainability of 2.1 Number of
logistics researchers researchers in upland rice beneficiary
and courses, cultivation through researchers and
equipping of conferences the conservation technicians.
research and regional of the genetic Number of
institutes and potential of scientific articles
international varieties and the published.
scientific use of advanced
events. Supply technology
9
 of materials packages
and equipment.
2.2 Training 2.2 Staff have 2.2 Sustainability of 2.2 Number of
and equipping taken part in investments made publications,
of the extension courses and by the project documents and
service and scientific events at through capacity brochures
Project the national and building for the distributed.
Coordination regional level. country’s 2.3 Number and
Unit staff. Procurement of permanent type of
equipment and institutions equipment
supplies. 2.3 Project activities procured.
have effectively
been implemented
Component D: Project coordination
1. National project 1.1 Establish 1.1 Appointment of 1.1 Supervision and 1.1 The staff’s
coordination the PCU PCU staff. efficient consistency with the
1.2 Set up a Preparation of monitoring of the PAR.
NERICA Rice the procedures project’s 1.2 Quality of
Promotion manual and physical and the project’s
Committee computerizatio financial procurement and
(NRPC) and n of the activities financial
the National accounting 1.2 Effective management.
Steering system. involvement, by 1.3 Reports of
Committee 1.2 Preparation operators, of operators and
(NSC). and monitoring beneficiaries in contractors.
of agreements the Number of NRPC
and contracts implementation and NSC meetings.
signed with of project
operators. activities.
1.3 Meetings and Programming and
workshops efficient
organized by implementation
the NRPC and of project
the NSC. activities.
1.4 ARI takes part
in project
implementation
and organizes
and
coordinates
activities at the
regional level,
through the
steering
committee set
up.
2. Regional project 2.1 Monitoring 2.1 ARI 2.1 Annual 2.1 Number of
coordination and evaluation. coordinates the programmes drawn up coordination
rice market by national steering meetings held.
information committees.
system and the 2.2 Regional
10
 work of cooperation and
national integration in the
research production and
institutes marketing of NERICA
rice seeds.
5. For each dimension of the log. frame, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of
the extent to which the log. frame achieved the following. Insert a working score, using the
scoring scale provided in Appendix 1. If no log. frame exists, score this section as a 1 (one).
WORKING
LOG. FRAME DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT
SCORE
a) Presents a The logical framework as presented does not 2
logical causal show a logical causal chain for achieving project
chain for objectives. It was drawn up using the former
LOGICAL achieving the format.
project
development
objectives
b) Expresses The impacts of most project activities 2
objectives and (production, area, incomes of beneficiaries,
outcomes in a environmental and social impact) are not
MEASURABLE
way that is quantified and measured. The baseline situation
measurable and by district/State and even by country has not
quantifiable been established.
The logical framework states key assumptions 2
c) States the for the project’s success
THOROUGH risks and key The exogenous risks for the contracting authority
assumptions (high inflation, capacity of contractors) proved to
be significant.

11
D. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES
I. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTPUTS
In the table below, assess the achievement of actual vs. expected outputs for each major
activity. Import the expected outputs from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which
the expected outputs were achieved. Weight the scores by the activities' approximate share of
project costs. Weighted scores are auto-calculated by the computer. The overall output score
must be calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. Override the calculated score, if desired,
and provide justification.
Share of
MAJOR ACTIVITIES
Project
Costs
Weighted
Working in
Score
Score percentage
Expected Outputs Actual Outputs
(as stated
in Appraisal
Report)
Component A: Technology transfer
Supply of foundation and Foundation and basic
basic seeds by Africa Rice seeds supplied by ARI to BEN: 4; ML: 3;
BEN: 0.08;
to NARESs: NARESs: GU: 2; GA: 3;
ML: 0.06;
BEN: 1.400 T; ML: 2.300 T BEN: 10.2 T; ML: 1.3 T GH: 4; NG: 4; 0.02
GU: 0.04;
GU: 2.250 T; GA: 1.6; GU: 0.890 T; GA: 1.3T; SL: 4
GA: 0.06;
GH: 1.6 T; NG: 3.0 T; GH: 0.9 T of foundation +
GH: 0.08;
SL: 1.6 T. 4.9 T of basic; NG: 6.9 T
NG: 0.08;
(foundation + basic);
SL: 0.08.
SL: 1.7 T.
Conduct PVS-Rs and PVS- Varieties adopted/
Es for adoption and registered: BEN: 2; ML: 2; 0.016
registration of BEN: 10 adopted/0 GU: 2; GA: 2
varieties (Number): registered; ML: 9 GH: 2; NG: 2 BE: 0.048;
BEN: 6 to 10; ML: 6 to 10 adopted/0 registered; SL: 2. ML: 0.048;
GU: 6 to 10; GA: 6 to 10 GU: 8 adopted/0 GU: 0.048;
GH: 6 to 10; NG: 9 to 18 registered; GA: 7; GA: 0.048;
SL: 6 to 10 ; GH: 5 adopted/0 GH: 0.048
registered; NG: 0.048;
NG: 7 adopted/0 SL: 0.048
registered;
SL: 8 adopted/0 registered.
Tests on complementary Number of themes
technologies (fertilization, adopted by farmers and
weeding, row planting) brochures developed
Number of sites/ Number of (Number of themes/
themes: number of brochures) :
BEN: 6 themes; BEN: 4 themes ; BEN: 3; 0.01 BEN: 0.03;
ML: 6 themes; ML: 4 themes ; ML: 3; ML: 0.03;
GU: 6 themes; GU: 4 themes ; GU: 3; GU: 0.03;
GA: 6 themes GA: 4 themes GA: 3; GA: 0.03;
GH: 6 themes; GH: 4 themes ; GH: 3; GH: 0.03;
NG: 6 themes; NG: 4 themes/ongoing NG: 3; NG: 0.03;
SL: 6 themes. (agreement); SL: 3. SL: 0.03.
12
Average yield targeted in the SL: 4 themes.
project area: 2.5 t/ha The average yield obtained
in the project area is less
than 2.5 t/ha following the
non-generalized adoption
of themes. Chemical
weeding was not much
used.
Production of basic seeds BE: 3; ML: 2; BE: 0.054;
by country (PN) : GU: 2; GA: 4; ML: 0.036;
BE: 59 t; ML: 167 t; GU: GH: 4; NG: 3; 0.018 GU: 0.036;
45 t; GA: 65 t; GH: 134 t; SL: 2. GA: 0.072;
NG: 110 t; GH: 0.072;
SL: 122 t. NG: 0.054;
SL: 0.036.
Traditional rice varieties are Traditional rice varieties BE: 0.002;
identified and conserved in identified/ conserved: ML: 0.002 ;
BEN: 2; ML: 2;
cold rooms. BEN: 122/0; ML: 167/0 0.001 GU: 0.002;
GU: 2; GA: 2;
BEN: 122; ML: 667; GU: 100/0; GA: 15/0 GA: 0.002;
GH: 2; NG: 3;
GU: 100; GA: 30 GH: 30/0; NG: 60/20; SL: GH: 0.002;
SL: 2
GH: 60; NG: 60; SL: 30 30/0 NG: 0.003;
SL: 0.002.
Production equipment Production equipment
supplied for experimental procured/experimented:
purposes BEN: 18 thresh., 170
Thresher (thresh.), rototiller
seed., 20 weed.; ML: 17
(roto.), seed drill (seed.), thresh., 13 dry., 59 seed.,
manual harvester (harvest.) 27 weed.; BEN: 2; ML: 3 0.024 BE: 0.048;
and tractors (tract.): GU: No information on the GU: 1; GA: 3 ML: 0.072;
purpose and state of GH: 2; NG: 1 GU: 0.024;
BEN: 8 thresh., 1 shell., 20 procured equipment SL: 1 GA: 0.072;
weed. GA: 12 thresh., 12 roto., 18 GH: 0.048;
ML: 8 thresh., 20 weed. seed., 2 tract. (CA); NG: 0.024;
GU: 6 thresh., 6 roto., 6 GH: 3 thresh., 5 roto., 5 SL: 0.024
seed. pump.: (unmaintained)
GA: 3 thresh., 3 roto., 3 NG:18 thresh., 12 harvest.,
seed., 3 harvest.; GH: 3 60 seed., 3 tract. (CA)
thresh., 3 roto., 3 seed., 3 SL: 4 thresh. (uninstalled),
harvest.; NG: 6 thresh., 6 4 tract. (CA).
roto., 6 seed., 6 harvest.; The score given also takes
SL: 4 thresh., 4 roto., 4 into account their impact
seed., 4 harvest. (training, new
procurements using
credit). The maintenance
of distributed machines
leaves something to be
desired.
Processing equipment Processing equipment BEN: 0; ML: 1 BE: 0 ;
(number of small-scale rice procured and GU: 2; GA: 2 ML: 0.052
0.052
mills) : experimented: GH: 2; NG: 1 GU: 0.104 ;
BEN: 5; ML: 5; GU: 3; GA: 3; BEN: 0; ML: 1 tested; GU: SL: 1 GA: 0.104
13
GH: 3; NG: 6 together; SL: 3 tested; GA: 6 (one GH: 0.104;
5. tested); GH: 3 (only one NG: 0.052;
tested). NG: 12 (none SL: 0.052.
tested).
SL: 4 (none tested). The
score takes into account
their impact.
Component B: Production support
Number of farmers Farmers mobilized and trained
organized into groups farmers/groups:
and trained (farmers BEN: 3 402/133 including 109
including women women; BE: 0.412;
/groups) : ML: 3 200/330; ML: 0.309;
BEN: 3 000/120 GU: 4 115/335 including 65 BEN: 4; ML: 3 0.103 GU: 0.412;
including 96 women women’s groups; GU: 4; GA: 3 GA: 0.309;
ML: 4 752/190; GA: 18 300/258 (80% of GH: 3; NG: 3 GH: 0.309;
GU: 3 696/280 women); SL: 4 NG: 0.309;
including 75 women; GH: 22 570/318; SL: 0.412.
GA: 80 000/700 NG: 15 000 including
(overestimation). 5 000 women/1 200;
GH: 33 500; SL: 5 638 including 3 121
NG: 25 000/360; women/ 345.
SL: 4 500 including 3
600 women/180.
Additional areas
Areas of upland NERICA
cultivated to upland rice
cultivated:
(ha/T) :
BEN: 17035 ha;
BEN: 17 750 ha; ML: BEN: 3; ML: 3 0.061 BEN: 0.183;
ML: 54 000 ha/2 485 farmers;
57 600 ha; GU: 26 800 GU: 4; GA: 4 ML: 0.183;
GU: 48 134 ha ;
ha; GA: 12 000 ha in GH: 3; NG: 1; GU: 0.244;
GA: 63 000 ha for the entire
the three sites; GH: 20 SL: 1. GA: 0.244;
country;
000 ha; GH: 0.183;
GH: 12 230 ha
NG: 108 000 ha (162 NG: 0.061;
NG: 10 141 ha (19 782 T);
000 T); SL: 0.061.
SL: 7 400 ha.
SL: 70 000 ha.
Quantities of certified
Quantities of certified seeds
seeds produced:
produced:
BEN: 950 T; ML: 7 799 BE: 0.24;
BEN : 1 014 T; BEN: 4;
T 0.06 ML: 0.18;
ML: 6 160 T; ML: 3; GU: 4;
GU: 6 000 T; GA: 10 GU: 0.24;
GU: 6 710 T; GA: 4;
000 T GA: 0.24;
GA: 10 656 T GH: 4; NG: 1;
GH: 1000 T; NG: 14 GH: 0.24;
GH: 1 300 T; NG: 2946 T; SL: 1.
616 T NG: 0.06;
SL: CBSS = 190 T, Others =
SL : CBSS = 3365 T, SL: 0.06.
415 T.
Others = 2 136 T
The NSS in each The agreements signed with
country ensures these structures are not often
enhanced quality efficiently implemented:
control services: BEN: Agreement signed.
ML: Agreement signed.
BEN: DPQC; ML: GU: Agreement signed. BEN: 3; ML: 3;
14
DCP/DA –LABOCEM; GA: PTS-NARI (PTS not GU: 3; GA: 2; 0.03 BE: 0.09;
GU: DNA; GA: Seed involved). GH: 2; NG: 3; ML: 0.09;
Council/PTS-NARI; GH: GSID not approved. SL: 2. GU: 0.09;
GH: GSID NG: NASC approved. GA: 0.06;
NG: NASC; SL: No SL: No NSS. Done by SLARI. GH: 0.06;
NSS. NG: 0.09;
SL: 0.06.
Rehabilitation of feeder Feeder roads rehabilitated (Km
roads: contracted: Progress in %: BE: 0;
BEN: 130 km; ML: BEN: 0 km; ML: 70 km; GU: 0 BEN: 0; ML: 2 ML: 0.6
194.4 km km; GU: 0; GA: 0 GU: 0;
GU: 200 km; GA: 130 GA: 0 km; GH: 20 km/100%; GH: 1; NG: 1 0.3 GA: 0
km NG: 450 km/19%; SL: 270 SL: 1. GH: 0.3;
GH: 270 km; NG: km/35%. NG: 0.3;
450km SL: 0.3.
SL: 270 km
Infrastructure
construction Number by
type :
Operational infrastructure.
BEN: 7 ms, 5mg, 5 as,
Number/% work progress:
5 ev; BEN: 3; ML: 3 0 .04 BE: 0.12;
BEN: 7 ms, 5 mg, 5 as, 5 ev;
ML: 25 mg, 9 as, 9 ev; GU: 2; GA: 3 ML: 0.12;
ML: 19 mg, 18 as, 16 ev ;
GU: 27; GH: 3; NG: 1 GU: 0.08;
GU: 27/100% ; 44/60% ;
GA: 6 x (ms, mg, ev, SL: 2. GA: 0.12;
50/0% ;
as); GH: 0.12;
GA: 6 mg, 7 as/ongoing; GH: 3
GH: 6 x (ms, mg, ev, NG: 0.04;
x (ms, mg, as)/100% ;
as); SL: 0.08.
NG: Studies and plans/ 0%; SL:
NG:13 x (ms, mg, ev,
4 x (ms, mg, ev, as)/18%.
as);
SL: 8 x (ms, mg, ev,
as).
Sensitization of target Agreement /% implemented:
farmers, NGOs, and BEN: with DNSP/20%; BEN: 1; ML: 3; BE: 0.016;
traders on HIV/AIDS ML: with DNSP/100%; GU: 2; GA: 3; ML: 0.048;
and malaria. GU: with DNSP/60%; GH: 3; NG: 1; 0.016 GU: 0.032;
GA: with DSH, NAS and CCF; SL: 2. GA: 0.048;
GH: with GHS GH: 0.048;
(UA 28 850)/100%; NG: 0.016;
NG: Workshop with technicians; SL: 0.032.
SL: MOU (LE 195
million)/100%.
Conduct of the ESMP/% disbursed:
Environmental and BEN: not conducted; BEN: 0; M: 2 0.014 BE: 0;
Social Management ML: conducted/not GU: 3; GA: 0 ML: 0.28;
Plan (ESMP) by implemented; GU: GH: 2; NG: 0 GU: 0.042;
country. conducted/70% implemented; SL: 1 GA: 0;
GA: No contract; GH: contract GH: 0.028;
with EPA/40%; NG: No NG: 0;
contract; SL: MOU with SL: 0.014
MLHE/28%.

15
Conduct of two studies BEN: 0; ML: 1; 0.017 BE: 0;
BEN: not conducted;
on seeds, rice and input GU: 1; GA: 2; ML: 0.017
ML: 1; GU: 1;
storage, credit access, GH: 2; NG: 0; GU: 0.017;
GA: 1 (seed storage); GH: 1
and marketing by SL: 1. GA: 0.034;
study conducted;
country. GH: 0.034;
NG: Not conducted; SL:
NG: 0;
Agreement with Statistics (50%)
SL: 0.017
Component C: Capacity building
Studies: (i) rice Number of studies. BEN: 2; ML: 2 0.038 BE: 0.076;
subsector (ii) rice Reference study conducted GU: 2; GA: 2 ML: 0.076;
market information late. GH: 3; NG: 2 GU: 0.076;
system, BEN: 2 (baseline, impact); SL: 3 GA: 0.076;
(iii) baseline situation, ML: 2 (baseline, impact); GH: 0.114;
(iv) impact study. GU: 2 (baseline, impact); NG: 0.076;
GA: 2 (baseline, impact). SL: 0.114
GH: 3 (baseline, impact, rice
subsector); NG: 2 (baseline,
impact); SL: 2 (baseline,
impact, NERICA rice).
The material and human BEN: 3; ML: 3 0.062 BE: 0.186;
capacity of research GU: 3; GA: 4 ML: 0.186;
The research institutes of the
institutions built. GH: 3; NG: 3 GU: 0.186;
majority of countries were
SL: 3 GA: 0.248;
strengthened in transport,
GH: 0.186;
office and research equipment.
NG: 0.186;
SL: 0.186.
The material and human Field services of the Ministries BEN: 3; ML: 3 0.07 BE: 0.21;
capacity of institutions
of Agriculture were provided GU: 3;GA: 2 ML: 0.21;
of the Ministry of with transport and office GH: 3; NG: 3 GU: 0.21;
Agriculture, Public equipment. The other SL: 3 GA: 0.21
Works and the PCU departments (roads, GH: 0.21;
built. infrastructure) were not NG: 0.21;
strengthened in terms of SL: 0.21.
equipment.
Component D: Project management
Establishment of the BEN: 3; ML: 3; 0.025 BE: 0.075;
Coordination Unit and The Unit was established and GU: 3; GA: 3 ML: 0.075;
adequate staffing. staffed. Certain countries GH: 3; NG: 3 GU: 0.075
witnessed changes in staffing SL: 3 GA: 0.075;
(Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra GH: 0.050
Leone). NG: 0.050;
SL: 0.050.
Setting up of a NERICA Meetings of the regional BEN: 3; ML: 3; 0.027 BE: 0.081;
promotion team, a Steering Committee were GU: 3; GA: 2; ML: 0.081;
Steering Committee and regular. NSC meetings were GH: 3; NG: 3; GU: 0.081;
a monitoring and not regular in certain countries SL: 3. GA: 0.054;
evaluation system at the (The Gambia, Nigeria). Most GH: 0.081;
national and regional countries did not comply with NG: 0.054;
level (ARI). the work plan and annual SL: 0.081.
budgets.

16
 BE: 1.951;
ML: 2.773;
GU: 0.103;
OVERALL OUTPUT SCORE
GA: 2.106;
[Score is calculated as the sum of weighted scores]
GH: 2.422;
NG: 1.844;
SL: 2.024.

Check here to override the

calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the calculated score

BE: 1.951;
ML: 2.773;
GU: 0.103;
Insert the new score or re-enter the calculated score GA: 2.106;
GH: 2.422;
NG: 1.844;
SL: 2.024.
II. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES
1. Using available monitoring data, assess the achievement of expected outcomes.
Import the expected outcomes from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the
expected outcomes were achieved. The overall outcome score must be calculated as an average
of the working scores. Override the calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.
OUTCOMES Working
Expected Actual Score
Component A: Technology transfer
Research institutes have started No research institute has started producing 1
producing pre-basic seeds for their pre-basic seeds of NERICA varieties. ARI
countries. has not supplied the quantities of foundation
seeds planned for each country.
Basic seeds of NERICA varieties The SRNAs of the majority of countries 2
produced by specialized institutions have not produced the necessary quantities
(SRNA and NASC) and seed leaders of basic seeds contracted with the project.
are available in sufficient quantities. Basic seeds supplied by NASC (Nigeria)
contain impurities. Seed leaders were not
involved in the production of basic seeds.
Farmers are more interested in Increased NERICA production is due more 2
intensifying crops (application of to extension of cultivated areas than the
complementary technology) than intensification of crops, especially on land
extending cultivated areas to increase with mechanization and input support. The
production. rate of recovery in kind of this contribution
by the project is average.
Conservation of the productive potential The local varieties have not been 2
of rice varieties through crossing with catalogued. The absence of operational cold
local varieties. rooms in the research institutes of the
majority of countries does not allow for
conservation of local seed varieties. Local

17

Extension of rice-growing areas and the
improvement of labour force productivity
through mechanization of farming
techniques.
The value added of rice production is
improved at the community level by
processing equipment.
Component B: Production support
Farmers and other operators organized
themselves into groups and other types of
associations.
Solid ties were established between
various links in the chain of rice subsectormarketing of seeds produced by these
operators.
The rice certification institution
strengthened and operational in the
country. Benin: DPQC; Nigeria: NASC;
The Gambia: Seed Council/NARI;
Ghana: GSID;
Mali: DCP/DA, LABOPSEM ;
Guinea: DNA;
Sierra Leone: SLARI.
Needs in certified seeds of selected rice
varieties are met.
Boosting of incomes by facilitating the The delays and weaknesses noted in the
marketing of inputs, equipment and rice by- improvement of roads and the construction
products and through reduction of post- of production storage and marketing
harvest losses
germplasms are conserved in other
countries abroad. Crossing with local
varieties has not been started in most
countries, except for Ghana.
The extension of cultivated areas is 2
tangible. On the other hand, failure by
beneficiaries to use pre- and post-harvest
equipment has not helped in improving
labour force productivity and attaining the
target of additional cultivated areas in
project sites.
The late procurement of experimental rice 1
packaging and processing equipment has
not helped in sensitizing the communities to
obtain equipment using medium-term credit
resources. The production value added did
not improve during the project.
The considerable number of NERICA seed 2
producers made the organization of the
seed sector difficult The intervention of the
project and government institutions in the
farmers and in the supply of inputs helped to
fill the existing gap regarding the
involvement of NGOs and other operators in
structuring the rice subsector
For certain countries, specialized services 3
were in charge of seed control (Benin,
Nigeria, Mali, and Guinea). For the other
countries, there was no contract with
specialized institutions. Consequently, very
few producers eliminate impurities from their
fields for lack of supervision. Seed
producers recycle their own seeds over
several years for want of supervision.
In the project sites, NERICA seed supply 3
seems to exceed demand. However, public
structures. encounter difficulties in selling
the surplus Nevertheless, the quality of
certain stored seeds leaves much to be
desired (low rate of germination in Sierra
Leone, impurities of seeds in Nigeria)
1
infrastructure has not facilitated the
marketing of inputs and other factors of
production and in reducing losses.
18
Labour force productivity is improved The contracts signed with health institutions 2
thanks to the improved health of the rural were implemented in certain countries and
population and the full involvement of fell behind in others. But, the absence of
women statistics in the health centres of project
sites, as concerns endemic diseases,
makes it impossible to assess the impact of
this action.
Negative impacts linked to extension of rice For the majority of countries, the ESMP was 1
farms (loss of fertility and soil erosion) and not conducted. The contracts signed with
intensification (chemical products), are environmental institutions were only partially
contained. implemented. The natural vegetation areas
cleared for rice farming were not offset by
reforestation activities.
Response to the food crisis
The food crisis was contained thanks to the To curb the food crisis, seeds, agricultural 2
supply of factors of production. equipment, fertilizers and herbicides were
distributed to farmers living both in and out
of project sites. These activities helped to
increase production; however, the share
attributable to these activities was not
clearly established.
Response to the food crisis is sustainable. Production equipment procured during the 2
crisis is not efficiently managed (Frequent
breakdowns of tractors, harvesters and
other poorly maintained equipment). The
increased yields and the profits made did
not bring about recourse by beneficiaries to
financial institutions for the procurement of
inputs the likes of which they got from the
project. The working capital made available
in kind operates with difficulty. This has
contributed to the precarious impact
obtained.

Component C: Capacity building

The national rice subsector is becoming Thanks to NERICA, the harvest essentially 3
profitable and will compete with the covers all operating costs. Incomes have
imported rice subsector. increased and farmers’ living conditions
have improved. Cotton farmers are
switching to the cultivation of NERICA rice,
which competes well with imported rice.
Sustainability of upland rice farming Farmers have witnessed an increase in their 3
through conservation of the genetic production through the use of improved
potential of varieties and the use of farming techniques and improved NERICA
technology packages. varieties. This explains their enthusiasm for
this crop’s extension and augurs well for its
sustainability. Nevertheless, there is a real
risk of degeneration of the seeds of these
varieties as a result of the non-renewal of
pre-basic and basic seeds.
19
Sustainability of investments by the project The capacity of institutions involved in the 3
through capacity building for the country’s project’s implementation was, for the most
institutions. part, built and these institutions are
conveniently carrying out their sovereign
missions. However, the achievements need
to be consolidated through a 2nd phase or
from the country’s own resources.
Component D: Project management
Supervision and efficient control of the The procedures manual and the 2
project’s physical and financial activities. computerized monitoring and evaluation
system have not been established in the
vast majority of countries. Frequent changes
in the PCU team in certain countries (Sierra
Leone, Nigeria, and Guinea) and the
extension of its activities to other
unscheduled regions impacted on activity
implementation timeframes.
Effective involvement of beneficiaries in Thanks to agreements and protocol 2
project implementation. agreements, and to coordination,
sensitization, training and meetings,
beneficiaries were fully involved in the
implementation of project activities. But their
contribution in cash and kind has not been
effective, especially in the execution and
maintenance of infrastructure works.
Scheduling and efficient implementation of The annual work programme and the 2
project activities. related budget are prepared and approved
by the National Steering Committee.
Compliance with this schedule was
inadequate.
OVERALL OUTCOME SCORE
2.05
[Score is calculated as an average of the working scores]

Check here to override the

calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the calculated score 2.05

2. Additional outcomes. Comment on the project's additional outcomes not captured in

the log. frame, including cross-cutting issues (e.g., gender).
For all countries, part of the budget of project works was reallocated to the food crisis. This created an
imbalance between the activities of the “Production support” component likely to jeopardize the
sustainability of production increases achieved from providing beneficiaries with considerable quantities
of inputs and the extension of cultivated areas through mechanization (tractors and harvesters). This
budget reallocation, which varies according to country (from UA 290 000 to UA 500 000), should have
been charged to the “Contingencies” and “Goods” categories, so as to avoid jeopardizing the
sustainability of this production increase on account of the absence of the necessary road infrastructure
to support this additional production.

20
3. Risks to sustained achievement of outcomes. State the factors that affect, or could
affect, the long-run or sustained achievement of project outcomes. Indicate if any new activity
or institutional change is recommended to help sustain outcomes. The analysis should draw
upon the sensitivity analysis in Annex 3, where appropriate.
The outcomes achieved in varietal selection, production of certified seeds, consumption rice and their
marketing are still weak, and their sustainability could be affected, if the following consolidation
measures are not taken:

(i) The first production and post-harvest equipment procured early (2008) by certain countries (Ghana,
The Gambia) have, for the most part, broken down, as a result of their intensive use for production
rather than for tests and the training of beneficiaries. The equipment procured towards the end of
the project by a majority of countries, even though not yet allocated to or installed in communities,
will suffer the same fate on account of ignorance by beneficiaries of the latter’s purpose. This
equipment must be considered as a training tool and used as tests for the mechanization of
NERICA production activities, the only factor capable of making NERICA’s productivity and
production very viable.

(ii) The non-construction of all the 1 350 km of roads has made certain sites inaccessible at certain
periods of the year, which makes the transportation of produce from production areas to
consumption areas difficult.

(iii) the non-conduct of ESMP for the majority of countries, and sensitization campaigns on endemic
diseases for some (Nigeria), exposes the natural environment to anthropogenic activities, and the
population to disease risks that can make them unfit to develop agricultural activities (loss of
productivity).

E. PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the extent to which the Bank and the Borrower ensured the project was
commensurate with the Borrower’s capacity to implement by designing the project appropriately
and by putting in place the necessary implementation arrangements. Consider all major design
aspects, such as extent to which project design took into account lessons learned from previous
PCRs in the sector or the country (please cite key PCRs); whether the project was informed by
robust analytical work (please cite key documents); how well Bank and Borrower assessed the
capacity of the implementing agencies and/or Project Implementation Unit; scope of
consultations and partnerships; economic rationale of project; and provisions made for
technical assistance.
[250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about implementation should be included
at Annex 6: Project Narrative]
The project was designed with Project Coordination Units, with four experts seconded from Ministries
and devoted entirely to the project’s coordination. The recruitment of an NGO and consultants was
envisaged to supervise and mobilize specialized government structures for the implementation of
major components of the project namely, research, training, extension, sensitization, capacity building
and works study and control.
The project aims to disseminate upland NERICA rice varieties in seven West African countries. Thus,
Africa Rice was entrusted with the project’s regional coordination for the seven countries. Indeed, ARI
received a Grant of UA 2.91 million from the Bank from 1991 to 1997 to develop NERICA rice
varieties. Between 1999 and 2000, ARI received another Grant of UA 400 000 from the Bank.

21
The project took into account lessons learnt from other PCRs in the sector, especially as a majority of
countries have not had any experience in upland NERICA rice farming (Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana,
Benin), whereas the others benefited from other upland rice farming projects financed by other donors
(The Gambia, Guinea). Thus, in addition to NERICA rice dissemination, the following activities were
scheduled: i) structuring of the certified seed production sector; ii) training of beneficiaries on small-
scale equipment for pre- and post-harvest farming techniques and for rice packaging; iii) partial
improvement instead of rehabilitation of access roads to production areas, and iv) the construction of
light and non-mechanized structures for the drying and storage of production. In March 2003, the project
preparation team visited five out of the seven countries to identify the adequate potential areas and
chose 3 to 6 sites per country. It took into account rice farming projects being prepared and
implemented with financing from other donors (bilateral cooperation, IFAD, World Bank). During
implementation, project activities extended to several other sites and even to the entire country, as is
the case with the Gambia.
2. For each dimension of project design and readiness for implementation, provide a brief
assessment (up to two sentences). Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in
Appendix 1.
PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS
ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE
FOR IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS
The analysis of the institutional 3
framework shows that
specialized national structures
a) Project complexity is (research, extension, technical
matched with country support) need capacity building
REALISM to enable them to accomplish
capacity and political
commitment. the missions assigned to them.
This was selected as a project
component. The seven
countries chosen belong to
NEPAD.
The assumptions/risks of the 3
logical framework proved to be
RISK
exact during project
ASSESSMEN b) Project design includes
implementation. Other risks not
TAND adequate risk analysis.
mentioned occurred during
MITIGATION
implementation such as climate
change (dry years)
The procurement procedures 2
c) Project procurement,
applied are those of the
financial management,
Government and the Bank. Very
USE OF monitoring and/or other
long delays were observed. The
COUNTRY systems are based on
procedures manual as well as
SYSTEMS those already in use by
the monitoring and evaluation
government and/or other
system are not available at
partners.
project closure.

22
 WORKING SCORE
For the following dimensions, provide separate working scores for Bank
performance and Borrower performance:
Bank Borrower

The responsibilities of various 2 2

stakeholders and beneficiaries
were clearly defined at appraisal.
d) Responsibilities for The Borrower took them into
CLARITY project implementation account, despite the non-
were clearly defined. involvement of NGOs, and the
low participation of APEs for the
ESMP and the DNS (HIV/AIDS,
Malaria) and the administrative
delays recorded.
The necessary implementation 2 1
e) Necessary documents were not ready at
implementation appraisal. Implementation
PROCUREME
documents (e.g. studies needed to be conducted,
NT
specifications, design, infrastructure bidding documents
READINESS
procurement documents) prepared and the baseline
were ready at appraisal. situation established to define
advisory support activities.
There is neither a monitoring and 2 2
f) Monitoring indicators evaluation manual nor an
MONITORING and monitoring plan were operational database. Steering
READINESS agreed upon before Committee meetings hold
project launch. regularly. The Bank’s supervision
missions were regular.
Very few baseline data were 2 1
h) Baseline data were available at the start of the
BASELINE available or were project. The baseline situation
DATA collected during project study was conducted for all
design. countries during the project
(2010).

23
F. IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the major characteristics of project implementation with reference to:

adherence to schedules, quality of construction or other work, performance of consultants,
effectiveness of Bank supervision, and effectiveness of Borrower oversight. Assess how well
the Bank and the Borrower ensured compliance with safeguards. [300 words maximum.
[Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project
Narrative.]

Effectiveness and start-up took place in 2005 for a period of five years and the completion date initially
planned for 31 December 2010 was extended to 30 December 2011. There was a delay in the
effectiveness and actual start-up of the project specific to each country, due to the non-fulfilment of
conditions precedent to the first disbursement. Thus, road and infrastructure works were retarded as a
result of cumulated delays in studies, preparation of BDs and the control of works often carried out by
government services, on the one hand, and the inability of contractors to comply with implementation
timeframes, on the other hand. Guinea could only catch up with this serious cumulated delay six
months before the project’s closure by taking adequate measures to address these shortcomings. The
underestimation of unit prices for road works and the reallocation of “Works” category funds to the
Food Crisis only partially explain the inadequate performance of these activities.

The operator in charge of environmental management did not comply with the schedule of this activity
such that, for the majority of countries, the ESMP was either not prepared or was not implemented.
Compliance with the schedule of activities linked to the adoption of NERICA rice varieties and
complementary technologies by groups ensured this crop’s high acceptance by beneficiaries. On the
other hand, late implementation and lack of harmonization between activities related to the adoption of
pre- and post- harvest and rice processing techniques did not allow for the popularization of these
techniques. The quality of some activities implemented in certain countries leaves much to be desired.
Despite the achievement of the quantitative objective of seeds produced, certification and marketing of
rice seeds are poorly structured such that problems of bad germination, seed impurities, and drop in
sales and poor storage continue to arise.

2. Comment on the role of other partners (e.g. donors, NGOs, contractors, etc.). Assess
the effectiveness of co-financing arrangements and of donor coordination, if applicable.

The project, which started in Benin, the Gambia, Guinea, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, was
supported by several donors, including the Government of Japan, the UNDP, the Rockefeller
Foundation, the CFC, USAID, IFAD, SG2000, the FAO, the ADB and the World Bank. ARI’s mandate
was extended to East and Central African countries for NERICA’s dissemination (WARDA, 2003).

24
3. Harmonization. State whether the Bank made explicit efforts to harmonize
instruments, systems and/or approaches with other partners.

In most countries, other projects attached to rice production, in general, and NERICA, in particular, are
underway. Unfortunately, no synergy or harmonization of activities was developed between these
projects and the NRDP. Thus, for instance, for the Gambia, GREP is financed by Taiwan TM, GEAPP
by EU and the IBRD, PIWAMP by IFAD and the FMRIP by the ADB. The role played by these partners
in the achievement of project objectives is difficult to assess now without an analysis of supervision
mission and/or completion reports of the projects of these donors.

4. For each dimension of project implementation, assess the extent to which the project
achieved the following. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) and insert a working score,
using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.
WORKIN
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT G
SCORE
a) Extent of project Difference in months The delay in closing BEN: 3;
adherence to the original between original corresponds globally to
closing date. If the closing date and actual the delay in ML: 4;
number on the right is: closing date or date of implementation. GU: 3;
below 12, "4" is scored 98% disb. rate. GA: 3;
between 12.1 to 24, "3" is
scored between 24.1 to GH: 3;
BEN: 12 months;
36, "2" is scored beyond NG: 3;
TIMELINESS ML: 6 months;
36.1, "1" is scored SL: 3;
GU: 18 months; AR: 3.
GA: 12 months;
GH: 12 months;
NG: 12 months;
SL: 12 months;
AR: 12 months.
b) Bank complied with:
The Bank classified the project under category
3
Environmental
Safeguards II. But it did not monitor the implementation of
this component.
Supervision missions all analysed the project’s
Fiduciary Requirements financial management. The Bank honoured its 3
commitments.
BANK
PERFORMANCE The Bank honoured its commitments as set forth 4
Project Covenants in the Loan Agreement.

c) Bank provided quality The Bank was able to monitor NRDP’s

supervision in the implementation, through various supervision 3
form of skills mix and missions: BEN (12), ML (11) GU (10), GA (8),
practicality of GH (10), NG (1), SL (08), and AR (9).
solutions

25
 The audit reports, submitted annually by the 3
d) Bank provided
quality management borrowers, were validated by the Bank and
oversight their recommendations were carefully
monitored.
e) Borrower complied with:
In general, the ESMP was not conducted 2
Environmental and the agreements signed were not
Safeguards implemented. No environmental safeguards
were taken.
The counterpart contribution was paid 3
Fiduciary Requirements regularly, despite delays.

The Borrower did not honour its 2

Project Covenants commitments as set forth in the Loan
BORROWER Agreement; certain envisaged protocol
PERFORMANCE agreements were not signed.
f) Borrower was The Borrower was globally responsive to the 2
responsive to Bank recommendations of supervision missions. It
supervision findings did not sign agreements with certain
and ministries (Works, Environment, and
recommendations Health).
Most recommendations of supervision 2
g) Borrower collected missions were not fully implemented.
and used monitoring
information for
decision making

26
G. COMPLETION

1. IS THE PCR DELIVERED ON A TIMELY BASIS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH BANK POLICY?

Date project reached 98% Date PCR was sent to Difference in WORKING SCORE
disb. Rate (or closing date if pcr@afdb.org months if the difference is 6
applicable) months or less, a 4 is
MM/DD/YY scored. If the
difference is 6.1 or
more, a 1 is scored

BEN: 4 months;
BEN: 30 December 2011; ML: ML: 4 months;
30 June 2011; GU: 30 June GU: 4 months; BEN: 4; ML: 4; GU: 4;
2012; GA: 30 December 2011; BEN: NA; ML: NA; GA: 4 months; GA: 4; GH: 4; NG: 4;
GH: 30 December 2011; NG: GU: NA; GA: NA; GH: 4 months; SL: 4
30 December 2011; SL: 30 GH: August 2011; NG: NG: 4 months;
December 2011 NA; SL:NA SL: 4 months.

2. Briefly describe the PCR Process. Describe the Borrower’s and co-financers'
involvement in producing the document. Highlight any major differences of opinion concerning
the assessments made in this PCR. Describe the team composition and confirm whether a site
visit was undertaken. Mention any major collaboration from other development partners. State
the extent of field office involvement in producing the report. Indicate whether comments from
Peer Reviewers were received on time (provide names and positions of Peer Reviewers). [150
words maximum]
The completion mission comprised two rural engineering consultants (one for Francophone countries
and one for Anglophone countries), an agronomist and an agro-economist from the Bank. Their profiles
are consistent with the project’s two main activities: infrastructure and agricultural production support.
Certain PCUs prepared an incomplete completion report inconsistent with the required format. The
PCUs assisted mission members in office work as well as in field visits. The PCR is the fruit of
participatory work, involving all stakeholders and incorporating lessons learnt from frank discussions
held with the various operators.

H. LESSONS LEARNED

Summarize key lessons for the Bank and the Borrower suggested by the project’s outcomes [300
words maximum. Any additional narrative about lessons learned, if needed, must be placed in
Annex 6: Project Narrative]
(i) Identify key activities, from project start , so as to give them the required priority in scheduling
and implementation;
(ii) Give greater importance to clauses relating to the technical, material and financial capacity of
contractors during the preparation and evaluation of BDs for works;
(iii) Clearly define the regional or multilateral institution’s prerogatives and financing in a multinational
project so as to avoid an unbalanced reallocation of funds between the various countries;
(iv) Ensure that the multinational institution’s coordination role is not only limited to providing goods
and services to their counterparts at the national level, but also to assisting them to achieve self-

27
 sufficiency in these services and for the effective transfer of new technologies;
(v) In Federal States, the contracting authority and principal contractor planned at project appraisal
should, preferably, be decentralized government bodies;
(vi) The capacity and availability of financing from micro-finance institutions existing in the project
areas must be well analysed in the PAR for projects needing their involvement.
I PROJECT RATINGS SUMMARY

All working scores and ratings must be found in the relevant section in the PCR. For example, please
insert the “Overall Output score” in Section D.I. in the “Achievement of Outputs” box below.
WORKING
CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA
SCORE
Achievement of outputs (insert score from Section D.I.) 2.17
PROJECT Achievement of outcomes (insert score from Section D.I.) 2.05
OUTCOME Timeliness (insert score from Section F.4.) 3.1
OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME SCORE (score average) 2.44
Design and Readiness
Project Objectives were relevant to country development priorities. (insert 4
score from Section C.3.)
Project Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs 3
and in the expected time frame. (insert score from Section C.3.)
Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s country or regional 4
strategy (insert score from Section C.3.)
Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s corporate priorities 4
(insert score from Section C.3.)
The log frame presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project 2
development objectives. (insert score from Section C.5.)
The log frame expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is 2
measurable and quantifiable. (insert score from Section C.5.)
The log frame states the risks and key assumptions. (insert score from Section 3
C.5.)
Project complexity was matched with country capacity and political 3
commitment. (insert score from Section E.2.)
BANK Project design includes adequate risk analysis. (insert score from Section E.2.) 3
PERFORMANCE 2
Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other
systems were based on those already in use by government and/or
other partners. (insert score from Section E.2.)
Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined. (insert 2
score from Section E.2.)
Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, 3
procurement documents) were ready at appraisal. (insert score from Section
E.2.)
Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon during 2
design. (insert score from Section E.2.)
Baseline data was available or were collected during design. (insert score 2
from Section E.2.)
PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SUB-SCORE (score average) 2.79
Supervision:
Bank complied with:
Environmental Safeguards (insert score from Section F.4.) 3
Fiduciary Requirements (insert score from Section F.4.) 3

28
 Project Covenants (insert score from Section F.4.) 4
Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix provided and 3
practicality of solutions. (insert score from Section F.4.)
Bank provided quality management oversight. (insert score from Section F.4.) 3
PCR was delivered on a timely basis (insert score from Section G) 4
SUPERVISION SUB-SCORE (score average) 3.33
OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE (score average) 3.06

Design and Readiness

Responsibilities for project implementation are clearly defined. (insert 2
score from Section E.2)
Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, 1
procurement documents) are ready at appraisal. (insert score from Section
E.2)
Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan are agreed upon 2
Baseline data are available or are being collected. (insert score from Section 1
E.2)
PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SCORE (score average) 1.5
BORROWER Implementation
PERFORMANCE Borrower complied with:
2
Environmental Safeguards (insert score from Section F.4)
Fiduciary Requirements (insert score from Section F.4) 3
Project Covenants (insert score from Section F.4) 2
Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and 2
recommendations. (insert score from Section F.4)
Borrower collected and used of monitoring information for decision- 2
making. (insert score from Section F.4)
IMPLEMENTATION SUB-SCORE (score average) 2.2
OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE (score average) 1.85

J. PROCESSING
STEP SIGNATURE AND COMMENTS DATE

Sector Manager Clearance

Regional Director Clearance

Sector Director Approval

29
APPENDIX 1

Scale for Working Scores and Ratings

SCORE EXPLANATION

4 Very Good- Fully achieved with no shortcomings

3 Good- Mostly achieved despite a few shortcomings

Fair- Partially achieved. Shortcomings and achievements are roughly

2
balanced

1 Poor- Very limited achievement with extensive shortcomings

NA Non Applicable

Note: The formulas round up or down for decimal points. Only whole numbers are
computed.

30
 Annex 1

COMMENTS ON ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The project’s economic analysis at completion was done using data on input costs, production selling prices and crop
yields obtained by the mission during discussions with beneficiaries. The economic rate of return was calculated based
on the project’s additional benefits over a period of 20 years. The additional benefits retained are those that are easily
quantifiable, and stem from increased agricultural production of rain-fed and irrigated crops.

Rice yields in West Africa averaged 1.8 t/ha on farmers’ plots, varying from 1.5 t/ha to 2.5 t by country and by type of
rice variety. NERICA rice plots had average yields estimated at 3 t/ha. It is estimated that about 200 000 ha are farmed
for NERICA rice, with a production of about 700 000 t. The operating accounts were established consequent upon the
yields attained, which are linked to gradual implementation of technology packages (inputs, farming techniques) and
the level of support measures and advisory support provided to farmers by various project partners. The production
costs of a tonne of paddy rice are estimated averagely at USD 200. The total benefit accruing from NERICA rice
farming in the project area was determined by multiplying this net income per ha by the area added or converted to
NERICA rice farming.

A recent study conducted in April 2011 by an FAO, CILSS, WFP and CIRAD team, shows that NERICA has a
significant impact on increased areas under rice cultivation, which rose from 5 million ha in 2006 to 6.2 million ha in
2009. The self-sufficiency rate increased for Benin from 23% in 2006 to 34% in 2009, for Mali from 79% to 90%, and
for Guinea from 125% to 130%. The growth rate of rice imports slowed down very considerably. Indeed, the imports
increased from 5 million tons in 2006 to only 5.2 million tons in 2009, whereas they increased from 3.2 million tons to
4.9 million tons, over the period 2001-2005.

Sierra Leone. Ghana. Nigeria. The Gambia.

The production cost of one ha of NERICA rice varied from one country to another. Thus, it stood at
GMD 12 000, NGN 66 650, SLL 3.15 million, respectively, for The Gambia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. The production
cost for Ghana stands at USD 220 per ton. The cultivated areas varied gradually for the duration of the project to reach
and, in a good year, even exceed the surface areas indicated in the Appraisal Report. These areas stand at 63 000 ha, 10
141 ha, 7 400 ha and 12 230 ha, respectively, for The Gambia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Ghana.

Sierra Leone

- Cultivated areas: 7 400 ha

- Average yield: 2.5 t/ha
- Production costs of a ton of paddy rice: USD 200
- Rice farm-gate price: USD 250 on average

Ghana

- Cultivated areas: 12 230 ha

- Average yield: 2.5 t/ha
- Production costs of a ton of paddy rice: USD 220
- Rice farm-gate price: USD 250 on average

The Gambia

- Cultivated areas: 63 000 ha

- Average yield: 2 t/ha
- Production costs of a ton of paddy rice: USD 210
- Rice farm gate price: USD 250 on average.

I
Nigeria

- Cultivated areas: 10 141 ha

- Average yield: 1.8 t/ha
- Production costs of a ton of paddy rice: USD 220
- Rice farm-gate price: USD 280 on average

Starting from a reference yield of 2t /ha, the project’s internal rate of return reached 27%, 26%, 39% and
31%, respectively, for Sierra Leone, Nigeria, The Gambia and Ghana, on project sites. The Gambia’s 39%
IRR is attributable to experience acquired by this country in NERICA’s adoption for more than a decade,
enabling it to optimize the production costs of one ha of rice.
Benin, Guinea, Mali
The surface areas stand at 17 035 ha, 48 000 ha and 54 000 ha, respectively, for Benin, Guinea and Mali.
Benin
- Cultivated areas: 17 035 ha
- Average yield: 2.5 t/ha
- Production costs of a tonne of paddy rice: USD 150
- Rice farm-gate price: USD 250 on average
Guinea
- Cultivated areas: 48 000 ha
- Average yield: 2 t/ha
- Production costs of a tonne of paddy rice: USD 150
- Rice farm-gate price: USD 250 on average
Mali
- Cultivated areas: 54 000 ha
- Average yield: 3 t/ha
- Production costs of a tonne of paddy rice: USD 180
- Rice farm-gate price: USD 300 on average

The project’s internal rate of return reached 36 % for Mali on project sites. For Benin and Guinea, they are
estimated at 25%.

II
 Annex 2

GAMBIA
RATE OF RETURN
(Thousand GMD)

Year Year Investment Operating Operating Net

costs income Income

1 2006 6 373 48 000 -28 000 -82 373

2 2007 1 704 38 372 -22 000 -62 076
3 2008 5 920 17 704 96 000 72 376
4 2009 16 681 5 920 96 000 73 399
5 2010 1 716 681 96 000 93 603
6 2011 4 301 30 284 96 000 61 415
7 2012 31 537 35 699 96 000 28 764
8 2013 0 12 436 96 000 83 564
9 2014 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
10 2015 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
11 2016 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
12 2017 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
13 2018 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
14 2019 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
15 2020 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
16 2021 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
17 2022 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
18 2023 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
19 2024 0 48 000 96 000 48 000
20 2025 0 48 000 96 000 48 000

SORTED over 20 39%

years

III
SIERRA LEONE
Annex 3
RATE OF RETURN
Year Year Investment Operating Operating Net income
costs income

1 2006 1 877 407 7 277 407 -500 000 -9 654 814

2 2007 2 945 408 6 345 408 400 000 -8 890 816
3 2008 2 951 994 4 351 994 5 000 000 -2 303 988
4 2009 4 092 885 3 492 885 8 000 000 414 230
5 2010 2 879 536 279 536 10 000 000 6 840 928
6 2011 4 200 509 399 491 13 600 000 9 000 000
7 2012 0 6 600 000 15 600 000 9 000 000
8 2013 0 7 400 000 18 000 000 10 600 000
9 2014 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
10 2015 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
11 2016 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
12 2017 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
13 2018 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
14 2019 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
15 2020 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
16 2021 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
17 2022 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
18 2023 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
19 2024 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000
20 2025 0 7 400 000 19 500 000 12 100 000

SORTED over 20 years 27%

IV
 Annex 4

NIGERIA

RATE OF RETURN
(Thousand NAIRA)

Year Year Investment Operating costs Operating income Net income

1 2006 51 294 200 000 55 000 -196 294

2 2007 23 120 201 294 126 000 -98 414
3 2008 94 000 123 120 140 000 -77 120
4 2009 264 000 144 000 170 000 -238 000
5 2010 274 136 214 000 210 000 -278 136
6 2011 225 275 174 136 390 000 -9 411
7 2012 271 783 25 275 560 000 262 942
8 2013 0 21 783 750 000 728 217
9 2014 0 300 000 750 000 450 000
10 2015 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
11 2016 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
12 2017 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
13 2018 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
14 2019 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
15 2020 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
16 2021 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
17 2022 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
18 2023 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
19 2024 0 300 000 770 000 470 000
20 2025 0 300 000 770 000 470 000

SORTED over 20 years 26%

V
 Annex 5

GHANA

RATE OF RETURN
(GHC)

Year Year Investment Operating profits Net profits

Operating costs

1 2006 844 335 844 210 -125

2 2007 17 996 993 3 628 623 -14 368 370
3 2008 1 096 488 393 488 -703 000
4 2009 984 125 3 840 675 2 856 550
5 2010 490 702 4 781 948 4 291 246
6 2011 248 415 6 850 675 6 602 260
7 2012 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
8 2013 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
9 2014 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
10 2015 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
11 2016 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
12 2017 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
13 2018 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
14 2019 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
15 2020 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
16 2021 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
17 2022 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
18 2023 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
19 2024 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933
20 2025 589 667 8 940 600 8 350 933

SORTED over 20 years 31%

VI
 Annex 6

MALI

RATE OF RETURN
(Thousand CFAF)

Year Year Investment Operating income Net income

Operating costs

1 2006 3 150 2 800 -350

2 2007 8 500 3 500 -5 000
3 2008 8 700 10 500 1 800
4 2009 14 200 15 300 1 100
5 2010 16 150 18 300 2 150
6 2011 17 750 20 150 2 400
7 2012 17 750 20 150 2 400
8 2013 17 750 20 150 2 400
9 2014 17 750 20 150 2 400
10 2015 17 750 20 150 2 400
11 2016 17 750 20 150 2 400
12 2017 17 750 20 150 2 400
13 2018 17 750 20 150 2 400
14 2019 17 750 20 150 2 400
15 2020 17 750 20 150 2 400
16 2021 17 750 20 150 2 400
17 2022 17 750 20 150 2 400
18 2023 17 750 20 150 2 400
19 2024 17 750 20 150 2 400
20 2025 17 750 20 150 2 400

SORTED over 20
years 36%

VII