PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

AFRICAN
FOR PUBLIC SECTOR OPERATIONS (PCR) DEVELOPMENT
BANK GROUP

I BASIC DATA

A Report data

Report date Date of report: 08 December 2020

Mission date (if field mission) From: 11 November, 2019 To: 23 November 2019

B Responsible Bank staff

Positions At approval At completion

Director General Mr. Franck PERRAULT Mrs. Marie-Laure AKIN-OLUGBADE
Country Manager /DDG Ms. Leila MOKADEM Mr. Serge N’GUESSAN
Sector Director Mr. Abdirahman BEILEH Mr. Martin FREGENE
Sector Manager Mr. Ken B. JOHM Mr. Ken B. JOHM
Task Manager Mr. Olagoke OLADAPO Mr. Tabi KARIKARI
Alternate Task Manager
PCR Team Leader Mr. Tabi KARIKARI
Ibro MANOMI
Principal Agricultural Economist, RDGW.2
Aime BICABA,
Senior Irrigation Engineer, RDGW.2
Philip DOGHLE
PCR Team Members
Principal Financial Management Specialist, SNFI.2
Daniel OSEI-BOAKYE
Snr. Procurement Officer, SNFI.1
Ms. Sarah FAHN,
Principal Disbursement Officer, FIFC.3

C Project data

Project name: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FASDEP)

Project code: P-GM-AA0-013 Instrument number(s): GAFSP Grant number 557 015 500 0251
Project type: Investment (GASFP Financed) Sector: AGRICULTURE AND AGRO-INDUSTRY
Country: THE GAMBIA Environmental categorization (1-3):2
Processing milestones – Bank approved Key Events (Bank approved financing Disbursement and closing dates (Bank
financing only (add/delete rows depending on only) approved financing only)
the number of financing sources)
Financing source/ instrument1: Financing source/ instrument1: Financing source/ instrument1:

1
Date approved: 15 MAY 2013 Cancelled amounts: Original disbursement deadline: June.
2019
Date signed: 28MAY 2013 Supplementary financing: Original closing date: December 2018
Date of entry into force: 28 MAY 2013 Restructuring (specify date & amount Revised (if applicable) disbursement
involved): N/A deadline: 30 September, 2020
Date effective for 1st disbursement: 07 Extensions (specify dates): 2 (from Revised (if applicable) closing date:30 June
OCTOBER, 2013 December 2018 to December 2019; and 2020
December 2019 to June 2020)
Date of actual 1st disbursement: 07
OCTOBER, 2013
Financing source/instrument (add/delete Disbursed Percentage Undisbursed Percentage
rows depending on the number of financing amount (amount, disbursed (%): amount (USD): undisbursed (%):
sources): USD):
Financing source/ instrument1: 26,576,723.11 99.91% 23,276.89 0.09%
USD26,600,000
Financing source/ instrument2:
Government: USD700,000 822,507.37 117.50% 0.00 0.00
Other (e.g. co-financiers). Add rows as needed
TOTAL: USD27,300,000 27,242,378.02 99.79% 180,129.35 0.66%
Financing source/instrument (add/delete Committed Percentage Uncommitted Percentage
rows depending on the number of financing amount (USD): committed (%): amount (USD): uncommitted (%):
sources):
Financing source/ instrument1: 26,600,000 100% 0.00 0.00%
Financing source/ instrument2:
Government: 700,000.00 100% 0.00 0.00%
Other (e.g. co-financiers). Add rows as needed.
TOTAL 27,300,000.00 100% 0.00 0.00%
Co-financiers and other external partners:
Executing and implementing agency (ies): Ministry of Agriculture

D Management review and comments

Report reviewed by Name Date reviewed Comments

Country Manager Serge N’GUESSAN
Sector Manager Ken B. JOHM
Regional Director (as chair of Country Team) MRS. Marie-Laure AKIN-
OLUGBADE
Sector Director Martin FREGENE

II Project performance assessment

A Relevance

1. Relevance of project development objective

2
Rating* Narrative assessment (max 250 words)
3 The relevance of the project development objective is rated satisfactory. This is because the project at appraisal was
designed in line with the relevant country, Bank and global level policies and remain so all through its implementation:
At the country level, the project development objective hinged on the first pillar of the Programme for Accelerated
Growth and Employment (2012 – 2015) - to promote accelerated growth and economic development in the Gambia.
Other policies, strategies and investment plans that the project was aligned to at appraisal were the Gambia National
Agricultural Investment Plan (2011 – 2015) and Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy (2009 – 2015).

During implementation, the project was observed to remain in line with the ensuing policies. These included: JAS
Agricultural and Natural Resources Policy 2017-2026; and Gambia National Agriculture Investment Plan -Food and
Nutrition Security 2019-2026 - which has overarching aim at maximizing of poverty reduction and enhancement of food,
income and nutrition securities through the optimal utilization of the resources consistent with safeguarding the integrity
of the environment. It is again aligned to the National Nutrition Policy 2018-2025. It is also in line with the Country Brief
2017-2019 which prioritized: (i) Enhancing Productive Capacity and Competitiveness in order to strengthen resilience to
External Shocks, and; (ii) Strengthening the Institutional Capacity for Economic Governance and Public Service Delivery.

At the Bank level, it was designed to be consistent with both the Bank’s Agriculture Sector Strategy (2010-2014) which
among others sought to promote the development of essential infrastructures to unleash the potentials of the sector
(through sustainable water management, irrigation, rural roads, marketing and storage infrastructure, and promoting
agro-industry development). It remained consistent with other intervening Bank policies and strategies including the Ten-
Year Strategy (2013-2022); and is addressed thematic areas that are included in the High Five Priority Areas of the Bank
- especially Feed Africa and Improve Livelihoods. Enabler 1 (Increase Productivity); Enabler 3 (Increase investment into
enabling soft and hard infrastructure); Enabler 4 (Catalyse flows of increased Agricultural Finance); and Enabler 6
(Increase inclusivity, Sustainability and Nutrition) of the Bank’s Feed Africa Strategy for Agriculture Transformation in
Africa (2016-2025) are supported by the project.

The development objective of the project is directly in line with the aims of the Global Agriculture and Food Security
Program (GAFSP) which is to improve the income and food security of poor people in developing countries through more
and better public and private sector investment in the agriculture and rural sectors that is country-owned and led and
through technical assistance; which is informed by the UN Sustainable Development 2030 Agenda.
* For all ratings in the PCR use the following scale: 4 (Highly satisfactory), 3 (Satisfactory), 2 (Unsatisfactory), 1 (Highly unsatisfactory)

2. Relevance of project design

Rating* Narrative assessment (max 250 words)

3 The project design is rated satisfactory. The theory of change of the project is that the following three intervention areas
would derive the desired reduction in poverty and enhance food security: a) Improving land management infrastructure
and practices to expand production and enhance productivity; b) Improving market access and promoting market led
private sector environment to foster small holder commercialisation for the productive poor; and c) Supporting social
protection and food safety net programs to reduce food and nutrition security of vulnerable populations. The design
prioritises commodities such as rice, vegetables, poultry, small ruminants and fish which is largely consumed in the
Gambia. The key beneficiaries considered in the design were farmer groups, individual entrepreneurs and selected
government assisted schools in Central River Region, Lower River Region and West Coast Region. The design was highly
infrastructure centred with 42.5% of the project cost allocated to infrastructure development. The project thus enhanced
the installed capacity to produce rice by ~ 1,500Ha; poultry by 250,000 broilers perbatch and 100,000 creates of eggs per
month; and 125Ha of all-year round horticultural crops. Other capacities enhanced include that for the production of
upland cereals, groundnut, small ruminants and fish. The design addressed the need for the beneficiaries in that it built
on earlier projects that improved rice production and introduced new activities that will engender commercialisation and
diversification of agriculture production to improve incomes. The project implementation arrangement sought to
strengthen the Central Project Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture where it was intended that all donor
funded project will be managed to synergize and harmonise sector development efforts and optimise resource use.

One weakness of the project design is that the interventions were not informed by a thorough value chain profiling
analysis. Consequently, these interventions that could support some aspects of the production chain of selected

3
commodities (e.g. fingerling and fish feed production) were not included in the project. Thus, there were sub-
interventions that ended-up with limited successes because other important but weak parts of the value chain were not
addressed in the project, e.g. marketing of broiler birds became a challenge to some farmer groups because of sole
concentration of the project’s activity on introducing broiler production activities. Another weakness in the project
design was the budgeting amounts for some of the activities. Some of the activities including the costs for construction
of feeder roads and other land development activities were generally higher that the budget rates and this necessitated
a revision of the targets for some by as much as 50% during MTR.

3. Lessons learned related to relevance

Key issues Lessons learned Target audience

(max 5, add rows as needed)
Need for Value Chain Profiling Without profiling the commodity value chains of interest in an Executing Agency / Bank
Studies to inform Agriculture intervention, there is the propensity to leave out some activities
Production related in project design that could minimise the impact of the
interventions intervention in the short run.

B Effectiveness

1. Progress towards the project’s development objective (project purpose)

Comments
The development objective of the Project was to reduce rural household poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition through increased
agricultural production, productivity and commercialization. The specific objectives of the project were to: (i) Increase food and
nutritional security and household incomes particularly for vulnerable households and; (ii) Stimulate inclusive growth of the Gambian
economy through employment opportunities for the teeming active and youthful population. The Project had four components
namely: (i) Improved Agriculture Infrastructure Development; (ii) Agricultural diversification and commercialization; (iii) Improved
approaches to national food and nutrition security; and (iv) Project Management and Capacity Building.

Component 1: Improved Agriculture Infrastructure Development

This component had two subcomponents namely: (i) Development of infrastructure for land management; and (ii) Development of
infrastructure for market access. Under land management the project sought to (i) strengthen the institutional capacity in the
management of 3,000 ha that were supported in the earlier Participatory Integrated Watershed Management Project (PIWAMP); and
(ii) Develop of 1,500 ha new lowland for cultivation activities. The lowlands were made up of: a) 100 ha of intensive rice irrigation
schemes; b) creating tidal access to road (~10km length) and estimated 500ha of fertile land that were inaccessible due to inundated
access routes during the rainy season; and c) reclaiming an estimated 900 ha of arable lands in 6 sites through the construction of
water retention facilities (dikes and spillways). In addition, the Land Development sub component was to support soil and water
conservation practices on an estimated 400 hectares of upland in five watersheds/sites. Furthermore, the component sought to
support the development of comprehensive framework policy document for the sustainable management of Gambia agricultural
water. All the rural infrastructures that would be supported have their technical designs with climate resilient features to enable
them cope with the adverse effects of climate change. Under the market access subcomponent, the project targeted a. Improving
farm to market access by upgrading of 100 km of the existing feeder roads and b. Improving infrastructure in 20 municipal markets
in the project area.

Component 2: Agricultural diversification and commercialization

The subcomponents of the Agricultural diversification and commercialization component are a) Support to Aquaculture, Small
ruminants and poultry; b) Promotion of improved horticultural practices; c) Promotion of Agro Enterprises; and d) Linking Producers
to Markets. The project targeted establishing 30 aquaculture schemes each comprising of three or four ponds; 50 small ruminant
schemes (20 for production and 30 for fattening); 25 intensive poultry production schemes (fifteen 1000 bird capacity schemes for
FBOs and ten 500 birds capacity schemes for selected schools). The activities related to the establishment of the schemes included

4
construction of the infrastructure and supply of the inputs for the first cycle of production. In addition, the project provided support
for traditional/village poultry farming in 60 villages to include the construction of traditional houses and the provision of production
equipment. The project targeted establishing/improving the production of horticultural crops (tomatoes, onions, green peppers,
cabbages etc.) in 155 ha made up of 27 community and 60 schools gardens that are fenced, provided with a water system comprising
a borehole for harvesting groundwater for storage in overhead reservoirs, distributed through a water reticulation system that brings
for farmers to fetch and water crops. The project also provided for training of farmers in improved on-farm water management
techniques and improved agronomic practices. For the promotion of agro enterprises the project targeted providing supporting the
establishment and expansion of 120 agribusinesses using matching grants schemes and others. The project also aimed at supporting
agribusinesses by establishment of platforms for value chain actors, organizing business fora between micro enterprises and
agribusinesses and conducting regional promotional activities (trade fairs, field and market days). In addition, the Planning Services
of MoA will be supported to strengthen the (market information systems) collect, analyze and disseminate accurate market
information through the national media, rural community radios and other media sources for beneficiaries including the use of mobile
phones.

Component 3: Improved approaches to national food and nutrition security

The targeted activities for the Improved approaches to national food and nutrition security component were: (i) Contributing funds
to the on-going World Food Program supported Food for Education Program2 in LRR and WCR by targeting the feeding of 33,350 pre
and primary school children in 101 schools; (ii) Providing ready-to-use therapeutic feeds for children with micro nutrients deficiencies;
and (iii)Promoting of use of improved good food preparation practices in 65% of households in the targeted areas through community
based nutrition education. In addition, the project sought to build community household resilience to food insecurity by caused by
external shocks such as drought by rehabilitating five (5) existing cereal banks and constructing ten (10) new ones. The fifteen (15)
cereal banks and the four (4) regional reserves will be replenished with emergency cereal stocks in the three project targeted regions.

Component 4: Project Management and Capacity Building

Under this component the project trained staff of the Central Projects Coordinating Unit staff trained in project coordination, M&E,
financial management; and gender mainstreaming; and environmental monitoring; established a Project Support Unit; and undertake
special consultancy services including meeting fiduciary and safeguards requirement.

2. Outcome reporting
Outcome indicators (as per RLF; add Baseline Most End target Progress Narrative assessment Core
more rows as needed) value recent (B) towards (indicative max length: 50 words per Sector
(expected outcome)
(2013) value target Indicator
value at (% realized) (Yes/No)
(A)
project (A/B)
completion)
Improved land Hectares 926 Ha 1,420 Ha 1,500 Ha 96.3% Hyper-salinity in some of the tidal Yes
management to developed under (LADEP) (New) (New) access area affects the potential
enhance agricultural improved lowland improved lowland production
production and rice production area developed. Whiles the
productivity additional potential areas for rice
production has been increased by
1445Ha (comprising of actual
area under tidal irrigation
schemes -100Ha; potential area
opened by tidal access – 720Ha
and potential area reclaimed
through flood recession schemes
500Ha), it must be noted that
production has not commenced
on most of the area as at the close
of the project due to late
completion of the schemes. Areas
cropped such as in Jailand
demonstrated high productivity.
5
Outcome indicators (as per RLF; add Baseline Most End target Progress Narrative assessment Core
more rows as needed) value recent (B) towards (indicative max length: 50 words per Sector
(expected outcome)
(2013) value target Indicator
value at (% realized) (Yes/No)
(A)
project (A/B)
completion)
Hectares under 800 Ha 349 Ha 400 Ha 87.3% The contour bunds / diversions Yes
upland soil & (PIWAMP) (New) additional greatly helped to reduce run-off
water area under and erosion in the farmlands as
conservation upland well as preventing flooding in the
conservation beneficiary communities
Market led private Increased number 75 agro- 122 new 120 new 101.6% The matching grant support to Yes
sector environment of smallholder processing agro- agro- 122 agro-enterprises of both crop
to foster small agro processing business enterprise enterprises and livestock value chain actors in
holder and agro business enterprises s mechanisation, agro-processing
commercialisation enterprises and production.
promoted
Improved food Improved Nutritional 5.8% 5% of 82.2% The school feeding program Yes
security and nutritional levels status: (2018) wasting of coupled with the nutrition
nutritional status of at-risk groups (wasting 9.5% under 5 education in schools and
and households and households under 5 years vegetable gardens contributed to
years) improving the nutritional status
specifically wasting in under 5
years. Note that most recent
value is dated 2018.
Rating* (see IPR methodology) Narrative assessment
3 The progress towards the outcome indicators is rated satisfactory as the project achieved over
80% of the targets for most of the indicators: With respect to the expansion of cultivable area
the project sought to expand potential lowland rice growing area; and conserve water and
nutrients for arable lands in the upland. In pursuit of this, the project invested in putting on
ground some permanent structures that will derive the targets set for these. These include the
named land development infrastructure discussed in the outputs below. These permanent
structures put in place were completed rather late in project implementation and the
beneficiaries only commenced in expanding their cultivation areas in the last year of project
implementation. It is expected that the utilised area will progressively expand until the entire
potential area is reached with interest from subsequent projects such as the AfDB financed
Rice Value Chain Transformation Project and the pipeline Gambia Food and Agriculture Sector
Development Project (GAFSp). The matching grant schemes contributed substantially to the
attainment of the increased number of smallholder agro-processing and agro businesses
enterprises outcome indicator target. Out of USD1.5 Million that was budgeted as matching
grant sum ~USD 1.15 Million was used to support 122 businesses (59 group-owned and 63
individual-owned) which have directly benefited 7,603 of which 4,328 (57%) are women.

3. Output reporting

Output indicators Most recent value End target (B) Progress towards Narrative assessment Core Sector Indicator
(as specified in the (A) (expected value at target (indicative max length: 50 words per output) (Yes/No)
RLF; add more rows project completion) (% realized) (A/B)
as needed)
Output 1: Water Water management Rehabilitation of water 100 The areas identified included areas supported Yes
Management in within existing tidal control infrastructure by previos project including (ROC: 1,800 ha;
existing tidal schemes improved and for existing 3,000 ha of FMRIP: 1200 ha)
irrigation Schemes facilitated the tidal irrigation
Improved adoption of improved schemes.
agronomic practices.
Output 2: Improved 100 ha of tidal 100 ha tidal irrigation 100 Though this activity was completed it was Yes
tidal Irrigation constructed in six sites scheme constructed. completed late in project implementation

6
Output indicators Most recent value End target (B) Progress towards Narrative assessment Core Sector Indicator
(as specified in the (A) (expected value at target (indicative max length: 50 words per output) (Yes/No)
RLF; add more rows project completion) (% realized) (A/B)
as needed)
schemes developed and on 25Ha was cultivated during the project
and functional implementation period.
Output 3: Access to 8 km of tidal access 10 km of tidal access 72 Portions of identified area (in Gisadi swamp) Yes
choppable riverine constructed road constructed is susceptible to hyper-salinity resulting to a
tidal flood plains lower croppable area. Effective production is
improved yet to commence in the potential sites due to
late completion of works.
Output 4: Water Completed works 900 ha of tributary 122% By the project design, it is expected that every Yes
retention schemes include valleys (upper reaches kilometre of dykes (with associated water
established and - 3.95 km of access of the floodplains) management structures) leads to 90ha of
functional road provided with water retention schemes
- 12.2 km of dike appropriate water
equipped retention
- 14 spillways and infrastructure (dikes,
- 7 culverts. culverts and spillways)
Output 5: Upland 400 ha of upland 340 ha completed 85 Measures reduced run-off into the villages, Yes
Soil Improvement conservation schemes including the enhance fertility restoration and improve
and Erosion control established with associated capacity land productivity as note in Sare Ngai.
schemes associated capacity building provided;
established building provided
8 Ha community agro- 9 ha of reforestation 112.5 Yes
forestry schemes sites established (6
established, and sites of 1.5ha each
fenced and planted
committees trained
with trees)
committees trained
Output 6: Inter- 100 km rehabilitated 100 km of inter village 100 The roads were in 13 lots stretches of 2km to Yes
village access road /constructed feeder roads 20.5km lengths. It linked 31 communities to
rehabilitated the main trunk roads and directly benefits
about 20,932 persons of whom 10,663 (about
50%) are female.
Output 7: Structures for 10 Structures for 10 100 These market infrastructure in addition to Yes
Structures in Markets constructed Markets including the serving the nation in general directly benefits
markets women’s market approximately 94,766 persons of whom 50%
(Community/ complex at Brusubi, (47,414 persons) are female. Estimates of
Regional/Livestock) KMC are constructed Brikama Livestock Market indirect
constructed and functional beneficiaries stands at 688,744 persons
including 344,123 (50%) female. The
structures are revenue generating avenues
for the VDC.
Output 8: 30 schemes (100 fish 30 schemes (100 fish 100 Though the fish ponds were constructed, Yes
Aquaculture, small ponds contracted) ponds contracted) most of the beneficiaries are not able to
ruminants and established and established and produce fish scientifically due to the absence
poultry schemes operational operationalised of a functional fish hatchery in the country.
established Most use fingerlings harvested from the wild
and consequently are not able to obtain
optimal yields.
30 small ruminant 31 small ruminant 103 Beneficiary were provided with training and Yes
fattening schemes fattening schemes extension services, and initial stock for
established and established and fattening and sale. Revenue realised from the
operational operationalised initial sales is used to acquire new animals
another cycle of fattening and sale.
20 schemes completed 20 small ruminant 100 Each scheme was stocked with two (2) Rams Yes
and stocked with 2 breeding schemes and 20 Ewes for production. All schemes have
Rams and 20 Ewes established and their stocks increasing and extension services
each. operational
15 Schemes 15 Commercial poultry 100 Each scheme was supported with the poultry Yes
established and schemes for schools house, facilities and feed, medicine for one
operational established and cycle of production and initial stocks (day old
operational chicks) and extension services

7
Output indicators Most recent value End target (B) Progress towards Narrative assessment Core Sector Indicator
(as specified in the (A) (expected value at target (indicative max length: 50 words per output) (Yes/No)
RLF; add more rows project completion) (% realized) (A/B)
as needed)
10 Schemes 10 Commercial Poultry 100 Each scheme was supported with the poultry Yes
established and Schemes FBOs house, facilities and feed, medicine for one
operational established and cycle of production and initial stocks (day old
operational chicks) and extension services
Output 9: Improved 125 ha horticulture 125.5 ha under 100 27 community gardens were supported with Yes
horticultural gardens established in improved horticultural secured fence (to keep stray animals from the
management 27 locations management practices gardens, especially in the dry season), waiting
practices promoted shed and store, and watering facilities
comprising of borehole, overhead reservoir,
solar powered water lifting unit, reticulation
system and ground reservoirs. All are
completed and in active production.
28 ha completed 30 ha school gardens 93.33 All were completed. They constitute the first Yes
(56 School gardens i.e. (60 schools) batch of gardens supported and learning from
half ha per school) them were incorporated in the community
gardens. The learning included the type of
fencing materials and water system.
Output 10: Agro- 126 Agro business 120 Agro business 102 The project supported 112 agro-enterprises Yes
enterprises enterprises enterprises and 14 Youth Agric Service Centres through
promoted established and established and the matching grant categorized as follows: (i)
supported supported Horticulture Production 20#; Poultry
production 33#; Small & Large Ruminants
production 25#; Piggery production 2#;
Veterinary Services provision 1#;
Mechanisation Services 12#; Agro-processing
19 #; Youth Agric Service Centres 14#
Output 11: 75 Beneficiaries 100 Value chain 75% Participation in trade fares expose the value Yes
Producers linked to participated in Trade actors’ platform chain actor to potential customers and
Markets fairs established marketing strategies.
agribusiness for trade
fairs, market days
organized.
1 Agricultural MIS Planning Services Unit 100% The support has enhanced the Planning Yes
equipped and of DoA supported Service Unit’s capacity in the collection,
operational collation and dissemination of market news –
commodity prices and availability.
Output 12: 103 Schools 101 Schools accessing 103% 35,500 pre and school children access SFP Yes
Malnutrition School Feeding thereby addressing malnutrition within the
addressed through Programs beneficiary community and enhance
enhanced access to retention
SFP and provision 1,600 cartons of 17 assorted antibiotics 100% At the request of the Health Services, the Yes
of therapeutic food therapeutic food purchased in various support was changed from therapeutic foods
supplement purchased quantities to antibiotics because of need.
Output 13: Building 10 community seed/ 10 Community 100% Though the activity were completed, the Yes
household Cereal established and seed/Cereal banks designs of the structures were not informed
resilience in food operational established and thoroughly by the required uses, and in some
and nutrition functional places such as Bwiam structure is being used
security promoted of other purposes.
4 regional stock piling 4 regional stock piling 100% NACOFAG, the National Coordinating body Yes
for emergency established for Farmers Association in the Gambia, was
the main conduit for linking FASDEP and
farmer-based organizations. It also manages
cereal banks and buffer stocks on behalf of
farming communities.
Output 14: CPCU capacity in CPCU staff trained 100% CPCU staff benefited from capacity building Yes
Operational and programmes/projects (and retained) in training at various levels both in country and
Technical Capacity coordination and project coordination, overseas.
of CPCU monitoring enhanced M&E, financial
strengthened management and
gender mainstreaming

8
Output indicators Most recent value End target (B) Progress towards Narrative assessment Core Sector Indicator
(as specified in the (A) (expected value at target (indicative max length: 50 words per output) (Yes/No)
RLF; add more rows project completion) (% realized) (A/B)
as needed)
Output 15: FASDEP FASDEP Project Functional PSU 100% Initial PSU was marred with instability Yes
Project Support Support Unit (PSU) established for the thereby delaying effective project
Unit established established and implementation of implementation due to interference by the
functional FASDEP political/executive leadership. This affected
the implementation of project activities in the
first years of the project. Stability was
restored with the appointment of the third
project director.
Output 16: TAs (FAO) 3 TAs received during 100% TA services by FAO also suffered some Yes
Technical project operational political interference, with the government
Assistance phase being ambivalent about the activities of FAO
during part of the project implementation
period. and thereby couldn’t derive all the full
benefits of synergy with the project
implementation activities.
Rating* (see IPR Narrative assessment
methodology)
4 Output is rated highly satisfactory: The average of the progress towards end targets for the twenty five (25) output
indicators is 99% with a mean of 100% and minimum 75%. However, this achievement is realised on a time overrun
of 18 months. The project did not have adequate time and resources for some of the infrastructure developed to
be used before project closure. This necessitates a purposive action by the government to ensure that if continue
to support the beneficiaries to optimise the utilisation of the schemes through own resources, other projects
and/or engendering private sector participation.

4. Development Objective (DO) rating

DO rating (derived Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words

from updated IPR) *
3 The attainment of the development objective of the project is rated satisfactory because most of the outcomes
and output targets were achieved. One hundred and twenty-two (122) sustainable agro-business enterprises
were established / strengthened. Also 103 schools received support for school feeding. Production and
productivity improvement for various commodities was also improved or enhanced. It must be noted that the
at midterm, the project activities were rescoped to more realistic targets considering budgetary and time
constraints. The success stories narrated by cross session of women group that benefited from the horticulture
gardens and matching grants schemes especially that were met during the PCR mission corroborate this rating.
Again, it must be noted that whereas most of the output level indicators were achieved the project could have
enhanced the attainment of the outcome level indicators if the infrastructure development activities were
completed on time to allow beneficiaries utilise the facilities within the project implementation period. The
construction of the infrastructure were delayed because of (i) initial political /executive interference in project
management leading to the dismissal of a project director; (ii) poor performance of engineering design and
construction supervision consultant which lead to the termination of the contract; and (iii) poor performance on
contractors. Noting this, in the forth year of the project, the Bank supported the project to review the technical
designs and guide contractors through its supervision mission and ensure that the works were eventually
completed.

5. Beneficiaries (add rows as needed)

Actual (A) Planned (B) Progress towards target % of Category (e.g. farmers, students)
(% realized) (A/B) women
193,954 240,000 80.8% 51% Farmers, Students, Traders

6. Unanticipated or additional outcomes (add rows as needed)

9
Description Type (e.g. gender, Positive or Impact on project
climate change, social, negative (High, Medium, Low)
other)
Water facilities for the gardens being used for domestic water supply in Social, gender Positive High
several communities
Access (feeder) roads open communities to health centres, schools and Social, economic Positive Medium
other social services
Crop production schemes attracting wild life into community (monkeys Environmental Negative Low
in horticulture gardens and hippos in rice schemes)

7. Lessons learned related to effectiveness (add rows as needed)

Key issues (max 5, add rows as Lessons learned Target audience

needed)
Political / executive The attempts by the political / executive leadership to micro-manage the project Bank / Government
leadership interference in activities which led to among others, the sacking of project directors and staff
project management stifled the project implementation. Staff of Bank funded project should be
insulated from political /executive leadership interferences.
Weak capacity of Most of the government institutions that were used by the project did not have Bank /Government
government institutions to the requisite expertise, logistics and budget to support the project. These
implement project included the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Livestock, Soil and
activities Water Management Division, National Environmental Agency and Public Works
Department. For future interventions there should be thorough capacity
assessment of government institutions that may be identified as implementing
partners and where necessary budgetary allocations should be made in building
the capacities of these institutions. It must be noted that the project at appraisal
did not include some of these institutions as implementing partners, but had to
resourt to them after attempts to use private firms proved futile.
Weak M&E System and Though the FASDEP project is widely observed as successful the project in various Bank /Government
lack of visibility of project reports could not provide this outlook due to a weak M&E system. First, the initial
successes proposal (at appraisal) to use a then on-going software being prepared for the
Gambia National Agricultural Database (GANAD) did not materialize because the
software had not been completed till date. The project was not adequately
resourced at appraisal to deploy its own robust M&E system. The complexity of
the project further magnified weak M&E system that was put in place by the
project. This complexity stems from several factors. Firstly, the large number of
technical solutions the project uses (productivity improvement, diversification,
infrastructure development, access to finance, entrepreneurship development
etc.) enhance income and engender food security using various value chains
actors made up of producers, aggregators, processers and consumers (including
school children) of rice, horticulture crops, small ruminants, poultry and fish.
Secondly the project was situated in a country where the capacity of
governmental institutions and local private sector was weak; propensity for
political interference was high; and political climate discouraged external firms to
work in the country. Thirdly the financiers (GAFSP), supervising entity (AfDB) and
the country did not have a harmonised reporting format and had differing core
objectives for the project. The M&E system deployed was not smart in isolating
these elements and this incapacitated the project from churning out purposive
cogent “human face stories” reports that could provide the needed visibility
locally and internationally. For similar future projects it is recommended that
M&E including impact assessment should be addressed more comprehensively.

10
Engineering services and The project faced a lot of engineering challenges / weakness in the design and Government /
capacity of contractors supervision of project activities. This contributed to the delays and reduced Development
resource use efficiency as designs were sometimes not implementable (e.g. tidal Partners
irrigation scheme at Janjanburah had to eventually be changed to a pump
irrigation scheme due to topographical issues that were not captured in the
design). The engineering feasibility studies that informed the activity were
inadequate and inaccurate in some instances. The project could not benefit fully
from the TA component under the FAO exogenous reasons including political
interference. The contractors also were inexperienced and lacked machinery
suitable for some of the works. For future such project emphasis should be given
to technical assistance to support civil works. The government may also consider
an intervention to create a plant pool for local contractors to access machinery.

C Efficiency

1. Timeliness

Planned project duration – years (A) Actual implementation time – years Ratio of planned and actual Rating*
(as per PAR) (B) (from effectiveness for 1st disb.) implementation time (A/B)
5 years 6.75 years 0.74 2
Sept 2013 – June 2020
Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
The project is rated unsatisfactory with respect to timeliness because the ratio of the planned relative to the actual implementation
time is 0.74 and it falls with the range <0.75 and ≥0.5. The reasons for the additional implementation period include: (i) Initial
political/executive interference which led to change in project director in the first year of implementation; and (ii) a considerable
delay in the implementation of the infrastructure development activities because sub-optimal performance of engineering design
and construction supervision consultant; and poor performance on land development contractors. After two years of project
implementation, the project could only disburse 13% of project funds (9% in year 1 and 4% in year 2) as against an anticipated 40%.
About 20% of the project resources were utilised in the project extension period.

2. Resource use efficiency

Median % physical implementation of Commitment rate (%) (B) Ratio of the median percentage Rating*
RLF outputs financed by all financiers (See table 1.C – Total commitment rate of all physical implementation and
financiers)
(A) (see II.B.3) commitment rate (A/B)
100% 97.6% 100% 3
Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
The resource use efficiency is rated satisfactory as ratio of the median percentage physical implementation of the project outputs
and commitment rate is between 0.75 and 1. This implies that the project largely delivered the outputs expected within the available
budget. It must however be noted that the project targets were revised during the midterm review and the implementation period
also needed to be extended to allow completion of some salient project activities. Without the extension of the implementation
period, the project will have achieved only 67% of it target.

3. Cost benefit analysis

Economic Rate of Return Updated Economic Rate of Return Rating*

(at appraisal) (at completion)
FIRR of 28% and EIRR of 23% FIRR of 23% and EIRR of 25.77% 3
Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)
The cost benefit analysis performed indicates that at project closing the Financial Internal Rate of Return and the Economic Internal
Rate of Return, respectively estimated at 23% and 26%, are satisfactory and of the same order of magnitude as those of project
appraisal.

11
At Project Appraisal the financial and economic analysis was based on the prevailing circumstances at the time supported by the
following assumptions: a) The investment of the project would be undertaken over a five- year period; b) Incremental benefits
accruing from the project is estimated over a 20- year period; c) The project’s intervention would bring about double the cropped
area for rice cultivation to 3900ha, and promote other major crops including groundnuts and high value horticultural crops (onions,
chilies, cabbage carrots etc). Based on these underlying assumptions and the expected project benefits and costs, it was estimated
that the Project’s EIRR and FIRR would be 23% and 28% respectively with an estimated Net Present Value of USD10.805million.

These underlying assumptions remained largely valid during implementation except that the project experienced some
implementation delays and had to go beyond the expected initial five-year implementation period by almost a year and a half
resulting in significant amount of disbursement being made around the final years of the project. This could have potentially affected
actual income expected to be generated as a result of project intervention. As mentioned in the project’s results framework,
FASDEP’s overall objective has been; reduced poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition through enhanced household income from
agricultural production, productivity and commercialization. Though the project may not have achieved all the key objectives, it has
nonetheless been able to achieve a few critical indicators especially relating to Food Security Status which the Project targeted to
reduce to 8% from its baseline of 11% in 2011. According to the 2016 Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis
(CFSVA), out of the 1.85 million people, about 148,458 persons are food insecure or vulnerable to food insecurity. This represents
about approximately 8 percent of the total population and extension indicating that this critical objective of the Project was 100%
achieved.

At Project Completion: Financial analysis at completion was based on set of sample information extracted and provided to the PCR
team by the project management and on the assumptions and calculations done by the PCR team. Key underlying assumptions used
in the calculation of the resulting EIRR and FIRR included: a) Project lifespan – the calculation was based on the 20 years with the
assumption that net incremental revenue as a result of the project intervention will remain constant from 2023 to 2033; b) Discount
rate – the 11% discount rate was used in discounting the respective cashflows associated with the project based on the average of
12% at the time of appraisal and 10% at project completion (CBG website as at August 2020); c) Exchange Rate – the revenue and
costs provided by the Project in GMD were translated into USD at GMD50/US$1, which indicates a slight adjustment on the official
rate of GMD/US$48.08 at project completion (CBG website September 2020); d) Induced Social Benefit – this was calculated based
on 10% of the incremental revenue attributed to the project intervention and include social benefits such as savings in repair and
maintenance costs of vehicles which could have been higher without the roads constructed by the project, increased marketability
of produces as a result of the roads constructed by the project linking the production centers to the market and vice versa as well
increase economic activity for transport drivers, manual laborer’s and other non-direct players. This marginal percentage was taken
for prudence purpose only but actual non-monetary benefits that could be attributed to the project as a result of its intervention
activities is potentially far more than what has been considered by the PCR team during calculation of economic benefits.

Overall, in terms of its revenue generation, the project is expected to contribute immensely to the overall macro-economic activities.
Estimated revenue by key intervention area over the ten-year period (2014 to 2023) is as provided below:
• Crop Production -USD29.524 million
• Horticulture - USD28.368 million
• Livestock - USD10.312 million
• Aquaculture - USD 0.687 million
The project is expected to generate a constant annual stream of revenue based on the 2023 figures and with the same estimated
constant figure with regards to the operational costs, the annual net incremental revenue of the project is estimated at USD2,898m
over the ten-year period covering 2024 to 2033 at project completion.

Apart from the direct farmer income that is expected to be accrued from the cultivation of each hectare of land, the project will
significantly contribute to one of the national development priorities pertaining to self-sufficiency in food. At macro level this will
reduce the country’s overall food import bill on a number of foods crops and food stuff and in effect contribute to the improvement
in the overall balance of payment deficit.

In respect of assessing the financial viability of the project, a Net Present Value (NPV) was carried out using the total disbursement
over the project life (2013/2014 to 2019 including all funding sources) as initial capital investment compared to the net revenue
expected to be generated from production activities. This analysis revealed an NPV of USD3.428m at 11% discount rate over the 20-
year life of the project (2014 to 2033) compared to the NPV of USD10.805m as at appraisal. The project having the potential capacity
of generating such a positive NPV excluding potential revenue from other indirect activities can be apparently considered to be
viable and thus worthy of having been implemented.

12
4. Implementation Progress (IP)

IP Rating Narrative comments (commenting specifically on those IP items that were rated Unsatisfactory or Highly
(derived from Unsatisfactory, as per last IPR). (indicative max length: 500 words)
updated IPR) *
3 The implementation progress as at November 2019 supervision was rated satisfactory. The Project was deemed to
be highly satisfactory with respect to (i) Compliance with project covenants; (ii) Audit compliance; (iii) Disbursement;
(iv) Budget commitments; and (v) Counterpart funding disbursements. For (i) Compliance with environmental and
social safeguards; (ii) Procurement; (iii) Financial management; and (iv) Monitoring and evaluation the project could
not be rated highly satisfactory. The project was rated these as satisfactory after previous ratings as unsatisfactory
having observed some improvements. For the environmental and social safeguards the National Environmental
Authority eventually produced a monitoring report. However, a private individual had to be used to further produce
an environmental audit report. For financial management the project was doing okay until the demise of the
financial controller. The project thence became inefficient at finanacial management documentation and
managerial accounting guidance. This led to an over-commitment of funds which necessitated additional
government contribution to re-rationalisation of some of the activities. As discussed, the project M&E was
unsatisfactory during most of the project implementation stages. It improved following the introduction of
additional M&E tools in the last years of project implementation.

5. Lessons learned related to efficiency

Key issues (max 5, add rows as Lessons learned Target audience

needed)
1. Use of National The NEA of the Gambia was inadequate in the supervision and monitoring of Executing Agency,
Environmental Agencies for the Project ESMP. It is necessary to do proper capacity assessment of such Bank.
ESMP Supervision and agencies prior to engaging them for the supervision and monitoring of projects.
Monitoring The use of an independent consultant for the environmental audit in the last
year of the project was more efficient. For such project, technical assistance to
build the capacity of national institutions to monitor ESMP may be crucial.

D Sustainability

1. Financial sustainability

Rating* Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)

3 The project is rated satisfactory with respect to financial sustainability. This is because most project beneficiaries that were
weaned off support during the project implementation phase have survived and grown their ventures. The project
intervened in the production of horticulture crops, rice, poultry, small ruminants and fish. In each of these, the project
enhanced the installed capacity for production and provided initial inputs as seed capital for one cycle of production (apart
from the schemes that were completed in the last year of the project). The enhanced capacity comprised of development
of key infrastructure (such as tidal schemes and poultry houses) and auxiliary infrastructure (such as roads); as well as
training on good agricultural practices. For some of the schemes the revenue derived from cycle of production were made
available for subsequent ones. However, for the schemes such as the fish production, where the inputs were not available
locally, most of the beneficiaries have not been able to reinvest as desired.

The poultry and horticulture value chain enterprises were the most financially viable. The community vegetable gardens
(Busumbala, Wassadun & Kwinella) and the Busumbala and Gambia college poultry schemes have been operating on self-
sustaining basis. The beneficiaries from the garden schemes have reported realizing increased output and income from the
vegetables produced, ensuring year-round optimal production will be dependent on staggering of the planting time to
lower peak water demand; more so for onions, a highly marketable crop.

On average the Matching Grant has demonstrated evidence of financial support through an increased in the number of
enterprise units that resulted in increased output for agricultural raw material, as well as locally processed goods from
these raw materials. This has subsequently generated direct employment for beneficiaries and employees, majority of
13
whom are youths. Some of the production units, for example, Allatentu Farms of Berending, WCR employs 4 people on
permanent basis with an aggregate monthly wage bill of GMD11,000 (~USD220.00). The company also makes
approximately GMD170,000 (~USD3,400.00) net profit for every circle of layer production.

2. Institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities

Rating* Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)

3 At appraisal FASDEP identified several governmental and non-governmental agencies to work with. However, during the
course of the project’s implementation and specifically as a result of the sub- optimal performance of private design and
supervision engineers, it became apparent that expertise from additional governmental agencies would be required to
supplement existing capacities .Through support from FASDEP, these institutions have had their capacities strengthened
and many have mainstreamed their activities that were undertaken for FASDEP. However, in most cases FASDEP support
were either inadequate or the project period too short for the capacities to be sufficiently built to commensurate the task.
For example, the absence of well qualified and experienced engineers at the SWMS could not have been addressed by
FASDEP. The capacity building activities included provision of logistics and allowances, ICT and other equipment and
training of relevant staff. The institutions included the following: (i) relevant Ministry of Agriculture Departments and
Agencies (Department of Agriculture (DoA), MoA; Horticulture Technical Services, Dept. of Agriculture (HTS-DoA);
Department of Livestock Services (DLS), MoA; Soil and Water Management Services of the Dept. of Agriculture (SWMS-
DoA), MOA; National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI), MoA: National Road Authority (NRA); National Environment
Agency (NEA) Produced Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP); (ii) Not for Profit Organisations/NGOs
(National Coordinating Organisation for Farmers Association-The Gambia (NACOFAG); Gambia Chamber of Commerce and
Industry (GCCI); and National Enterprise Development Initiative (NEDI).

3. Ownership and sustainability of partnerships

Rating* Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)

3 Ownership and sustainability of partnerships is rated satisfactory: With respect to infrastructure, those in the category of
public goods such as feeder roads were properly handed over to the National Roads Authority who selected, designed and
supervised the construction of these roads. The market infrastructure were also handed over to the respective local level
authorities. Others, such as small ruminant production and fattening centres, poultry houses and gardens were all handed
over beneficiaries comprising of farmer-based organisations and individuals that were selected, organised and/or trained
through project activities. The active involvement of NACOFAG ensured these. However, it was apparent during the PCR
Mission that the tidal access schemes at Sankwia and Gissidi could not command the needed workforce and support to
develop most of the fields that is now accessible for rice cultivation. The reasons for this include local conflicts issues,
limited interest and capacity of indigenes. The mission recommended that the Regional and National Departments of
Agriculture considers the land for lease to the emerging interest from foreign investors for in rice cultivation in the Gambia.
It was also observed in the mission that vegetable garden schemes (Wassadu, Kwinella and Busumbala), the community
poultry scheme at Busumbala, the cereal bank at Brikamaba and Bwiam, upland conservation at Sare Ngai and livestock
market at Brikama have all shown high level of community involvement and to some extent ownership. The project also
collaborated with the following UN Agencies: Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN-FAO) and World Food Programme
(UN-WFP). In the absence of the financial support to these institutions they would not have been able to continue some
project activities. These institutions are currently better placed to support other projects.

4. Environmental and social sustainability

Rating* Narrative assessment (indicative max length: 250 words)

3 The environmental and social sustainability is rated satisfactory. Adequate safeguard measures to mitigate adverse
potential impact on the environment and the beneficiary communities was provided in FASDEP’s implementation strategy
and no adverse environmental impact was observed during the field mission. The project has (i) promoted green
technology, namely, tidal irrigation for rice production, solar powered water lifting devices in the vegetable schemes; and
(ii) reduce land degradation and fertility restoration in upland conservation (diversion structures and tree planting). There
also exist of recycling of nutrients through use of composting material from the small ruminant and poultry schemes and
the use of by-products from the garden schemes as feed for small ruminants thus a symbiotic relationship. Other positive
environmental benefits included the reduction in flooding in communities owing to the construction of flood recession /

14
water conservation schemes and the reclaim of soils affected by saline water. However, the monitoring of the
environmental and social management plan of the project was observed to have some inadequacies as for example, some
of the borrow pits sited during the PCR mission were not properly reconstructed.

5. Lessons learned related to sustainability

Key issues (max 5, add rows as Lessons learned Target audience

needed)
Non realisation of optimal Loose arrangements between buyers and farmers inhibited farmers from Executing Agency
value of commodities deriving the full benefits of their trade. The vegetable gardens, poultry
produced schemes especially provide opportunity for production for organised markets
and this was not honed during the project implementation.

III Performance of stakeholders

1. Bank performance

Rating* Narrative assessment by the Borrower on the Bank’s performance, as well as any other aspects of the project
(both quantitative and qualitative). See guidance note on issues to cover. (indicative max length: 250 words)
3 The Bank, through its supervision missions, provided necessary guidance in the implementation of project activities to
ensure adherence to project design at appraisal and where necessary approve/recommend revision. This was
demonstrated in the case of the consultancy for lowland development and upland conservation and use of chain-link
and/or cement block for perimeter fencing of some vegetable schemes instead of barbed wire and fencing of the fish ponds
which was not accounted for in the project design. Through the missions, the PSU was trained on the Bank’s procurement
and disbursement procedures. Disbursement performance in terms of the turnaround time between request for funds and
actual disbursement of funds into the designated accounts by the respective funding sources could not be ascertained due
to lack of reliable record on the request dates and disbursement dates. Despite the lack of records to assess the turnaround
time for disbursement, stakeholder consultation and review of other project related documents including the Mid-Term
Review (MTR) report revealed that the project had in some instances faced implementation challenges that emanated
from delays with regards to direct payments as substantial amount of payments relating to small and/or medium size
contracts were effected through direct payments. Timely response of the Bank to requests for direct payments could have
enhance speed of project implementation and mitigate against potential delays associated with the direct payment
method. Overall, the performance of the Bank was rated as satisfactory.
Comments to be inserted by the Bank on its own performance (both quantitative and qualitative). See guidance note on issues
to cover. (indicative max length: 250 words)
The Bank agrees to the rating by the project. In addition to supervising the project, in the fourth to fifth year of project
implementation, the Bank observing weaknesses in the engineering capacity to design and supervise of land development schemes
ensured that the skill mix during supervision of the project included engineers who could provide assistance to the Soil and Water
Services in reviewing designs and took particular interest in visiting related sites. During the same period, the Bank re-trained project
staff on the theory of change of the project; and the results chain to engender better project activity planning and reporting during
its supervision missions.
Key issues (related to Bank performance, max Lessons learned
5, add rows as needed)
Effectiveness of supervision missions The skill mix for supervision of projects should commensurate the project
implementation challenges. The use of Bank staff with engineering background and
consultants in the Bank supervision of the project ensured that design flaws in the tidal
irrigation schemes were corrected.

2. Borrower performance

Rating* Narrative assessment on the Borrower performance to be inserted by the Bank (both quantitative and qualitative,
depending on available information). See guidance note. (indicative max length: 250 words)

15
2 At the level of the Grant Recipient (Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs), of the key obligation at implementation
were (i) facilitating the opening of special account with the Central Bank (ii) facilitating access to relevant documents and
information to the Bank; (iii) provision counterpart funds; and (iv) regular compilation and submission of progress reports
in the Bank’s appropriate format and establishment of the project steering committee (PSC). The PSC was to provide
oversight function such as overall policy direction, review annual work plans and budgets, monitors progress and quality
of project implementation and results on a bi-annual basis. However, the PSC guidance was superseded by
executive/political interference resulting to successive turnover of one project directors and one acting project director.
This had serious effect on project implementation as it delayed the commencement of key project implementation
activities by about two years. The recipient’s performance is deemed unsatisfactory. An audit undertaken by the Bank on
the Gambia portfolio including the FASDEP Project in year 2019 identified weaknesses in the constitution and leadership
of the PSC and recommended changes for future project. It was also observed that the borrower from time to time relied
on the project resources and logistics for non-project related activities, for example commandeering project vehicles for
non-project assignment. These were identified by the Bank and discouraged.
At the executing agency level, however, the project was well supervised by the sector management. The sector
management again ensured that the project challenges are well articulated to the Bank during either through writing or
ducing missions timeously. They also got involved in the supervision of contractors and ensured that they deliver on their
contracts. This positively affected the pace of project implementation activities duing especially during the extended period
of the project. The executing agency’s performance was observed as satisfactory.
Key issues (related to Borrower Lessons learned
performance, max 5, add rows as needed)
Weak Project Steering Project Steering Committee should be constituted in such a way that political / executive
Committee interference could be controlled. Most importantly the chairman for the PSC should be other
than the leader of the executing agency as recommended by the Bank audit on projects in the
Gambia

3. Performance of other stakeholders

Rating* Narrative assessment on the performance of other stakeholders, including co-financiers, contractors and service
providers. See guidance note on issues to cover. (indicative max length: 250 words)
2 The other stakeholders are made up of (i) implementing partners comprising of mostly government ministries, department
and agencies (MDA) that were contracted by the project to deliver certain services; non-governmental agencies; and third
party (mostly Gambia based) services providers (consultants), contractors and suppliers that were competitively recruited
for specific activities. The performance of these stakeholders was mixed. With respect to the MDA partners, the National
Roads Authority was efficient in the design and construction supervision of the feeder roads but some others such as the
Soil and Water Management Services of the Department of Agriculture were unsatisfactory in the design and construction
supervision of the tidal irrigation schemes; tidal access roads and soil and water conservation schemes due to capacity
challenges. It must be noted that at project appraisal, the project was designed to outsource the consultancy services for
design and construction supervision all the infrastructure to private firms using ICB. It was realised during the procurement
the financial proposal by firms were far beyond the budget. The project thus awarded the contract to a local consultancy
firm who was more competitive with respect to price. However, the delivery was this firm was unsatisfactory and after 18
months the contract was terminated for poor performance. The government resorted to using the relevant government
agencies to design and supervise the works.
The civil works contractors’ performance was generally unsatisfactory: Contractor for the community gardens and poultry
structures were satisfactory but the contractors for the tidal irrigation schemes and tidal access roads were unsatisfactory
as most contractors did not have the requisite equipment and human resources for working in flood plains. With respect
the supplier of goods, some that needed quick responsive after sales support services (e.g. solar pump suppliers) posed
challenges as the venders do not have workshops in the country. These were largely because the political climate in the
country during the period of project investment were made it unattractive for private sector investment.
Key issues (related to performance of other Lessons learned (max 5) Target audience (for
stakeholders, max 5, add rows as needed) lessons learned)
Absence of effective after sales services for Establishished after-sales services should be used as a Bank / Borrower
some of the technologies deployed increase salient criteria from procurement of machinery and
downtime and negativelyly affect profitability equipment in the Gambia to engender sustainability.
and sustainability

16
IV Summary of key lessons learned and recommendations

1. Key lessons learned

Key issues (max 5, add rows as needed) Key lessons learned Target audience
Political / executive leadership Staff of Bank funded project should be insulated from political Bank / Government
interference in project /executive leadership interferences.
management
Engineering services and capacity For future such project emphasis should be given to technical Government /
of contractors assistance to support civil works. Development
The government may purposefully build the capacity of local Partners
contractors as a development objective through policies that will
encourage joint venture with experienced and well resourced foreign
contractors and create a plant pool for local contractors for machinery
/equipment hire.
Need for Value Chain Profiling For agriculture intervention projects, there should be a thorough value Executing Agency /
Studies to inform Agriculture chain profiling study for the commodities iof interest to ensure that all Bank
Production related interventions the weaknesses in the value chain are addressed holistically.
Under-reporting of project Project M&E should be robust and well harmonised to capture Executing Agency/
achievements information of interest to differing stakeholder with keen interest in Bank/GAFSP
creating visibility.
Using weak government A thorough capacity assessment ought to be done before any Bank / Executing
institutions government institution is assigned project implementation Agency
responsibilities. Where needed TA should be provided through the
projects to build the capacity of the institutions

2. Key recommendations (with particular emphasis on ensuring sustainability of project benefits)

Key issue (max 10, add rows as Key recommendation Responsible Deadline
needed)
1. Utilisation on tidal The executing agency should consciously factor the production Executing Agency Continuous
irrigation and tidal access capacity that has been put in place by the project for especially rice
schemes and horticulture in future project activities as most of these are yet
to be optimally utilised due to time and resources constraints
experienced by FASDEP

V Overall PCR rating

Dimensions and criteria Rating*

DIMENSION A: RELEVANCE 3
Relevance of project development objective (II.A.1) 3
Relevance of project design (II.A.2) 3
DIMENSION B: EFFECTIVENESS 3
Development Objective (DO) (II.B.4) 3
DIMENSION C: EFFICIENCY 2.75
Timeliness (II.C.1) 2
Resource use efficiency (II.C.2) 3
Cost-benefit analysis (II.C.3) 3
Implementation Progress (IP) (II.C.4) 3

17
DIMENSION D: SUSTAINABILITY 3
Financial sustainability (II.D.1) 3
Institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities (II.D.2) 3
Ownership and sustainability of partnerships (II.D.3) 3
Environmental and social sustainability (II.D.4) 3
AVERAGE OF THE DIMENSION RATINGS 2.93
OVERALL PROJECT COMPLETION RATING S

VI Acronyms and abbreviations

Acronym Full name

AfDB African Development Bank
AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget
CPCU Central Project Coordination Unit
CRR Central River Region
DDG Deputy Director General
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Returns
ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FASDEP Food and Agriculture Sector Development Project
FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Returns
FMRIP Farmer Managed Rice Irrigation Project
FGD Focus Group Discussions
GAFSP Global Agriculture and Food Security Program
GAIMS Gambia Agricultural Information Management System
GCCI Gambia Chamber of Commerce and Industry
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHE Gambia Horticultural Enterprise
GMD Gambia Dalasi
IP Implementing Partners
IPR Implementation Progress Report
LRR Lower River Region
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MGF Matching Grant Facility
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MTR Mid-Term Review
NACOFAG National Coordinating body for Farmers Association in the Gambia
NDP National Development Plan
NEDI National Enterprise Development Initiative
NEMA National Environment Management Act
NPC National Project Coordinator
NPV Net Present Value
PETT Performance Tracking Tool
18
PSC Project Steering Committee
PSU Project Support Unit
ROC Republic of China (Rice Project)
SFP School Feeding Program
TA Technical Assistance
USD United States Dollars
WCR West Coast Region

Required attachment: Updated Implementation Progress and Results Report (IPR)– the date should be the same as the PCR mission.

19