Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: ICR00004350 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT IDA-41950 & IDA-54750 ON A CREDIT/GRANT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SDR78.4 MILLION (US$116 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE BURKINA FASO FOR THE AGRICULTURAL DIVERSIFICATION AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ( P081567 ) February 26,2018 Agriculture Global Practice Africa Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective Dec 13, 2017) Currency Unit = CFA Franc (XOF) XOF 557= US$1 US$ = SDR 1 FISCAL YEAR July 1 - June 30 Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Pierre Frank Laporte Senior Global Practice Director: Juergen Voegele Practice Manager: Marianne Grosclaude Task Team Leader: Nicolas Ahouissoussi ICR Task Team Leader: Nabil M. Chaherli ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADMDP Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project AF Additional Financing AFD Agence Française de Développement (French Development Agency) AOP Annual Operational Plan CAS Country Assistance Strategy CFAF CFA Franc (Currency of the West African Economic and Monetary Union ) CIC-B Comité Interprofessionnel des Céréales du Burkina COD Cash on Delivery CPS Country Partnership Strategy DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DGADI Direction Générale des Aménagements du Développement de l’Irrigation DGPER Direction Générale de la Promotion de l’Economie Rurale DIPAC Développement de l’Irrigation Privée et des Activités Connexes (Pilot Private Irrigation Development Project) DO Development Objectivce DPS Diagnostic-pays Systématique (Systematic Country Diagnostic) DTIS Diagnostic Trade Integration Study ERR Economic Rate of Return ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FM Financial Management GDP Gross Domestic Product GF Guarantee Fund GoBF Government of Burkina Faso IBRD International Bank of Reconstruction and Development IDA International Development Assistance IF Initial Financing IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan IPO Inter-professional Organizations ISR Implementation Status and Results Report IRR Internal Rate of Return MASA Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Sécurité Alimentaire (Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security) MEBF Maison de l'Entreprise du Burkina Faso M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEHA Ministère de l’Eau, de l’Hydraulique et de l’Assainissement (Ministry of Water, Hydraulic Planning and Sanitation) MP Micro-project MTR Mid-Term Review MoU Memorandum of Understanding NPV Net Present Value OHADA Organisation pour l’Harmonisation des Droits des Affaires en Afrique (Organization for the Hamonization of Business Law in Africa) PAD Project Appraisal Document PAFASP Projet d’Appui aux Filières Agro-Sylvo-Pastorales (Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project) PAP Project Affected People PCU Project Coordination Unit PDO Projet Development Objective POA Plan Opérationnel Annuel (Annual Operational Plan) PP Project Paper PNDSA Projet National de Développement des Services Agricoles (National Agricultural Services Development Project) PNDES Plan National de Développement Economique and Social (National Economic and Social Developement Plan) PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper RAP Resettlement Action Plan RDS Rural Development Strategy RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SBA Small Business Administration SCADD Stratégie de Croissance Accélérée et de Développement Durable (Accelerated Growth and Sustainable Development Strategy) SDP Strategic Development Plan SDR Special Drawing Rights SME Small and Medium Enterprise SOFIGIB Société Financière et de Garantie Interbancaire du Burkina (Financial Company of Interbank Guarantee of Burkina Faso) SP/CPSA Secretariat Permanent/Coordination Politique du Secteur Agricole (Permanent Secretariat/Coordination of Agricultural Sectoral Policy) USAID United States Agency for International Development WB World Bank Table of Contents DATA SHEET .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 6 A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL .........................................................................................................6 B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................. 10 II. OUTCOME .................................................................................................................... 12 A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs ............................................................................................................ 12 B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs ........................................................................................................ 13 C. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING .................................................................... 22 D. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS ........................................................................................ 22 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 23 A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION ................................................................................... 24 B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................. 24 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 26 A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ............................................................ 26 B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ..................................................... 27 C. BANK PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 28 D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ....................................................................................... 29 V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 30 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................... 32 ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 39 ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 41 ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 43 ANNEX 5. SUMMARY OF BORROWER’S ICR .......................................................................... 46 ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .................................................................................. 50 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) DATA SHEET BASIC INFORMATION Product Information Project ID Project Name AGRICULTURAL DIVERSIFICATION AND MARKET P081567 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ( P081567 ) Country Financing Instrument Burkina Faso Specific Investment Loan Original EA Category Revised EA Category Partial Assessment (B) Partial Assessment (B) Related Projects Relationship Project Approval Product Line Additional Financing P147978-AF- 13-Jun-2014 IBRD/IDA Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project Organizations Borrower Implementing Agency MInistry of Finance Project Coordination Unit (PCU) Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO The project development objective is to increase the competitiveness of selected agricultural subsectors that target national and regional markets, thereby contributing to broad-based agricultural growth in Burkina-Faso. Page 1 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) FINANCING Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) World Bank Financing 66,000,000 65,984,654 70,907,934 IDA-41950 50,000,000 50,000,000 42,881,769 IDA-54750 Total 116,000,000 115,984,654 113,789,703 Non-World Bank Financing Borrower 3,500,000 0 0 Local Farmer Organizations 7,500,000 0 0 Foreign Private Commercial 7,500,000 0 0 Sources (identified) Total 18,500,000 0 0 Total Project Cost 134,500,000 115,984,654 113,789,703 KEY DATES Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing 20-Jun-2006 11-Dec-2006 01-Mar-2010 31-Mar-2013 30-Jun-2017 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions 23-Sep-2014 68.70 19-Feb-2016 89.15 KEY RATINGS Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Substantial Page 2 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs Actual No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Disbursements (US$M) 01 05-Oct-2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0 02 26-Nov-2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.23 03 31-May-2008 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 2.85 04 08-Oct-2008 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 3.90 05 05-Jun-2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 8.17 06 21-Dec-2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 16.41 07 28-Jun-2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 19.85 08 26-Mar-2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 24.63 09 04-Jan-2012 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 30.25 10 01-Jul-2012 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 34.39 11 22-Apr-2013 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 39.64 12 24-Nov-2013 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 41.55 13 25-Mar-2014 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 43.48 14 05-May-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 43.48 15 29-Nov-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 45.55 16 25-May-2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 49.95 17 20-Nov-2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 51.37 18 29-Apr-2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 62.30 19 31-Oct-2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 69.64 20 04-May-2017 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 74.38 Page 3 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Major Sector/Sector (%) Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 100 Agricultural Extension, Research, and Other Support 34 Activities Irrigation and Drainage 33 Public Administration 100 Central Government (Central Agencies) 9 Industry, Trade and Services 100 Agricultural markets, commercialization and agri- 24 business Themes Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%) Economic Policy 29 Trade 29 Trade Facilitation 29 Private Sector Development 19 Jobs 5 Job Creation 5 Regional Integration 14 Urban and Rural Development 53 Urban Development 5 Urban Infrastructure and Service Delivery 5 Rural Development 48 Rural Markets 14 Rural Infrastructure and service delivery 34 Page 4 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Regional Vice President: Gobind T. Nankani Makhtar Diop Country Director: Mats Karlsson Pierre Frank Laporte Senior Global Practice Director: Mary A. Barton-Dock Juergen Voegele Practice Manager: Mary A. Barton-Dock Marianne Grosclaude Task Team Leader(s): Abdoulaye Toure Nicolas Ahouissoussi ICR Contributing Author: Nabil M. Chaherli Page 5 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL 1. Burkina Faso—ranked among the poorest1 countries in the world at appraisal—is a landlocked, small country (274,200 km2) characterized by two major challenges (i)a fast growing, mostly young population2; and (ii) an erratic climatic conditions. Agriculture remained the dominant sector, providing livelihood for 86 percent of the population, generating 80 percent of exports, and accounting for 40 percent of gross national product (GNP). The overall incidence of poverty had been declining over 1998- 2003, but poverty remained high (46.4%), with 94 percent of the poor living in rural areas. Still, over the past 10 years, the country had engineered encouraging economic growth of 5.5 percent per annum, helped by an even stronger performance of 7.8 percent annual growth in the agricultural sector. These features explain why enhancing the contribution of private sector-led agricultural sector to economic growth and poverty reduction had been the hallmark of the Government’s policies and strategies over the years3. Agricultural diversification was increasingly viewed as a growth opportunity to buttress and reduce the vulnerability of the agricultural sector that was far dominated by cotton, cereals, and livestock. Diversifying into commercial agriculture was critical in making growth sustainable, stable, and with outreach to rural areas. Taping into this growth opportunity, however, required addressing key constraints related to policies and the enabling framework for buisiness, investments in infrastructure, and public and private institutions. It is in this context that the Government of Burkina Faso (GoBF) approached the Bank to assist in the preparation and funding of the agricultural diversification and market development project (PAFASP4) while focusing on select agro-sylvo-pastoral value chains. 2. The rationale for the Bank involvement was: (i) the proposed project was aligned with the country’s Rural Development Strategy (RDS) and Bank-supported poverty reduction support project (PRSP). It would also contribute to the 2005 Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy’s (CAS) results related to regional integration, export earnings, economic opportunities for women, and revenues for rural households. Finally, the Bank also had relevant, long-standing country experience including the Pilot Private Irrigation Project (DIPAC5) and the National Agricultural Services Development Project (PDNSA6). The proposed project was also to contribute to high-level objectives, including the RDS-aligned objectives, which were to: promote sustainable agricultural development, improve food security, and increase rural incomes. 1 US$ 350 per capita in 2003 (PAD, March 2006). 2 In 2005, the population was 13.42 million people; the density was 49 persons/km2; the growth rate was 3.03% (worldpupulationreview.com); and the median age was 16.6 years (Statista.com). As of July 2017, the population has reached 19.17 million people, the density 70 persons/km2, and the growth 2.83% (worldpopulationreview.com). 3 Agricultural Sector Adjustment Program (1990), Policy Letter of Decentralized Rural Development (2002), Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP, 2003), Rural Development Strategy (RDS, 2003), Strategy for Accelerated Growth and Sustainable Development (SCADD, 2011-2016). The SCADD supported the Additional Financial (AF) approved in 2014. 4 PAFASP: French acronym for Projet d’appui aux filières agro-sylvo-pastorales 5 DIPAC: French acronym for Développement de l’irrigation privée et des activités connexes 6 PNDSA: French acronym for Programme national de développement des services agricoles Page 6 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Theory of Change (Results Chain) 3. Linking smallholders in Burkina Faso to dynamic international, regional, and domestic markets provides an opportunity for more rapid poverty reduction but ensuring that investment delivers both commercially viable products and value to smallholder presents structural challenges. Decades of underinvestment before PAFASP meant that small-scale producers in Burkina Faso operated in areas with inadequate infrastructure (irrigation and wholesale markets but also roads and electricity). They lacked access to services (training, inputs) and were highly dependent on favorable weather. High procurement costs associated with collecting, grading and bulking products from dispersed suppliers, along with problems of farmers ‘side selling’ to traders, required creative solutions to aggregating production and supplying the consistent quality that formal markets require. Rather than attempting to immediately link the poorest farmers to the most demanding markets, PAFASP, tried therefore a more gradual approach that was value-chain specific to increase investments and provide tailor made services to small-scale farmers by helping them move one level up and establish better commercial relations with agro-businesses. Supporting farmers and businesses with improved incentives and investments benefited also from changes in the enabling environment and value chain institutional strengthening and capacity building. Figure 1 shows how the changes sought via specific activities financed by the project contributed to improving competitiveness of value chains. 4. Underlying the theory of change of the project were four key implicit assumptions related to the critical constraints hindering the development of the value chains. The first assumption was that establishing a structured, formal inter-professional organization within a value chain was a prerequisite to improving coordination and overall performance of that chain. A second was that micro-projects’ informal operators nurtured into formal small-medium enterprises (SME) by the business incubator (Maison de l’entreprise du Burkina Faso) will be better equipped to access credit on their own. A third was that specialized private operators would be available to manage efficiently the collective market infrastructure to be built at great expense by the project. A fourth assumption was that strengthened public and private service providers will be able to provide the requisite support to inter-professional organizations (IPO) for them to flourish, and not to flounder after the project closes. Page 7 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Figure 1: PAFASP Implicit Results chain at design stage Project Development Objectives (PDOs) 5. The development objective of the project was to increase the competitiveness of selected agricultural sub-sectors that target national, sub-regional and international markets, thereby contributing to share agricultural growth in Burkina Faso. To achieve this PDO the project pursued three sub-objectives, which were to: (i) support private-sector organizations and commodity associations; (ii) develop productive and marketing infrastructure; and (iii) improve the provision and efficiency of core support services. Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators 6. The development outcomes expected at the project close were the following: (i) a better organization and coordination of private operators along the selected supply chains; (ii) professional and inter-professional organizations able to deliver services to their members; (iii) an increase in the value of production and exports; (iv) a legal/regulatory framework and a business investment environment more attractive to private investors; and (v) a network of public and private service providers, prompt and efficient in responding to private operators needs . 7. The key outcome indicators designed to measure the project performance were as follows: (a) Burkina agricultural exports for the targeted supply chains (except cotton) on the international market reached 35,000 tons at the end of the project in the initial financing (IF), revised to 106, 500 tons in the additional financing (AF); Page 8 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) (b) Burkina agricultural exports for the targeted supply chains (except cotton) on the sub-regional market reached 20,000 tons at the end of the project IF, revised to 96,000 tons in the AF; (c) At least 60 percent of producers that benefited from project support have increased their income from targeted supply chains by at least 50 percent; and (d) The number of beneficiaries7 reached 200,000 at the end of the project (IF), revised to 375,000 (AF) in the AF. Components The project was made up of the following three components: Component 1: Improvement of agro-sylvo-pastoral supply chains8 performance (IDA: US$46.4 million). 8. This component aimed at improving the performance of targeted sub-sectors by improving supply chain coordination and strengthening private operators’ capacities to respond to market opportunities and requirements. It would also improve the productivity of targeted value chains (mango, onion, poultry, and livestock-meat). The component had two sub-components9: (i) Capacity building for professional and agricultural trade organizations (IDA: US$8.9 million); and (ii) Investment for supply chain development (IDA: US$37.5 million). Component 2: Development of irrigation and market infrastructure (IDA: US$45.6 million). 9. Its objectives were to improve productivity in the targeted supply chains, availability of productive and marketing infrastructure, and implementation of private-led operation of market infrastructure. This component had two sub-components. The first sub-component would finance the development of an irrigation infrastructure (IDA: US$35.1 million). The second sub-component would support the construction of market infrastructure (IDA: US$10.5 million). Component 3: Improvement of the business environment, regulatory framework and provision of advisory services10 (IDA: US$24.0 million). 10. This component aimed at making the business environment more attractive to local and foreign investors, by creating an enabling legal and regulatory framework more conducive to investments. It would also strengthen the capacity of public and private service providers serving the targeted value chains. Planned activities included supporting: (a) Improvement of regulatory, legal and financial framework under sub-component 3.1. (IDA: US$1.9 million ); (b) Capacity building for service providers under sub-component 3.2 (IDA: US$12.1 million); (c) project coordination and management through equipment and other operating costs, monitoring and evaluation, communication, among others under sub-component 3.3 (IDA: US$10.0 million). 7 This indicator was added to the original results framework (RF) at the mid-term review (MTR) of the initial project financing. 8 The project used supply chain, value chain and sub-sector interchangeably. 9 The original sub-component 1.1. “Capacity building for professional and agricultural trade organizations “was relabeled in the AF as “Strengthening the professional and inter-professional organizations and supporting the competitiveness of value chains,” and the original sub- component 1.2. “Investment for supply chain development” relabeled as “Support for traders, producers and small processors an d access to finance.” 10 The original component 3: was relabeled in the AF as” Improving the institutional environment, regulatory framework and provision of advisory services including project coordination and management, including through a dedicated PCU.” The original sub-component 3.2. “Capacity building for service providers” was relabeled in the AF as “strengthening of support and support services sectors.” As of the original component 3.3. “Project coordination and management,” it was relabeled as “Coordination and monitoring and evaluation of the Project,” which serves to indicate the editorial nature of these changes. Page 9 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets 11. The original PDO was not changed. However, the overall results framework was revisited for targets update and more focus on the project’s key outcomes. The PDO level indicators remained largely the same, with PDO outcome targets adjusted in the Additional Financing (AF). The changes consisted mainly of increases in agricultural exports both at international and regional levels, as well as in the number of total beneficiaries. For instance, the initial target for international exports rose by over three- folds from 35,000 tons at appraisal to 106,500 tons in the AF, and that for regional exports experienced almost a five-fold increase from 20,000 tons at appraisal to 96,000 tons in the AF. Similarly, the number of total project beneficiaries increased from 200,000 at appraisal to 375,000 in the AF. But, the target for the indicator for the percentage of producers with increased revenue of 50 percent did not change. In additional, the PDO indicator for the project beneficiaries was disaggregated by gender after the MTR. Finally, the target for expected female beneficiaries doubled from 15 percent at appraisal to 30 percent with the AF. Revised PDO Indicators Table 1: Changes in Output indicators by components induced by the AF Comp Status of Changes in Output indicators onent indicator Revised Number of inter-professional organizations; number of micro-projects implemented; and credit amount accessed with guarantee fund Frozen Cotton yield increase; cotton production increase 1 New Consolidated/converted micro-projects; converted micro-projects into SME; mango yield; onion yield; cattle fattening gain; marketable poultry yield Revised Irrigation scheme area of 5,000 scaled back to 4,400 ha 2 Frozen 1,000 hectares of irrigated receiving irrigation equipment Revised Major constraints removed; performance contracts negotiated Frozen Service provider capacity building action plan; national strategy for agricultural education, dissemination of M&E results to private operators 3 New indicators Original indicator regulatory texts split into two: Regulatory texts drafted/revised; regulatory texts disseminated Revised Components 12. The AF introduced new output indicators, revised targets, and froze the tracking of some original ones, as detailed in (Table 1) below. There was a slight modification in the labeling of subcomponents 1.1 and 1.2, component 3, and sub-component 3.2 (reported earlier in the component section). Page 10 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Table 2: Reallocation of IDA Funds after the 2014 Additional Financing (US$) Components/Sub-components Allocation at Allocation after Appraisal (US$) 2014 Additional Financing (US$) Component 1: Improvement of agro-sylvo-pastoral supply chains 28,000,000 46,400,000 performance Sub-component 1.1: Capacity building for professional and 7,000,000 8,900,000 agricultural trade organizations Sub-component 1.2: Investment for supply chain development 21,000,000 37,500,000 Component 2: Development of irrigation and market infrastructure 26,700,000 45,600,000 Sub-component 2.1: Irrigation infrastructure 20,700,000 35,100,000 Sub-component 2.2: Market infrastructure 6,000,000 10,400,000 Component 3: Improvement of the business environment, 11,300,000 24,000,000 regulatory framework and provision of advisory service Sub-component 3.1. Improvement of regulatory, legal and financial 1,300,000 1,900,000 framework Sub-component 3.2. Capacity building for service providers 4,700,000 12,100,000 Sub-component 3.3. Project coordination and management 5,300,000 10,000,000 Total 66,000,000 116,000,000 Other Changes 13. The AF was momentous during project implementation; the four restructurings were equally consequential. (i) The AF (US$50.0 million IDA) was approved on June 13, 2014, as the IF was used up and the original project drawing to a final close (February 28, 2015), It brought the project’s overall IDA funding to US$160.0 million; its coverage from 9 to all 1311 regions of the country; and, along with the four restructurings, the operation’s total lifespan from 6 to 11 years (June 20, 2006 - June 30, 2017). The AF was the impetus for the upgraded outcome targets, revised output indicators, tweaked components’ labeling, and ultimately revamped Results Framework (RF). (ii) The four level 2 restructurings extended each time the closing date of the project: three restructurings in the Initial Financing extended the project for a total of two years12, and one in the AF for one year13. 14. Extensions of Project Closing Date. The project’s closing date was extended four times: three times during the Initial Financing (IF) and once during the Additional Financing (AF). The first extension of one year (from March 31st, 2013 through March 31st, 2014) as part of the first project restructuring; the second extension of five months (from March 31st, 2014 through September 30th, 2014) as part of the second restructuring; the third extension of five months (from September 24th, 2014 through February 28th, 2015) as part of the extension of the closing date of the IF. The third extension was approved to allow the completion of the construction of the market infrastructure. The AF was approved 11 The four added regions (with capitals) are: Center (Ouagadougou), Center East (Koupéla), East (Fada N’Gourma), and South West (Gaoua), justified on the ground of their high level of poverty headcount and potential for agricultural development (FA Project Paper) 12 The first restructuring (approved January 13, 2012) extended the original closing date from March 31, 2013 to March 31, 2014; the second restructuring extended that closing date to September 30, 2014; and the third extension (September 24, 2014) extended the closing date of the IF to February 28, 2015. In the meantime, the AF was approved on June 13, 2014 and became effective on October 9, 2014. The two IF and AF overlapped for about 5 months (October 2014 to February 2015). 13 The fourth restructuring (February 19, 2016) extended the AF closing for one year (June 30, 2016 to June 30, 2017). Page 11 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) on June 13th, 2014 and became effective on October 9th, 2014. The fourth and last extension of one year (from June 30th, 2016 through June 30th, 2017) as part of the fourth restructuring was granted to facilitate the completion of remaining activities before the project’s closing. 15. Expansion of Project Geographic Coverage. The project coverage was expanded geographically from its initial nine regions to include four additional regions, namely Center, Center East, East, and South West. The project covered all 13 Regions of Burkina at ICR. 16. Changes in Project Staffing. The project coordination unit (PCU) – made up of the national coordinator, finance and administration manager, and procurement specialist –provided the project leadership and remained stable. Positions of all three regional managers (chefs d’antenne) had to be filled anew for the implementation of the AF. The position of value chain development manager was split into three: crop value chain, animal value chain, and irrigation managers to better support implementation and follow-up of activities. Other new positions were also created to support fiduciary/safeguards/M&E aspects (internal auditor, operations manager, environmental and safeguards specialist, and database manager). 17. Extensions of the closing dates in the IF were justified by the need to complete irrigation and market infrastructures (construction was delayed by persistent procurement issues and rainfall 14) and to consolidate and expand project activities showing strong results. The extension of the AF closing date was requested to carry on activities that had been negatively impacted by the socio-political turmoil beginning October 2015. II. OUTCOME A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating Overall Rating: High 18. The project development objective remains highly relevant. It is fully in line with the country’s Strategy for Accelerated Growth and Sustainable Development (SCADD15). It is also consistent with the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), and the subsequent Country Partnership Strategy (CPS). The project has contributed to four results of the 2005 CAS: Increased Regional integration; Expanded and Diversified Export Earnings; Increased Economic Opportunities for Women; and Reduced Risk and Increased Revenues for Rural Households. It also contributed to the 2013-2016 CPS’s Outcome Reduced infrastructure deficits and more effective value chains. In addition, the 2017 Specific Country Diagnostic (CSD)16 set priorities that the project had made its own during implementation (e.g. Reducing the Gender bias against Women; Building inclusive and transparent institutions; and Promoting Competition and Private Sector Development to Stimulate Efficiency and Innovation). 14 The third extension (9/30/14 to 2/28/15) was for the completion of market infrastructure delayed by the rainy season. 15 SCADD: French acronym for Stratégie de croissance accélérée de développement durable. 16 World Bank, 2017. Burkina Faso: Priorities for Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity. Country Specific Diagnostic Page 12 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) 19. Considering the important regime change of 2015, the PDO remains strikingly in line in 2017 with: (i) findings from the WBG 2017 Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) highlighting the key constraints behind the low productivity of the agricultural sector and of the non-farm sector and the limited and unequal provision of basic infrastructure including water, transportation, and ICT sectors; (ii) as well as the 2016-2020 National Socio-economic Development Plan (PNDES) aiming at the structural transformation of the economy by 2020. The PNDES is built around increasing value added in the primary sector thanks to improved productivity in the agro-sylvo-pastoral sub-sectors and the emergence of a modern economy based on industry and services. B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDO Overall Rating: Substantial 20. There is no ground for a split assessment of the PDO. There was no significant revision of the project development objective, PDO indicators, or components. With the increased resources of the AF, outcome targets and the corresponding output indicators set at the design were increased., , (table 1 above). There was a continuum in the project with the AF, rather than the sense of two separate operations that would have triggered a split assessment. Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome 21. Table 3 presents the overall achievement of the PDO at the end of the project’s total 11 -year lifespan. The achievement shown is at par with expectations. However, the question is: To what extent are these good results all attributable to the project? Each outcome is assessed to analyze the evidence of the causal links, if any, which can be traced backwards from the outcome to the relevant outputs, and to the specific project’s activities. At the design stage, the theory of change/results chain examined how and why the expected outcomes would be achieved if the operation implemented its activities. At the close of the project, the theory of change/results chain is put to the test to examine how and why the expected outcomes, if any, have indeed been achieved. Page 13 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Table 3: Achievement of PDO Baseline (a) Target at Revised Result (c) Actual indicators appraisal Target in AF achievement (2006) (2014)(b) (d) (%) International exports of 6,000 35,000 226,130* 106,500 213 selected products (tons) Regional exports of selected 17,000 20,000 96,000 121,993* 127 products (tons) Percent beneficiaries with 50% 0 60% 60% 78% 130 revenue increase Direct beneficiaries 0 200,000 375,000 409,101 109 including women 0 15% 30% 30.4% 101 Notes: (a) baseline of IF; (b) upgraded target in AF, (c ) combined result of IF + AF * Results of first semester of 2017 were not available as of October 2017 Outcome 1: Increased volume of exports of selected products to international markets: Rating: Modest 22. Increasing the volume of exports depends on the following key factors (assuming effective demand present) identified in the theory of change/results chain: improved yield, production, product quality, coordination, and partnership. The exports to the international markets (226,130 tons against the expected 106,500 tons, more than doubling the target) were made of fresh and dried mango and sesame. The results achieved shows a domination of sesame exports (94% of international exports). The contribution of the project to these results is examined below. 23. The contribution of the mango value chain to the achievement of project outcome 1 can be attributed to the following key outputs resulting from the project’s activities: increased yields, quality, production, and better coordination. Mango producers adopted a wide range of improved agricultural practices17 (i.e., pruning, and grafting of varieties in demand), which resulted in yield increase by 113 percent. Timely treatment of orchards against fruit flies led to improved mango quality, helped by producers acquiring GLOBALGAP certification18. Several post-harvest technologies also played an important role in improving mango quality and increasing production amongst project beneficiaries. These include: (i) upgrading of the pack houses for fresh mango export (Bobo Dioulasso fruit terminal and Ranch Koba), and improving dried mango processing technology through the use of tunnel drying technique19; (ii) application of phyto-sanitary treatments that reduced production losses; and use of more efficient processing technologies, which increased dried mango quantity. Besides these production and post-harvest technologies the project strengthened the capacity of the mango inter-professional 17 Some 1,200 orchards, planted using improved techniques: plowing, drip irrigation, high density planting (up to 400 trees/ha vs. 100 trees), will boost overall mango production by 10% in 3-5 years, with an addition of 20,000 tons. This bodes well for the sustainability of the project’s outcome. 18 In 2008, 2,400 ha from 353 producers, members of four organizations (UFMB, Fruiteq, Burkinature, Wouol) were certified by GLOBAL GAP. 210 producers had been certified in 2007. (Aide memoire, Nov. 2008.) 19 Promoted by the project, through 20 subsidized units made available to mango processors, the South African tunnel drying technique has done wonders in the value chain: (i) increasing productivity by 1,150% (from 20 kg/24h to 250 kg/24h); (ii) improving dried mango quality by 80%, earning 1st grade; (iii) increasing production by over 280% (from 65 tons to 250 tons); and (iv) reducing drudgery (the old Atesta needed 24h monitoring, whereas the tunnel is programmable. Page 14 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) organizations (IPOs), resulting into an improved coordination. Finally, the project facilitated critical partnerships between value chain operators and foreign investors/clients. This facilitation was done directly by project and by actors networking at commercial fairs and tours. 24. The contribution of sesame20 exports to the achievement of project Outcome 1 can be traced to two main results induced to the project: (i) improved quality and production (reduced losses), which came from the project building the capacity21 of producers to apply treatment against the salmonella bacteria; and (ii) improved coordination, achieved by establishing the sesame IPO. 25. Justification for rating Outcome 1 Modest. The project partially achieved outcome 1: (i) The evidence supporting the results chain of international exports is more compelling for mango than for sesame exports, yet sesame totally dwarfed mango in international exports (by over 16 times in the results achieved in the AF). (ii) In addition, the exports reported (for the whole country) could not be all attributed to the project during the initial financing (covering only 9 of the country’s 13 regions). Although mango production is confined basically to the initial 9 regions, sesame is produced all over the country. (iii) Finally, other concurrent operations overlapped with the project and likely contributed to achieve some of the project’s results—even if that contribution could not be ascertained. Outcome 2: Increased volume of export of selected value chains in regional markets Rating: Modest 26. A total of 121,993 tons were exported against a target of 96,000 tons, representing a relative increase of 27 percent. The project reported regional exports made up of sesame, onion, mango, livestock, and cowpeas. Results achieved in the AF, showed a domination of sesame (64%), followed by onion (16%), cowpeas (9%), mango (6%), and livestock/meat (5%). The assessment examines which of the key factors (improved yield, production, coordination, and partnership) contributing to increased regional exports in the value chains were the results of the project activities 27. Achievement in the exports to regional markets by mango and sesame is mostly supported by the same evidence presented for the exports to international markets. The regional exports were characterized by very small volume of dried mango compared to the international exports. In additional, artisanal processing beset this regional export-oriented production. As a result, the improvement in processing technology had little impact, if any, on regional exports 28. The contribution of onion exports to the achievement of Project Outcome 2, follows similar patterns identified in mango exports. The project contributed to (i) increased yield (104% over target), achieved from disseminating good agricultural practices (irrigation techniques and improved varieties); (ii) increased production, achieved from financing micro-projects in the application of these techniques; along with increased marketable production (reduced post-harvest losses), achieved from supporting 20 The ex-ante economic and financial analysis included one illustrative sesame model, and one cowpeas model, presumably in anticipation of some significant support from the project during implementation. 21 Mostly through the training of master trainers selected from the producer associations. Page 15 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) farm-level storage units (ruudu); (iii) increased quality, achieved from providing sorting/cleaning of onion for storage and at market platform; and (iv) improved coordination along the value chain improved, achieved from the establishment of a strong onion inter-professional organization (IPO). The operation of the Koudougou (Centre West Region) onion market platform, coordinated by the IPO, has worked wonders for value chain participants in the region22. 29. The contribution of livestock export to the achievement of Project Outcome 2 is supported by the following evidence: (i) increase in livestock productivity (average daily weight gain of 111% over target) achieved by the adoption of and dissemination improved technologies among project beneficiaries. These included technical reference kits such as artificial insemination from introduced genitors to improve breeds and access to finances as well; and (ii) increased production generated by the funding of (about 170) of micro-projects (over 60% of total micro-project funding) by stakeholders who to applied these practices. Such project support originated from the change in course at the MTR, away from focusing on meat exports to promoting animal fattening for regional exports of live animals. It had found that attempting to support the necessary conditions (sanitary and technical improvements at slaughterhouses, cold chain, etc.) for meat exports was beyond its scope. 30. Cowpeas and maize23 were not priority value chains and they did not receive comparable support to the four selected chains. Capacity building, however, was provided to the profession organization CICB24, which had been supporting the cereals as well as cowpea value chains. 31. Similar to Outcome 1, evidences for the regional exports of mango, onion and livestock can be traced back to project’s outputs and activities. These evidences, however, differed between value chains. For instance, regional exports of cowpea and maize recorded the weakest evidence, followed by sesame. Yet, expectations of sesame exports contributed the lion’s share at about 47 percent, followed cowpea at 21 percent. (from targets). In addition, the IF covered only 9 regions, but was attributed the whole country’s regional exports. Finally, the contribution of other concurrent operations25 pursuing similar objectives cannot be ignored. As a result, achievement of Outcome 2 is rated Modest. Outcome 3: At least 60 percent of producers that benefited from project support have increased their income from targeted supply chains by at least 50 percent. Rating: High 22 The mistrust, even animosity, which long existed between onion producers and exporters, gave way to open, genuine collaboration between the two with the advent of the IPO. The Koudougou onion market platform cemented that spirit in the region. The impact of this tandem has been real and far reaching: transparency, fair price for all; better quality onion; export volume boosted by 180%, from 2,500 tons to 7,000 tons; employment created for 100 women in sorting and packaging, earning an average daily income of paid 3,000-5,000 CFA/day in the marketing season (December-April); and revenues for the commune, from 5,000 CFA fee levied on each outbound truck (about 30 tons). 23 Exports of maize to regional markets were not reported in the AF’s results. It is not clear if they were in the IF’s results (as no breakdown was available). 24 It is not clear how the CIC-B (Comate interprofessionnel des céréales du Burkina) will evolve under Law 050-2012 establishing the inter- profession. Created almost a decade ago (2003) the CIC-B caters to cereals (other than rice) and cowpeas value chains, which are required by law 050-2012 to have separate inter-professional organization. 25 These include the regional USAID Agricultural Trade and Promotion (ATP) project and its successor USAID West Africa Trade and Investment Hub (Trade Hub) project; these also strengthened the capacities of Burkina Faso’s onion, livestock/meat and cereals professional organizations, and promoted the trade of their products to countries in the region. Page 16 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) 32. The project has met and surpassed the target (130% of target) for project beneficiaries who increased their income by 50 percent. The project directly supported its beneficiaries who increased their incomes earned from project activities. Such support included matching grants, credit facilitation, use of project facilities, etc. It is important to note that the increase in income resulted from several factors related to production, post-harvest handling, and marketing26. The 2014 survey revealed that about 122,000 beneficiaries adopted project sponsored technologies, which yielded an increase of five-fold in the average value of production of the onion and 1.6-fold in the livestock/meat value chain. For example, the use of project-financed farm-level storage units in the onion value chain clearly exemplifies this increase. These units allowed farmers to store bags of onions for 6 months after harvest. They then sell the stored onions at ten times the price they would fetch at harvest (i.e., 60,000 XOF vs. 6,000 XOF for a 100kg bag). As a result, the average value of production of onion per project beneficiary rose from 2.5 million XOF to 13 million XOF, thanks to yield increase from 6.5 tons/ha to 17 tons/ha. Similarly, the average value of production per beneficiary increased from 6.2 million XOF to 10 million XOF for farmers in the livestock/meat value chain27 who had access to micro-project financing. It is important to note that over 60 percent was allocated to the livestock/meat value chain. On the contrary, the value of production of mango and poultry did not increase as much as those of onions and livestock because of the unavailability of market infrastructure for these value chains.28 The outcome target was exceeded; it was directly attributable29 to the project, in the IF and the AF; its measurement was determined by the project, not left to an outside national entity; it was not likely assisted by concurrent operations that could have made a contribution to its achievement (counterfactual argument). As a result, achievement of Outcome 3 is rated High. Outcome 4: Beneficiaries reached. Rating: High 33. The project achieved the target for the number of direct beneficiaries (109% over target). This achievement is entirely attributable30 to the project. Project beneficiaries (both direct and indirect31) exist solely because of project’s interventions. It reached over 400,000 direct beneficiaries across t he 13 Regions. In particular, of the 409,101 direct beneficiaries, 124,3667 (i.e., 30.4 percent) were women. The project made a concerted effort to increase the participation of women by supporting activities in which the participation of women is important. It therefore reached its target in women’s participation even after its increase from 15 percent in the IF to 30 percent in the AF. Outcome 4 is also rated High for the 26 While the project targeted domestic markets as well in the PDO formulation, the results framework did not include an indicator to capture performance of sales in the domestic market only (except for local poultry, a product not targeted for exports). Outcome 3 could be a considered as a proxy to capture the contribution of the project to domestic marketing. 27 ISR, November 24, 2013 28 PAFASP 2014 Annual Report 29 Measurement of outcome indicator 3 was estimated from samples drawn from the project-supported micro-projects database. The surveys were part of the project impact studies (2014, 2017), using the double difference evaluation model, in which beneficiaries are paired with like- control groups and actual/baseline results were compared for these “with” and “without project” groups. The increase in revenue of outcome 3 was supported by the overall impact of the project, which showed a sizeable difference (60% in 2015 and 61% in 2016) over the control groups and the baselines (Source: Etude d’Impact, Rapport final report, June 2017). 30 The 2014 impact study found a relative small number (5%) of project beneficiaries who had support from other interventions in the form of some capacity building (Source: Impacts intermediaires du PAFASP, 2014). 31 Direct beneficiaries have benefitted directly from the project (matching grants, u sers of project’s provided infrastructure and services to generate revenue). Indirect beneficiaries benefitted from the project through direct beneficiaries, without coming directly in contact with the project, e.g., employees, family members, etc. of direct beneficiaries. Page 17 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) same reasons discussed in outcome 3: achievement over target, direct attribution, controlled measure, lack of counterfactual. Assessment of Achievement of Each Sub-Objective/Outcome The project pursued three sub-objectives to achieve the PDO. Sub-objective 1: Support private-sector organizations and commodity associations in strengthening their ability to plan and implement a strong strategy for the development of market-driven agricultural supply chains. Rating: High 34. This sub-objective was essentially in support of two of the project’s five expected outcomes: (i) a better organization and coordination of private operators all along the selected supply chain; (ii) professional and inter-professional organizations able to deliver services to their members and help them better respond to market requirements in terms of product quality and quantity. This sub-objective was also basically the objective of component 1, so that outputs and intermediary results achieved under component 1 (see Results Framework in Annex 1) directly contributed also to the achievement of the two outcomes. These results included the following: (a) established inter-professional organizations (IPO)32 along the priority value chains (mango, onion, cattle/meat and poultry) and the sesame value chain; (b) strategic development plans (SDP) and annual operational plans (AOC) generated by the IPO; (c) micro- projects implemented (109% over target) by members of the IPO to support the AOC, through matching grants33 and credit facilitated (115% over target); (d) 90 percent of micro-projects transformed into SME (by the business incubator (Maison de l’entreprise du Burkina Faso—MEBF); (e) study tours and commercial fairs organized by the IPO to help members seize opportunities and better respond to market requirements. 35. The justification for rating this sub-objective is rated High for the following reasons: The evidence clearly suggests a critical contribution of the project to the establishment of the IPO, which have undoubtedly been playing the coordination role expected of them. The IPOs have brought a real sense of belonging, and openness to sharing of opportunities, whereas traders in these value chains were before better known for not being open to others and new ideas. These IPOs, however, are still maturing and characterized by differences in strength among them. For example, the onion unions and IPO are paying their dues, but those of the poultry, mango, and livestock value chain not quite regularly yet. Also, although its core was established (in 2006) before the project, the mango IPO has not yet brought all members of its unions fully on board, so that payment of dues is lagging. The cattle/meat value chain, which also has had federations, established long ago, remained complex, with many participants that don’t neatly fall in any of the three law-mandated categories of producers, processors, and traders. 32The project had worked pro-actively (starting in 2011) to create in each value chain a “core” group of representatives of the three value chain unions to prepare the necessary documents needed to establish their IPO once the law had been adopted (October 30, 2012). 33 In terms of sustainability of the instrument, the impact study shows that by the end of project, 63.8% of the beneficiaries surveyed were using accounting tools in their businesses, compared to only 19.4% for the control groups (Etude d’impact, 2017). Page 18 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Finally, the IPOs have all developed SDP and AOC, but some of these AOC appear overly ambitious with uncertain prospects to be implemented34. An important fact, however, is that the governance structures of all IPO are working effectively Sub-objective 2: Develop productive and marketing infrastructure to improve productivity, agricultural product quality and linkages with markets. Rating: Modest 36. This sub-objective was in essence the objective of Component 2: Development of irrigation and marketing infrastructure. The project has clearly struggled to deliver on the results expected of this component and to fulfill this sub-objective. The project reached only 73 percent of its target (2,250 ha for 5,000 ha) in the establishment of irrigated schemes. Before initiating a market infrastructure, the project helped put in place a general agreement with local authorities about the involvement of private actors in its management. Thus, the target for private management of the market infrastructure was fully met. The indicator, however, did not provide information about the timeliness and completeness of these market infrastructures. Only the Koudougou onion market platform (Comptoir in French) and 20 vaccination posts had been completed and were in operation at the close of the project. The completion rate of the other ones ranged from 20 percent to 95 percent across the selected value chains35. Delays in establishing both the irrigation and market infrastructure were the main causes for the three extensions of closing date in the Initial Financing. Sub-objective 3: Improve the provision and efficiency of core support services, including the promotion of a more conducive institutional, regulatory and financial environment for private investment. Rating: Modest 37. This sub-objective was essentially in support of two others of the project’s five expected outcomes36: (iv) a legal/regulatory framework and a business environment, more attractive to private investors; and (v) a network of public and private service providers, prompt and efficient in responding to private operators needs in terms of training, advisory services, quality controls, etc. This sub-objective is also contributed to Component 3: Improvement of the business environment, regulatory framework and provision of services. The project was very active in the legal/regulatory framework area, with regards to the Law 050-2012 on the IPO and its executive orders (décrets d’application), as well as in increasing awareness to OHADA’s measure on cooperative societies. The performance contracts and memorandum of understanding with public service providers were implemented 38. A pool of providers was established (three individual consultants for each region), to support the establishment of 3,350 (MPs) and 133 (SMEs), and to provide advisory support (technical, financial and accounting management) to promoters. The project established execution protocols with decentralized 34 By project’s end, the mango IPO had realized 80% of its AOC; the onion IP, 60% of its AOC; the local poultry IP, 49%, and the livestock/meat IP, 47%; 35 Completion of market infrastructure at close of project: Livestock (6 market platforms, for a total 75% completion); onion (4 market platforms, for a total of 25% completion); poultry (2 market/dressing platform, at 60% and 85% completion); mango (3 market platforms, at 40%, 85%, and 95% completion), Government Project Completion Report, April 2017. 36 One of the five expected outcomes listed in the PAD (increase in the value of production and exports of selected subsectors) was translated into the PDO (increase volume of exports and increase revenue of 50% of beneficiaries). Page 19 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) technical services to achieve the technical evaluation of microprojects, monitoring and control of the implementation, as well as gathering information to supply the information system of monitoring and evaluation Project. It also established an implementation protocol with the central technical services DGPER (Direction Générale de la Promotion de l’Economie Rurale) and DGADI) (Direction Générale des Aménagements du Développement de l’Irrigation) for the monitoring of the implementation of irrigation and market infrastructure. 39. This sub-objective is rated Modest because it achieved one out of two outcomes. It achieved its target in contributing to the promotion of a more conducive institutional and regulatory environment within its scope. However, it has not contributed as much in creating the network of service providers beyond its lifecycle 40. The overall efficacy of the project is rated Substantial (the project almost fully achieved its intended outcomes) for the following reasons: Targets for all four PDO indicators have been largely exceeded. However, only the results of two outcomes (increased revenue and number of beneficiaries reached) can be fully attributed to the project, and were each rated High. The other two outcomes (international and regional exports) are rated Modest because their achievement over the target cannot be totally attributed to the project. Also, the project has achieved its targets for three of the four outcomes (excluding the PDO) expected from these sub-objectives. The achievement regarding the creation of service user network is modest and so is the achievement of the sub-objective related to irrigation and market infrastructure. 41. An economic and financial analysis was conducted for the original project and the Additional Financing prior to use of each financing. The analysis in both cases was carried out for sub-component 1.2, which supported investments for supply chain development; and component 2, which supported small-scale irrigation and market development infrastructure. For the ex-ante analysis of the Initial Financing, the financial internal rate of return (IRR) at the enterprise level ranged from 30 percent (mango on 0.25 ha) to 45 percent (onion on 0.5 ha), while the economic internal rate of return (ERR) ranged from 43 percent (mango on 0.25 ha) to 90 percent (enterprise with 4 cows). The economic analysis at project level (not including capacity building activities) suggested an IRR of 25 percent and an ERR of 23 percent. 42. A different approach than the one used for the original project was used for the AF ex-ante analysis. In the latter approach, the financial analysis was performed only at the enterprise level, and the economic analysis only at the project level. At the enterprise level the estimated IRRs for individual enterprises ranged from 32 percent (local poultries) to 70 percent (stored onions in a 12-ton infrastructure). These estimates are on line with those of the original project, although on different enterprise models. At the project level, the net present value (NPV) at 10 percent was estimated at US$26.3 million, and the ERR at 17.3 percent. This ERR was lower than the estimate of the original project (23%), but still adequate, with the assumed opportunity cost of capital of 10 percent. The sensitivity analysis for various scenario of 10 percent-20 percent-30 percent increase of costs or decrease of benefits suggested good robustness in the results. Page 20 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Table 4: Project’s Rates of Return at Appraisal and ICR stages Internal Rate of Return (%) Economic Rate of Return (%) Appraisal estimates 25.0 23.0 FA ex-ante estimate N/A 15 ICR estimate N/A 17.3 Note: IRRs at project level were not estimated for FA ex-ante and ICR analyses. 43. The ex-post economic and financial analysis conducted for the ICR relied on the same methodology used in the ex-ante FA analysis, i.e. a financial analysis only at enterprise level and an economic analysis only at project level (i.e. productive investment in component 1.2 and component 2, and excluding capacity building support). The IRRs at enterprise level ranged from 25 percent (cattle fattening) to 52 percent (onion growing, and mango processing), and the NPV at 10 percent from 1.6 million FCFA (poultry production) to 84 million FCFA (onion production). The sensitivity analysis indicated good robustness for most enterprises. As the switching values suggested, however, dried mango processing was very sensitive to a decrease in overall benefits of about 23 percent, and an increase in overall cost of about 30 percent. For other enterprises, costs would have to increase by more than 50 percent, or benefits decrease by as much (except 43 percent for poultry) to see the NPV brought down to zero, thus making the investment not worthy of private actors’ consideration. 44. The economic analysis at project level estimated the NPV (at 10%) at US$72.5 million and the ERR at 15.6%. Although lower than the ex-ante estimate of 17.3 percent, it remained encouraging. The lower return at the close of the project may be explained by the poor performance experienced in component 2 with the delays in establishing irrigation and market infrastructure. These were key factors explaining the better returns suggested by the ex-ante analysis for the original project. The results were more sensitive to a decrease in the benefits than an increase in the cost. For example, a decrease of 30 percent in the benefits would result in a decrease of the NPV by 76 percent, whereas an increase of 30 percent in the cost would only lower the NPV by 18 percent. A cost increase of 50 percent would lead to a decline in the NPV by 39 percent, whereas a benefit decrease of 50 percent would see the NPV plummet by 80 percent 45. The overall efficiency of the project was negatively impacted by the untimeliness and incompleteness of several public irrigation and market infrastructures (component 2). The completion rate for the major market infrastructures (two fruits and vegetables platforms and three poultry market platforms) range from 60 percent to 95 percent. A compounding factor was that many of these infrastructures had already been delayed37, and that these delays had led to restructurings for project extensions. There is also the fact that over 1,000 micro-projects had to be called off because they had 37 Contrary to most, the poultry market, outside Bobo Dioulasso, suffered no delays and no cost overrun, even when the contractor was asked to add a security post to the market after work was being completed. Completion of that structure was rated 95% because the ground needed to be cleared of debris, and leveled, and final arrangements made for users to move in. Page 21 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) failed to meet a trigger milestone38 for subsequent tranches of financing. Although the project managed to recycle the funds provided, it also point to inefficiencies in the program. 46. The results of the economic and financial analysis, although lower than the in the ex-ante analysis, are still encouraging. These, however, must be balanced against the less than stellar achievement of the irrigation and market infrastructures. As a result of the above asessment, efficiency is rated Modest. C. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING 47. The overall outcome rating is Moderately Satisfactory. The relevance of the PDO was rated High, the overall efficacy Substantial, but the overall efficiency Modest. 48. The overall efficiency of the project was negatively impacted by the untimeliness and incompleteness of several public irrigation and market infrastructures (component 2). The completion rate for the major market infrastructures (two fruits and vegetables platforms and three poultry market platforms) range from 60 percent to 95 percent. A compounding factor was that many of these infrastructures had already been delayed39, and that these delays had led to restructurings for project extensions. There is also the fact that over 1,000 micro-projects had to be called off because they had failed to meet a trigger milestone40 for subsequent tranches of financing. Although the project managed to recycle the funds provided, it also point to inefficiencies in the program. D. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS 49. Gender: The project made a concerted effort to ensure that female producers and operators benefitted from its activities. Of the 409,101 direct beneficiaries, 124,3667 (i.e., 30.4 percent) were women. The target of the performance indicator introduced to measure the project’s outreach to women was met in the IF when it was set at 15 percent, and slightly exceeded (101%) the revised target set at 30 percent in the AF. This was achieved through women-targeted interventions in areas that mobilize the greater participation of women41. These included: cattle fattening, local poultry production, fresh mango processing, dried mango production, and cowpeas conservation 38 For drip irrigation mango orchards, for example, the prerequisite was availability of adequate water in the borehole. 39 Contrary to most, the poultry market, outside Bobo Dioulasso, suffered no delays and no cost overrun, even when the contractor was asked to add a security post to the market after work was being completed. Completion of that structure was rated 95% because the ground needed to be cleared of debris, and leveled, and final arrangements made for users to move in. 40 For drip irrigation mango orchards, for example, the prerequisite was availability of adequate water in the borehole. 41 Hundreds of women were employed at project-supported facilities: onion market platforms (Centre Ouest and Nord regions), fresh mango packhouses (Bobo fruit terminal, Ranch Koba), dried mango processing (Bobo, Banfora, Touasiana), etc. Also, numerous women entrepreneurs were developed, such as the women-managed micro-projects transformed into cluster SME to fatten cattle for sale to exporters. In addition, the project can take credit for boosting the wealth of two enterprising business women (each with about US$1 million in gross revenues in 2016-17): one was helped with a large onion storage facility and business training for her onion trade; the other with a tunnel unit and financial assistance to expand her dried mango processing operation. Thanks to the project, the latter grew her dried mango production 5 times (50-250 tons) in five years (2011-2016), and provided more employment for local rural women in the process. Page 22 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) 50. Institutional Strengthening: “The Project provided Technical Assistance (TA) to the Permanent Secretary of the Sectoral Coordination of Agricultural Policy (SP/CPSA) to formulate and implement sectoral reforms in the agricultural sector by: (i) establishing a fund for agricultural development42; (ii) establishing a program to support the promotion of SMEs in the rural sector mechanism; (iii) establishing a comprehensive financial instrument that incorporates the National Climate and Environmental Response Fund; (iv) establishing an agricultural insurance Fund; (v) creating a marketing structure and stabilization of local products for export; (vi) developing and adopting a code for specific investments in the agricultural sector; (vii) developing and implementing a national system of extension and advisory support, taking into account the specificities of the different departments and the involvement of different stakeholder groups; (viii) developing a national policy on water projects; (ix) establishing a fund for the development of agricultural entrepreneurship; and (x) strengthening the monitoring and evaluation system of the PNSR, particularly on monitoring of reform measures in the rural sector”. 51. Mobilizing Private Sector Financing: During implementation, the project entered into financial partnership agreements with the two partner banks, Ecobank and Coris Bank, that benefited from a credit line for technical assistance from Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), with the Guarantee Fund of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID and with Banque Régionale de Solidarité (BRS); while collaboration continued with Societé financière de guarantie bancaire (SOFIGIB). A partnership agreement was signed with the Maison de l'entreprise du Burkina Faso (MEBF) as a specialized service for advising SMEs43. MEBF acted like a business incubator, providing training and advice to micro- projects, including in accounting, contracting, building partnerships. The project also promoted cluster enterprises to facilitate access to credit and markets. 52. Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity: The inter-professional organization (IPO) may be viewed as an instrument for poverty reduction and shared prosperity. A close reading of Law 050-2012 reveals its clear intent, which is to forge links between the usually poorest members of the value chain (producers) and the usually more prosperous others (traders, processors). The law specifically allows an IPO to be established with only two professional organizations, provided a producer organization is one of them (e.g., the onion IPO). Including producers in the IPO, gives them a seat and a voice at the table of negotiations, which results in better price discovery, transparency in business transactions, and common decisions fair to all—and not just benefitting the strongest. These factors should ultimately lead to increased revenues for producers. The project played the lead role in preparing actors to establish an IPO in the targeted value chains, and thus contribute to realizing the intent of the law. III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME 42 AF carried out preparatory studies for this and other proposed funds, but did not contribute financially to them. 43 Maison de l’entreprise du Burkina Faso- A business incubator made stronger by the project: Created in 2002, MEBF was already a fixture at the beginning of project. It partnered with the project to train micro-project operators being financing by the project. The project later chose this business incubator to nurture micro-projects into SME. MEBF helped the project realize a key result, and also got its own capacity strengthened. The PAFASP micro-projects transformed into SME was a critical mass, in-situ experimentation in real time for MEBF. It helped the agency hone its skills. This was a valuable experience that will serve MEBF well in continuing promoting entrepreneurship, particularly in rural areas. Page 23 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION 53. The low capacity of professional organizations during preparation limited M&E options. An alternative to outsourcing the collection of export data to Customs would have been to partner with the organizations to collect the data from their members. Similar value chains projects relied on value chain organizations to collect data used to report on results and monitor the performance of the performance of the project44. The coordination needed for this data collection was not yet available in the project, however. This low capacity will also come to hinder the establishment of a foundation or agency for the promotion of agro-sylvo-pastoral value chains during implementation. 54. The value chain assessments conducted during preparation was a positive factor. The analyses provided a sound basis for the selection of the four priority value chains (mango, onion, poultry, livestock) and the second-tier ones (sesame, cowpeas, and maize). The value chains were selected based on a long selection process involving all private stakeholders and public services, based on a scoring system. B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION Factors within government/project control 55. Government support remained strong during implementation. The Ministry45 of Agriculture Water Resources and Fisheries, one of the country’s most important ministerial departments was in charge of the project. A strong sense of ownership has developed since, along with government support— even if, understandably, project’s issues had been slower to get resolved during the interim government of 2015. 56. Public procurement procedures lacked celerity and contributed to delays in building irrigation and market infrastructure. For example, public procurement for equipment would be initiated after micro-projects had been approved, forcing beneficiaries to wait. Similar delays for more important investments (wholesale markets, etc.) had severe negative consequences. The project had endured this problem throughout its implementation. 57. Change in Project staffing was at times a positive and a negative factor . The internal auditor position was created only after the MTR (March 2010). It was filled from May 2010 to August 2013, but left vacant until June 2015. His absence negatively impacted the financial control, including the implementation of the micro-projects. The project also lacked a dedicated environmental and safeguard specialist in the original project. The position was filled from February 2015 to May 201746. Overlooked 44 For example, the USAID Agricultural Trade Promotion project ,and now CILSS (Comité inter-états de lute contre la sechecresse au Sahel), relied on producer and trader organizations, rather than customs, to collect intra-regional trade data. The Senegal PPEA (Project de promotion des exportations agricoles) also relied in exporter organizations to document the increase in international and regional exports of fruits and vegetables. 45 It was headed by a senior minister with enormous political clout—making for a powerful champion for the sector. 46 The specialist left for a position at the World Bank Country Office in Ouagadougou. Page 24 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) sanitation issues in the fruits and vegetable market in Bobo Dioulasso (initiated in the IF) led to major additional work in the FA to correct. Similarly, the fruit market in Banfora lacked sanitation, which now is left to local authorities and users to provide. On the other hand, the environmental and safeguards specialist helped insure that micro-projects were properly screened. Staff movement with a positive impact on the project included the following: communication specialist, database manager, operations manager, and dedicated value chain managers (including an irrigation and market infrastructure specialist). Factors within Bank control 58. The project’s TTL was changed twice (in 2013 and 2014, but with no negative impact on supervision. Overall, the project team and the GoB continued to receive close attention from the Bank team at headquarters and in the country office Factors outside project control 59. The decade-long, politico-military crisis in Cote d’Ivoire (2002-2011) impacted the transport corridors of Burkina Faso’s exporters. With road transport through Bouake (Cote d’Ivoire) having become more hazardous and expensive (increased road harassment), exporters switched to the railroad to reach Abidjan. Alternatives included shifts to outlets in Tema, Ghana and Lome, Togo when the port of Abidjan shut down in February 2011. 60. The socio-political crisis in Burkina Faso had even more direct impact on project implementation. Long-simmering political discontent, adding to the economic downturn and a perceived decade-long degradation47 contributed to a festering socio-political environment—with violent flare-ups in 2011, protests in 2013, a violent insurrection in October 2014, a failed coup in September 2015, and a new elected president in November 2015. The AF was declared effective on October 9, 2014. About three weeks later, however, the insurrection had led to a regime change and an interim administration. The uncertainty in business circles and the changes in administrations brought a slow pace to the resolution of project’s issues. Delays in implementation ensued, leading to a restructuring to extend the closing of the AF. 47 The Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) found, through a 2016 telephone interview, that a majority (53%) of respondents perceived that the economic has worsened over the previous 10 years, while the overwhelming majority (73#) thought the situation should improve in the years to come, as was confirmed by the renewed economic growth following the 2014-2015 slowdown (World Bank, SCD, 2017). Page 25 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) M&E Design. Rating: Modest 61. The M&E design was in line with the (implicit) theory of change, especially as the results framework was upgraded in the FA to specifically monitor the increase in yields in the selected value chains, and the transformation of micro-project activities into SME. The M&E system was designed to capture project inputs, outputs and processes, including through a dedicated database to monitor and evaluate the micro-projects (put in place in the FA). The M&E manuals provided clear definitions of the indicators and discussed the data collection procedures at various levels (at the project coordination unit and satellite locations). The revised M&E manual clearly indicated the changes introduced by the AF. Although an increase in agricultural exports to international and regional markets, tracked by two PDO indicators, is an acceptable proxy for competitiveness, the M&E provided scant other analysis during implementation to further assess the competitiveness of the selected value chains. Only in the AF did the M&E provide a breakdown of the international and regional exports by commodities. 62. In addition, the M&E design came with a major flaw, which was the proposition to collect national-wide data to document the achievement of a project that did not cover the whole country (9 regions out of 13) in the original project. This flaw was to affect the attribution of agricultural exports (key performance indicators) to the project. Among the four regions left out48, the East region is the country’s second leading sesame producer. Sesame was the country’s second leading export crop, and was dominating the exports reported by the project. This is also the region where most of the lucrative cattle trade to Nigeria originates. Another region left out is the Centre, which includes the capital city and a major hub of agricultural exporters. M&E Implementation. Rating: Substantial 63. The project implemented adequately the M&E as designed, with a core team at the national level and additional teams in all three local offices (West, Center and North). The M&E system integrated the various activities of the project and functions in the project coordination unit (PCU). The M&E system implemented the changes in the RF introduced by the FA. For this purpose, the M&E manual was revised, comparing line by line the original and new version. The project also worked with inter-professional organizations so that they could provide information to their members. In the FA, the project added a database of micro-projects, along with a database manager, to monitor and evaluate their activities and results. The initial difficulties encountered in establishing the database were resolved, and the M&E system was computerized. Memoranda of understanding (protocols) were negotiated with local services 48 The four regions were the Centre (capital Ouagadougou), Centre-Est (Koupela), Ext (Fada N’Gourma), and Sud-Ouest (Gaoua). Page 26 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) to contribute to the monitoring of the micro-projects. With the project funding thousands of them, the micro-projects have become the face of the project to many beneficiaries and observers. The M&E, however, has not made an effort to similarly monitor the exports of the various products. Information on these agricultural exports gathered by IPO supplemented, rather than replaced data from the customs office. M&E Utilization. Rating: High 64. The M&E information was used to produce timely reports and to make informed decisions. Documents included work plans, technical and financial reports (RSF), annual reports49, etc. The M&E was used to inform decisions regarding restructurings, allocation of funds, and the AF. The micro-project database was used to closely monitor micro-projects and help weed out non-performing ones. The impact analyses rely on the M&E data to draw samples of micro-projects for their estimates. The impact analysis, however, did not explore the counterfactual, to really gauge the attribution of the agricultural exports to the project. Ample accounts of the project activities and results were provided to the public in the media (newspapers, radios, TV, YouTube, website, flyers and posters). This widely disseminated information was very effective in getting potential beneficiaries to approach, the project and eventually participate in its activities. Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E 65. The overall rating of the quality of the M&E is Substantial. The design has a major flaw, but the implementation had no major shortcomings, and the results were utilized to produce mandated and other documents, and to make informed decisions. There are many accounts of beneficiaries that had participated in project activities after being exposed to the M&E results disseminated in the media. B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE Environmental and social compliance 66. The project was classified as Category B and triggered three safeguards : (a) OP 4.01 – Environmental Assessment, (b) OP 4.09 – Pest Management and OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement. All safeguards instruments were prepared, consulted upon and disclosed. At the end of PAFASP, the Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP) prepared/updated for the original projected and AF provided guidance on management and mitigation measures for environmental and social impacts of the micro-projects in the four major value chains, and irrigation and market infrastructure. A Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) was prepared and recommended loss compensation measures and the capacity building of actors in handling resettlement. In practice, the option of reducing or avoiding land acquisition was restrained as availability of land documents was considered an eligibility criterion for all micro- 49There was no discussion of disaggregated exports by products in the annual reports, given that the M&E system did not collect that information Page 27 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) projects. Notwithstanding the application of this selection process, several micro-project and infrastructure sites were abandoned or replaced to comply with provisions of the RPF. Implementation and monitoring of social safeguards did not provide quantified data to inform on achievement of performance indicators (e.g. land issues). No PAPs have been identified in the implementation of physical investments. Important capacity building activities on social and environmental coordination monitoring and control have been conducted including but not limited to: a) hiring a consultant in charge of environmental evaluation; b) establishing a technical environmental monitoring committee; c) awareness programs on social and environmental issues. Challenges faced during implementation included limited staff capacity in the PCU, unclear formulation of measures in safeguard frameworks and insufficient reporting, documentation and traceability in the monitoring of safeguards measures. Overall, compliance with safeguards is rated marginally satisfactory. Financial management 67. The project’s performance with regard to disbursement was satisfactory. By the close of the project, about 99 percent of IDA had been committed and disbursed. Including counterpart funds, beneficiaries’ contributions, and participation of financial institutions, the total disbursement was 97 percent (See annex on project cost per component). Remarkably, the disbursement rate for the participation of both beneficiaries and financial institutions was 100 percent. However, just about 65 percent of the counterpart funds were disbursed. Procurement 68. Overall, the project’s procurement plan implementation was satisfactory. The procurement plan put in place was regularly monitored. The project unit ensured that all contracts were duly closed by the grace period after the close of the project. There are no ineligible expenses. C. BANK PERFORMANCE 69. Quality at Entry: The project was well prepared, using lessons learned from projects in the region and in the country. The project team also held several consultations with key stakeholders, including civil societies and anticipated beneficiary groups, during project preparation. The high strategic relevance for both the country (PRSP, and other policies and strategies) and the Bank (CAS and 2016 CPS) was clearly indicated in the design. A clear and reasoned choice was made to focus on selected value chains and the economic and financial analysis supported that choice, except for sesame that was to be covered by other operations. A successful attempt was made in the AF to focus more on women. Environmental and fiduciary aspects were addressed and institutional arrangements identified, at national and regional levels. Similarly, risks were identified and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis performed. The Results Framework was clearly formulated. There was, however, a major flaw at this level: With an operation covering only 9 out of 13 regions, the decision was made to use country- wide data to measure and suggest the operation’s achievement. Because of this, the achievement related to two key performance indicators of the original project have been questioned. In the Additional Page 28 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Financing, which did cover the whole country, a discussion of the counterfactual should have been in order. 70. Quality of Supervision: Supervision missions were managed by country-based or sub-region TTL for most of the project’s lifespan. Overall, Bank’s implementation support provided (i) good on-site leadership, (ii) a balanced Bank team and level of expertise, (iii) frequent missions, and (iv) mostly rapid response to problematic situations when they arose. Supervision missions were conducted jointly with the Government and the Bank. The teams were candid in their findings, straightforward and proactive in their recommendations. Non-performing micro-project were terminated promptly, and the unused funds recouped. The need for an internal auditor, who was overlooked in the design, was identified at the MTR and filled quickly afterward50. 71. The need for a dedicated environmental and safeguard specialist, however, was identified only in the AF. Changes to the targets and some indicators were made in the AF, but not in the way of collecting exports data to address the counterfactual argument. A shortcoming of the supervision was the acknowledgement that exports to international and regional markets were skewed by sesame exports, but no discussion of the issue. Similarly, there was no discussion of the countrywide data being used to document the achievement of the PDO outcome indicators. Also, in spite of the frequent support provided, the activities in irrigation and market infrastructure yielded results below expectations. Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 72. There was but one major shortcoming related to Quality at Entry, of a design that was otherwise excellent. This initial flaw carried over during supervision, which also was excellent otherwise. Overall rating for Bank performance is Moderately Satisfactory. D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME Rating: Modest 73. The theory of change/results chain of the selected value chains is more likely to be consolidated, or further strengthened, rather than weakened significantly. Supporting the results chain in mango, in particular, is that the investments in drip irrigation, with high density planting on over 1,000 ha—with more to come—will soon result in increased yields, more production, improved quality, and lead to increased exports in the near future. 74. In the end, however, the theory of change stands only to the extent that its underlying assumptions hold. These are examined in turn. (1) The inter-professional organizations have met 50 It so happened that staff left in 2013. Page 29 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) expectations, by improving coordination in the value chains and providing services to their members, even if these organizations are still maturing under the aegis of a law that is just putting in place its implementation measures. The risk of the IPO faltering is low, given that they realize additional benefits lie ahead from promised public support. (2) The SME nurtured by the business incubator, MEBF, have turned out to be fully capable of fending for themselves in their access to credit and path to success. (3) Private actors are already capably managing the market infrastructures (e.g., Koudougou onion market platform) and stand ready to do so with the facilities to be completed—with this delayed completion posing a significant threat to the development outcome if not resolved in the near future. (4) Capacities have been built within the Ministry of Agriculture, the agricultural technical school, etc., but the network of public and private service providers has not materialized—except for the MEBF, which is a network by itself in the promotion of entrepreneurship and coaching SME to access credit. Overall, the risk to the development objective is present, but is moderated by positive developments such as the joint ventures in the dried mango value chain; the Maison de l’enterprise strengthened capacities; the initiation of cluster enterprises; and, in no small measure, the dedication of one project beneficiary, J.B. Ouedraogo, to share his knowledge and skills with students being trained to provide good agricultural practices to farmers, or make use of them themselves. V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 75. Following this performance assessment on relevance, design and implementation of the project, this section offers four key lessons drawing from a learning-by-doing approach in developing value chains and implementing activities related to productivity, market access and governance. 76. Lesson 1: Start simple, use piloting and evaluation for future scale-up and then increase complexity. A hard lesson was learned in PAFASP! After more than 10 years of implementation, PAFASP is still needing more resources and more time to consolidate some “fragile” achievements in value chains at different maturity levels. An intervention involving a multi-sector/multi-level approach with different institutions, components, areas of concentration (geographic and thematic) is challenging to implement when managerial/institutional capacity in the country is not so strong. While the project meant well to simultaneously try to change incentives for stakeholders in several value chains, improve the enabling environment, reduce the gap in infrastructure, and build stronger institutions, the range of activities was too large. Future ground-breaking operations in Burkina Faso and in the sub-region with the World Bank or other donors need to be kept simple, use piloting and evaluation for future scale-up, and receive closer supervision from authorities so that the learning opportunity is optimized and the client can start a new phase of investments with confidence. 77. Lesson 2: Meeting financing needs for infrastructure and equipment are key to addressing agro- procesing in the mango sector: Only 10 dry mango processors out of the 76 in existence in Burkina are equipped with a drying tunnel propmoted by PAFASP, which is becoming compulsory in order to allow the desirable quality for the export market. In order to match the growing market demand, there is a need to increase production capacity, renew the equipment and construct new infrastructure for storage and Page 30 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) processing. A lesson learned during implementation is that banks have difficulty granting medium and long term loans. Dedicated medium and long term credit lines have therefore to be put in place for processing activities, and made accessible to mango processors. As tunnel dryers were subsidized up to 65 percent in PAFASP, the need to continue such an incentive has to be addressed. In future support to agro-processing, one of the possible options might be to continue having such matching grants to help smaller processing enterprises or those operating in partnership with producer groups to acquire this equipment, while others would not be eligible. Matching grants should also be considered for innovating equipment, given that banks may be reluctant to fully finance due to the risk related to innovation. 78. Lesson 3: Linking small farmers to markets could work! Such a linkage has often been a vexing proposition in going from design to implementation. The project made this feasible by leveraging two key instruments at its disposal: (i) The establishment of the inter-professional organizations (IPO) gave small producers a seat and a voice at the table, around which value chain participants are convened to identify mutually beneficial solutions to commons issues; (ii) The clustering of enterprises implemented by the project was another lever that helped link small animal producers to input and regional export markets. By working closely together to coordinate their activities, small producers in the cluster achieved together the economy of scale each could never have attained on their own. This allowed the cluster to gain access to credit, other inputs, and to wholesalers on behalf of the members. Without the consolidated quantities offered by the clustered enterprises, these wholesalers would have bypassed the individual small producers. 79. Lesson 4: Maison de l’Enterprise du Burkina Faso (MEBF), a business incubator, offers a model to emulate. In its free advisory role, MEBF is like similar agencies in developed countries, such as the SCORE Association of business mentors supported by the US Small Business Administration (SBA). As with SCORE, MBEF helps with actors trying to start a business, or needing assistance with their existing business. MEBF goes one step further, as they can take on projects to follow in-situ operations and turn them into formal SME. A formal SME enhances its chance to access credit and compete in public bids. In this role, MEBF is an effective business incubator. With its successful collaboration with the project, MEBF has showed that it can expand entrepreneurship, including in rural areas. Future value chain development projects in Burkina Faso should capitalize on this home-grown expertise developed and should even consider MEBF as a potential home for projects to be considered under the strategic pillar of agro- competitiveness of its current and future national development plans. . Page 31 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators Objective/Outcome: total beneficiaries (including women) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Project direct beneficiaries Number 0.00 200000.00 375000.00 409101.00 27-Mar-2006 30-Jun-2011 30-Jun-2016 30-Jun-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Unlinked Indicators Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Percentage of beneficiary Percentage 0.00 0.00 60.00 78.00 producers income increase for targeted commodities 27-Mar-2006 30-Jun-2011 30-Jun-2016 30-Jun-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Page 32 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Agricultural exports (cotton Text 17,500 tons 35000 106,000 tons 226130 tons excluded) for the targeted supply chains reach 35,000 27-Mar-2006 30-Jun-2011 30-Jun-2016 30-Jun-2017 tons on international markets, by project closure. Comments (achievements against targets): results of 1st semester of 2017 not available as of October 2017 Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Agricultural exports (cotton Text 6,000 tons 20000 96,000 tons 121993 excluded) for the targeted supply chains reach 20,000 27-Mar-2006 30-Jun-2011 30-Jun-2016 30-Jun-2017 tons on sub-regional markets, by project closure. Comments (achievements against targets): results of 1st semester of 2017 not available as of October 2017 A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators Component: Component 1: improvement in ASP supply chains Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Page 33 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Number of interprofessional Number 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 organization established 27-Mar-2006 08-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2016 08-Dec-2017 Number of enterprises Number 0.00 0.00 150.00 177.00 converted to Micro Enterprises or Small and 27-Mar-2006 08-Dec-2017 Medium Enterprises Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Nombre of micro-projects Number 0.00 0.00 3350.00 3869.00 implemented 27-Mar-2006 08-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2016 14-Apr-2017 Mango Productivity Metric ton 7.00 0.00 15.00 15.20 Improvement 27-Mar-2006 14-Apr-2017 Onion Productivity Metric ton 17.00 0.00 22.00 22.08 Improvement 27-Mar-2006 14-Apr-2017 Number of micro-projects Number 2835.00 0.00 3350.00 2899.00 successfully implemented 28-Feb-2014 08-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2017 14-Apr-2017 Loan amount Amount(USD) 1300000.00 0.00 2500000.00 4104000.00 28-Feb-2014 08-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2017 14-Apr-2017 Page 34 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Comments (achievements against targets): Component: Component 2: irrigation and market infrastructure Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Hectares of land irrigated Hectare(Ha) 1912.00 0.00 4400.00 2647.00 28-Apr-2006 08-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2016 14-Apr-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Component: Component 3: improvement in business environment, regulatory framework and prov. of adv. services Unlinked Indicators Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Increase in non cotton Percentage 0.00 0.00 25.00 61.00 targetted commodities production 27-Mar-2006 08-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2016 14-Apr-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion Increase in cotton yield Text Cotton yield: 1,050 15% 15%. 997 kg/ha Page 35 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) kg/ha 31-Dec-2004 08-Dec-2017 30-Sep-2014 14-Apr-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Page 36 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) B. KEY OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT Initial Financing (IF) and Additional Financing (AF) Consolidated Results Framework (as of October 12, 2017) IF Overall Initial Updated IF achieve Overall Overall achieve Baseline target target result ment AF result result target ment Indicator (a) (b) (c) (d) (e=d/b) (f) (g=d+f) (h=c) (i=g/h) Project Development Objective Total beneficiaries 0 200,000 375,000 374,820 187% 35,081 409,901 375,000 109% (including % women) 0 15% 30% 15% 100% 30.4% 30.4% 30% 101% International exports (tons) 17,500 35,000 106,500 91,900 263% 135,030 226,930 106,500 213% Regional exports (tons) 6,000 20,000 96,000 71,300 357% 50,693 121,993 96,000 127% % with revenue increase by 50% 0 60% 60% 65% 108% 78% 78% 60% 130% Component 1: Improvement of ASP supply chains Number of inter-professions 0 2 5 4 200% 1 5 5 100% Total micro-projects implemented 0 2,500 3,350 2,899 116% 762 3,661 3,350 109% MP consolidated/converted* 0 N/A 1,250 N/A N/A 1,001 1,001 1,250 80% MP consolidated* 0 N/A 1,100 N/A N/A 868 868 1,100 79% MP converted into SME* 0 N/A 150 N/A N/A 133 133 150 89% Cotton yield increase 15% over 1,045kg/ha 0 15% 15% 9% 60% N/A 9% 15% 60% Cotton production increase by 25% 0 25% N/A 60% 240% N/A 60% 25% 240% Mango yield (T/Ha) 7 N/A 15 N/A N/A 17 17 15 113% Onion yield (T/Ha) 17 N/A 22 N/A N/A 23 23 22 104% Cattle fattening gain (GMQ) 500 N/A 600 N/A N/A 667 667 600 111% Marketable poultry yield 5 N/A 15 N/A N/A 16 16 15 104% Credit amount with GF (M CFA) 300 2,500 1,500 782 31% 2,086 2,868 2,500 115% Component 2: Irrigation and market infrastructure Irrigated schemes area (ha) 0 5,000 4,400 2,522 50% 1,117 3,639 5,000 73% 1,000 ha of MP with irrigation equipment 0 1,000 N/A 2,522 252% N/A 2,522 1,000 252% % market infrastructure privately managed 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Component 3: Improvement of the business environment, regulatory framework, and provision of advisory services Page 37 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Number of key constraints removed 0 5 7 5 100% 2 7 7 100% Service provider capacity building action plan 0 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 1 100% M&E results disseminated 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Regulatory texts revised/disseminated 0 10 N/A 5 50% N/A 5 10 50% Regulatory texts revised/drafted 0 N/A 3 N/A N/A 3 3 3 100% Number of texts disseminated 0 N/A 6 N/A N/A 3 3 6 50% Performance contracts negotiated 0 5 11 9 180% 2 11 11 100% National strategy for agricultural education 0 1 N/A 1 100% 1 1 1 100% Page 38 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS Name Role Preparation Abdoulaye Touré Task Team Leader Supervision/ICR Nicolas Ahouissoussi Task Team Leader Nabil M. Chaherli Task Team Leader Mohamed El Hafedh Hendah Procurement Specialist Edith Atioumoutio Zannou Tchoko Financial Management Specialist Leandre Yameogo Team Member Abdoulaye Gadiere Environmental Safeguards Specialist Elisee Ouedraogo Team Member Ngor Sene Team Member Erick Herman Abiassi Team Member Paivi Koskinen-Lewis Social Safeguards Specialist Stephane Forman Team Member Begnadehi Claude Bationo Team Member Adja Mansora Dahourou Team Member Mamata Tiendrebeogo Team Member Christophe Ravry Team Member William Dakpo Team Member Gwladys Nadine Isabelle Kinda Team Member Djibrilla Adamou Issa Team Member Olivier Durand Team Member Siaka Coulibaly Team Member Yeyande Kasse Sangho Team Member Bella Diallo Team Member Mamadou Yaro Team Member Page 39 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Amadou Konare Team Member Yvette Laure Djachechi Team Member Salimata D. Follea Team Member Ibrahim B. Nebie Team Member Virginie A. Vaselopulos Team Member B. STAFF TIME AND COST Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs) Preparation FY05 20.633 107,328.88 FY06 57.091 261,571.90 FY07 0 0.00 Total 77.72 368,900.78 Supervision/ICR FY07 32.595 149,451.64 FY08 33.094 154,907.98 FY09 32.478 136,011.13 FY10 30.865 153,666.61 FY11 25.655 131,512.69 FY12 21.340 127,400.37 FY13 18.559 99,771.21 FY14 17.316 113,751.21 FY15 18.230 104,338.05 FY16 26.575 119,358.76 FY17 12.627 68,199.48 FY18 2.858 42,517.74 Total 272.19 1,400,886.87 Page 40 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Amount at Approval Actual at Project Percentage of Approval Components (US$M) Closing (US$M) (US$M) Improvement of Agro-sylvo- 38.10 65.50 0 pastoral supply chains DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION AND 34.30 60.60 0 MARKETING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVING OF THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 11.30 24.30 0 AND PROVISION OF ADVISORY SERVICES Total 83.60 150.40 0.00 Page 41 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Project Costs by Component and source of funding (US$M) Component Original project estimated costs (US$M) AF estimated costs (US$M) Total project estimated cost (US$M)) Total project actual costs (US$M)) IDA GoBF BENF IMF Tota % IDA GoBF BEN IMF TOTAL % IDA GoBF BENEF IMF TOTAL % IDA BF BENEF IMF TOTAL % l EF Disb’ d Improvement of Agro-sylvo- 28.0 4.0 1.1 5.0 38.1 46% 18.4 0.6 3.3 3.7 26.0 40% 46.40 4.6 4.4 8.8 64.1 43% 53.5 3.7 4.4 8.8 70.4 110% pastoral value chains Development of iIrrigation and 26.7 - 6.4 1.2 34.3 41% 18.9 4.7 3.3 26.9 41% 45.6 4.7 9.7 1.2 61.2 41% 32.5 1.4 9.7 1.2 44.8 73% Market Infrastructure Improvement of Business Environment, Regulatory 11.3 - - - 11.3 14% 12.7 0.3 - - 13.0 20% 24.0 0.3 - - 24.3 16% 28.5 1.1 - - 29.6 122% Framework, and Provision of Advisory Services 100 100 66.0 4.0 7.5 6.2 83.6 50.0 5.6 6.6 3.7 65.9 100% 116.0 9.5 14.1 9.9 149.5 114.6 6.2 14.1 9.9 144.8 97% Total % % Page 42 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS 1. An economic and financial analysis was conducted for the original project and the Additional Financing, prior to implementing these operations. The analysis was carried out for sub-component 1.2, which supports investments for supply chain development; and component 2, which supports small-scale irrigation and market development infrastructure. 2. The ex-ante analysis for the original project was based on various farm production models of three priority value chains (onion, mango, and livestock) and two minor ones (sesame, and cowpeas). The IRR at the enterprise level for the priority value chains ranged from 30 percent (mango on 0.25 ha) to 45 percent (onion on 0.5 ha), while the ERR ranged from 43 percent (mango on 0.25 ha) to 90 percent (enterprise with 4 cows). The results were even better for the minor value chains51, with IRR of 86 percent (cowpeas) and 106 percent (sesame), and ERR of 212 percent (cowpeas) and 257 percent (sesame). All theses models were more sensitive to yields and prices than costs, which provided justification for the emphasis on productivity. The economic analysis at project level (not including capacity building activities) yielded an IRR of 25 percent and an ERR of 23 percent. These high rates were hypothesized to stem from the yields increased due to the improvement in irrigation schemes and the availability of market infrastructure. The rates of return were more sensitive to decreased in benefits than an increase in the cost 3. A different approach than the one used for the original project was used for the AF ex-ante analysis. In the latter approach, the financial analysis was performed only at the enterprise level, and the economic analysis only at the project level. However, the analysis was carried on for sub-components 1.2 and component 2, as in the analysis for the original project. The analysis was based on a total of 8 enterprises models, including farm production models (onion, mango), livestock production (cattle fattening, and local poultry production), and processing activities (onion conservation, and dried mango operation). At the enterprise level the estimated IRRs for individual enterprises ranged from 32 percent (local poultries) to 70 percent (stored onions in a 12-ton infrastructure). These estimates are on line with those of the original project, although on different enterprise models. The ERR at the entire project level was estimated at 17.3 percent (Table 5). It was lower than the estimate of the original project (23%), but still adequate, with the assumed opportunity cost of capital of 10 percent. The sensitivity analysis for various scenario of 10 percent-20 percent-30 percent increase of costs or decrease of benefits suggested good robustness in the results. The analysis apparently misread the estimates of the original project52, and did not provide an explanation for the lower return for the AF. The sensitivity analysis at the project suggested slightly more sensitivity to a decrease in benefit (e.g. an ERR of 12.8% for a 30% decrease in benefits) than an increase in cost (e.g., an ERR of 14.0% for a 30% increase in cost). 51 The targeted value chains were selected based on a host of factors other than the results of the economic and financial analysis. 52 The PAD of the AF (reported that “This result (ERR of 17.3%) was is line with the ERR of the initial phase, estimated at about 16%. The slightly higher ERR is explained by the fact that entrepreneurs are expected to build on the knowledge and lessons of experience acquired during the first phase of project implementation ” (p.41). Page 43 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Table 5: Project’s Rates of Return at Appraisal and ICR stages Internal Rate of Return (%) Economic Rate of Return (%) Appraisal estimates 25.0 23.0 FA ex-ante estimate N/A 15 ICR estimate N/A 17.3 Note: IRRs at project level were not estimated for FA ex-ante and ICR analyses. 4. The ex-post economic and financial analysis conducted for the ICR relied on the same methodology used in the ex-ante FA analysis, i.e. a financial analysis only at enterprise level and an economic analysis only at project level (i.e. productive investment in component 1.2 and component 2, and excluding capacity building support). The analysis was based on six enterprise models, including for onion and mango production, cattle fattening and local poultry production, and conservation of onion and dried mango processing. The IRRs at enterprise level ranged from 25 percent (cattle fattening) to 52 percent (onion growing, and mango processing), and the NPV at 10 percent from 1.6 million CFA (poultry production) to 84 million CFA (onion growing). The sensitivity analysis indicated good robustness for most enterprises. As the switching values suggested (Table 6), dried mango processing was sensitive to a decrease in overall benefits (about 23%) and an increase in overall cost (by about 30%). For other enterprises, costs would have to increase by more than 50 percent, or benefits decrease by as much (except 43% for poultry) to see the NPV brought down to zero, thus the investment not worthy of private actors’ consideration. Table 6: Switching values for cost and benefit Enterprise model Cost increase Benefit decrease Dried mango processing 29.7% -22.9% Local poultry production 84.7% -45.9% Stored onion 108% -52.0% Mango production 198.9% -66.5% Onion production 246% -71.1% Cattle fattening 576.8% -85.2% 5. The economic analysis at project level the estimated NPV (at 10%) was 41,304 million FCFA and the ERR was 15.6 percent. Although lower than the ex-ante estimate of 17.3 percent, it remained encouraging. The lower return at the close of the project may be explained by the poor performance experienced in component 2: delays in establishing irrigation and market infrastructure. These were key factors explaining the better returns suggested by the analysis of the original project. Similar to the results of the original project and the AF, the results of the ex-post analysis were more sensitive to a decrease in the benefits than an increase in the cost: a decrease of 30 percent in the benefits would result in a decrease of the NPV by 76 percent, whereas an increase of 30 percent in the cost would only lower the NPV by 18 percent. A cost increase of 50 percent would lead to a decline in the NPV by 39 percent, whereas a benefit decrease of 50 percent would see the NPV plummet by 80 percent (see Figure 3 below). Page 44 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) Changes in net present value (NPV) according to changes in cost and benefits 60% 0% 50% 50% -10% -10% 40% -16% -20% 30% -20% 30% -30% 20% -30% 20% -32% -40% 10% 10% -50% -48% 0% -50% -60% -10% -6% -12% -70% -20% -18% -30% -80% -30% -80% -40% -90% Cost increase NPV decrease Benefit decrease NPV decrease 6. The overall efficiency, however, was negatively impacted by the untimeliness and incompleteness of several public irrigation and market infrastructures (component 2). The completion rate for the major market infrastructures (two fruits and vegetables platforms and three poultry market platforms) range from 60% to 95 percent. A compounding factor was that many of these infrastructures had already been delayed53, and that these delays had led to restructurings for project extensions. There is also the fact that over 1,000 micro-projects had to be called off because they had failed to meet a trigger milestone54 for subsequent tranches of financing. Although the project managed to recycle the funds provided, it also point to inefficiencies in the program. 7. Justification for rating the efficiency of the project Modest. The results of the economic and financial analysis, although lower than the in the ex-ante analysis are still encouraging. These, however, must be balanced against the less than stellar achievement of the irrigation and market infrastructures. 53 Contrary to most, the poultry market, outside Bobo Dioulasso, suffered no delays and no cost overrun, even when the contractor was asked to add a security post to the market after work was being completed. Completion of that structure was rated 95% because the ground needed to be cleared of debris, and leveled, and final arrangements made for users to move in. 54 For drip irrigation mango orchards, for example, the prerequisite was availability of adequate water in the borehole. Page 45 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) ANNEX 5. SUMMARY OF BORROWER’S ICR Unofficial translation from original French to English of the summary Section from the Implementation Completion Report prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Version September 2017). Full original version in French is part of the supporting documentation. 1. “…Prepared in 2005-2006, the program of support to the Agro-forestry-pastoral value chains (PAFASP) has been implemented from January 2007 to June 2017 through a Initial funding (FI) followed by an additional funding (FA). After covering nine (09) regions in the initial phase, the project covered across the country during the FA. Designed to stimulate the development of agro-forestry-pastoral value chains oriented by the market in order to increase competitiveness of their products, increase the income of operators and thus contribute to the objectives of economic growth and increase income, it had respectively as development objective and specific objectives: (i) improve the competitiveness of the agro-forestry-pastoral sectors targeted by the project, aimed at domestic and sub-regional markets, thus contributing to agricultural growth widely shared in Burkina-Faso, (ii) capacity-building of professional and Interprofessional organizations. 2. The organization and the implementation of the project involved the implementation of structures for guidance and control, namely the Committee of Pilotage (CP) and the Regional Committee for Coordination (CRC) on the one hand and on the other hand, the delivery agencies including the of project co-ordination unit (UCP), the antennas of the project (AP), the Committee of approval of projects at the regional level, the provincial Committee of pre-selection of the Micro-Projects at the provincial level (CAP), private service providers (engineering offices, NGOs, businesses) private, consultants, etc.) as well as other structures as organizations (unions, associations, cooperatives, groups), the regional chambers of agriculture (CRA), the “Enterprise House of Burkina Faso” (MEBF), and public structures of the State at the departmental, provincial, regional and central level. The project was under the supervision of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, while the Ministry of Agriculture oversaw its technical implementation. 3. The project targeted four (04) value chains (mango, onion, livestock/meat, local poultry) for concentration of support while covering a broad range of eight value chains including cotton, sesame, cowpea and maize. Producers, processors, traders, exporters and their organizations were the main direct beneficiaries of the project with a focus on women and youth as specific targets. 4. At the end of June 30, 2017, the overall rate of mobilization of IDA resources stood at 95.5 percent and that of the consideration of the Government to 68.5 percent. As to the contribution of financing institutions of (commercial banks and others), the total amount of loans to developers was 2,867 billion FCFA against 5,648 expected FCFA billion or about 51 percent. 5. Compared to the achievement of the major objectives of the project, almost all of the performance indicators have been widely made and even exceeded: (P1) the volume of agricultural exports from Burkina Faso international markets for dies response (not cotton) has more than doubled compared to the target of end of project; (P2) the volume of agricultural exports from Burkina Faso in the (ECOWAS) subregion for the sector of intervention (not cotton) represents more than 200 percent of the target of end of project; (P3) the percentage of beneficiaries of the program support and producers who Page 46 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) have increased their revenue channels targeted to at least 50 percent by the end of the project has also exceeded the target end-of-project (66,46% compared with 60%). (P4) project has counted 385.051 direct beneficiaries 15 percent women against 375,000 expected end-of-project, a rate of 103 percent. 6. Regarding outcomes, except for component 2, analysis is largely satisfactory for the other components and sub-components. Indeed, at the level of the component 1: (i) for the sub-component 1.1 "Support to the Organization and structuring of courses", five interbranch organizations have been implemented against five expected, productivity (T/ha) reached 15.2 T for mango against a target of 15T, and for the onion, 22.08 T against a target of 22T; on the other hand, productivity for cotton has increased 9 percent against a target of 15 percent; for local poultry productivity (number of marketable chickens per hen) amounted to 15.7 chickens against a target of 15 chickens; (ii) regarding the subcomponent 1.2 "Support for the promotion of private initiatives", 3.661 (MP) projects co-financed and executed successfully recorded at the end of the project against a target of 3,350 MP 102 percent of achievement but for a variety of reasons, more than one thousand MP (1.113) had to be abandoned or cancelled the during project. However, the project's successful transformation of 151 MP / ME for a 150 SME objective. In addition, thanks to the AF of the project, the amount of credits of 2 867 billion FCFA was obtained by actors of the value chains against a target of 1.5 billion CFA francs at project end. 7. On component 2: (i) for the sub-component 2.1 "Irrigation infrastructure", the project has achieved 3.391 ha of areas devoted to small-scale irrigation against 4,400 ha expected, for a success rate of about 84 percent; (ii) for the sub-component 2.2 "Marketing infrastructure", despite the difficulties encountered, the project has contributed to strengthening the infrastructural base of development of the products of ASP VCs across different subprojects concerning markets and marketing infrastructure of fruits and vegetables, parks of vaccination, livestock markets, centers for sale and slaughter of poultry, the upgrading of the TFB and the rehabilitation of the packing of fruits and vegetables "KOBA Ranch". 8. For component 3: (i) for the sub-component 3.1 "Improvement of the regulatory, legal and financial framework", the project has lifted seven (07) constraints corresponding to the target end-of- project, and released six (06) texts against ten (10) expected. However, the support of the project allowed to advance various reforms in the rural sector with such a specific investment code project for the agricultural sector, a strategy for inputs and livestock equipment and veterinarians along with its action plan, the establishment of a mechanism for the promotion of SMEs in the rural sector, and a national strategy for the Agriculture Council; (ii) for the sub-component 3.2 'Strengthening of the capacities of public and private service providers', the project has fully realized the end of project indicators which is a plan of building the capacity of public and private providers developed and executed as well as eleven (11) contracts based on the performance of providers of public services and private. In addition, it strengthened the capacity of the CMAP, to thirty-seven (37) engineering and control, of twenty-four (24) companies work, rehabilitated the ESA; (iii) for the sub-component 3.3 "The project management and monitoring and evaluation", the coordination of the implementation activities, financial and accounting, management the procurement, the follow-up and evaluation, environmental respect for backups and social have been appreciated by joint supervision Government - World Bank even if the overall performance of the project has been affected by unfinished infrastructure at the close of the project on June 30, 2017. 9. However, it did not question the quality of results which shows that the project has created multiple impacts and effects. The positive effects of the project include the increase in area and Page 47 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) production, improving business, financial performance and management of the beneficiaries, the improvement of aspects related to the genre as well as of the physical environment. The project has had impacts on farms/companies, the living conditions of the promoters and their families, the agricultural sector, institutions, policies, the legal and financial framework. 10. The impact study carried out at the end of the project showed that the PAFASP has been efficient and effective. At the same time, not only the project appeared relevant for beneficiaries, the country and the World Bank, and more results are globally viable and sustainable. 11. This success of the PAFASP resulted from the combination of the effects of several key factors. In particular, the design of the project has included: (i) a development of sectors oriented by the market, (ii) conduct of operations by the private sector, (iii) public-private partnership, (iv) a holistic approach to the channels, (v) a fast impact on growth, (vi) an equitable distribution of added value, (vii) a monitoring and evaluation based on the expected results, (viii) private management of marketing infrastructure, (ix) strengthening the links between smallholders and rural entrepreneurs so that they work together to take advantage of the opportunities in the market, (x) and the identification of the necessary support for the development of ASP. Another key to success is the relevance of components and sub-components on one side and on the other hand, taking into account in the approaches of the project the experiences in the preparation and implementation of projects in Burkina Faso and other countries of the subregion. The participatory approach and the flexibility in the implementation of the project allowing changes and successive adjustments as well as the FA have strongly contributed to the results achieved through the performance of the parties. 12. This experience of the PAFASP allowed to learn a lot both at the conceptual level of implementation that will contribute to promote the sustainability of the achievements of the project and in particular to guide future interventions in favor of ASP value chains. In particular, to sustain the achievements of the project, it is essential to continue efforts to improve the economic performance of the value chains, supply of basic infrastructure for the competitiveness of the products, the legal and regulatory framework financial, and supply of services. 13. The PAFASP is a resounding success, which needs an additional effort from the Government to complete ongoing infrastructure and strengthen its sustainability….”. Conclusions and Recommendations 14. « …The PAFASP is a major success in the promotion of ASP industries oriented by the market in order to increase the competitiveness of products, increase the income of actors and small operators into value chains likely to generate work opportunities in rural areas. Indeed, the project has exceeded almost all of its key performance indicators through a relevant project with adequate design for components and sub-components, an effective organization with effective orientation structures and bodies on one hand and, a proper implementation of the interventions approach accompanied by a continuous availability and a substantial commitment on the part of the Government and the World Bank, on the other hand. 15. In particular, the project significantly achieved the following results: (i) a better structuring of private sector with professional organisations and Interprofessional operators across five value chains where the majority has developed strategic plans and executed annual operating plans; (ii) a significant increase of production and exports of the products of these industries on the subregional market and the Page 48 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) international market based on the development of infrastructure for irrigation and marketing, the promotion of private initiatives of the operators, capacity-building, trade promotion and marketing; (iii)a legal and regulatory framework and a more attractive business environment induced by the lifting of several constraints, the implementation of facilitation tools of financing the initiatives of private channels, operators the capacity building of public and private services as well as structures and public services accompanying the development of ASP.But this capacity-building has not resulted in the development of a network of public and private providers able to respond effectively to the expectations of small producers and processors in terms of proximity, including support and advice of training, advice, quality control, etc. And a major issue of sustainability and amplification of the success of the project is the continuation of this support and advice to many still fragile micro-projects to avoid their early demise. 16. Moreover, due to their fairly recent establishment, most of the promoted interprofessional organizations (IPOs) are not yet able to provide services to their members and to help them better respond to the signals markets in quantitative and qualitative terms. The empowerment of the IPOs remains a major challenge for the future creation of an Agency/Foundation for the promotion of sectors able to appropriate some of the missions of the UCP in improving performance of ASP value chains or even of the legal, regulatory, financial framework, and supply of services that contains constraints penalizing a development of performing chains based on value chains competitive and generating jobs and income in the rural areas. 17. Ultimately, the fragility of several achievements of the project, combined with the need to complete some relevant irrigation and power infrastructure projects of products pipeline suggests financial efforts (3 billion FCFA) to ensure the sustainability of the success of the PAFASP. With this in mind, the Government through the Ministry of Agriculture has put in place a committee to draw up proposals on a follow-up to the project interventions. The mobilization of the balance of the share and an additional effort by the Government will ensure the necessary resources for the completion of the work...» Page 49 of 51 The World Bank Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project ( P081567 ) ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Burkina Faso (2014) Impacts Intermédiaires du Programme d’Appui aux Filières Agro-Sylvo-Pastorales (PAFASP),Volet Appui au Microprojects, version juillet 2014 Burkina Faso (2017). Etude d’Impact du Programme d’Appui aux Filières Agro-Sylvo-Pastorales (PAFASP), Rapport Final, Juin 2017 Burkina Faso (2017). Projet d’Appui aux Filières Agro-Sylvo-Pastorales (PAFASP), Raport d’Achèvement, Septembre 2017 Burkina Faso (2017). Rapport Provisoire, Capitalisation des Résultats du Programme d’Appui au Filières Agro- Sylvo-Pastorales (PAFASP), Juin 2017 Burkina Faso. Plan National de Développement Economique et Social (PNDES), 2016-2020 Projet d’Appui aux Filières Agro-Sylvo-Pastorales (2017). Analyse Economique et Financière Projet d’Appui aux Filières Agro-Sylvo-Pastorales (PAFASP). Plan Operationnels Annuels (POA) des Organisations Interprofessionnelles. Projet d’Appui aux Filières Agro-Sylvo-Pastorales (PAFASP). Rapports annuels World Bank (2014). La Facilitation de la Globalisation, Burkina Faso: l”Etude Diagnostique sur l’Integration Commerciale, Avril 16, 2014 World Bank (2014). Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Credit in the Amount of SDR 32.40 Million (USS$50.0 Million Equivalent) to Burkina Faso for an Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project, May 20, 2014, Report Number 87115-BF World Bank (2017). Burkina Faso: Priorités pour la Réduction de la Pauvreté et la Prospérité Partagée. Diagnostic-Pays Systématique, Avril 2017 World Bank, (2006). Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 46 Million (US$66.0 Million Equivalent) to Burkina Faso for an Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Project, May 23, 2006, Report Number: 35389-BF World Bank. Implementation Status and Results Reports (ISR). World Bank. Project Restructuring Papers World Bank. Staff Aide Memoires Page 50 of 51