Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: ICR00004610 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT TF015730 ON A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 5.54 MILLION TO THE African Forum for Agrucultural Advisory Services (AFAAS) FOR THE AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund December 21, 2018 Agriculture Global Practice Africa Region CURRENCY Currency Unit = US$ FISCAL YEAR July 1 - June 30 Regional Vice President: Hafez M. H. Ghanem Country Director: Elisabeth Huybens Senior Global Practice Director: Juergen Voegele Practice Manager: Mark E. Cackler Task Team Leader(s): Bremala Malli ICR Main Contributor: Aimee Marie Ange Mpambara ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAS Agricultural Advisory Services AEAS Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services AAEW Agricultural Extension Week AFAAS African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services AUC African Union Commission AWP&B Annual Work Plan and Budget CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CF Country Fora EUR Euro FAAP Framework of African Agricultural Productivity FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa FM Financial Management GDP Gross Domestic Product GFRAS Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GMS Gender Mainstreaming Strategy ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report ICT Information and Communication Technologies IDA International Development Association IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ISM Implementation Support Mission IPR Independent Procurement Review ISR Implementation Status and Results Report MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoU Memorandum of Understanding MTR Mid-Term Review OM Operations Manual PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective RF Results Framework S3A Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa S&OP Strategic and Operational Plan SP Strategic Plan USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET ....................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 5 A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL .........................................................................................................5 Theory of Change (Results Chain) ................................................................................................6 Figure 1: Project Theory of Change ..............................................................................................7 II. OUTCOME .................................................................................................................... 14 A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs ............................................................................................................ 14 C. EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................................................... 18 D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING .................................................................... 18 E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 19 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 20 A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION ................................................................................... 20 B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................. 21 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 22 A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ............................................................ 22 B. FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................................... 23 C. BANK PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 23 D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ....................................................................................... 24 V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 24 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................... 27 ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 36 ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 38 ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 39 ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ... 40 ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (IF ANY) ..................................................................... 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) DATA SHEET BASIC INFORMATION Product Information Project ID Project Name AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services P143367 Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund Country Financing Instrument Africa Investment Project Financing Original EA Category Revised EA Category Not Required (C) Not Required (C) Organizations Borrower Implementing Agency AFAAS African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS) Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO To reform and strengthen Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS) in accordance with FAAP principles towards increasing agricultural productivity and food security. Revised PDO To support and strengthen Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS) in accordance with the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) principles. PDO as stated in the legal agreement Original PDO : To reform and strengthen Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS) in accordance with the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) principles towards agricultural productivity and food security. Page 1 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) FINANCING Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) World Bank Financing 5,540,000 5,536,881 5,536,881 TF-15730 Total 5,540,000 5,536,881 5,536,881 Non-World Bank Financing Borrower/Recipient 0 0 0 International Fund for 1,000,000 0 0 Agriculture Development Total 1,000,000 0 0 Total Project Cost 6,540,000 5,536,881 5,536,881 KEY DATES Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing 23-Aug-2013 31-Oct-2013 27-Apr-2016 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions 18-Dec-2017 5.05 Change in Project Development Objectives Change in Results Framework Change in Components and Cost Change in Loan Closing Date(s) Reallocation between Disbursement Categories Change in Legal Covenants Change in Implementation Schedule KEY RATINGS Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Modest Page 2 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs Actual No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Disbursements (US$M) 01 21-Jun-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory .76 02 06-Jan-2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.18 03 24-Jun-2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.85 04 30-Dec-2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.79 05 23-Jun-2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.27 06 30-Dec-2016 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.80 07 22-May-2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.37 08 28-Dec-2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.19 09 05-Jul-2018 Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.54 SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Major Sector/Sector (%) Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 100 Agricultural Extension, Research, and Other Support 100 Activities Themes Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%) Finance 20 Finance for Development 20 Agriculture Finance 20 Page 3 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Human Development and Gender 32 Education 32 Access to Education 8 Science and Technology 8 Teachers 8 Standards, Curriculum and Textbooks 8 Urban and Rural Development 50 Rural Development 50 Rural Markets 20 Rural Infrastructure and service delivery 30 ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Hafez M. H. Ghanem Country Director: Colin Bruce Elisabeth Huybens Senior Global Practice Director: Jamal Saghir Juergen Voegele Practice Manager: Severin L. Kodderitzsch Mark E. Cackler Task Team Leader(s): David J. Nielson Bremala Malli ICR Contributing Author: Aimee Marie Ange Mpambara Page 4 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL Context 1. The structure of African agriculture presents a unique set of challenges to increasing productivity. The bulk of African agriculture is small-scale, in highly diversified, rain-fed farming systems. Such systems, which are often very complex, have received scant attention resulting in little knowledge of how they function. Further, there is a limited flow of information from the farm to inform research, education and extension systems. To ameliorate this situation there needs to be an integrated approach around the research, extension and education triangle, with the farmer at the center. Farmer organizations need to partner with research, education and extension organizations in a participatory system, which effectively links knowledge, innovation, science, research, education and advice. 2. In response to these challenges, African leaders signaled their commitment to achieving growth in agricultural productivity and agricultural GDP in 2003, by launching the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), recognizing that growth in agriculture is crucial to achieving widely shared economic growth and poverty reduction in Africa, and that growth in agricultural productivity is key to achieving agricultural growth on the continent. The goal of CAADP is to help African countries reach and sustain a higher path of economic growth through agricultural-led development that reduces hunger and poverty, and enables food and nutrition security, and growth in exports. The CAADP process was framed conceptually around four Pillars: (i) sustainable land and water management; (ii) development of infrastructure and improved access to markets; (iii) increased food supply, reduced hunger, and improved response to food crises; and (iv) dissemination and adoption of improved agricultural technologies and investment in agricultural research. Lead Pillar agencies were established to provide technical support to countries, regions, and at the continental level, within each of their respective technical areas. 3. The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) was mandated to lead Pillar IV and delegated the African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS), through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between FARA and AFAAS in 2008, to be the continental lead on the delivery and development of agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS). AFAAS is the continental African body that brings AEAS stakeholders under one umbrella. The substantive motivation for AFAAS’ formation was to address the isolation of the extension community through the creation of AEAS platforms within and across countries on the continent. It was established as a platform for sharing information, lessons, tools and approaches for efficient and effective AEAS delivery, and to provide a mechanism for supporting and coordinating the development of AEAS within the CAADP framework. AFAAS’ objective (and responsibility) is to bring about institutional and behavioral changes amongst agricultural advisory services (AAS) providers, to make them more efficient and effective. 4. More specifically, the main objectives of AFAAS are: (a) ensuring that CAADP’s Pillar IV directly addresses the AAS needs of African farmers, and contributing to the increased effectiveness and relevance of these services; (b) mobilizing and utilizing synergies across Africa for AAS development; (c) ensuring the accessibility of appropriate and up-to-date knowledge on AAS from a range of African and international sources; (d) empowering country-level AAS stakeholders to determine their own priorities and lead efforts Page 5 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) to improve their national and local AAS systems; (e) building partnerships at national, regional, and international levels between AEAS and other institutions contributing to sustained growth and transformation of agriculture; and (f) building a continental African organization that can sustainably support national AEAS to continuously enhance their contribution to national, regional, continental, and global development objectives. The first MDTF Grant (2010-2011) supported the establishment of the AFAAS Secretariat and its legal, governance and operational structures, as well as the development of AFAAS’ 2011-2015 Strategic and Operational Plan (S&OP), which espoused the above objectives. 5. The AFAAS Second MDTF Grant (“Grant�) was set up to support AFAAS’ 2011-2015 S&OP. As it is widely accepted that agricultural research, extension and education are essential elements in helping Africa to raise agriculture productivity, this Grant was an important element of efforts under the CAADP agenda. The S&OP mainly focused on creating institutional mechanisms for networking and knowledge management related to AFAAS’ core agenda. This was expected to result in a cascade of changes, starting with AEAS providers sharing information and interacting at the professional level, thereby leading to their knowledge enhancement. It was assumed that this would build the capacity needed to promote knowledge and technological change, and ultimately contribute to the increase of agriculture productivity and food security. 6. At the time of project appraisal, there was dynamic dialogue over the role of regional African agriculture institutions, and debate surrounding the delivery of technical services within Africa. Between 2012-2014 the African Union Commission (AUC) was challenging several of the underlying assumptions related to the role of regional agencies and the value addition of CAADP. The Malabo Declaration (2014), a recommitment to the CAADP agenda, was the key output from these deliberations. At the same time, the agencies implementing CAADP were formally dropping the 4 Pillar business model. In 2013, the AUC developed an alternative model referred to as the Knowledge, Information and Skills Framework (KIS). In that context, AFAAS refocused its S&OP in 2015 to focus on knowledge management and sharing; and extended the implementation period of the S&OP to 2017 (renamed Strategic Plan 2011-2017). The project’s theory of change was developed within this context, and the Implementation Completion and Results (ICR) Report project assessment is based on the achievements of the expected results of the AFAAS S&OP and the Strategic Plan (SP) 2011-2017. Theory of Change (Results Chain) 7. As explained above, the project was designed as an institutional strengthening project, to support the AFAAS Secretariat and its network (country fora or CF). It sought to increase agricultural productivity and food security by improving the quality of AEAS in Africa through the creation of a platform within the CAADP framework, for information sharing, lessons, tools and approaches for efficient and effective AEAS delivery centered on farmer participation. This was to be done through support to AFAAS’ governance and administration system, and country AEAS systems, as engagement in CAADP Pillar IV would lead to stronger AEAS services and bring institutional and behavioral changes in AEAS providers to make them more efficient and effective. The improved effectiveness of AEAS systems would ultimately lead to the increased adoption of improved technologies by farmers which would lead to increases in agriculture productivity and food security, in line with CAADP objectives. 8. The theory of change, as illustrated below was based on two critical assumptions: (i) that the CAADP agenda was embraced by different countries in Africa; and (ii) that AFAAS had sufficient funding to Page 6 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) implement its S&OP. These assumptions are reflected in the project appraisal document (PAD). Both assumptions affected the implementation and the outcomes of the project as discussed in the following sections of the ICR. Figure 1: Project Theory of Change 9. Grant support to AFAAS was based on the PAD and the legal agreement between AFAAS and the World Bank with respect to: AFAAS’ S&OP/SP; AFAAS’s Operational Manual (OM), as well as consistency of AFAAS’ annual work plans and budgets (AWP&B) with the S&OP/SP (confirmed through annual discussion of the AWP&B); and successful implementation of the S&OP/SP in a manner consistent with the OM (confirmed through annual discussions of implementation results). Accordingly, AWP&Bs were developed based on available resources. 10. The direct project beneficiaries were: (i) AFAAS, supported in its functions as a platform for sharing information, lessons, tools and approaches for efficient and effective AAS delivery, and to provide a mechanism for supporting and coordinating the development of AAS within the CAADP framework; and (ii) AAS actors (publics and private) who are facilitated by AFAAS to develop and implement farmer participatory knowledge systems, moving away from the centralized extension approaches common in Africa. The indirect beneficiaries of the project are farmers and their organizations receiving appropriate AAS adapted to their needs and the changing national, regional and continental natural, policy and markets environments. Project Development Objective (PDO) 11. The project development objective at appraisal was to reform and strengthen Agricultural Advisory Page 7 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Services (AAS) in accordance with the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) principles1 towards increasing agricultural productivity and food security. 12. The PDO was restructured (discussed later) “to support and strengthen Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS) in accordance with the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) principles�. 13. The PAD and the AFAAS S&OP clarify that reforming the AAS system refers to moving from the centralized public extension services to a more pluralistic model, where extensions services could be provided by a larger number of organizations including different non-governmental organizations (NGOs), value chains actor (such as processing plants), private advisors, input distributors, national public extension services, etc. all referred to as “AAS providers� in the project. The project’s ultimate objective is, therefore, to strengthen these AAS providers to allow them to become more efficient, which would contribute to increased agricultural productivity and food security over the long term. Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators 14. The project expected outcomes were: (i) Improved engagement of AAS providers in the agriculture policy dialogue at country level; (ii) Improved engagement of AAS providers in agriculture policy dialogue at continental level; and (iii) Improved AFAAS capacity to lead AAS at the continental level. These results were to be achieved through the following areas identified in the AFAAS S&OP: (i) participating in implementation of CAADP Pillar IV; (ii) information, communication and knowledge management; (iii) establishing and supporting CF; (iv) linkages and partnerships; and (v) developing governance, management and funding systems. 15. The assessment of the project outcomes was based on the outcome indicators in the table below, but also on the implementation of AFAAS’ S&OP/SP, in keeping with the results areas. 1 FAAP Principles : (i) Empowerment of end-users to participate in decision making on priorities, programmes and use of resources; (ii) Planned subsidiarity (giving responsibility & control over resources at the lowest appropriate level; (iii) Pluralism in the delivery of agricultural extension services; (iv) Integration of gender considerations at all levels; (v) Evidence-based approaches (including use of new science, knowledge and technologies); (vi) Integration of extension with other actors in the agricultural innovation system; (vii) Systematic utilization of improved management information systems/ ICT; (viii) Explicit incorporation of sustainability criteria (fiscal, economic, social and environmental); (ix) Cost sharing with end users according to their capacity to pay. Page 8 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Table 1: Outcome2 Indicators at Appraisal and After Restructuring Outcome Indicators at Appraisal Outcome Indicators after Restructuring Outcome: AAS delivery % of value chain actors utilizing Percentage of AEAS actors strengthened in accordance with improved knowledge and (individuals) directly reached / the FAAP principles technologies affected by AFAAS, that are satisfied with the quality of its % of various categories of value services chain actors satisfied with the quality of AEAS Intermediate Outcome 1: Number of CF established and Number of CF with capacity to Improved engagement of AAS operating in accordance with FAAP articulate demands, advocate for providers in the agriculture policy guidelines (with capacity to AEAS reforms, address gender dialogue at country level articulate demands, advocate for equality, mobilize and manage AEAS reforms, address gender resources and act as platform for equality, mobilize and manage sharing knowledge resources and act as platform for sharing knowledge) Number AEAS Extension approaches recommended and /or implemented by stakeholders Intermediate Outcome 2: Number of partnerships formed at Number of partnerships formed at Improved engagement of AAS national, regional, and international national, regional, and international providers in agriculture policy levels levels dialogue at continental level Intermediate Outcome 3: Increase in the amount of funds for Increase in the amount of funds for Improved AFAAS capacity to lead supporting AEAS in Africa supporting AFAAS’ strategic plan AAS at continental level Components 16. Component 1: Support to Country AAS for Engagement in CAADP Pillar IV (US $ 10.5 million at appraisal, US $ 4.64 million actual): This component was to support all AAS stakeholders, both public and private, guided by the FAAP principles, in their engagement in the implementation of CAADP Pillar IV, in their various countries. This included the development of mechanisms and implementation guidelines to ensure that the process of developing and supporting CAADP Country Compacts reflected the role and importance of AAS. In each member country, this would, in part, be through support to CF for AAS, as well as capacity building, human resource development and innovation activities in delivering AAS. This component had two sub-components: (i) Sub-component 1.1: Establishment and Strengthening of Country Fora (CF) aimed at supporting the emergence and strengthening of CF of AAS stakeholders at the country level; and (ii) Sub- component 1.2. Support to Regional and Continental Collaboration in AAS. This subcomponent was to support the establishment of the infrastructure and mechanisms to enable AAS actors to network for 2The table gives only outcomes indicators and leaves out some output indicators such as number of CF established, the number of individuals utilizing IT tools and platforms facilitated by AFAAS & C in the project result framework. Page 9 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) purposes of, among other things, sharing experiences, finding solutions to everyday problems, accessing global knowledge hubs and facilitating collective innovation in AAS delivery. 17. Component 2: AFAAS Governance, Project Management and Secretariat Activities (US $6.5 million at appraisal, US $ 0.90 million actual): This component focused on the functioning of the AFAAS Secretariat, including: (i) supporting AFAAS governance and management systems; (ii) developing and implementing a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system; (iii); undertaking syntheses and strategic studies; and (iv) developing and maintaining a database on AAS in Africa. 18. Component 3. MDTF Management and Grant Supervision ($1.44 million)3: This component was executed by the World Bank to support MDTF management and administration, and Grant supervision. B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) 19. The MDTF financing for the Bank-approved PAD in the amount of US $18.4 million did not fully materialize. The project amount was based on AFAAS’ S&OP which was costed at US $17 million (recipient-executed Components 1 and 2), plus US $ 1.4 million (Bank-executed3 Component 3), rather than actual Grant funds available for recipient-execution. At the time of project appraisal, approximately US $4.4 million was available to support AFAAS’ S&OP (equivalent to EUR 5 million pledged by the European Commission, less the Bank-executed portion), plus US $1 million in bilateral support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), for a total of US $5.4 million. The final Grant amount was US $5.54 million, resulting from a EUR to USD exchange rate loss, and Bank supervision cost savings that were subsequently passed on to AFAAS4. 20. The project mid-term review (MTR) was conducted in May 2016 and identified the need to revise the results framework including the project development objective (PDO) and indicators. This change was meant to focus on what could directly be attributable to AFAAS, in line with its mandate and refocused Strategic Plan (2011-2017). 21. Following the MTR recommendations, the Grant was restructured in December 20175. The restructuring included: (a) revision of the results framework including PDO and indicators; (b) reallocation of funds between expenditure categories; (c) revision and inclusion of Grant Agreement definitions; (d) elimination of a dated covenant; (e) increase in the grant amount; (f) 6-month extension of the closing date to June 30, 2018; and (g) corrections to Portal data. Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets 22. The restructuring revised the PDO as follows: “To support and strengthen Agricultural Advisory Services 3 Erroneously entered in the PAD as part of the project design and therefore, factored into the total project cost of US $18.4 million. 4 In December 2016, the Grant amount was increased by US $900,000, resulting from the Bank team’s savings on Bank-executed program management/administration and implementation support costs. A standard coefficient had been used to calculate the supervision cost, commensurate with the amount budgeted to supervise related MDTFs to sub-regional organizations. Mission cost sharing, plus two virtual supervision missions, and limited Bank attendance at AFAAS Board meetings resulted in the significant cost savings. 5 See section on Bank Supervision for explanation regarding restructuring delay. Page 10 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) (AAS) in accordance with the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) principles�. 23. The PDO adjustment resulted in two major changes: (i) the objective to “reform the AAS� was changed to “support AAS�. This change better fits AFAAS’ mandate and associated expectations; and (ii) the reference to the long-term goal of “increasing agricultural productivity and food security� was eliminated. 24. The change, however, did not modify the theory of change or the project outcomes and expected results, but rather focused on what could be attributable to AFAAS, given its mandate to fit the realities of CAADP implementation and national policy reform structures in Africa. Revised PDO Indicators 25. The restructuring revised the PDO indicators to show direct attribution to AFAAS as follows in Table 2: Table 2: Original vs. Revised PDO Indicators Original Indicator Revised Indicator Change and rationale of change 1. Percent of value chain actors 1. Increase in number of AEAS Indicator adjusted to show direct utilizing improved knowledge and actors (individuals) directly attribution to AFAAS. Unit of technologies affected or reached by AFAAS measurement in number, instead interventions (disaggregated by of percentage. gender) 2. Percent of various categories of 2. Percentage of AEAS actors Indicator adjusted to show direct value chain actors satisfied with (individuals) directly reached / attribution to AFAAS the quality of AAS affected by AFAAS, that are satisfied with the quality of its services Revised Components 26. The approved PAD included two recipient-executed project components, as well as a third component, representing activities associated with Bank supervision and program management. The restructuring retained only the two recipient-executed components: Component 1: Support to Country AAS for Engagement in CAADP Pillar IV; and Component 2: AFAAS Governance, Management and Secretariat Activities. 27. The revision also changed the indicators to measure the project outcomes (see Table 3) below: Table 3: Original vs. Revised Intermediate Indicators Original Indicator New Indicator Change and rationale of change Intermediate result 1: Increased country level capacity in AAs for engagement in CAADP Pillar IV 1.1 Number of Country Fora (CF) 1.1 Number of Country Fora (CF) No change established established Number of registered members of NEW the CF 1.2 Number of CF established and 1.2 Number of CF with capacity to REVISED. Indicator refined to be operating in accordance with FAAP articulate demands, advocate for eliminate extraneous text. guidelines (with capacity to AEAS reforms, address gender Page 11 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) articulate demands, advocate for equality, mobilize and manage AAS reforms, address gender resources and act as platform for equality, mobilize and manage sharing knowledge. resources and act as platform for sharing knowledge) 1.3 Number of AAS pro 1.3 Number of CF that have REVISED. Indicator clarified to productivity/food security reforms recommended policy options to show that policy makers will be the effectively delivered by the CF policy makers recipients of policy options and broadened to capture for all AAS policy options. 1.4. Number AEAS Extension NEW approaches recommended and /or implemented by stakeholders 1.5 Number of individuals utilizing NEW IT tools and platforms facilitated by AFAAS & CF Intermediate result 2: Increased regional and continental collaboration and partnership in support of AAS reform 2.1 Stakeholders validate DROPPED. The result for this partnership strategy indicator was achieved in Year 1 (2014) 2.2 Number of partnerships formed 2.2 Increase in number of No change at national, regional, and partnerships formed at national, international levels regional, and international levels 2.3 Number of partnerships 2.3 Number of partnerships that REVISED. Indicator expanded to effectively delivering gender- have recommended emerging and cover more cross-cutting issues, related reforms in AAS cross-cutting issues (gender, youth, and not only gender. climate change) related reforms in AAS Intermediate result 3: Better governance and management of AFAAS in support of AAS reform 3.1 Existence of functional 3.1 Existence of functional REVISED. No change to indicator, governance procedures, governance procedures, but measurement was “yes/no� management structures, and management structures, and text. Unit will now be based on 4- policies policies point satisfaction scale. 3.2 Increase in the amount of funds 3.2 Increase in the amount of funds REVISED. Indicator adjusted to for supporting AAS in Africa for supporting AFAAS strategic plan show direct attribution to AFAAS. 3.3 Number of advocacy initiatives 3.3 Number of advocacy initiatives REVISED. Indicator expanded to positively impacting gender that have recommended cover more cross-cutting issues, reforms in AAS emerging/cross cutting issues and not only gender. (gender, youth, climate change) reforms in AEAS to policy makers 28. Other changes at restructuring (described in more detail below) included the following: (i) reallocation of funds between expenditure categories; (ii) elimination of a dated covenant; (iii) revision and inclusion of Grant Agreement definitions; (iv) increase in the grant amount by US $0.2 million to reflect the remaining available balance in the MDTF; (v) extension of Grant closing date by six months; and (vi) corrections to Portal data to reflect only the recipient-executed costs in the disbursement estimates. Page 12 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Rationale for Changes and their Implication on the Original Theory of Change 29. The restructuring did not affect the original theory of change and the expected results. The change clarified the PDO, focusing on what could be attributable to AFAAS. (a) Results Framework (RF): A detailed review of the RF during the MTR confirmed that several indicators were unrealistic given the funding situation, some would be difficult to measure, and others were not directly attributable to AFAAS. (b) Reallocation of funds between expenditure categories: Reallocation of grant proceeds at the MTR was made to better reflect actual demand of project interventions. At the MTR, it was found that the sub-grants amount was higher than AFAAS could manage effectively, given that Secretariat staffing was constrained to be smaller than originally planned, due to lack of funding. (c) Elimination of dated covenant. A dated covenant requiring the recruitment of a Finance and Administration Manager was not fulfilled due to limited availability of funding, the need to focus on the hiring of critical staff positions required to implement the annual work plan, and the low volume of transactions at AFAAS. The restructuring removed the requirement following an in-depth fiduciary review and Bank re-assessment of AFAAS’ ability to manage Grant funds. Both the review and re- assessment determined that AFAAS was adequately staffed with a Finance and Administration Officer who was a qualified and experienced accountant, and a Finance Assistant possessing professional accounting qualifications, but limited experience. (d) Revision and inclusion of Grant Agreement definitions. An in-depth fiduciary review revealed that certain costs (rent, utilities and staff benefits) could be considered ineligible, since these were not included in the definition of operating costs in the Grant Agreement. The restructuring corrected that oversight and included the types of costs in question. (e) Increase in the grant amount. The restructuring increased the total Grant amount by $200,000 in December 2017. This amount reflects the remaining available balance in the MDTF following receipt of the donor’s final payment in October 2017. (f) Extension of Project closing date. The six-month extension of the closing date was enacted to allow AFAAS to fully disburse against approved sub-grants and provide bridge financing, as AFAAS was expecting to secure additional bilateral funding during the extension period. (g) Corrections to Portal data. The approved PAD included the two recipient-executed project components specified above, and mistakenly included Component 3, representing activities associated with Bank supervision and program management. The cost of this component was factored into the total project cost, reflected on the PAD cover page, disbursement estimates, and in the components column of the Portal and the PAD. The restructuring corrected the Portal data to reflect only the recipient-executed costs. Page 13 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) II. OUTCOME A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs 30. Though the project restructuring changed the PDO formulation, it did not significantly alter the ultimate objective of the project, which was to strengthen AFAAS and AAS providers to allow for more pluralism in the AAS delivery in Africa. In that regard, the assessment of the relevance of the PDO applies to both PDO formulations (before and after) the restructuring. 31. The PDO and AFAAS S&OP objective were relevant to the CAADP agenda at project appraisal, throughout project implementation, and at completion. The Grant was set to support implementation of the AFAAS S&OP. Following project completion, AFAAS continued to play an active role in the formulation and implementation of initiatives related to strengthen advisory services in the context of the Malabo commitment. 32. Its relevance is confirmed in the signing of an MoU between AFAAS and the AUC in April 2015, legitimizing it as an AUC institution spearheading AEAS, with a focus on knowledge and knowledge support of the Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa (S3A), under the framework for sustaining CAADP momentum following the 2014, African Heads of States Malabo commitment6. 33. The International Development Agency (IDA) 18 goals for agri-food development also identify ‘’supporting advisory services in Africa� as one of the identified areas of investments to achieve the second goal - “Better jobs – developing skills and innovation�, showing the continued relevance of the project to the World Bank. 34. The PDO still remains relevant to the CAADP agenda and the Malabo commitment. The rating of its relevance is, therefore, “High�. B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) 35. The overall efficacy of the PDO is rated “substantial�. The FAAP emphasizes that the effectiveness of technology generation and dissemination depends on their relevance and responsiveness to farmers’ needs, and therefore provides guiding principles for the reform of AAS institutions to make them more client-driven for enhanced farmer empowerment. It calls for AAS reforms that would improve the accountability of AAS providers to clients, put in place a demand/market-driven service provision system, decentralize service delivery and promote increased pluralism (including participation of the private sector) in the provision of services. 36. AFAAS currently operates in more than 40 countries in Africa, and has facilitated the establishment of national extension forums, which serve as platforms to convene and co-ordinate stakeholders, identify capacity gaps, prioritize research needs, and drive professionalization efforts. The major achievement of AFAAS has been the establishment and support of Country Fora7, as the foundation for the continental 6 The framework for sustaining CAADP momentum has three strategic foci (i) strengthening and aligning institutions; policies and leadership; (ii) knowledge and knowledge support; and (iii) financing and investments in agriculture. 7 Country fora are multi-stakeholder entities comprised of public and private individuals, and organizations active in the AEAS Page 14 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) institutional architecture for networking and coordination of AEAS. The modality of working through the CF, comprised of different stakeholders, and involving farmers organizations in their programs, effectively introduced pluralism into the AAS ecosystem. 37. With support from AFAAS, the CF have been championing national AEAS policy dialogue and formulation processes; providing opportunities and interfaces for networking, communication and knowledge management; initiating activities for professionalization of AEAS in their countries, and, enhancing the knowledge and skills of AEAS providers through training on new extension concepts and innovation platforms. 38. Though there are some case studies illustrating increased productivity8 and utilization of improved knowledge and technologies, AFAAS was unable to report on the PDO indicators “Percent of value chain actors utilizing improved knowledge and technologies�; and “Percent of various categories of value chain actors satisfied with the quality of AEAS�. This shortcoming does not allow for quantification of the results of the project prior to the MTR and restructuring. 39. The project has achieved and exceeded both PDO level indicators agreed after the MTR. The target for PDO 1: “Increase in number of AEAS actors (individuals) directly affected or reached by AFAAS interventions (disaggregated by gender)� was 25,000, and the amount achieved was 28,431 (of which 10,160 or 36% were female, and 18,271 or 64% were male). Similarly, the target for PDO 2: “Percentage of AEAS actors (individuals) directly reached / affected by AFAAS, that are satisfied with the quality of its services� was 65%, whereas AFAAS achieved 68%. Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome 40. Project outcomes were determined based on an assessment of project achievements against intermediary outcomes, and not PDO-level outcomes, as PDO-level indicator data collection was not possible prior to MTR. The project achieved 9 out of 10 intermediate indicators. Only one indicator was not achieved, as 51% of financing was secured for support to the S&OP, against the targeted 96%. 41. Intermediary outcome 1: Improved engagement of AAS providers in agriculture policy dialogue at country level: (Rating: Substantial). This result was to be achieved through support to the capacity of AEAS actors at country level, including their capacity to contribute to national CAADP processes. AFAAS has worked through the CF and supported them through the provision of different tools, including training, coaching and sub-grants. With support from AFAAS, the CF have been championing national AEAS policy dialogue and formulation processes; providing opportunities and interfaces for networking, communication and knowledge management; initiating activities for professionalization of AEAS in their countries, and, enhancing the knowledge and skills of AEAS providers through training on new extension concepts and innovation platforms. space within countries. 8 Source: AFAAS Annual progress reports; AFAAS MDTF end of project evaluation report (2017); IFPRI (2016). Agricultural Research in Africa; investing in future harvest; and AGRA. (2018). Africa Agriculture Status Report: Catalyzing Government Capacity to Drive Agricultural Transformation (Issue 6). Nairobi, Kenya: Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Page 15 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Box 1: Key Results for Intermediary Outcome 1 AFAAS has established and supported AAS Country Fora (CF) through: (i) participatory review and validation of guidelines for establishment and strengthening of CF, based on implementation experiences; and (ii) completion of in-country sensitization in 24 countries. • At project completion, 22 CF were operational in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. A total of 3,594 members were registered (against a target of 2,500), of which 902 (or 25%) are female. • These CF supported AEAS capacity and reforms through advocacy (Malawi) and participation in policy making processes and policy reforms (Uganda, Rwanda, Nigeria, Liberia, South Sudan, South Africa, Malawi and Ghana); and piloting innovation tools, promotion of quality and professionalization of AEAS services (Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa). • Sub-grants were used by CF to pilot a variety of innovative ideas for extension. Examples of projects funded through the sub-grants include, inter alia, youth-led commercial-based extension services in Uganda and LandInfo Mobile App technology, providing soil and climate information in Kenya. AFAAS has strengthened capacities at country level to contribute to national CAADP processes through the development and participatory review of guidelines incorporating AEAS concerns in CAADP compacts; capacity development of experts to backstop CF in their engagement in CAADP processes from an AEAS perspective; and sensitization and mentoring of CF during events at continental/regional and country levels. 42. Intermediary outcome 2: Improved engagement of AAS providers in agriculture policy dialogue at continental level (Rating: Substantial): This result was to be achieved through the establishment of infrastructure and mechanisms to enable AEAS actors to network, share experiences, problem solve, access global knowledge hubs and facilitate collective innovation in AEAS delivery. AFAAS achieved these results through: (i) institutionalization of the Africa-wide Agriculture Extension Week (AAEW); (ii) participation in CAADP implementation at the continental level, (iii) information, communication and knowledge management; and (iv) partnerships. Page 16 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Box 2: Key Results for Intermediary Outcome 2 AFAAS institutionalized the delivery of the biennial Africa-wide Agricultural Extension Week as a mechanism for enabling physical interaction between AEAS stakeholders from the continent and outside for purposes of knowledge exchange, learning and fostering AEAS innovation. These events have been bringing together participants from African ministries of agriculture, AEAS (public, private and civil society organizations), farmers and farmers organizations, academia, national, regional and international agricultural research institutions and development partners. AFAAS has played a prominent and leading role in conceptualizing and operationalizing CAADP Pillar IV at every level. AFAAS has participated in continental and regional platforms discussing implementation of CAADP Pillar IV and the Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa (S3A). AFAAS participation also led to elaboration of a strategy for AEAS engagement in CAADP, which was subsequently embedded in the strategic plan for CAADP Pillar IV. It also showcased the need for capacity development within AEAS; and gaps with regard to AEAS and higher education in the country CAADP investment plans. AFAAS has facilitated the availability and accessibility of appropriate and up-to-date knowledge on AAS from a range of sources in Africa and worldwide . This was achieved through the establishment of infrastructure and mechanisms enabling AEAS actors to network for purposes of, among other things, sharing experiences, problem solving, accessing global knowledge hubs and facilitating collective innovation in AEAS delivery. This was accomplished through: (i) the use of a variety of tools for information and knowledge exchange (website, social media channels, AFAAS virtual social networking platform (VSNP), publications, and engagement with mass media); (ii) the development of a tool for assessment of innovativeness, and a template for characterizing innovative approaches; and (iii) support for cross-country exchanges. AFAAS focused on building partnerships at national, regional, continental, and international levels between AAS and other institutions with similar mandates and interests in improving AEAS, contributing to sustained growth and agricultural transformation. It created strong linkages with the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) - the body that brings continental AEAS bodies under one umbrella, establishing linkages and partnerships with 49 organizations. A GFRAS capacity assessment conducted in 2016 determined that AFAAS was the global model, with the most mature network within the larger GFRAS complex – no other entity is as well-funded, organized or achieved the level of results that AFAAS has achieved, particularly in terms of CF establishment and support. 43. Intermediary outcome 3: Improved AFAAS capacity to lead AAS at continental level (Rating: Substantial): AFAAS has been able to sustain and consolidate its governance and management systems. The General Assembly, which is AFAAS’ supreme governing body, has been meeting biennially in accordance with set procedures. The Board and its four Committees (Finance and Administration, Programs, Audit and Ad hoc) engaged with the AFAAS Secretariat at least three times a year, through face-to-face meetings or virtually9, to review and take decisions on various matters. AFAAS developed its management systems, which include an Operations Manual, and a Human Resources Manual. For sub-project operations, AFAAS developed Sub- Grants Management Guidelines, also known as Grant Award Guidelines (or GAG), a Communication and Knowledge Management Strategy and a Branding Strategy. AFAAS, however, was not able to attract more funding to finance the 2011-2017 strategy, and planned funding has been delayed which could affect its sustainability, and ability to continue playing its role. Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating 44. The overall rating for Efficacy is Substantial. AFAAS’ role in establishing and strengthening CF, as well as the further development and strengthening of its own capacity, has significantly contributed to the improvement of AAS in Africa. As evidenced above, the project achieved its intermediary results, despite 9Given funding constraints, face to face meetings were conducted annually, usually on the margins of larger meetings like GFRAS Annual Steering Committee meetings, and/or AFAAS AAEW, otherwise, most Board meetings were virtual. Page 17 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) M&E shortcomings which did not allow for PDO-level indicator data collection prior to MTR, and AFAAS’ inability to secure more funding for its S&OP. C. EFFICIENCY 45. As full and detailed ex-ante economic and financial analysis were not conducted during project appraisal, project efficiency was assessed based on the results achieved and the project cost. 46. Efficiency was mostly achieved through AFAAS’ partnerships which allowed it to leverage funds from other projects to reach its goals. For example, partnership projects allowed AFAAS and CF to reach farmers with extension models, and participate in policy dialogue at continental or country levels for CF. 47. A deliberate and commendable decision taken by the Secretariat to reject salary increases approved by the AFAAS Board allowed AFAAS to nimbly implement the project. Such timely and prudent actions show the commitment of the Secretariat to: (a) AFAAS’s mandate; and (b) reduced administrative costs, thereby increasing the operations budget which allowed the project to reach, and, in some cases, exceed its targets with less than 50% of the budget, and limited staff. The efficiency is, therefore, rated Substantial. D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING 48. The overall outcome rating of the project is Satisfactory. The project played a fundamental role in making it possible for AFAAS to implement its S&OP and contributed to capacity building and institutional reform of the AEAS system in Africa. The PDO is relevant to Africa today and going forward, and the PDO relevance rating is High. 49. Split rating: As the project was restructured with changes in PDO and PDO indicators, the assessment of the overall rating is based on a split rating of the two objectives. The project aide memoires show that the project immediately started reporting on the new indicators agreed during the MTR mission. Project restructuring to accommodate these changes, however, was completed later, which is more a result of slow processing on the part of the Bank Team. Accordingly, the split rating takes into account the results before and after the MTR: Page 18 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Box 3: Split rating: Rating before MTR (disbursement US $ 2.95 million*): “to reform and strengthen Agricultural Advisory Services (AEAS) in accordance with Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) principles towards increasing agricultural productivity and food security�. Rating is Satisfactory. The project relevance is rated high, while the efficacy and the efficiency are rated substantial, as the project was able to effect reform, and strengthen AAS, in accordance with FAAP principles, all through the use of the CF model. However, the lack of data on PDO indicators, due to data collection and attribution challenges, do not allow for quantification of the project’s impact. This M&E weakness is reflected in the assessment of quality and design of M&E, rather than project outcome. Rating after MTR (disbursement US $ 2.58 million): ‘to support and strengthen Agricultural Advisory Services (AEAS) in accordance with Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) principles �. Rating is Satisfactory. The project relevance is rated high, while the efficacy and the efficiency are rated substantial, as the project was able to reform, and strengthen AAS in accordance with FAAP principles, through the CF model. Overall rating: (0.53 x 5) + (0.47 x 5) = 5: Satisfactory. *Disbursement amounts shown above are from Client Connection, and reflect amounts disbursed before and after the MTR mission, which was completed on May 2, 2016. E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS Gender 50. With Support from FARA, AFAAS developed its Gender Mainstreaming Strategy (GMS) for the period 2016-2019. The goal of the GMS is to “ensure that AFAAS achieves gender responsiveness at all levels of its institutional framework and all stages of the program cycle of its agricultural extension and advisory services mandate�. The AFAAS GMS has four strategic objectives: (i) strengthen gender-focused competencies and approaches in gender mainstreaming in the Secretariat, and among AAS member countries to advance knowledge, practice and advocacy regarding gender equality in AAS provision; (ii) facilitate a gender responsive learning and knowledge dissemination platform in AEAS to continuously foster knowledge sharing and learning that advances staff and member country’s capacities in the field of gender and agriculture; (iii) improve the effectiveness of AFAAS programs in creating efficient, effective, and synergistic linkages and partnerships among AAS of member countries to improve the delivery of AEAS to their beneficiaries, men, women and youth through gender integration and gender equitable implementation and (iv) adapt organizational policies, procedures and systems to support gender integration in organizations and their programs and promote a gender equitable working environment. 51. The GMS was reviewed by the AFAAS Board, and then disseminated on AFAAS’ platforms, following which CF were encouraged to adapt the document during their planning processes. Actual use of the GMS is evident in the emerging and cross-cutting issues identified by countries, such as gender in agriculture, gender and nutrition (Zambia, Uganda under the INGENEAS Project), that have been recommended at national and international levels. Page 19 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) 52. Eight sub-grants also focused on youth initiatives. For example, the sub-grant for “Building Capacity and Protecting the Health of ZAABTA Nokia Youth Extension Workers� in Cameroon improved household food security and incomes of 50,000 small, medium and large scale farmers through increased access to improved AAS provided by Nokia youth; and in Rwanda, the “My Farmer, My Story� initiative enabled 22 students to work with 44 farmers to put classroom theory into practice, resulting in increased agricultural productivity, a shift from traditional to modern farming practices, and improved linkages to government extension structures. 53. The leadership of the AFAAS Board and CF Steering Committees also attest to some level of observance of the key elements of the GMS. Finally, AFAAS’ support for the GMS was evidenced in the organization of its last AAEW on “Scaling Up Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA): Integrating Youth, Women, and the Digital Revolution�. The selection of participants and presenters was based on gender considerations with about 50% female participation. Institutional Strengthening 54. Support to the AFAAS Secretariat helped improve its operations and management systems. The project enabled AFAAS to clarify its mandate, which allowed it to stand out among other regional institutions involved in the CAADP process, as an example of a focused institution which does not compete with national systems, but rather supports them. This is confirmed by the quality of AFAAS’ new strategy (2018- 2027) and its costed operation plan (2018-2022), with a well-articulated results chain aligned with its mandate of “a knowledge network that focuses on developing social relationships among actors, with the central objective of learning, accumulating knowledge and using the knowledge to add value to what they are doing.� 55. Support to CF improved AEAS in different countries. Through AFAAS’ support, some CF were strengthened to mobilize their own funding; through the implementation of bilaterally-funded projects (e.g. USAID in Uganda, and GIZ in Mali), and advocating for increases in the national budget allocated to AEAS (Malawi). Increased CF capacity coupled with a growing ability to mobilize their own resources, and participate in policy dialogue at country, regional and continental level, is an encouraging sign of a move towards a more effective model for AAS delivery in Africa. Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity 56. AFAAS’ goal is to enhance utilization of improved knowledge, technologies and innovations by agricultural value chain actors for improved productivity oriented towards their individual and national development objectives. AEAS is a key component of the innovation system, playing a pivotal role in promoting productivity, increasing food security, strengthening rural communities, and underpinning agriculture as the engine for pro-poor economic growth. III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION 57. The project design and costing were based on AFAAS’ 2011-2015 Strategic and Operational Plan (S&OP) around five priority activities: (i) participating in implementation of CAADP Pillar IV; (ii) information, Page 20 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) communication and knowledge management; (iii) establishing and supporting CF; (iv) linkages and partnerships; (v) developing governance, management and funding systems. This design impacted the project implementation in three major ways: (a) the PAD costing reflects the total costing of the AFAAS S&OP instead of the available funds in the MDTF; (b) the project M&E system based on AFAAS S&OP logical framework revealed some weaknesses in the implementation (discussed in the M&E assessment); and (c) AFAAS reporting focused more on the implementation of the five priority activities, instead of the project results framework. B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION 58. Financing for AFAAS’ S&OP vs. Project Cost. The project design was directly linked to AFAAS’ S&OP (2011- 2015) which was costed at US $17 million. At project closure, S&OP implementation was mainly funded by the Grant (US $ 5.54 million), and bilateral funding from IFAD of (1.35 million10). The organogram in the PAD reflected a lean Secretariat consisting of 21 staff, five of which were fiduciary functions that were recommended following World Bank assessments. With the limited funding available, AFAAS was only able to support 12 staff. Despite these constraints, AFAAS secured other funds to implement certain activities, which allowed it to meet most of its implementation targets by leveraging support from partners such as FARA, and working with consultants, instead of full time staff for some activities. Overall, AFAAS received a total of US $7.56 million in support of its S&OP. The source of funds and total amounts secured are summarized in Table 4 below. Table 4: Support for AFAAS’ S&OP: Source of Funds and Total Amounts Secured Source of funding Total (US $) European Commission (EC) (MDTF Grant) 5,540,000 International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) 1,350,000 Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) 254,278 Post Harvest Management (PHM-SSA) 166,656 Korea - Africa Food and Agriculture Cooperation Initiative (KAFACI) 89,242 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 79,870 Pro-Intense AFRICA 32,239 Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) 30,000 Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) 20,000 Total 7,562,285 59. Despite the shortfall in Grant financing, AFAAS operated on the basis of annual work planning. Accordingly, AFAAS took into account available resources at the outset of Grant implementation and planned its activities such that it would be able to: (a) deliver a quality technical program with limited overhead cost; and (b) operate over the originally planned lifespan of the Grant, which was just over 4 years. AFAAS’ ability to achieve or exceed targets on all PDO indicators, and all but one intermediate-level indicator, and stay afloat for an additional 6-month extension, is a testament to AFAAS’ shrewd planning and resource management. 60. Refocus of AFAAS activities: Following the Malabo Declaration, AFAAS reoriented its plans to place greater 10 Includes initial U.S. $1 million for strengthening AEAS, and U.S. $0.350 million support to Extension Week 2017. Page 21 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) emphasis than before on the knowledge management (KM) dimension in all of its results areas. This change in emphasis was reinforced by AFAAS’ acceptance of the responsibility delegated to it by the AUC to spearhead the “Knowledge and Knowledge Support� thrust of the “Sustaining CAADP Momentum� agenda in 2015. This was confirmed at the MTR, and the programming change was reflected not only in AFAAS’ work program, but also in the way AFAAS measured associated progress. The resulting change de- emphasized the measurement of increases in agricultural productivity and food security (which could not be attributed to AFAAS), to focus instead on AFAAS success as a platform for sharing information and exchanging experiences. IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) M&E Design 61. The results framework was based on AFAAS’s S&OP logical framework. One shortfall in designing the results framework was the assignment of the PDO indicators, which were more appropriate to measure the long-term project impact, instead of project level outcomes. In that regard, the PDO indicators were reasonably adequate to monitor progress of the PDO during implementation but were not adequate to fully establish attribution of such progress to AFAAS. 62. The MTR restructuring included revisions to the results framework, which strengthened the extent to which it was possible to attribute progress to the project activities. It also de-emphasized the aspiration (within project M&E) of explicit demonstration of the direct and indirect impacts of AFAAS on agricultural productivity and food security themselves. The timeframe and scope of effort needed to establish and document such impacts were (correctly) determined to be beyond what the project could address on its own. M&E Implementation 63. The operational responsibility for planning and coordinating M&E activities was originally foreseen to be carried out by the AFAAS Secretariat, Planning, M&E Department. In AFAAS’ initial plans, this Department was to be staffed by both a Planning and M&E Manager, and a M&E Officer. Due to a funding shortfall, AFAAS relied on FARA support and/or consultants for most of its M&E needs, rather than recruiting its own M&E team. This arrangement was adequate in some respects, although its effectiveness was hampered by the absence of a clear and definitive agreement with FARA on terms of reference (TOR), timing and duration for its support. The service was provided on an ad hoc basis, which, in some respects, negatively affected the implementation of AFAAS’ M&E. For example, at the MTR, the project was not able to systematically report on PDO indicators at regular intervals, and throughout the project, AFAAS struggled to collect timely data from the CF. Despite these challenges, AFAAS was able to prepare the baseline survey, the mid-term, as well as the end of project surveys, using program staff, and consultants. 64. Other weaknesses in the M&E implementation were the: (i) lack of outcome indicators at PDO level following the MTR restructuring; and (ii) reporting focus on activities (aligned with the key priority activities of the S&OP) rather than results. These weaknesses could also be attributable to the lack of internal M&E expertise. Page 22 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) M&E Utilization 65. Challenges in M&E design and implementation arrangements (discussed above) resulted in AFAAS’ inability to use M&E information as effectively as might have otherwise been the case. However, AFAAS was able to use data acquired through its M&E system to adapt its work plans and prepare its new strategy. Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E 66. Overall M&E is rated ‘Modest‘, based on: (i) a generally satisfactory design with a clearly structured theory of change (the design provides for the causal links between project intervention and PDO-level outcomes); and (ii) preparation of a baseline survey and conduct of mid-term and end-line surveys, as planned. However, the funding situation impacted AFAAS’ ability to establish an adequate M&E system early on, that was managed by an appropriately staffed M&E department. B. FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE 67. Financial Management (FM). Supervision missions regularly reviewed project FM arrangements and procedures to ensure compliance with fiduciary requirements. A FM Manual and Grant Award Guidelines were prepared to guide project implementation and sub-grants disbursement. Although the Bank initially noted some FM weaknesses, such as, inter-project borrowing (co-mingling of funds) and overdue staff advances, among other things, AFAAS took these issues seriously and remedial actions were taken to resolve the problems. AFAAS had a functioning Internal Audit with regular reviews. Bank implementation support missions (ISM) generally rated FM as satisfactory, with timely submission of unaudited interim financial reports (IFR) and acceptable annual audited financial reports. By the disbursement deadline date of October 31, 2018, AFAAS had properly closed out all aspects of the Grant, including full accountability of the designated account. 68. Procurement Management. Over the course of Grant implementation, various issues were identified during ISMs, as well as an Independent Procurement Review (IPR) in October 2016. As with FM, AFAAS routinely took action to resolve matters prior to the next ISM. In addition to receiving procurement training from the World Bank IPR Consultant, AFAAS’ Procurement Unit regularly conducted in-house refresher sessions. Strengthening of procurement systems was achieved through: (a) development of templates for use during procurement of goods and services; (b) implementation of a recommendation for the Procurement Committee to evaluate and recommend award to the Executive Director to enhance independence of functions; and (c) establishment of a quality control team to assess and improve the quality of inputs from user departments. C. BANK PERFORMANCE Quality at Entry 69. The quality at entry is rated Moderately Satisfactory. The Project design was based on a sound S&OP prepared by AFAAS, and was well aligned with the CAADP agenda and Bank priorities in supporting African agriculture. The design was also informed by lessons learned from the first MDTF. However, as discussed above, there were shortcomings in the design which impacted project implementation: (i) the approved project cost should have been aligned with available Grant financing, to be followed by additional financing, had other funds materialized; (ii) the results framework and PDO indicators focusing on the long-term goals Page 23 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) of the AFAAS S&OP resulted in an overambitious statement of objectives at the start of the project. Quality of Supervision 70. The quality of supervision is rated Moderately Satisfactory. Bank supervision missions were fielded regularly with a relatively stable team. Supervision missions provided clear guidance to AFAAS on implementation and issues to be addressed. The Bank Task Team also maintained a good working relationship with the counterparts throughout project implementation. However, the task team unaccountably delayed the restructuring process which should have been completed shortly after the MTR mission. Restructuring was further delayed when the possibility of a closing date extension was raised during the November 2016 mission, which required an amendment to the donor administration agreement. Rather than complete two separate restructurings, the team opted to restructure only once, but did not anticipate the donor’s protracted response time of 11 months, which further exacerbated the already delayed processing. 71. Another shortcoming, was inadequate support to M&E, which was recognized as weak since project inception. Similar to the nature of support provided by the Bank on FM and procurement, more guidance on reporting, as well as the adequacy and measurability of indicators, could have been useful to improve project outcomes and further strengthen the AFAAS Secretariat. Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 72. Overall Bank performance is rated Moderately Satisfactory based on: (i) an adequate project design and appropriate implementation arrangements; and (ii) overall good quality supervision to address implementation and sustainability issues, taking into account the shortcomings both at entry and during implementation highlighted above, especially the delayed restructuring of the PDO and the results framework. D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME 73. The risk to development outcome is rated Moderate. Despite the relevance and achievements of AFAAS in contributing to CAADP implementation and to agricultural development in Africa, the major risk at this stage to sustaining AFAAS’s considerable contributions to important development outcomes (including, but not limited to the PDO for the project itself) is AFAAS’s ability to raise sufficient funding to continue to operate at the desired level in the future. AFAAS’ resource mobilization efforts have not yet diversified to embrace other possible sources - such as projects, membership subscription, crowd funding by social entrepreneurs, and services to members and other development partners. AFAAS is fully aware of this risk and has identified actions to mitigate the risk in its new strategy and operational plan. V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 74. The design of institutional strengthening projects should ensure clarity of project objectives, expected results and sustainability. As the MDTF was established to support the AFAAS Secretariat, the project design and implementation were adequately aligned with AFAAS’ 2011-2015 S&OP. However, several lessons have been derived from this project which should be considered for future operations supporting Page 24 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) institutions, such as AFAAS: - Identify and clarify institutional areas to be supported: Grant support was rightly aligned with AFAAS, but it should not have committed to support the S&OP in its entirety, without having secured the total financing required. Grant support could have been more selective to focus on specific areas of the S&OP, such as resource mobilization and partnerships, followed by other areas, once more funding became available. - Use Bank implementation support to further strengthen the institution: The project helped to improve the AFAAS Secretariat’s fiduciary systems through regular and close implementation support by the Bank’s fiduciary team. This was a very efficient approach to increasing AFAAS Secretariat capacity, which could have replicated with respect to M&E, instead of relying on consultants or support from other institutions. This would require aligning the skills of the task team to the skills needs of the institution being supported. Furthermore, inclusion of an impact evaluation in the project design could have helped ascertain design validity, as well as evaluate results with a higher degree of confidence. It also could have helped to resolve results framework design issues much further upstream. - Include provision for a sustainable funding strategy: The lack of a resource mobilization strategy for AFAAS has resulted in its reliance on donor funding, with limited options. This poses an existential risk for the sustainability of AFAAS as an institution, and for the achievements of the project. It also hampers the effectiveness of AFAAS, in that uncertainty about future funding affects time horizons. AFAAS managed the situation and consistently delivered its annual work plans and adjusted its activities based on available budget. This could have been mitigated by building in a project sub-component to support the preparation of a resources mobilization strategy, including coaching and support to the Secretariat on different approaches for sustainable fund mobilization. 75. Engagement through country fora is an effective way to champion reforms and development of public sector support for AEAS systems. Working through the CF, AFAAS showed that these multi-sectoral entities were successful in influencing reforms in national AEAS policies. A key success factor of the CF model is that they were built from existing institutions, rather than created from scratch; and the use of local expertise allowed for the emergence of champions and volunteers who were instrumental in establishing the CF. In terms of institutional membership, the CF consist of private sector, civil society organizations and public-sector members, with the majority comprised from civil society. This representation is good for the sustainability of the CF and can be a reliable source of funding, as well as innovative service delivery approaches and pathways for strong linkages between farmers and private sector members involved in agribusiness. 76. Partnership projects and innovation grants are effective entry points to reach farmers and other stakeholders, and adoption of technologies. Through various partnerships with other entities, AFAAS and CF were able to participate in activities that allowed AFAAS to achieve its project results. The innovation grants allowed testing and scaling up of new technologies. This allowed the project to reach farmers and build their capacity beyond the “transfer-of-technology� model used in the past. Through different partnerships, AEAS approaches recommended by CF, or, already in use include: Farmer Field Schools, demonstration plots, lead farmers, farm business schools, agro-dealers as extension agents, farm management boards, focal area approach, agricultural training centers, exchange visits, brochures, videos, community loudspeakers, FM radios and telecentres. These recommended approaches are participatory, with active involvement of stakeholders from the design phase to the implementation phase. This is Page 25 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) important, as it transfers ownership of the approach to the users, thereby facilitating adoption. 77. Demonstration of impact is achieved more quickly through engagement in policy processes and information and communication technologies (ICT) management. ICT has offered a good means to reach different stakeholders, and ICT solutions to AEAS provision is one the key trends that will increasingly affect the way AFAAS operates as a knowledge network. Building on its large network, AFAAS can position itself as the advocate/champion and clearinghouse to enable users to make informed choices on the adoption of ICT. It can also create the environment for innovation of ICT solutions, especially by youth. . Page 26 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators Objective/Outcome: Agricultural Advisory Services strengthened in line with the FAAP principles Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion AEAS actors (individuals) Number 5000.00 0.00 25000.00 28431.00 directly affected or reached by AFAAS interventions 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 (disaggregated by gender) Comments (achievements against targets): This indicator replaced the original PDO indicator % value chains actors utilizing improved knowledge and technologies (original target 48% ). The target for the new indicator was exceeded by 14 %. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion AEAS actors (individuals) Percentage 45.00 0.00 65.00 68.00 directly reached / affected by AFAAS, that are satisfied 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 with the quality of its services Page 27 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Comments (achievements against targets): This indicator replaced the original PDO indicator % of various categories of value chain actors satisfied with the quality of AAS (original target 40% ).The target for the new indicator was exceeded by 4.6 %. A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators Component: Component 1: Support To Country AAS for engagement in CAADP Pillar IV Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 1.1 Country Fora (CF) Number 5.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 established 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 Registered CF members Number 150.00 0.00 2200.00 3594.00 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 Comments (achievements against targets): This target was achieved at 100%, while the new breakdown about number of registered members in the CF was exceeded by 63.4%. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 1.2 CF with capacity to Number 0.00 15.00 15.00 16.00 articulate demands, advocate for AEAS reforms, 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 address gender equality, mobilize and manage resources and act as Page 28 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) platform for sharing knowledge. Comments (achievements against targets): The wording of this indicator was modified from "CF established and operating in accordance with FAAP guidelines (with capacity to articulate demands, advocate for AAS reforms, address gender equality, mobilize and mange resources and act as platforms for sharing knowledge. This target was exceed by 6.67 % Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 1.3 CF that have Number 0.00 0.00 13.00 15.00 recommended policy options to policy makers 31-Oct-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 Comments (achievements against targets): This indicator replaced the original indicator "AAS pro productivity/ food security reforms effectively delivered by the CF (original target 4). The target for this new indicator was exceeded by 15.38 %. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 1.4 AEAS Extension Number 0.00 0.00 4.00 16.00 approaches recommended and /or implemented by 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 stakeholders Comments (achievements against targets): This new indicator was introduced at the restructuring in 2017. The target for this indicator was exceeded by 220 %. Page 29 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 1.5 Individuals utilizing IT Number 0.00 0.00 12000.00 32686.00 tools and platforms facilitated by AFAAS & CF 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 Comments (achievements against targets): This is a new indicator introduced at the restructuring in 2017. The target for this indicator was exceeded by 172.38%. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 2.2 Partnerships formed at Number 20.00 28.00 28.00 107.00 national, regional, and international levels 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 Comments (achievements against targets): The target for this indicator was exceeded by 282 %. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 2.3 Partnerships that have Number 0.00 4.00 4.00 12.00 recommended emerging and cross-cutting issues (gender, 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 youth, climate change) related reforms in AAS Comments (achievements against targets): This indicator replaced an original indicator "Partnership integrating gender-related reforms in AAS. Page 30 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) The target for this indicator was exceeded by 200%. Component: Component 2: AFAAS Governance, Project Management and Secretariat Activities Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 3.1 Existence of functional Number 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 governance procedures, management structures, and 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 policies (NEW) Comments (achievements against targets): The measure of the indicator was clarified (as using level of satisfaction for AFAAS): 4 Highly Satisfactory, 3 Satisfactory, 2 Moderately Satisfactory, 1 Non Satisfactory Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 3.2 Increase in the amount of Percentage 31.00 0.00 96.00 51.00 funds for supporting AFAAS strategic plan 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 Comments (achievements against targets): This indicator has replaced the original indicator " Increase in the amount of funds supporting AAS in Africa" (target 68). The target was achieved only at 53%. Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target Target Completion 3.3 Advocacy initiatives that Number 6.00 11.00 11.00 15.00 Page 31 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) have recommended 30-Jun-2013 31-Dec-2017 30-Jun-2018 30-Jun-2018 emerging/cross cutting issues (gender, youth, climate change) reforms in AEAS to policy makers Comments (achievements against targets): This indicator replaced the original indicator " Advocacy initiative impacting gender reforms in AAS. The target was exceeded by 36.36% Page 32 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) B. KEY OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT Objective/Outcome: Agricultural Advisory Services Strengthened in line with the FAAP principles 1. AEAS actors (individuals) directly affected or reached by AFAAS interventions (disaggregated by gender) Outcome Indicators 2. Percentage of AEAS actors (individuals) directly reached/affected by AFAAS that are satisfied with the quality of its services. . Intermediate result 1: Increased country level capacity in AAs for engagement in CAADP Pillar IV 1. 1.1 Number of Country Fora (CF) established 2. Number of registered members of the CF 3. Number of CF with capacity to articulate demands, advocate for AEAS reforms, address gender equality, mobilize and manage resources and act as platform for sharing knowledge. 4. Number of CF that have recommended policy options to policy makers 5. Number AEAS Extension approaches recommended and /or implemented by stakeholders 6. Number of individuals utilizing IT tools and platforms facilitated by AFAAS & CF Intermediate result 2: Increased regional and continental collaboration and partnership in support of Intermediate Results Indicators AAS reform 7. Increase in number of partnerships formed at national, regional, and international levels 8. Number of partnerships that have recommended emerging and cross-cutting issues (gender, youth, climate change) related reforms in AAS Intermediate result 3: Better governance and management of AFAAS in support of AAS reform 9. Existence of functional governance procedures, management structures, and policies 10. Increase in the amount of funds for supporting AFAAS strategic plan 11. Number of advocacy initiatives that have recommended emerging/cross cutting issues (gender, youth, climate change) reforms in AEAS to policy makers Page 33 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) . Component 1. 1. 22 CFs were established and are fully operational in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Zambia , Zimbabwe and Tanzania, while sensitization was done in 19 countries with partially functioning CF (Botswana, DRC, Burundi, Egypt, Gambia, Gabon, Swaziland, Somalia, Seychelles, Namibia, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Eritrea, Côte d'Ivoire, Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Senegal, and Angola). 2. The total individual membership stands at 3,957 with 24% females members. 3. There are 16 CFs with capacity to articulate demands and advocate for AEAS reforms. Benin, Uganda, Malawi, and Nigeria have contributed to AEAS reforms in their respective country; Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Ghana, Rwanda supported AEAS policy and strategy development; Nigeria, Madagascar and Ethiopia promoted AEAS professionalization; Mali promoted Radio based extension; Nigeria (DLEC-support), while South Africa, Kenya and Key Outputs by Component Uganda supported professionalism and accreditation; reward system. (linked to the achievement of the 4. 16 AEAS extension approaches have been recommended by CF. The AEAS approaches and Objective/Outcome 1) tools recommended include: Farmer Field Schools, Demonstration Plots, Lead Farmers, Farm Business Schools, Agro-dealers as Extension Agents, Farm Management Boards, Focal Area Approach, Agricultural Training Centres, Exchange Visits, Brochures, Videos, Community Loudspeakers, radios and telecentres. 5. 32,686 individuals are utilizing AFAAS network IT tools and platforms. This number includes website users for the Sub-regional fora (RESCAR-AOC and SARFAAS) and seven Country fora (Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique and Madagascar). Other ICT channels used by AFAAS include Twitter, the Virtual Social Networking Platform (VSNP), Dgroups and Youtube. 6. The overall number of partnerships initiated both at AFAAS Secretariat and CF reached 107. The total partnerships based at AFAAS secretariat are 34 while the rest of the partnerships are based at the CF level. Component 2: Page 34 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) 7. A satisfactory level of 4, representing highly satisfactory (maximum score) is assigned to the AFAAS governance and management structure. AFAAS has governance and management structures which operate in accordance with the set procedures/best practice, right from the general assembly, board and the secretariat. This is replicated at the country fora level 8. AFAAS has held three extension weeks during MDTF project implementation (2013 in Gaborone, Botswana, 2015 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and 2017 in Durban, South Africa). The number of participants has been steadily increasing from 300 (2013) to 400 (2015) and then 700 (2017). 9. 896,967 US $ have been disbursed in sub-grants to 12 countries (Uganda, Ghana, Malawi, Kenya, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Madagascar, Mali, Benin, Cameroon and Liberia). The sub grants were in three types: direct grants, Innovation grants and direct commissioned grants. . Page 35 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS Name Role Preparation David J. Nielson Task Team Leader Bremala Malli Operations Timothy Robertson Extension Matt McMahon Agronomy Tekola Dejene Agriculture Dwede Tarpeh Agriculture Hille Frey Team member Mohamed Khatouri Monitoring and Evaluation Howard Bariira Centenary Procurement Edwin Moguche Financial Management Luis Schwarz Disbursement Mei Wang Senior Counsel Alexandra Sperling Legal Analyst Supervision/ICR Bremala Malli Task Team Leader(s) Grace Nakuya Musoke Munanura, Antoinette Kamanzi, Procurement Specialist(s) Annet Tamale Katuramu Edwin Nyamasege Moguche Financial Management Specialist Tekola Dejene Team Member Alexandra C. Sperling Team Member Wilhelmus Gerardus Janssen Window Manager Abdelaziz Lagnaoui Environmental Specialist Paul Kato Kamuchwezi Team Member Page 36 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) Victor Bundi Mosoti Counsel Catherine Asekenye Barasa Social Specialist B. STAFF TIME AND COST Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs) Preparation Total 0.00 0.00 Supervision/ICR FY14 3.425 49,491.23 FY15 9.315 85,670.19 FY16 12.394 141,149.13 FY17 9.822 123,204.95 FY18 3.750 54,218.76 FY19 5.550 13,208.27 Total 44.26 466,942.53 Page 37 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Amount at Approval Actual at Project Percentage of Approval Components (US$M) Closing (US$M) (US$M) Support to Country AAS for Engagement in CAADP Pillar 10.50 4.64 44.19 Four AFAAS Governance, Management and Secretariat 6.50 .90 13.84 Activities Total 0.00 5.54 32.590 Page 38 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS Page 39 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS The MDTF borrower was the African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS) which is a continental platform for mutual learning and innovation among Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services (AEAS) providers across Africa. The MDTF came to AFAAS at an appropriate time when AFAAS was putting in place its institutional structures (general Assembly, Board, Secretariat and Country Fora establishment). Most notably, the World Bank was instrumental in the development of AFAAS Operational Manual which has laid a firm foundation for AFAAS Secretariat and Country Fora operations. AFAAS also put in place a number of policies and guidelines. AFAAS institutional and technical capacity was strengthened in terms of; Program management leading to satisfactory performance despite a lean team at the Secretariat. Furthermore, AFAAS Financial Management, Procurement and Audit processes were strengthened thus reducing fiduciary risks both at AFAAS Secretariat and Country Fora level. The regular support supervision missions by the Bank, with sometimes IFAD to AFAAS positively impacted AFAAS general performance. However, AFAAS and the Bank did not adequately focus on resource mobilization. In view of the above and in reference to the contents in this report and other aide-mémoires developed jointly by the Bank and AFAAS, we, on behalf of AFAAS Board and Secretariat hereby confirm the accuracy of this report and thus agree to it. Page 40 of 41 The World Bank AFCC2/RI-African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P143367) ANNEX 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (IF ANY) Page 41 of 41