Madagascar - Agricultural Extension Program Support Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 22231 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (IDA-27290) ONA CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$25.2 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF MADAGASCAR FOR AN AGRICULTTJRAL EXTENSION PROGRAM SUPPORT PROJECT MAY 23, 2001 Rural Development 2 Africa This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective 1994 -2001) Currency Unit = Malagasy Franc (FMG) Average FMG per US Dollar 1995 3,423 1996 4,328 1997 5,285 1998 5,402 1999 6,543 2000 6,767 In Year 2000 1 FMG = US$ 0.0001477 US$ I = 6,767 FMG FISCAL YEAR January I - December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS APL Adaptable Program Lending (Pret a des programmes evolutifs) AVB Field-level Extension Agent (Agent Vulgarisateur de Base) CIRAGRI Agricultural Extension District (Circonscription Agricole) CMS Seed Multiplication Centers (Centres de Multiplication Semenciers) CNLA National Committee for Locust Control (Comiti National de Lutte Antiacridienne) DAPP Directorate for Professionalizing Agricultural Producers (Direction d'Appui a la professionalisation des producteurs) DRA Regional Agricultural Office (Direction Regionale de I'Agriculture) EU European Union (Union Europeenne) FMG Malagasy franc (Franc Malgache) FOFIFA National Center of Applied Research for Rural Development (Centre National de Recherche Appliqude pour le Developpement Rural) GDP Gross Domestic Product (Produit National Brut) ICB International Competitive bidding (Appel d'offre international) ICR Implementation Completion Report (Rapport d'achevement de projet) IDA International Development Association (Association pour le Developpement International) MOA Ministry of Agriculture (Ministere de I 'Agriculture) NAEP National Agricultural Extension Program (Programme National pour la Vulgarisation Agricole) NBF Non-Bank Financed (Non finance par la Banque Mondiale) NCB National Competitive bidding (Appel d 'offre national) NGO Non-Governmental Organization (Organisation Non-Gouvernementale) ONE National Environment Office (Office National pour l 'Environnement) PMiU Project Management Unit (Cellule de gestion du projet) PNVA Agricultural Extension Program Support Project (Projet d'Appui au Programme de Vulgarisation Agricole) PPI 2 Second Irrigation Rehabilitation Project (Projet Perimetres Irrigues 2) PO Producer Organization (Organisation de Producteurs) SAR Staff Appraisal Report (Rapport d'evaluation de projet) VLPA Village Level Participatory Approach (Approche Participative Niveau Village) Vice President: Callisto Madavo Country Manager/Director: Hafez Ghanem Sector Manager/Director: Joseph Baah-Dwomoh Task Team Leader/Task Manager: Ousmane Seck  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY REPUBLIC OF MADAGASCAR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROGRAM SUPPORT PROJECT CONTENTS Page No. 1. Project Data 1 2. Principal Performance Ratings 1 3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 2 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4 5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 9 6. Sustainability 10 7. Bank and Borrower Performance 11 8. Lessons Learned 12 9. Partner Comments 13 10. Additional Information 14 Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 15 Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 16 Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 20 Annex 4. Bank Inputs 2I Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 23 Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 24 Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 25 Annex 8. Summary of Borrower's Implementation Completion Report 27 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not be otherwise disclosed without World Bank authorization.   Project ID: P00 1563 Project Name: Ag. Extension Program Support Project Team Leader: Ousmane Seck TL Unit: AFTR2 ICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: May 23, 2001 1. Project Data Name: Ag. Extension Program Support Project L/C/TFNumber: IDA-27290 CountryIDepartment: MADAGASCAR Region: Africa Regional Office Sector/subsector: AE - Agricultural Extension KEY DATES Original Revised/Actual PCD: 02/06/91 Effective: 10/28/95 11/28/95 Appraisal: 01/04/95 MTR: 03/15/98 06/20/98 Approval: 05/23/95 Closing: 12/31/2000 12/31/2000 Borrower/lImplementing Agency: GOVERNMENT/Ministry of Agriculture Other Partners: None STAFF Current At Appraisal Vice President: Callisto Madavo Edward V. K. Jaycox Country Manager: Hafez Ghanem Andrew P. Rogerson Sector Manager: Joseph Baah-Dwomoh Nils 0. Tcheyan Team Leader at ICR: Ousmane Seck Christopher Trapmai ICR Primary Author: Jumana Farah 2. Principal Performance Ratings (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likeiy, UN=Unlikely, HUN=High' Unlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible) Outcome: S Sustainability: UN Institutional Development Impact: M Bank Performance: S Borrower Performance: U QAG (if available) ICR Quality at Entry: U Project at Risk at Any Time: No  3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 3.1 Original Objective: In the early 1990s, Madagascar's agricultural development strategy recognized that growth and income increases were possible for a large number of farmers if they were supported by professional agricultural extension services. The government also acknowledged that the multiplicity of efforts in support of agricultural extension, under the numerous projects supported by public and nongovernmental (NGO) agencies throughout Madagascar, had achieved few sustainable results and did not make the best use of the scarce resources provided in the public investment program. By introducing a national system, to which different donors can contribute over time, the government intended to reduce the number of separate efforts being made to bring technical advice to farmers. In a letter to all donors in February 1995, the government confirmed its policy to follow a national agricultural extension program approach and invited donors to contribute accordingly. The Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) stated that the Agricultural Extension Program Support Project (PNVA) will support the first phase of a long-term (15--20 years) National Agricultural Extension Program (NAEP) whose objectives are to increase agricultural productivity and farmers' incomes in an environmentally sustainable manner, and to rationalize use of public resources in support of agricultural services. The SAR also stated that NAEP is to upgrade agricultural services countrywide, making extension services available to the country's approximately 1.5 million farm families. However, the Development Credit Agreement (DCA) listed these same objectives for the 5-year PNVA (project) and not the 15-20-year NAEP (program). PNVA's objectives as described in the DCA were clear but overly ambitious and unrealistic in the five-year time frame. The project's goals were also unattainable because of a design that did not link project implementation with activities in other dependent sectors, despite the efforts during implementation to establish and strengthen collaboration with other operations in the sector. The Implementation Completion Report (ICR) team elected to measure the achievements of the project against the objectives stipulated in the SAR and not the DCA, with PNVA contributing to NAEP's objectives (by financing the first five-year phase) and not substituting to the program itself By these standards, the project was in line with the government's development vision and policy. By providing professional agricultural services to the farming community, the project's activities were central to the government's strategy: (a) to reduce poverty and improve the conditions of life in the rural areas; (b) to improve agricultural productivity; (c) to optimize the use of available resources; and (d) to protect the environment. The project also fit into the 1994 World Bank Country Assistance Strategy, which sought to attack poverty (partly through improving per capita income and consumption levels), to improve natural resource management, and to build local capacity. The SAR flagged the risk that the government might not be able to meet its counterpart funding engagement to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability of NAEP. This concern was mitigated by the government's commitment to not approve any donor funding for other independent parallel projects. Such an approach would reduce the burden on counterpart funding and liberate otherwise unavailable funds to contribute to a bigger share of the government's funding of NAEP. Although the risk of not having the required number of quality extension staff was not identified in the SAR, it became apparent during implementation that this was a problem, and that its solution was critical to the success of the project. Fortunately, the staffing problem was taken care of by forging partnerships with different entities (public sector, army, communes, NGOs). -2 -  3.2 Revised Objective: PNVA's objectives did not change after the mid-term review conducted in 1998. However, activities of the project were concentrated in accessible regions with high agricultural potential (special attention was given to rice-producing areas). This focus was to make better use of the limited number of extension staff, which was less than initially anticipated. 3.3 Original Components: The project's original components were as follows: